1910-01-20

FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 106) respecting the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company.-[DOT] Mr. Nesbitt.
Bill (No. 107) to incorporate the Ottawa, Montreal and Eastern Railway Company. -Mr. Gladu.
Bill (No. 108) to incorporate the Rainy River Radial Railway.-Mr. Conmee.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CONMEE moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 109) to amend the Dominion Elections Act. He said: This Bill was introduced last year, and I explained it then at some length. It is to give railway employees the right to vote although they may not be in their own particular polling subdivision at the time.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.


Mr. FOSTER:: 1.	What is the mileage of government telegraph lines in Canada, separated into divisions, and the cost of each division, (a) in construction, (b) maintenance, and (c) salaries of operators, and the revenue for each division for the last fiscal year?
2.	What has been the total construction cost of the Yukon system of telegraph lines, what the revenue for each year of its operation, and the cost in maintenance and salaries, respectively, for each year?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY:: 

YUKON TELEGRAPH LINES.

[Stage Direction]
Year.	Construction.	Maintenance.	Salaries.	Revenue.1899	8 cts. 157,209 54 223,044 77 259,837 82 221,897 14 25,139 39 1,039 37	$ cts.	8 cts.	$ cts.1900	
1901	5,213 15 9,131 83 15,689 80 156,808 28 82,730 38 112,556 05 90,008 56 82,391 52	10,426 28 18,263 66 125,280 12 124,800 00 116,495 70 116,795 00 116,500 00 87,371 82	33,716 88 108,272 13 97,158 90 114,083 36 126,991 27 115,876 18 77,45.3 81 64,979 871902	1903	1904	1905	1906	
4,545 33 3,407 22			
Hootalinqua to Livingstone		 1909			78,497 08 97,391 25	118,500 00 117,618 80	80,440 96 76,805 13
Totals	 					
	896,120 58	730,417 90	952,051 44	895,778 49

Mr. ARTHURS:: Is it the intention of the government to take over and control locks or other improvements built upon navigable streams in Ontario by the provincial government? If so, when r


Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM:: The government in February, 1906, took over from the Ontario government a number of dams at the head waters of the Trent 70
canal and several locks and bridges on the line of navigation of the Trent canal with a view of regulating the water in the said canal and also of better controlling navigation through the said canal, which are enumerated below:
Lock and three swing bridges at Lindsay, lock and swing bridge at Young's point, lock at Balsam river, together with all minor work in connection with the maintenance and operation of the same; also dams on Gull river waters, viz.: Balsam lake, Gull

21S7

lake, Horseshoe lake, Hawk lake, Paint lake, Hall's lake, Keneese's lake, Redstone lake, Eagle and Moose lake, Haliburton lake, Percy lake.
On Burnt river waters:	Kocklong lake,
Drag lake, Loon lake, Big Bear lake, Otter lake, Grace lake, Farquhar lake.
On Nogis creek: Swamp lake.
Mississauga creek: Gull lake, Eagle lake.
A few other smaller dams taken over but not actually required by the department for proposed reservoirs system, but now used for flotation of logs. The Dominion government is not required to maintain these dams except for the purpose of log navigation.
With reference to the taking over of any further structures, the government has not considered the matter.



SCUGOG LAKE FLOODS.

Mr. THORNTON:: 1.	Does the government (federal) own or control the lands, surrounding and adjacent to Scugng lake, province of Ontario, which are flooded at times of high water caused by the government dam at Lindsay?
2.	Are these lands claimed by the adjacent owners, or is it possible for them to purchase them, subject to the damage caused by flooding?
3.	Or are these lands looked upon as common property, in which every citizen has equal rights?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	No.
2.	The Department of Railways and Canals has no knowledge as to whom these lands are claimed by, or what the conditions of purchase would be.
3.	Answered by No. 2.



VICTORIA IMMIGRATION BUILDING.

Mr. BARNARD:: What number of immigrants have used the Victoria immigration building since its completion, and what is the nationality of such immigrants?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER.: European immigrants from the United States, 197; from Australia, 9; Japanese, 27; Chinese. 147; Chinese detained in building for customs, 57; building also used for registering Chinese outward bound to the number of 1,382.



STEAMER ' WILLIAM JOLIFFE.'

Mr. BARNARD:: 1.	When did the steamer 'William Joliffe ' enter the service of the Department of Marine and Fisheries?
2.	For what length of time is she chartered?
3.	What is the rate paid per day. and does the same include wages, fuel, supplies, &c.?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1.	First chartered on September 2, 1907.
2.	Each year she has been chartered for one month, then from day to day.
3.	$150 per diem, all found.


George Perry Graham: 



VETERANS OF 1866-7.

Mr. S. SHARPE:: Has the government arrived at a decision in regard to a grant of land to the veterans of 1866-7? If not when may the veterans expect a decision to be reached?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: The government has not come to any conclusion, but will at an early day.



POST OFFICE, CENTRAL PARK, NEW WESTMINSTER.

Mr. J. D. TAYLOR:: 1.	What reply, if any, has been made by the Postmaster General to communications from residents of Central Park, with respect to the closing of the post office there?
2.	Has the department any information to show that the business of the post office had been decreasing, or that the service was not appreciated by a sufficient number of persons to warrant its continuance?
3.	When was the post office established,
when was it closed, and upon whose advice did the officials of the Post Office Department move in the matter of closing?	[DOT]
4.	How many persons, approximately, were receiving mail matter at the Central Park post office at the time of closing, and what is the average distance they have to proceed to receive mail from the nearest offices now maintained ?
5.	Had the department received, shortly before the closing, a largely signed petition for free delivery at Central Park? If so, what .did this petition present as to the importance of that district as a residential centre?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX:: 1.	The Central Park post office has not been closed. Representations having been made to this department that by changing the location of the post office and establishing a post office at Collingwood East the interests of the majority of the residents would be best served, after official inquiry, which bore out the above representations, these changes were authorized. Inquiries in the matter have been answered in accordance with the facts.
2.	As stated in reply to No. 1, the post office has not been closed but removed to a point where it would be a greater convenience. There was no decrease in the revenue of the office.
3.	The post office was established on the 1st April, 1896, and was removed to its present location on the 1st August, 1909, after official inquiry which bore out the representations made by the residents.
4.	The department has no exact information as to the number of persons served by the post office at its former site. The post office is now about three-quarters of a mile from its former location and about one and three-quarter miles from the Collingwood East post office.

5.	A petition praying for free letter carrier delivery in the Central Park district was received at the department on the 2nd January, 1909, but as such services are only established in municipalities having a population of at least 12,000 and a total postal revenue of $20,000, and as these conditions did not prevail at Central Park, the department was unable tp comply with the request of the memorialists. The reasons advanced by the memorial for making this requesst were ' the growth of the district of Central Park and neighbourhood and the increase of places of business.1



SENATORS L. M. JONES AND F. T.

Mr. SCHAFFNER:: 1.	On what date was L. M. Jones appointed to the Senate?
2.	On what date was F. T. Frost appointed to the Senate?


Wilfrid Laurier: Hon. L. M. Jones appointed to the Senate on 21st January, 1901; Hon. F. T. Frost, appointed to the Senate on 12th March, 1903.



RESIGNATION OF MR. HUGH -LUMSDEN.

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notice of motion for a special committee to investigate charges of Hugh D. Lumsden against a portion of the engineering staff of the National Transcontinental railway.
Wilfrid Laurier: I intended to move this to-day, but, as the House is to adjourn at six o'clock, it is understood between myself and hon. members on the other side, that we shall take it up on Tuesday, the first order.



CANADIAN NICKEL MINES-EVIDENCE OF MR. ARTHUR WILSON.

