1911-03-10

FISHERY REGULATIONS.

Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster).: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) whether the regulations under the Fisheries Treaty of 1908 with the United States have been proclaimed, and if not, what is the obstacle to their proclamation?


Mr. BRODEUR.: They have not yet been proclaimed. I have been informed that a message has been sent to the President of the United States to the Congress recommending the passage of the necessary legislation to put these regulations into force, but I have not been informed that the necessary legislation has been passed. So that- the matter is in statu quo for the present.


Mr. BRADBURY.: When may we expect the report down with regard to the Manitoba Fisheries Commission? I have had a wire to-day from Manitoba asking for it. As it is pretty late in the season, the people there are getting anxious about the matter.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: A report was received by me a few days ago, and I immediately transmitted it to the Printing Bureau to be printed. As soon as it is printed it will be brought down. I expect that it will be ready in a few days.


George Henry Bradbury: Is it possible to get a copy before it is printed, as the printing may take some time?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Only one copy was sent to me. I expect that it will be ready in a few days, as it is not very voluminous. I will call the attention of the Secretary of State to the matter



PRIVILEGE-MR. NORTHRUP.

Mr. W. B. NORTHRUP (East Hastings).: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called, I rise to make a personal explanation as a question of privilege. Last evening, while I was absent from the House, certain references were made to myself and to some remarks which I made last Wednesday, by the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie). So deep is my respect for the dignity of this House, and so sincere my regard for the maintenance of the good reputation of its members, that had the references been only to myself, rather than have marred the pages of ' Hansard ' with the proofs
Mr. McKenzie.
which I shall be compelled to give this afternoon, I would have preferred to have lain under the imputation of being the hypocrite and fool which I must have been had I made the remarks attributed to me. But . as the remarks of the hon. gentleman not only related to myself, but reflected on the honour of the leader of the opposition, and on the fair fame of the Conservative party, I am compelled, however reluctantly, to lay the facts before the House. The hon. member for North Cape Breton, according to ' Hansard,' at page 5124, spoke as follows:
Later on, I think it was yesterday, another front bencher of very high standing I suppose in the Conservative party, evidently very close to the leader of the opposition, and, I presume, when talking on trade questions, voicing the ideas of that hon. gentleman; I refer to the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. North-rup), spoke on the question of protection to coal, and said:
We only bear the duty on coal and iron in consideration of a duty on our products, and since that was the direct bargain made in 1878 and renewed since, as you have broken the bargain, and removed our duties, we will insist that the duty on coal and iron be removed in order that justice may be done. >
That is what we have to expect if our friends on the other side should come into power, and I submit, Sir, that on the ques-[DOT]tion of coal, as I have already explained, whatever is done to-day in the province of Nova Scotia, whatever strides the industry has made, have been made, not because of any assistance or support received from the National Policy, as I have pointed out that during the ten years of the National Policy the great property now known as the Dominion Coal Company coal areas, and that of the Nova Scotia Steel Company across the water, together only produced 700,000 tons of coal, whereas to-day the same properties are producing, under the new legisaltion, something over 5,000,000 tons, all brought about by what is known as the Whitney legislation, a new departure from the old road, in which we travelled for 20 years before that departure was made.
The hon. member who spoke, being not merely a distinguished member of this House, but a gentleman who enjoys the experience of having occupied a seat on the bench for many years, and being therefore acquainted with the consideration of questions of evidence and the construction of documents, when that hon. gentleman chose to say, in the first place, that I was voicing the sentiments of the leader of the opposition, and that, I take it, could only mean the Conservative party-and were there any doubt on this point it is put beyond question by his final words: ' That is what we have to expect if our friends on the other side should come into power '- I think the House will allow me to state what I did say on the occasion in question. Referring to the unrevised ' Hansard'

of last Wednesday, at page 4962, I quote my remarks as follows:
I warn the Finance Minister that if he is as regardless of Iris own province as he apparently is of the Dominion as a whole, the farmers whom he has selected as the particular objects of his animosity, who, of all people, are to he deprived of protection, whose markets are to be given not to the United States but to the world, I warn that lion, gentleman that if he really is true to his newly found and oft-professed although rarely acted-up-to belief in the doctrine of protection, the day is not far distant when the farmers of Ontario will say: We only bear the duty on coal and iron in consideration of a duty on our products and since that was the direct bargain made in 1878 and renewed since, as you have broken the bargain, and removed our duties, we will insist that the duty on coal and iron be removed in order that justice may be done.
I went on:
I, as a protectionist, would be exceedingly sorry to see a movement of that kind on the part of the agricultural element of this country. I think perhaps the most dangerous feature in this measure is the unhappy setting of one class against another, for nobody can possibly argue, even the Finance Minister, and the Prime Minister know it is impossible to argue this agreement on any platform without denouncing the manufacturers and appealing to the farmers. If it is to the interests of this country to set class against class, let us proceed with this discussion, but if not, let us know that the true basis of our national prosperity is a protective policy, then let all classes enjoy it, or as the farmers say, either all shall have it or none, and I am sure there is no man in Canada so rampant a free trader, except possibly the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark), as to believe that it is the true interests of Canada that all protection should be removed from all industries.	Ill'll
I leave the alleged quotation given by the member for North Cape Breton and the full ' Hansard ' report of my words to show whether or not I am justified in calling the attention of the House to what I would consider certainly a misquotation of my remarks. The hon. gentleman, as a judge, knows perfectly well what perhaps some men may not know, but in order to make perfectly clear to him, the difference between a partial and a complete quotation, let me give him an illustration. If I were to look at my hon. friend in the eye and say: The Good Book says: ' All men are liars,' probably he would counter on me by saying:	Yes, but the
Test of the quotation is:	'I said in my
haste, all men are liars.' And, therefore, the Psalmist meant exactly the opposite of what the garbled quotation would have indicated. I trust I have done my duty jn laying before the House this alleged quotation of my remarks and my actual remarks as reported in ' Hansard.'



REPORTS OF BANK CURATORS.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day Deing called.
Mr. FOSTER.: I wish to revert to the return to an order of the House of Corn-mans dated February 6, 1911, for a copy of the curators' reports in the cases of all banks for which curators have been appointed. 1 mentioned the other day, and the Finance Minister took note of it that with reference to the Bank of Yarmouth, instead of the return including the curator's report, it simply included a synopsis of the curator's report what I want is. not a synopsis which may be very different from the report itself, but that which is provided for in the Banking Act, and which the Finance Minister has a right to have, and which the member of parliament has a right to call for. Coming then to the Bank of St. Johns, and the St. Hyacinthe Bank, I think that the only thing brought down is a small page of statistics giving a financial statement, that and that alone. With reference to the other banks, the curators give reports upon the conduct of the banks, and causes that led to the failure and they detail the delinquents and in what matters they have been delinquent, which of course is the only thing that a curator's report is meant for. to give to the Finance Department, after it has given it to the Bankers' Association, an idea of what were the defects, what were the faults, what were the delinquencies, so that, having this knowledge, the department can do what is considered proper either to punish in these cases or to provide that such things shall not easily occur again. Therefore, in the case of the Banque de St. Hyacinthe and Bank of St. Johns I want the curator's report upon the nature of the transactions and the causes that led to the failures. They are given in the case of the St. Stephen bank with great particularity, and I may say that they furnish food not only for consideration, but for legislation. I am certain that the full report from the Bank of Yarmouth will do the same, and I shall be very much mistaken if we do not get profitable information from the curator's reports in reference to the. other banks. Therefore, what I want from the Finance Minister is first the full report of the curator in the case of the Bank of Yarmouth and the full reports of the curators in the cases of the Banque de St. Johns and the Banque de Hochelaga.



APPOINTMENT OF COLOURED PERSONS IN THE CIVIL SERVICE.

Mr. DANIEL.: Is the Minister of Marine and Fisheries prepared to give an answer to the question I asked yesterday in regard to the colour line in the naval service?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I thought at first from the remarks of my hon. friend that he referred to a man who wanted to come as a recruit in the navy, but I understand it is the case of a man who wanted to pass his examination for the inside service. It appears that this mail had not passed his examination for the inside service, but had passed the qualifying examination for the outside service and consequently was not qualified to come into the inside service.


Mr. REID (Grenville).: What about the coloured man the Minister of Agriculture sent out to the agricultural farm?


Mr. FISHER.: The gentleman in question has been sent by the Civil Service Commissioners for temporary service at the experimental farm. He is doing there most excellent service, and everybody there is perfectly satisfied.


John Dowsley Reid: He is looking after the black Minorca hens? Is that it?


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: In the outside service or the inside service?



INQUIRY FOR RETURN.

Mr. JAMESON.: When may we expect a return in regard to the bait freezer at Barrington Passage ordered on the 21st of last month?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I shall make inquiries, I thought that was down.



SUPPLY-TRANSPORTATION IN CANADA.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['Before the Bill is reported, I would like to comment on the remarks of the hon. gentleman with reference Mr. SPROULE.\nto this clause being the same clause that has been in other Bills that we have put through that we should pass this Bill. I do not agree with that? I am not opposing this Bill now, because it is an arrangement between the parties, the Alberta government and the promoters, but otherwise I would oppose it, because I have opposed in the committee all clauses such as this, and I intend to oppose them. It does not make any difference to me that the charters were given with these clauses in that should not have been given; that is no reason why we should continue to give them.\nBill reported.']
Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals).: Mr. Speaker, in taking advantage of this opportunity to make a few observations in reference to the transportation problem of the Dominion of Canada, I presume no apology to the House is needed. I admit at the outset that I fear what I have to say will prove dry and to. a certain extent uninteresting in comparison with the discussions that have taken place in the House in the past few weeks; lout the facts, that I will try to place before the House may be useful in further discussions and although some of the figures I shall give may be found in the annual reports at various places, I think probably that if they are placed on ' Hansard ' it will be more convenient for hon. members to get at them, and that they will be of more practical use than if members aie obliged to find them by looking through the reports.
I am of the opinion that transportation has as much to do with the success- of a country as tariff has. These two are interwoven in a measure, but, certainly, if Mr. DANIEL.
we do not provide the methods by which the wealth producers can get the products of their labours to market at a reasonable rate, with fair speed and in good condition, there is little use of having any tariff, and less use of hunting for markets for these products. I think it is no exaggeration to say that in the matter of perfecting transportation facilities by aid from various sources, Canada, possibly, leads the world in the courage she has shown. There is a difference of opinion as to the propriety of further encouraging these great transportation companies by cash subsidies, by land grant, or by guarantee. It is not the policy of the present government, as I understand it, to any more give aid by way of land grants for the extension of transportation facilities. The land of the Dominion of Canada has become too valuable to give in this way, and the potentialities of increase in that value are so great, on account of the rapid development of the country, that it is more practical to give in dollars and cents any aid we have to give. And. besides, when it is given in this way, the people know exactly wdiat they aie paying for the benefits received. I have no fear of the success, present or future, of the railway companies of the Dominion of Canada. If there be north-and-south lines we must not forget that a line running south that can take traffic from Canadian roads also runs north, and can bring traffic to Canadian roads. And, Canada having the geographical position on this continent that she enjoys ought to be able to more than hold her own in the carrying trade of the continent, other things being at all equal. Our rail routes are shorter and we own the largest portion of the waterways that lead from the west to the east. Under these conditions, it rests, I think, with the people of the Dominion of Canada themselves to say whether they shall maintain their carrying trade, and also to say whether they shall, in the future, do their own carrying trade, and also a portion of the carrying trade of the great country to the south of us.
Let me for a moment refer to the Board of Railway Commissioners. I need not take up much time in pointing out the beneficial work being done by the hoard for this country. It is admitted everywhere in Canada, I think it is admitted outside of Canada, that the Board of Railway Commissioners as now constituted is doing better work than any similar body in the world. And it is the most popular tribunal for the settlement of difficulties in which the people are concerned that exists to-day. I will not go into details to show how many applications have been received during the-year. The figures will he found in the report. Day after day the department rereives word of approval of the work being done by this body. The fact that the-

humblest citizen in the Dominion can come either by letter or personally before this board and get his grievance adjusted, is, to my mind, the outstanding beneficial feature of the board. It has been suggested that counsel should be engaged to protect the interest of the public in cases coming before this tribunal. In any large cases, such as investigations of express companies, this is necessary, and it has been done, but where a farmer has a grievance about a crossing it is not necessary, before this democratic board, that he should have any counsel. He merely writes a letter, and probably by return mail, has the satisfaction of having his grievance redressed and of learning that the railway companies have been asked to do what he wants them to do. There has been added to the staff of the board an operating department, presided over by Mr. Nixon, a very active and prominent railway man. The difficulty heretofore in deciding cases, particularly those between the railway companies themselves, was the absence of a head who had had a great deal of practical experience in deciding what was practical operation of railways. _ Consequently railway companies, with their ablest counsel and their own operating men present, were in the position to take strong ground either way, and it was difficult for the board to arrive at proper conclusions. The chairman of the board. ex-Judge Mabee, suggested that an operating department should be established, the head of it to be a practical man, who could give the board advice, and who would know what was practical or not practical in any orders given by the board, or any requests made. The working of that department ^ has proved very beneficial in disputes arising between railways, or between railways and private individuals, as to operation, the work of the board in this respect has been greatly simplified, and it is much easier to get an early decision than it was some years ago.
It may be of interest to the public to know iust the situation of the railways of Canada. The following figures afford a comparison of mileage of main track in operation:



[Stage Direction]
„„„„	Miles.
J9®1	 18,140
l999	 24,104
_ 1910	 24,731
Increase m one year 1909-1910, 627 miles. Increase for ten years, 1901-1910, 6,591 miles.
In this mileage, the Grand Trunk Pacific line is not included, it being yet operated as an uncompleted road. The mileage under construction on June 30th last was 4,500 miles. If we add the lines under construction to those already in operation we have a total mileage of close upon 30,000 miles in the Dominion of Canada.
159§
The capital invested in railways in Canada is shown by the followin'* figures: CAPITAL INVESTED IN RAILWAYS.
1909		$1,308,481,416
1910		 1,410,297,687
Increase for one year, $101,816,271.
1901	$ 816,110,837
1910	 1,410,297,687
Increase for 10 years, $594,186,850.
Sir, when you look at the comparatively small debt of the Dominion of Canada, and compare it with the amount alone invested in railways in this country, I think it will be recognized that, for the advancement we are making in our transportation facilities, for the advancement we are making in other	lines,	the	debt	of Canada hasbeen kept	down	remarkably	well. Let me
now submit to the House some tables bearing on this question:

[Stage Direction]
1909	$188,963,339
1910	 190,753,062
Increase	$ 1,789,723
This increase was made up as follows:-
By the Dominion	$1,382,192
provinces	 248,531
municipalities	 159,000
In addition to the foregoing cash subsidies, the Dominion in 1910 made a loan of $10,000,000 to the Grand Trunk Pacific.
Land subsidies to the extent of 55,292,321 acres have been given by the Dominion and the provinces, of which 32,040,378 acres were
granted by the former.

[Stage Direction]
Passengers carried':
1909	 32,683,309
1910	 35,894,575
Increase	 3,211,267
1901	 18,385,722
1910	 35,894,575
Increase for 10 years.. .. 17,508,853 Tons of freight:
1909	 66,842,258
1910	 74,482,866
Increase	 7.640,608
1901	 36,999,371
1910	   74,482,866
Increase for 10 years .. 37,483,495 Equal to 101 per cent EARNINGS AND EXPENSES. Gross earnings-
1909	$145,056,336
119)10	173,956,217
Increase	$ 28,899.881
'1901	 72.898,749
1910	 173,956,217
Increase for 10 Oj erating expenses-
,1909.
1910,
years.. ..
[Stage Direction]
$ 15,805,35ft
Increase
[Stage Direction]
1901	 50,368,726
1910	 120,405,440
Increase for 10 years	$ 70,036,714
Net earnings-
1909		$ 40,456,252
1910		 63,550,777
Increase	$ 13,0944525
Equal to 32 -3 per cent.

[Stage Direction]
The railways of Canada added last year to their equipment:
Locomotives	 110
Passenger cars	 138
*Freight cars	 1,934
Company's cars	 789
These additions brought up the available rolling stock to the following numbers:
Locomotives	 4,079
Freight cars	 119,713
Passenger cars	 4,320
Now, the question of transportation is very important as regards the men who are working with their hands as well as with their heads in this work throughout the Dominion. It is customary, in discussing transportation problems, to refer to them as being the property of capitalists, and dominated by them. They are to a certain extent, but the development of our railways, the development of our waterways, is of vital interest to the men who find employment on these railways and on these waterways. Here are the figures: There were in the service of Canadian railways on June 30 last 123,768 employees, whose wage bill amounted to $67,167,703. In addition, there were 16,709 employees engaged in outside operations such as steamers and hotels, whose remuneration amounted to $5,169,923. The aggregate would therefore be 140,477 employees, with a total wage bill of $72,337,626. Assuming that each railway employee represents five persons, it is obvious that about one individual in 10 of our total population finds a livelihood from the railways of Canada.
Now, to put it briefly, these figures show I think these facts:	The year 1910, measured by the increased volume of traffic measured by the earnings, economic administration, satisfactory maintenance, and swelling mileage, and measured by every proper standard, appears to have been the best year in the history of Canadian railways.
Now, leaving railways for a moment, I want to place on record the figures in connection with the canal traffic of the Dominion; because, discuss it as you may, increase our railway facilities as we must, one thing to my mind is absolutely necessary, and that is that Canada must not lag behind in keeping her waterway transportation as fully developed as possible. It is a curious coincidence, perhaps not so curious when you come to go into it in detail, that the greater the increase in railway traffic the greater the increase in canal Mr. GRAHAM	_
and waterborne traffic. That arises from the fact that the volume of traffic is greater and that the regulating force of the waterways on .the rates of railways attracts traffic to those particular routes that are so governed. I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that the way for Canada to secure and to keep for herself an ever-increasing trade is to be alert on the question, not only of railways, but the development of harbours and waterway transportation. Following is a statement of tons of freight passed through the various canals during the years 1909 and 1910:
1909.	1910. [DOT] Increase.
Sault Ste. Marie.27,861,245 36,395,687 8,534,442
Welland	
2,025,951	2,326,290	300,399St. Lawrence..	..	2,410,629	2,760,752	350,123Chambly	
752,117	669,299	82,818Ottawa.'	336,939	385,261	48 822Rideau	
91,774	134,881	43,107St. Peter's.... 79,850	85,951	6,101Murray	
102,291	177,941	75,650Trent Valley..	..	59,952	46,263	13,699St. Andrew's	
8 283	8,283 -Total	33,720,748 42,990 603 9,269,8601901	
5,665,2591910	
42,990,608
Increase for 10 years.. .. 37,325,349 tons.
Equal to 660 per cent.
It will be observed that while the railway traffic increased 101 per cent the waterborne traffic through our canals increased 660 per cent. This emphasizes what I have said that Canada can keep her carrying trade and add to it if she is alert to the privileges that providence has placed in her way in developing the resources and waterways that we have.
Mr. HAGGART (Lanark).: That waterway traffic, the minister must remember, is not Canadian traffic.


George Perry Graham: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would be happy if it were all Canadian, but I am gratified to know that my prophecy has been carried out, and that in addition to carrying Canadian traffic we are also handling a lot of American traffic through our waterways.


John Graham Haggart: We are not carrying it; it is the Americans who are carrying it through our waterways.


George Perry Graham: It is going through our channels at least. It went through the Sault canal.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems a remarkable increase. Can the minister give us any figures with respect as to just how much of this remarkable increase is due to the conditions pointed out by my hon. friend from South Lanark?


George Perry Graham: What conditions?


Robert Laird Borden: American traffic from American ports to American ports passing through our canal at the Sault.


George Perry Graham: I have not those figures with me. Perhaps I can get them when we are in supply.


Robert Laird Borden: They are very important.


