1912-03-01

FIRST READING.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. WHITE (Leeds) moved that tire House go into committee tomorrow to consider the following proposed resolution: Resolved, that it is expedient to provide that the aid and assistance whioli, under the Canadian Northern Alberta Act, 1910, the Governor in Council was authorized to give to the Canadian Northern Alberta Railway Company in respect of the construction of the one hundred and fifty miles of railway therein described may, notwithstanding anything in the said Act, be applied to the first one hundred and fifty miles of the said company's railway at present constructed or located from St. Albert, in the province of Alberta, in a generally westerly direction toward the Yel-lowhead Pass.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I suppose my hon. friend will bring down the correspondence on the subject ?


Mr. WHITE (Leeds).: I will do so. Motion agreed to.



OFFICIAL INQUIRY IN HULL.

Air. DEVLIN.: 
Mr. MONK.: I have had the report of the investigator tor -a few days, but I have not had time to go fully into it or to take any action respecting those against whom there was no evidence; but I propose doing so as soon as possible.



IMPROVEMENT OF HIGHWAYS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. COCHRANE moved the third reading of Bill (No. 77) to encourage and assist the improvement of highways.
Wilfrid Laurier: Certain hon. gentlemen want to leave this afternoon and therefore I will move this amendment without any discussion. I beg to move:
That the said Bill be not now read a third time, hut that it be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House, with instructions to amend it by inserting the following words as subsection 2 of section 3:-
The sum of money voted in any year to be expended under this Act, shall he apportioned among the different provinces of the Dominion according to the population of said provinces as established by the last census for for the time being.
Bill (No. 117) to change the name of Ezra House divided on the amendment (Sir Butler Eddy Bessey.-Mr. Pripp.	Wilfrid Laurier).


Mr. LOGGIE.: YEAS:
*	Messieurs
Boivin,	Maclean (Halifax),
Bourassa,	MacNutt,
Brown,	McCrnney,
Buchanan,	McCoig,
Bureau,	McKenzie,
Carvell,	McLean (Sunbury),
Cash,	McMillan,
Chisholm (Antigonish),Marcil (Bonaventure), Chisholm (Inverness), Michaud,
Molloy,
Neebitt,,
Neely,
Oliver,
Pacaud,
1'roulx,
Pugsley,
lleid (Restigouche), Robb,
Ross,
Sinclair,
Thomson (Qu'Appelle), Turgeon,
Clark (Red. Deer),
Cruise,
Ilelisle,
Demers,
Devlin,
Douglas,
Fortier,
Guthrie,
Hughes
(King's, P.E.I.),
Knowles,
Kyte,
Lachance,	_
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),Turriff,
Law,	Warnock and
Loggie,	White
Lovell,	(Victoria, Alta).-
NAYS:
-50.
Ministerial.
White (Leeds),
Pelletier,
Perley,
Kemp,
Rogers,
Stanfield,
Haggart,
Bristol,
Rhodes,
Mondou,
Barrette,
Rainville,
Lamarche,
Boll,
Aikins,
Boyce,
Baker,
Tvemain,
Lancaster,
Wilcox.
PAIRS:
Opposition.
Messieurs
Emmerson,
Lemieux,
Murphy,
German,
Ethier,
Pardee,
Gordon,
Charlton,
Macdonald,
Papineau,
Seguin,
Gauthier (St. Hyaeinthe),. Lapointe (Kamonraska), Martin (Regina),. Bickerdike, Richards,
Kay,
Carroll,
Power,
Clarke (Essex).
Amendment negatived.


Mr. MICHAUD.: The hon. member for Kamonraska has not voted.
Messieurs
Alguire,	Lennox,
Armstrong (Lambton),Leeperance,
Barker,	i
Barnard,
Beattie,
Bennett (Simcoe), Blondin,
Borden,
Brabazon,
Bradbury,
Broder,
Burnham,
Burrell,
Chabot,
Clare,
Clark (Bruce),
Clarke (Wellington), Clements,.
Ccclirane,
Cockshutt,
Crocket,
Crothers,
Doherty,
Donnelly,
Elliot, '
Elson,
Fisher,
Foster (Kings, N.S.), Poster (Toronto, N.), Fowler,
Gcodeve,
Guilbault,
Bartt,
Hazen,
Henderson,
Hepburn,
*Jameson,
Kidd,
Lalor,
Lavallde,
Lewis,
McCurdy,
McKay-,
Marshall,	i
Meighen,
Middlebro,
Monk,
Munson,
Nantel,
Nicholson,
Nickle,
Paquet,
Paul,
Reid i(Grenville), Robidoux,
Roche,
Sevigny,
Sexsmith,
Sharpe (Lisgar), Shepherd,
Smith,
Staples,
Steele,
Stevens,
Stewart (Hamilton), Stewart (Lunenburg), Sutherland,
Taylor,
Thoburn,
Thompson (Yukon), Thornton,
Walker,
Wallace,
Webster,
White. (Renfrew), Wilson
(Wentworth) and Wright.-79.


Mr. LAPOINTE.: I am paired with the hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. Lamarche), had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. MACDONALD.: I beg leave to move that the said Bill be not now read a third time, but that it be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House, with instructions to amend the same by striking out clause six.
House divided on amendment (Mr. Macdonald, Pictou).
YEAS:
Messieurs
Boivin,
Bourassa,
Brown,
Buchanan,
Bureau,
Carvel],
Cash,
Chisholm (Autigonisli), Chi9holm (Inverness) Clark (Red Deer), Cruise,
Delisle,
Demers,
Devlin,
Douglas,
Fortier,
Guthrie,
Hughes
Kings, P.E.I.), Knowles,
Kyte,
Lachance,
Laurier (Sir Wilfri
Maclean (Halifax),. MacNutt,
McCraney,
McCoig,
McKenzie,
McLean (Sunbury). McMillan,
Marcil (Bonaventure), .Michaud,
Molloy,
Murphy,
Nesbitt,
Neely,
Oliver,
Pacaud,
Proulx,
Pugsley,
Reid (Restigouche), Robb,
Ross,
Sinclair,
Thomson (Qu'Appelle) ,Turgeon,

Law,
Loggia,
Lovell,
Macdonald,
Turriff,
Warnock and White (Victoria, Alta.-52.
Baker,
Tremain,
Lancaster,
Wilcox.
Kay,
Carroll,
Power,
Clarke (Essex).
NAYS:
Amendment negatived.
Messieurs
Alguire,
Armstrong (Lamhton) Barker,
Barnard,
Beattie,
Bennett (Simcoe), Blondin,
Borden,
Boulay,
Brabazon,
Bradbury,
Broder,
Burnham,
Burrell,
Chabot,
Clare,
Clark (Bruce),
Clarke (Wellington), Clemen ta,
Cochrane,
Cockshutt,
Crocket,
Cr others,
Doherty,
Donnelly,
Elliot,
Elson,
Fisher,
Foster (Kings, N.S.), Foster (Toronto, N.), Fowler,
Fripp,
Goodeve,
Guilbault,
Hartt,
Hazen,
Henderson,
Hepburn,
Hughes (Victoria, O.) Jameson,
Kidd,
Lalor,
Lavallee,
Lennox,
Lesperance,
Lewis,
McCurdy,
McKay,
Marshall,
Meighen,
Middlebro,
Monk,
Munson,
Nantel,
Nicholson,
Nickle,
Northrup,
Paquet,
Paul,
Reid (Grenville), Robidoux,
Roche,
Schaffner,
Sevigny,
Sexsmith,
Sharpe (Lisgar), Shepherd,
Smith,
Staples,
Steele,
Stevens,
Stewart (Hamilton), Stewart (Lunenburg) Sutherland,
Taylor,
Thoburn,
Thompson (Yukon), Thornton,
Walker,
Wallace,
Webster,
.Weichel,
White (Renfrew), Wilson
(Wentworth) and Wright.-85.
PAIRS:
Ministerial.	Opposition. Messieurs
White (Leeds),	Emmerson,
Pelletier,	Lemieux,
Ferley,	Wilson (Laval),
Kemp,	German,
Rogers,	Ethier,
Stanfield,	Paruee,
Haggart,	Gordon,
Bristol,	Charlton,
Rhodes,	Macdonald,
Mondou,	Papineau,
Barette,	Seguin,
Raiuville,	Gauthier (St. Hvaciuthe),
Lamarche,	Lapointe (Kamouraska),
Ball,	Martin (Regina),
Aikins,	Bickerdike,
Boyce,	Richards,


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: 


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read a third time, and passed.

Hon.  W. T.@: WHITE (Minister of Finance) moved the third reading of Bill (No. 88) to provide for the appointment of a Tariff Commission.


Wilfrid Laurier: 
Right Hon. R. L. BORDEN (Prime Minister).: 
Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer).: My hon. friends applaud the sentiment. The sentiment is embodied in the amendment, and yet they propose to vote down that amendment.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Come again.


Michael Clark: There is no difficulty about that. This principle seems to require a few -words from myself because the opposite position, which has been so well established through the mouth of the hon. member for Montreal, St. Antoine (Mr. Ames), was perhaps given more definite expression to by the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) in the speech which he made and in which he referred to some remarks of my own. But, I should like to point out before referring specifically to that speech what is the origin of this whole commission, and what is the bearing of the amendment upon the efficiency of the commission. The country ought to appreciate the fact that the proposition for this commission originated some years ago with the Manufacturers' Association of Canada. They carried a resolution at one of their meetings in favour of this very thing, and they used in regard to it-and this is very significant language-that we ought to take the tariff out of politics. That means, as I have proved at previous stages of the debates upon this Bill, taking the taxing power out of the hands of the people if it means anything at all. It reminds me of the story of a deacon in a darky church within the poultry belt who went to the pastor of the church after^ he had preached a sermon, and said to him: We wish you to understand that what we want you to do is to preach religion pure and undefiled and keep out of the chicken
coop business. _ Our friends opposite are voting on politics pure and undefiled, and they do not want us to give any attention to a commission which is outside of the ordinary parliamentary procedure altogether. The hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. White) said in the later stages of the_ debate upon this measure that he believed that this measure would be very favourable to the farmers and consumers.
I am sure he will not contradict me if I quote his language to that effect. I want the House to connect that language of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance with the language of my hon. friend the member for Brantford. I was mentioned playfully, of course, as a possible candidate for membership on the Tariff Commission. I need not say that I was not an applicant nor do I consider myself in line for any appointment under this government. What my hon. friend objects to is the very thought that any free trader should be upon the Tariff Commission, because, forsooth, he said that he was a gun which would not go off. My hon. friend, who has had an intimate connection with the Manufacturers' Association, wants to shoot somebody. While I may have been a gun of some kind, was my hon. friend not afraid that if I did by any chance go off I would possibly shoot into the ranks of the manufacturers? He was not concerned about the gun going off or not going off if I were a member of the commission, but he was afraid that I would possibly like to shoot into the manufacturers ranks. Was not that the legitimate inference from that language, was not that the meaning behind the words of my hon. friend? Was it not that this commission is by no means expected to touch the sacrosanct manufacturers, but if it does not touch them my hon. friend might shoot some one. Is he going to shoot the farmers and consumers of this country on behalf of the Manufacturers' Association? I invite the Minister of Finance to reconcile his language about this being a benefit to the farmers and consumers with the evident intention of one of his followers that this proposition should not benefit them but that it may possibly have the effect of shooting into the ranks of a large body of the people of this country. I apologize for detaining the House at this stage of the [DOT] business, but 1 think that these words used by the hon. gentleman are of sufficient importance to justify me in rising even if I have delayed the debate for a few moments.


Mr. COCKSHUTT.: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clark, Red Deer) what he means by saying that I was very closely associated with the Manufacturers' Association.


Michael Clark: If there was any offence in those words I gladly withdraw them. I understand my hon. friend has been a manufacturer, and the probability is that he had a close connection with that association.


William Foster Cockshutt: The statement of the hon. gentleman is that I was very closely associated with the Manufacturers' Association. The imputation is that I was an officer or member of the association. Does he say that now?


Michael Clark: Oh, no, I gladly withdraw it if it is an offence.


William Foster Cockshutt: There is nothing to withdraw if the hon. gentleman did not make the- statement.


Michael Clark: I withdraw it if it is in the least degree offensive to my [DOT] hon. friend.


William Foster Cockshutt: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill .read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On the order being called for the third reading of Bill (No. 32) respecting grain, Mr. Foster (North Toronto).
Wilfrid Laurier: I hope my hon. friend will not take up that Bill today. Several amendments have been made and1 I think the Bill should be reprinted before the third reading.


Mr. FOSTER (North Toronto).: I do not want to press the Bill if my right hon. friend thinks it should be left over. I had a conversation with my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), last night, and we arranged that these amendments should be taken to-day. I am anxious to get it up to the Senate as soon as possible.


Wilfrid Laurier: I simply put it to my hon. friend that this is a very important Bill, some important amendments have been made, and' it would be well to have it reprinted before taking up the third reading.


Mr. OLIVER.: There was no arrangement between the minister and myself. I asked him if he intended to have the third reading to-day, and he said he did. That was the only discussion. [DOT]


George Eulas Foster: I understood my hon. friend to say he would have his amendments ready. If he has not his amendments ready of course we will postpone it.	'	[DOT]


Robert Laird Borden: As I understand the right hon. gentleman presses to have it stand over.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think it would be only fair that such an important Bill with so many amendments, should be reprinted before being read a third time.


George Eulas Foster: If my hon. friend wishes it to be reprinted before the third reading, wfhich will take
some time, I move that instead of reading the Bill the third time we go into committee on it again for the purpose of filling in the blanks in clause 3.
Motion agreed, to, and House went again into committee on the Bill.
On clause 3, subsection 6-salaries of commissioners,


George Eulas Foster: I move that the first blank be filled with the figure 6,500 and the second with the figure 6,000. That fixes the salary of the chief commissioner at $6,500, and those of the other commissioners at $6,000 each.
Mr. OLIVER, Would the minister state the reasons that have led him to fix the salaries at these amounts. They are good salaries, $1,000, and $1,500 higher than the salaries of deputy ministers at Ottawa. .


George Eulas Foster: 
Frank Oliver: What are the salaries paid to the Railway Commission, and to be paid to the Tariff Commission?


George Eulas Foster: The Railway Commission, I think, get $7,000, $8,000, and $10,000. The Waterways Commission lately appointed receive $7,000, and $7,500. The Tariff Commissioners will receive $7,500 and $7,000.


Frank Oliver: In view of the salaries paid to the Tariff Commission the salaries proposed are moderate.


George Eulas Foster: I am glad my 'bon. friend thinks 1 have not been extravagant.
Amendment 'agreed to.


Mr. NEELY.: Is it the minister's intention to have the Bill reprinted before it comes up for its final reading ?


George Eulas Foster: Yea.


Mr. McCRANEY.: My attention has been called to the first subclause of section 107 under tire heading of ' Spring Wheat/ which says:
No. 1 Manitoba Hard wheat shall he sound and well cleaned, weighing not less than 60 pounds to the bushel, and ehall he composed of at least 75 per cent of hard Red Fife wheat.
I have before me a resolution, a copy of which was'sent to the hon. minister, in which it was pointed out that the wordis ' well cleaned ' are a hardship, because dockage is now put upon those who sell grain, which is not well cleaned, so that a person who is selling hard wheat which might otherwise grade as No. 1, if it is not cleaned as required by the Act, suffers a double loss-a loss both in grade and in dockage. This resolution points out that justice would be done if the same wording were used as is used with regard to No. 2 Manitoba Northern wheat, and if we used the words "reasonably cleaned ' instead of the words ' well cleaned.' It is pointed out that farmers have not facilities for cleaning well, and that all that they can be expected to do is to clean reasonably. I hope the minister will consider that point.


George Eulas Foster: The matter was considered when we were passing over these grades. Not only was it considered in conjunction with the deputation from the northwest who were here, but it has been considered later in conjunction with the inspector himself. There are objections urged against the suggested change in the quality of this grade. The words ' reasonably cleaned ' involve a doubt. A man who is inspecting knows when a grade is well 'Cleaned; that is easily apparent. To say that he must see that it is reasonably well cleaned leaves it open to the interpretation of various inspectors in a different way 'from what it would be if the actual definition were made. That is with reference to the best quality of our wheat, and if any grade of wheat should he raised and kept to a. high standard, it is that grade. The same words are used with reference to No. 1 Hard Fife and No. 1 Manitoba Northern, and it is not until you come to the lower grade of wheat that the words ' reasonably cleaned ' are used instead of the words ' well cleaned.' I can see the point that my hon. friend makes; but this grade should be high, and when it passes out from inspection, it should be well Mr. OLIVER.
cleaned. If there are variations in the wheat itself, as to what is mixed with it, the dockage will always be in proportion to the lamoumt of material for which dockage is allowed. If the wheat is reasonably clean, more dockage will toe taken than if it is well cleaned. I do not see where the [DOT]seller stands to lose in that respect. He does not want to get a price for the grain unless it is up to a certain standard and unless it is well cleaned. There will be a heavier dockage for wheat which is partially cleaned and a lighter dockage for that which is better cleaned.


George Ewan McCraney: 
George Eulas Foster: 
Mr. THOMSON (Qu'Appelle).: I do not like to press this matter on the minister under, the circumstances, but I think really it is important to have some change made at the present stage. In the province of Saskatchewan, at least in that part where I reside, we have experimented for some time with wheat. I myself have been growing Preston for a number of years, and as a matter of fact the Act as *it stands now is a dead letter so far as shutting out that wheat is concerned. I sell it year by year and it passes just the same as Red Fife.