Mr. GEO. GORDON (Nipissing).: I desire to call the attention of the government to an article that appeared in the Ottawa ' Free Press ' yesterday, and I do it for the purpose of asking the Minister of Mines (Mr. Templeman) a question. The article purports to give a summary of the evidence of Mr. Arthur Wilson before the Mines and Minerals Committee of this House yesterday. It speaks of him as, ' Mr. Arthur Wilson, at present of Toronto, but officially engaged in an investigation on behalf of the British government into the nickel resources of Canada.' It proceeds:
Be pointed out that there were only two countries in the world which had any appreciable stores of nickel, Canada and New Caledonia. Canada had three-fifths and the French colony the balance. Both deposits [DOT] were controlled bv substantially the same organization, the International Nickel Company of New York, and while nickel could be used for many purposes the price was made 701
so high by the trust that only governments were in a position to buy the mineral.
The Canadian deposits were incalculable, but tens of millions of tons were lying in the earth because it did not suit the purposes of the trust to work them.
The nickel deposits of Canada, as we all know, are in the districts of Nipissing and Algoma. If Mr. Wilson made the statement reported here-and I have no reason to doubt it-I can only say that it is absolutely incorrect. There are millions of tons of nickel in Nipissing and Algoma with which the International Nickel Company has nothing to do, and which are to be had by others. In view of this, I would ask the Minister of Mines if he knows that Mr. Wilson is a duly accredited representative of the British government? Also has the minister taken steps to refute these statements of Mr. Wilson and prevent them from being broadcasted through the country?


Hon. WM. TEMPLEMAN (Minister of Mines).: I had not the privilege of hearing the statements of Mr. Wilson before the Mines Committee the other day. I am informed that Mr. Wilson is a mining engineer of prominence from England, who was in Canada investigating our mineral resources-whether for the imperial government or private parties I do not know -and was invited by the Mines Committee to appear before them. His remarks, I believe, have been reported in the Ottawa ' Free Press.' I was informed by the chairman of the Mines Committee that the report was inaccurate. I have not read the Ottawa papers so I cannot give my hon. friend a categorical answer to his inquiry as to the correctness of the report. But as to his last question whether steps have been taken to refute these statements, I can only say that it would be almost impossible for the Department of Mines-and I am sure the same is true of other departments-to refute the many inaccurate statements made in regard to public matters. It was considered advisable that this mining engineer, who, I am informed, is a man of large experience, should give evidence before the committee. Whether he has a correct conception of the mining capability of Canada or not, I am not able to say. I am sure he could not grasp, upon a mere cursory examination, the wealth of mineral of our great Nipissing country.


Mr. CONMEE.: I am somewhat surprised at some of the remarks-


Mr. SPEAKER.: Of course, no discussion can take place at this stage.


James Conmee: I merely wish to make an explanation with the permission of the-House.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Perhaps the House will permit it. The hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Gordon) might have been called upon to give notice of his question, for questions at this stage must refer to the business before the House or must be upon some urgent matter. I allowed the hon. gentleman to put the question, but if the hon. member for Thunder Bay and Rainy River wishes to make an explanation it must be by general consent. If the order is to be applied, I will have to apply it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Go ahead.


James Conmee: I saw the hon. member for Nipissing to-day, and told him that Mr. Wilson had not made any remarks from which any one would be justified in making the report which he has quoted. I am in receipt of telegrams from Mr. Wilson, who appears to be much annoyed that he should be quoted as having stated that he represented the British government or as having made any proposition that the government should take over the lands from the present owners. There are a number of members present who heard Mr. Wilson yesterday. I am sure these hon. gentlemen were well pleased with the remarks he made and the information he was able to give. There was nothing in his language from which the things stated in the report could be inferred, and the reporters have simply made it oift of whole cloth. They were not present; had they been present they would not have made 3uch a report. Mr. Wilson was asked the question whether he represented the British government, and he said no; he said that he had formerly made reports for manufacturers of nickel steel in England. He did not at all suggest that the government should take possession of the mines of the country. And, instead of saying that the nickel was all in the hands of the international company, he said there were hundreds and thousands of locations held by others independent of that company. He gave the area as being about seventy-five miles northerly and southerly by about thirty _ or forty miles east and west. I took occasion last evening to give a correction of the matter from Mr. Wilson to the editor of the ' Free Press.' Hon. members will see the corrections, I assume, in the ' Free Press ' this evening.



INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-BRANCH LINES.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GRAHAM moved the third reading of Bill (No. 17) to authorize the government of Canada to acquire, by lease, lines of railway connecting with the government railways.
Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Westmorland).: In view of the fact that I have taken con-Mr. CONMEE.
siderable interest in the subject mattej of this Bill, and of the further fact that I was compelled to be absent in the city of Toronto when the measure was under consideration for its second reading and in Committee of the Whole, I am sure the House will indulge me in making a few observations which I feel called on to make in connection .with the subject. The acquisition by the government of the branch lines of the Intercolonial railway is not solely a maritime province matter; it is of profound importance in the solution of at least one of the transportation problems of this Dominion. I have, it is true, devoted a good deal of time to a careful study of the question but I have done so not because I come from the maritime provinces where these railways are located, but because I felt it my duty as a Canadian to interest myself in this question which is as wide as the Dominion. I assert boldly that the people of Ontario and the other provinces are just as much interested in the question as we who come from the east are. At every session of this parliament, from 1906 to the present time, I have brought the matter to the notice of the House and have endeavoured to enlist the sympathy of the government and of the members of this House for it. I think I may say that I have always presented my views from a non-partisan standpoint and advanced the scheme as a business proposition and a business proposition alone. On the 22nd of March, 1907,
(' Hansard ' page 5225) I addressed this House as follows:
1 have felt that while the Intercolonial has had to combat many prejudices, and while there have been many influences against it, yet in view of the good it lias done to the country, in view of the trade it has promoted, the day would come when the people of Canada, irrespective of section, would join in the desire to have the Intercolonial extended; would wish it to widen out its influence and absorb its feeders, either by leasehold or by some other means.
In the history of Canada, especially of western Canada, we note this striking fact that when you follow along the line of the Grand Trunk railway or the Canadian Pacific railway, wherever there are independent branch lines, feeders to their main trunk lines, one by one they are gathered in so that after a time the main trunk lines absorb all these branch lines and they are all run as one system. I assume that that is a business course, else these great corporations, governed by keen business men, would not have followed such a course. They would not have acquired these lines but they would have left them to run as independent connections of the main trunk line.
I have felt that the government of Canada might some day be impelled by the force of public opinion, by the judgment of the people throughout the country, to secure to the Intercolonial railway as against all other . companies the branch lines which constitute the feeders to the Intercolonial railway. What are these branch lines but instruments to