George Perry Graham: I do not know that they are important to my argument. I am pointing out the necessity of the continued improvement of our waterways, and I have shown conclusively that our waterways do carry the traffic and that the people get the benefit of it. If we are to continue to have this traffic borne thiuugn our canals we must develop this branch of our transportation system. I have the figures here for all the canals, not only for the Sault but for the Welland, the St. Lawrence, Chambly. the Ottawa, the Rideau, St. Peter's, Murray, Trent and St. Andrew's canals, and these figures show that these waterways have increased more rapidly in their carrying capacity than the railways of which they are the regulators and that if Canada is to retain her hold on the carrying trade she must be' alert to the greater improvement of her "waterways.
Now, I want to point out how the railway traffic is divided. This is a matter of deep interest at the present time to the House. I dare not travel afield to get into some other discussion, but I merely point this out to hon. gentlemen who have been discussing at some length the question of transportation from another standpoint. For the year ended 30th June last following were the classes of commodities carried by the railways of Canada:
Tons.
Products of Agriculture.. .. 12,891,351
animals	 2,765,006
mines	 26,152,022
" forests	 13,068,940
Manufactures	 10,014,279
Merchandise	 2,518,190
Miscellaneous	 7,073,078
Total	 74,482,866


George Eulas Foster: Is this dealing with Canadian products solely?
There is no means by which the volume of farm products shipped to the United States over Canadian railways can be ascertained. Turning to the Trade and Navigation returns, however, it is seen that for the year ended 31st March, 1910, the value of products of agriculture - exported to the United States was $8,204;250, and of animals and their produce $10,629,614. It is not known what was the value of the commodities of these classes carried by the railways. Only the tonnage is reported. It was impossible to trace this out and to find what proportion foreign agricultural products bore to the Canadian traffic, but I would presume that the great bulk was of Canadian production.
I tried to get some figures as to the shipment of our wheat through Canadian and American ports. The figures are a little difficult to get at, and from various sources I find that they come to varying conclusions, but the figures given to me, I think, are practically correct. Of course, it must be borne in mind that these figures include wheat shipped to Buffalo also, and from there to New York and other American ports, while the figures with respect to Canadian ports will include all shipments, I presume, which go to Montreal. The total shipments of Canadian wheat to Canadian and American ports by rail and water for the crop year ending August 30, 1910, are:
Total.	To	To
Shipments. American Canadian
ports. ports. Bush. Bush. Bush.
1908	
65,629,873	10.515,264	55,114,6091909	
87,121,814	21,423,530	65,698,2841910	
101,468,538	29,717,525	71,751,013
*44,396,047	*17,032,391	*27,363,656
(*Three months ending November 30.)
Shipments to Duluth, contained in above totals.
Bush.
1908		 1,571,940
1909		 1,566,700
1910		 4,500,000
The bulk of the shipments to the United
States were exported from that country either as flour or wheat. Dutiable wheat imports into United States from Canada:


George Perry Graham: This is dealing with traffic on Canadian railways without any division as to where it comes from. Put into percentage form, and carrying the comparison back to 1907, the result is as follows:
Bush.
1908	 114,956
1909	 650,601
1910	 1,856,181
1907. 1908. 1909. 1910.
Agriculture	
16.85	14.91	17.91	17.31Animals	
4.37	3.92	4.21	3.71Mines	
32.68	35.92	35.81	35.11Forests	
14.11	10.56	11.82	13.44Merchandise	
4.08	3.18	3.58	3.39Miscellaneous	
9.79	11.02	9.32	9.50
Joining products of agriculture and products of animals, and classifying them as products of the farm, the showing is as follows :
1907. 1908. 1909. 1910. Farm products .. .. 21.22	18.83	22.12	21.02
These are a few general figures as to the traffic which I wish to place on record, and I think they will, perhaps be of use to members of the House in discussing various matters.
Now, Sir, looking to the second point with which I wish to deal, namely, the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, hon. gentlemen understand that I am not going into detail on this subject now, because probably later on there will be a discussion on this question and it would only be repetition

were I to enter into details to-day. But, for the benefit of members of the House, so that they will know exactly how the progress of the work stands, I wish to present the following general statement:


GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
[Stage Direction]
Mountain Section.
Total expenditure as certified to by the chief engineer	$18,765,330 20
Total payments made to the company	,	 11,763,509 61
Prairie Section.
Total expenditure as certified to by the chief engineer	$34,436,168 48
Total payments made to the company upon guarantee	$10,735,482 92
Total payment made to the company on account of special
loan	 10,000,000 00
*

 20,735,482 92
The amount spent by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company for rolling stock, locomotives, &e., up to date is $14,744,253.14.
The progress of the road on the Mountain section- is given to me thus briefly:
It will be noticed that the road is progressing from toe terminus of the prairie division west and ffom Prince Rupert eastward. During the last few months, I had the privilege with the Prime Minister and others, of visiting Prince Rupert and going out on this line for a number of miles towards the mountain pass. It may seem peculiar to those who are not in a position to know, when I say that there are sections of the Transcontinental east of Winnipeg much more difficult of construction than any section through the mountains from Prince Rupert east. Going along the Skeens. river there are distances of several miles absolutely level and the difficulty the contractors have is not to overcome obstacles of grade so much as to overcome the difficulty of draining the railway owing to the level country. We went out for a good many miles over this section, and I believe it will be found in the years to come that this portion of the road running from Prince Rupert east, will tap many fertile valleys of British Columbia, and of *course, we do not know what it will open up in the way of mineral and timber wealth. From Wolfe Creek west the road is ballasted as far as Edson for several miles; track laying has been completed to the 57th mile and grading, &c., has been completed to the 65th mile and at .intervals as far as the 117th mile. The contract for the work has been let as far as the 180th mile, and at Edson there is under construction a station house, one engine house, and one machine shop.
George Eulas Foster: That is up to what date?


George Perry Graham: 


George Perry Graham: Up to December 31 last; I think that is the date speaking from memory. Track laying has been completed as far as mile 102 east from Prince Rupert, and grading, &c., is completed as far as mile 102 and at intervals as far as mile 184. The contract has been let for work as far as mile 240, the contract dating from the 1st November, 1909. At mile 8 (Zanardi Rapids), a 625 foot steel bridge has been completed. At mile 147 the portals of a 700 foot tunnel have been completed. At mile 135 a 180 foot tunnel has been completed.


John Graham Haggart: Would the minister give the percentage of the work done and how long it will take to complete?


George Perry Graham: The percentage is not nearly so large as we would like it to be, but I hope to be able to give a statement as to that later on. The contractors believe that the work will be completed in three years. They make the statement that they have had great difficulty in obtaining labour for that section. When we visited the west they were offering as high as $3 a day for the ordinary labourers, and the statement of the contractors was, that while men who had taken up farms and desired to earn money on the railways, were easy to get on the prairie, these men would not leave the prairie and take employment in the mountain sections. Of course, there are two or three sides of the story of the difficulty. It is contended by some people that the difficulty is, that the men are not treated right, but I will not now discuss that phase as it is foreign to the subject I am now bringing before the House. It is certain, however, that they are offering very high wages, and the reason they give for not being able to get on more rapidly is the difficulty of finding labour. We are in hopes that this season will find the contractors with a full staff on hand and rapidly constructing the road.
Now, coming to the Transcontinental: The portion of the road being constructed by the government from Moncton, New Brunswick to the city of Winnipeg, about 1,804 miles, I have a statement made by the Transcontinental Railway Commission concerning the various contracts.
This statement shows districts, mileages, &c., percentage of work done on each contract, miles of grading done, miles of track laid, miles of telegraph line completed, percentage of steel bridge superstructures completed and total percentage of work done to December 31, 1910, on all these 21 contracts, which appears to be 67-62 per cent. It is as follows:


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
[Stage Direction]
Statement showing Districts, Mileages, &c., and amount of sundry items of work done to December 31, 1910.
District.	Contract No.	Contractor.	Through Mileage of Contract.	Boundaries between Districts.	Per cent of contract completed.	1 Miles of grading com p 1 e t e d in district.	Miles of track laid in district.	Miles of telegraph completed in district.	Per cent steel bridges Completed in district.	Remarks.A.	i	Grand Trunk Pacific Con. Co ..	0- 50	Moncton, N.B.-256 61 miles.	99 50	2	J. W. McManus & Co., Ltd.. .	50- 58	98-43	*50-6	3	Grand Trunk Pacific Con. Co ..	58- 96'42	99 04	f249*92	206 49	81'I	4	II II II	96 42- 163 80	99 36	-	5	W. Kitchen Co., Ltd	163- 8- 195-58	89-87	300 52	6	Lyons & White	195-58- 25661	8871	B.	7	M. P. & J. T. Davis	25661- 310-22	New Brunswick and Quebec boun-	62' 8	8	ii m (East One. Bridge)	31022- 460-45	dary-507'22 miles.	75- 7	*28 05	9	„ ,, (West „	46045- 510-31	88 02	f302'21	186 6	73 9	C. B. 107 miles transferred10	Kin*31- 6HV41	from "C" to "B."11	Grand Trunk Pacific Con. Co ..	610-41- 65683	92 93	330 26	12	Macdonald & O'Brien	656-83- 763-83	28-10	C.	13	ii ii	763 83- 878-80	107 miles west of We\imontachene,	Nil.	*20	Que.-192 1)1 miles.	+15-8	14	Grand Trunk Pacific Con. Co..	87880- 956-74	) Quebec and Ontario Boundary.	-	Nil.	D.C. 31'6 miles transferredD.	14	u „ „	956-74-102880	J 216'11 miles.	66 46	17-8	from " D" to "C."15	E. F. & G. E. Fauquier	1028-80-1128-77	*28.6	16	M. P. & J. T. Davis	1128-77-1172-85	1 144 miles west of Cochrane,	73 04	197-4	H74-4	92	E.	16	II M	1172-85-1232-86	J Out.-255'19 mile3.	12 49	f	71-2	17	II [DOT][DOT]	1232-85-1332-85	j	202 9	18	E. F. & G. E. Fauquier	1332-85-1407-85	Nil.	769	Nil.	Nil.	19	O'Brien, Fowler & Macdougall	1407-85-1428 04	1 399 miles west of Cochrane or	63'45	. 1Bros.	! 125 miles easr of present Lake	55-54	Mileage to west bank ofF.	19	ii ii ii	1428 04-1534 04	f Superior Junction-376 09	*872	Red River but percentage20	ii ii n	1534 04-1557'46	' miles.	8476	346 5	1-298-4	of grading contract covers21	1557-80-1804-13	Winnipeg, Man.	95- 5	266 99	541	385-6	River.* Sidings.	t Main.
Total percentage of work done on all 21 contracts, 67'62 per cent.
Ottawa, January 31, 1911.	H. MacPHERSON, Asst. Chief Engineer.
§049	MARCH 10, 1911	5050
[Stage Direction]
The following statement is an itemized statement of the value of the work done up to December 31, 1910, and an estimate
of the value of the work required to complete, together with the total cost of the road as estimated by the chief engineer:

[Stage Direction]
Statement showing Work Done to December 31, 1910, and Estimate of Cost of
Completion.

[Stage Direction]
Items.
Value of Work done to December 31, 1910.
Value of Work required to complete.
Total Estimate of cost of work.
Grading-contract, items, including clearing, excavation, culverts, sub-structures of bridges, tracklaying, ballasting, ties, signals, interlocking appliances, telegraph lines, fencing, water supply, track scales, temporary trestles and extra work, also pump houses and pumps, and sub-structure of Cap Rouge viaduct	
Right of Way-and expenses	
Rails and Fastenings-including frogs, switches and diamond
x'ings...		
Buildings-including stations, section and tool houses and
divisional point buildings ..		
Steel Superstructure of Bridges-includingflooring	
Surveys-and expenses	
Engineering-and expenses	
Springfield Shops-locomotive shop plant and equipment, including water supply, sewerage system and lighting	
Car shop plant and equipment	
Terminals at Quebec-and line from Quebec bridge to Quebec
city	
Rentals-of joint terminals at Winnipeg	
Headquarters-salaries and expenses	
Total	
69,176,400
1.629.900
8.534.900
664,800
3.342.100 3,987,000 4,398,500
1,117,800
Nil.
19,000
105,000
1.605.100
94,580,500
28,175,800
1.910.100
4.037.100
3.644.200 2,242,900
26,000
2.712.000
1.227.200
1.300.000
4.419.000 95,000
969,900
50,759,200
97,352,200
3.540.000
12,572,000
4.309.000
5.585.000
4.013.000 7,110,500
2.345.000
1.300.000
4.438.000
200,000
2.575.000
145,339,700
Ottawa, February 21, 1911.
Mr. AMES.: Does that include the interest charged?


George Perry Graham: I do not think it does.


Herbert Brown Ames: Will the minister let us have a statement of interest to date, to show how much the money has cost us?


George Perry Graham: I think there is now on the Order Paper a question as to that, which the. Finance Department is to answer. This statement is, I think, more complete than any I have been able to give to- the House before, as previous statements did not include the terminals.
In this connection I might mention that the portion of the line from Winnipeg, or, more, strictly speaking, from a point east of Winnipeg, to Superior Junction has been operated during the last few months in assisting to carry the wheat crop of the Mr. GRAHAM.
H. MacPHERSON,
Aest. Chief Engineer.
west to- the east, joining with the Grand Trunk Pacific's own line at Superior Junction. and the traffic being carried from there to its own elevators at Fort William. The arrangement made with the Grand Trunk Pacific Company I have not yet laid on the table, but I propose to do so.


George Eulas Foster: Is it operating regular passenger trains?


George Perry Graham: I think not. It is operated rather as a contractor's road than as a finished line; but we were anxious that the people of the west- should have the benefit of this other line.


Mr. SHARPE (Lisgar).: How much did they carry?


George Perry Graham: I gave that a few weeks ago.


William Henry Sharpe: What rates did they charge?


George Perry Graham: I have no information as to that, but I imagine they would have to be the same as those of the Canadian Pacific railway and the Canadian Northern. I can ascertain that for my hon. friend.
Another question of great importance, which has been discussed a good deal in the House, is that of the settlement of disputes between the Grand Trunk Pacific Company and the Transcontinental Company as to overclassificaiion and over-hreak. The inspecting engineers of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway and the engineers- of the Transcontinental Railway Commissioners met and adjusted some of the differences. These settlements involved reductions from the contractors' estimates as follows:
District * F '-Contractor J. D. McArthur, $73,022.20.
District ' A '-Contractors Lyons and White, $16,219.10.
District ' B '-Contractors M. P. and J. T. Davis, $1,714.60; Contractors Macdonell and O'Brien, $22,116.02. Total, $113,071.92.
The chief engineer of the company and the chief engineer of the commission were also able to agree in the determination of a portion of the disputes with respect to overbreak on the McArthur contract, which involved a deduction from the contractor's estimates of the sum of $173,667.09. The other point, which is not yet determined, is in reference to 106 cuttings on the McArthur contract. On this the engineers could not agree and they called in the arbitrator, Mr. Collingwood Schreiber. Mr. Schreiber has made a report, which was concurred in by the chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, and the chief engineer of the commission. It is difficult for a layman like myself to arrive at the exact meaning of the report on account of its technical nature; but in discussing the matter with the chief engineer, I find that, in order to ascertain definitely the result of the award in regard to these 106 cuttings, the engineers are now busy figuring it out, and I hope to have their report at an eaTly date.


Mr. LENNOX.: I have heard it stated that there had been a reduction made of about $500,000. Is there any report to that effect5


George Perry Graham: Is that including" classification, rock cutting and over-break together?


Haughton Lennox: Yes.


George Perry Graham: I think not. I asked the engineers to put this in figures as they had it the same way, and I was at a loss to give the House what I thought information, and they put this part of their agreement into figures for me. The chief engineer of
the commission the other day said he was unable to tell me what this would amount to. I could make a guess but it would not be information to the House, and might only lead the House astray, but as there are disputes on 106 cuttings, one would suppose it would be quite a considerable amount. This note is given me:
Mr. Schreiber's award was made on the 19th of January, ultimo, and was concurred in by the chief engineer of the company and the chief engineer of the commission. In regard to this award the chief engineer of the commission reports as follows: With reference to the award on the 106 cuttings which were referred to the third arbitrator, I am unable to say what amount will he deducted until the various awards for solid rock, loose rock, common excavation, train-haul and over-haul on train-hauled material has been worked out by the division engineers for their respective divisions.
These 106 rock cuttings and over-breaks with the items in reference to over-classification covered all the objections raised by the Grand Trunk Pacific as to classification and over-break and practically will form a settlement of the difference between the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Transcontinental Railway Commission.


George Eulas Foster: Has the minister given the figures with reference to the eastern section between Quebec and Moncton?


George Perry Graham: They are all in the return which I placed on ' Hansard '.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Can the minister give more information with regard to the time of completion of the Quebec bridge?


George Perry Graham: I have not been discussing that topic, but expect before long to satisfy all curiosity and place the papers on the table. The time given by the various tenders runs from three to five years.
Another question of vital interest to the people of all Canada is the Welland canal. This canal has a very interesting history. It forms one of the most important links in the waterways transportation on this continent. There has been a good deal of discussion as to the. proprietv of further developing this waterway and in order that I may say a few words intelligently about that I wish to read a concise history of the size, capacity and cost of the Welland canal as it is to-day.


WELLAND CANAL.
[Stage Direction]
Main line from Port Dalhousie, Lake Ontario, to Port Colborne, Lake Erie.
Enlarged Old Line. or
New Line.
Length of canal	 27J miles. 26| miles.
Pairs of guard-gates (formerly 3)	 2
Prs. guard-gates (lift)..	26	25'Number of locks (guard)	1	1
Dimensions-
1 look 200 x 45 1 look 200 x 45 I 1 (tidal) 230 x 45 [ [DOT] [DOT] . 24 locks 150 x 45 J Total rise or lockage.... Depth of water on sills.. Construction commenced, Construction completed.. Enlargement commenced, Enlargement completed..
Welland River
Enlarged Old Line. or
New Line.
.. .. 270 feet x 45
326| feet. 326) feet. 10) feet. 14 feet. 10 ft. 3 in. 1824
	1833
14 ft	1872
	1887
Branches.
Length of canal-
Port Robinson cut to river, Welland, 2,622 feet.
From the canal at Welland to the river, via lock at aqueduct, 300 feet.
Chippewa cut to River Niagara, 1,020 feet.
Number of locks-one at aqueduct and one at Port Robinson, 2.
' Dimensions of locks, 150 by 26) feet.
Total lockage from the canal at Welland down to River Welland, 10 feet.
Depth of water or sills, 9 feet 10 inches.
Grand River Feeder.
Length of canal, 21 miles.
Number of locks, 2.
Dimensions of locks, 1 of 150 by 26) feet, 1 of 200 by 45 feet.
Total rise or lockage, 7 to 8 feet.
Depth of water on sills, 9 feet.
Port Welland Branch.
been going on in connection with the Welland canal but more activity has been shown during the last two or three years; we have had special parties surveying in order to, if possible, find a route for a better and bigger canal, if it is deemed better to build a new canal than to deepen the old one. *
Now, at this point, I cannot define the policy of the government as to what is to be done on the Welland canal; or, rather, I am not in a position at the moment to indicate the time at which it will be done. That it must be done sooner or later, I think everybody in the Dominion of Canada will admit and it is of greater interest to no other people than to the people of western Canada that the Welland canal should be deepened so as to allow large vessels to go at least to the foot of Lake Ontario without breaking bulk. Three routes have been surveyed, and difficulties have been found in each one. I think that, especially for the benefit of members from that portion of Ontario, the House will bear with me, while I read briefly from the report made by Mr. Sullivan, one of the engineers in charge, who, by the way, is a son of our old friend, Senator Sullivan:
Length of canal, XI miles. [DOT]
Number of locks, t.
Dimension of lock, 185 feet by 45 feet.
Total rise or lockage, 7) feet.
Depth of water on sills, 11 feet.
The Welland canal has two entrances from Lake Ontario, at Port Dalhousie, one for the old, the other for the new canal.
From Port Dalhousie to Allanburg, Ilf miles, there are two distinct lines of canal in oi eration, the old line and the enlarged or new line.
From Allanburg to Port Colborne, a distance of 15 miles, there is only one channel, the old canal having been enlarged.
From the head of the Welland canal there is a deep water navigation through Lake Erie, the Detroit river. Lake St. Clair, the Sr. Clair river, Lake Huron and River St. Mary to the Sault canal, a distance of about 589 miles. From the Sault the distance through Lake Superior to Port Arthur is 266 miles, and to Duluth, 400 miles.
Amount spent in construction, $7,693,824.03-enlargement, $20,644,791.99; total, $28,338,616.02!
My reason for pointing out the difference in distance from the Sault to Fort William, Port Arthur and Duluth is that grain carrying vessels in the busy season desire to make all the trips they can and while a few miles by rail-haul can be overcome in a very brief space of time it is not so with ship carriage, and Port Arthur and Fort William have the advantage in allowing vessels to carry grain to and from these ports and make a greater number of trips during the season than they could make if they go all the way to Duiuth.
It may be of interest to point out to the House that for some years surveys have
On Route No. 1. Following the present canal from Port Colborne to about three miles below Welland, thence towards Fonthill and via the Twelve and Fifteen Mile creeks to Lake Ontario, extensive surveys had been made, and a good location accompanied by some not insurmountable difficulties obtained, when borings taken at the sites of two dams located on the Twelve Mile creek developed a heavy bed of quicksand underlying both foundations. Since Mr. Weller's report of October 8, 1910, a readjustment of the location of some of the locks was considered, with the object of utilizing a very probable site for a darn, which would have a less head acting oil it and which was located further down the creek. Borings taken at this point developed quicksand quite as extensive as at the original site. As the feasibility of this route depends very much upon the construction of these dams further borings are to be made in an effort of finding or exhausting the means of building them. These borings I expect to have started in a week or ten days.
Route No. 2 follows the present canal to Allanburg, thence along the level country west of Thorold to the escarpment, the descent of which would require locks in flight, thence to the old canal at St. Catharines and via it to Port Dalhousie. Some borings have been made at probable lock sites on this route with the result that in some cases rock was found at too great a depth to he used for a foundation, and at other points quicksand was developed. A personal examination of the conformation of the escarpment indicates difficulties in locating the flight of locks. However, it is intended later on to have a line run over this route which, with the information obtained from the borings, will demonstrate whether it is at all feasible.
George Perry Graham: 


John Graham Haggart: Can the minister say how far from Port Colborne is the entrance to this third route?


