1914-05-05

REPORT.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Dairy and Cold Storage Commission.-Hon. Mr. Burrell.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 173, respecting British Nationality Naturalization and Aliens. He said:
The principal purpose of this Bill is to provide the legislation necessary under the agreement arrived at between this Govern-
[Stage Direction]
ment, the Home Government and the govr ernments of the other dominions, to bring about an empire-wide naturalization.
The first part of the Bill deals with the definition of natural-born British subjects. It modifies the existing law, I think, substantially only to this extent: that whereas a person born out of the realm, whose father or grandfather was a British subject, is under the existing law a natural-born British subject, under the proposed legislation it -is required that the father of such person should be a natural-born British subject. This is a reproduction of legislation enacted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
The next part of the Bill deals with naturalization, and it is that part the adoption of which by us is necessary in order to give effect to the arrangement -arrived at. It prescribes the conditions of naturalization, which are those prescribed -by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It differs in several respects from- our existing legislation. This difference results from the fact that we have agreed, after conference with the Government of the United Kingdom and the governments of the other self-governing dominions, upon conditions of naturalization that are to be similar in -the United Kingdom and in each of the self-governing dominions.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN:: What do the other self-governing dominions include under the meaning of the Bill?


Mr. DOHERTY:: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the firs! time.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. DOHERTY moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 174, to amend the Juvenile Delinquents Act, 1908. He said:
This Eill contains but one clause. Its purpose is to provide for the appointment of a deputy judge of the Juvenile Delinquent Court. It permits the appointment of a deputy judge Iby the judge of the Juvenile Delinquent Court, with the approval of the attorney general of the province. The consideration that has led me to regard as desirable the enactment of this legislation is that it has been found, in the operation of this Juvenile Delinquent Court-which, as is well known, seeks to deal with children in a manner to bring about their correction rather than for the purpose of inflicting punishment-there are a great many small matters that to-day are within the jurisdiction of that court, and therefore cannot be decided in the absence of the judge. In many instances it is very desirable that these matters should be proceeded with without delay, and it has been thought that in a great many cases it would be quite a suitable arrangement that the clerk of the court, who is perfectly familiar with the routine proceedings, should have power to deal with such matters in the absence of the judge. It is for the purpose of creating a condition in which that may ibe done that this legislation is sought to be enacted. I may say that this Bill is introduced at the instance of Judge Choquette, of the Juvenile Court of Montreal, whose experience has led him to make the suggestion. As the appointment is to be by the judge suibject to the approval of the attorney general of the. province, I think we may rely on it that the power will not be used for the appointment of other than suitable persons. The clerk of the court I have referred to is Mr. Dawson, and it will be generally acknowledged that he is a very competent person indeed to perform the duties, and that he is one who has proven himself most earnest in the work of endeavouring to bring about the correction and improvement of errant and apparently incorrigible children.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. DOHERTY moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 175, to amend the Supreme Court Act. He said:
It will be remembered that at the last session of this Parliament an amendment was made to the Supreme Court Act for the purpose of making appealable from the province of Ontario, and from other provinces to which are applicable the same conditions of appeal as to those of the province of Ontario, a judgment rendered in a suit where the judgment decides some substantial right on the part of the parties, even though such judgment may not be final. In the application of the law so enacted the question has l^en raised whether that legislation applies to -cases which have been instituted before the enactment of that legislation, and, if I mistake not, it has been held that -it does not apply. It is considered desirable that in such cases the amendment should be made applicable, and the purpose of the present Bill is to provide that this amendment

quoting the words of the Bill itself:
Shall apply as well to actions, suits, causes, matters, or other judicial proceedings commenced before the date of the passing of the said chapter 51 as to actions, suits, causes, matters, or other judicial proceedings commenced since that date.
There is a proviso against this legislation being applicable in any case where the question has been decided in a sense opposed to the effect of this legislation.
Mr. MURPHY:: Is there any particular case that this is designed to affect?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not aware of any particular case. I have, had correspondence with lawyers upon the subject pointing out that difficulties have arisen. I believe there is one decision in the matter; I will look it up and communicate it to my hon. friend.


Charles Murphy: Do I understand the minister to say that this Bill will not apply to any case which has been decided as being without the provisions of the Bill of last session?


Charles Joseph Doherty: We would not undertake to interfere with any judgment that has been rendered in any particular case.


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


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 172, respecting the Toronto Terminals Railway Company.-Mr. Macdonell.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. KYTE:: I desire to ask the Minister of Justice if application has been made to him for commutation of the sentence passed upon Frank Haynes, sentenced to death for the killing of Ben Atkinson of Sydney.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Application was made
yesterday for commutation of sentence.


George William Kyte: Has any determination
been reached in the matter?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I had an opportunity
of hearing these gentlemen only last evening and this morning, and I have not, since the application was made, been in a position to arrive at any decision-upon it. I may say that the matter had consideration before this application was made.