gather up the traffic in the adjacent country side and hand it over to the trunk line system-the Intercolonial railway. In so doing these branch lines are favouring and contributing to the advancement of the sections and communities which they are supposed to accommodate; nay, more than that they are contributing materially to the growth and expansion of the traffic of the Intercolonial railway, and therefore I say that I believe the day will come when a demand will go out from the people of Canada in favour of the absorption of these lines. I would, Sir, not be content with that. I would feel that in order to clasp closer together those isolated communities and to draw them closer to the communities of the west it would be desirable that the Intercolonial railway should penetrate farther west, that it should reach the industrial centres of Canada and especially that it should reach the great industrial centre of central Canada-I refer to the city of Toronto. I look forward, Sir, also to this; There are railways starting out from the extreme west reaching forward eagerly and anxiously to an eastern seaport. Many of them are concentrating their efforts upon reaching the great city of Quebec and there reaching a great ocean port, but a port which is closed for many months of the year, and I would anticipate that at some not far distant day these railways, converging at the great city of Quebec, will be reaching still farther east, so that they may find, during the winter months, open water upon which the ships would sail that would take the traffic that our railways would gather up in the west and carry to the east. That day may come, I hope it will come-nay, more, I believe it will come and when it does it will settle all speculation as to the future of the Intercolonial railway. It will for all time settle the question of the value of the Intercolonial railway as an asset of the Dominion of Canada, and it will certainly bear out this fact, which, I have at least claimed as a fact, that the Intercolonial railway is a great na-tionl asset, that it is of value to the people of Canada both east and west, that it has served its purpose and its mission in the past and that it still has a purpose and a mission to perform, and I am sure that when we reach that stage there will be no sectional differences over the matter, and that we will all see eye to eye with reference to the manifest destiny of the Intercolonial railway.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the government, in the Bill which it has seen fit to present to parliament and which we are now^ considering, has adopted the principle laid down by me in the remarks I have just read, and I have great pleasure in congratulating the government on that fact. It demonstrates for one thing that my forecast of coming events in 1907 was correct, and that I truly interpreted the trend of public opinion at that time. I saw it was a business proposition which no government, which had in view the welfare of our great national railway, could hesitate to carry out. For having adopted that principle the government are entitled to the consideration of the people of all sections of the Dominion, because it contributes not merely to the advancement of the Intercolonial and the communities located along its line, and the communities which are served by these branch lines, but, every community in Canada. My remarks on the present occasion shall be as brief as possible and I shall only deal with the question from a purely business point of view. The propositions which I laid down in 1906,	1907,
1908 and 1909, are now crystallized into legislation, and it remains only for me to inquire whether the principle I advanced has been fully given effect to and to analyse some of the details of the present Bill. I know Sir, that there have been some very vexatious remarks made with respect to my advocacy of this measure. But I think those who know me will do me the credit of believing that in advocating the absorption of these branch lines I have been entirely disinterested personally. There are those who have been unkind enough to say that my zeal arose from the fact that I or some of my friends were in some way interested in one or more of these branch lines. Now, I trust the House will pardon me for making a personal reference, and I would not have mentioned it were it not that I am aware that such a statement was brought to the notice of the government and of the right hon. the leader of the government. When I learned of this I went to the right hon. the Prime Minister and I asked him if it were true that such representations had been made; he admitted that such representations had been made. Now, Mr. Speaker,
I want to say in the most unqualified way that while I have been for years an advocate of the extension and expansion of the Intercolonial, my advocacy has been solely as .a citizen oi Canada and a representative of the people.
I am in no way, directly or indirectly, near or remote, either by myself or by any of my friends, or relatives, interested to the extent of one single farthing, nor have 1 any prospective interest to the extent of one single farthing in any of these branch lines. I feel it incumbent upon me to make that statement in view of the remarks that have been made and circulated behind my back. On the other hand it has been said, very unkindly said, that this Bill has been thrown to me as a meaningless sop; that while on its face it purports to do something it in reality means nothing, that I was in effect a bothersome fellow, that I was a figure sitting at one time on the treasury benches, that I had bored the present Minister of Railways with respect to this matter, and that they had to satisfy me in some way. Well, if these remarks were made they may at least be taken as a compliment to my persistence and zeal in the promotion of this measure which I believe to be greatly in the interests of the

the provisions of this Act. Well, Mr. Speaker, apart from the difficulty that would attend any of these branch lines of railways in meeting those conditions, I say it would be in the interest of the Intercolonial to undertake the improvement and betterment of these railways. Why? It is known to the minister, it is known to the people who live in the maritime provinces, that along the line of the Intercolonial there are thousands and tens of thousands, I was almost going to say, hundreds of thousands, of tons of steel rails that have been taken up from the track of the Intercolonial, that are laying there rusty, that are of no value to the government or to the Intercolonial. There are tens, and I might almost say, hundreds of tons of steel structures in the shape of bridges which were too old to be continued on the Intercolonial railway, and which had to be removed and replaced by heavier structures. There is rolling stock, cars of every description, that are obsolete so far as the trunk line is concerned, but which could be made available on these branch lines. There is material of every description and kind lying in and about the right of way of the Intercolonial and at its shops, which could be utilized, and utilized to advantage in improving the conditions on those lines, and there would be no capital expenditure. I think it will be conceded by the minister that in the accounts of the Intercolonial this material, these old cars, these old bridges, stand as an asset, a capital asset, in connection with the Intercolonial, and it is represented in the accounts as a part and parcel of the Intercolonial, but it is of no service and no advantage to the Intercolonial. What would be the objection to having that material removed from its havens of rest, and placed where it would be of utility, where it would be of advantage to the people, to the country and to the Intercolonial itself?
* I do not feel called upon to prove the advantage of this, but I think it would be as well to ask hon. memebrs to bear in mind what has been said by those who went especially to examine these roads, and to inquire into their condition. I hold in my hand a report of the commissioners who were appointed by the New Brunswick government to examine and report upon the conditions of the branch lines of the railway in that province. I also hold here a report of the commissioners that were appointed by this federal government, to examine into and report upon the conditions which prevailed on the Intercolonial branch lines, as to their traffic possibilities, as to their physical condition, as to the potentialities, and the prospects of the respective roads. Turning first to the report of the commissioners appointed by the New Brunswick government, appointed by my hon.


Henry Robert Emmerson: friend who sits at my left (Mr. Pugsley), who was then, if not Prime Minister of New Brunswick, one of the most important members of that government, and holding a position high in the government of the province. He and his colleagues appointed this commission to make these inquiries, and they have reported. I need only refer hon. members to the details of the report, and I will read the closing sentence in the general report signed by Mr. T. M. Bums and Mr. Gillmor Brown. Mr. Burns is a very prominent business man residing on the north shore of New Brunswick. Mr, Gillmor Brown is a civil engineer who has, I may say, practically an international reputation, a man who held a very high position in the state of West Virginia, and had to do with the construction of some of the large bridges that were placed over the Ohio river, a man who holds to-day, I believe, a position in the Department of Public Works, who holds it very worthily, and who, I am sure, will be a credit to the position he holds, to the government under which he serves, and to those who had to do with his appointment. Now these gentlemen made a report, and in closing their report they say:
i Apart from their value to the Intercolonial as feeders, these lines of railway have been of incalculable benefit to the localities which they serve, and to the province at large. What the country would do without them is best illlustrated by the consternation that prevails when one of them closes down for a day or two. Their successful operation is of great benefit to the people of the province, and any money which has been put into them by the government by way of subsidies has been much more than repaid in the increased value of property in the districts which they serve, and in the increased business and prosperity of the country at large, due in great measure to their existence.
Those were the words of the New Brunswick commissioners. Mr. Tiffin and Mr. Storey were appointed by the government of Canada to examine into the question of the traffic and business on these branch lines, and I find that Mr. Tiffin, in his report, referring to the number of lines of railway which they had examined, said:
In preparing these reports we have as far as jjossible confined ourselves to the instructions contained in your letter, in giving our views as to the present traffic, traffic facilities, and probable traffic of the various branch lines, and we trust they will prove satisfactory.
We, however, feel that while our instructions do not call for any remarks outside of the line of procedure laid down for us, that we should supplement such reports by con-yeying to you the unanimous feeling predominating, as gleaned from our interviews with the various merchants and people living along the branch lines, as to the great benefit which would follow absorption.
The want of proper facilities for the conduct of even the existing traffic is detriment-