George Perry Graham: Several miles, I think.


John Graham Haggart: It would not be possible to utilize the entrance there?


George Perry Graham: No, that would be one objection, to my mind, to this route. Of course, I am not speaking officially, but personally and without having gone into it in detail on the ground. But the advantages of this route would have to be very great, to my mind, to justify us in giving up the work done at Port Colborne.


John Graham Haggart: I think it is the best route, and the one on which the canal ought to have been built at first.


John Graham Haggart: It would mean the abandonment of an expenditure of nearly $5,000,000.


Mr. LALOR.: Has any investigation been made of the Port Maitland route?


George Perry Graham: Is that covered by this route No. 3, which commences on Lake Erie, east of Morgan's Point? My hon. friend knows the locality better than I do, and can inform me as to that.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: That is a little west of Port Colborne.


George Perry Graham: Yes, a few miles west.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I may be prejudiced, and so may other people in. my district, but Senator McCallum, who was one of the best authorities on navigation and shipping, always maintained that the Port Maitland route, was the best. I hope the minister will take that into consideration, as he promised he would.


George Perry Graham: I made a note of it at the time, and called the attention of my engineers to it. Before finality is reached in regard to this matter, we must gather all the best opinions we can. In a former construction of the canal, the matter was regarded as of such importance, I believe, that the government of that day appointed a commission to make investigation.
Now, the objection has been raised that, even if the Welland canal were enlarged, wheat would go through that canal and go to Oswego and he there transferred for New York. Personally, I cannot agree with that opinion. The new Erie canal from Buffalo to New York is to be only 12 feet draught. We now have a canal of 14 feet draught. It is true that a considerable portion of our grain goes through Buffalo, to New York-not so much as it did a few years ago. But, it takes the Buffalo and New York route, not because that is a better water route, for it is not. To my mind, the fact is, that up to the last few years, we have not had the terminal facilities at Montreal and elsewhere to handle the grain coming from the west. And I believe that this parliament is justified in dealing liberally with the harbour commissioners of Montreal, to provide all possible facilities for handling the grain traffic which comes from the great west. With that done, there is no danger, to my mind, that a longer, slower and dearer route can ever compete with the Canadian waterways route.


George Perry Graham: There may be advantages sufficiently great in this route to justify us in going to another point than Port Colborne.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: May I ask, has there ever been, within the knowledge of the minister, any congestion of the wheat traffic at Montreal?

5060"


George Perry Graham: I am informed that congestion is one of the greatest difficulties. And while, there is a very marked improvement, and while a lot of money is being spent there, yet, that being the outlet for traffic coming through from all Canada west of Montreal, it is in our own interest that we make it as perfect as possible. My hon. friend will agree with me that what did yesterday in the west will not do at all to-day. Conditions are changing. It is a marked fact that in Montreal, which is the gateway to Canada from the east during the season of navigation, the value of property has gone up as rapidly as it has in the city of Winnipeg, or in any western city, and largely due, to my mind, to the enormous growth of western Canada, as well as to the development of other parts of Canada. But what I was trying to point out was that we must not neglect that part of our transportation facilities, and while we are bringing traffic to them, we must be liberal in our expenditure in our own interest, and see that every facility is afforded in order to ship these goods as quickly and as cheaply as possible through the Canadian gateway to the great European market.
Now let me go back to the Welland canal proposition. I have had some correspondence-I am not at liberty to give the names of the gentlemen with whom I am corresponding-but I say to the House that they are in touch absolutely with the grain carrying trade of Canada and of the United States. They know the Oswego situation, perhaps better than any man in the House. I have obtained some information from these gentlemen as to their idea concerning the expressed fear that if we deepened the Welland canal, traffic would go down through that canal and then to New York via Oswego. Personally I have not the faintest fear of that. All these past years it could have gone down in a small canal as opposed to our greater one. But as I am pointing out, by having waterways and a clear open lake and river channel down to within a short distance of Montreal, even if the St. Lawrence canal were never deepened, grain can be carried from Oswego to Montreal as cheaply and more quickly than it can be carried to New York, even by their enlarged canal. So there is no fear on that score. As I have pointed out, if we look after our business properly, the transportation facilities will be to our advantage, because grain can be handled more cheaply in Montreal than it can be in New York city. Now let me tell you something of what I have learned. That canal is limited to a depth of 12 feet, ours is 14 feet now. If ours were enlarged, there is no doubt that we would take the traffic through the Welland canal any way to some point down on the lake at the foot of lake navigation.


Glenlyon Campbell: 


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Are you speaking now of the new Erie canal?


George Perry Graham: It was rumoured years ago that they were going to make that canal 14 feet, my information is that the probabilities are it will be confined to 12 feet. That was the original idea, that was the depth proposed when the grant of $101,000,000 was made for the construction of that canal.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: What is the proposed depth of the Georgian Bay canal?


George Perry Graham: The figures are given for 22 feet.


John Graham Haggart: Twenty-two feet on the mitre sill, and a 20-foot or 21-foot navigation.


George Perry Graham: Sometimes you can drag it over a little more.
There seems to be no estimate of the amount of traffic that the new Erie canal is expected to carry. But let me point out that a great many of our best transportation experts think that the railways, even if that canal is constructed, would continue to carry the greater amount of agricultural products, such as grain, from Buffalo to the east. Now, let me give the distances, and point out just what the situation is; because we in Canada have the natural advantage and we dont want to be driven away from that fact, we possess the natural advantage and our duty is to see to it that we make the best possible use of that advantage. The distance from Oswego to Albany by the new canal is about 170 miles from Albany to the Battery in New York 150 miles. Now, by the Hudson river, from New York to Poughkeepsie is 75 miles, and has an 18-foot depth; from Poughkeepsie to Kingston 20 miles, 14-foot depth; from Kingston to Albany the distance is 55 miles, where the canal is only 10 feet. On the old canal it takes about 10 days for a boat to go from Oswego to New York with a towed cargo; they must carry this in barges, because a vessel that can only go through ten feet of water is not big enough to be called a ship in these days. On the old canal it takes 10 days to go from Oswego, and on the new canal it would take them about seven days. Now, compare that with the time it would take to convey a cargo bigger than that from Oswego to Montreal, and the difference is altogether in favour of the St. Lawrence route. Now, you may ask why does it take so long to go that distance. On account of the great locks, it is necessary to go from Oswego up 175 feet, and then you have to drop 420 feet before you get to New York, and in a canal going over that height of land and down again, a canal of ordinary capacity, one can understand the time that would be necessarily taken up in the lockages. That .is one of the things we are going to try to overcome

in the construction of the new Welland canal, to reduce the number of lockages, because every hour saved in transportation [DOT]of the people's produce means an addition to the price the people will get.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Why do you mention Oswego? Would not Buffalo be more likely to
be the port for western grain?


George Perry Graham: The reason I spoke with reference to Oswego was this, that a strong Argument has been put up against deepening the Welland canal, the argument being that we would assist the Americans to bring wheat down through the Welland canal, and ship to New York via Oswego. They .would use our Welland canal to bring their ships through, and not break bulk until they got to Oswego. But I say there is no danger, even if they brought them through that way, because Montreal can be reached much more quickly than New York.
There is another thing. I believe that to [DOT]develop the cost of terminal facilities that would be necessary for a greatly improved traffic, or increased traffic, would be so enormous in the city of New York that it would far more than overcome any difference of rates that may exist by the St. Lawrence route. At the present time there is a difference, there is a large charge in the city of New York, amounting to quite a tax on the transfer of grain. The charge in the harbour of Montreal, although complained of by some, is comparatively light. It has been stated, and is true, that for a portion of the year, and a portion of the year only, the insurance rates by the St, Lawrence route are sufficiently high to make a difference. But the improvements that have been made in the St. Lawrence, and are being made, and are still to be made, will positively reduce the necessity for an increased insurance. So if at the port of Montreal, taken in connection with the St. Lawrence route, we do our duty as Canadians, the St. Lawrence route will be placed in a far superior position to any American route that can be proposed. I have some figures in reference to that question, but I will not enter into them at the present time.
My hon. friend behind me has said that the Georgian Bay canal route is the route. I would discuss the question of the Georgian Bay canal route at greater length but for the fact that it is not in my department, and I am supposed to be discussing questions connected with my department. I might say distinctly that I believe it is in the interest of Canada from one end to the other to enter upon both enterprises and at a not very far distant date. We must remember that when we bring the products of the great west to the east the products of the east are carried back to the west,
and if we could take the time to go into the prospects for increasing that trade in a few years, we would arrive at a conclusion that it is necessary-in the interest of the Canadian carrying trade?-no, it is necessary in the interest of the people who produce in Canada, as well as who buy goods in Canada, that these two great waterways should be developed by the people of Canada, and I believe that no greater interest would accrue from any investment that the people could make than that which would result from the development of these two waterways. My hon. friend will see that I am quite clear upon this subject, and that the diffidence I have about discussing it in detail only arises from the fact that it is not in my department, but I believe in this project just the same.
There is another transportation problem that is opening up before us, and I hope the House will allow me to digress for a moment semi-seriously, because I am at a loss what to call this new project-whether Hudson's bay or Hudson bay.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I would call it the Taft canal-Taft's big scheme.


George Perry Graham: I am not referring to that; I am referring to a Canadian scheme., I am at a loss whether to call this new project the Hudson bay route or the Hudson's bav route. The division in the government will not be serious.


David Henderson: I notice that one of them is going to resign over it.


George Perry Graham: My colleague the hon. Minister of Justice (Sir Allen Aylesworth) has a great number of authorities for saying that it must be Hudson's bay. I might make a slip in not calling it by the right name, but I am confronted with the fact that away back in 1897 the following order in council was passed:
His Excellency, by and with the advice of the Queen's Privy Council.
And so on, and this is the concluding paragraph:
His Excellency is further pleased to order and direct that all questions concerning geographical names in the Dominion which arise in the departments of the public service shall be referred to the Board, and that all departments shall accept and use in their publications the names and orthography adopted by the Board.
I find on page 46 of this publication that the board says that we should say Hudson bay and straits, and not Hudson's bay; so, I am in a quandary to know which authority I should follow. In order that there may be no misunderstanding, I will refer to it as the new route to be opened up between the great west and the European markets. To begin at the beginning would be a serious proposition. That route

has been used for many years by traders and by companies-I think I might say a particular company-and I may be pardoned for adding that I believe that company has not been awfully anxious for any of the rest of us to make any particular investigation of its possibilities. What is known as the Hudson bay route, in so far as the waterway is concerned, has been used before we were bom, particularly those of us who are young. The question of building a railway to Hudson bay is not at all new. I suppose that if we were to mention the name of a particular individual in connection with the project of building a railway to Hudson bay the man whose name would be mentioned would be Mr. Hugh Sutherland.


John Graham Haggart: Oh, long before his day.


George Perry Graham: This is recent history. Away back about 1882, I think, he was discussing it. He obtained from the legislature of Manitoba in 1885 a bonus of a million dollars, but he was to complete the road within five years. He failed to get the capital. In 1886 the offer of aid w.as altered to a guarantee of four per cent on $4,500,000 for 25 years. Even with this pledge of assistance he was unable to proceed. Some years later, I think about 1890, perhaps a little later-that was changed again, and the government offered to give 12,800 acres a mile and $6,400 of a subsidy. That also failed. I think I may safely say that, all private effort having failed to get the railway to Hudson bay, the government shows its usual wisdom and courage in taking up the matter itself. The federal government has at different times sent four or five expeditions up to the bay and the straits. As a matter of fact, the question of the ice difficulty is not at the bay, but is in the straits.


David Henderson: Does there exist at the present time any land grant subsidy to aid the construction of the Hudson Bay railway?


George Perry Graham: No. I think not. As indicated in reference to one or two other projects, hon. gentlemen will, I think, not find in the main estimates an item for the Hudson Bay railway. I think there is no large item for that work, but I am not giving away anv secrets when I say that the House will be asked to discuss and consider a vote for the construction of the Hudson Bay railway before we rise. Just two or three figures from a pamphlet that was issued by the Department of the Interior and prepared by Mr. McKenna. The figures are approximately correct, but changes in routes of railways and certain surveys they have made may, perhaps, not exactly correspond with these figures. However, I have chosen these because they Mr. GRAHAM.
are the most convenient, and I therefore propose to use them:
The Canadian Northern has reached the Pas on the Saskatchewan river, and from there to Churchill is some 467 miles. With that distance spanned, Winnipeg, which is, via the Canadian Pacific railway, 1,422 miles from Montreal, would be within 945 miles of Churchill. Brandon is 1,555 miles from Montreal, from Churchill, 940. Regina is 1,780 miles from Montreal, from Churchill, 1,200. Medicine Hat is 2,082 miles from Montreal, from Churchill, 1,500. Calgary is 2,262 miles from Montreal, from Churchill, 1,682. Prince Albert is by the shortest rail routes, 1,958 miles from Montreal, from Churchill some 717. Edmonton is, by the shortest rail routes, 2,247 miles from Montreal, from Churchill, 1,129. And these distances by rail to Churchill are measured over existing railways that were built for carriage east and west. With a railway from the Pas to Churchill, roads would be built over the shortest routes between important centres and that port. With a direct connection between Regina and the Pas the distance to Churchill from that centre would be 774 miles, from Medicine Hat it would be 1,076, from Calgary, 1,256 miles.
Churchill is 2,946 miles from Liverpool, while Montreal via Belle Isle is 2,761 miles and via Cape Race, 2,927 miles; and New York by the northern route is 3,079 miles from Liverpool.
In a recent trip to western Canada this question among others came up at an interview held with the Prime Minister in Brandon, and in the course of the short reply which I made I intimated that this would be a magnificent route for the carrying of cattle from the west, a remark which then caused a smile, and some of my confreres of the press looked upon it as sufficient of a joke to record it. Now, I would like to call the attention of them all to the fact that this is one of the principal statements made by the Grain Growers' Association of western Canada. I want to say to the farmers of Ontario that in mixed farming, cattle raising and dairy products, the province of Alberta in a few years to come will be one of the greatest producers in the known world. That province is not given up so entirely to wheat raising as is Saskatchewan, but, the character of its rolling land, its ample supply of water, its stretches of bush land, all point to it as a magnificent country for mixed farming and a great producer of good stock and of the best dairy products. While in that country I asked to be given samples of the butter produced at the creameries, and while in several places I found creameries working under government supervision, there was one large creamery run entirely independent of government recognition by a gentleman whose parents, if not himself, were natives of Denmark. I am somewhat of a judge of dairy products, living in the centre of a splendid dairy district in Ontario, and it is just as well for us in the east to know that the

butter produced in Alberta is equal to the butter produced in any other part of the Dominion. You might call it gilt-edged butter, it is of fine flavour and splendid texture. I take it that the development of the dairy industry in Alberta will result in a great increase in the profit from farming. That country is splendidly adapted for stock raising, and what is more natural, where you can place live stock on a train to-night and have them carried to an ocean port in a journey of one or two cool nights and one comparatively cool day, and shipped by a comparatively icool water route, than this that live stock will be taken to the markets of the world in better condition than by a [DOT]long hot rail haul. That idea certainly seems most reasonable.
Sir, the Hudson Bay railway will afford an outlet for the products of the farmers of western Canada; it will carry their dairy products, their live stock, as well as their grain products, quickly to market, and perishable goods will be landed in a much better condition on the consuming markets of the old country than couia possibly result from transportation by any other route. It is considered by some to be an experiment. Well, be it so, but the government that hesitates to make even an experiment in what it believes is not worthy the confidence of the people. I believe the Hudson bay route will prove beneficial to the people of the west, and the people of the west being prosperous and getting more money in their pockets for the sale of their goods, they will be able to spend more money in eastern Canada for the purchase of goods there. Well, Sir, the government propose to proceed with this *work. It is not a small task; it is estimated that it will cost well in the vicinity of from $25,000,000 to $30,000,000, which will include, I believe, elevators, wharfs, &c. But, if we add to that-and my hon. friend (Mr. Haggart) will agree with me that I generally do add to the engineers' estimates-if we add to that five or six million dollars I believe the money would be well expended. If it were the railway alone it would be a comparatively small project, but in working out the enterprise arrangement has to be made for a steamship service, so that the produces of the country may not only be carried to an elevator on the banks of the Hudson bay, but that they may be taken the speediest way to the markets of the world, so that the farmers will get the highest price. The Hudson Bay railway will not only enable the western farmer to ship his goods by a quick and safe route, but I believe the opening up of the Hudson bay will benefit the coal areas in the eastern part of the Dominion, which is a matter of interest to my hon. friend from North Cape Breton, and indeed to all hon. members from eastern Canada. I am informed by those who have given
this matter some study that the opening up of the Hudson bay route will enable vessels sailing with a cargo from the old land to make Sydney a port of call, where they will take on a cargo of coal and proceed to the Hudson bay, thus giving the people of the west the advantage of the splendid quality of coal that is produced in eastern Canada and developing that interprovincial trade about which we have heard so much during the last few weeks.


Mr. SPROULE.: What is the distance from Sydney to Hudson bay?


George Perry Graham: I will get that information for some other occasion, when I will deal with this question more in detail. I understand, however, that Churchill is practically the same distance from Liverpool as is Montreal.


Mr. STANFIELD.: Has the minister any information as to the rate of insurance on cargoes by the Hudson bay route?


George Perry Graham: It is possible and prob-, able that at first the rates of insurance may be a bit heavy, but, during three or four months of the navigation there is no reason why they should be any heavier than by the St. Lawrence route. There are optimists, and I am inclined to believe a little with them, who say that with the advances we are making in science it will not be many years until a way will be found to keep the Hudson straits open for a great deal longer time than four months.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Has the minister any information as to the amount per bushel of wheat, or per 100 pounds, the Hudson bay route will cheapen transportation?


George Perry Graham: Unless it be for the higher insurance there is no reason why a bushel of wheat should not be carried as cheaply from Churchill to Liverpool as from Montreal to Liverpool. The insurance may have some influence on it, but we hope to be able in a few years to so improve that channel, if the project proves a success, as I believe it will, that even the insurance will not militate against the route.


George Eulas Foster: One or two points I would like the minister to address himself to. First, as to the time when cattle are shipped from the Northwest. I suppose they would have to be ready for shipment by the first of September at the latest in order to get them, out by the Hudson bay route. Then, I suppose it would be impossible to have the grain of one season shipped out the same year? Would not the cost of storage and the depreciation of grain at the elevator count as a factor in the increased cost? The third point is this: The vessels which are built for that service must be of a peculiar kind, and they will be employed there only four or five months of the year. What

is the possibility of their obtaining paying traffic for the other seven months of the year?


George Perry Graham: There is a difference of opinion among the shipping men with whom I have discussed the matter as to the necessity of peculiarly constructed ships. But even if they were peculiarly constructed, that would not render them useless at another port, though they -would perhaps, not be so useful as they would be if otherwise constructed. With regard to shipping cattle, I understand that_in Alberta cattle are fattened on June grass, and if they are fattened up to September, the navigation of Hudson Bay is open till November.


John Graham Haggart: Till October.