George Eulas Foster: A twin sister to it.


Levi Thomson: I think that so far as quality is concerned we suffer no injury.


George Ewan McCraney: Do you sell on sample?


Levi Thomson: Not on sample, we sell on grade, and I have had it repeatedly graded as No. 1 and 2 Northern, that is pure Preston with not a bit of Red Fife in it as far as I could tell, and bearded wheat too. That is done in actual practice without much damage resulting, but it does not look quite right to my mind that there should be a provision in bur Act which the inspectors either wink at, or are unable to carry out. Preston and Marquis are the varieties of grain which I am more accustomed to. I fancy that an expert can tell at almost any time the difference between Preston and Red Fife more by the shape of the grain than anything else. But still they ipass it continually as No. 1 and No. 2 Northern, and it is quite just that they should do so I think. I do not know tliat the tests have shown the Preston to be quite as good a wheat as the Red Fife, but it is so very near it that! there is not a material difference. The Marquis also can be distinguished from the Red Fife, while the Preston is a longer and thinner grain than the Red Fife I think the Marquis on the other hand is a little thicker, and possibly a little shorter and of a deeper red. But the tests so far as they have been applied

show the Marquis to be as good a grain as the Red Fife, or a little better from a flour-making standpoint. I do not wish to press this matter too far but I thought it necessary to tell the minister what I have seen myself; and while, as I say, there may be no very great injury to the farmer, I a?n not sure that to have a law which is virtually ignored is a very good thing. We either ought not to permit our officials to wink at and ignore the Act, or we ought to change the law.
I have grown the Stanley and have found n,o difficulty in selling it, though I think I only grew it one year. But I know that the Stanley is continually being passed as Red Fife. I presume the same applies to the Marquis.


Mr. SHARPE (Lisgar).: Can the grain buyers tell the difference?


Levi Thomson: I think if I were a grain buyer I could tell the difference between the Preston and Red Fife.


William Henry Sharpe: Could tlhe average grain buyers in the West detect the difference?


Levi Thomson: I think so. The, Preston is longer and a somewhat thinner grain than the Red Fife. But I think it is practically as hard. There is a marked difference between the Maxquid and the Red Fife, at least a difference that can be seen.


William Henry Sharpe: How many years have they been experimenting with the Marquis ?


Levi Thomson: It cannot have been for very long, seeing that it is being sold at $12 a bushel. That may not be true with regard to the Marquis just now, but, even though frozen it is sold at $2, $3, and $4 a bushel. So, there is no danger, at present because none of it will be sold in the ordinary way.


George Eulas Foster: It will practically all be sold for seed ?


Levi Thomson: Yes. No one who has Marquis will sell it except for seed, unless it is altogether too dirty.
Bill, as amended, reported and amendments concurred in.



SUPPLY-NEWS SERVICE TO MAGDALEN ISLANDS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FOSTER (North Toronto) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
Hon RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Rouville).: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I wish to call the attention of the House to the Marconigraph service that has been Mr. THOMSON (Qu'Appelle).
established between the mainland and the Magdalen Islands. I have on two occasions asked the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) if it was true that news was being supplied by the government to the Magdalen Islands during the season when navigation is closed. And I was answered yesterday that tlhe Postmaster General had established a news service and that this service had begun last week.
Some years ago, I obtained from the Minister of Public Works a condensed cable news service for the fishermen and1 merchants of the Magdalen Islands, giving them the state of the fish-markets and of staples generally at Halifax and Pictou. That news was cabled from Meat Cove to the islands. But I never asked for the supply of political news to the islands. The service of the cable was also given to the islanders at a cheap rate in order to give them the necessary facilities for communicating with their relatives on the mainland. This year when the estimates of the Public Works Department came before the House, on the item of telegraph lines in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, I called the attention of the Minister of Public Works to that service established through my instrumentality a few years ago. To my astonishment I learned the other day that a more extended' service of news had been granted by the government to the islands. I immediately suspected something, and my suspicions were right. I asked the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier), and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen), what was the nature of this service, and was answered yesterday by the Postmaster General' (Mr. Pelletier), that that service was non-political. Well, Sir, I hold1 in my hand the first instalment of news which was sent by the political editor in Quebec to the Magdalen Islands. And I must protest against it. No political leader has the right to use the moneys of the people to supply partisan news to one section of the country at the expense of the whole country. This first instalment is to be followed by weekly letters to the Magdalen Islands. I shall not worry the House by reading these despatches, but I see one paragraph here which deals with the G.T.P. contract which was interpreted by the Privy Council the other day. And the whole statement is biased, and is given from the Conservative point of view only. I need1 hardly mention other paragraphs in which eulogies and encomiums are heaped upon the head of the Postmaster General and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Monk), in connection with Quebec public expenditures. I call the attention of the acting leader of the House (Mr. Foster), to this state of affairs. The question will be brought up again in the House, but, meantime, he should warn

his colleagues that they must not expect the country to pay for partisan news wired to the Magdalen Islands under the excuse of giving to the islanders something of the news of the ou'tside world.


Mr. HAGGART.: Would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux), give us a specimen of this partisanship?


George Eulas Foster: Just before my hon. friend read's, would he kindly state from what he is reading?


Mr. LEMIEUX.: From the Toronto Daily ' Star,' which publishes the first instalment of news sent to the Magdalen Islands. It has been published1 in .other newspapers, but I happen to have the Toronto 4 Star ' in my hands, and from this I read.	,


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend is certain that that is the pure, undiluted news that was sent to the Magdalen Islands?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am morally convinced that these are the items of news sent to the islands.


George Eulas Foster: It is very important to know that it is really so.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Very well. I will take the hint of my hon. friend (Mr. Foster). I will put a 'question in the order paper or move a motion asking the Postmaster General to give the House an exact copy of the news which was sent from Quebec to the Magdalen Islands. And I shall defer my remarks to another day. But I again state that if the facts are as mentioned in the Toronto 4 Star,' it is simply an abuse of the confidence of parliament, and it is a gross abuse of the privileges enjoyed by a minister of the Crown. He has
no right to use the money of the people to supply partisan news to one section of the country.


Mr. BENNETT (Sirncoe).: I would suggest to my hon. friend that he look up the report of the Kingston penitentiary a few years ago, where he will find that the greater part of several pages was taken up in an argument on binder twine to contradict speeches of members in this House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.

[Stage Direction]
Campbellton-to increase accommodation at, $160,000.
["I stated last evening exacly what the contract was, and I will repeat after the recess what I said.\nAt six o'clock, House took recess.\nAfter Recess.\nHouse resumed at eight o'clock."]
Mr. COCHRANE.: The committee will remember that a very disastrous fire occurred there last year, and this vote is necessary to replace the buildings then burnt down.


Mr. CARVELL.: Does that refer to the stations and buildings alone?


Francis Cochrane: It covers station, platforms, engine house, rest-room, roundhouse, turntable, conduits for pipes, heating, gas and electric plant, wiring and installation, machinery, grading and ballasting, freight sheds, ice house, temporary buildings, engineering expenses, land and legal expenses. The work was started last year.
, Mr. MACDONALD. The minister was to give us some information with regard to financial results.


Francis Cochrane: have not yet decided what to_ do with it, or how much of it to apply in the same way.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: There are complaints throughout the lower provinces that the rolling stock is not up to the standard, either in quantity or quality. It is said that in order to get a surplus these considerations are being neglected. Has the minister looked into that question?


Francis Cochrane: As I said last night, we are taking stock to arrive at a conclusion. Later on we will find in the estimates an item for cars and rolling stock.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I would like to ask the minister if he will take into consideration the advisability of retaining this surplus in some way for a special fund, and using it towards renewing rolling stock, bridges and whatever else is necessary. I know I am opening up a big question. I am not finding any fault, because my own party friends have erred to the same extent that his friends did when they were in power, and I am afraid that my hon. friend may err in the future. There is a wide difference between the Intercolonial railway and any ordinary railway company. I realize that railway companies are in the habit of charging many items to capital, and justly. If this method of bookkeeping has been adopted on the Intercolonial in the past, to some extent we are following the principles of railway companies. But there is a vast difference between the two. The Intercolonial is an asset of Canada, and it is a necessity to the maritime provinces. It is a great advantage, not only to the maritime provinces but to Quebec and Ontario as well; because while it is true that we have a reasonable freight rate and passenger rate, yet the great part of that advantage inures to the benefit I think of the manufacturers and producers of Ontario and Quebec, certainly to a much greater extent than to the consumers of the maritime provinces. Now the trouble comes in that when we have a surplus of $600,000 or $700,000, as we are to have this year, that goes into the ordinary fund of Canada, and the people of the maritime provinces, or the Intercolonial railway, get no credit for it whatever. It simply swells the revenue of Canada, and it is taken to be used in other portions of Canada-I am not saying it is not properly used, but the difficulty comes in that if unfortunately there comes a year when there is a deficit, then there is a great cry goes up from the rest of Canada that the Intercolonial is a burden, it is something that ought not to be allowed. Several times since I have been in parliament I have heard this cry go up: The Intercolonial is not paying its way; therefore it is going Mr. COCHRANE.
to be sold, or given away to some company, or something of that kind.
If this money were placed in a special fund, out of which betterments could be paid for, we would at least have the satisfaction of knowing whether the Intercolonial railway is paying its way or not. I submit that there has been hardly a year since the Intercolonial railway has been in existence when the people of Canada have been able to tell by reading the report of the minister, or the blue-books, whether the Intercolonial railway has paid its way or not. Possibly I am breaking in on new ground; I know that I am voicing something which has been opposed to the policy of my friends, but I think I am talking common sense, and I am appealing to the minister, not to give me his decision now, but to take this matter into his consideration. Take the figures which the minister gave me last evening; he says that we have a surplus this year of something like $600,000 or $700,000, but that we spent last year a million and a half on capital account. If that be true we have no actual revenue returned to the people. I would like to see the Intercolonial railway put upon a business basis. I am a maritime province man, but I have no connection with the Intercolonial railway. It does not affect my constituency, but I hope that it will in the luture, because I believe that the minister is going to effect some arrangement by which a branch of the Intercolonial railway will come through my part of the country. I am anxious to see the freight and passenger rates brought down to the minimum so long as they pay expenses, but I do not like to see a railway run except on business principles, and I would like to see the bookkeeping carried' on in such a way that we would know exactly what the road is costing us each year and whether we have a deficit or a surplus. The hon. minister made a statement last night with regard to the board of management, but I do not think that he gave us as much information as we desired. I am not going to ask him here to declare his policy, because evidently the minister does not want to do that now. From the figures given this afternoon, I see that since the inauguration of this board of management there has been a great improvement in the balance sheet at the end of the year. We have had a continuation of surpluses since this board1 of management was inaugurated, whereas very frequently prior to that we had deficits, I think that the minister would do well to consider carefully the question as to the advisability of doing away with this board of management. I know that there has been a feeling in many parts of the maritime provinces that tire board of management per-

haps has not played the game to the extent that somebody would like it to.


An hon. MEMBER.: The political game?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The political game, but I do think that they have played the business game and that is the game that the country wants to-d'ay. I am not lecturing my hon. friend, but I am trying to talk common sense, and I hope that he will give some consideration to what I propose before coming to his decision as to the question of policy.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: I remember very well the late Minister of Railways explaining to the House what had been done with the surplus earnings in the way of betterments to rolling stock and betterments to the railway.


Francis Cochrane: I explained that.


William Pugsley: Yes, and the late minister always made that explanation.


Francis Cochrane: I did it this morning.


William Pugsley: Yes, I had not the opportunity of hearing my hon. friend. It was affirmed by the late Minister that all reasonable improvements which were required and which any ordinary railway company would charge to operating expenses were charged by the Intercolonial railway, and that no improvements had been charged to capital account except such as a railway company would charge to capital account. It seems to me that where entirely new rolling stock is obtained, additional locomotives and cars, it is proper to charge the cost of these to capital account. Where rolling stock has been worn out and new cars are obtained to take their place then it is proper to charge the cost of the new cars to revenue or operating expenses. I understand that where a bridge has been replaced by a heavier bridge, owing to the necessity of providing for heavier locomotives, the difference between what would have been the fair value of the bridge that was replaced and the cost of the new bridge has been charged to capital account. Every railway company does that. I have been told by a gentleman connected with the Canadian Pacific railway that since that road wa3 supposed to be entirely constructed and completed the Canadian Pacific railway has expended more on capital account, in rebuilding, improving grades, laying heavier rails and rebuilding bridges than the original cost of the road. That has been charged to capital account and it would be very improper and upfair to the shareholders to charge it to operating expenses. In order to deal justly with the Intercolonial railway and give the public a proper idea of whether it is paying expenses or not it is very proper that these 133



[Stage Direction]
should be charged against operating expenses and the overplus should be shown as a surplus. It seems to me that that is only reasonable and fair.
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am sorry to differ from my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugs-ley) although I quite agree with him that the method which he has described is the method followed by the ordinary railway company. I am sure that if we were to keep on following that method we would never know what the Intercolonial railway was costing us, or whether it was paying it3 way or not. There ought to be a time at which the Intercolonial railway should be considered as being finished except you are adding new mileage. Of course, if new mileage is being added that is another thing. But, there should be a finality to it at some time. Most of us are business men to some extent and if, in my business, or in any of the enterprises with which I am connected, I kept taking money out of earnings and paying it out in the form of dividends, and if I was issuing new stock to keep the thing going, possibly I myself might get some money out of the dividend, but I would not be creating very much of a property to hand down to my successors.


William Pugsley: Is not that what the Pennsylvania and Canadian Pacific Tailway are doing?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That may be so as far as these railways are concerned, but the business of the country is not done in that way. This is a case, I contend, of running this road in such a manner as to enable it to pay its way. When we have a railway running for forty years surely the time has come when it ought to pay its way or we should know why. Possibly I am talking against the policy of both my friends and my friends opposite, but I hope the minister will give the question some consideration and bring forward some definite proposition.


Mr. FOWLER.: 
EDITION
[Stage Direction]
saw them. We knew that on the morning of the election, September 21, a number of carloads of rails were brought to Salisbury, the junction point of the Intercolonial railway and the Albert railway. These carloads of rails- were never put upon the Albert road, they were never brought away from Salisbury, and shortly after the election they were returned to Moncton. The natural inference was that it was never the intention of the government to hand over these rails to the Albert road -for the purpose of repairing its lines. We 'had no access to these telegrams, and so, 'as- I say, the natural and only inference was that it was merely an election trick and w-e would be quite justified in drawing that inference, because we knew who was behind .it, the hon. member for St. John, who was [DOT]celebrated for these little election dodges and manipulations. Consequently we were confirmed and fortified in our opinion and in the inference we drew from the position of affairs as We saw it. These rails were returned to Moncton, and I had to come to Ottawa and interview the department before any of them were made use of upon the road.
My horn, friend has quoted certain telegrams which passed beweem himself and Mr. Raymond. The condition of affairs was just as I stated in the remarks I made in Albert county subsequent to the election, to which I have already referred. No agreement had been executed' between the railway company and the government, and consequently the officers of the department in Moncton declined to allow those rails to go for the use of the Albert railway.
My hon. friend quoted a telegram which shows that this agreement had not been executed and so the quotation which he makes from my remarks- iat Albert is -amply borne out. I -said: ' The people -of Albert county were fooled about the railway.' Surely they were fooled, they were told they were to get these rails, that the arrangement was all nr-ad-e and these agents of the Liberal party were chasing about the county, were going to the various halls and schoolhouises throughout the county, telling what the government had done and were proposing to do 'and they were reading telegram-s by the score -from Mr. Pugs-ley showing the wonderful, strenuous efforts he was -making in order to get this road in running order -again. But it was all hot air, simply wind, and nothing was done, and nothing had been- done until after September 21, or in fact until October 26. Anybody who has- anything to do with these government departments', and I think I speak to a sympathetic audience, knows that it takes some time to get them to move and so it is no wonder that it was not until October 26, with all the force I was able to bring to bear upon the department that I was able to get these rails. I did get th-e-m Mr. FOWLER.
and the road was running on the 1-st of December, the very day I told the people it would 'start. I told the people of Albert they were fooled about the railway. Surely in the face o-f -everything said by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley), and his emissaries through-out the county, when they were still without the railway, and suffering great loss of business 'and distress, I was justified din drawing the inference that the people were fooled about the railway. Promises were made that were not intended to be fulfilled. The only way to judge of a man's intention is by the circumstances surrounding his acts, be-causie you cannot pry into his brain and find inscribed there what he really means; you must judge of this intention by the outward evidence of his acts, and with these carloads of rails going down to Salisbury and remaining 'there instead -of going into the county as w-as expected, to be used on tire road, it was the most natural thing in the world for us to draw the inference that they were never intended to go any further.
William Pugsley: Did not my hon. friend
the Minister of Railways, after he became minister, cause the cars to remain there up to the 26th day of October when the agreement was delivered at Ottawa?


George William Fowler: No, the cars went back to Moncton and were unloaded.


William Pugsley: No.


George William Fowler: I know a number of cars were unloaded, I tried to prevent them being unloaded.