ally affecting the business interests of the districts interested in these branches, and preventing that development of industries, enhancement of property values, and general betterment that would undoubtedly follow on an improved service.
The present branches are hampered by lack of capital and insufficient equipment, and are not in a financial position to increase their inadequate traffic facilities, and the absorption of these lines into the Intercolonial system would beyond question result in a greatly improved condition of affairs.
These are the words of Mr. Tiffin, who as general traffic manager of the Intercolonial railway and as a member of the Board of Management of Government Railways, is certainly authorized to speak with a knowledge few others possess of the advantages or disadvantages of these branch lines. Further on he said:
It is a well established fact that in nearly every ease where branch lines have been absorbed by trunk lines and extended markets have thus been opened up for business along the main line, such a policy has not only proved of great value to the branch lines themselves hut has provided additional revenue for the main line, they becoming valuable feeders, increasing the traffic and the [DOT]earning powers of the trunk line.
There is evidence which cannot be gainsaid and is worthy of our most serious consideration. These branch lines are doing in some measure the work expected of them. Let it be borne in mind that the object of the Intercolonial railway was to reach the markets of the maritime provinces from the manufacturing centres of Ontario and Quebec, and it was desirable, in the interests of the country that every section of the maritime provinces should be reached by the Intercolonial railway if possible. There was a further hope, which I regret has never been realized, that there would be found in Ontario and Quebec markets for the natural products of the maritime provinces, such as coal, stone, gypsum, grindstones, &c. It was hoped that the cost of transportation over the Intercolonial railway would be so low that the builders and manufacturers of Ontario would not be compelled to go to the state of Ohio for their building stone and grindstones. That hope, however, was never realized. The government buildings in this very city are built, in a large measure, of stone imported from Indiana, Ohio and other American states. The coal use in many sections in Ontario and even in Montreal comes in great measure from the states of West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio. I am not complaining of this, but I am only showing the facts which demonstrate that the hones we entertained, at the time of confederation, as regards traffic from east to we^t, have not been realized. So far as the traffic from west to east is concerned, that is so far as giving to the manufacturers
and commercial men of Ontario and Quebec, the markets of the fishermen on the coasts of Nova Scotia and the coal miners of that province, and the lumbermen of New Brunswick, our expectations have been fully realized. Three-fourths of the traffic over the Intercolonial railway is eastbound, showing that the manufacturers and commercial firms of Ontario and Quebec have benefited by the low rates which have prevailed on the Intercolonial railway.


William Pugsley: Hear, hear.


Henry Robert Emmerson: One-fourth of the traffic over the Intercolonial railway is from east to west, showing that the maritime provinces have not the same interest m promoting traffic over the Intercolonial railway, nor have they the same interest in the Intercolonial railway as a transportation line. Every one will admit that it is in tne interests of the province of Ontario to have those maritime markets. I venture the assertion that there are none better on this continent for the manufacturers and merchants of the west than the market m the maritime provinces. The people of these provinces pay their debts, they have a good country, they have fish in plenty, lumber and coal-in fact everything that makes the home comfortable. If it has been to the advantage of the merchant princes oi Toronto and Montreal to have cheap and easy access to those ports, the^ easier we make our transportation facilities the greater will be the advantage to the business men of the west and central Canada. By permitting the absorption of these branch lines you improve transportation and enaJble the manufacturer to place his wares at points on those lines with the same facility' as now on the main line of the Intercolonial. I go further. We have a managing board that controls the Intercolonial which is part of the government system of railways. But we have the Prince Edward Island railway as well. I say that there should be a connecting link in some form between these two systems of government railways, to enable the consumer to get his goods at the least cost of transportation, .and to give greater facilities to producers and manufacturers who supply these people to reach their markets. I believe in the continuance of the Intercolonial as a government system; I believe that the Intercolonial should retain the zone of influence which, in ante-confederation [DOT]days, it was intended to have. True, many shudder when a proposal is made of expenditure on the Intercolonial. A deficit on the government railway is spoken of as a terrible thing. Men hold up their hands in holy horror at the idea. We are not concerned that the operation of the canals of Canada costs a million and a quarter or a million and a half; we say that that is in

the interest of the trade and transportation of the country. We do not whimper, nor whine, nor cry over it; there is not a word of complaint.' But if, perchance, there be a deficit on the Intercolonial, then the cry is raised that you must revolutionize its condition, and the fact of a deficit is held to convict the railway of every sin in the category of administrative error. It is true, the financial statements of the Intercolonial, from confederation down, have not shown a 'balance on the right side. Still, there has been a profit. The profit is in the pockets of the people if it is not in the coffers of the Dominion. You contribute to the Canadian Pacific, the Grand Trunk, the Canadian Northern and all the other railway corporations of Canada, and the rates of these companies are far beyond those charged on the Intercolonial. The rates on the Intercolonial were established for a certain purpose-to promote trade between the different sections of the then Dominion. But, in the case of the corporations I have named, the surplus is in the pockets of the shareholders. It is said that the Intercolonial has its deficits, and for that reason you should not extend it. If we brought in these branch lines, they say, you would only make the deficit worse. Are those who hold these views aware of the fact that the system of the Canadian Pacific railway east of the St. Lawrence river, tapping as it does the rich and flourishing section known as the eastern townships, and having the traffic of the border cities on the Eiver Ste. Croix between Maine and New Brunswick, and having a practical monopoly of the traffic of the River St. John-is it known, I say, that every year since the Canadian Pacific began operating in the maritime provinces, this system has shown an annual deficit running from $500,000 to $1,000,000? That is not under government operation, but under operation that is always lauded to the skies as the best operation of railways in America by one of the strongest corporations on this or any other continent. The company is obliged to set aside year after year out of the earnings of the railway in other portions of the country $500,000 or $600,000, and in one instance to my knowledge no less than $1,000,000 to make up the deficit on this system. And yet they would not sell it, or release it, or give away control of it under any consideration. And is it known that, in addition to the advantages which they have in traffic, for nearly a quarter of a century the government of Canada has been contributing to the treasury of the Canadian Pacific railway to aid them in the operation of lines east of the St. Lawrence river the isum of $186,000? There is a deficit worthy of the name-a deficit to the people of Canada of $186,000 on the operation of the main line through the state of Maine from Mon-Mr. EMMEESON.
treat to St. John, and a further deficit to . the railway ranging from half a million, two or three years ago, to an amount as high as a million. I speak, not on conjecture, not from rumour; the man in the street did not give me this information; the information comes from those high in authority, those who have the management and control of the Canadian Pacific railway. [DOT] Yet, forsooth, the Canadian Pacific railway is doing just what is proposed to be done under the provisions of this Bill; it has been absorbing branch lines. Those who advocate the absorption of branch lines by the Intercolonial, contend that the effect would be to improve the traffic and increase the earnings of the road, and that it would develop those sections of the country that are served and traversed by these branch lines. And this contention is well grounded in the experience of other railways. We have an object lesson in the province of New Brunswick. It is well known that the Canadian Pacific runs from the city of St. John to McAdam Junction, thence to Woodstock in the county of Carleton, and up the river St. John through the beautiful county of Victoria. In that county, at the town of Perth, it connects with a railway that had been constructed by the aid of subsidies from the federal and provincial governments. That railway was known as the Tobique Valley railway, and it was built by an isolated company. The company exhausted all its subsidies in the construction of the road, and it also had a bonded indebtedness. But when the road was built and equipped, the company had not the money to run it to full efficiency. But they kept on running it with very little satisfaction to the people and no profit to the company. The Canadian Pacific railway made a proposition to that company to assume the operation of the Tobique Valley railway, undertaking to pay the company forty per cent of the gross earnings, retaining sixty per cent, and agreeing to improve, maintain and operate the road. That contract was executed, and the railway has been in operation for a number of years with what result? The interest on the bonds, which previous to that time had been in default, has been paid regularly, and there has been a sufficient balance to give a dividend on the common stock of the shareholders of the company. OtheT instances of similar successful operation can be found in every province of this Dominion, but this is a case in point, and such an example is worthy of being followed by the Dominion government,
I have taken a deep interest in this matter and I am glad it has advanced to the point which it reaches even by this Bill, hut I would ask the Minister of Railways to think over the necessity of having continued in this Bill the requirement that these roads shall be in a good and safe