George Perry Graham: The reports say that it is open till November. Then, we* may be able to do some of the Dakota trade as well as our own, as it may come on a little earlier. I think you can commence shipping wheat in September at feast, which would give two clear months to Tush the wheat traffic, and I think facilities should be provided for rushing that traffic in those two months as rapidly as possible. But there is to my mind, no reason why wheat wil'l deteriorate in an elevator at Fort Churchill any more than at Port Arthur.
My hon. friend mentioned a few moments ago the question of the Trent canal. T admit that I had not that question in my notes, but if I did not refer to it, my silence might be misconstrued. The question of the Trent canal is one which has been before the country for a great many years. This much I wish to say concerning that work, that it will open up one of the most beautiful tourist countries on the continent of America; and, outside of any traffic which it may bring to the people of the section through which it runs, or from lake to lake, I believe a great good will -come to them from it. It is a work to which we have been committed for years, and the more I see of it, the more I am convinced that it is going to be money well expended; and the more I -see of what is done in other countries, in connecting -waterways by means of even shallow canals, the more I am convinced that the money spent on that work will bring a good return to the people of Canada.
I would like to refer to the development [DOT]of the water-powers along the Trent canal. I think it was in the year 1905 that the Ontario government, by an arrangement, handed over to the federal authorities the different works that had been constructed along the chain of lakes which form - part *of the Trent canal system. For years the Mr. FOSTER.
Ontario government, in connection with the lumbermen, I think, 'maintained certain dams and other works along those lakes and streams. Negotiations were begun in the time of the Ross administration between the Public Works department of Ontario and the Department of Railways and Canals at Ottawa. It was contended by the Ontario government that when these works were given over to the Dominion, the province ought to be allowed to retain any water-powers which would be developed by the construction of more dams or the enlargement of existing dams. Although I was a member of the Ontario Legislature at the time I do not think that was a good contention. The Dominion government, in taking over all these works had the right, it seems to me, to the water powers which accrue from the taking of them over. However, the present Ontario government dropped that contention and came to an arrangement by which all these works, with the control of the water-powers, came to the Dominion government. I found this situation when I took office, and there was a most peculiar condition of things along that route. There were old patents, nearly a hundred years old, which gave to the riparian owner not only his land, but the bed of the stream, the water-powers, and every other right in the land. I found some of these men enjoying absolute ownership of water-powers without any development. There was a different situation arising every few miles, as the patents were issued at different times. It was a difficult problem to work out. I believed then, and I am confirmed in that, opinion to-day, that the water-powers along that route, should be developed only incidental to navigation. May I give to the House a little idea of my own in political economy on this subject? We have in our hands in Canada a means, in addition to tariffs and in addition to transportation, of protecting our manufacturers and making them equal if not superior in productive capacity to any others in the world. We have in Canada sufficient water-powers, I believe, to make this country the manufacturing centre of the world.


George Henry Bradbury: You are giving the western water-powers away.


George Perry Graham: To whom are they given?


George Henry Bradbury: To companies.


George Perry Graham: For what?


George Henry Bradbury: We do not know yet.


George Perry Graham: Every one that is leased, I believe, is given on the condition that it must be developed, on the principle that the man who develops that water-power can

produce goods as cheaply as they can be produced anywhere else in the world.


George Henry Bradbury: You are not giving the Wafer-powers to jmanufacturers, but to companies to sell the power and speculate with it. They have control of the whole Winnipeg river.


George Perry Graham: If there is a condition that a water-power must be developed, then the development must bring the return, otherwise the grant will be cancelled. I do not believe that conservation of water-powers means tying them u>p and looking at them. That would be acting on the same principle as the miser who puts his money in his sock, instead of Rising it or depositing it in the hank and getting interest on it, or putting it into business. There is no use of our saying that we own millions of dollars' worth of water-powers. They are not worth five cents to Canada if they are simply left to run down the rapids. They only become valuable as we utilize them in a way to get the best returns from them for the people of Canada to whom they belong. Believing in that, I attempted to work out a policy along the Trent Valley canal. I found that the Hydro-Electric Commission had made some investigation there and had arrived at the conclusion that the only way to do it, was to have all under one control, at least for transmission; that to leave the powers in separate entities would not mean the development of all the power or the transmission to_ the municipalities in the district., I might say in this connection, that notwithstanding what has been said, I believe that no person will be found in the Ontario House or in the Ontario government to say that when I was a member of that legislature I opposed their cheap power project. As leader of the opposition, I did nothing of the kind and I refer my friends to the record. I alivays said that it was a big problem; I disagreed in some very minor details with the powers taken by the Hydro-Electric Commission, particularly in reference to private property, but on the general principles of giving the people cheap power, I encouraged the HydroElectric Commission in the Ontario legislature, and said if they could do that for the people, they would accomplish a great good. I believed that along the Trent Valley system, we could work out, without resorting to public ownership, a scheme which would give the people cheap power. Two policies were presented to us. One was to put the various powers up at auction and get the most money we could for them. That might have been good policy for the finances of Canada, but it would 160
be an ancient and retrogressive policy. I wanted to get a policy that would first ensure development and secondly send the power to the greatest number of communities. I found that the Ontario government at Healey's Palls had certain rights, but had leased them to the Northumberland Power Company. The Northumberland Power Company was composed of a large number of shareholders from different parts of that section of the country and they waited on me on two occasions, the deputations being so large that I had to take them to a large committee room. We discussed it and I found that they were much interested not to make money personally, but to get w'ater-power to the various municipalities; that was their chief object. In general this was the plan we adopted. We came to a man who owned a water-power who had been owning it and using it for years; we said to him: Make over to the government of Canada your vested right in dam and water-powers, and we will develop with our new dam, which we need for canal purposes-as we built only those needed for navigation and the waterpower development was incidental-and we will, with our extra development, hand back to you all the water-power you have now and are enjoying, free of cost and we will charge you $2 per horse-power for and sive you the first right to get the surplus. We thought that was fair. It would look as if we were giving the water-power cheaply, but in doing that in every one of these leases, to these men, I put in a clause that the rates to be charged for the water-power thus developed, must be regulated by the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada. The result has been that another question arose. They said: Now we want to get a large company to take charge of these powers, and control them, if it is possible, so as to make one transmission line to distribute the power as far as possible. My advice was asked and while hon. gentlemen may not agree with me, I said: Yes, I will take no objection to it; but on one consideration, you must not over-capitalize the company and the rates of the company must be subect to the Board of Railway Commissioners in every instance. That plan is now being worked out and the result is that while it is in a way a bold policy, because those who object to water-powers being given at a low rate, can criticise and they have some argument on their side, the policy in my mind is favourable to the people getting cheap power, because we keep control of the price of that power in every instance. What is the result? That the power being distributed by that company to-day in central Canada, I_,believe, is the cheapest power, all things considered,



that there is in Canada. That may be putting it strongly, but I believe not too strongly. The rates collected are very cheap. They are now distributing power in several centres, they have made contracts with a large number of municipalities from which these gentlemen came, who were the original shareholders in the Northumberland company, and when I tell the hon. gentlemen that the largest vote polled in any municipality against giving a franchise to this company at the price named was only 19 votes, they will agree with me that the people of that section think we are doing a good thing for them in the power problem.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it a perpetual franchise?


George Perry Graham: I do not -know the arrangement, but I imagine that under the new Ontario law, a perpetual franchise would not be allowed. I think I am safe in saying that in no municipality have they asked for a monopoly or exclusive franchise, so sure are they that they can compete with any company.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has the minister ever considered how far the federal government are justified in taking possession of streams, diverting them for navigation purposes and then selling the power developed by these canals to private individuals, without making any return to the provinces from the revenues thus derived?


George Perry Graham: Navigation, of course, comes under the federal authority and any work that is necessary for navigation would be under Dominion jurisdiction. However, I do not care to discuss the constitutional question. Along the Trent special conditions existed and any rights the provincial government had, they gave to us by agreement.


John Graham Haggart: Has the minister considered that where he provides cheap power for a particular locality, he should in principle, supply it to the whole Dominion?


George Perry Graham: If it could be done, I would be glad to attempt to work out that problem, and if the House would let me, development on the Rideau might be considered, I am sure it could be solved, so that we could supply power east to Smith's Falls, Kingston, Perth, Kemptville,_ Mer-rickville and Gananoque, and possibly Brockville. It is a subject that is worth looking into and discussing. We find in Ontario that the west particularly, is getting cheap power; Toronto, for instance, gets cheap power. The distance from Niagara	to the
central part of Ontario is so great that if power could be developed cheaply in that Mr. GRAHAM.
district, it would be a great -advantage. I believe it would be one of the best ways to assist the manufacturers and those needing any power if where we have power in sight, we should develop it and place the control of rates under the Board of Railway Commissioners, so that our manufacturers will be able to compete with any people in the world.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Reverting to the Hudson Bay railway, has the government decided whether the terminal will be at Fort Churchill or Fort Nelson?


George Perry Graham: We have not decided which would be the proper port-Nelson or Churchill. The surveys of the Railway Department show that, from a railway standpoint, Nelson would be the port. There are a great many people who consider that Churchill would be better. The Marine Department sent out parties to make a thorough examination. They have been able to make a partial report, but not a complete one. But the fact that we have not that report at the present time will not interfere with the beginning of construction ; because, for a distance of 170 miles from Pas mission to Split Lake, the route will be the same which ever port is chosen. So we can go on with the present construction, and when the port is determined the road can be continued.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Before the minister leaves the subject of canals, he should deal with the Newmarket canal.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) never lets me forget that. We will discuss it in detail if he desires, when we get into Committee of Supply.


Mr. SEXSMITH.: Before the hon. minister leaves the subject of canals, can he tell us what the government charges the Seymour Power Company for power?


George Perry Graham: The companies owning power were given the balance of the power at $2 per horse-power. I believe the Seymour Company is the large company. What arrangements they have made with private holders for power I do not know.


John Albert Sexsmith: There is only the Seymour Power Company now. They control the power of the Trent canal.


George Perry Graham: The Seymour Power Company originally had certain water-powers in that locality. They may have acquired others from private holders. What arrangement they have made with those private holders, I do not know. But we in dealing with these companies, placed an upset price of $2 per horse-power; and, at that figure, speaking from memory, the income derived by the government from power developed aiong the Trent canal will pay a respectable interest on the dams erected.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is that for a 24-hour day?


Mr. GEAHAM.: I shall be able later on to give details as to the figures to be paid.
Now, homing to the Intercolonial:	if
there is any gentleman in this House, or elsewhere, who has conceived the idea that it is an easy thing to manage, either through a board or in any other way, a state-owned railway in this Dominion, he is seized of a wrong conception. I have discovered two very difficult things to deal with-among the very many difficult things that there are to deal with. One is the Quebec bridge and the other is the Intercolonial railway. I am not sure which of these would take the prize in a competition, but I am sure that each would win distinction. In discussing the Intercolonial railway, the people of Canada who do not live along that railway, and hon. members who have not yet accepted the hospitality offered them to take a trip over it, possibly do not understand the length of the railway-I never had a proper conception of it until I went over it, and never had a thorough conception of it until I tried to manage it. The Intercolonial is not at all a small railway. Its main track has a length of 1,490-67 miles, and its sidings represent 446 miles. Now, you people go between Montreal and Toronto on the fastest train you can take, and you leave Montreal at 9 o'clock and you arrive in Toronto at 4.20, and you travel on one of the fastest trains on the continent. Now, the main line of the Intercolonial railway is more than four times as long as that trip. It covers a distance greater than that from Montreal to Winnipeg. Yet, in discussing this road and all its details, hon. members are apt to imagine that the minister who directs the road at comparatively long range, ought to know the name of every man who ever drove a spike on that line. One of these hon. gentlemen could not take any railway of the same length and get from anybody but the roadmasters such details as the Minister of Eailways is asked for in this House. Ask Sir Thomas Shaughnessy with regard to any 1,400 miles of his road, and he would know the details so far as the capacity of the road is concerned, and the quality of it. But, as to anything further than that, he would refer that inquirer to the roadmaster or the divisional engineer, or some other person whose business it was to understand these details. I say this, not to suggest that hon. members of this House should not ask for all this information, but that they should not be impatient, if, with regard to some small section of the road in their own territory, every man engaged upon which they know as Jim, 1603
or Jack or Tom, the minister does not know details that have not escaped their own knowledge but needs time to learn them from the man who has had these matters in charge. The Intercolonial is being run, approximately at least, as all other roads are being run. The capital spent on the Intercolonial, up to March 31, 1910, was $82,819,218.52. In 1911, the additional capital expended on the road will be about $1,000,000, the smallest capital expended on the Intercolonial railway for many years, notwithstanding the lact that a great portion of it is being spent on special works at the city of Chatham and at Sydney Mines and North Sydney. The net revenue last year which the Intercolonial was able to hand back to the receiver general was $623,164.66-that is we handed to the receiver general within less than $400,000 of our estimated capital expended during the present year.
In order that there may be some figures in ' Hansard ' as to our business, allow me to quote a few. These figures are from a statement by our statistical branch, made up to June 30, which is the end of the year recognized by all railways for making returns to the department. These figures will not coincide with the figures given to the end of our fiscal year, March 31, but they will serve the purpose immediately in hand and I am not using them further than this statement:


TRAIN MILEAGE.
[Stage Direction]
1909	   2,705,492
,1910	 2,590,804
Freight trains-
1909		 3,568,680
1910		 3,805,646
Mixed trains-
1909		 487,881
1910		 379,227
Total-
1909		 6,762,053
1910		 6,781,677
Increase	 19,624
_ It will be interesting to know that that increase was all in freight trains. The increase in freight trains was greater than that, because there was a decrease in the number of passenger trains run. My memory is that the mileage of passenger trains was reduced, but we carry more passengers on the trains that we run. Take now the economy in management, I wish to put on record a statement for the benefit of those who make comparisons, and it shows a comparison of our expenditures as respects maintenance of way, equipment and traffic expenditure, between the Intercolonial and the Canadian Pacific railway. I have taken for the purpose of this comparison, the Canadian Pacific railway. And while I use the Canadian Pacific railway largely in all my comparisons, it is not at all with
[Stage Direction]
the object of reflecting on the Canadian Pacific railway, which is one of the greatest roads in the world, and one of the best managed. But it is the most convenient, as it runs for some distance in the same portion of territory in which the Intercolonial railway runs. Here are the figures:

[Stage Direction]
Maintenance of Way and Structure:
		Per cent.
1909	..$1,612,398	18.391910	.. 1,755,106	19.91C. P. R	23.64Maintenance of Equipment:	1909	..$2,010,821	22.211910	.. 1,867,712	21.19C. P. R	21.75Traffic Expenses:	1909	.. $188,121	2.081910	.. 182,808	2.07O. P. R	1.22I may explain that	item by saying that	
it refers largely to the expenditure in looking for traffic, and I admit that the other railways spend a greater percentage than we do in looking for traffic in different parts of the world. The Canadian Pacific railway, for instance, whose expenditure is twice as great as that of the Intercolonial, has its steamship lines running to Europe, has its steamship lines on the Pacific, and has its lines spreading all over the continent, almost, and they have a large and very active staff looking for business. Ours is a comparatively small road with no steamship connections of its own, and no railway connections of its own west of Montreal, except the Grand Trunk railway. So the expenditure for getting traffic is necessarily higher on the Canadian Pacific railway than it is on the government road. Now I will give the balance of the table:
Transportation Expenses		Per cent.
1909	,$1,959,207	51.811910	. 1,802,921	51.49€. P. R	17.17General Expenses:	1909	. $221,972	2.151910	. 206,718	2.31C. P. R	
2.92
The comparison is hardly fair, but it is the only comparison I could get. I wanted to put something on record, and I have taken the Canadian Pacific Tailway, which I think shows the Intercolonial railway perhaps at greater disadvantage in that respect than any other road, though I do not think it is discreditable to the government road.
John Stanfield: Will the minister compare the wages of the officers and men on the two roads?


George Perry Graham: The wages of the men are settled by agreement between the brotherhoods and the management.


George Perry Graham: 


John Stanfield: I merely ask the hon. gentleman if he will compare the wages paid on the two railways without speaking of the unions. Take the engineers, for instance.


George Perry Graham: I do not know what they are paid, but I know they are paid according to agreements made with the officers of the brotherhoods, in each case. I think the rates are higher than on the Grand Trunk railway.


John Stanfield: Not for the engineers.


George Perry Graham: You cannot say that because a man gets a certain amount per day or per mile from the Intercolonial railway, and a higher amount from the Grand Trunk railway, that the Grand Trunk railway pays the higher wages. It is all controlled by a schedule, and there are some instances where the Canadian Pacific railway men, or the Grand Trunk railway men, I do not know which, run many miles more to be called a trip, and get the same pay that the Intercolonial railway men get for a shorter distance. If my hon. friend will take the Intercolonial schedules, leaving out figures for wages, and take all the conditions surrounding the service on the Intercolonial railway, and the conditions on the company roads, he will find that the Intercolonial railway employees are in as good position as those on any company road in the Dominion of Canada. Requests for increased pay have been made all over the road, some of them have been considered, some of them have been granted, and others will be granted, or are in course of settlement. The Intercolonial railway men are equal to the company men on any road in the Dominion of Canada. With the increase of wages that will have to be given, I cannot hope to be able to make next year a statement perhaps as favourable as this year. But I have this to say that I have been endeavouring to recognize as far as possible the claims of the men to fair wages for the work they perform. But it is not fair to take the rate of wages paid alone as an indication, we must take the whole schedule which contains the conditions, and states what a day's work is, and what a trip is.
Now a question has been asked as to the difficulties the Intercolonial railway has to contend with. In the first place, the Intercolonial has to contend with the keenest competition. I am nor complaining of that from the standpoint of the people of Canada, because they get the benefit of keen competition, I am only speaking from the standpoint of the income of the Intercolonial which has to meet this keen competition. The keen competition with water transportation must always tend to- keep the rates down low. To Montreal we have to compete with water transportation

through a long season of open navigation,
and the rates for the entire year, on some commodities on the Intercolonial, have to be made on the basis of water borne competition. Large producers at North Sydney, for instance, say: If you do not agree to carry our traffic at this very low rate the entire year, we wont give it to you at any time of the year, but we will send our summer traffic by the St. Lawrence, and rush it in the fall, and keep it in the spring as long as possible.
Then from Cape Breton to Halifax we have water competition all the year around. I think, on the whole, that the Intercolonial railway has keener competition by water than any other route in Canada. Then, in addition to that, we have between St. John and Montreal, on the state-owned railway, to carry goods 250 miles free. In other words, the distance from Montreal to St. John via Canadian Pacific railway is less by 250 miles than from Montreal to St. John via the Intercolonial railway. Our rates from St. John to Montreal must of necessity be the same as the rates of the Canadian Pacific railway, and it resolves itself into this situation that, of all the traffic carried between Montreal and St. John, the Intercolonial railway carries it more than half as far as the Canadian Pacific railway carries it, and does not get one cent for the service. When hon. gentlemen are discussing the reasons why the income of the Intercolonial railway is not better, let them bear in mind that between that important point and Montreal the Intercolonial railway carries goods more than half again as far as the Canadian Pacific railway carries them, for which it does not get one cent. Then the Intercolonial railway never was built as a road for commercial purposes, I believe. I am not going into that phase of its history, but it would not have been built in the peculiarly meandering way in which it was built if it had been intended as a straight commercial proposition. That is one thing that the management of the Intercolonial railway has to contend with.


John Waterhouse Daniel: How much shorter will the National Transcontinental railway be from Moncton to Montreal than the distance from Moncton to Montreal via the Intercolonial railway?


George Perry Graham: I am not sure of the distances, but the National Transcontinental _ railway will open up new country in which there exists to-day a great deal of local traffic: it will haul that freight and its particularly good grades and curves will enable it to do a great deal of business. I will discuss the question of the National Transcontinental railway later.
Then I make this statement, Mr. Speaker, that there is no road in the Dominion of Canada that gives-I am not going to say
better-but as good service to the people all along the line as does the state-owned road. What I mean by that is this-


Mr. RHODES.: Make that mild.


George Perry Graham: No, I am going to make the statement, and I am ready to give my hon. friend the proof-there is no road that will stop at as many little places for the accommodation of the people as the Intercolonial railway, as my hon. friend knows.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Not at all.


George Perry Graham: Yes, my hon. friend likes to have the train stop not too far apart in his constituency, and I am not disagreeing with him.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have not met with very great success.	[DOT]


George Perry Graham: That shows that my. hon. friend is more advanced in his requests than even we are. There is no road in Canada that gives the service locally and practically stops at the people's doors as does the state-owned railway. We have places where the Intercolonial railway trains stop, every two and a half miles. I have endeavoured to get the Grand Trunk railway to stop at a distance of six or seven miles in my own constituency, and it took me five years to get them to build a platform and to stop one train a day.


Mr. TALBOT.: In what part of the country do they stop every two and a half miles?


George Perry Graham: In several places. They may not do so where the population is sparse, and there is no business to give the road, but there are places where the Intercolonial railway stops to take up milk and all that kind of thing at intervals of two or three miles.


John Graham Haggart: Is not that very objectionable? Is not that the cause of most of your accidents?


George Perry Graham: It is the cause of our trains being delayed and of a slow time table when wa might have a fast one. But I do not object to it. I am pointing it out as one of the benefits the people derive from the state-owned railway, enabling them to get better accommodation than would be, or is being, given by any company-owned road.
I make another statement, and I know I will have to substantiate it to the hon. leader of the opposition, because he asked me for it last year. I want to make it strong, because the proof is good and strong. It is that the freight rates on the Intercolonial railway per mile are cheaper than the freight rates on any road in the Dominion. I want to make the further statement that the passenger rates, taken

by the mileage, are cheaper than the passenger rates on any other railway in Canada.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In making your rates on the Intercolonial railway, are you striking an average between local and competitive through rates?


George Perry Graham: 
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: And the mileage?