William Pugsley: That was after the new government came in.
)Mr. FOWLER. Possibly it would have been great presumption on my part to attempt to interfere before. I said:
There had been no authority for these rails to be loaded or removed from Moncton.
Is that statement correct? My hon. friend has shown by the telegram that there was no authority. He said that on information he had received, he wired that the contract was signed and executed. If it was signed it certainly was not filed at Ottawa and that would not authorize the department to send the rails. I am not finding fault with the department but with the manner in which this was done. It was 'done in such a way as to throw the strongest possible suspicion upon the bona fides of those carrying on the negotiations, and it is no wonder the people of that country think that they were fooled and I said what I thought because that was the only possible inference one could draw. I said:

There had been no authority for these rails to be loaded or removed from Moncton, and as soon as the elections were over and the government was defeated, arrangements were made to withdraw these rails.


William Pugsley: That is quite incorrect.


George William Fowler: I say that the rails that were loaded in Moncton yard to be shipped to the Albert railway were after the elections, unloaded from the cars in which they had been placed. I say that because I saw that done and tried to stop it.


William Pugsley: On what date?


George William Fowler: After the elections.


William Pugsley: Was it after or before rbhe present Minister of Railways came into office?


George William Fowler: Possibly it was shortly after. There was no contract and therefore the minister would not have been justified in -allowing -these rails to go. I said:
I found out that there had been no contract signed or executed in regard to rails for the Salisbury and Albert railway.
As far -as the department was concerned, it had not been signed or executed. I do not know what document may have been signed outside of the department, certainly there was none there.
Then there was trouble about the bridges. 1 again went to Ottawa and got the bridges, and I have the authority for saying to you that one of these bridges is now on the line and on the 1st of December the road will again be in full operation its entire length.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Were these rails subsequently obtained for the branch line?


George William Fowler: Yes, they were bought by the company under an agreement with the department that they were to pay, I think, $27 per ton, which I think was an excessive price for them. The rails were sold to the company under the condition that if the branch line were taken over by the government-, an allowance would be made for the rails, and if the branch lines were not taken over, the company would pay $27 a ton for them.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: But in the meantime they are not to pay for them?


George William Fowler: They are not to pay for them until it is determined what interest is to he charged against them. My desire was to have this railway operated through its entire length, hut it was shut do\tfn, by the late government, which was charged with the duty of conserving the rights of the people and looking after their inter-1331
es-ts. However, after the present administration came in, I found the department sympathetic, although slow, and the result was that on the 1st day of December the railway was operated throughout its entire length, and it has been operated daily ever since, to the great comfort and joy of the people; and of course everybody along the lime of the railway is very strongly in favour of the present administration, whereas the other people had only made promises, which, as usual, had a string to them. They remind me of a trick that we used to play when boys-. We would take a ten-cent piece, put a hole through it, tie a string through the hole, put the ten-cent piece on the sidewalk, hide in a doorway, and, when any one went to pick up the ten-cent piece, jerk it back. So with the late government: They always made their promises with a string to them, and, as soon as people were ready to grasp them, pulled them back. The hon. member for St. John assured us as a member of this House that he was acting in good faith, and I am bound to accept his statement. I am simply justifying the statement that I made at Albert, and I will leave it to the fair opinion of any member of this House if I was not justified in all the circumstances.


William Pugsley: What I complain of is not so much that my hon. friend, in his ignorance of the facts, made the-statements that he did, but that when he has acquired a knowledge of the real facts, he should still persist in. stating that the people were fooled, and that there was- no bona fide intention to supply the rails for this railway.


George William Fowler: The hon. gentleman has missed the point of what I said. I said that I was justified in drawing the inference which I did, and I say so still. But if the hon-. gen-leman makes the statement as a member of this House that he was acting in good faith throughout this affair, I am bound by the rules of the House to accept it.


William Pugsley: That is a course which usually does not commend itself to gentlemen. That is not a generous mode of accepting the statement I made. I do not ask my hon. friend to rely on my statement, but I ask him to take the correspondence which appears on the record, and any man reading it, with a disposition to- deal fairly and honourably with his political opponents, would say that everything was done bona fide and in a proper and businesslike manner; and there is no ground for my hon. friend, with the knowledge of the facts as disclosed by the record, stating that there was any disposition to humbug the peo-

pie or to do anything that was not fair and businesslike.


George William Fowler: Was the contract in' the hands of the Railway Department before the 21st of September?


William Pugsley: I stated last evening exacly what the contract was, and I will repeat after the recess what I said.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 99) respecting the Ottawa, Montreal and Eastern Railway Company. -Mr. Bickerdike.
Bill (No. 94) respecting the Windsor, Chatham and London Railway Company.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Wilcox.
Bill (No. 54) .to incorporate the Quinze River and Ottawa Railway Company.- Mr. Brabazon.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 114) to incorporate Revillon Frferes Trading Company, Limited.-Mr. Barker.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply.
Campbellton-to increase accommodation, at, $150,000.
['I understand that the Boundary Bill will be discussed on Monday, and then estimates.']
William Pugsley: My hon. friend for [DOT]Kings and Albert (Mr. Fowler), who is not now in his place, asked me just before recess if the contract was signed prior to the 21st of September. I may say for the information of my hon. friend that the telegram from Mr. Raymond to me was prior to the 21st of September, stating that the contract had been signed, and it was understood that it would be forwarded immediately to the Deputy Minister ,0f Railways and Canals at Ottawa. I observe that in the copy of agreement which is included in the return to the House, and which was signed by the Minister of Railways, the date is given as the 19th of September. Of course that was not the date when my hon. friend signed it, he signed it afterwards, and that evidently was the day when it was signed in New York by the president of the company.
Now my hon. friend for Kings and Albert has been a little disagreeable in the remarks which he made to the committee, and among other things he said as an excuse for not believing that the government was acting bona fide in reference to the supply of rails for this railway, that he was aware of tricks which I have played Mr. PUGSLEY.
in the past, presuming, I suppose, political tricks, and therefore he was justified in giving the worst construction possible to what had taken place. I do not propose to follow my hon. friend and say any disagreeable things with regard to him. I think it does no good to import language or insinuations of that kind into the discussion of an important matter such as this. I am not aware however that ever in my political life I gave any assurance to the public which was not given with the utmost sincerity, or that I ever failed to carry out, so far as I was able, any promises which I had made. Perhaps I may say this-and I hope my hon. friend will not take it offensively-I think that if he has any weakness at all it is a desire, when he gets upon his feet, to say things which are disagreeable, and for which I have no doubt he is exceedingly sorry afterwards. I have no doubt my hon. friend has many uneasy moments after he makes a speech in going over the mistakes which he makes, and he promises himself to do better next time. I only hope that my hon. friend will avoid future errors of that kind, because, underneath what appears to be the disagreeable side of my hon. friend's character, he has a kindly heart; you have to search for it oftenj but still when you do make diligent search, you find it is still there all the same. I should be very sorry indeed to say anything of an unkind nature towards my hon. friend. My only reason for bringing this matter up was to show that whether the hon. gentleman was endeavouring to give a fair and proper impression to the people of Albert county or not, he certainly led them astray when he led1 them to believe that there was any want of good faith on the part of the late government in this very important matter.


George William Fowler: I was not here when the hon. gentleman began his remarks. Would he repeat what his answer was to my question?


William Pugsley: I said that the telegram from Mr. Raymond to me, stating that the agreement had been signed' in New York, was prior to the 21st of September. I said also that that was further confirmed by the fact that the agreement which is on file, and which is executed by the present Minister of Railways, is dated the 19th of September, two days before the election, and of course in the vicinity of three weeks before the present Minister of Railways assumed office. I take it for granted that he signed the agreement with the date in it which had been put in by the company. It was signed by Mr. Swan, the president of the company.


George William Fowler: I asked1 if there was any agreement between the Salisbury-Albert

Railway Company and the government on tile in the department at Ottawa or anywhere else, an executed agreement with Tegard ' to selling rails and transferring rails from the Intercolonial to the Albert road?


William Pugsley: I stated the full circumstances last evening. What I said then I am happy to repeat 'now, because my hon. friend, I fear, has not done me the honour of reading the report of my remarks in ' Hansard.'


George William Fowler: Yes, I did.


William Pugsley: Then he has forgotten what I said. I said that in the month of September Mr. E. P. Raymond1, who was solicitor of the company, and who, I may say, had given assurance that he held a power of attorney from the Salisbury-Harvey Railway Company, had wired me from New York that the agreement had been executed by the company; and it was understood between Mr. Raymond and myself that immediately upon its being executed it should be forwarded1 to the Department of Railways at Ottawa.


George William Fowler: But had it been signed by the Minister of Railways?


William Pugsley: Not at all.


George William Fowler: When was it signed?


William Pugsley: I said it was not signed until the present minister signed it, some time in October; I stated that yesterday.


George William Fowler: Then i would ask the hon. gentleman if that agreement was operative until it was signed by the Minister of Railways and Canals?


William Pugsley: I would say that it was, and I will tell my hon. friend why. In the month of September the terms of the agreement were approved by Mr. Raymond, the solicitor of the railway company, and who held a power of attorney from the railway company, and it was also aproved by Mr. Sherwood, the general manager of the railway company.
, When Mr. Raymond sent me the telegram that it had been formally executed1 by the president in New York, my view as a lawyer was then, and is now, that if any rails were delivered upon the strength of that agreement, the terms of which had been approved by all the parties interested, by Mr. Alward, acting for the Department of Railways, in St. John, where the terms of the agreement were arranged- that if rails were supplied under that agreement, the company would be bound to carry it out. I have no doubt whatever upon that point.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I wish to read, a document which is on file and which was
not read yesterday, but which has a bearing, a very important bearing, upon the question of the bona fides of the late government in reference to supplying the rails, and which is also important in view of the point Taised for the consideration of my hon-. friend the Minister of Railways as to. the arrangement being that legislation should be introduced at the present session of parliament. This is a letter from, the former Minister of Railways to Mr, Swan, the president of the Salisbury and Harvey Railway Company:
Office of the Minister of Railways and Canals, Ottawa, Aug. 2, 1911.
Dear Sir,-The policy of the Dominion government, as announced, is to take such lines as may, in the interests of the public, furnish branch lines to the Intercolonial railway. At the session of parliament just closed a Bill was introduced naming the basis on which these lines might be taken over. This Bill got its first reading, and was under discussion in Committee of the Whole House when dissolution took place.
In the meantime, the owners of these lines made representations that the basis could not be worked out practically, and after consultation with the Minister of Railways another basis was proposed, which does not seem unreasonable.
I have your offer to sell outright the Salisbury and Harvey railway, with its extensions and rolling stock for ($120,000) one hundred and twenty thousand dollars. Ordinarily I would not at the present moment make a proposition respecting- the taking over of this line, were it not that some nineteen miles of the road are not now open for traffic, and the people who were accustomed to. a railway service are suffering a great injustice and hardship, so that I feel strong steps should he taken to remedy this situation.
The government is prepared, therefore, to propose to you that at the coming session of parliament they will introduce legislation, either to take over the road at one hundred and twenty thousand ($120,000) or to take it over on the basis recently arrived at after consultation between the owners of the various branch lines and the Minister of Railways on condition that you will agree, at once-to make sufficient repairs to the line to enable it to be operated and begin at once to operate it over its entire length for the convenience of the public. Such repairs to be made under the supervision of the Railway Department.
Should parliament approve of the government taking over this line, the amount of money expended by yon in such repairs will either be added to the sale price, or to the capital on which you will he paid interest under the rental basis.
Kindly let me hear from you without delay as the people complain loudly of the inconvenience.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) GEORGE P. GRAHAM.
A. S. Swan, Esq.,
President, Salisbury and Harvey Railway, Hillsborough, N.B.

I find on file also a letter from me to Hon. Mr. Graham, Minister of Railways and Canals, as follows:
Office of the Minister of Public Works,
Canada.	*
St. John, 11th Aug., 1911.
Dear Mr. Graham,-In reference to a letter of A. Sherwood, .manager of the Salisbury-Harvey railway for loan of rails and iron girders for bridges. Sherwood agrees to modify letter so that they shall be merely a loan to the company pending completion ot transfer of road to Intercolonial railway. It is very important that this loan should be made, as the people are put to an enormous inconvenience by reason of road boing shut down.	.
I am yours very sincerely, WM. PUGSLEY.


Hon.   G@: 

[Stage Direction]
That the company expected to make a more favourable arrangement with the new government does not appear. But I think that everybody will agree with me that when the agreement did not arrive in Ottawa in due course of mail, as the deputy minister had a right to expect it would arrive, the department was quite justified in issuing orders, as it did, to withhold delivery.
Now, my hon. friend (Mr. Fowler) repeats to-day the statement which he made in Albert, that he was entitled to all the credit Mr. PUGSLEY.
for getting these rails actually delivered.
I cannot .agree with that. The files of the department do not justify my hon. friend in making that statement. It appears that he did communicate with Ottawa, and did offer to give his personal assurance, to assume the persona] responsibility to make ' good to the government any claim in respect of these rails. But my hon. friend the present Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane)-very properly-having in view the Independence of Parliament Act- declined to take any contract from my hon. friend, no matter how good that contract might be, for my hon. friend could not properly enter into it, and declined, as he had the right to decline, to countermand the order with regard to the Tails until the company carried out its undertaking to forward the contract to Ottawa. It was not owing to what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler), did, unless it was to induce Mr. Raymond to hurry forward the contract. For, the moment the contract arrived the present Minister of Railways and Canals acted promptly and in good faith and executed the agreement which, as I have said was arranged weeks before, and gave the order.
Another thing which strikes me as peculiar. The hon. member for Kings and Albert says he did not know anything about the telegrams on file in the department. Does he deny that after the election, and before the present Minister of Railways and Canals acted he saw the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and asked him the cause of the delay?
George William Fowler: I saw the Minister of Marine and Fisheries on several occasions. We discussed many matters, and may have incidentally discussed this matter,-I dare say we did.


William Pugsley: I have no doubt my hon. friend (Mr. Fowler) did so. It was the most natural thing in the world for him to see the Minister of Marine and Fisheries as being the minister from the province. And I assume that it would be at the request of my hon. friend from Kings and Albert that the telegram of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries of- the 12th of October was sent. That telegram reads:
St. John, N.B., October 12, 1911. Hon. Frank Cochrane,
Minister of Railways,
Chateau Frontenac, Que.
Agreement made with latte government to supply rails and girders to Salisbury and Albert railway to repair their railway pending the agreement to take over railways by government, since government resigned management refuses to give any further rails. Kindly instruct Pottiuger at Moncton to continue supplying sufficient rails and girders so work can 'be completed. Will see you in Ottawa Tuesday.
(Sgd.) J. D. HAZEN.

Which, as I said yesterday, was a very proper telegram for the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to send. To that telegram the Minister of Marine and Fisheries received the following reply:
Ottawa, Oct. \i, 1911.


Hon.  J. D.@: Hazen,
St. John, N.B.
Message received re Salisbury and Albert railway I find upon inquiry that the company has not executed the agreement they promised to, and which it was said they had done. This is reason, I am informed, for non-delivery more rails and girders.
(Sgd.) F. COCHRANE.
If my hon. friend was not informed by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries of that telegram it certainly is very surprising indeed.


George William Fowler: Why surprising?


William Pugsley: Surprising, because, if my hon. friend was getting the Minister of Marin6 and Fisheries to intercede in the matter and to hurry on the delivery of the rails, I would have assumed that the minister would have informed the hon. member for Kings-Albert as to the reason why the rails and girders were not being delivered. At all events, what I say is that before the hon. gentleman informed himself by finding out what had taken place in regard to these rails, the agreement which had been made and the correspondence which had passed between the department and the railway company, he was not acting in a manner which would command the approval of those who were acquainted with the circumstances, when he went to his constituency and told the people that the late government had been deliberately fooling them instead of delivering these rails, in fact, telling them that they never intended to deliver them and that what they did was simply to send forward the rails with the intention of taking them back after the elections. I submit that upon consideration even the hon. member himself will feel that his conduct under these circumstances was of the most unjustifiable character.