cor;dition for operation. I said a moment ago that it might be stated under present conditions certain sections of the Intercolonial railway are not in a good and safe condition. I am sorry to say it, and I am not saying it in any factious spirit, I am simply stating' facts. Would you say that because of that condition the Intercolonial railway is to be ignored? By no means. There may be certain lines of railway which in the opinion of the board and the Minister of Railways and the Governor in Council should be acquired and absorbed, but which in the face of this provision in the Bill it would be impossible for the government to take over, and a company might not be in a position to place its road in such a condition that the government could assume it. It may be said that if they had a contract they could go to the bank and get the money, but owing to the circumlocution of the procedure by which these contracts are made, there would be no contract upon which they could bank until the lease had been approved by parliament, and the company would have no contract upon which they could bank. If they endeavoured to place their railway in proper condition, they might be held up by banks and financiers or by those who had other interests to serve. This would cause great delay, and if it is desirable to have these branch lines of railway we cannot have them any too soon. It is not necessary to take over all these lines, but it certainly would be in the interest of the country to take hs many of them as possible, that is, those that have any value at all. There is no necessity for adding to the public debt in this matter, it can be done on the basis of a division of earnings, and when such a lease is executed and in operation the shareholders in the branch lines would be in a position that would not mean any loss to them and the government and the people of the country would have the advantage of increased facilities for their transportation.
I do not propose an amendment to the Bill, I accept it as far as it adopts the principle, but I think the government and the minister should take into consideration the features of this Bill which make it inoperative now. The government are hedged about and safeguarded in this matter and cannot get into any trouble in reference to it. They have their own judgment, they have first the proposition of the managing board; they are safeguarded by the report of the chief engineer; they have the minister himself who can exercise his judgment, and then it goe's before council and they exercise their judgment. After all this it comes before parliament. In this process, this red tapeism, how many months and how many years have been occupied? The good that it is acknowledged would follow from the execution of this
idea is retarded and the development of the country and the improvement of the Intercolonial railway are delayed. It seems to me the government should make such an amendment as would enable them to act. It is no use attempting to place on the shoulders of others the responsibility which the government must finally take if they would courageously say: we will assume this responsibility, it is in the interests of the country, we will dp it, we will have reports prepared, we will satisfy ourselves, * we will act-that is what the country expects any government to do.


George Perry Graham: Mr. Speaker, this Bill was discussed at some length on the second reading and again in committee. I am sure we aTe all indebted to the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) for his excellent speech on this question, which is near to his heart. I can say on behalf of the government, and I think on behalf of the members of this House that no one for a moment suspects that he has anything but the purest motives in urging this matter on the attention of the House. He has done it for some years and has been persistent and consistent in doing it, and he is only doing now what he has done in previous years. We do not entertain the least idea that anything but the motive of doing what he thinks is best for the Intercolonial and for the solution of the transportation problem of the country is what animates him. I do not think I will discuss the Intercolonial in all its phases at present, as we will be discussing that in a very short time, when I hope to be able to show a good many favourable sides to the public owned railway of the Dominion of Canada. Any difference of opinion we might have as to the management and condition of the railway we will thresh out on that occasion. I agree with my hon. friend when he says very truly that this public owned utility belongs to the Dominion of Canada. I have endeavoured all over this country, wherever I have gone, particularly in the province of Ontario, to point out to the people that the Intercolonial railway belongs to them as much as to the people of the maritime provinces and that the people of this province have received marked benefit from it. I know that many of my acquaintances who do a large business in the maritime provinces have for years shipped goods to the eastern provinces by the Intercolonial railway. Whatever cheap freight rates there were on these goods these shippers and the consumers of the east have received the benefit. I will not now, I never did and I never will discuss the Intercolonial as belonging to any part of Canada. It belongs to us

all, and that is the reason why I tried to frame my Bill so that it would meet with the approval of all Canada. We discussed it fairly in the House and in the committee. Some objection was taken, it is true, to the principle of taking over branch lines at all, and I must differ from my hon. friend when he mildly intimates that the government lacks courage. - I think the government shows considerable courage in taking hold of this question in the way in which it has done. It was said when this Bill was up for its second reading that possibly anything we could do under this Bill we could have done without the Bill. That is true in a measure, but the government and parliament, by adopting this measure, put on the statute book their approval of the principle that, conditions being right, the Intercolonial would do well to take over branch lines. We have adopted that principle. I think parliament has shown some courage in that regard and not timidity. Now, what are the conditions of the Bill? My hon. friend thought we should not leave the decision as to the standard of the road and the recommendation as to taking it over to the board of managers. It is only a question as to whom it should be left to. The Minister of Bailways himself is not now and has not been, in so far as I know in years gone by, a practical railway man. He must base the judgment on which he shall make recommendations to council or this House, on the opinion of somebody, and that somebody ought to know his business. Whether we agree that the board of management is a good thing or not we accept its advice on a great many things, in fact, on all things appertaining to the government road at the present time. The members of that board know and ought to know. Their chairman is the chief engineer and deputy minister of the Department of Bailways and Canals and that board, or its present chairman, would be the source from which the minister would get his opinion or his recommendation. In the one case he would take it from one man, and in the other he would take it from that man and several others, acting with him and who know the conditions. I submit that the advice of the board of management is the safest and best we can take on a question of this kind, for if the board does not know what would be in the interest of the Intercolonial and in the interest of transportation along its line then nobody does. I take it for granted that expert railway men ought to know and do know as much as those of us who are not experts as to what effect it would have on the government railway. This is not something to get rid of responsibility at all. The government must and the government Mr. GBAIIAM.
is prepared to take the responsibility for all it recommends in that connection. It has no desire to take away from its responsibility, but on a great many points it naturally would have to avail itself of the advice of somebody that ought to know and that somebody in this Bill is designated as the Board of Management of the Government Bailways.
The question of not taking the lines over until they are in proper condition to operate, received considerable attention. The hon. member for East Ilamiltoq (Mr. Barker) paid it considerable attention from a practical standpoint and as a result we had that amendment moved and it was carried in the committee. It must be understood that the whole country is not unanimous in favour of taking over the branch lines without some such restriction as that. Personally, I am free to say that if the Intercolonial were owned by a company it would have taken over all the branch lines that are worth anything before this. I am also safe in saying, I think, that there are some branch lines that no trunk line will take over at any price. But those that are in good condition at once come into the class which if the traffic present and future warrants, can be negotiated with for a lease to the government. That disposes of those that are in good and safe running condition now. If there be others that future or present traffic would indicate as roads which would be of assistance in the solution of the transportation problem and a benefit to the government railways, I think a scheme could be worked out under this Act, or without this Act, by which they could be taken over when they are put in proper condition. I do not share with my hon. friend his fear with regard to some of the smaller branches. If the conditions were such that the board would say that there was traffic in a certain locality which, with a decent road and a decent service, would pay, I feel satisfied that the money could be raised to put these smaller branches in proper condition to lease. However, that is a matter of opinion. But this Bill was drafted, first, to approve the principle of taking over the branch lines where it was thought proper to do so. A great step forward has been made in that. Secondly, it was provided that there should be no rashness in taking them over, but that a competent board should make a recommendation before they were taken over; and thirdly, provision was made that the bargain could not be finally consummated until parliament approved of it. Under this Act we could not take a line over until it was put in good and proper shape to run. The restrictions, I admit, are quite severe and, in so far as the people of Canada are concerned, they are absolutely safeguarded no matter whar government is

in power, because the government will not and cannot under this Act recklessly lease lines that will be of no benefit to the Intercolonial railway. Some hon. gentlemen seemed to fear that branch lines might be leased which would precipitate the government into an enormous capital expenditure and thus add to our public debt to that extent. That matter was discussed pretty thoroughly. That seemed to be the opinion of several hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House, but in order to meet that objection and get the House to approve without any opposition practically the principle of taking over these branch lines after proper consideration and leasing them under proper conditions this amendment was placed in the Act. I believe that the Act is a great step in advance and I think it will be of more benefit than my hon. friend (Mr. Emmerson) now thinks. I believe that under the Act some practical advancement will be made in the takipg over of branch lines that will serve as profitable feeders to the Intercolonial railway and as-,sist in the solution of the transportation problem in the eastern part of Canada.