George Perry Graham: The passenger mileage, and we find out how much we actually got in money-no guess at all-for carrying every passenger one mile. We do the same thing with freight tonnage, take the actual receipts, and we know exactly how much we got for the service.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Have you any data to show how your local rates compare with the local rates of other railways?


George Perry Graham: I am going to give a statement all the wray from five miles up to 200 miles, comparing the Intercolonial railway rates with the rates of railways in Ontario approved by the commission. I am going to compare them with the rates approved by the commission in New Brunswick over the same mileage of the Canadian Pacific railway, and I am going to compare them with the rates per mile on the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario railway in the province of Ontario.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 93) to incorporate the Alberta Electric Railway Company-Mr. McCarthy.
On section 8,
George Perry Graham: The wording of this clause is peculiar because part of the territory through which this railway will run is not yet formed into municipalities and the only way to protect the highway was through the Lieutenant Governor of the province.


Mr. SHARPE (Ontario).: Is there a provision that when municipalities are incorporated the consent should be given by them rather than by the Lieutenant Governor?


George Perry Graham: The consent of the Lieutenant Governor is necessary only where municipalities are not formed ; I assume that when a municipality was formed the railway would come under the Act.


George Perry Graham: On section 12,


Mr. DOUGLAS.: I move that section 12 be stricken from the Bill.


George Perry Graham: Does Mr. McCarthy agree to that?


James McCrie Douglas: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 13,
James McCrie Douglas: I move that the words: ' or in the Telegraph Act ' in line one be stricken out, and also the words ' telegraph or telephone lines or any ' in lines two and three.


George Perry Graham: What is the purpose of that amendment?


James McCrie Douglas: The province of Alberta owns and controls all the telephone lines in the province, having bought out the Bell Telephone Company at great cost, and the government feel it would be against the interests of the people to have any competition in telephone lines which might be given under this section as it stands.


George Perry Graham: It would be a good idea not to put the Bill through its third reading to-night so that the member for Calgary may understand what this amendment is.


William Barton Northrup: The hon. member for Calgary (Mr. McCarthy) is in accord with this particular amendment.


George Perry Graham: All right.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 14,
Mr. HAGGART (Winnipeg).: Pursuant to notice, I move, in the absence of Mr. McCarthy, that the following be added as section 14:
The company may lease or otherwise acquire coal mines and coal mining rights, and wcrk, develop, operate and turn to account all such coal mines and coal mining rights held by the company.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This clause I took objection to in the committee, but my attention was called to the fact that we had given the same right to other railway companies who contemplated operating in that country, where coal is so very plentiful, in order to get traffic. While I still regard it as objectionable, it is not nearly so objectionable as a Bill which preceded it, in regard to a company which proposed to go into the United States and purchase coal. In that case there was really a monopoly of the coal business by the Grand Trunk railway. You might buy coal from a mine owner, but you could not ^et the Grand Trunk railway to bring the coal across the line for you unless it was bought from the parties with whom they were operating. But in the Northwest there is not likely to

be a monopoly of that kind, because coal is so plentiful.


Mr. NESBITT.: I wa6 opposed to the clause on principle, but if it has been arranged between the parties, I do not think I should interfere.


George Perry Graham: I think we. had better let it pass. It was explained in the committee pretty fully. In the west the railway companies practically all own coal areas, and operate them in connection with their traffic. It may be that in the years to come we shall have to cancel all these rights by legislation if they are abused. If it should happen that the coal companies and the transportation companies should put their heads together so that where you reduce the freight rates they will add them to the price of coal, it might be necessary to pass legislation in Canada similar to what has been passed in the United States, prohibiting coal companies and railway companies from being one and the same people.


Mr. McKENZIE.: Under what regulations are coal mines operated in the west? With us they are operated under very stringent laws and regulations adopted by the local legislature. The running of a coal mine is a pretty important thing, and I think it is rather dangerous to allow these mines to be operated without any regulation, or to allow any company to own and operate a coal mine. Coal mines should be operated under regulations that would safeguard the lives and health and general safety of the coal miners.


William Barton Northrup: All that this House is professing to do is to incorporate a company, and to give it power to operate mines. How those mines should be operated would be a matter of local jurisdiction if they come within local jurisdiction, of Dominion jurisdiction if they come within that. We do not interfere with the right the Dominion would have, in the place of a provincial government, to regulate how the mines should be worked. If we incorporate a company and give it power to undertake some manufacturing enterprise, we do not, therefore, exempt it from the right the province would have to regulate how its industry should be carried on. All we do is to give this company a right to do a certain thing, and that must be done in conformity with the law.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not think my hon. friend's knowledge of everything in heaven above, on the earth beneath and in the waters under the earth, includes a knowledge of how to run a coal mine. If the coal belongs to the province, it may have the right to make regulations; if it does not, it has no right to make regulations as to operating.


William Barton Northrup: Nobody said it had.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: My hon. friend says this company will be given the right to own and operate a coal mine, and the local government may eome in and make regulations.


William Barton Northrup: Not at all.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I ask, who is going to make them? We have no law governing this point, so far as I know. The operating of a coal mine is a scientific subject. I have never heard of giving, in this general way in a Railway Act, the right to own and operate coal mines in any province. I am told that the local legislature would have no control over this company or its operations. I am inquiring whether there is any law on the subject. I would like to see the mining laws of this country made as uniform as possible. We have excellent mining laws in the province of Nova Scotia, and 1 would like to see them in force wherever there is a coal mine. I presume that there are good mining laws in British Columbia and in Alberta, and I would like to know that this right to operate a coal mine is subject to the laws of the province where the coal mine is situated.


Mr. TURRIFF.: I have no intention of opposing this clause. Practically all the other railway companies who are doing business in Alberta own coal mines and large tracts of coal land; but I want to point out to the Minister of Railways that what he thinks may possibly exist in a short time is very likely to exist. All the large railway companies own, and some of them operate, coal mines in Alberta, and those who are not operating are preparing to operate. These big railway companies have also bought out practically all the coal mines in British Columbia. Therefore, we are very likely to have in the west the same condition that exists in Pennsylvania and Ohio, where the railway companies own so much of the coal lands that they can dictate terms to everybody else who owns coal lands, and who does not happen to own a railway in connection with them. The point raised by my hon. friend from Cape Breton I think is a very reasonable point, but in Alberta and Saskatchewan, while the Dominion government own the coal lands, the local governments have control of the working and inspection of the mines, and I have always felt that as the local governments have all the expense of these services, it would be better if they had full control and received whatever royalties there are on coal lands. They would thus be in a better position to look after the safety of the working of the mines. The very position feared by the Minister of Railways is likely to arise in the near future and we should be very careful in granting

the right to these railway companies to own and operate large coal mines for fear that others who have invested in coal mines may be put out of business, because they cannot compete with mines owned by the same people who own the railways.


Mr. OLIVER.: I want to support in every particular what my hon. friend has just said in regard to the undesirability, in the public interest, of a railway company being also an owner of coal mines. While the same men may own the railways and the mines, if they own them under the one organization neither the local government nor the Dominion government can control their operations as effectually as if they were separate concerns. The situation which the Minister of Railways fears must be dealt with by drastic action if it arises. It will arise in the future if it is permitted, and the time to stop it is now and not hereafter. It strikes me that as this charter is for an electric railway, it is reasonable to say that the precedent in regard to steam railways does not apply. It is evident that the coal mine owner who also owns a railway is in a more advantageous position than the coal mine owner who does not. It is in the public interest that there should be as many separate owners of coal mines as possible and therefore when you give a special advantage to the owner of one coal mine because he owns a railway you enable him to monopolize the coal mines which are tributary to that railway, you put the other owners at a disadvantage and put the general public at a disadvantage to that same degree. I cannot allow this charter to pass without entering the most emphatic protest I can against the principle of chartering railways and coal mines together as in this particular case.


Glenlyon Campbell: This railway may be operated by electricity, steam or other power. Will that alter the minister's opinion?


Frank Oliver: That makes no difference in my estimation as to the disadvantage of the owner of the transportation also owning the coal whether the transportation is by steam or electricity.


George Henry Bradbury: It may be a steam railway before it is completed. I agree with much of what the minister has said with regard to the advisability of keeping the coal lands separate from any great corporations. I believe what the minister has said will likely take place within a few years and that the railway companies have monopolized too much of our coal lands. With regard to this Bill I feel that we have already created a precedent in the west, we have granted several charters and several companies have secured control of coal mines. I understand a compromise has been arrived at in reference to this Bill, Mr. TURRIFF.
and I think it would be hard to create a new precedent.


William Barton Northrup: In the Railway Committee the point was brought out that if a new railway like this is limited to the operation of the small area of coal land required to furnish its motive power the cost of producing the coal will be increased as compared with the cost of operations on a larger scale, and that this will increase the cost of operation of the railway with a consequent increase in the cost of freight to the public. I agree that if the day has come when the railway companies control the coal we cannot move too soon. The minister will see that if we refuse this right the same individuals may still own the coal and the railway, may have their offices side by side, and the result .to the public would be the same as if they were given the powers asked under this Act. I hope the minister will see that it is really in the interest of the public as well as of the company that the company should be allowed to operate a sufficient amount of coal lands to produce coal at the least possible expense and thus save coal rates.


John Gillanders Turriff: The argument -of my hon. friend (Mr. Northrup) hardly applies. The great trouble experienced by the coal miners in that part of the country is the lack of cars. Often a mine will have orders in hand to keep it going twenty-four hours a day for months, but they cannot get a regular supply of cars, with the result that they may be working only half time. The difficulty is not so much in the matter of freight rates, or in the selling of the coal by the mine owned by the railway at less than the neighbouring mines sell it, but in this lack of a steady supply of cars.


George Henry Bradbury: The Railway Commission can regulate that.


John Gillanders Turriff: They have control in such a matter. But in a country like that, where there is a tremendous traffic in coal-hon. members hardly realize the traffic there is in coal in the Crowsnest Pass, wheTe there are dozens of mines operating-the success of a mine may depend absolutely upon obtaining cars steadily and in fair proportion and at the right time. It is a pretty difficult matter for a railway commission, or anybody else, to regulate the supply of cars if the railway company are interested in putting cars in any particular place. I am not saying they are doing that now. But I do say there is often a shortage of cars, and there is the tendency of which I have spoken. The House cannot be too careful in legislation of this kind.


William Barton Northrup: Admitting eveTy word that the hon. member (Mr. Turriff) says- namely, that the present grievance in the Northwest is the scarcity of cars, we are not going to correct that by preventing the

railway from adding more cars. And if you allow them to operate the mines they will certainly provide more cars.


Frank Oliver: I wish to repeat what 1 said. My objection to covering the two enterprises with the one charter is not met by stating that the same people may operate the same enterprise under two different charters. I am not learned in the law, but it seems reasonable to believe that, if the two separate enterprises are operated under two separate charters, each enterprise will be more amenable to the legislation necessary to regulate and control it than if one charter covered both. If the railway charter covers coal operations . there is no doubt that in the legislation to protect the rights of the public we should have more difficulty in reaching the coal [DOT] operation than if the coal operation w'ere carried on under a separate charter. What my hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) has said in regard to the possible condition as to the supply of cars I do not know that it is any breach of confidence to say, describes a condition which has prevailed and which has been a very serious drawback to the development of the coal industry in the Crowsnest Pass. That is a matter of recorcl. Building an electric railway in some other part of the province of Alberta to develop other coal mines would have no effect on the situation in the Crowsnest Pass as it exists. The necessary effect of the linking together of the two enterprises is to give an undue advantage to the coal enterprise which is linked with the railway over the coal enterprise which is not linked with the railway. The railway is, or ought to be, a common carrier, to carry for everybody on equal terms-that is the purpose of chartering a railway; the railway gets special privileges on the theory that it will act as a common carrier and will deal on terms of equality with parties desiring to ship over it. But it will not act as a common carrier and deal fairly between parties if it is interested in one particular enterprise to which it looks chiefly for its traffic. No railway commission, no governmental control can properly protect the public interest in these cases. I speak strongly on this matter, because the coal interest of Alberta is probably the greatest interest in the Dominion of Canada, and it is an interest on whose proper development the whole prairie country tremendously depends. It is of interest to every man on the prairie that coal shall be produced under competitive conditions and delivered to him at the lowest possible rates of transportation. There is sufficient tendency to secure monopoly now, and this parliament should not let any legislation pass that would in any way tend to increase the possibilities of monopoly.


John Graham Haggart: I would ask the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) if the proper remedy would not be the one suggested by the Minister of Railways and Canals when he said that he intends to build the Hudson Bay railway in order -this is one of his reasons-that Cape Breton coal may be taken up by vessel to Hudson bay and shipped over the railway and delivered to purchasers in western Canada at much lower prices than it can at present be bought for. I see that one of the reasons assigned by the officers of his department for building this railway is that in Edmonton, for instance, where coal is now selling at $9 a ton, he will be able to deliver it, taken all the way from Cape Breton, at $7 a ton.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That argument was seriously presented to the House this afternoon.


Frank Oliver: I do not know whether my hon. friend (Mr. Haggart, Lanark) is serious or not, but the Northwest is a big country, and, while there is enormous possibility of production of coal-and, indeed, an enormous production of coal-in the western part of Alberta, yet the charges for transportation are such that it is not possible to deliver that coal in the city of Winnipeg in competition with the coal which is brought from the middle of the state of Pennsylvania, shipped by rail to the lake port-Cleveland-carried thence by steamer to Fort William, transhipped again, and carried by rail to Winnipeg. The transportation rates are such that that coal from Pennsylvania is laid down in Winnipeg at such terms as to practically exclude the Alberta coal from Winnipeg market. Now, what is done with the Pennsylvania coal may, as far as I am aware, be done with the Nova Scotia coal. I am not familiar with the circumstances, but I do not see any greater difficulty in one case than in the other.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does not the hon. minister (Mr. Oliver) believe that that condition is largely due to the fact that the coal in Pennsylvania is anthracite, while the coal from the west is bituminous, and, therefore, not of equal quality?


Frank Oliver: What the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) says does not apply, because there is anthracite, as he knows, in the Rocky mountains.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But not of the same quality.


Frank Oliver: But it is anthracite, and is mined and put on the market under very favourable conditions. But the same applies not only to anthracite, but to the whole coal supply.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But the minister knows that if a party goes to a dealer in Winni-

peg and buys coal he is willing to pay $2 or sometimes $3 more for the Pennsylvania anthracite than for the western bituminous coal, because the heating qualities of it are much better.


John Gillanders Turriff: The hon. gentleman is altogether wrong as to the heating quality of Pennsylvania, or Virginia, or Ohio bituminous coal being higher than that of the bituminous coal of Alberta; the opposite is the fact. Take the coal from a number of the mines in the Crowsnest Pass, and you will find it high in steam producing qualities, higher than the ordinary bituminous coal that comes from Pennsylvania, as the Minister of the Interior has said. Hundreds of thousands of tons of bituminous coal come in from the eastern United States to Winnipeg, and many of the railroads use American coal for one or two divisions west of Winnipeg, simply because the freight rates are cheaper, and they find it cheaper to use that coal than to bring coal from western Alberta or British Columbia, where the better quality of steam coal can be got.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I wish to tell the hon. gentleman that when I was in Winnipeg some years ago, and I met a gentleman-who was buying a lot of coal from Pennsylvania for which he was prepared to pay $12 a ton, while he could get Canadian coal for $9 a ton. I asked him why he was paying so much more for the Pennsylvania coal, and he said that it was because it was richer in heat producing power.


Mr. HERRON.: 1 agree with the arguments of the Minister of the Interior, but I cannot agree with his conclusion as to what would happen if we deprived this company of the power of operating coal mines. Now the conditions are such as the minister has stated with reference to railways giving privileges to particular coal mining companies in the way of cars. If that applies to all railway companies who are operating there now, and have the privilege to operate coal mines, and if this railway becomes a competitive railway to the present system, why should you not give the same privileges to this railway? It may be all right to take these privileges away from companies , but I think it should be done at the same time with each and all of them, and that until then this company should have the same privileges as others are enjoying. If they are going to be a competitor in getting low railway rates, they must have the same opportunities in conducting their business.
On section 15,


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Before the Bill is reported, I would like to comment on the remarks of the hon. gentleman with reference Mr. SPROULE.
to this clause being the same clause that has been in other Bills that we have put through that we should pass this Bill. I do not agree with that? I am not opposing this Bill now, because it is an arrangement between the parties, the Alberta government and the promoters, but otherwise I would oppose it, because I have opposed in the committee all clauses such as this, and I intend to oppose them. It does not make any difference to me that the charters were given with these clauses in that should not have been given; that is no reason why we should continue to give them.
Bill reported.


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. Ill) to incorporate the Saskatoon and Hudson Bay Railway Company. -Mr. Carvell.
Bill (No. 126) respecting the Quebec, Montreal and Southern Railway Company. -Mr. Fortier.
Bill (No. 125) respecting the Pacific Northern and Omineca Railway Company. -Mr. Smith (Nanaimo.)
Bill (No. 119) respecting the Ontario Northern and Temagami Northern Railway Company.-Mr. Proulx.

[Stage Direction]
The order for public Bills having expired, the House resumed the adjourned debate on the motion to go into Committee of Supply.
['We shall proceed with the estimates of the Minister of the Interior.']
George Perry Graham: In continuing my observations on the transportation problems of Canada, I may remind the House that at six o'clock I was discussing the state-owned Intercolonial railway and Prince Edward Island railways. I had said at six o'clock that among other things characteristic of the Intercolonial railway was the fact that its rates were the lowest in Canada. A practical way to find out exactly what the rates are per ton per mile is to take the actual receipts, the actual tonnage and mileage, and there can be no possible mistake made in arriving at a conclusion. The same thing is done with the returns made by other railways. Having laid down this accepted standard of measurement, how did the Intercolonial railway rate per ton per mile for 1910 compare with the rate of other railways? Here
are the facts:
Intercolonial	-553	cent.Canadian Pacific	-778	"Grand Trunk	-672	"


Canadian Northern .. ..: 734	"
It will be seen that the rate of the Canadian Pacific was 40 -6 per cent higher than that of the Intercolonial, of the Grand Trunk 21 -5 per cent higher, and of the Canadian Northern 32-7 per cent higher.

Let us see what this difference in freight Trunk 21 -5 per cent higher, and of the railways was concerned in 1910.
To proceed with the comparison and to show what condition the state-owned railway would have been in had it received the same revenue, or had it had the same earning power per mile as other roads, I will take the Canadian Pacific railway as an example. The Canadian Pacific railway last year carried 20,551,368 tons of freight. It earned on this $58,904,060. The Intercolonial railway carried 3,984,044 tons, upon which it earned $6,120,692. Suppose the Canadian Pacific railway had carried this freight at the same income per ton per mile as the Intercolonial railway did its earnings would have been decreased by $17,035,236. Reverse it; suppose that the Intercolonial railway had had the same earning power for freight per mile as the Canadian Pacific railway, its net earnings would have been increased by $2,485,000. Or, in other words, instead of a net revenue last year of $600,000. had the Intercolonial railway been possessed of the same earning power^ for its freight as the Canadian Pacific railway, the Intercolonial railway would have had a surplus last year of over $3,000,000.	'


John Graham Haggart: Does the minister see that that depends entirely on the class of stuff carried? If you compare a road that carries coal entirely with a road that carries ordinary freight, the comparison would be ridiculous.


George Perry Graham: For my purpose, the comparison; is absolutely correct.


John Graham Haggart: Yes, for your purpose.


George Perry Graham: And for the purpose of my hon. friend when I explain it to him. I am not making this comparison to show that the Canadian Pacific railway is charging too high rates.


John Graham Haggart: You are making it for the sake of showing that the Intercolonial railway charges less than the Canadian Pacific railway, which amounts to the same thing.