George William Fowler: That is very strong language to be used even by the hon. gentleman. In order that the committee may be fully seized of the circumstances in connection with this particular case it would be as well for me perhaps to give a little of the history of the stoppage of operations on this road. Many months before the first step was taken, before the (first telegram was sent, this road had ceased operations from Hillsboro to Albert, a distance of about 20 miles, and the people were needing the service of that railway very .much. There were manufacturing industries at Albert that were unable to
get their products away by reason of the lack of transportation and the people were making every effort possible to get this road reopened. The House was in session there during that time, the government was in power, the government of which the hon. member for St. John was a member, and a supposedly not unimportant member, it was my hon. friend's own province, it was a constituency close to his own, it was a constituency represented by my hon. friend; yet, all these months passed by and these people got no redress nor was any attempt made to redress their grievance. The first date that my hon. friend has put forward is the 2nd of August, months after the road had ceased operation. Why did. they get in a bit of a hurry then?-because an election was impending, because this railway ran through an important section of the county of Albert, a part of the constituency of Rings and Albert, because they felt that this man Fowler would likely be a candidate, and under those circumstances, they were determined to keep him out of the House at any cost. They had succeeded once at a tremendous cost and they were determined to do it again if they could. So these (gentlemen Jgot busy, not because they wished to redress the grievance that the people of that portion of Albert county were suffering from-no, but simply because they wished to carry that constituency and they felt that it was necessary to take that step. Then, they made a terrible rush.
They got in a very great hurry and mv hon. friend did a great deal of telegraphing all over the country. Telegrams were flying thick and fast and A certain gentleman in the county of Albert who was formerly the local member there made himself very busy and I do not know how many trips he made to Moncton beseeching and praying the department there to do something before election day. Why? Why was all this haste at this particular time?-because the election was -approaching and not because they wished to assist the people of Albert particularly but simply because they felt it necessary 'in order to prevent my returning to the House of Commons.
Now the hon. gentleman tells us that under the circumstances that existed in this case, because there had been some negotiations in connection with this matter because there was supposed to be floating around somewhere, he knew not where, an agreement, whether signed or not he knew not, certainly not signed by the Minister of Railways and Canals, we are not justified in casting any doubt upon the intentions of the late government. He was on his reputation as a lawyer and as a Minister of the late government that it


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman again indulged in street-corner gossip, I suppose. He says it is said that the business of the Public Works Department has


George William Fowler: been loosely managed. Who told my hon. friend that? Has he learned that from the present minister? We have the testimony of the present minister that he has the greatest possible confidence in the head officers of the Department of Public Works. Let me tell my hon. friend that under the rules governing the administration of the federal government where the principal officials of a department are careful in the performance of their duty there is not likely to be any loose work. So far as the Public Works Department, while I had the honour to preside over it, is concerned1, I have n>o fear of the fullest possible investigation into every act of mine, and as to everything that was done while I was minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Wait a while.


William Pugsley: We will wait a while, just as long as my hon. friend wants, but let us wait, do not let us anticipate what may be discovered, do not throw out insinuations as to what may be discovered, do not seek to poison the public mind with respect to the administration of a department until matters are brought out, if there are any that can be brought out, reflecting on the administration of the department. It seems to me that is only fair, only what any public man administering a department has a right to expect from political opponents whether they are members of this House or outsiders.
My hon. friend has complained of delay by the late government in making provision for the opening of this railway. It seems to me my hon. friend speaks in that respect without consideration. This is a private road, owned by a private company which received subsidies rrom the provincial government and1 from the Dominion government. It did cease to operate a portion of its line. Very great complaints were made by the people, the very strongest possible complaint was made by the late representative of Kings and Albert, and at the earnest solicitation of Dr. McAllister and representatives from other constituencies in which railways were in a somewhat similar position, the late government asked parliament to enact a law of a very drastic character under which if a road ceased to be operated, proceedings might be taken for the sale of it in order to take the most effective measures possible to secure its being reopened and operated upon a safe and proper basis. But in this particular case the company said we have not the money to put this 20 miles in order, we cannot reopen it, unless we can get rails, we have not the means to procure rails, and we cannot do anything towards reopening the road unless the government will come to our rescue and give us a loan of rails pending the comple-

tion of an arrangement for taking over the various branch lines of railways. That was a very difficult thing to do, if a proposition like that were put up to the present Minister of Railways, he would say that was a question that required1 careful consideration.


George William Fowler: How long did it take
to say all that? [DOT]


William Pugsley: It has not taken me very long.


George William Fowler: How long would it take for the people to make their statement, and for you to grant that relief? Would it take all the months that the road remained idle until the 1st of August?


William Pugsley: It took a good deal of consideration on the part of the government before they would approve a recommendation which I made that the government should come to the rescue of this road, and make a loan of this large quantity of rails to them. It meant lending the company rails to relay 20 miles of road, it meant contracting quite a large indebtedness, and was a matter requiring very careful consideration, and the government very properly took quite a considerable time before deciding to do it. My hon. friend knows that another part of this railway extending to Alma was closed up by the Albert Railway Company.


George William Fowler: Not the same company.


William Pugsley: It may be another company, but a continuation of the line owned and operated by this company.


George William Fowler: That had nothing to do with it.


William Pugsley: And my hon. friend know's that the rails of that road were taken up and disposed of, and I think my hon. friend had something to do with the matter as solicitor or otherwise, and would know something about it.


George William Fowler: I know all about it.


William Pugsley: That was a piece of road which would have been a feeder to this part, which w.as aided by the late government and unfortunately it went out of service, the rails were taken up and that part ceased to be operated, thereby, of course, rendering the other part- of the road less profitable than it otherwise would have been. I submit that, the late government so far from 'being censurable for any delay which took place with regard to making a loan of these rails, were entitled to receive, *and did receive, from the people of Albert county, and should receive from my hon. friend as their representative, heiarty thanks in respect of the matter, because what the State government agreed to do was
of great public service and it affords me the greatest pleasure to know that tire present Minister of Railways has carried out what we agreed to do.
One word with regard to what my horn, friend says was 'the improper advice which I gave to send 'forward these rails upon my receiving information that the contract had been signed. The hon. gentleman says that this was a contract which was flying around loose somewhere. It was nothing of the kind. That draft of agreement had been brought to St. John by the law clerk of the department, its terms had been approved of by the deputy Minister of Justice, by the general manager of the Intercolonial railway, and 'by Mr. Raymond, solicitor of the 'Company, and all that remained was to take it to New York to secure its execution by the president of the company under the seal of the company, after which it was to be forwarded to the deputy Minister of Railways at Ottawa. I think it was not an imprudent thing to say to the deputy minister that it would be proper for him to have the rails loaded and sent forward, because in the ordinary course before those rails would reach tine BsunveyJSalisbury road, the contract would reach Ottawa, where it would be executed by the then Minister of Railways 'and the whole matter would be completed. The rails were so loaded that they were kept in the possession and under the control of the authorities of the Intercolonial railway until that agreement reached Ottawa, >and when there w.as inexplicable delay in its reaching Ottawa, when it was found that Mr. Raymond was for some reason delaying in sending it forward, the railway authorities acted very properly in issuing orders not to deliver the rails to the company because the agreement had not reached Ottawa. They acted entirely properly afterwards in waiting until the 26th of October under the present minister when the agreement was received, properly executed, when, without any thank's to the hon. member for Kings & Albert (Mr. Fowler), the present minister carried out the arrangement made by the late minister and ordered delivery of the rails.	-


George William Fowler: I do not think my hon. friend has explained the long delay of almost a year during which this railway was down before action was taken on the 2nd of August by the government. The only explanation he has given is that he acted promptly and brought the matter before his colleagues. It took his colleagues a *long time to inform themselves as to whether or not he was correct in the statements he was making. It seems to me that the hon. gentleman's colleagues Should have had more confidence in 'the statements he made, and should not 'have required all thoise months of extra information outside

of what ihe was -able to give them, unless there was some very good reason, for it.
My hon. friend has referred to another road, which he says was a part of this, and has said that I had something to do with the disposal of the rails on that road. There was another road in the county, but it was no part of the Salisbury & Albert Railway. It was a road from Harvey to Alma. ' It has been in existence 1" or 18 years. The ties were all rotten, the bridges were all down, and the rails were being stolen by private parties. They supposed that the road had been abandoned, and they carried off the rails and used them for various purposes. Certain persons who were clients of my office had a judgment against the road, and the rails were sold under that judgment. Why does my hon. friend drag in that transaction? To draw a herring across the trail? I cannot understand what it has possibly to do with this railway.


William Pugsley: Was it not all one continuous railway.


George William Fowler: Not at all.


William Pugsley: Was it not a continuous railway, although owned by two separate companies?


George William Fowler: As a matter of fact there were three railways there-the Salisbury & Albert, the one under discussion, the Harvey branch connecting Albert with Harvey, under a different management, and the railway from Harvey to Alma, under different management and different ownership. It was the road from Harvey to Alma which was down all those years, nothing was left but the right of way and a portion of the rails. My hon. friend knew that perfectly well. He knew -that the Albert Southern, so-called, had nothing to do with the Harvey & Alma, and why he dragged it into the discussion I do not know. Did he want to cast some discredit on myself? I do not know why otherwise; and if that is all the argument that my hon. friend can put up for the long and cruel-and I say it advisedly-way of the late Government, it is a very lame and very poor defence, and it was so considered by the people of Albert county. Let me tell you that the people of Albert county are well pleased and well satisfied now with the result, and I may state that they give the credit to the present member for Kings and Albert for the redress of the great grievance under which the suffered for so many years.


William Pugsley: It is not the first time that the people have been deceived, as my hon. friend says.


George William Fowler: No. or my hon. friend would not be here.


George William Fowler: 


William Pugsley: Let me say, as the concluding remarks of this debate so far as 1 am concerned, that the people certainly have great reason to be satisfied with the policy which was inaugurated by the late government, of taking over the branch line railways, under which that government agreed to lend the rails to this Company in order to have the road improved, so that it could be put in good running condition, and which has been very properly carried out by the present Minister of Railways-I say that the people ought to be gratified that that policy has been brought to such a successful issue; and if my hon. friend is clever enough to make the people believe in a state of facts that does not exist, then he is cleverer than even those of us who have admiration for his intellect would give him the credit of being.


George William Fowler: Let me say this, that the people are satisfied and gratified that there is to-day in power a government which does something more than promise. That was all that the late government did with regard to that constituency at any rate it dealt in empty promises. To-day we have a government that deals in performances.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: I want to call the attention of the hon. Minister of Railways to the case of a young man in Nova Scotia named Joseph Benoit, who was dismissed by my hon. friend. He had been for a number of years an employee of the railway, and had.paid into the provident fund a considerable amount of money. He has called my attention to the fact that he has received an official letter informing him that he cannot receive back the amount of money which he has paid in. It does seem to me that that is very unfair, particularly in view of the law on the subject. Chapter 22 of the Acts of 1907 says that employees who are discharged from the service for any cause other than those mentioned in paragraph 'b' of section 17, after they have been three or more years contributors to the fund, may be paid out of the fund the total amount of their contributions to the fund, but without interest and less the cost and expenses of medical examinations. Paragraph 'b' of section 17 referred to is this:
Those who are discharged from the servioe on account, of wilful default, misconduct negligence in the performance of their duties, drunkenness, fraud or dishonesty.
A charge arising out of political interest does not come within the things mentioned in this paragraph.


Francis Cochrane: Would not that be misconduct?


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: He is not charged with misconduct, but with political inter-

lerence, which is not misconduct in the sense of the statute, which relates to his conduct on duty or to any offence involving moral turpitude. Certainly it would be straining the construction of this statute very much to keep from this man the money which he has actually paid into this fund, and which was kept out of his wages, because he got interested in politics to an unusual extent. I would like the minister to look into this case and see that justice is done to this man. I am only asking my friend to carry out the statute.


Francis Cochrane: I shall be very glad to look into it.


Mr. CHISHOLM (Antigonish).: I have a similar case to bring to the attention of the hon. minister, though it is slightly different, inasmuch as the man tendered his resignation. The case is that of John Girrior, Tracadie, Antigonish county. He was section foreman, and had been in the employ of the department for upwards of 14 years. He was supposed to be a Liberal,
I understand, and some people got busy to put him out of the way. Then he received notice some time in October, after this government came into power, that he was no longer to act as foreman and another man who was under him was appointed in his place he however being continued as underman. The result was that Mr. Girrior, who lived about the middle of the section

being an under-man-had to walk to the end of the section every morning before 7 o'clock when the day's work begins. Now, unfortunately he had met with an accident and had his leg broken about a year ago in consequence of which rheumatism developed. The result was that it was very hard for him to walk from the middle to the end of his section in order to get to his work, as he was required to do, every morning at 7 o'clock.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: How far would that be?


William Chisholm: These sections are 6 or 7 miles in length and it would be half that distance. At any rate it was quite apparent to him in his way of thinking-whether rightly or wrongly-that this was a subterfuge, that he was degraded in the service to get him out of the way in order to make room for the man who was appointed as his successor. Therefore to save himself from the odium of dismissal, which he expected was coming, Mr. Girrior very foolishly tendered his resignation. Now the Employees Provident Fund Act provides that any man who tenders his resignation cannot participate in the fund. Had Mr. Girrior waited and taken his dismissal for political reasons or on account of political partisanship, he would have been entitled to the amount he paid
into the fund for the whole 14 years and upwards without interest and less certain charges such as the fees of the medical examiner. Had he stayed in the government service a few months longer he would have been entitled to his pension, but he resigned before the specified period of 15 years had expired. Having tendered his resignation however it is held by the Provident Fund Association that he is not entitled to participate in that fund. The section of the Employees Provident Fund Act to which I refer is the following:
The following employees, notwithstanding anything in this Act, shall not participate in any of the benefits of the fund under this Act, nor he entitled to a refund of any portion of -the contributions made iby them to the fund, that is to say:
Those, except as in this Act provided, who voluntarily retire from the service. [DOT]
The Provident Fund Association has claimed that as * Mr. Girrior voluntarily retired from the service he cannot receive the amount which .he now claims, namely, the amount which he has paid in. But 1 submit, and I direct the attention of the minister to this fact; that although in form the resignation was voluntary yet, all the circumstances being considered, it was not a case of voluntary resignation at all. but a case of forced resignation as Mr. Girrior apprehended the situation. Mr. Girrior taking into consideration the fact that the other man had been appointed as foreman, and that he was submitted to this extra work, of walking to the end of the section before the beginning of his days work, which under the circumstances he eauld not perform, naturally concluded that this was a means of getting him out of the way. As he puts it himself: There are lots of ways of killing a d'og besides choking him with butter. Under the circumstances he very foolishly I think, tendered his resignation. I do not blame the department at all-in fact I do not attribute any blame to anybody as far as that is concerned-but Mr. Girrior thought that by offering his resignation and by making no fuss he could participate in the benefits of the employees fund. He thought that would strengthen his case and he would be all the more likely to receive the benefits to which he thought he was entitled by tendering his resignation, which under the circumstances I submit was not voluntary.


Francis Cochrane: The matter has not come before the department in any way at all.


William Chisholm: I believe that.


Francis Cochrane: But I will get a re-
I port on the case.


Mr. SINCLAIR.: I would like to get from the minister some information in regard to the method that is adopted in the case of dismissals. Are 'the dismissals made by the department, or by the board of commissioners? The appointments, I understand1, on the Intercolonial railway are made by the board. When a young man asked me to recommend him for an appointment, and I bad to send him to the board. He had to pass some test in regard to his health, his eyesight, his age, and a number of other matters, and then having proved satisfactory he was taken on trial, and everything having proved1 satisfactory he was finally appointed^ Now, the board having the power to appoint men, it would occur to me that it also ought to have the power of dismissing them as well.


Francis Cochrane: When complaints are sent into the government, under the rules of the brotherhood, the men cannot be dismissed without an investigation. I am carrying out that procedure to the fullest extent and to show how lenient we have been on the Intercolonial I will state that on the 1st September on the government railways there were 11,473 employees. The number complained of is 77, dismissals ordered 20, suspensions 2, re-instatement 1, investigations asked for or ord'ered 60. Only 9 of the 20 dismissed men have so far asked for an investigation. On the canals there are about 4,000 -men employed. There have been 24 dismissals, 4 investigations, and the constituencies affected number 9. In every case where an investigation on the railways has been asked for, and in many cases where that was not done, an investigation has been ordered.


John Howard Sinclair: Do I understand then, that the board has nothing whatever to do with the complaints against employees?


Francis Cochrane: Not as far as political complaints are concerned. The board has power to investigate other complaints, of which there have been quite a number. Some of these dismissals wrere based on other complaints rather than complaints of a political nature.


John Howard Sinclair: One of the main reasons for the appointment of this board was that the Intercolonial railway should be taken out of politics altogether, and we were all hoping that result would have been realized.


Francis Cochrane: Oh no.


John Howard Sinclair: Oh yes. Would it not be better when political or other complaints are made against employees in the service that those complaints should be referred to the board, rather than to the department?


Francis Cochrane: 


Francis Cochrane: I do not think that would be a proper course, because it would be bringing the board into politics. Where the complaint is other than political the board does conduct an investigation.


John Howard Sinclair: It has also been represented to me that employees complained against were not allowed to have counsel at the investigation, that counsel were not permitted to take any pair in the examination, and that only such questions as the commissioner allowed were asked.


Francis Cochrane: Through the commissioner.


John Howard Sinclair: The questions must all be asked1 through the commissioner, and it is in the discretion of the commissioner as to whether questions should be asked at all or not. I have also been informed that the commissioner refused to put certain questions, that were considered fair and right, to witnesses. I would like to know' on what ground tlie people who are complained against are refused the advice of a friend who is willing to attend or of counsel. It puts the employees in a very aw'kward' position, as they are not accustomed to these trials. It will be difficult for them to get fair-play unless there is some one there to assist them and .bring out the truth. Would the minister say w'hether it is true that instructions have been given to the commissioners that no person is allowed to assist the employee in connection with his defence.


Francis Cochrane: I follow the rules laid down by the agreement, which states that a man against whom a charge is brought can take a friend with him, a brother employee. A*nd no order has been given that counsel shall not appear.
Air. A1ACDONALD. Early in the session I asked if a Air. John Fraser had been employed as inspector of round-house construction in Stellarton in my county. The minister said that this man was so employed on the recommendation of the gentleman who contested the riding with me. On the same day I was informed by the Postmaster General that this same John Fraser had been dismissed from the post office in Stellarton for defalcation in connection with the trust moneys in his hands as postmaster. Even after this fact was mentioned in this House, the minister permitted this man to remain in the employ of his department not merely until the, work of construction which he was employed to inspect was finished, but until some ten days ago when I directed his attention to the matter after I had visited my county and had found the work finished over a month ago, and this defaulter walking around the streets of the town drawing

$3 a day and doing absolutely nothing. It may be that the minister was not aware of these facts., and I trust he was not. I make these statements on my responsibility as a member of this House. Some of his under officials permitted this defaulter to continue as inspector of construction for a month after the work was done-


Francis Cochrane: It is not done yet.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: The minister said the other day that this man was dropped from the employment of the department on February 23.