THE CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY RESOLUTION.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. GRAHAM:: I wish to call the attention of the Prime Minister to a statement included among those presented to the House yesterday in regar<T to the proposed Canadian Northern Railway guarantee. This statement is headed:
Engineers' estimate of cost-Canadian Northern Railway System. All lines-summary sheet. Estimated cost of betterments.
At the foot of the page there is a statement which reads as follows:
Construction as above	$41,987,565
Amount due on construction, sub-contractors' accounts, etc., not in above-see accompanying statement-
Western lines	$8,348,290
Eastern lines		6,606,424

Rolling stock	 27,441,086
Betterments	 10,000,000

Proceeds of securities earned or
available against the above ....	58,473,988
Balance	 $41,905,117
I wish to call the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that the sum of $100,379,009 is evidently the wrong amount. An item of $5,000,000 or $6,000,000 must toe missing.


Mr. BORDEN:: There is an item missing, that of Montreal terminals, $5,595,754. It was dropped in making the copy. The securities which are to provide for the construction of those terminals are included

in the item of $58,473,982, but in the copying of the document the same item was omitted by the typewriter. I did not notice this omission when I placed the document on the table of the House; in fact, it was placed in my hands just as I presented it to the House. I am sorry the mistake occurred and I have given instructions that an amended copy, including this, shall he laid upon the table of the House; in fact, I expected to have it here to-day.
I would like to say to the right hon. the leader of the Opposition that the statement of the capitalization of the various companies was to have been laid on the table of the House to-day. On looking over it I saw that the capitalization of one of the minor companies had been omitted and I therefore sent it back. It will be here within ten or fifteen minutes, and I will take the opportunity to lay it on the table at a later date. In addition to that, a number of other documents will be laid upon the table to-morrow. I hope to have them in such form that several copies will be available.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Would the
Prime Minister look over the statement just read by my friend beside me. There is an item to this effect:
Sub-contractors, amounts not in above, see accompanying statement.
I do not see that accompanying statement.


Robert Laird Borden: If it is desired that we
should set out the names of all the subcontractors to whom amounts are owing, I do not know that there would be any great objection.


Wilfrid Laurier: At all events, it is stated here that there is an accompanying statement.


Robert Laird Borden: It was not thought desirable, unless urgently required, to lay the names of the various creditors on the table of the House. [DOT]


Wilfrid Laurier: It would be
advisable to have something in the way of a statement, because it refers here to the accompanying statement; so evidently it has 'been prepared.


Robert Laird Borden: It has been prepared.


Wilfrid Laurier: Then I would expect my right hon. friend to lay it on the table.


Robert Laird Borden: I shall consider that. It was not thought advisable, in' the absence of some urgent reason, that the names of the

various creditors should be laid on the table of the House.


Charles Murphy: f would again draw attention to a delayed return with reference to the Canadian Northern railway. In March last I placed a question on the Order Paper asking for certain information. That question was allowed to remain unanswered for over a month. Then, at the request of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways, it was turned into an order for a return. That happened some weeks ago, but the return has not yet been brought down. In the interval, the hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) put a question on the Order Paper covering somewhat the same ground, and obtained the desired information within a very few days. I am not going to complain about discrimination, but I hope I shall not have again to draw the attention of my hon. friend to the delay in connection with this return.


Mr. J. D. REID:: I will send over to the deputy minister now and ask why there is delay in presenting the return.


Mr. R. B. BENNETT:: I should like to
inquire, before the debate on the Canadian Northern Railway resolution is proceeded with, whether the Government is in a position to furnish the House with particulars of the $38,000,000 a'neged to be in hand. This amount is supposed to be the proceeds arising from the sale of the securities of the Canadian Northern Pacific, Canadian Northern Ontario, and the Canadian Northern Alberta railway. I should like to know how this sum is made up.


Robert Laird Borden: Information will be laid
on the table of the House with regard to that. The amount is constituted not solely of the proceeds from the sale of securities, but of subsidies yet to be earned as well.



ST. LAWRENCE SHIP ACCIDENTS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. LEMIEUX:: I would invite the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to the fact that there has been another accident on the St. Lawrence. The Saturnia met with an accident somewhere around the Traverse below Quebec, and I see from the newspaper report of the invesigation which is taking place that the accident was due to the lack of equipment on the part of the marine agency at Quebec. It appears that the lightship was not placed there in due time and that if the lightship had been towed to position by the
proper vessel it would have arrived in time to avert the accident. Strict investigation should be held into this matter, because since the opening of navigation only a few days ago, this is the third accident on the St. Lawrence route.