George Perry Graham: No. Before six o'clock I was pointing out the difficulties under which the Intercolonial railway laboured, and one of these is that the freight is of a low class, and in consequence, even if its Tates per mile were the same as the Canadian Pacific railway, over all its territory its net revenue would not be the same per mile on account of the low classification of its freight That emphasizes my contention and it is one of the difficulties under which the Intercolonial railway labours. Later on I will prove to my hon. friend that mile for mile, on the same kind
of freight, the Intercolonial ^railway rates are much lower than those of the Canadian Pacific railway.
Let us now look at passenger traffic. In 1910 the rates per passenger per mile were as follow:
Intercolonial	
1 -691	cents.Canadian Pacific	
1 -821	"Grand Trunk	
1 -767	"


Canadian Northern .. ..: 2-184	"
Thus, the passenger rate of the Canadian Pacific was 7 6 per cent, of the Grand Trunk 4-5 per cent and the Canadian Northern 29-1 per cent, higher than the passenger rate of the Intercolonial. Taking again the case of the Canadian Pacific for purposes of comparison, the effect on earnings from ticket sales was as follows: In 1910 the Canadian Pacific carried 11,050,924 passengers, on which it earned $24,428,282. If, however, the Canadian Pacific had carried this traffic at the Intercolonial rate, it would have received $1,743,918 less than it actually did receive.
Reversing this passenger test, the Intercolonial in 1910 carried 3,176,154 passengers, on which it earned $2,653,157. If the Intercolonial had enjoyed the benefit of the Canadian Pacific passenger rate, it would have added $203,968 to its earnings from ticket sales.
Joining the results of these calculations, it will he seen that if the Canadian Pacific had operated in 1910 on Intercolonial rates, its earnings would have been $17,035,236 less from freight and $1,743,918 less from passengers, or a total of $18,779,154.
Putting the case again the other way around, if the Intercolonial in 1910 had been operated on Canadian Pacific rates, its net earnings of $700,278 would [DOT] have been increased by $2,485,000 from freight and $203,968 from passengers, making a total of $3,389,246, or total surplus of $4,000,000 or about 4i per cent on total capital.
If the Intercolonial last year realized net earnings of $3,389,246 it would have done relatively as well as the Canadian Pacific, the Grand Trunk or the Canadian Northern.
We have in Canada the case of another srovernment owned and operated line-the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario. Critics are sometimes in the habit of alluding to the results achieved by that road as indicating bad management, by comparison, on the part of the Intercolonial Now, I am not saying anything derogatory to the management of the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario railway. It is a well managed road. I had something to do with its in-ceotion, and T am proud to see its success. Again, referring to the Temark of my hon. friend (Mr. Haggart) that the classifies-

tion of its freight is very much higher than that of the Intercolonial railway freight one thing is, that it carries silver ore and we carry coal. That is a big difference. I will show, however, that mile for mile, the rates on the Intercolonial railway are much lower than mile for mile for the same classification are the rates on the Ontario road. I do this to show that the Intercolonial railway's earning power, owing to the low classification of its freight as well as to its lower rates per ton per mile, labours under great difficulty as compared with many of the other roads and never could be expected to earn as much money as other roads do, even if we put our rates as high as theirs on similar classification. The Timiskaming and Northern Ontario railway received last year 1 -543 cents per ton per mile, as against the Intercolonial rate of 533. At this rate it had earnings of $957,150 from freight. If it had been obliged to carry freight at the Intercolonial price, it would have suffered a deduction of $543,650, leaving its earnings only $422,500 instead of $957,150. Reversing the comparison, if the Intercolonial in 1910 had received for its freight traffic the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario rate, its net earnings would have been increased by $10,957,477. The Timiskaming and Northern Ontario rate on freight was 179-02 per cent higher than the Intercolonial rate for 1910.
The same thing is true with regard to passenger business. While the Intercolonial railway had a rate per passenger per mile of 1 -691 cents, the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario had a Tate of 2.485. Here was a difference in favour of the latter of 48-1 per cent. I want to bring that difference clearly before the House, and particularly those members from other parts of Canada, because I believe they do not understand the difficulties of managing a government road of this length and under the peculiar conditions and circumstances surrounding it. The rates on the Intercolonial railway are so much less than those on other roads, that the two cannot fairly be compared as to receipts owing to the difference in the conditions. The revenue quality of our freight is lower, and consequently, our rates are lower than those of any ocher road in Canada.


Mr. CROSBY.: Are the rates on the Intercolonial railway from St. John and Halifax to Montreal any lower than those on the Canadian Pacific railway?


George Perry Graham: The rates from St. John to Montreal on the Intercolonial railway are the same as those on the Canadian Pacific railway, but we have to haul the traffic 250 miles for nothing, because our route is 250 miles longer.


George Perry Graham: 


Adam Brown Crosby: The minister made the statement that the rates on the Canadian Pacific railway are higher than those on the Intercolonial railway; but I understand that the rates from St. John to Montreal, and the rates from Montreal to St. John, for both passenger and freight, on both lines are exactly the same.


George Perry Graham: That only confirms my argument. I have been showing that per ton per mile and per passenger per mile our rates are lower; and one of the difficulties under which we operate is what my hon. friend points out, that we have a haul 250 miles longer than that of the Canadian Pacific railway from St. John to Montreal, and get only the same rate.


Adam Brown Crosby: When the Canadian Pacific railway runs from St. John to Halifax, who gets the traffic?


George Perry Graham: We get the local traffic between St. John and Halifax.


Adam Brown Crosby: Perhaps I do not make myself clear. If a passenger wishes to go from St. John to Montreal, he gets the same rate whether he goes by the Intercolonial railway or the Canadian Pacific railway?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Adam Brown Crosby: If you like to haul him around by Moncton, that is no fault of the Canadian Pacific railway. If the Canadian Pacific railway takes the passenger from Halifax to Montreal, how far does it haul him for nothing? You get the money.


George Perry Graham: No, we make an arrangement by which they pay us so much for hauling the traffic.


Adam Brown Crosby: How much do they give you back?


George Perry Graham: I cannot say at the moment. At all events, my hon. friend has made my point clear, that we have to carry the traffic 250 miles farther, or 50 per cent farther than the Canadian Pacific railway for exactly the same rate. That is one of the difficulties I have been explaining, and I am glad that my hon. friend has brought it out so well. Now, I come to the question of the cost per train mile, and I will try to make a fair comparison by taking the cost on the three railways, the Canadian Pacific railway, the Grand Trunk railway and the Canadian Northern railway.
It might be said, and very frequently is, that the Intercolonial railway is conducted with great extravagance and an utter disregard of sound railway methods. The Canadian Pacific railway, for example, is popularly understood to acquire large net earnings by economical administration.

while the Intercolonial railway is believed to have occasional deficits because it is conducted in a wasteful way. In short, it is asserted that the Canadian Pacific is run on business principles, while the Intercolonial is not.
Is there any way of determining relative economy in the conduct of railways? There is. Look at it as you may, no matter from what standpoint, all the operations of a railway come down to one thing-the running of trains. If you stop the running of trains you stop everything for which a railway pays out money, no matter what it may be. Every penny of operating expenses goes out to that end. Now, the measure of a railway's, operations is expressed in train mileage. Therefore, if you divide the total train mileage into the total operating expenses you have a figure which tells you the cost of running a train one mile.
This cost of running a train one mile is accepted by the entire Tailway world as an absolutely safe and sound standard for measuring economy of administration. The railway which is operated at the lowest cost is certain to have the lowest rate per train mile. It is known to the last farthing what it cost every railway in Canada to run a train one mile during 1910, and taking the cases of those roads to which reference has already been made the figures are as
follow:
Intercolonial	$ 1.300
Canadian Pacific	 1.504
Grand Trunk	 1.817
Canadian Northern	1.581
This comparison is distinctly in favour of the Intercolonial railway. The figures are in each ease taken from the sworn returns of the railway indicated, and are not open to question. They show beyond a doubt that the Intercolonial railway is not wastefully managed; but, in comparison with these roads which are regarded as types of the best conducted in Canada, is carried on in a way highly creditable to those who are in charge of its affairs.
The foregoing observations bring us back to the initial proposition, namely, that the Intercolonial does not earn a large surplus, despite its location and position as the product of confederation, simply because its freight and passenger rates are the lowest in the Dominion. This view, notwithstanding anything that may be asserted to the contrary, will be fully sustained by a comparison of the published freight tariffs of the railways to which allusion has been made.
The comparison I have made is very strongly in favour of the Intercolonial railway; but this much I want to admit, to be perfectly fair, that on account of our comparatively high grades, it may be that we do not haul on an average quite as much
per train as the Canadian Pacific railway. But I think the difference will not be found to be very great; and it is a pleasure for me to announce to the House that such improvement is being made every year that our average number of cars per train is increasing, which shows that we are endeavouring to bring the operation of the road down to the lowest possible cost.
Now, I have pointed out that one of the difficulties under which the Intercolonial railway labours is its low classification of freight. I want to substantiate my contention that per mile the rates authorized by the Board of Railway Commissioners for the Grand Trunk railway and the Canadian Pacific railway are higher than the rates charged by the Intercolonial railway on the same articles. The rates I am about to give are the rates authorized by the Board of Railway Commissioners between Ontario towns, in thickly settled districts, where surely the rate ought to be as low as the rate on the Intercolonial railway, if the Intercolonial railway rate were on a commercial basis, which it is not and never has been. It has been said that for short distances the rates of the Intercolonial railway will be found to be as high as the others. That may possibly be true, but in comparing the Intercolonial railway rates per mile with the rates granted by the Board of Railway Commissioners between Ontario towns, I am going to start at 89 miles.
Grand Trunk Railway and Canadian Pacific Railway Ontario town tariffs as ordered by the Board of Railway Commissioners, compared with Intercolonial Railway tariffs for similar distances.
Classes.
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	989 miles	G.T.R. \ C.P.R. /	30	26	23	19	15	13	11	12	986	II	I.C.R..	26	23	20	16	13	12	10	11	10135	II	G.T.R. 1 C.P.R, f	32	28	24	20	16	14	12	13	12137	II	I.C.R....	29	26	22	18	15	14	11	12	9188	G.T.R. \	36	32	27	23	18	16	14	15	12C.P.R. J	188	II	I.C.R	33	29	26	21	17	16	14	14	11243	II	G.T.R. 1 C.P.R. J	40	36	30	25	20	18	16	16	14243	II	I.C.R....	38	33	29	23	19	17	16	15	13275	II	G.T.R. 1 C.P.R, f	42	37	32	26	21	19	17	17	15275	II	I.C.R	38	33	29	24	19	17	15	15	13
That is a comparison of the rates confirmed by the Board of Railway Commissioners between Ontario towns, but in order that there may be no mistake I am going to come even closer home and shall compare the railway tariff of the Canadian Pacific railway as approved by the Board

of Railway Commissioners in New Brunswick and the tariff of the Intercolonial railway for the same distances on the same classification.
Canadian Pacific Railway tariffs in New Brunswick as compared with Intercolonial tariffs in same territory.
Classes.
i	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10C.P.R.	84	miles	32	28	24	20	16	14	12	13	12	10I.C.R.	89	26	23	20	16	13	12	10	11	10	8C.P.R.	187	40	35	30	25	20	18	15	16	16	13I.C.R.	137	29	26	22	18	15	14	11	12	11	9C.P.R.	223	48	42	36	30	24	22	18	19	19	16I.C.R.	223	3G	32	27	23	13	16	14	15	14	12
With respect to lumber rates, the allowance for excess weight and demurrage by the Intercolonial is much more favourable than the conditions imposed by other railways.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Was there any competition for either the Intercolonial railway or the Canadian Pacific railway at these places?


George Perry Graham: 
George Perry Graham: Freight car repairs.
70,000
Total	$96,000
In this period of nine months ending 31st December, 1910, we have increased the expenditure of maintenance of way and structures over the same period of 1909 by $236,000. This, with the locomotive and car repairs just given, make a total of $332,000, which means, of course, the keeping up of the equipment and the betterment of the road. Out of this maintenance of equipment fund, we have ordered, to be paid for as delivered, the following:
3 passenger (Pacific type) engines at $22,340	$ 66,720

50 steel frame box ears, 30 tons capacity (wood sheathing to be applied in Moncton shops), estimated at
$1,200 each	 60,000
21 steel coal dump cars, 50 tons
capacity, at $1,500 each	 23,550
100 box cars (wood), 30 tons capacity, 30 at $1,015, 70 at $1,085.. .. 106,400 50 box cars (wood), 30 tons capacity, to be built at Moncton shops, estimated at $1,100 each	 55,000
Total	$320,670
This is paid out gf renewal equipment fund, made up of a contribution from the' revenue of $25,000 a month. In this connection, I may say that we have been allowed to establish two accounts, the rail renewal account and the equipment renewal account. On the rail renewal account we have been putting aside $12,500 a month and on the other $25,000 a month. At the end of the year, the balances in these accounts are not handed back to the Receiver General, but we use the funds to renew rails and equipment as necessary. The amount in these accounts does not appear as part of the net revenue, as they are charged against the revenue. I think of asking the House to allow me to establish another account. It would mean practically an insurance account. The ordinary railway is managed on these lines: Where a large fire occurs, they take out of revenue the value of the property as it was before destruction, and, in the construction of the new buildings they charge to capital account only the difference between the value! of the old and the value of the'new. I am' endeavouring to adopt that principle thoroughly on the Intercolonial railway. I had some correspondence with Mr. Knapp, who is chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission, which has adopted very strict rules in this connection, and he informed ine this was the method the Interstate Commerce Commission adopted, and Mr. Hays of the Grand Trunk tells me the same thing. We had a big fire at Camp-bellton. I had an estimate made of the value of the buildings that were destroyed, and the amount given was $76,000. We purpose enlarging our yards at Campbell-ton, and providing for a connection with the International railway, wmch, we expect, will lead to the handling of quite a lot of traffic. We are changing the location of our yards-I think at the request of the town-and the new yards, station and sidings will cost $250,000. What I propose to do is to pay out of this year's revenue $76,000, the value of the property destroyed. This may be considered a departure. But it is strictly along the line on which railway companies are run, and I think that is the way we ought to run the Intercolonial, even if we do not come out even in so running it. But, as traffic is rapidly increasing, if the Auditor General will allow Mr. GRAHAM.
me, I propose this year to take a further account from net revenue of $100,000 and put it into renewal equipment, so thkt we may have the funds to buy the additional equipment we so much need. In order that there may be no mistake about having authority to do this, I propose, a little later in the session, if I can nossibly do it, with the consent of the Auditor General's Department and the Finance Department, to introduce an amendment to allow us _ to establish and maintain these funds which we have been maintaining to a certain extent without statutory warrant, but with, the consent of the Auditor General. This will make the procedure perfectly legal.
Companies having large fire losses are able to spread these losses over a term of years. An act to be introduced will enable the Intercolonial railway to do the same.
Another question arises: There are differences of opinion as to what ought to be! charged to capital and what ought to be charged to revenue. We have endeavoured to make the line distinct and clear, that whatever a railway company would charge to capital or to revenue, we ought to so charge. And I believe that during the past year, the Intercolonial has actually leaned backwards in this matter and has charged several things to revenue that a railway company would have charged to capital, and would be authorized to charge to capital under the Interstate Commerce rules. Possibly I may introduce a measure to make clear the distinction between revenue and capital expenditure and to give us authority to say which is revenue and which is capital should any question arise between the Audit Department and the board of managers. At the end of this year we will have a little money left, by the looks of things. I am not prepared to say so absolutely, but from the figures I have in my hands, and those I have been able to see, if we were not to take the $76,000 for Camp-bellton, and if we were not to ask for the other extra $100,000 on equipment and renewal account, which I am going to ask for, if I did not make these two deductions, I think possibly at the end of March this year the Intercolonial would show a net revenue of $700,000. It is not the object of the Intercolonial to have a big surplus, we want to give the people a good service, and the situation is such that we never expect to have a very big surplus at the end of the year.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: How much will the minister have on equipment account?


George Perry Graham: If we omitted the diversions at Chatham and George's River, which are practically new lines, the service this year would pay probably all the running expenses and all the capital expenditure of the Intercolonial. We have spent money on revenue account that a company

road would not have to expend on such account but would have charged to capital, and we have not spent one farthing that a company road would not expend.


Mr. MARSHALL.: What do you write off for wear and tear?


George Perry Graham: It is written off under the same rules and regulations that prevail on company roads under the Interstate Commerce Commission.


David Marshall: The reason I ask that question is that a few days ago I saw a number of locomotives which I thought were ready for the scrap heap, and I was wondering if you regarded them still as an asset. I suppose there were 25 locomotives.


George Perry Graham: We set aside $300,000 per year to renew equipment. I had an estimate made at one time and I found that our percentage of rolling stock out of commission and waiting for repairs or ready for the scrap heap, as the hon. member says, was a trifle less than the rolling stock of other companies in Canada, by percentage. A good many of our engines are light; we will use some of our lighter engines, that otherwise might not be of much use on the main line, should we take over some of the branch lines where lighter rolling stock can be used.
There is another thing of interest, and that is our relations to the Grand Trunk railway at the city of Montreal. We have been asked what that traffic amounts to. A few years ago an arrangement was made for the Intercolonial to run into Montreal, and by agreement with the Grand Trunk railway their terminals are used, and thejr line is used from Ste. Rosalie into Bonaven-ture station, and we have an arrangement for interchange of traffic. Now the total revenue in 1910 from the freight handed to the Intercolonial by the Grand Trunk, gathered up in Ontario largely-and I want the Ontario members to remember this when they talk of the Intercolonial-that freight in Ontario was gathered up by the Grand Trunk and handed to the Intercolonial, making earnings for the Intercolonial of $908,066.35. The Intercolonial handed to the Grand Trunk freight traffic on which the Intercolonial earned $753,452.28. So the total of the interchange would be about $1,660,000. That arrangement has been a good one. But I want to impress on our Ontario friends that more of that traffic is carried over the Intercolonial east than there is of maritime provinces and Quebec traffic carried from the east to the west. So the advantages that may be gained by having the Intercolonial railway run as cheaply as possible go a little more to the province of Ontario, possibly, than they do to the people through whose territory this railway runs.


John Stanfield: How much has the Intercolonial handed over to the Canadian Pacific railway?


George Perry Graham: By the arrangement with the Grand Trunk we have to hand all our traffic to them that is not otherwise routed, and they have to do the same with us. The most of our traffic is handed over to the Grand Trunk, Montreal being the junction point. I think there is more freight comes from the west to the east over the Intercolonial than comes from the east to the west.
Now, I want to say a few words about the Prince Edward Island railway. For the nine months ending December 31, 1910, the Prince Edward Island railway had a net loss of $53,294.11. That was a decrease in the loss for nine months over last year of $11,114.93. The Prince Edward Island railway does not pay, never will pay, and no one need ever try to make it pay. It is not the intention of the department to try to make it pay. When the island came into confederation we took over this railway, and it is the duty of the parliament of Canada to give the Prince Edward Island people a good railway service so far as that is possible. Although it is a certain contribution from the federal government to the people of that island, I am prepared, so far as I am concerned, and so long as I am a minister, to advocate a liberal treatment of the people in Prince Edward Island in reference to their transportation facilities.


John Graham Haggart: What was the capital expenditure on that road last year?


George Perry Graham: Approximately $185,000. We are building a new branch line in Prince Edward Island, which is not yet completed. Last year we spent $206,397.
Now, I have been asked:	What is the
future of the Intercolonial? It stands to reason that it will not be very long, at least it cannot be very long before the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Grand Trunk will come to the government, or to the management of the Intercolonial, and ask to be relieved from their arrangements with us at Montreal to hand us over their traffic. That traffic is very heavy, and they will undoubtedly come to us when the Grand Trunk Pacific is completed and say:	We
want to take our own traffic down from Montreal to LAvis and hand it over to the Grand Trunck Pacific. I do not know what will happen in the years to come when they make that request. I am not prepared to say it will ever be granted; it will not be unless the terms are right. I believe the future of the Intercolonial is bound up in getting an exchange of traffic with a western through line that runs from the Pacific to the Atlantic, and from the Pacific to the St. Lawrence at least. I believe that is what will make the Intercolonial of still



greater benefit to the people of Canada than it has been in the past. The Canadian Northern must shortly have a through line from the Pacific ocean down to Montreal and Quebec, it must get down to the sea-board in some way. I have an idea that in years to come, perhaps before long, the Intercolonial ought to get traffic from the Canadian Northern railway, its through traffic as well as its local traffic; and if the time ever comes when we have to release our arrangement with the Grand Trunk, which may not be for many years, then I think the proper thing for the Intercolonial would be to link up with the Canadian Northern railway, and hand its traffic from Montreal and Quebec, its through as well as its local traffic, over the Canadian Northern as far as possible for transportation west.
Now, I have talked altogether too long. The government railway is not easy to manage. I have to thank hon. members on both sides of the House for the_ courtesy that they have extended to those in charge of that railway. I live in a town in which are the Grand Trunk, the Canadian Pacific railway and Canadian Northern, and I know the applications which are made to members of parliament and the difficulties that arise sometimes in members being able to have matters adjusted exactly as they would like them to be, in the interest of the locality, and in the interest of the road as well. I have received a great deal of valuable advice from hon. members on both sides of the House, living along the line of railway not for the benefit of any particular individual, but for the benefit of the road and the people whom they represent. In future, we propose to manage the Intercolonial railway for the greatest benefit of the people who travel on it, or whose traffic is carried on it. I believe that the people of Canada have received great benefit from this road in the past and that in the future they will receive even greater benefit so long as we are able to manage it so that it will give them a good service at a reasonable rate and at the same time not put a burden upon the treasury of the Dominion government as it is not doing to any great extent at the present time.
In conclusion let me say, Sir, that there is no danger to Canadian transportation companies or our carrying trade, if we continue in the courageous course already outlined, and develop the national routes with which providence has endowed this country.