Francis Cochrane: That is true. The chairman of the Railway Board informs me that the work is not done yet.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: What work is not yet done? I was there less than three weeks ago and the building was being utilised as part of the round-house. It may be that some little details remain to be finished, but the contractors have worked out their contract and gone back. Let me tell the minister that while this man was inspector of the building, he was employed in some small office in the town which took up practically all his time. He did not give his whole time to the work of inspecting. The people in my county know the facts, and many of the political friends of the hon. minister, knowing this man, were surprised to find that one of the first acts of the government in my county was to put this man in an office of semi-trust and keep him under pay long after there was any practical need for his services. This is deserving the attention of the minister, and I ask whether he will inquire into it. If not, we will have to deal with the matter in some other way. I would like an answer from the hon. gentleman.


Francis Cochrane: Will the hon. gentleman please put the question again?


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: I have called the hon. gentleman's attention to tacts, and I ask him to inquire of people at Moncton and see what the facts are with regard to the case.


Francis Cochrane: I did not know that this man had been dismissed from the Post Office Department when I employed him. I did find out what his qualifications were as clerk of works, I found that he had served his apprenticeship as a carpenter for four years, and, after working at his trade for ten years, until 1870, was appointed as foreman carpenter in the Black Diamond colliery, taking full charge of all the surface work and buildings. After 1876, he again took up the building trade and had charge of building stations and freight houses on the eastern extension railway from New Glasgow to Mulgrave. I understand that there never was an investigation, and1 I do not think it is proper to call him a defaulter, for nothing was proven. I must admit, however, that had I known the circumstances, I would not have appointed him as clerk of work. When I made the statement, that the work was not finished, I made it on the authority of the chairman of the board who claims that it is not finished yet. It was to have been finished in December, but the time was extended by order in council.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: I would like to know where the hon. minister got this statement as to this man's qualifications. There is no use in anybody trying to make out that he had not a fair trial on the charges of defalcation. He resigned in order to avoid prosecution, and his friends came to my political friends to intercede and prevent action. There is nobody in the county of Pictou, in the vicinity where he lives, that does not know this. If he was engaged in all this great construction work, he has not been doing it for the last thirty years, for he has been doing nothing but living off the public wherever he could1 get an office or a little job of some kind. I would like the minister to ascertain when the work on this round-house actually stopped, also whether this man has been doing anything in relation to that work for the last month, and whether he has been employed in other work in the meantime and drawing salaries from two or three different sources within the last six weeks.


William Stewart Loggie: I desire to draw the attention of the minister to the matter that the Boards of Trade of Chatham and Newcastle have taken up with me and also with the Department of Railways for some time past the matter of improved railway service. The deputy minister, at any rate, is well aware of the matter I am going to refer to. The villages of Doaktown and Boiestown are about half way between two principal business towns on the Miramichi and Fredericton. Doaktown and Boiestown are about 35 to 50 miles west of Chatham and Newcastle. The way trains are run at the present time, Northumberland citizens are able to do their marketing in another county, namely, at Fredericton. They leave their home in the morning, go to Fredericton, do their business, and return at night. The people of Chatham and Newcastle consider it a grievance for this reason: If a man living in either Doaktown or Boiestown wishes to do business in Chatham of Newcastle, he cannot reach these towns over the Intercolonial without losing one day and two nights; while he can go to Fredericton and do his business and come back the same night, an equal number of miles. The Boards of Trade of Chatham and New-

castle ask that a train leave either Boies-town or Doaktown in the morning, and go ea3t to the business centre of the county. Chatham and Newcastle are located about half way of the extreme length of the county. But as I said, the Department of Railways have not been able thus far to meet the wishes of the people of Chatham and Newcastle. I am reminded by the Minister of Railways that there is a surplus on the year's operation of about $700,000. May I not ask him to consider if there is not some way by which the residents of Doaktown and Boiestown can use the railway to go east, either to Chatham or Newcastle in the morning, do their marketing in the shire town of their own county, and in the other commercial town of their own county, instead of having to go to the shire town of another county to do their business and return the same night. It seems to me that money would be well spent in giving the outlying districts increased accommodation. It was my privilege to draw the attention of parliament seven or eight years ago to the fact that the Intercolonial was the only trunk line passing through that portion of the province of New Brunswick, and a duty devolved upon the management to see that the outlying districts were given reasonable transportation facilities, which was along the line of building branch lines. I will be told that there is hardly any business for an extra train, and that the people are served by facilities granted them to go to Fredericton instead of going to the business centres of their own county. I want to draw the attention of the minister to the fact that this is a grievance of which the people of Chatham and Newcastle complain.
While I am on my feet, I. want to draw the attention of the minister to another matter. He will find in the records of his department a petition from the people on the north side of the Miramichi in the parish of Alnwick, where there is a large amount of fishing business done, praying that the minister will take into consideration the building of a branch line from Newcastle 'down towards Tracadie, or as far as Tabucintac, a distance of about 35 miles. I am in entire sympathy with the policy of the government in their decision to build branch lines, and thus to accommodate the people of the outlying districts, who at the present time are without railway facilities. I would like, therefore, if the minister would bear that matter in mind. That petition is in his department from the people of the county of Northumberland, who are looking for their turn to come in the near future to get a branch line.
While I aim on my feet I would like to take this opportunity of drawing the attention of the minister to another matter. It Mr. LOGGIE.
is urged by my bon, friends, and by the Board of Trade of Newcastle, that at the present time the deep water facilities are not what they ought to be. They ask that a crane be placed on the wharf at Newcastle, and that the Newcastle wharf be enlarged. I have no doubt we shall have the pleasure of a visit from the minister later on, and I am sure he will give these matters his favourable consideration. They have been before the department already, but thus far have not been put right. I think it is my duty to call his attention to these matters, and hope he will give-them his favourable consideration.


Francis Cochrane: I have received visits from deputations from both Newcastle and Chatham; of course they want the railway to run a different way. The great difficulty has been that there are twTo roads, one on each side of the river. I think if we adopted one side alone we might give them-some relief. It is a matter that I intend to bring before the board. With reference to the wharf, Newcastle and Chatham have both had it. I have received a deputation from Chatham, and they feel' they should have it still. As to the branch line, I have not had time to consider whether it is properly placed, or desirable in the interest of the country. But I hope to give it consideration, later on.


Mr. TURGEON.: My hon. friend from Northumberland (Mr. Loggie) has asked for a branch line in his county from Newcastle to Nackawic. I think that a branch line should he extended not only as far as Neguac, but as far as Tracadie where it would join the Caraquet North Shore road. This Caraquet North Shore railway is one of the branches which the department is now thinking of taking over in a short time as a branch of the Intercolonial railway. It traverses the most prosperous and wealthy districts in the province of New Brunswick. It is a great lumbering district, and we have immense forests, the development of which has been very rapid recently. The products of that district have not been able to reach the market of the western provinces because they are handicapped by the 'extra freight they have to pay. The fisheries besides, are immense, and the traffic in that line has been, increasing rapidly year after year. I hope the minister will take into consideration the advisability of leaving no gap along that peninsula between the Bale des Chaleurs and Miramichi bay. That road should connect Bathurst and Newcastle. I am sure the hoard of management of the Intercolonail railway and the Deputy Minister of Railways also, must be acquainted with the possibilities of that route in large passenger and freight traffic. We have also Die mines at Bathurst, which are worked by people from the east of Gloucester

county. People are getting more and more prosperous, and therefore better able to bring traffic and earnings to the railway. I trust the Minister of Railways will look into that scheme in the expectation of assuming control of the Oaraquet and North Shore railway, which should be extended to Tracadie and Newcastle, there adjoining the Intercolonial railway.


William Stewart Loggie: I would like to say a word with reference to what the minister has said regarding the possibilities of removing the rails from one side of the river. I would like to remind the minister that that railway has been through for thirty or forty years and while the earnings are not very great, I am sure the people living alongside that river would consider it a very great breach of faith and a grievance should the rails be raised. The population, of course, is small.


Francis Cochrane: Did I make the stat-ment that I was going to remove the rails?


William Stewart Loggie: No, but I thought you said you were going to consider it.


Francis Cochrane: I said that I was considering closing one.


William Stewart Loggie: That is what I mean. I understood the minister to say that he was considering closing one of the railways on one side of the river, and I presume it will be the side of the river which is more sparsely settled and where the income would be less. That is why I wished to draw his attention to the fact that this railway has been through for thirty or forty years and that the residents will consider it a great grievance if the privileges that they have hitherto enjoyed are taken away from them. While we have a surplus, it seems to me that if there be a portion of the road which is not a paying piece we might very well, in the interest of the whole and in the interest of the people at large, consider the localities served by the portion of the railway whose earning power is hardly up to what you would like it to be. I would like the minister to bear in mind the fact that after these residents have had railway facilities for thirty or forty years they would find it a grievance if these facilities were taken away. Chatham and Newcastle each have railway facilities. If Chatham requires increased railway facilities, and she is getting them, that is no reason why Newcastle should not havd increased railway and terminal facilities in keeping with the trade requirements of the town. One town is on one side of_ the river and the other on the other side of the river ,and there is no reason _ why there should be any undue competition between these two towns. An expenditure for increased railway facilities at Chatham was agreed to two or three years ago but the improvements are not
quite completed. I am sure that the minister will go on and complete that work at an early day. The department now own a very nice piece of property in the largest town in the county of Northumberland. Miramichi district is the Liverpool of the north shore of New Brunswick. From the district of Miramichi many millions of deals are shipped annually and many hundred thousand dollars worth of fish are exported. If I am not transgressing I would say that Miramichi fishermen during the iast winter lost $30,000 in duty paid to Uncle Sam's treasury that might have been kept in the pockets of the fishermen.


Rodolphe Lemieux: While we are on the subject of the Intercolonial railway, might I call the attention of the Minister of Railways and Canals to the present condition of the railway built from Matapedia in the county of Bonaventure to Gaspe Basin? As my hon. friend knows there are two sections of the railway. There was first the Atlantic _ and Lake Superior, built from Matapedia to New Carlisle, about a hundred miles, and then a new company was formed which completed the railway from New Carlisle to Gaspe Basin. The second section of the railway, 102 miles, was completed this last fall. The inspection by an engineer of the Department of Railways and Canals remains to be made in order to entitle the company to the balance of their subsidy. As to that I have no doubt that when the inspection is made the minister will find that this second section of the road is of a high class, exceedingly well built and will certainly bean excellent line. What I wish to bring to the minister's attention more particularly is the condition in which the first section of the railway is at present. There have been two companies, the first the Atlantic and Lake Superior and the second the Atlantic, Quebec and Western. The construction of the Atlantic and Lake Superior railway began some thirty years ago and it is a poorly equipped railway. It is really in a very bad state, and this winter the road was somewhat crippled on account, first, of the snow blockade, and second, on account of the many dangers that travellers found in travelling on a poorly equipped road. My hon. friend is authorized by a statute passed here last session to take certain steps with regard to a railway in this condition and I think he would do well this spring to send his engineer to inspect the first hundred miles. When that inspection is made, if the company does not make the necessary repairs in order to equip the road as it should be and if it does not put it in fair running order, the minister by the authority which was given in last year by a statute in amendment to the Railway Act, can force

the company to appear in court and he can cause the Toad to be sold and, out of the proceeds of the sale, make the necessary repairs.


Francis Cochrane: Could you get enough out of it to pay for the repairs?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not know as to that, but this might lead to a second conclusion, that is to say, if there is not enough to put the road in fair running order with the proceeds of the sale the hon. gentleman, under the law passed last year, has authority to take the first section of the Gaspe railway, lease it, and run it as a part of the Intercolonial railway. I think that eventually the hon. gentleman will have to come to this. I do not rep-present the county of Gaspe any more but I still have the interests of Gaspe at heart and no doubt the time will come when he will have to lease the two sections, the one from Matapedia to New Carlisle and the one from New Carlisle to Gaspe Basin'. But he is keen enough in business to realize that if he can get out of the proceeds of the sale enough to make the necessary repairs he will be satisfied with that and the public will be satisfied.
I call his attention to this because the Peninsula of Gaspe is now connected with the outside world by a railway and it would be a great pity if on account of the bad condition in which the first section of the road is, the peninsula should not derive from that railway the benefit to which it is entitled. I am bound to say to my hon. friend that the peninsula of Gaspe has special claims on the government. About 40 years ago, after the construction of the Intercolonial railway, the government of Sir. John Macdonald decided to build that branch line from Matapedia to Gaspe Basin, in fact the first contracts were given by the railway department and the first plans were made but the government changed its policy and it remained for private companies to do what otherwise the government had contemplated doing. After many difficulties, after many cases before the courts, after many failures, the people of Gaspe and some enterprising gentlemen have finally succeeded in getting a first-class road over one section at least. With just a little help from my hon. friend by sending his engineer on the road and exacting from the company that the road shall be kept in fair running order the hon. gentleman can be of great service to the peninsula of GaspA The road will eventually be a success. At its terminus there is Gasp6 Basin which is open practically for nine or ten months of the year and which affords splendid harbour facilities for open navigation, without any special dredging being done by the government in the bay. With Mr. LEMIEUX.
such a terminus there is a great future for the road even if it is not taken by the Intercolonial railway and worked as a branch line and I ask the hon. gentleman to give his usual attention to the case of the peninsula of Gasp6, I am sure the people would be grateful if he could see his way to give them fair running conditions on the road.


Francis Cochrane: I shall be only too glad to make a note of the hon. gentleman's remarks. Any complaints that have come in with regard to the safety of railways since I assumed office I have referred to the railway board and I have had splendid satisfaction in their prompt and common sense reports on them. I shall refer this matter to the railway hoard. I think it would be better to have that board deal with it than to send our railway inspector. They have the officials' for the purpose and would be only too glad to attend to it.


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax).: I wish to address some observations upon the items of Halifax docks and wharfs, and increased terminal accommodation. I desire to impress upon the minister the necessity of extended terminal facilities and railway accommodation at Halifax. I do so because I fear that the minister, coming from Ontario, may not fully appreciate as yet the railway situation in the province of Nova Scotia so far as the Intercolonial railway is concerned. At the beginning of this parliament the minister made some remarks respecting the proposed extensions of the Intercolonial railway from Dartmouth to the Musquodoboit Valley and a proposed extension of the Intercolonial railway into the counties of Pictou and Guysborough which gave me the alarming impression that he was not too strongly inclined to extend these branches, because he was not sure then that they would be profitable. I suppose one could hardly blame him for taking that point of view. Later I was glad to hear the minister state in parliament that it was the policy of the government to carry out the contract which the late ministry made for the extension of the Intercolonial from Dartmouth to the Musquodoboit valley as far as Dean settlement as agreed by the late government and I congratulate the minister upon his decision in that respect.
There is a widespread feeling in Canada that by reason of the fact that Nova Scotia has had the enjoyment of a government owned and operated railway that the province has therefore had great advantage over other provinces in railway transportation. This assumption is open to very grave question, because if we once were to go back to the earlier history of transportation, and trace it down to the present time it is dif-

ficult to gay whether the province as a whole has benefited by having a government owned and operated railway rather than a company owned and operated railway. The fact that Nova Scotia has had the Intercolonial railway has doubtless been of some advantage, but it has also had its disadvantages. In that province the Intercolonial railway system pre-empted the very best traffic sections leaving the lean sections to be served by private companies assisted by Dominion and provincial subsidies. It is true there are many sections of the province that do not hold out great inducements to railway traffic, and consequently railway constructing in many sections of the province was long delayed or never begun. I have always taken the position that the Intercolonial railway being in that province as a government system, after having pre-empted the best railway territory, should serve at least some of the lean sections as well. I am not arguing that to-day in view of existing conditions, the government should abandon the ownership and operation of the Intercolonial railway, that would be too big a question to discuss here to-night hut I do say that the Intercolonial railway being the _ chief system in that province and having the major portion of the railway traffic, should go into the railway business to the fullest extent and to the utmost needs of the people of the province. If they fail to do so, I think we who represent that province would be justified in asking that the government transfer the operation of that road to other operators. I shall not however discuss this further to-night.
However, I trust that the government will take the view that being railway owners and operators in the province now, they are willing and anxious to extend the existing system and meet to the utmost of their ability the needs of the different sections of the province.
There is ample opportunity there for extensions and improvements which are necessary, and ultimately sound from a business view point, even if they did not hold out hope of immediate or substantial financial profits. But I rose particularly to discuss the matter of railway terminals at the port of Halifax, which to-day are not satisfactory to shippers, to importers or to local wants. The conditions there, so far ;as the present needs are concerned, are very much the same as they were ten or fifteen years ago. At that time the Intercolonial railway could hardly meet the traffic demands of the port; but those demands have grown to such an extent that to-day the terminal facilities are hardly adequate to meet the business which the railway finds there. During the winter of 1911, when transatlantic ships were sailing from Halifax to Great Britain, they were very much handicapped owing to their inability, in consequence of the congestion at the terminals, to discharge and receive freight with any degree of promptitude. Just another illustration of the congestion last year. In the month of February last there arrived at the port of Halifax a quantity of freight destined for a point in western Ontario, which was not moved from Halifax until late in the month of April, a delay of considerably over two months, owing to the fact that it was stored in a freight shed, and was covered later with other freight, and it was impossible to get it out before. In addition to the steamers now calling at the port of Halifax, many other steamers would call there during the present winter months were they able to secure facilities. I am not approaching this question in a fault-finding spirit. The Board of Trade and business men of Halifax have been repeatedly urging upon various governments the necessity o'f extended and improved terminal facilities. Improvements have been made, but there has always been a tendency to make the extensions of terminal facilities merely to suit the immediate needs, instead of making them upon some comprehensive plan that would meet the requirements of the port for a great number of years. The trade at the port of Halifax has grown very considerably in recent years, as shown by the following figures of (freight handled during the fiscal years stated:


DOMESTIC.
[Stage Direction]
In.
1902-	3	
188,871	tons.1903-	4	
74,667	"1904-	5	
101,139	"1905-	6	
291,677	"1907-	8	
240y369	"1908-	9	
261,822	"1909-	10	
254,395	"

[Stage Direction]
Imports.
1902-3	 35,940 tons.
19034	
47,767	"1904-	5	
38,331	"1905-	6	
43,255	"1907-	8	
89,209	"1908-	9	
97,460	"1909-	10	
91,740	"
Out.
63,563 tons. 64,027	"
114,309	"
98,448	"
107,949	"
108,426	"
109,971	"
Exports. 102,691 tons. 131,176	"
100,819	"
125.108	"
111,088 " 123.578	"
131,250	"
Of course, not all this tonnage was handled by the Intercolonial railway, but the tonnage handled by the railway itself has grown considerably in recent years. The following are the figures of the tonnage handled by the Intercolonial railway at Halifax during the years 1901, 1906 and 1911:
Export.	Import.
1901	
70,000	tons.	22,000	tons.1906	
113,507	"	35,823	"1911	
131,050	"	72,298	"
I am informed that the increased tonnage handled by the Intercolonial railway at the port of Halifax during the first six months of 1911 was 100 per cent more than during the first six months of 1910, which
[Stage Direction]


indicates that the railway tonnage at that port is increasing very rapidly, and provision must be made for the future growth. The increase during the last three months, I am advised, is greatly in excess of that of the corresponding months of last year. Now, I would like to state to the minister what in my judgment is needed at the port of Halifax. He of course knows that a year or two ago a somewhat comprehensive plan was arrived at by the Department of Railways for extended and improved wharfs and piers. At present the port has in connection with the Intercolonial railway 9 wharfs or piers, 5 of which are at Deep Water, so-called, and four at Richmond. It is, I believe the intention of the Department of Railways to construct at Deep Water some four or five new piers to replace the old ones now existing; the new piers to be of course much more modern and larger, and capable of handling a greater quantity of traffic and in a very much shorter time. Pier No. 1, the contract for which was awarded in August or September last, is now under construction, and when completed will be one of the most modern and largest piers on the Atlantic coast, either in Canada or in the United States.
Pier No. 2 is intended for freight and passenger traffic. Now, I understand-and as the minister probably knows I have not had an opportunity of becoming very conversant with the details of terminals at the port of Halifax-that there is another pier to be constructed, which is No. 3, I believe on the proposed terminal plans of the port, and which is similar to the one now under construction. I am instructed by the business men "and by the Board of Trade of Halifax, that it is extremely urgent that tenders be immediately asked for the construction of this pier, because long before it is completed it will be impossible for the new pier No. 2, together with any of the existing wharfs, to handle the traffic which will then be at the port. I trust that the minister, whenever he finds himself at leisure or whenever he can possibly give the matter consideration, after the closing of parliament, will ask hiis officers to take this subject into consideration, and1 after he does I hope he will find himself justified, as I believe he will, in directing that tenders be asked foT this new pier No. 3 so that it will be carried to completion as quickly as possible. There is another matter which I believe is the settled policy of the department, and that is the erection of a new freight-shed at the port of Halifax, a matter which probably was brought to the minister's attention when he was at Halifax during the late autumn of last year. The present freight-shed is certainly inadequate, and I am further led to believe it was improperly located when originally Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax).
constructed. I understand a portion of land has been already procured on the upper side of Water street whereon to erect a new freight-shed, and I trust that the minister will order the construction of this freight-shed to be commenced as early as possible, for I can assure him that it is extremely urgent at the present time. There is a further matter to which I would like to draw the minister's notice. I do not know whether his attention has been called to the fact before or not, and it is this: that a portion of the Intercolonial from Halifax- to the town of Windsor, is under lease to the Dominion Atlantic Railway Company. The freight-shed which is used by the latter company lies close to the Intercolonial station at Halifax. For certain reasons, which are unnecessary for me to mention, the freight-shed used by the Dominion Atlantic railway is very inconveniently located. All traffic reaching the freight-shed must proceed down or up North street, which offers a very heavy grade, and which renders truckage very expensive indeed, and this handicaps very much the shippers and importers at Halifax in sending out or receiving freight by reason of tnis fact. I am not aware if the minister's attention has been drawn to this particular point, but it is certainly a matter which deserves the consideration of the department. The Intercolonial should afford a more adequate and convenient freight-shed for the Dominion Atlantic railway.
I wish to say in connection with the terminal facilities at the port of Halifax that some broad and comprehensive scheme of extension of the Intercolonial rails along the water-front must at once, or very soon, be taken into consideration. I would hardly venture' to say to the minister what f think should be done, because I can scarcely ask him to consider me an authority in that respect, and whatever judgment I may have regarding the matter is entirely due to a limited personal knowledge of _ the situation and to information which comes to me by contact with the business men of the city of Halifax. Possibly I may be more ambitious than some of them in what I think should be done in this respect. I would like to make the suggestion to the minister that he and his officers should take this matter up, and possibly it would be wise for him to take into consideration the suggestion to obtain other expert advice upon the matter and consider the whole question of the extension and improvement of terminals at this port. I believe that ultimately the whole of Upper and Lower Water streets, so called, should be expropriated. I do not think it would be necessary to demolish or remove at once the structures erected on

the properties which would be expropriated. The rentals furnished by these buildings or properties would probably yield sufficient to pay interest on the capital amount necessary for the expropriation. At any rate a great portion of Water street should be expropriated so that the rails may be extended farther south. I think it is quite clear that the upper side of Water street at least, and possibly the lower side as far as what is known as the Ordnance yard- possibly this description is not very intelligible to the minister who may not know the location-should be expropriated as quickly as possible. However, as I said, il do not wish to express any definite or fixed views upon this point. And even if I had any definite or fixed views to-night I would hardly venture to give them to the committee in a dogmatic or definite manner. I shall be quite satisfied and content if I have the promise of the minister that during the summer he will take into consideration the matter of the adoption of a comprehensive scheme for the extension and improvement of railway terminals at the port of Halifax, so that at the next session we may discuss the matter more carefully and at greater length. Another matter which possibly I should mention in connection with improved terminals at Halifax is: whether or not the Department of Railways should not obtain possession of, and occupy the present dockyard between Richmond and Deep Water, and which is now in the occupation of the Marine and Fisheries and Naval Departments. If that property could be secured it would afford a great deal of yardage room for the Intercolonial railway, and also give additional dockage room. The feeling prevails at the port of Halifax that this dockyard should be occupied by the Intercolonial railway, and not by the Marine and Fisheries and Naval Departments, and I think myself there is a preponderance of fact in favour of it. I think a suitable location might be obtained on other portions of Halifax harbour, on the Halifax or the Dartmouth side, which would be sufficiently adequate for the necessities of the two departments referred to. But even if the dockyard property was secured' by the railway, there is still necessity for the expropriation of a great deal of property along the waterfront at Halifax. And there is this to be remembered; that in Halifax as in a great many eastern towns and cities to-day, the values of property are rapidly increasing, and unless this is done in the near future there will very soon come a time when the Intercolonial railway and the country will find these terminal facilities so imperative and so necessary that they will be obliged to buy the necessary properties, and then at a very greatly enhanced cost. There is just one further mat-134}
ter to which I would like to call the minister's attention, and which I had intended referring to when a later item in his estimates was reached, namely, the vote in connection with the extension of the Halifax and Eastern railway out of Dartmouth.
I refer to the necessity of a bridge across Halifax harbour between Dartmouth and Halifax at a point called the Narrows, where once a bridge was in existence but which some fifteen or twenty years ago fell down and has never since been replaced. The physical conditions along the waterfront on Bedford Basin and Halifax harbour proper and where the Intercolonial railway rails are laid and approach the city, are such that it is extremely difficult to get the necessary room. On the west side of the railway there is high and rocky ground, and it is extremely expensive to increase yardage or track room on this account. With a bridge constructed across the harbour, I think there could be found considerable yard room on the Dartmouth side of the harbour besides affording additional shipping facilities. I urge the minister to make inquiry and investigation as to the cost of the construction of a bridge, not only for the reasons already given, but for the further reason that the contraction of the Halifax and Eastern railway from Dartmouth to Musquodoboit valley is now a reality, and it will not take very long to build that road. If no bridge is constructed across the harbour, it will be necessary for passengers to leave the railway at Dartmouth and take a ferry across to the city of Halifax, and it will be necessary to transfer freight in the same way, or let it get to the city of Halifax via Windsor Junction. I do not wish the minister to understand me as saying here to- ' night that this bridge should be built at once. I think that first we should ascertain the cost of the bridge, and the subject might with greater satisfaction be discussed later. I think there is to be found in the department a report upon the construction of this bridge; but I think that at least, during the coming summer the matter should be carefully investigated. If the minister would be good enough to undertake that this should be done, I should for the present be content with that. It will not mean a very great expenditure, and at the next session of parliament the matter can be discussed at greater length.
I wish to repeat that the chief purpose I had in rising was to impress upon the minister the imperative necessity of extended and improved terminal facilities at the port of Halifax, not only for the good of Halifax, but for the good of Canada. Physically and historically Halifax is the winter port of Canada on the Atlantic coast. It is destined to be the winter port if not the all the year round port, for the fastest transatlantic
[Stage Direction]
steamship services from Europe to Canada. It is at least bound to be the winter port of the transatlantic steamship services by reason of the fact that these ships are now becoming so large that they will be bound to select Halifax as their port of call and departure; and I say this without intending any reflection upon the port of St. John or upon the harbour known as Country Harbour in the county of my hon. friend from Guys-borough (Mr. Sinclair). The export and import traffic at the port of Halifax is bound to increase very much indeed, as one can safely predict when he contemplates the tremendous development going on in this country. And I submit that, regardless of the cost, I care not what it may be, it is the duty of the government to give to the Intercolonial railway and to the port of Halifax such terminal facilities as port trade conditions warrant to-day, and in the expanding future.
Mr. McCURDY.: 
John Howard Sinclair: people there to pledge himself and his party, if he were returned to power, to the construction of that line.
Not only is that the case, but it will be in the recollection of hon. gentlemen who wei^ in the last parliament that when the resolution relating to the construction of branch lines was moved in this House by the hon. member from North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie), the Prime Minister spoke in favour of the branches that were advocated in that resolution, and this Guysborough branch was one of them. The right hon. gentleman used very decided language and led everybody who listened to him to believe that it was his policy to construct those branches if returned to power. Mr. Rollings, the gentleman who ran against me in Guysborough in the interests of the 'Conservative party, not only advocated this branch in this election, but in the former election of 1908 he issued a card which he placed before the people of that county in which he says:
I strongly advocate the construction of a railway throughout the length and breadth of Guysborough county-the non-railway county of Nova Scotia and I deprecate any attempt being made by any persons or parties who seek to use as an election scheme this matter so vital to the interests of eastern Nova Scotia.
This was the card that my opponent placed before the county of Guysborough in 1908, and in the election of last September it was an important issue in that county. I had a great deal of confidence at that time in telling the people that we were on the eve of having railway extension there because the late government had committed themselves to the construction of this branch line. The Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. 'Graham) had announced his policy in the House. The government had placed a million dollars in the estimates for the purpose of commencing the construction of the line, they had placed a staff of surveyors in the field1, and they had surveyed a large part of the line. They had also purchased the Sunnybrae branch at a cost of $100,000, got the deed of this branch, paid the money and that property will be entirely useless to this government unless the road is extended to a port in the county of Guysborough. When all these steps were taken by the late government I had a great deal of confidence in telling the people of that county that we were pretty certain now to have railway extension. You can imagine the disappointment, not only of myself, but of every person in the county of Guysborough, when it was learned that the present government had abandoned, for the present at least, the plan of the old _ government to construct that branch line. One would have supposed that, as the contract had been let, and the Mr. SINCLAIR.
contractor had deposited nis money, and was ready to commence work on a part of the line, the government would not have interfered1, especially as this parliament had committed itself to its construction, as both sides of this parliament had agreed to the principle of building it and had voted, prior to that date, a large part of the money to do so. I have never known a case in the history of tnis country where a project was carried so far by one government, and was turned down by the next government without any good reason, I sufbmit, so far produced to satisfy me or any other hon. gentleman in this House that it should have been none. The Minister of Railways has made some excuses why that step was taken by the present administration. He is skilful in that way, but I want to draw his attention for a moment to the language which he used in the discussion which took place here some weeks ago. I entered a protest against the action that had been taken by the government on the occasion of that discussion, and1 the minister replied to me in this way. I copy his language from ' Hansard ':
I may say further

He says,
-that although hon. gentlemen opposite have quoted a great number of figures, there are no statistics in the department which I preside over, to warrant us in going on with the construction of this railway now. I believe that before committing the country to any expenditure, we should be able to give the people a just reason for our action and we should see that the tax-payers of Canada get a fair return for the money expended, or at least sufficient to pay the interest on the capital.
I submit that these are pretty hard conditions. In business ventures, of course, that is the rule that people lay down; they do not want to invest their money in any venture unless it will pay and unless they get some return for their capital. But, I submit that this is not a rule that has been adopted in this country in the case of the assistance which has been given by parliament to transportation. We have been subsidising railways, we have been deepening rivers, we have been constructing canals at vast expense for the last forty years in Canada and this is the first time, I submit, that any Minister of Railways has laid down the principle that we will not give aid to transportation in Canada unless the money we invest will not only pay the running expenses of the road but the interest as well. That is the way in which a Jew would approach a question of finance, he wants to see interest coming, he wants to know, when he puts his dollar in that he is going to get something out. That is not the way in which this ques-

tion has been treated by previous Ministers of Railways or by previous adminis-. trations in this country. When I say that I want to prove what I say and can prove it. Every hon. gentleman here knows that we have spent enormous sums of money in aiding transportation. It is placed in the books at $400,000,000. What return are we getting for it? What return in interest are we getting for the enormous amount of money we gave the Canadian Pacific railway? What return are we getting for the hundred million dollars that we put into the canals largely in the province of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals? Why, sir, we have not only spent an enormous sum in transportation in Ontario Canals but after we did so we passed an order in council declaring the canals absolutely free. Bring along your ships, pass through the canals, we will open the gates for you, we will give you the facilities and we will not charge you a cent! That is the way the government of this country has been treating the transportation problem in the province that my hon. friend comes from. Absolutely free! A hundred million dollars invested in canals and no interest coming to the people of Canada. I am not objecting to this because it develops the trade of this country. That is not the only case 1 might give, for there is the Intercolonial railway itself upon which a very large sum has been expended. Does any one expect to get interest out of the Intercolonial railway? Such a proposition has never been put up before by any Minister of Railways in this country and this is the kind of excuse that should not have been made in this case. If it is right to give these facilities free in the canals, if it is right that we should have spent such enormous sums of money in deepening the St. Lawrence river, if it is right that we should have built the Intercolonial railway connecting the different provinces together, and if it is right that we should have made these enormous contributions to transportation without expecting any return, why stop when a branch line is asked for in the county of Guysborough to connect some 18,000 people who are in an isolated position and who have good trade to offer the road? Whv is it that this proposition is put up to them and they are told that unless the road that they propose to build will not only pay running expenses but interest on the money, they cannot get it?
I do not think that my hon. friend should have given such an excuse as that, and I think on consideration he will see the unfairness of his proposal. The present minister is himself making a number of proposals with reference to transportation throughout Canada. He proposes to build a car ferry to connect the government railway on Prince Edward Island with the Intercolonial railway on the mainland. That is a good proposal. It has always been a handicap to the people on the island that they have to tranship their freight from the cars on the island to the steamship and then back to the cars on the mainland, and if these transhipments can be avoided it would be a splendid thing for the province of Prince Edward Island. Does any hon. gentleman say that that shall not be done unless the people on the island can show it will pay running expenses and interest on the capital? If you put it on that basis you cannot confer this great benefit on Prince Edward Island. We all know that the Prince Edward Island railway has never yet had a surplus, but at the same time it furnishes a good deal of traffic to the main line and in that way helps the road.
My hon. friend knows that it will be many years before the Hudson Bay railway can be expected to pay running expenses, yet that does not prevent him from entering upon its construction. But he says to the people of my constituency: You cannot have this road unless it pays expenses and interest.
I believe that this Guysborough road would offer a large amount of traffic, that it would develop	a good trade.
There is timber enough along the line to keep the road busy for the first ten years.	This is a good timber
country, and a large part of the wood is hardwood which cannot be profitably floated down streams. Spruce, pine and hemlock are being floated down to the ccean, but there are enormous quantities Of hardwood in that country that would be reached by this railway. At Country Harbour the line would tap one of the best ports on the coast of Canada. I have no reflection to make on the port of Halifax, which is one of the best harbours in the world, hut if you are going to enumerate the great harbours in Canada, you will have to include Country Harbour. There you strike a fishing industry east and west of this harbour, The men engaged in that industry are anxious to secure a better market for their fish. I am informed that certain gentlemen of his own party in Nova Scotia, interested in the construction of this line, interviewed the minister a few days ago, and that he informed them that if they could assure him of ten car-loads of fresh fish a day he would undertake to build the line. He said: 'You claim to have a gTeat fishing industry there that can be developed at the port of Country Harbour, and the Port of Guysborough. What does it amount to? Could you furnish a branch line with ten cars of fresh fish per day? ' That is a very large order, Mr. Chairman. It is so much fresh fish that you could not find a market for it in