Mr. HAZEN:: I have a memorandum
regarding the matter which I shall read to the House in a moment. I do not think that any report of the nature mentioned by my hon. friend, from Rouville (Mr. Le-mieux) has been made by the wreck com- , missioner who is investigating the disaster with the assistance of two nautical assessors. Their report will no doubt place the blame where it belongs. I may say that while the lightship was not at the Traverse, every step was taken that could be taken by the engineer of the department at Quebec and the agency at Quebec, whose business it is to look after matters of this kind. As the hon. gentleman is aware, the aids to navigation on the St. Lawrence, or any other river which is infested with ice1, cannot be placed until the ice is out of the river. I understand that this year, through an attempt to place buoys at an earlier date than ice conditions justified, seven or eight buoys were destroyed. If the buoys and lightships and aids to navigation are placed at an earlier date than ice conditions will permit, great loss occurs and no benefit is derived. I saw the newspaper report to which my hon. friend refers, and asked the officials to furnish me with a memorandum stating exactly the facts so far as the department knew them. This is the statement placed in my hands by the officials of the department; it bears the initials of the inspector of lights, Mr. McPhail:
In the matter of statements in the Montreal Gazette of today, respecting absence of buoys and the Lower Traverse lightship, the usual arrangements were made this spring whereby all equipment would be in readiness to place in operation as soon as ice conditions would permit.
Accordingly, about the 15th instant, the buoys in the wider part of the river, from Hare island downward, were placed.
Immediately the statements in the Montreal Gazette came to my attention, I telephoned to the superintendent of lights at Quebec with respect to those statements and learned that on the morning of Monday, the 27th instant, the Druid left Quebec with the buoys to be placed between Quebec and Portneuf, to stand by against the time that the ice would pass down, which was expected to occur on the following day, namely the 28th. As a matter of fact ice did not go out on the 28th and the buoys were accordingly placed, and the work downwards was followed up with all possible despatch, and is at the present time proceeding. It is unfortunate that the Montcalm is out of commission this spring, as the work of placing the buoys cannot be completed as expeditiously as

usual. In any case the work in that section between Portneuf and the Traverse could not have been commenced earlier than it was, for the reason that had the buoys been placed in the narrow part of the river below, which was open, they would surely have been carried away and the lanterns would have been destroyed by the lake St. Peter ice when it passed down. We had an example in the Montreal Agency the day before yesterday and yesterday of eight lanterns being damaged by running ice, on account of the buoys having been placed earlier than nature ordained. It is true the buoys in the clear part of the river below Quebec might have been placed before the lake St. Peter ice went out, but not only would the lanterns have been destroyed but the buoys themselves would have been endangered and would certainly have been dragged from their proper positions and thereby constitute a menace to navigation.
As to the Lower Traverse lightship, the same arguments apply, to a lesser extent, to her as to the buoys with respect to running ice. 1 learned by telephone that she was cut out of the Louise basin last week by a tug and prepared for commission against the time that it would be safe to place her. It was considered safe to despatch her on Sunday, hut unfortunately, when preparing to get under way, it was discovered that the rudder was still frozen and had to be thawed out by them. She left Quebec at 9 a.m. on Monday morning, arriving at the Pillars in the evening at the turn of the tide and, not being able to proceed against flood tide, anchored there and took up her station on Tuesday morning. The pilots were advised that it was uncertain whether or not the lightship would he on her station Monday night.
As stated in the Gazette article, the channel was suitably marked for day navigation byspars, which are not in danger of being destroyed or deranged by running ice.
The superintendent of lights will report in detail on these several matters.
Ottawa, 30th April, 1914.
My hon. friend will see, therefore, that we are taking steps to ascertain all the facts, and no doubt the Wreck Commissioners' court, which is now sitting in Quebec, will place the blame, if any exists, on the proper shoulders and report the facts so that they will be known to shipping men generally, and to the House.



HALIFAX NAVAL COLLEGE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called.
Mr. MACDONALD:: I saw an announcement in the press the other day with regard to the Naval College at Halifax which, if true, should be made to the House. I would like to ask the Minister of Naval Affairs what changes the department proposes to make in regard to the future operation of that college, the basis of the changes, and whether or not the college is to be con, tinued.
Mr: HAZEN: The regulations have been laid on the table of the House and have been published in the Canada Gazette in full;

more clearly and briefly, perhaps, than I could give the information.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What, in brief, is
the policy of the Government in regard to the college?


John Douglas Hazen: Students entering the
Naval College in future will be trained there . to a certain extent-as in the Military College at Kingston-not only for naval work, but for work in civil life; as, for instance, for the Hydrographic Survey, Tidal Survey, and other scientific work of that description. A change has been made in the curriculum to provide for this. The course of study has also been changed from a two-year course to a three-year course.



THE SAN FRANCISCO EXHIBITION.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. White for Committee of Supply:
Mr. W. G. WEICHEL (North Waterloo):: Before the House goes into Committee of Supply I wish to refer to a very important matter that is to-day attracting great attention throughout Canada and the empire, namely, the opening of the Panama canal and the San Francisco exposition.
Great Britain's refusal to participate in the Panama exposition to be held in San Francisco in 1915 was received with regret by many business interests throughout the empire. Many urgent requests have been made by commercial bodies, and petitions have been sent by over half the members of the British House of Commons, for the Government .of Great Britain to reconsider her decision, but so far they have not been successful. The reason given by both Great Britain and Germany, who also refused to participate at that time, was that it entailed too great an expense for any possible commensurate returns, especially in view of the almost prohibitive United States tariff which prevailed at that time. To the ordinary observer, however, it was apparent that these two countries resented discrimination against them in the Panama tolls legislation, which was considered by them a breach of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty regarding the use of the Panama canal. These were the conditions obtaining when invitations to participate were extended and, at that time, refused. Since then the high tariff of the United States has been considerably reduced; in fact, it is almost on a par with that of the Dominion of Canada, and this reduction is of the greatest moment to European countries as well as to our own Dominion. The people of this country, as well as