John Graham Haggart: Mr. Speaker, it is rather late in the evening to commence a detailed reply to the remarks of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham). He perhaps could not help it, but I should judge Mr. GRAHAM.
that he was rather long in making his speech.


George Perry Graham: I agree absolutely.


John Graham Haggart: It is not customary to present to the House the details in the form in which he gave them to us to-day. It is sufficient that they appear in the reports of his department without wearying the House with a continuous recital of details that it is impossible to consider or to answer at the time. The hon. gentleman began his remarks by pronouncing a eulogy upon the Board of Railway Commissioners. He said that they, were the finest body not only on this continent, but in the world, and perhaps the ablest. I do not know all these gentlemen, but I should judge they are fully competent for the positions which they fill. Their duties do not require the most ardent attention or the greatest ability, notwithstanding the statement of the hon. minister, but just such common sense as is requisite for the Minister of Railways and Canals himself. I think they have filled their positions well.
The hon. gentleman verged from that to the question of transportation. He stated that it was the important question of this country, that the tariff was a secondary consideration. I say that the two of them have to go together. In order that we may have transportation, we must carefully look after our tariff arrangements. I agree with the hon. gentleman to a certain extent with reference to what we must do with our canals. He has the modern idea. The modern idea is, that no railway transportation can compete successfully with water, that the two should go together that a railway along a river like the St. .Lawrence or the Mississippi is not a paradox. One is essential to the other. The very fact that by a waterway you can carry a certain line of freight in the cheapest manner, gives added value to the railway which parallels it. Railway companies in the United States are advocating the development of canal navigation along the line of their own railways for the purpose of handling such freight. That question has been most fully dealt with in Germany. The Germans are going ahead and developing what was thought a few years ago to be the antiquated system of canal .transportation for freight of a certain kind. In order to maintain our position on this continent, as the minister very well observes, we have to look after our transportation facilities. We are placed by nature in the most advantageous position of any nation on the continent of America. Nature has given us facilities for the development of our waterways superior to those of any other nation on this continent. We ought

to make full use of them because that nation through which the goods of another nation passes in going to market, virtually controls the political existence of the country which owns the goods. We are now in a position, if we maintain what we have at the present time, .to be the controllers of the destinies of that part of North America which lies along our beautiful water system. How can we best do it? The minister suggests two plans with reference to water communication-the building of the Welland canal and of the Georgian Bay canal. It is not
How happy could I be with either,
Were t'other dear charmer away.
with the Minister of Railways, but he loves both of them. He loves the banks of the St, Lawrence, and I do not blame him for favouring the development of what is to my mind, the most magnificent waterway in the world. To live on its banks is something^ because it is a beautiful river, but I must cease this flight of eloquence, and try to get down to something more practical. If the minister will take my advice, and I intend to give him reasons, he will be very careful about embarking upon an expenditure upon either of these great, undertakings without the fullest possible information. He has the fullest possible information as to what the Georgian Bay canal will cost, while he has not to such an extent information with reference to the St. Lawrence river and the cost of its improvement. I made a statement which I am prepared fto corroborate this evening, that the enlargement of the St. Lawrence canals to the capacity which is proposed-21 feet of navigation, or 24 feet on the mitre sills of the locks-will cost double the amount that will be required to build the Georgian Bay canal. Now, that is a strange statement. The building of that canal from the waters above to Lake Ontario, and, thence down to Montreal, will cost nearly .double what it would cost to build the Georgian Bay canal. I will give the figures and details with reference to this afterwards. What do you gain? The Georgian Bay canal route is 280 miles shorter than the other. It requires the most serious consideration why we should expend a large sum of money for making a ship canal down to Lake Ontario and from Lake Ontario to Montreal, if we do not require it.
We see in the newspapers that a proposition has been made to the Canadian government by the President of the United States for the joint - building of a canal from the St. Lawrence river to New York, and of course joint ownership. I am glad the minister has given no intimation that the government will pay heed to such . 161*
a proposal. We have got into trouble already by making an arrangement with the United States, and if you allow joint ownership of a single mile.or a single inch in our territory for the purpose of navigation, you might as well give the Americans the whole country. If they had joint ownership they would have the right to police it, and if they had the right to police it and line it with their troops, they would pretty soon own it. This government has had warnings enough and I do not think they need more, but I solemnly warn them not to enter into any arrangement of that kind. If it is necessary in the interests of the trade of the North American continent that a canal should be built, let us, poor as we are, build it ourselves. With 8,000,000 population we are in the position of the toad under the hat, but Sir, when we are 20,000,000 people in Canada, we can treat with any nation in the world on equal terms, which we do not at present. Let us keep to ourselves what belongs to us; let us keep our waterways and our navigation system for ourselves, and then we can virtually control the destiny of the whole North American continent. Now, to build the Georgian Bay canal it will we are told cost about $120,000,000 as estimated by the engineers.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: A little over $100,000,000.


John Graham Haggart: Well, we will put it at the extreme and say $120,000,000, and to build the new Welland canal into Lake Ontario, it would cost about $40,000,000. To build the Georgian Bay canal it would take about 12 years, and five 'years to build the other canal, the great cost of that work being the deepening and locking of the St. Lawrence river from Kingston to Montreal. The minister is right in having a thorough survey made. Time is a very important thing in transportation and if by any modern engineering device we can save hours and hours in locking, we will divert the traffic to that route. I would advise the minister to make the locks large and, although I do not know how the lift lock we have constructed, is working, something of that kind might be adopted to save time. If you are bound to build the Welland canal from Lake Erie to Lake Ontario, see that it is done on the best possible lines and on the most modern engineering principles. What is the object of getting freight from Lake Erie into Lake Ontario. If you have to scow it from Kingston down to Montreal cannot you carry it by boat or scow as easily as they do now from Port Colborne to Montreal. What is the great advantage of building a canal into Lake Erie unless you continue it down to ocean navigation. I can see no advantage for my part, and if the minister is going

to adopt that scheme the $5,000,000 we have spent on elevators and deepening the harbour at Port Colborne will be entirely wasted. That canal if built, will be a mutual benefit to Canadians and to Americans, and does the minister not realize what a large percentage of the traffic from west to east now goes via New York. That cannot be, because the facilities are not good in Montreal because we are told the capacity of Montreal harbour is two or three times greater than the present requirements. I believe, Sir, that the whole effort and energy of Canada should be directed towards intercommunication between the different portions of the Dominion. Without social intercourse, without commerce, without trade between the -different '(provinces you need not have a,Dominion at all. What we want to build up in the maritime provinces, in Quebec, and in Ontario, is a feeling of sympathy with the people of the Canadian west so that we may trade between each other, we taking as much as we can of their -surplus products, and they buying what we manufacture. Let us have a closer union between all the people of Canada so that we may build up on this northern part of the continent a strong and prosperous nation, which I believe to be the aspiration of every young man in this country. What was it that brought our fathers to the territory north of the St. Lawrence, cold and inhospitable as it was then thought, in comparison with the land they left. Why did they come here, if not with a determination that they and their children and their children's children should build up here a portion of that mighty British Empire of which they were so proud. And that Sir, I believe to be the destiny of the Canadian people.
That ought to be the object, and, as my hon. friend says, it can only be done by improving the means of intercommunication between the different parts of this Dominion. I will not trouble you with many details, but I would like to place upon ' Hansard ' my reasons for thinking that the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay canal will be a great benefit to the people of this country. The waterway will pass from Lake Huron at the northeast corner of the Georgian bay, and, following the French river, Lake Nipissing, the Mat-tawa and Ottawa rivers, will enter the St. Lawrence river at Montreal. In this manner connection will be made between the Great Lakes and the Atlantic ocean for large vessels up to 13,000 tons capacity. The canal will be 440 miles long, 22 feet deep, with a minimum width at the bottom of 200 feet. The rise and fall of the land will be overcome by 25 locks, each 650 feet long. I may state, too, that the whole of the excavation in this 440 miles will not be Mr. HAGGART (Lanark).
more than in the neighbourhood of about 25 miles. There may be a little dredging of 25 or 30 miles more, but the water between these excavations is deep, where a vessel can sail at full speed just as she can on the lakes. This was the route by which the people belonging to the Hudson Bay Company, Champlain and others travelled to the northwest; it was the old Indian route, and the shortest route from the east to the upper lakes and Hudson bay. I have not had the pleasure, like the hon. Minister of Railways, of living for any great length of time on the banks of the River St. Lawrence, but though I have a strong feeling of sympathy for that river, I am not speaking from sympathy, but from what I believe in my inmost soul to be in the interest of the people of this country, when I say that we shall never obtain the development we ought to obtain until we build that canal. I do not live near its banks. I am considering the future of this country, and the nation that commands that canal, secure from foreign interference unless by an act of war, will command the shortest possible route into the centre _ of this continent, and if we want to utilize our waterways we must build that canal. There is no railroad communication that can compete with water communication. You can carry freight by water for one-eighth per ton mile what you can by rail. It is the people's mode of transportation. It is true, companies may be formed to control transportation on water, as anywhere else, but any man can get a boat of his own. It is the mode of transportation that appeals to what the Minister of Finance speaks of as the horny-handed son of toil, as against the millionaire owner of railways and automobiles. Let us all unite to build this canal. It is not a political question, or one that ought to divide the parties in this House. We ought all to agree on some principle of developing this country. If we had used for this purpose some of the money that we have expended uselessly, as, for instance, the $50,000,000 which we have spent on capital account on the Intercolonial railway since 1897, the Georgian Bay canal would have been half finished at the present moment. This canal will give us, as I have _ said, a national waterway entirely within our own territory, far removed from the international boundary, and free from international complications, a waterway, which, under no conditions, can be used by the United States to assist them in wresting out of Canadian hands the trade of Canada's own Northwest, and it will secure, without possibility of competition. Canadian traffic for Canadian ports. It will foster existing and create new interprovincial trade both east and west, thus drawing closer the bonds of confederation and enormously increasing the national wealth and the power of the

[DOT]whole Dominion. It will greatly reduce the cost of carrying grain. It will open up Canadian Lake Huron and Lake Superior ports to Nova Scotia coal, thereby providing a market for a Canadian product to the extent of over 3,000,000 tons a year. It will very much assist the shipping of grain in winter. It will assist in the development of a million horse-power. As the hon. minister says,, the possession by the people of Canada of our enormous water-powers gives us the facilities for being the greatest manufacturing country in the world. There is no doubt the time will arrive when heat as well as power will be developed by electricity, and if we have no coal in this section of the country we have what is more than its equivalent, the power which will produce heat and everything else that coal will produce. Canada to-day is paying away to the United States millions of dollars annually, which ought to be retained in the country for the upbuilding of our own industries. If this is the case to-day, in a few years this state of affairs will be very much accentuated. Every Canadian will agree that Canadian grain exported to Europe should pass through Canadian channels, but what are the facts? In 1909, out of 56,000,000 bushels of Canadian-grown grain exported to Europe, 32,000,000 bushels, or 57 per cent, were carried over United States transportation routes for export at United States Atlantic seaports, which meant a loss to Canadian interests of over $2,000,000 for carriage alone. Why is this? There are many reasons. To state the matter briefly, the existing Canadian routes cannot handle this traffic either as cheaply, as quickly, or in such quantities as the United States routes can.
Take the St. Lawrence river route, this only carried in 1909, 18 per cent of the total grain exported from this country.
That is a disgrace to the country, a disgrace to the conditions of transportation in Canada. If it can be remedied only by the deepening of the St. Lawrence system, perfect that route, if it can be developed better by the plan I propose, build the Georgian Bay canal. I would not like to see the money of the country expended on that canal if I did not believe from the bottom of my heart that it is the cheapest, the best and the only plan by which we can control the exports of the Northwest, and of that part of the United States bordering on the Great Lakes.
We are paying to-day about $13,400,000 annually to the United States coal interests. The greatest portion of this could with proper transportation facilities be retained to our own people, although it might be necessary to put a higher duty on coal and that section of the country which I
represent would perhaps suffer the most. Utilize the water-powers we have in this section of the country, do everything that is necessary for the industrial life of the country, encourage the growth in Canada of the necessaries of life, the building of machinery, and the development of every industry that can properiy be carried on; finish all our products as nearly as possible to perfection before exporting them from this country. That is the policy that ought to be followed by this and every other government, and I thought it was the policy that was followed by my hon. friend. I might give reasons for the building of the Georgian Bay canal although the hour is late. But there is one thing that sticks out boldly and meets the view. We have surveys of the Georgian Bay canal, we know what it can be built for, we know that it will have the result of benefiting nearly every part of the country. It is not a party question, many of the foremost supporters of the project are on the minister's side of the House; let us unite and add one great scheme of water transportation from the Great Lakes. How the Americans see it! The President of the United States says that what is in the interest of the New York section of the country is the development of the waterways, and if possible the building up of oceanic communication, having ship communication between the Great Lakes and New York, if it is to retain even a moiety of the trade of that country. The Americans see that the only way to do this is not by building railways, but by the far cheaper mode of transportation with which Providence has so greatly favoured us, that of water communication. I earnestly entreat all my friends on both sides of the House-for I have arrived at the stage of life when I have no very bitter political opinions on any subject, I think perhaps good might come even from the Minister of Railways-and I ask him as I ask my friends on this side of the House to do all that they possibly can in developing what I think is of the greatest use to the people of this country.
The hon. gentleman talks about the Hudson Bay railway, and says he is going to-build it for the small amount of $20,000,000, I presume exclusive of terminals and steamboat communication between Canada and the old country. The minister must have a power in this House when they talk so lightly of an expenditure of $20,000,000 as nothing at all, and the manner in which my friend introduced it showed that he expected no opposition to it. If he wanted no opposition he should have had a different report laid on the table of the House. His deputy and the gentlemen who examined and surveyed that section of the country reported that they found a good enough

route nearly fulfilling the description of my friend the late Mr. Wood, who in discussing the building of the Canadian Pacific railway spoke of Manitoba as being amongst the eternal snows, still further up amongst the avalanches of the eternal snows where woman's sweet voice is never heard nor even the hum of the mosquito. I hope the event will be as opposite to my prophecy as the result of the building of the Canadian Pacific railway has been to Mr. Wood's. The minister's deputy says we may expect a full traffic on the road for a couple of months in the year, and a less amount for three months. He is very chary about what we will have for the remainder of the year. Has the minister, before making an expenditure of $25,000,000, considered how the cost is to be repaid to the people of this country? If it is a thing of benefit that the people of the Northwest expect in cheapening transportation and increasing the value of their farms and products I would have no objection to it. I do not know what the result may be, but I once applied with some others for a charter to build a railway from Winnipeg to Hudson bay. Looking at the map that seems an elegant thing. There were a couple of rival charters, and-we came to inquire into the navigation of Hudson bay. We found that the description was very much that of the deputy minister's report, that the navigation ends about October 15, and begins somewhere about the first of August. You would have two or three months of navigation during the year, but even two or three months, if possible and continuous, might be of immense benefit to the country. I remember when it. was thought that the navigation of the St. Lawrence would be only four or five months in the year.
I hope to see the day in the near future when, under the Minister of Marine and Fisheries we shall have ice breakers in the St, Lawrence, so that the river may be navigable at least as far up as Quebec for about eleven months of the year. I believe that it is quite possible. And I hope the navigation of Hudson bay will be found such that the evil forebodings of the present may be dissipated. However, the Hudson bay scheme is a large undertaking- $25,000,000 spent for a purpose which is still not beyond the range of doubt. I think the deputy minister says that it is the same distance from La Pas to Churchill as from Winnipeg to Lake Superior. The calculation was made, when I was Minister of Railways, that it would be cheaper to take grain down by the Canadian Pacific railway to Port Arthur, ship it by water to Montreal and thence to Great Britain than to take it by way of Hudson bay. It would cost about the same to leave grain on the shore of Hudson bay as to leave it at Port Mr. HAGGART (Lanark).
Arthur. The advocates of the Hudson bay scheme said: You will be in a better position by four cents a bushel than you are at Port Arthur; from Poi't Arthur to Montreal, it will cost you four cents a bushel, and it will cost you as much from Montreal to Liverpool as from Nelson or Churchill to Liverpool. But it will cost double as much to take grain from Churchill to Liverpool, under any system and with any equipment now known to navigation, as to take grain from Montreal to Liverpool. The minister says that the steamers can be employed for five months in the year. But it was thought in my time that it would require specially constructed steamers, and that they could not be profitably employed for more than three months in the year. That may not be true to-day. All that information the minister should be possessed of before he enters upon this expenditure of $25,000,000; and when he is fully satisfied he should see to it that the thing is done in a way to bring the best results for the people of the great and growing west. For the time will come, development proceeding as at present, when the exports of that country will be immensely in excess of what they are now; and every effort of the people of this country should be put forth in the direction of providing means to carry our surplus products to market. If these products are not to go down by Lake Superior and Montreal, St. John, Halifax and Quebec to the mother country, then, let them go by way of Hudson bay. In any case, let the transportation be over our own routes. As I said before, the country that controls transportation of the surplus products controls political destiny. If our surplus is to go to a foreign country to build up foreign transportation systems and industries, then we may say good-bye to the dreams of our young men for the building up of this country. Your regulations in reference to grain inspection, elevators, and transportation will be useless, for, in case of certain events, which, I hope in my soul will not come to pass, we shall not have a bushel of wheat to put into these elevators and your regulations will be idle wind. I was speaking to-day with a man who is engaged up to the eyes in industries of that kind, and he has come to the conclusion that the industries in which he has such large investments are worthless under certain conditions. But I hope for better things; I hope that something will happen in the meantime to save our country from the disaster which might overwhelm it. And I hope the Minister of Railways will use his influence in that direction. He seems to take an interest in these subjects and studies them up; I must say he does as well as I could expect him to do under the circumstances:	He does
very well anyway.
Now, a few words as to the Intercolonial railway. You must remember one thing

in making comparisons with the past, and that is that you have added $50,000,000 to the capital account of the Intercolonial since 1867. So, if you are making a comparison of two or three years back you should add interest on that $50,000,000. We were promised beautiful results from the acquisition of the Drummond railway with the large expenditure on capital account that was involved. The predecessor of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Graham) gave glowing accounts of how this railway was to be no longer a backwoods railway but was to be a first class road with its terminals in a first class city. And what has been the result' of all this? The minister does not even make mention of the past in this connection. And I think he is perfectly right, because after all, the people of Canada-certainly the young men of Canada-do not care a cent for anything that is more than four or five years old; they want something of the present and of the future, what the railway is doing and what it may be expected to do. The minister states that the Intercolonial affords the cheapest transportation of any railway on the continent. He makes comparisons with the Canadian Pacific railway, the Grand Trunk, the Canadian Northern, and, last of all with the Ontario system of railways. Does he think that a railway which has been in existence for about forty years should be compared in freight charges or anything else with a railway which has only been constructed and which is only struggling into existence as a backwoods road? Does he think that it is fair to make a comparison of freight and passenger rates with the Canadian Pacific railway? That road has a similar condition from Winnipeg to the Pacific coast. It is in great part what is called a mountain railway and has exceptional rates. And the Canadian Northern is in the same category. The only fair comparison is with the Grand Trunk. And the rates of freight on the Intercolonial, taking them all in all, are about the same as on the Grand Trunk. In all communications under twenty miles the passenger rates for both roads are prac-. tically the same.
I do not know the classification as to freights. What brings down the rate per ton per mile,- even in the classification on the Intercolonial, are two or three exceptional things. One is the carriage of coal, which we carry at the least possible rate for the purpose of fostering that industry. The other is the carriage of timber, sawn lumber and shingles, which are carried at a very low rate. But for ordinary traffic, I make the statement in this House that the rate for passenger traffic between way stations on the Intercolonial is as high as the ordinary charge on any other railway. It is as high as the New York Central, as high as the Erie, as high as the Grand Trunk. It is not as high on the whole as on the Canadian Pacific railway or the
Canadian Northern. The freight rates that apply in that country are fair freight rates, and so are the passenger rates. I think the minister ought to give other reasons for a shortage in the accounts, or for a failure to balance the two ends. There is one thing I am glad to see, and that is the prosperity in the maritime provinces, as shown by the traffic on the Intercolonial which they afford. In 1909 the collections amounted to $9,600,000, whereas the collections in 1897 were only about $3,000,000 a year. There must have been an enormous development in the wealth of the people of the maritime provinces to enable them to pay to the Intercolonial railway the amount they are now paying in collections.
The minister says that the railway is handicapped by water competition. Water communication* between two points develops a trade which railroads cannot do, because you can carry freight by water communication for one-eighth of what it costs to carry it by railway. If you are to build up industries, if you are to develop the resources of that country, you must have cheap com-muni cat ion, a cheap communication which the railroads cannot give. I congratulate the minister on the better showing the Intercolonial is making. It is to the interest of the people of Canada that that road should be prosperous, and that the maritime provinces should be prosperous. It is more necessary now than ever that the central and western provinces should have the closest alliance with our sister provinces down by the sea. The fate of this Dominion depends upon the existence of a similarity of ideas between the people of middle and western Canada with the inhabitants of the maritime provinces. This is_ absolutely necessary to enable us to build up the nationality on which we have all set our hearts. Mr. Speaker, I have a good many more things that I wish to say, and 1 may take another opportunity of outlining my scheme for the development of transportation in Canada.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou).: I trust that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hag-gart) who has just taken his seat will not regard me as displaying any lack of courtesy if I fail to follow him in his remarks. Let me say that I share with him in his enthusiasm for the development of a transportation system in this country. I join with the greatest pleasure in his support of the construction of the Georgian Bay canal, which I think deserves immediate consideration at the hands of the government, and which is absolutely necessary in the interests of every part of this country. I am sure the House listened with a great deal of pleasure to the remarks of the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart) in his review of the condition of the Intercolonial railway. On this side of the House we all regard with the greatest respect the vener-