Mr. MACDONALD.: On the second reading of the Bill I expressed my views as to the wisdom of the government taking over these branch lines, and whatever opinion I may hold with reference to the present method of managing the Intercolonial railway I shall reserve until the minister makes his statement. I merely desire to say that I do not altogether agree with the minister when he says that the board of management are the best judges as to what should be done in regard to taking over branch lines.


George Perry Graham: That is not what I said.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: The minister said something along that line.


George Perry Graham: I said as to what lines would be profitable for the .Intercolonial railway.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: That all depends on who may constitute that board from time to time and what may be their motives in arriving at a conclusion. If the motive of the board of management be to extract every possible cent that they can get out of the people who patronize the Intercolonial railway without any regard to the general improvement of the country surrounding, then the board of management are not the best and much less they are not the only judges as to what is the best course to pursue in the taking over of branch lines. But my particular object in rising now is to call the attention of the minister to what I consider a bad piece of drafting in the Bill. By section 3 the Minister of Railways is empowered to make
a lease after complying with certain preliminary conditions: 1, the recommendation of the board of management; 2, the authority of the Governor in Council; 3, the report of the engineer that the road is in good and safe condition. He must have these before he can make a lease, and when he has that lease he can proceed to operate the line.


Henry Robert Emmerson: He must get the approval of parliament.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: He would proceed to operate subject to the ratification of the lease as the Act provides.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The statement was made that they would not begin to operate under a lease until the approval of parliament was obtained.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: But there are certain words in section 3 which seem to bring about a ridiculous state of affairs unless they can be excused on the ground of very bad drafting. Now, the effect of the additional stipulation inserted while the Bill was in the committee is, that after the lease has been made and all the preliminary conditions complied with and the ratification of parliament obtained, it would be the duty of the minister to go back to the board of management and to the chief engineer and submit to them the question as to whether all that had been done in legal form. The language used in the Bill is that the lease shall have no force or effect until the managing board and the chief engineer have approved the terms and conditions of such lease.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Even though parliament has approved of it?


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: The language is indefinite as to that. It may mean that these gentlemen are to be a still higher court after parliament has decided. It does seem the meaning of the Bill as it now reads is that after you have all the preliminary conditions complied with and after the Governor in Council and parliament have acted, that it must go back to the board of management and the chief engineer for their endorsation. I supported the proposal that the board of management should approve of the lease, although I do not think they are infallible, but at all events that last portion of the section is entirely unnecessary and absurd.


William Pugsley: I think that the criticism of my hon. friend (Mr. Macdonald) is not well founded. The section provides that you must first have the report of the chief engineer that the line is in good and safe condition, then that the minister on bringing the matter before the Governor in Council is authorized to enter into a lease.

and the terms of that lease must be approved by the board of management, and that I presume means the rental which should be paid.


Henry Robert Emmerson: After the lease is made?


William Pugsley: After the lease is drawn up. Then the terms of the lease must be approved by the board of management. The board will report to the Minister of Railways as to the terms on which it is proposed to lease the railway, as to the length of time the lease would run, and as to other conditions of that kind. Upon that being done, then the Minister of Railways would, in the ordinary course, execute a lease from the railway company, and he would provide in that lease that it should not be effective until it was ratified by parliament. Then in the ordinary course the Minister of Railways would submit the lease to parliament with a short Bill, approving of its terms, and upon the Act ratifying the lease being' passed, then the lease would go into effect and become operative. Now, I do not see myself any difficulty in working out that section.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Does the hon. gentleman not think, as a matter of construction of the statute, that the act which is contemplated in the proviso at the end, is an act which is to take place after the lease has actually been drawn, and provides for the minister appealing to the board again, and also appealing to the chief engineer to report as to the condition of the line? Because his function, as provided in the first part of the Bill, is to report upon the condition of the road. Is not that a subsequent condition imposed by this section upon the minister after this legislation and all the preliminary reports, after the drafting of the lease?


William Pugsley: I think there is an unnecessary provision as to the chief engineer approving of the terms and conditions of the lease. But I do not see any objection to that. The chief engineer is the technical officer of the Railway Department, and while it may be unnecessary, I do not see that any evil result would follow that provision. As to approval by the Board of Management, I understand it would mean that the terms would be approved of after the lease was drafted, not after it had become operative.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: It should have no force or effect.


William Pugsley: Until it is ratified by parliament. I would say that the draft lease must be approved of by the Board of Management. If they approve of it, then it is executed, and it is executed subject to the approval of parliament, and when par-Mr. .PUGSLEY.
liament approves of it, then the lease becomes operative. I think my hon. friend is unduly technical. The main question to be considered is whether, as contended for by my hon. friend from Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson), the government ought or ought not to exact the requirement that the chief engineer should report the railway to be in a safe condition and that it can be efficiently operated. It is an important objection, but if the House should concur in thinking that it is desirable to have the certificate of the chief engineer that the road is in a safe condition for operation, then it seems to me the details can be worked out without the slightest difficulty. While upon my feet, I want to say one word with regard to the desirability of requiring that the road should be in a safe condition. My hon. friend, I think, when he was Minister of Railways, was just as much in favour of the government taking over the branch lines of the Intercolonial and the connecting lines as he is to-day. He knows that years ago, when he and I were members of the provincial legislature of New Brunswick, we stood side by side in urging as strongly as we could that action along these lines should be taken; and when my hon. friend became Minister of Railways, I have no doubt that wherever he could legitimately exercise an influence in that direction, he did exercise it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: We did take one over.


William Pugsley: One was taken over, the Canada Eastern, and it became a part of the Intercolonial system. But this is a matter of great importance, it is one in regard to which the government must move slowly, no matter what government may be in power or who may be Minister of Railways. I think it will be agreed that it is not only not desirable but impossible to move more rapidly in the direction of acquiring the branch lines of the Intercolonial than public opinion moves. There has been, even up to the present time, considerable doubt upon the part of a good many people, a minority I believe, but still a good many people in the country, and certainly some members of this House, as to the wisdom of the course which is proposed to be taken. We have thought it well to adopt the conservative course, we have thought it well to be able to say to this parliament that we do not propose to take action which will impose any addition to the capital indebtedness of the country.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That would be an awful thing to do, I suppose.


William Pugsley: We have believed, whether rightly or wrongly, that parliament would not be likely to authorize the government to incur a very large indebtedness upon