those of other countries, watched with interest the magnificent fight waged by President Wilson in the House at Washington for the repeal of the legislation in question. He has succeeded in carrying through the House of Representatives, by a majority of 86, a Bill to repeal the Panama tolls legislation of last Congress. Therefore, I am of the opinion that it is not unlikely that the British Government will reconsider their refusal, and signify by their action that they appreciate President Wilson's courageous and honourable course. I might here refer to an article which appeared in the Chamber of Commerce Journal in April last, from which I extract the following:
In answer to a question by Mr. I-ynch, Mr. Harcourt said that Canada would participate and New Zealand, and he understood in some degree Australia, but not South Africa. He forwarded the invitation of the United States Government to the self-governing dominions in May, 1912, and had been in communication with them ever since, but he was not informed of what they proposed to do in detail. Some of them had applied for information at different times as to the attitude of His Majesty's Government, but none of them had expressed a desire that we should reconsider our decision.
We in Canada are participating in the exposition, and as we are in closest proximity to the United States and friendly in our intercourse with that great nation, I believe it would strengthen the bonds of friendship existing between Great Britain and the United States if the British Government could be persuaded to reconsider their decision, and to participate in the San Francisco exposition. It is desirable because the event synchronizes with the very important celebration of the centenary of peace between the two nations, and it would strengthen and cement the existing friendly relations. It would come with great force from the Dominion Parliament, and would create a great response of good feeling from the United States. If Great Britain reverses her decision, Germany may follow, and thus strengthen the ties between these three great countries. Many Canadians intend visiting San Francisco during the exposition in 1915, and participation by the mother country would be hailed with delight by many of us who are anxiously looking forward to a visit during that time. The exposition is creating a good deal of interest throughout Canada. I have in my hand a resolution which I received from the Berlin Board of Trade, dated March 23, 1914, and which reads as follows:
Moved by Mr. D. B. Detweiler, seconded by Mr. W. D. Cleghorn:
Whereas the completion of the Panama canal, a work of world-wide significance, will be commemorated by the Panama exposition at San Francisco in 1915, in which exhibition the United States has invited all friendly nations to unite;
And whereas participation in the exhibition not merely by Canada, but by the Empire as a whole, is especially desirable because the event synchronizes with the very important celebration of the Century of Peace between the two nations, and will not only strengthen and cement the existing happy relations, but will sustain British prestige in the Americas and the Orient, an object of special moment to Canada as the portion of the empire in closest proximity to these nations:
Therefore, be it resolved that the Berlin Board of Trade respectfully request the Parliament of Canada to urge upon the Imperial Government the great desirability of reconsidering the present decision not to participate in that exhibition; and that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to W. G. Weichel, M.P., for North Waterloo, for transmission to the Canadian House of Commons.


Robert Laird Borden: I am sure that we all
appreciate the observations which the hon. member has just addressed to the House with regard to the subject of participation in the great exposition which is to be held next year in San Francisco in commemoration of the opening of the Panama canal. When the question arose as to whether or not this country should participate in that exhibition, we had no difficulty whatever in arriving at the conclusion that it would be desirable to do so from eveTy standpoint. My hon. friend and colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell), to whose department such matters appertain, has made and is making very effective and thorough preparations in order that Canada may be adequately represented at that exhibition and take no small part therein. We should all be glad, I am sure, if the mother country had seen fit to take the same course, but we have not thought it at all necessary or desirable that any representations should be made by Canada in that regard, inasmuch as the question is one for the Government and Parliament of the United Kingdom just as Our own participation is a matter for the Government and Parliament of Canada.
I shall give my best consideration, however, to what my hon. friend has urged and to the representations which are set forth in the resolution from the Berlin Board of Trade which he has placed before the House. I am thoroughly confident, and indeed we had the pronouncement in Parliament by the Prime Minister and other ministers of the United Kingdom, that the failure of the

mother country to take part in the exhibition is not induced by any feeling of resentment or otherwise in connection with any of the matters which have been alluded to. Full explanations and statements have been made in that regard in the Imperial Parliament, to - which I am sure every hon. member, every citizen of this country and of the empire, will give full credence and credit. I agree most heartily in what my hon. friend has said in regard to the desirability of maintaining and strengthening in every way the existing cordial relations between the great empire of which Canada forms a part and the great neighbouring republic. I am sure we are all happy beyond measure that these relations were never more cordial or more friendly than they are at the present time. On both sides of the House hon. members will agree that everything possible for the pur-
4 p.m. pose of strengthening the friendliness of those relations, if that friendliness can be increased, ought to be done. I cannot say more at the moment than that the suggestion which my hon. friend has placed before the House will receive the best consideration of the Government.