Quebec and Montreal. If you placed three .'ar-loads of fresh fish on the Montreal market I am informed you would break the price. It is not like the Boston market, "here you could put ten or twenty cars per day on the market. It would not be possible to sell at Montreal and Quebec more than half the quantity which my bon. friend said would have to be loaded on the branch line we are proposing before he would undertake the construction of the road. I do not know how many car-loads we would have, but I do know that at Can-so the fresh fish business has been developed to a large extent, and an average of over a carload a day is shipped. Of course there are months in the winter when the fishermen do not go out to sea. They work until about the first of February, but there are a few' months when they do not operate. They have no railway facilities at Can-so, they have to transfer their fish from boat to rail at Mulgrave. They have an average of over one car a day leaving Mui-grave all the year round. This is good traffic for the Intercolonial railway.
Fresh fish is such a perishable commodity that it has to be put on the market quickly and disposed of quickly, and transportation means everything to the business. If we had a branch line to Country Harbour, we have a splendid fishing locality both east and west of that harbour for 25 or 30 miles, and the fish could be collected at that point. I have no doqbt that a very large business could be built up, but it will take time. You can see the isolated position in which these people are. They are denied connection with the Intercolonial railway. The present administration says: You must not have anything to do with the market of the United States. Of course, we have the sea there; our people arb accustomed to the sea; and we could take our fish by the sea to Boston and place it on the American market, but we are denied that privilege by the heavy duties we meet when we get it there. The Canadian market for fresh fish is a very limited one. The fish cannot be sent very far west. I believe that with better facilities we might send more there. But we are denied the right of sending our fish to the markets of the United States, and by the same administration which denies us that right we are denied connection with the Intercolonial railway, with the chance of selling our product in the home market.


Mr. BURNHAM.: Was it the government or the people of Canada who denied you that right?


John Howard Sinclair: I do not think the people of Canada ever intended to deny us that right. If they had to give a verdict to-day, I think they would give a different one. It is unfortunate that the question Mr. SINCLJ IR.
was mixed up with so many other questions. and we did not get a square verdict upon it.


Mr. LENNOX.: It was not mixed up with other questions.


John Howard Sinclair: I did not find any difficulty in getting a different verdict in my constituency. It was the most popular cry I ever had in my constituency. All I had to say was: Let us cultivate the home market as much as we can, but you are getting a preference in the Boston market. If you have a barrel of mackerel to sell, you now pay $2 a barrel to land it on the Boston market. The people of the maritime provinces are not the only people who are selling mackerel in Boston. It comes from England, Ireland, Denmark, Norway, and nearly every other northern European country, and every one of them would have still to pay $2 a barrel to send their mackerel to the Boston market, while the Nova Scotian will get it in free.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Do you not agree with the late administration's theory that the consumer pays the duty?


John Howard Sinclair: I know that is the economic theory, and I suppose, considering the question as a broad question, that is true. But in this case the producer would get the advantage. We are not selling, I suppose, 20 per cent of the mackerel that goes into the market of the United States, consequently, if all these other people have to pay $2 barrel in order to send their mackerel to that market and ours goes in free, we would be able to levy that $2 on the American consumer. That is the way I explained the matter to my electors, and they were quite satisfied with it. This is true not only of mackerel, but of codfish, haddock and every other kind of fish that we sell in the American market. It was one of the greatest things ever offered to the fishing industry of the maritime provinces, and I hope we shall get it yet, as nothing will build up the country to such an extent as reciprocity would have done. But I am not going to lament about it. I am ready to face the future and try to make the best of the decision that has been given. At the same time, as the leaders of hon. gentlemen opposite have succeeded in getting that decision made in the country, shutting us out of that market, we hope that now they will consider our claim for a road so that we can sell our product in the Canadian market, and will give us this branch line of railway, or we shall not be able to reach the Canadian market for a large part of that coast. Then, I would like to ask the minister about another matter. Some time ago I asked him how it was that he had made up his

mind to build the road from Halifax to Dean Settlement, while he had decided not to build the branch line from Sunnybrae to Country Harbour. This is the question and the answer:
With reference to the following language used by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals in his speech in the House on January 18,	1912, referring to the construction of
this branch railway, namely:	' I believe
that before committing the country to any expenditure, we should he able to give the people a just reason for our action, and we should see that the taxpayers of Canada get a fair return for the money expended, or at least sufficient to pay the interest on the capital, does the minister apply the same condition to the expenditure involved in the proposed line between Dartmouth and Dean, settlement in the same province ?'
The minister answered:	that he did
apply the same rule practically to the case of the proposed line from Dartmouth to Dean Settlement.
Now I submit that if my hon. friend will do that, if he will apply the same rule to the branch line from Sunnybrae to Country Harbour-I have not a word to say against the road from Halifax to Dean Settlement. I voted for it at the time it came up and I am quite willing to vote for it now-he will find the Guysborough branch to, be a better financial proposition. The road that I am proposing is to start at a great coal mine and it ends at a great harbour. It has traffic along the line that is at least equal to the other, but it has got these two things that the other road has not got, and it certainly needs no argument for anyone to see that it is a better financial proposition than the road from Dartmouth to Dean Settlement which ends in the woods. My hon. friend tells me that he is applying the same principle to the Guysborough branch that he is applying to the Halifax branch. If that is so he is bound to restore a million dollars to the estimates and go on with the construction of the former branch. But my hon. friend gave me some further information in answer to a question in the House in reference to the contract. The contract, as my hon. friend will recollect, was let by the late government and to a contractor who was ready to commence work at the time of the government's defeat. I am told that he had his machinery on board a ship at Sydney, and was ready to start for Guysborough to begin the construction of the road at that point, and he had deposited his money as security. I would like to ask whether the money is still in possession of the government.


Francis Cochrane: The money has been returned.


John Howard Sinclair: Thank you. Well this is the question that was asked:
Was the successful tenderer instructed not to proceed with the work of construction? If so, why?
The answer given to that question was this:
Yes, Surveys of the whole of the railway had not been completed before tenders were called. The first location of the line was from Sunnybrae easterly along the east branch of the St. Mary's river through the county of Pictou, thenoe southeasterly to Melrose in Guysborough county. Another location which was urged was one from Sunnybrae southerly following Barren Brook to the west branch of St. Mary's river, thence easterly through Guysborough county to Melrose, a common point to both locations. The last -mentioned location was examined only in a preliminary way. The question as to which of these routes should be adopted had not been settled. No reliable estimate of the cost of the work had been made. There not being at hand sufficient information to show that there was justification for the building of the line, and the incurring of the outlay, it was thought well to cancel the contract and abandon the proceedings until complete and reliable data and information could be obtained, and the minister satisfied that, before committing the country to the expenditure, the same was justified.
That is a long answer to a short question.. I suppose the meaning of it is that the road was not all surveyed. One section of the road surveyed, that portion from the town of Guysborough to the Cross Roads, Country Harbour, and from Cross Roads, Country Harbour, to deep water at Country Harbour, that section was surveyed and the contract let. The other section of the road between Melrose and Sunnybrae was not settled. And what does my hon. friend do? He cancels the contract for the part that was surveyed and contracted for, because forsooth the route of the other portion was not settled. And what does he do to settle it? He dismisses the staff of engineers	that, were at work trying to
settle the route at the time he took office. If there was any difficulty about which direction the road should take, why did the minister not let his engineers go on and finish their work and get the information so that the question might be settled. It is not a difficult question to settle. My hon. friend in his remarxs to the House endeavoured to show that there were some fierce disputes going on about the location of this line. I submit that was not the case. There was a difference of opinion about it, but so far as I am concerned that need not stand in the way for a moment. If that is the only trouble my hon. friend can let his engineers settle it. Whether it goes down the east river or down the west river is not such an important matter as that it should tie up the construction of the line. I would be quite
.4215

*willing for him to go on with his investigation and take the best line in the judgment of his own engineers. That ought to be satisfactory to him. That is what the late government were trying to do. They had surveyed the line down the east river and they had secured the information, but it was suggested that a better line existed down the west river and the engineers were busy trying to determine that question when my hon. friend took office, and in place of allowing them to go on and finish their work he telegraphed them to stop their operations and to get out of the field and do nothing more. Then we are told in the House that the reason why the other branch of the line was stopped was that the minister did not have the information in regard to the western end of the line. Now I think it is my duty to point these facts out to my hon. friend and to assure him that he need not worry over the question of the dispute that he says existed between my hon. friend from Pic-tou' (Mr. Macdonald) and myself in regard to the western section. I am quite willing to leave it to his own judgment, whichever he says is the best route after he gets the report of his engineers. Then let the railway go down one or the other rivers, it does not make any material difference so long as he builds the line from Sunny-brae to Guysborough and Country Harbour. I wish to assure him on that point so that it may not be used in future as an excuse for not going on with the work. Now, I submit that my hon. friend should not apply a different principle in the case of the railway in the county of Guysborough that he applies in the case of the road in the county of Halifax. He tells me that he does not, but I feel quite sure that if he will only take the trouble to investigate the matter he will find that the proposal that I am making for him to build in the county of Guysborough is a better financial proposition than the one he has decided to adopt in regard to the county of Halifax. I thought I should fail in my duty if I did not make it clear to my hon. friend that both sides are committed to the construction of the line that I am advocating. Not only is his leader, and the party following him, committed to this construction, but the late government were also committed and the construction of the line as proposed should therefore, have been allowed to have gone on. All my hon. friend had to do when he assumed charge of the department was to keep his hands off. The money was provided, the contract was partly let, everything was in progress to have the road built, if my hon. friend had only left the matter alone construction would have gone on. The minister, however, chose to interfere with that construction and he has not shown any good reason wny he did so.


John Howard Sinclair: 


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: I would like to associate myself with my hon. friend from Guysborough in the efforts which he is making to induce the minister to continue the policy adopted by the late government -a policy which was ratified by his leader during the late campaign and received the support of the Conservative party in eastern Nova Scotia-in regard to the construction of the railway in Sunnybrae, in my county, to Country Harbour. Before proceeding, however, I would like to ask the minister as to whether he has received the report of Mr. Archibald, who I understood was deputized to go over this proposition?


Francis Cochrane: I think it has come in.
Mr.	MACDONALD.	Would	the	minister bring that down ?


Francis Cochrane: Yes, no objection; I will have it on Monday.
Mr.	MACDONALD.	Very	well.	Thefeeling which exists among the people of Nova Scotia is,that the failure of the minister to go on with this railway is a distinct discrimination	against	our	province.	There is no	other	reasonable
explanation. I venture to say that if a like condition existed in any other province, there would be no question about the action taken. If my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Staples) had in his province of Manitoba any1 situation that was half so aggravating as this, he and the Minister of the Interior (Air. Rogers) would have it solved, more particularly as the previous government had outlined the policy, so that all that remained was to-


Mr. STAPLES.: I think they can trust the hon. gentleman to ventilate any grievance that may exist. He would rather have a grievance than a remedy. We will give him the remedy.


Mr MACDONALD.: If the hon. gentleman will use his influence to have the remedy applied I will gladly give up any solution I may have by reason of a grievance. I have plenty of other grievances without keeping this one. I say this is a distinct discrimination against eastern Nova Scotia. Look at the action of the Minister of Railways in regard to the St. John Valley railway. In the province of New Brunswick they have railways up and down and across, subsidized by previous governments. They have two transcontinental lines, as I mentioned this afternoon in discussing this question. Yet, in spite of all that great railway accommodation, with one railway running up one side of the St. John river, the Minister of Railways is going to be so liberal as to make an arrangement with

the province of New Brunswick under which a railway is to be constructed by that government on the west side of the river, and he is going to pay them forty per cent of the gross receipts.


Francis Cochrane: The province guarantees the bonds for $25,000 a mile.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: No wonder. When the money comes in and is counted up, he is going to hand over to the province forty per cent of it. It is not surprising that they agree to pay the interest on the bonds when the Minister of Railways is going to provide the money. My hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair), has outlined the situation so far as his county is concerned. Let me point out one or two other considerations. A railway twelve miles long to Sunnybrae has been purchased at a cost of $100,000. Every day this government operates the Sunnybrae railway without extending it to the country beyond1, it is losing money, as the minister knows, having looked into the matter. The only way by which they can make that purchase of any value to the rest of the people of Canada is to extend that railway to the deep water beyond. I am at a loss to understand what the proposition of the minister is in Tegard to the matter. My hon. friend from Guysborough has reviewed it and practically the minister says: I want to look into this thing. What for? How is anybody to guarantee him what the operation of the railway will result in? Has he any guarantee before he pays forty per cent of the gross proceeds of this proposed railway to the province of New Brunswick? Before the session closes he will probably ask us to vote subsidies amounting to millions for the construction of railways. Has he any guarantee in regard to any of these new railways that their interest will be paid or that they will be successful? Not at all. But this is the unreasonable ground he takes in regard to this enterprise. The minister has control of the only trunk line of railway in our province. Then, he must either build1 these branch lines, or let the transcontinental railways come in, and they will quickly build them. He will not have to go far to hunt among the transcontinental railway companies to find one that will willingly build these branch lines if he will give the right of way in order to connect these branch lines with their railways in the other provinces.


Francis Cochrane: I would be glad to get an offer.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: The hon. gentleman wants people to come and make him offers


Francis Cochrane: You are making the statement.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: The hon. minister wants to sit here and do nothing while waiting for offers. His business as minister is to see what can be done for the railway development of the country.


Mr. DAVIDSON.: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Macdonald), favour handing over the Intercolonial railway to a private company?


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: I will explain to my hon. friend1 from Annapolis (Mr. Davidson), who has nothing to do with the Intercolonial railway, where I stand on the question, and will do it in a perfectly frank way. But at the present moment I am dealing with a special situation on which I am addressing the minister


Mr. JAMESON.: Does the hon. gentleman mean -to say that 'no person except himself has a right to speak of the Intercolonial railway ?


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: 
William D. Staples: How long is the hon. gentleman (Mr. Macdonald, Pictou) going to talk about it ?


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: As long as I please, and if my hon. friend does not like it he will have to do the other thing. I say, how long is the minister going to look into this question ?


Mr. STEVENS.: I rise to a point or order. The hon. member a moment ago said that it was nobody's business to talk of the Intercolonial except himself and one or two others.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: I said nothing of the kind.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. member did. But I raise a point of order. What item are we discussing? What bearing has all this discussion on the item before the

Chair? I am willing to sit here all night discussing the business of the country, but I do not think it is reasonable for hon. members to discuss all manner of grievances.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: My hon. friend has gone beyond his point of order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am explaining my point of order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no point of order, as I understand it. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Stevens) asks the Chairman what item we are on. It is Fredericton, increased accommodation to- $46,500. I think perhaps the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) is just coming to that.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: 
William D. Staples: That is right.
Mr. MACDONALD-It is absolutely essential that the large railway enterprises of the west should be prepared, as they are prepared, to look after facilities and create conditions under which the opportunities afforded large manufacturing interests can come to fruition. How would it be if in all other portions of Canada a railway company would say to a business man: You will have to wait until the next meeting of directors which will take place nine months after this? It is true your project may be a pressing one, and it is in the interest of the railway and of the country, but we cannot do anything in that line until our directors meet next year, or nine or ten months after this. That is the position that every Minister of Railways is in who has to deal with these conditions.
Then, we have another difficulty. We are living in the great freight producing part of the country where the Intercolonial railway obtains the greater part of its east and w'est business. We produce in eastern Nova Scotia to-day something like 10,000,000 tons of coal. We produce a greater quantity of iron and steel than is produced in any other part of Canada. With the Intercolonial railway under existing conditions not a pound of coal can be sent from Nova Scotia west of Montreal so as tc compete with American coal, even with the duty added. Why? Simply because my hon. friend the Minister of Railways, when he carries that coal to Montreal, has to hand it over to the Grand Trunk railway, the Canadian Pacific railway or the Canadian Northern, and the arbitrary division of freight which is always made in the traffic arrangements means that when the new company takes that traffic at Montreal it takes such an additional share of the freight rate that it is impossible to send the coal to Ottawa or anywhere further west than Cornwall, and nowhere up into the Canadian Pacific railway country here. The same thing applies to steel products. You have to levy two prices for the
two railways, whereas, anywhere else in, Canada practically, with the tremendous extent of the Canadian Pacific railway and the Grand Trunk railway systems, the manufacturer who has products to dispose of can put them on the one railway which will carry them to any part of Canada and, by the 'long haul rate, deliver them in competition with foreigners or people from other places under satisfactory conditions. Every man in the maritime provinces is put under the handicap that it is impossible to transport his products west of Montreal.
Then, there is another difficulty that the minister under present conditions is unable to overcome. Gentlemen who live in the west know, gentlemen who live in Ontario know, that the large corporations of the country develop the business possibilities that exist in the vicinity of their railways. They take hold of them, assist them and provide conditions under which they can be developed and made a success of. That is going on all over the country. The Minister of Railways cannot do that. What a. proposition it would be if the Minister of Railways came down to parliament and asked to have placed in his hands a vote of money which he could utilise in his judgment in regard to a question of that kind? No minister has ever thought of it up to the present time, and I am quite sure that no minister would have thought of entering into that arena. Then, there is another consideration. All Canada has contributed to the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway.