the capital expenditure by taking over branch roads. Therefore we have asked parliament to approve of what I think is a reasonable measure, and one which we believe will produce the results which are desired,- in the way of permitting the Intercolonial to take over all branch lines which will be likely to prove valuable feeders. Now, my hon. friend from Westmorland, in the very admirable speech which he has just addressed to the House, while approving of the course of the government so far as the principle of the Bill is concerned, expressed the fear that there would be either none at all or very few companies who would be able to avail themselves of its provisions. I do not think that my hon. friend is justified in holding those fears. Take the case of any branch railway which the Board of Management thinks it might be desirable to acquire under a long lease and operate as part of the Intercolonial. The Board of Management would reasonably say to the company, if you put that road in condition, if you make the repairs and bring it up to. the standard that we lay down, if you make the repairs according to the specifications which we submit to you, those repairs will cost you a certain sum of money, and it would be fair, in addition to the rental which you would be entitled to for your road in its present condition, to allow you a rental which would be a reasonable interest upon the expenditure you would be required to make upon the road in order to satisfy the terms of this section. Now if there is a company which has a road which is worth anything at all, which will bring any advantage to the Intercolonial or to the country which it serves, I say that upon the Board of Management agreeing to take over that road, and recommending its being taken over on a long lease, and upon the Minister of Railways undertaking that upon the road being in a proper condition it will be taken over upon a rental which would represent the interest upon a fair value of the road in its existing condition, a reasonable interest upon the amount which would be required to be expended in order to put it in a proper condition to fulfil the terms of the statute-upon that being done, when it can be taken over upon a long lease say of 99 years, no company would have the slightest difficulty in making .the necessary financial arrangements in order to put the road in a condition which would warrant the Minister of Railways in executing the lease. Therefore it is that I believe this statute will be effective, I believe it will result in bringing to a successful completion the policy which my hon. friend from Westmorland and myself, and many others from the province
of New Brunswick, have been advocating for years, both in the legislature and on public platforms, and that most beneficial results will follow, not only to the maritime provinces, but to the province of Quebec and to every section which is served by the Intercolonial, as a result of the enactment of this measure.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Before the Bill passes I would like to say, in regard to what has just fallen from the Minister of Public Works, that in my opinion a great deal of care should be exercised before the government enters into an arrangement with any railway company for the expenditure by that company of money upon a particular line to put it in a good and safe condition for operation. It seems to me that there would be considerable possibility of the public interest not being served by such an arrangement unless it were accompanied with very secure safeguards as regards the expenditure. I would take the liberty of advising my hon. friend the Min ister of Railways and Canals to be rather careful about the conditions of any such arrangements and the safeguards surrounding them. My hon. friend the member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) has drawn attention to the drafting of the section, and 1 am bound to agree with him that perhaps in some respects it might not be regarded as very artistic drafting; but sail I think you can fairly gather from the section what it is the minister must bring to parliament when he submits a proposal for the leasing of any lines. In the first place he must bring the recommendation of the government railway managing board. In the next place the report of the chief engineer of railways and canals that the line is in good and safe condition for operation. In the third place, he must bring his lease and procure a certificate from both these authorities that the terms and conditions embodied in it have their approval, having regard to the beneficial results to accrue therefrom to the government railway. If he brings those to parliament, it seems to me that he fulfils all the conditions precedent created by this section, and it will be then for parliament to consider whether it is in the public interest that the lease should be entered into. I think this may fairly be gathered from the section; and although perhaps the meaning might be expressed in more clear and explicit terms, it is not difficult to find that these are the conditions to be observed before the Minister of Railways can call on parliament to ratify any such lease.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the third time and passed.
[DOT]2215

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Fielding: That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of the Whole to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to His Majesty.
["I said that I was only using this as an illustration, and I mentioned clothing. But, the principle is the same. The framework of our affairs has been repaired in these days of prosperity. It was in a rather rickety condition in 1896, but since we have had some good material to put into it, material from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, since we have had the foundation repaired and the building enlarged we have, in the place of a population of 5,000,000 a population of 7,500,000. The story is a bright one, the picture is not that which has been painted by hon. gentlemen like the hon. member for North Toronto, who on this occasion has cried ' wolf,' when the facts indicate an entirely different position of affairs, but it is one of which every Canadian should feel justly proud. I have some other matters to refer to and I therefore beg to move the adjournment of the debate.\nMotion agreed to and debate adjourned.\nOn motion of Mr. Templeman, House adjourned at six o'clock.", u'Friday, January 21\u201e 1910.']
Mr.  W. S.@: LOGGIE (Northumberland, N. B.) When the House rose yesterday, I was making a few remarks in reply to the criticisms of the hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Wilcox). I have but very little to add regarding his criticisms, but I want to refer for a moment or two to what he said concerning the Railway Commission. The commission he said, was the grandest institution of the country, but then he added:
However, I do not pretend to say that the government is entitled to the credit of creating that body. To parliament is due that credit.
This seems to me new doctrine. According to it, we are not to give credit to the great Conservative party for the great work it has done. Why not give that credit to parliament? All the Conservative government did was to introduce the measure. It seems to me that if he gives credit to the Conservative government in the one case, he ought to give credit to the Liberal government in the other. Then again, although he extolled the Railway Commission, as the grandest institution in the country, in the next breath he found fault with the work of that commission in the way of discrimination in rates. Surely the hon. gentleman cannot hold the government responsible because the rates are not made by the Railway Commission to suit his particular locality or the transportation in which he is particularly interested. He also blamed the commission for not providing that telephone lines may cross the railway tracks. But he ought to know very well that provision is made for such cases. All that requires to be done is to proceed in the regular way, and it is not a very difficult one, and permission is given with very little delay unless some good reason be shown why it should be refused. There was another argument he made, to which I would not object if the hon. gentleman had not followed the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson). He said it is beyond the control of a government to fix prices by legislation. On general principles, that may be true, but as the Minister of Customs pointed out the day before, when the government were legislating regarding the Crowsnest Pass railway, they included in that legislation a provision that the Canadian Pacific railway should reduce its freight rates on all grain carried over its lines. That meant an increase of about three cents per Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
hundred pounds to the price the farmers in the west got for their grain. In such a case therefore it is possible for parliament to govern the prices of commodities by legislation. Another statement which the hon. gentleman made, was that the customs taxation is precisely the same as it was in 1896, and he based that statement on the allegation that the customs rates were practically the same in 1896 as they were in 1909 on dutiable goods. But is that a fair proposition? Would it not be more to the hon. gentleman's credit to have placed the rate on all the imports in the year 1896 and compare that rate with the rate on all the imports through the customs in 1909?
Had he referred to the trade and commerce report he would have found the following figures: In 1896 there was collected on the imports passing through the customs of Canada $19.13 for every $100 worth of goods. In 1909 the amount collected on every $100 worth of goods was $16.58. This is a reduction of $2.55. That is to say, the rate of taxation in 1909 was 13 per cent less than it was in 1896. Apply this to the imports and you will find how much the people of Canada would have saved had they imported in 1896 the same quantity of goods as in 1909. They would have saved $7,344,000. Yet the hon. gentleman had the audacity to tell the public that there is practically no reduction in the rate of duty as compared with that of
1896.	The average of the imports for the last thirteen years is $216,000,000. Applying to this saving of $2.55 on every $100 worth of imports and we find that the average saving of the people as compared with what they would have paid in 1896 had the imports been as great then as now, was $5,508,000, or, for the thirteen years, $71,604,000. I have stated the rate of reduction of taxation at 13 per cent. The Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson), when speaking the other day made it 12 per cent. That hon. gentleman calculated from
1897,	while my calculation was made from 1896, (The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), in his speech the other day, said the Liberal party were taking practically twice a much from the people as their predecessors did. He stated the amount at $618,000,000 for the term of the present government. If he will take 12 per cent of that amount, he will find how much extra taxation would have been taken from the people of Canada had the rate remained the same as it was in 1896. That amount is $74,160,000. The rate of taxation is based on the needs of revenue, and that revenue should be sufficient for ordinary running expenses. More than that, I think that, in a country like this, revenue should be sufficient to pay for small public works without adding to the