MANAGEMENT OF THE INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. T. White (Minister of Finance) for Committee of Supply:
Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, we were favoured about a month ago with the annual Budget delivered by the acting Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Reid) in connection with the department over which he now presides, in which considerable reference was made to the Intercolonial railway. My hon. friend gave a statement of the affairs of that railway but apparently his words on that occasion in that regard at least have been entirely lost sight of. I assume it was because of the lengthy discussion which occurred in connection with the Trancontin-ental Railway report brought to the notice of the House by my hon. friend at that time. The Intercolonial is a subject that has received considerable attention in times past. I myself I think, have been guilty on many occasions of dealing with the subject, if guilt there is connected with it at all. I want to make some few observations this afternoon relating to the management of that road. I shall conclude my remarks with a motion.
I do not wish to repeat anything that

has been said in the past in respect to the historical phase of the Intercolonial or the part played in our Canadian commerce or nationality. I want to deal with the situation of . the Intercolonial as it presents itself to me, and, as I think, it presents itself to the major portion of the inhabitants of eastern Canada. I shall deal with the subject under three heads practically. First, I shall endeavour to show, and I hope I shall be able to succeed in so doing, that the present management of the Intercolonial railway is detrimental to the successful and satisfactory operation of the road in the interests of the people; second, that the management, in violation of the law, makes the railway subservient to other competitive railway interests, thereby discriminating against the general public and patrons of the Government railway system and causing a disturbance and diversion of its legitimate traffic; and, third, that the management of the Intercolonial railway is manifestly unfair to those trained upon the system and who are familiar with the conditions and needs of its patrons.
I shall deal with the first, having regard to the situation of the railway, as to what it is at this moment, as to what I think it should be, and in relation to its financial condition Let me remind the House of some of the utterances of my hon. friend the acting Minister of Railways and Canals on the 24th March last. On that occasion he mentioned the fact that there had been a change in the method of managing the road; that is to say, that the management by means of a board of managers had been dispensed with and that there had been substituted therefor a one man management in the form of general manager, he claiming that the substitution of a general manager for the board of management made it much more direct and satisfactory. I concur in this conclusion. I have always favoured the management of the road directly by a general manager in preference to a board of managers. Others differ from me in that respect, but I think the results justify not only the prophecy I made in respect to it, but the contentions which I put forward as regards the actual results. Rut my hon. friend seemed to put this focward as if the management by a board had not continued under the present Government, but that the change had been made at the time of the change of Administration.

I am sure my hon. friend did not wish to create such a false impression, because he *knows that for a year and a half after the present Administration came into power, that board of management was continued. My hon. friend went on to say that previous to the change in management the board had decided to increase the rates and it was their intention to do so, thus implying that the present management were not responsible for the increased freight charge under the present tariff. I have always contended that no matter how you manage the Intercolonial railway no government can free itself of responsibility for the management of that railway, and if after the change of administration the board of management concluded to increase the freight rates, it could not be done without an Order in Council. No minister of railways, no general manager of the Intercolonial, could add one cent to the freight charges of that railway except by Order in Council, thus making the whole Government fully responsible. My hon. friend went on to speak of the financial condition of the railway, and estimating a certain revenue for February and March he figured out that there would be a surplus of $300,000, which he claimed would be appropriated to the renewal of equipment account. The Hon. Mr. Cochrane, Minister of Eailways, who was present last session, and whose absence now we regret and particularly on account of his illness, took great kudos for the fact that on the 31st of March, 1913, the surplus of earnings on the Intercolonial railway over expenditure would amount to $770,000. I naturally, in common with others, shared in the congratulations that were properly due on account of that financial result, assuming the statement to be correct, which unfortunately it was not. The railway statistics for the Dominion of Canada for the year ending June 30, 1913, which have been placed on the table of the House are prepared by direction of the Government for the fiscal year beginning the 1st of July and ending the 30th of June, in accordance with the practice of railways generally throughout the Dominion. From the railway statistics I find that the total operating expenses of the Intercolonial for the year ending 30th June, 1913, amounted to $12,510,311.7.3; while the earnings and income for the same year amounted to $12,349,296.06, or an actual deficit of $161,015.16. Now, how did that occur? It occurred simply because, in order to make a more favourable balance sheet for the year ending
31st March, 1913, there must have been withheld from the accounts of that year expenditures that properly should have been charged to the year ending the 31st March, 1913. It would appear that work that should have been paid for out of the operating expenses of the year ending the * 31st of March, 1913, was projected into the succeeding year, and that between the 1st of April and the 30th day of June these expenditures incurred in the previous fiscal year had to be paid. This demonstrates that the operation of the Intercolonial railway for that year resulted in a deficit instead of a surplus. I regret this very much indeed. I am willing to give to this Government to any minister of railways all the kudos he is entitled to if he can successfully manage the Intercolonial in the interests of the Dominion, and when I heard the Minister of Eailways make the statement I felt like congratulating him and the people of the country on that fact. But unfortunately the surplus did not exist and in its stead there was a deficit on the year's operation. In times past ministers of railways have been charged with so arranging the accounts of the Intercolonial railway that at the end of the fiscal year a surplus was shown where, if the bills had all been paid for the year, and the work done that ought to have been done, there would have been a deficit I remember that some years ago, I think it was in 1905, there was demonstrated to this Parliament a great deficit on the operation of the Intercolonial railway. How did that occur? Because we seized the opportunity to pay off all liabilities, to bring to an end all outstanding accounts and to have the year close clean and clear with the payment of every dollar. Unfortunately it showed to our disadvantage for that year, but in the years that followed the equilibrium was restored. Meantime, it was at least demonstrated that the accounts were properly managed and all bills paid at the proper time. Now, my hon. friend would have us believe that on the year's operation ending March 31 last, the excess of revenue over expenditure on the Intercolonial railway was $300,000, which, he claims, is to be applied to the renewal of equipment account. He explains as follows:
I might explain tor the benefit of the members of the House, as I dare say .there are many who do not understand the statement, that it is proposed to transfer this, to the 'renewal of equipment account.'
The change to which the hon. gentleman refers was made, and I think it was made