able representative of Lanark, who in days past has filled the position of Minister of Railways, and who enjoys in a high degree the esteem and respect of those who sit on the right hand of the Speaker.
Now, let me refer briefly to some phases of the situation in regard to the Intercolonial as outlined by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham). Let me say, as I said last year, that I think the surplus which the minister makes out as somewhere in the vicinity of $700,000, is about $650,000 too large, and I will give my reason for saying so. It is a reason not generally understood at first sight; but let me point out that when you make a comparison in the operation of the Intercolonial with the operation of any company road in this country, there is a marked difference between the application of the revenues. At the close of the financial year of any company, if they have a surplus of a million or two, that money is available during the succeeding year for the purpose of renewals, extensions or repairs which are necessary in the interest of revenue. Not so in the case of the Canadian government railway. On the 31st of March next it will be the duty of the accountant of the Railway Department to place to the credit of the Receiver General of this Dominion that surplus of $700,000. It has gone forever from the Intercolonial, it is not available in the succeeding year for any purpose for the improvement of the road. The reason I say that the surplus of $650,000 is too large, is for that reason to begin with, but let me give you another reason. The Intercolonial railway was an interprovincial work. As my hon. friend from South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) well knows, it was one of the propositions that was essential at the time of confederation, include'd in the British North America Act as one qf the very conditions upon which these four prov-[DOT] inces decided to group themselves together to form the nucleus which was in time to be the Canada of to-day. It was not on account of it benefiting merely the people of the maritime provinces that the expenditure for that road was contemplated or made, but it was made for the unity and benefit of Canada as a whole. When you come to consider the Intercolonial railway you are coming to deal with a proposition which intrinsically differs from that of any other railway in the Dominion. Had you had no Intercolonial railway you never would have had any confederation. It is at the very basis of the whole system, quite as essential as one of the corner stones of the edifice which was afterwards constructed as any of the other provisions fought for and discussed at great length in arriving at the terms of the British North America Act. It is in the same position as the canals which were constructed in the central portion of Canada and which were then taken over. It was what the tran-Mr. MACDONALD.
sportation system by water was to the centre of Canada; it was essential that we should have communication with the different parts of Canada in order to make confederation a possibility.
The minister has told us the amount which has been expended upon the Intercolonial railway since that time, and which is somewhere in the vicinity, according to the last railway returns, of $82,000,000. During the same period there has been expended $96,000,000 on account of the canals. I am aware that this argument has been made before in this House, but I may be pardoned if I refer to it again. There is this difference, that while nobody in this country expects any revenue from the canals, while they are run absolutely free, while no tolls are charged on the traffic that goes through them, and nobody wants to have tolls charged, we have this remarkable fact that it is regarded as a sin and a disgrace that the minister does not come in and announce a great big surplus on the Intercolonial railway. For that reason, and on account of these conditions, the surplus is altogether too large. If government ownership is of any value, why should it be that the people who are operating a government utility, and more particularly a government utility of that peculiar character, it being an ante-confederation essentia], be expected to show a large surplus? That $650,000 of a surplus cannot be psed for capital expenditure if it is _ not spent before the 31st of March of this year, it goes into the treasury and is voted out again by way of capital, if not for revenue. Now. it is a gratifying thing, as the ex-minister has said, that the development of the maritime provinces has produced a condition of affairs in which the road has a revenue three times what it was worth fourteen or fifteen years ago. The extension of the road from Quebec to Moncton was one of the essential things which contributed to that condition. The original road consisted of the smallest kind of a local proposition, ending at Riviere du Loup. Gradually it was extended to Quebec; only within the last twelve years has it run to Montreal, and even to-day it is a local road. It does not share in any of the advancement which has come to western Canada, or to the largest province in the Dominion-Ontario. We never tap directly any part of your business, simply because, when it comes to Montreal, the Intercolonial railway can only get what the Grand Trunk railway or the Canadian Pacific railway give it, and what it gathers from the other railways, local or large as they may be. Being only a local road on that account, that the country should be clamouring for a surplus of half a million, or of any amount, is altogether absurd. It seems to me that

the proper view to take of this proposition Is that if this road is run so that both ends meet and the country is not called upon to contribute anything for any deficit that may arise you have a proper condition of affairs with regard to the Intercolonial railway. The minister deserves to be congratulated upon the intelligent appreciation of events from the railway standpoint which he	has displayed in	dealing	withrailways.	But there are	one	or	twothings to	which I want	to	call	hisattention.	It is no answer	for	my	hon.
friend the Minister of Railways, or for myself as the representative of a constituency supporting him, to go to a district in my county which has had a telegraph station for the last twenty-five years, and which was closed up a year ago, and say: It is true that you have had your station closea up and you have not now the facilities which you have had for twenty-five years, but we have a surplus of $700,000, which goes into the treasury, and which is no good to the Intercolonial railway after March 31. I say that there is a situation where my hon. friend could use a surplus. That is a simple ease. Why take away the facilities which have existed in the past, when, by this small expenditure, the whole country would not be affected in any way whatever, and you would have a substantial condition under which both ends would meet?
With regard to the question of freights, my hon. friend the minister produced figures which, as the ex-Minister of Railways says, require a good deal of study to ascertain just what they really mean. There has been an increase of freights on the Intercolonial Tailway in the last three or four years. With regard to certain local freights for short distances, the freight rates are rather too onerous. It must be remembered that the real manufacturing, or producing, portion of the Intercolonial railway is the extreme eastern part of it, and that there are intermediate agricultural districts which do not produce exportable manufactured articles, or any articles upon which high classification exists. Therefore, it is difficult to make a comparison with the business of other railways, or to ascertain accurately just how these rates work out when applied to the trade of the people who use the railway the most. But it does seem to me, having regard to the premise that I have attempted to lay down and having regard to all the conditions, that it should not be expected that a surplus should be obtained from this Toad. It may be said it is an anomaly that a representative of the people should stand up in parliament and say with regard to an important public utility that you should find fault with the size of the surplus. But Sir, I seriously contend that the proposition I make is absolutely sound, and that it
cannot be questioned from any reasonable standpoint.
There is another thing with regard to the administration of the road that I would like to take the opportunity of referring to. The men who are working on the Intercolonial railway are servants of the Crown, and they ought to be treated as servants of the Crown. When increases in wages are to be given they should be given by the government through the minister, and by the minister through his officials, having proper regard to the best administration of the road. The minister should not give assent to the proposition that conciliation boards would be appointed for the determination of such questions on the Intercolonial railway. Not long ago I was told by the government in answer to a question, a fact which I well knew, that there was no statute which provided for a conciliation board in connection with the Intercolonial railway. Suppose that in the Marine Department the right of the servants of the Crown to strike is recognized (and that is the basis of the Conciliation Act), and you are going to assume they will strike, by appointing a conciliation board, (which is another feature of the Conciliation Act), you have from every standpoint of the administration of the law a most anomalous position. Suppose our friends the men of our fishery cruisers made up their minds when they came to port that they were not getting enough wages, and some enterprising gentleman who was interested in promoting these boards came along and said: Demand an increase of wages from the minister, and if he does not give it have a conciliation board, and the whole operation of the ships was dependent upon the decision of that board, how absurd the situation would be. But it is no more absurd than it is in the case of the Intercolonial railway, because every man working on the Intercolonial railway is a servant of the Crown, and he accepts employment as such, and if he wants to have the advantages which accrue from company operation of a road he should seek employment on a company road. The responsibility of determining what should be done in regard to the servants of the Crown whether employed on a railway or elsewhere, should be exercised by the responsible minister. Suppose the minister had to announce to parliament that by reason of a decision of a conciliation board which compelled him to pay $100,000 more to a certain class of employees there was a deficit on the road, parliament would have a perfect right to say that the minister had no business to accept the decision of such a board, because it does not bind parliament.


John Graham Haggart: Could not the minister delegate his powers to a conciliation bofird and ask it to make inquiry?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is another thing altogether. I say that the minister acting through his commission who are the best judges in this matter ought in proper cases to increase the salaries of the employees, and whether he did so or not he should assume the responsibility. There is another thing in connection with this comparison between the Intercolonial railway and the Canadian Pacific railway, and the Grand Trunk railway; the Canadian Pacific railway and the Grand Trunk railway have ocean connections, they have steamers in connection with their railway, they have booking agencies in Europe and every facility for inducing passengers to take their lines, all of which the Intercolonial railway does not possess. Our industries in the maritime provinces seriously complain that ocean steamers will carry iron and steel and other commodities from Liverpool right across the ocean and as far west as Toronto, and that the freight including steamer and railway will be less than the industries in the maritime provinces have to pay for the transportation of similar articles for the land journey alone. Why that should be I do not know, but it is a thing the minister should look into.


John Graham Haggart: Did we not give the commission power to control the rates on railways and ocean connections?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Not the steamship rates. The question was discussed, but it never was legislated upon. Now, in the last parliament attention was directed to a proposition that the British preference should bp extended to only such goods as were brought to Canada through Canadian ports, and hon. gentlemen opposite who three or four years ago took strong ground against that because they wished to get their goods through New York and Boston rather than through Halifax and St. John in winter are the men who to-day are very much excited about the danger to Canadian autonomy and Canadian loyalty, because they claim that under the agreement with the United States goods are likely to go through American ports. These are the men who four years ago opposed a resolution proposed in this parliament by a Nova Scotia member which said that the British preference should only be given to goods which came in through Canadian ports. If, such a regulation were put in force and Canadian imports went through the maritime province ports in winter we would have an advantage for the Intercolonial railway which we have never had since it was built.


Mr. BEATTIE.: The maritime ports were objected to because when goods were landed in them, it was two weeks before they Mr. HAGGART (Lanark).
reached upper Canada. I know that from my own experience. I shipped my goods for many years through New York and Boston simply on account of the delay in the lower Canadian ports. That was the whole trouble.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I do not feel like giving to my hon. friend from London the retort I might.


Thomas Beattie: Do not be afraid.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There are some gentlemen so excited about sending goods through American ports that their loyalty ought surely to be strong enough to permit them to wait a week or two in order to get their goods through Canadian ports.


Thomas Beattie: Sometimes three weeks.


Mr. FIELDING.: What is three weeks for the sake of the old flag?


Thomas Beattie: I have been in the field sixteen weeks for the flag. If you are in business, and your customers want goods, and you cannot get them by one route you must have them brought in by the other.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I do not want to be turned into that discussion, further than to say that I hope that our good friends on the other side will now be found supporting us on this side when we ask the government to put into effect legislation which will give us trade through Canadian ports not only in summer, but for the whole twelve months of the year and satisfied they can get them as quickly through our ports as through New York or Boston. That it seems to me would afford one solution of the Intercolonial railway problem.


Mr. STAPLES.: Why did not the government, who had the majority behind them, put it into effect?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Because certain business interests of the country, some of whom are allied very closely with my hon. friend and his associates, represented that it would be such an injury to them that the government did not carry out the request made to them by gentlemen on this side of the House. If the jion. gentleman looks at ' Hansard/ he will find the names of the gentlemen who made that complaint.


George Perry Graham: Some of the Toronto gentlemen who are making_the greatest noise now came to me and asked me not to do it, as they wanted their goods to come in by way of New York.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am speaking as a Canadian who comes from -..the maritime provinces, and I say that the problem of

railway transportation in this country will not be solved until we see the necessity of applying that preference so as to give the advantage to Canadian ports the whole year round. Following the same line, I think that many of these discussions in parliament would be saved and a great many heart-burnings on the question of the Intercolonial railway would be avoided, if our transcontinental systems were extended to the extreme limit of Canada and were permitted to operate on the lines of railway which are now called the Intercolonial. In the statute which provides for the construction of the Transcontinental railway, there is a covenant under which running rights over the Intercolonial from Moncton east, are accorded to the Grand Trunk Pacific upon arrangements to be effected. Here is the Canadian Pacific railway at St. John, and we have on our Atlantic coast, some 200 or 300 miles nearer to Liverpool, available ports which can be reached at all seasons of the year without any difficulty. Therefore, it seems to me that it would be in the interests ofdDana-dians that the Canadian Pacific railway should also be given the right to run freight and passenger trains over the.,rails of the Intercolonial railway under conditions fair to the country and to the company. If in this way we had immediate connection with the various transcontinental lines, so that a man in the extreme east of Canada could go on any one of our transcontinental lines to the extreme west, and come back on any one of them without that dislocation which necessarily exists as an impediment to traffic when you have to transfer from one railway to another, and go into the division of payments and the allocations of freight incident thereto, it seems to me that the maritime provinces would be satisfied, and the whole interests of Canada would be advanced.


John Graham Haggart: We had that in 189?. The Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific railway both had running rights over the Intercolonial.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I think my hon. friend must be mistaken. The Canadian Pacific railway trains still run on the Intercolonial between St. John and Halifax, under a working arrangement with the government; but these are really government railway trains making connection with the Canadian Pacific railway at St. John.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman will remember that the late Mr. Blair, when Minister of Railways, pointed out the monstrosity of the agreement which the late government had made with the Canadian Pacific railway, giving it running power over the Intercolonial to Halifax.


William Pugsley: They took the cream of the local traffic.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: According to the Minister of Railways, there is no cream down there.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am one of the younger men who look to the future rather than to the past, and I trust that the minister will regard favourably the proposition which I make, which would afford the people of my province the advantages of these transcontinental railway systems. From the point of view of trade and transportation, an immediate connection with the various transcontinental lines operated through the whole of Canada would be an advantage which it is desirable to obtain if it is possible to obtain it on fair terms.


Mr. C. A. MAGRATH (Medicine Hat).: I do not intend to deal with any of the questions that have been dealt with by the Minister of Railways, or those who have followed him. The railway question is. a very important question in western Canada. Ever since I have been in this -/House I have not been in sympathy with the' methods that are employed here in the granting .of railway charters. I remember very distinctly my first visit to the Railway Committee, a little over two years ago, when certain interests were looking for a charter for a railway through the constituency which I represent in this House. I remember asking the gentleman who had charge of the Bill, what his clients proposed doing, when they proposed doing it, and the amount of money they proposed expending. He was very emphatic in his answers. He told me that they were going to commence work at a very early date, that they practically had the money arranged for. I suggested that it would not be amiss to ask those interested to put up say 5 per cent as a guarantee of good faith1.. The committee did not, however, appear to see eye to eye with me in that respect. Now, I have heard it said in this House that we should not demand from people applying for railway charters any evidence of their good intentions-that there was free trade in railway charters.
Now, I wish to point out to the House the situation in the west. Settlers are going many miles from railway lines. They learn of these charters being granted, and the moment they are granted they begin to look forward to the construction of the roads, and it is easily understood that they are disappointed when year after year passes by and they do not get any portion of the roads for which the charters have been granted. Those interests come back here and get renewals of charters. I remember asking two years ago for a return showing the mileage for which railway charters

were granted outside of the three active railway-builders in this country. Between the years 1900 and 1907 we granted charters for a total mileage of something like 37,000 miles, of which something in the neighbourhood of 400 miles were constructed. In the first session that I was here, two years ago, we dealt with some 56 charters, of which 43 were renewals, and 13 new applications. Last year we dealt with 52 charters; 37 were renewals and 15 new applications. I understand that there is a Bill before the Senate which is designed to improve that situation. It appears to me that the question of improving the method of granting charters in this country is a matter that should be dealt with entirely by the government. After the charter is granted the next move is for the railway company to file its route map. That is done with the Department of Railways, i have been present when the Minister of Railways has dealt with these route maps, and I must say, in fairness to him, that he deals fairly with those who come before him. The moment, however, that these route maps are approved, the information goes back to the. country where the people are and then they believe, knowing the procedure which is that the maps of location have to be filed with the Railway Department and that these plans cannot depart more' than one mile from the line as shown on the route map, they believe they know where that railway is to be constructed, they make their plans, they have been known to buy land and locate along the line where the route is shown on the route map and then we have instances in which these active railway corporations, I know that the Canadian Northern, and I know that the Canadian Pacific railway have come back with amended plans which they present to the Minister of Railways for reconsideration. The minister gives us notice and we are permitted to be present at the time, but in that immense country it is impossible to get at the people in sufficient time to see to what extent they have been led to locate along the line as shown upon the route map. No railway company can undertake to lay down a route on a map from which they cannot deflect more than one mile without making a survey of that route, and I say that something should be done to give these railways to understand that when they come here with their route maps for approval these route maps have to stand or if they are to be allowed to change their route maps and have them amended from time to time I think it would be better to do away with route maps altogether. I know two or three cases where serious injury has been done to individuals in that way, the route map has been changed some six or seven miles. I feel that it is my duty to bring this matter to the attention of the minister in the way I am now doing.
Mr. MAGiRATH.
I would say a few words on the general question of railway development in western Canada. What is the situation, for instance, in, southern Alberta, and all over the west. We invite settlers to come into that country; they take up our lands, they go very many miles from railways in order to get those lands. The constant cry which I have been receiving from my constituency ever since I have been in this House has been: When are we to receive better railway facilities? Had I known this question was coming up I would have collected some of these letters and placed them on record. We have three active railways operating in that country. They bring into the country large sums for the building of railways. I claim that the railway mileage is not distributed over that country so as to do the greatest good to the greatest area in the shortest possible time. No one would question that statement who knows anything about the situation in that country. I claim that these railways are, to a certain extent, jockeying each other. One railway comes into a certain locality, and the two others appear to think it is necessary that they should come in and run alongside of it. I claim that we have railways bonused, or with bonds guaranteed by the people, running within two or three miles of each other. My view is that as one railway invades a certain territory the other comes in behind it, and possibiy the third behind that, and if by any accident there should be a few townships left the first loops back and gets in behind the other two. That is a problem the Department of Railways might take hold of. I see no reason why the Minister of the Interior, who is looking after the lands in that country, should not associate himself with the Minister of Railways and get the heads of the active railways here at the beginning of the year and discuss with them their plans for the current year, and by that means endeavour to get them to spread their energies over a larger territory. For instance, in southern Alberta the Canadian Pacific railway is in the best position to, in a measure, meet the needs of that part of the west, whilst in some other parts of the country the Grand Trunk would be best able to supply better facilities, and the Canadian Northern, in all probability, could pick up another section of country. Then, when these roads had fairly met the needs of the several districts, they could invade the territory of each other as fully as they wished. I venture to question if the Minister of Railways, having given us vast masses of statistics here to-day is in a position to cite to this House what' the Canadian Pacific railway is going to build in the prairie provinces this year, or the Canadian Northern, or the Grand

Trunk Pacific. I have been here for two years, and I have never been able to get information of that character. It is all very well to be looking over our shoulder at the past and gathering information of the character we have been receiving today from the minister I would like to see more interest taken by looking into the future and knowing something of what these roads propose doing and where. They receive charters from the people. I am not here as being opposed to railway corporations. I believe in bringing the railways and the people together. The farmers cannot do without the railway any more than the railway can do without the farmers. The cry of the farmer in the west is that he is not getting proper attention in that respect. I hope that the minister will take my suggestions in the spirit in which they are given. This is not a political question at all, and I merely say I feel we should know more about what these railway companies are doing, and I see no reason why the government should not. at the beginning of each year, find out from those roads what they are doing, and at the same time endeavour to pull them apart thereby distributing their energies, because looking at their work in the west, it appears that they appear to wish to run in the same channel.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Progress reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: What business will be taken up on Monday?


William Stevens Fielding: It was arranged that the motion for Supply should be made, and the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) would make a statement concerning the affairs of his department. This was arranged between the Minister of the Interior and the hon. member for Lennox (Mr. U. Wilson). That hon. gentleman expressed a desire that the minister should make a statement very much in line with * that which the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) made to-day.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And if the House goes into Committee of Supply?


William Stevens Fielding: We shall proceed with the estimates of the Minister of the Interior.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.38 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 13, 1911.