net public debt. And let me congratulate the hon. member for North Toronto on the doctrine he expounded to this House two years ago. He told us then that the proper thing to do was to pay for small public works out of current revenue, and, when you had a large expenditure, like that for the Grand Trunk Pacific the money should be borrowed, to be repaid in so many years, thus letting future generations bear a share of the burden. To my mind, that is good doctrine. And that is the doctrine that is actually carried into practice by the present Minister of Finance. But the hon. member for North Toronto comes down with another proposition this year almost diametrically opposed to that a few years ago. He says that this is a time of overflowing treasuries, and that it is a time for using some of our surplus to reduce the national debt. He comes down this year with a proposition to curtail our small public works and to apply our surplus to the reduction of the debt. It is the old story with the hon. member for North Toronto. He cried: 'Wolf, wolf, and no wolf came. He takes a new venture at it this year, and it is: 'Wolf, wolf again. I congratulate the country on its present prosperity. But this is no time, in my opinion, to withhold expenditures for small public works. This is a growing time, a time when; Canada's resources are being increasingly developed, her citizens becoming more wealthy, outside capital being invested, trade inwards and outwards increasing, home industries working full time and a brisk demand for consumption of home manufactures. And our fertile lands have yielded an increasing quantity of wheat and other cereals, the staff of life, making our farmers more wealthy by millions of dollars. In view of all this, the present does not seem the time to raise the cry: 'Wolf, wolf'.
Let us see how the debt of the country stands. I find from the blue-books that during the regime of the present govern-! meat we have added to the debt of the country in round numbers $65,000,000 during twelve and three-quarter years. Of. that $65,000,000 we have expended no less than $58,000,000 on the Grand Trunk Pacific, including the Quebec bridge. While doing that we expend, not $7,000,000 on the small public works of this country, but i$ 165,000,000, an average of over $10,000,000 per annum, and yet during the whole time we have added but $7,000,000 to the net debt of the country over and above what is invested in the Grand Trunk Pacific railway. I wish to Tefer to a remark of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). At page 1536 of ' Hansard ' he tells the country that during the regime of the Conservative party they added to the debt of the country $118,000,000. But he drew!
attention to the fact that included in that $118,000,000 there is $10,000,000 which was expended for the purchase of 7,500,000 acres of land from, I think, the Canadian Pacific railway, and said that this was a live asset, adding that any fair-minded man) when he counts $118,000,000 as added to the, debt by. the Conservative party, would put $10,000,000 as an .asset on the other side of the ledger. I concede that to the hon. gentleman, I think that would be fair, and I think any fair critic in criticising the addition to the debt made by the Conservative party would take into account the fact that this asset of $10,000,000 was added.
The hon. gentleman from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) yesterday made an argument that if we deducted the cost of the Grand Trunk Pacific we should also deduct the cost of the Canadian Pacific railway. There is a very pertinent reason why we should not deduct the cost of the Canadian Pacific railway, and yet should deduct the cdst of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and I take the hon. member for North Toronto as my authority. The reason is very obvious, because in the one case we own the property, the Grand Trunk Pacific, and we have an asset, as we have the land, but we do not own the Canadian Pacific railway, we have no interest in the Canadian Pacific railway except inasmuch as it operates to bring prosperity to our country. If you allow the $10,000,000 on the one side in the case of the $118,000,000 added to the debt by the Conservative party, you have for the same reason a right to put on the other side of the ledger the expenditure on the Grand Trunk Pacific, because it is admitted that in the near future at any rate, if not today, we will have in the Grand Trunk Pacific a live and valuable asset that will bring interest on its cost, and as I said it is practically the same as if we sold the Grand Trunk Pacific, put the money in the bank, and drew the interest. The hon. member for North Toronto, to whom I give credit for his power of imagination, might have gone as far as to put the $58,000,000 on the other side of the ledger against the $65,000,000 that the government have added to the debt during the last twelve and three-quarter years. If he had done so, he would have seen that only $7,000,000 have been added, represented by over $100,000,000 expended on the lesser public works of this country.


Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR.: The hon. member makes the broad statement that thisi government has reduced the rate of taxation thirteen per cent. I would ask him to name any of the necessities Of life on which there has been a reduction. Has there been a reduction on tobacco, sugar, tea or coffee, groceries of any kind, flour, butter, cheese, cottons, boots and shoes, agricultural implements or hardware? Has there been a reduction made on any of these



articles toy the government? Has there not been an increase?


Mr. LOGGIE.: I do not propose going *over all the list my hon. friend has mentioned, but I will give him one that occurs to me at the moment-not one perhaps that he invests in but one that the poor *fishermen invests in, the man dowp by the *sea and the man back in Ontario where there is no electric light. If he wants to (buy his oil, how much less has he to pay *for it? How much less is the rate of duty *on refined coal oil?


George Taylor: How much does the government tax the people of Canada to make up for that reduction?


William Stewart Loggie: My hon. friend tries to get out of the corner. There has been a reduction on coal oil of about 50 per cent, and a reduction in the rate on sugar equal to about $300,000, I am told. I know *whereof I sneak with regard to coal oil.


George Taylor: Will the hon. member say that coal oil can be got any cheaper to-day than it could in 1896?


William Stewart Loggie: The hon. gentleman is asking me another question now. He is asking me if the market price of coal oil is higher than it was twelve or fifteen years ago. That is an entirely different proposition. What I have tried to explain to the hon. gentleman is that the rates of duty have been cut about fifty per cent.


George Taylor: Name the article on which they have been cut.


William Stewart Loggie: On the article of coal oil. My figures are found at page 14 of the Trade and Commerce report and you will find there the rates on all imports that went through the customs house in 1896 as compared in 1909.


George Taylor: Let my hon. friend compare the dutiable goods for both years 1896 and 1909. Never mind the free goods.


William Stewart Loggie: The hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Wilcox) did that. There is no necessity of repeating what that hon. gentleman did, and I think he did it very well from his standpoint, but if he had wished to be a fair critic he would have taken the average rate of duty on all imports.


George Taylor: No, that is the Grit way of doing it, but it is not fair.


William Stewart Loggie: Now, there are one or two remarks that I want to make regarding the public debt. I have tried to explain that we have reduced the rate of taxation. But I want to tell the .hon. gentleman that we have not only reduced the .rate of taxation, but we have reduced the Mr. G. TAYLOR,
debt rate per capita and I can verify that by the statements in the blue-books.


George Taylor: You are contradicting the Finance Minister now.


William Stewart Loggie: I beg your pardon; the Finance Minister said the very same thing. The debt per capita in 1897, according to the statement in the public accounts was $50,87; in 1909 it was reduced to $45.33, a reduction of ten per cent. But, that is not the best of it. I want the House to bear in mind what the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) said. He wanted to put $10,000,000 on the other side as an investment in land. Take your $58,000,000 from the increased debt and you have your per capita debt reduced to $35.22, or thirty per cent less than it was in 1897. But the hon. member for North Toronto tells us that it proves nothing. If the hon. gentleman had a debt to pay and had his two hands to pay it with I can assure him that if there were other two hands engaged the debt would be more easily paid. I think it proves a great deal. If we owe only practically what we did twelve and three-quarter years _ ago and if we have seven and a half millions of people to pay it instead of five millions of people, it seems to me a very material matter as to whether it proves everything or anything. Now, the hon. gentleman tells us that the pertinent thing is that you have taken $11 per head from the people instead of $5 or thereabouts as was taken by the Conservative party in the year 1896. That might be logical from my hon. friend's standpoint, but oh, if he had the other side to tell, if he had the other picture to present, it would then be a story that would be worth hearing. To my mind the pertinent thing is the rate of taxation, not the amount per head, but at what rate you collect, what the man pays. How is it that we collect more per capita in the way of taxation than the Conservative party did? That is not a very hard question to answer and my hon. friend from Leeds knows the situation quite well. When he was in business he kept the goods his customers wanted. I appeal to him, is not that exactly what he did? If his customers wanted two suits of clothes in the year he kept those two suits of clothes. If those two suits of clothes had to be brought into this country, for example, what happened? Twice as much duty was collected. Why?-because the customers of my hon. friend wanted the goods and the pertinent thing is at what rate did he pay the taxes on those goods. When I point out to my hon. friend that he pays taxes at the rate of thirteen per cent less than the rates that were collected in 1896.


George Taylor: On clothing?


William Stewart Loggie: On the average.


George Taylor: Name the article.


William Stewart Loggie: I said that I was only using this as an illustration, and I mentioned clothing. But, the principle is the same. The framework of our affairs has been repaired in these days of prosperity. It was in a rather rickety condition in 1896, but since we have had some good material to put into it, material from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, since we have had the foundation repaired and the building enlarged we have, in the place of a population of 5,000,000 a population of 7,500,000. The story is a bright one, the picture is not that which has been painted by hon. gentlemen like the hon. member for North Toronto, who on this occasion has cried ' wolf,' when the facts indicate an entirely different position of affairs, but it is one of which every Canadian should feel justly proud. I have some other matters to refer to and I therefore beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Templeman, House adjourned at six o'clock.