during the time I had the honour to preside over that department. But the account was a suspense account, and these charges were first made against it, and whatever surplus was shown was over and above these charges. Had my hon. friend acted in accordance with the practice of the past he would have charged up that $300,000 before he mentioned surplus. But had he done that, there would have been no surplus for him to speak about. That money was necessary to provide renewals of equipment, that should be charged to revenue and not to capital account. So that he stands in this position-that for the year ending 31st of March last there was no surplus, if he follow the practice of book-keeping inaugurated five or six years ago, and continued, as I understand it, down to the present time.


Robert Laird Borden: I desire to follow the hon. gentleman's argument. Does he mean that there never could be a surplus, because in any case the income over expenditure would have to be transferred to that account before the accounts were made up?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, what I mean is that there was a provision made by the opening of this account whereby a certain sum should be applied yearly-


Robert Laird Borden: How much?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It commenced with $250,000, and the amount was increased in later years. The amount was charged up just as any other expenditure, but in suspense, and the surplus, if any, would be lessened by the amount of that charge. Had my hon. friend charged up the $300,000, or whatever sum he proposes to charge up on the year's operation, his surplus would have been reduced; or, if he proposed to apply more than $300,000, then he would have shown a deficit instead of a surplus.


Robert Laird Borden: There has been a statute providing that any excess shall be used for the purpose oi the railway instead of passing into the consolidated revenue fund. Is it in relation to that that he is speaking? I ask for information.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The statute was not passed in the first place, it was inaugurated iby Order in Council; but within the last few years, I think, during the regime of my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), the statute was passed. The

effect is that no matter what sum stood to the credit of the Intercolonial railway as a surplus at the end of the year should be applied to the interests of the railway, and not go into the consolidated revenue fund.


Robert Laird Borden: Was not that amended
during the last two or three years?


George Perry Graham: I am not sure; I do not recollect.


John Dowsley Reid: May I ask is it not the fact that each month a certain amount is charged up to the working expense of the road and credited to this special fund-say at the rate of $300,000 a year-and then at the end of the year, if there is any further surplus, it is also added to this special fund, and the total amount is expended on new equipment?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not know what is the practice of the department to-day; I speak of it as it was. A certain amount -was applied as the requirements of the railway demanded.


John Dowsley Reid: Was that the way it ,wjts
done when the hon. gentleman was Minister of Railways and Canals, or was a certain amount charged to be laid aside for new equipment, and then if there was a further surplus that also was transferred to the same account and used in the same way?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The work was actually done and it was paid for; the money went into the operating expenses of the railway, and if at the end of the year the amount which we had allowed for that purpose was more than made up by the surplus, we credited it to the same account and then we showed a surplus if we could. But my hon. friend adopts a different method. Were he to charge up this amount, there would be no surplus of earnings. I hold that any surplus that is shown by reason of the non-charging of these necessary items of expenditure to current account is a false surplus and does not properly show the real condition of the railway. If he intends to apply to equipment only a sum equal to this so-called surplus, then he has secured an equilibrium of expenditure and revenue, and upon that he is to be commended, and we congratulate him.
So much with regard to the financial condition of the railway. There has been adopted in connection with the management of the Intercolonial a new policy-an innovation in the affairs of that railway