William D. Staples: Does the hon. gentleman not think that he is pretty wide of the item that is under discussion?


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: There are some gentlemen who come from other parts of Canada who have made us listen to grain Bills and other questions affecting the farmers of the west for days, and we would like at least for one night if the hon. gentleman will bear with us while we entertain them with our little needs and necessities. If my hon. friend (Mr. Staples) is getting tired I am perfectly willing to excuse him. He may go and I can assure him that we will not do anything unlawful while he is away. We in Nova Scotia have contributed our part, and we were glad to do it, to aid in the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway. We are to-day contributing in an equal degree to construct the Grand Trunk Pacific, both of which enterprises have never touched our province, one stopping at St. John and the other at Moncton. We are guaranteeing and pledging the credit of the country to an enormous extent to ensure the construction of a third transcontinental, the Canadian Northern, with the continental system of which our prov-

ince has no connection. With the exception of Prince Edward Island, which is isolated as an island and is therefore impossible to be connected directly with a railway system, we are the. one province that is not in touch with any transcontinental railway system. We have ail these disadvantages by reason of the fact, but we are confined to one railway-the Intercolonial railway. What I say to the minister is-and this is the point that I have been waiting to make-that he is the only source to which we in eastern Nova Scotia can look for consideration in regard to our railway necessities and I say to him that he should provide for these necessities and, if "he fails to do so, I urge upon him to give to these railway systems, by an arrangement with them which would be equitable, and in the country's interest, opportunities for coming into our province over the line of the Intercolonial railway so that they could take part in the business life in which we are interested and we could go to them and say:	Here is a business proposition, will
you take hold of it and will you go on and give those facilities which the government of the Dominion do not see their way clear to provide? There is the issue-to my mind a plain and simple idea-that the minister must satisfy the needs of the province of Nova Scotia, as they have been recognized by the late government, and provide such facilities as will enable her industrial opportunities to find full fruition, or he must give to the transcontinental railway lines an opportunity to come into our province and make such an arrangement as will enable us to obtain from them those facilities which we think are in our interest and would be in the interest of any railway enterprise that was operating in Nova Scotia.


Mr. KYTE.: 
Francis Cochrane: Will the hon. gentleman mention any railway that could have been taken over on the standardization fixed in that statute ?

Mr. KYTtE. The resolution introduced by the late Minister of Railways at the last session was to give him authority to taike over such railways as were available and were not provided for by the statute passed in 1910. I regret that the present Minister of Railways has not introduced a similar resolution, because it would then be some guarantee to us that his intentions in regard to taking over these branch lines of railway were good.	[DOT]


Francis Cochrane: Resolutions are good.


George William Kyte: Yes, when they are supplemented by statute as it was the intention of the late minister to do had it not been for the unexpected dissolution of parliament last year.
I rose to impress on the minister the desirability of resuming these negotiations opened by the late government. I cannot accept the statement of the minister that only such railways as will guarantee a surplus in their operations should be taken over by this government. The only trunk railway we have in the province of Nova Scotia is the Intercolonial railway and that province has contributed very largely towards the earnings of the road, a large share of the surplus of last year must be credited to that province. If these railways were paying institutions there would not perhaps be the same demand that they should be taken over, but while the government is undertaking large expenditures from which profits cannot reasonably be expected, there is no reason in the world why the department should not carry out a similar policy with respect to railway operations and give us the benefit of this policy in the maritime provinces.


William Pugsley: If my hon. friend will allow a few items to stand on which it is desired to have some discussion, we might pass quite a number of items in regard to which no discussion will be necessary.
Hampton-improvement at, $31,300.


William Pugsley: I am glad to see the item for improvements at Hampton, but I regret that the item of $15,000 which was placed in the estimates by the late Minister of Railways has been omitted. That was for the construction of a spur from Hampton station to Hampton village. The cost was to be about $40,000 and it would give very great and needed accommodation. I hope the 'minister will look into it personally.


Francis Cochrane: I shall be very glad [DOT]to do so.


John Howard Sinclair: In connection with the item of public highways there is a highway approaching Mulgrave where the Intercolonial railway crosses the highway in two places. For a number of years negotiations have been going on between the local authorities and the Intercolonial railway to divert the highway so as to avoid accidents in that locality.
Several deaths have occurred at these crossings, which are very dangerous. The difficulty could be avoided by diverting the road so as not to cross the railway at all. At- present the road crosses the railway twice, whereas if it could be built along the northern side of the railway it would not cross the railway at all. The question of who should bear the cost of' building this piece of highway has been before the government of Nova Scotia and the Department of Railways for some time. As the minister will have money to expend on public roads now and as he will have only himself to deal with on behalf of the Intercolonial railway and also on behalf of the road expenditure, he will be in a position to decide this vexed question.' If he would do so he would be conferring a great benefit on that locality, and would probably save a great deal of expense in future to the railway in the way of claims for accidents.


Francis Cochrane: I shall be very glad to look into the matter.


William Chisholm: There is another place on the Intercolonial railway, not very far from the place referred to by my hon. friend, which I would ask the minister Jp consider at the same time. I refer to the crossing at Sylvan Valley in Antigonish county, where several persons have been killed and numerous accidents have occurred. Some years ago, an electric bell was placed there, but while at first it seemed to be an improvement, it has not given satisfaction. The reports in the department will show that this is a place where there should be an overhead bridge. It would not cost very much, and would remove the danger that now exists.


John Howard Sinclair: Where does the minister intend to spend this money for the protection of highways?


Francis Cochrane: At Forbes street, New Glasgow, Maclean's crossing, Hopewell, near Oxford station, Amherst, Moncton, Little Metis.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Do yon propose to put a subway at Forbes street in New Glasgow?


Francis Cochrane: Yes.
Surveys and inspection, $15,000.


Mr. CHISHOLM (Inverness).: On this item I wish to refer to a line of railway which is proposed to toe constructed from Orangedale to Cheticamp. I have listened to the pronouncement of policy by the minister with regard to the requirements of



from Orangedale to Cheticamp. I would desire not only an engineer's report, but a report also of the traffic possibilities of the line. I would like also to have a report of the possibilities of the Inverness and Richmond railway. I am not in the least afraid but that these reports will fully justify the immediate building of the Orangedale-Chetieamp and the taking over of the Inverness road.


William Pugsley: I would ask the hon. minister to allow the remaining estimates to stand.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: The item for increased accommodation along the line and for Truro might pass. One item was rolling stock. I want that to stand.


William Pugsley: Yes.


William Chisholm: Wfiat is increased accommodation and facilities along the line '? Has it anything to do with building railway stations?


Francis Cochrane: It includes the following:
Amherst, paving at, $12,650.
Amherst, track scale, $2,500.
Sandy Cove, extension of siding, 600 feet,

Kinsack, extension of siding, 300 feet, $600
Sydney, piling turn table tractor, $500.
Sydney, addition to freight shed, 150 x 40, $8,325.
Sydney Mines, addition to freight shed 100 x 40. $4,700.
Coal branch, addition to station, $310.
Bureau, siding, to improve loading facilities, $880.
Kempt, freight sheds, $1,300.
Sayabec, new station, $6,800.
St. Germain, addition to freight shed, 30 feet, $640.
Laurier, station and addition to freight shed, $6,700.
St. Leonard junction, addition to freight shed, $1,200.
Lotbiniere, addition to freight shed and coal shed, $665.
Barachois, additional sidings, $1,250.
Eel River, addition to freight shed, $1,215.
Rimouski, addition to freight shed, $1,245.
St. Anaolet, freight shed, $880.
St. Ann, addition to freight shed, $715.


William Chisholm: Is that a station at Truro?


Francis Cochrane: The contract is let.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Who is the contractor?


Francis Cochrane: The same man as before.


William Chisholm: Has the hon. minister a report of the condition of the stations at South River in Antigonish and at Tracadie? When the board of management were inspecting the road last year, they were of opinion that the station at Mr. CHISHOLM (Inverness).
South River was not in proper condition. Attempts had been made to repair it, but even so it was in a dilapidated state. The trouble was that the foundation was bad and the building heaved. The stationmas-ter who had been there for some years was advised by his doctor that the conditions were unsanitary, and, as it was not convenient to get a suitable house to rent there, he quit the service. Owing to the condition of the station, his health began to fail and it forced him to give up his position. Another station of which the board of management promised to improve conditions was Tracadie. The health officer for the county wrote that conditions were entirely unsatisfactory and such as to be a menace to the health of the stationmaster's family. This was a couple of years ago. There are other letters on file from the clergymen and other prominent citizens to the same effect. For some reason this work had been put off from time to time. But it was agreed on the occasion of the visit of the board of management and staff last summer, that necessary repairs to the building and improvement of the surroundings would be made. Parliament dissolved not long afterwards and nothing was done. I hope there will be no further delay in the matter.


Francis Cochrane: I will have a note made of that and will go into the question.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Before we rise, the hon. member for Kings, Prince Edward Island (Mr. Hughes), who was compelled to leave to catch a train, asked me to ask the minister to bring down the papers in connection with the car-ierry matter, before we came to that item in Supply.


Francis Cochrane: What papers?


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: I am not sure, not being familiar with the matter. I believe some papers were moved lor.


Francis Cochrane: I understand that these have been brought down.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: I will advise the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes, Kings), of that fact.


William Pugsley: In connection with the large item that is left standing, I think perhaps the general question of railway accommodation in the maritime provinces in connection with the Intercolonial railway might be discussed somewhat along the lines followed by my hon. friend from Pictou. I should1 be very glad if the minister, when we resume the discussion would let us know just in what condition the proposed agreement is for the operation of the St. John Valley road, including the aid for the bridges across the St. John river.


Francis Cochrane: I can give the hon. gentleman that information now. The

agreement has been arranged and is away for signature. It is on a little different terms from the other agreement. The provincial government guarantee the bonds at $25,000 a mile, and they issue bonds for $10,000 more and receive the subsidy from the federal government of $6,400 a mile. The principal change is that we guarantee the bonds of the bridge for $1,000,000. They are not allowed to issue more bonds except the two issues, and we have the right then to issue bonds beyond the $35,000 for any betterments the road may want during the currency of the lease.


William Pugsley: Does the agreement include the building .and operation of the line all the way from St. John to Grand Falls?


Francis Cochrane: That line is only approved as far as Andover, and that is not fully settled yet.


William Pugsley: But it is settled as far as going to St. John?


Francis Cochrane: It will be a matter of agreement where to join the Intercolonial.


William Pugsley: Will my hon. friend be able soon to lay the agreement on the table?


Francis Cochrane: I think very shortly.


John Howard Sinclair: Will the same terms be available for the province of Nova Scotia for the branch lines projected in that province?


Francis Cochrane: As the ex-Minister of Public Works knows, there has been a little [DOT]change made in the agreement of last spring, and I think he had a good deal to do with making the agreement. I have been told that this road passes through a very fertile country, and if what I am told is true, I am surprised that this road has not been built long before now. The prospects of the road are better than those of any other road I am acquainted with. I would be glad to discuss with the government of Nova Scotia any proposition which they might make. I do not like to commit myself to any proposition, because I am only one member of the government. But if I get a report as favourable as I have with regard to this road, I think it will be only reasonable to do something of the same kind in Nova Scotia.


William Pugsley: The Minister of Railways is quite right in saying that the agreement is arrived at.


Francis Cochrane: The guarantee of the bonds.


William Pugsley: The provincial government were to guarantee the bonds for $25,000 a mile, and then the Dominion government was to grant aid at $6,400 a mile pursuant to the statute for a road between St.
135}
John and Grand Falls, where it was to connect with the Transcontinental. It was also agreed upon between the late Minister of Railways and the provincial government that aid was to be given for two large bridges across the St. John river, one across the river near Mistake, so-called, another at Andover and another across the ICennebecasis. Then the Intercolonial was to lease the line for a term of ninety-nine years. I may say that the late government took up this whole question of railway aid, and all the different propositions really formed part of one comprehensive scheme. We agreed, for instance, to build the Hudson Bay railway, we agreed to guarantee the bonds of the Canadian Northern so as to link up the eastern with the western .section. Then we made an agreement that the government could compel the Canadian Northern to exchange traffic with the Intercolonial at Montreal.


Francis Cochrane: Was there an agreement made between the Canadian Northern and the Intercolonial for an exchange of traffic?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Francis Cochrane: Is that in writing?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Francis Cochrane: I never heard of it.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend ought to look into that, because it is very important. It provides that tine government has a right to call upon the Canadian Northern railway to exchange all its traffic at Montreal with the Intercolonial railway-; an important arrangement, .and very beneficial to the country. It was- a part of our policy. These different features were all linked up together, these branches in Nova" Scotia were to be built, and the government adopted the policy of taking over the various branch lines of the Intercolonial railway in Quebec, New Brunswick .and Nova Scotia; branch lines were also to be built in Prince Edward Island. We were to .assist the St. John Valley line also. All these features were part of a comprehensive scheme which the government decided upon with a view to further railway development in different sections of Canada.
I think hon. gentlemen from Nova Scotia have good reason to complain of the omission of that very important piece of road for which provision was made by the late government.


Francis Cochrane: They will have to be patient a little longer.


William Pugsley: They have been patient for .a great many years. I can testify that they were pressing this matter foT <a great number of years, and finally it was agreed that the government would aid the St. John Valley road in this way, and these other

branch limes should be built. I hope my hom. friend will look into the matter -again, and see his .way clear to restore the items for the construction of branches in Nova Scotia which have been omitted.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Perhaps I did not understand the minister as to the assistance to be granted the St. John Valley. I am aware of the guarantee of bonds for $25,000 a mile for the road. iMy recollection is that the agreement that was arrived at between the late Minister of Railways and the provincial government of New Brunswick, in the month of July last, w.as to the effect that the govemmemt was to furnish aid to the extent of about $400,000 for bridges, anld the bonds for the balance of the bridges were to be guaranteed by the province. I now understand that the Federal govexnimienit guarantees the bonds for the whole million dollars for the bridges.


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


William Pugsley: Then the difference between that and the proposition of the late government is that we were not guaranteeing bonds for the bridges, but we were to give a substantial cash bonus, supposed to be one-third the estimated cost of the bridges. Then the provincial government were to provide an equal amount. I understand now that instead of giving ia cash subsidy this government agrees to guarantee the bonds.


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: I asked the minister whether the terms would be available to the government of Nova Scotia. Do I understand it .is a question of the probable revenue of the road; that is, that that is the only question that will have to be considered ?


Francis Cochrane: In that respect, yes. I know we are taking desperate chances at 40 and 60 per cent. I do not know that there is going to be anything in it for the Intercolonial railway. '


John Howard Sinclair: It is forty per cent of the gross earnings ?


Francis Cochrane: Of the gross earnings. It makes a great deal of difference where that road will run, and whether it is possible to make both ends meet on the forty and sixty per cent basis. For the Intercolonial as a whole, it takes about ninety-five per cent of the revenue to meet running expenses. I would not like to commit myself to any definite proposition, but I would be glad to discuss any proposition the provincial government may have to make. I would rather encourage the building of roads- in that way than to see the federal government undertaking the whole responsibility of an enterprise to develop the natural resources of a province. I think that


William Pugsley: the federal government should build what you might call trunk lines; but these branch lines in a province constructed .solely for the purpose cf developing natural resources, I would aid in the same manner as we are aiding the St. John Valley road.


William Pugsley: The way we looked at the matter was this, that in all probability for a few years both governments might sustain some loss. We consider that the federal government would lose some money in operating on the 40 per [DOT]cent basis, but also the provincial government would incur some loss because until the earnings reached $2,500 per mile, the 40 per cent would not pay the interest and therefore for three or four years there might be a loss on the part of both governments. But I felt, and I think the late Minister of Railways and Canals felt, that when the earnings reached $2,500 or $3,000 per mile it would pay on a 40 per cent basis. The Canadian Pacific railway lease the Tobique Valley railway, they operate on a 40 per cent basis, and I am told that the results have been quite satisfactory.


Francis Cochrane: Have they to provide anything for betterments ?


William Pugsley: I do not know, but it is not unusual that we have companies operating on that basis.


Mr. McXENZIE.: When the minister comes before the committee again I desire and would like him to tell me as well as he can the particular purpose to which this vote in the estimates for the Sydney mines diversion will be devoted.


Francis Cochrane: I will give all the details.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. COCHRANE moved the adjournment of the House.


William Pugsley: What business will be taken up on Monday ?


Francis Cochrane: I understand that the Boundary Bill will be discussed on Monday, and then estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to. and House adjourned at 12.40 a.m., Saturday.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 4, 1912.