which has proved to be not only detrimental to the railway itself but also very much against the interests of its patrons. I have said that I thought that the management was detrimental to the successful and satisfactory operation of the railway and the interests of the people. Let me say that in not proceeding with the branch line policy which was promised by my right hon. friend when he was in opposition, the interests of the Intercolonial have been very materially interfered with. I know that when we ask hon. gentlemen: do you purpose purchasing or acquiring by lease or otherwise these branch lines? the answer given is: no, the Senate intervened. In what way did the Senate intervene? It would seem to me that my right hon. friend and the Minister of Finance, who is not now in his seat, considered that the Senate did them a very great service when they did not pass that Bill without amendment. I submit that the Senate did not carve the Bill so that no further action could be taken. They simply proposed an amendment whereby the Department of Railways and Canals would be compelled to place before Parliament any contract or any arrangement which they made in respect to any particular railway. Does that prevent them from going on? It can be recalled that branch lines have been acquired in the past for the Intercolonial. In these cases, was any special legislation secured before the action was taken? I recall the fact that the Canada Eastern railway in New Brunswick was acquired in the interests of the Intercolonial and in the interests of the people; it was acquired by contract which was submitted to Parliament, after which the arrangement was carried out. If the present Administration were desirous of acquiring any of the branch lines connected with the Intercolonial they could have done it without regard to the action of the Senate and without regard to any legislation. I want to make this statement to my right hon. friend and to the acting Minister of Railways: arrangements have been tentatively entered into between certain of the branch lines railway companies and the Intercolonial Railway Company whereby these railways may, upon certain terms, be acquired. If I am not correct in that statement, I desire to be corrected. Such arrangements were made; why have they not been carried out? Why has not the New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island railway, running between Sackville, in the county of Westmorland, and Cape Tormentine,
and connecting the Intercolonial railway with w'ater communication with Prince Edward Island; why has that railway not been acquired? An arrangement was agreed upon whereby, in my judgment, it could have been reasonably secured in the interests of the Intercolonial and in the interests of the people. Nothing, however, has been done, and when any member or any supporter of the Government goes into the county of Westmorland, instead of frankly telling the people that the Government could have done this; that the Government could have carried this through without the legislation that was proposed to be amended by the Senate, he says: Oh, we could not go on with it because the Senate killed the Bill. Mr. Speaker, that is not so. The Senate did not kill the Bill relating to branch line railways; they merely suggested a very reasonable amendment, and I think the Government and the management of the Intercolonial stand convicted for not carrying out that policy with respect to these branch lines. 1 shall not give further illustrations; they are in existence and they could be cited, but I say that the Government in not securing these branch lines are doing not only an injury to the Intercolonial railway itself, but they are doing also a grave injury to the trade and commerce of the country. They are materially obstructing the interests of Prince Edward Island; they are injuring the coal interests of Nova Scotia; they are injuring the fishing and quarrying interests of New Brunswick; they are impeding the development and progress of eastern Canada by their inaction in connection with this matter. I say that it is a matter of serious impeachment against the Government that they have been so inactive. The truth is that the present Minister of Railways-I am not referring to my hon. friend the aeting minister-the present Minister of Railways, who is now absent, is entirely opposed to the acquisition of any branch lines connected with the Intercolonial railway. He has argued against them; he has called them not feeders but milkers; he has spoken of them derisively and contemptuously. So far as his utterances, confirmed by his actions, are concerned, certainly he stands as being entirely opposed to the carrying out of the branch lines policy which was promised by my right hon. friend, when he was leader of the Opposition, during the elections of 1911.

3?eo
The service on the Intercolonial has never been at such a low ebb as it has been during the past season. It has been deteriorating. Take the train service between Montreal, Halifax and the Sydneys; during the past year and a half or two years the service has been deteriorated to a degree that cannot well be described. Whether in the matter of accommodation, the matter of parlour-car or dining-car service; in whatever way you speak of it, it has deteriorated. The road-bed has not, I think, been maintained at the proper standard. Yet the revenues of the railway have grown year by year; where a few years ago we had $8,000,000 or $9,000,000 of a revenue, to-day we have between $12,000,000 and $13,000,000. I maintain that during the present year the standard of our gross earnings would have been kept up had the service been commensurate with the requirements of the country. To my mind, the cutting off of the Ocean Limited was one of the most injurious things that has been done in connection with the railway in many years. It diverted and cut off the traffic that was growing year by year. During the last and preceding years, when we had in operation over the Intercolonial the Ocean Limited and the Maritime Express, eighty per cent of the westbound traffic went over the whole of the Intercolonial to Montreal, and only twenty or twenty-five per cent went over the Canadian Pacific railway from St. John.


John Douglas Hazen: Is it not a fact that during every year except the year 1913 the Ocean Limited did not run during the months of February .and March, and that during the present year it was off only during February and March, as in the previous years, except 1913?


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend is absolutely correct. When the Ocean Limited was first initiated it was intended only as a tourist train and ran fo<r a few months during the summer season. Its fame went abroad. The first year it was not successful; the second year it was not continued on very much longer, but it was a greater success that year than it was in the preceding year and so on in each succeeding year the traffic upon that train grew. It advertised Canada abroad in a way that it had not been advertised so far as its train service was concerned. It increased the tourist traffic along the St. Lawrence and down through Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and to Prince Edward Island. It became a

success, and as it was successful the management continued it. in operation until finally they ran it throughout the season, a wise course to be adopted. But what happened? When it was run only as a summer train the traffic was diverted during the winter months over the Canadian Pacific railway, and a large percentage of it, so far as my observation teaches me, continued to be diverted throughout the summer months, even after the Ocean Limited had been restored. But it grew, and the fact of that train being in operation on the Intercolonial explains very much as regards the increased gross passenger earnings on the Intercolonial. And I say that it was rotten policy, it was against the interests of the railway, and it was playing into the hands of the Canadian Pacific railway to discontinue that train last winter when it had been so successful, comparatively speaking, the previous winter.	.


John Douglas Hazen: Will the hon. gentleman inform the House what the loss to the country was in operating the Ocean Limited during February and March, 1913?


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend may have these figures, I have not. If its operation during those months did result in a direct loss, I say that indirectly it would have been a gain to the Intercolonial railway to have continued it. Many trains, the suburban trains in which my hon. friends are interested, are not successful in isolated cases, but will any railway management say that it is not in the general interest of railways to run certain trains at a loss when in the main the advantage to the railway may be demonstrated?


John Douglas Hazen: My information is that the loss on running the Ocean Limited during February and March, 1913, amounted to very nearly $300,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It may have, I am not in a position to answer my hon. friend. I do not know. But even at such a loss, if it had been continued it would have been more than made up by the increased continuance of travel during the remainder of the year. We all know that travel is easily diverted. We aTe creatures of habit, individually and collectively. We get into a habit of going by a certain route and we continue to go there. Suddenly there is no opportunity of following the course we have always pursued and we become accustomed to some other route. Naturally we continue the diversion and so it is with respect to the

Ocean Limited. I believe that the continuance of that train over the Intercolonial railway has contributed as much as any other agency to the growth of the earning power of the Intercolonial railway. I think it has advertised the Intercolonial throughout America in a way that no other train has done in past history, and I believe that it is a penny-wise and pound-foolish policy for the Intercolonial railway, because of the loss that might be entailed during certain months of the year, to discontinue that train. When there was only one train over the Intercolonial railway from Halifax to Montreal, the Canadian Pacific railway had a practical monopoly or a large proportion of the traffic between those two points, and for very obvious reasons, one being the time of departure from Montreal. When this second train was put on over the Intercolonial railway, in 1905 or 1906, there was a great change in this respect. I asked the department for certain information respecting the percentage of westbound traffic over the respective trains and I was furnished with this information:
Year.	Via Intercolonial.	Via St. John.	No. of passengers.	Per cent.	No. of passengers.	Per cent.1910	9,077	69 G	3,968	30'41911	9,300	69'7	4,034	30'31912	11,206	73'	4,108	27'1913	12,674	80'	3,113	20'
This shows that when the Intercolonial railway operated the Ocean Limited all the year round the traffic over that line from east to west was steadily increasing and the percentage of passenger traffic over the Canadian Pacific railway from east to west was steadily decreasing.


Robert Laird Borden: Between what points?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This takes in all
points-St. John and east of St. John.
The foregoing are from returns compiled in the office of the general passenger agent and for his information, not for accounting purposes. Corresponding figures are not available for the eastbound traffic, but usually the movement in the two directions about balance.
That demonstrates this fact: when you have two through expresses between Montreal and Halifax, running continuously throughout the year, your traffic is expanding and increasing, and it is to the advantage of the Intercolonial that those results should be brought about,
I now come to the second point. I hold that the interests of the Intercolonial are being made subsidiary and subservient to the Canadian Pacific, the other competitive railway; and that the patrons of the Government railway system are being discriminated against by the diversion of the legitimate traffic of that railway. The rates on the Intercolonial have increased very materially in the past few years. They are turning the screw at every point.
I have a return here with respect to the freight charges on hay from points in Quebec eastward, and I find that the increases are in many cases as high as a dollar a ton, or from $30 to $40 a car. In some instances they are half that, and in some cases even less than that. The rates range from one to five cents a pound for hay. The Intercolonial service has been degraded, and the charges to the general public have been increased. I do not say that with respect to passenger traffic-yet,
I do, because whereas in the past certain privileges were accorded to the patrons of the railway in the way of excursion and holiday rates, these have been withdrawn and the patrons are now compelled to pay the regular rates. The revenues necessarily have been increased by reason of the increased freight and passenger rates, but I hold that the service has not been commensurate. We have brought to the railway some very high-priced officials: Mr. Gutelius for one. He gets $20,000 a year, and we have another gentleman who gets $12,000. On the engineering staff of the. Intercolonial to-day, there are twenty-seven engineers, where six years ago there were only four or five to do the whole work. We have engineers of almost every conceivable name; and not only engineers, but assistant engineers, and in the main they come from the Canadian Pacific railway. The manager, himself, comes from there. Canadian Pacific Railway officials are replacing Intercolonial officials, who have the proper qualifications, and have had experience on that railway. These new officials are making the Intercolonial subservient to the Canadian Pacific railway. Even the very forms that are in use in the offices and railway stations have been changed to conform to the Canadian Pacific's forms. The standard rules of the Canadian Pacific railway were adopted on the Intercolonial on the first of May. The men who have been long in the service, who have safely operated the trains under certain rules, and to a degree



that accidents on that railway compare favourably with the accidents on any other railway on this continent-and particularly with the Canadian Pacific railway, which is held up to us as a model of operation and safety, hut which according to the statistical returns of the Government of Canada has a larger proportion of accidents than the Intercolonial-are expected within a few months to become familiar with the standard rules of the Canadian Pacific railway. Let me say that there are 673 rules; rules upon which depend the safety of the lives of the passengers and trainmen. In a few months the old men, from 50 to 65 years of age are expected to become familiar with these 673 rules, and at the same time to continue running the trains under the old rules. The confusion that has resulted can be imagined. The men on the Intercolonial have been protesting in regard to this matter. When the Boston and Maine Railway system changed their rules they allowed two years for the new rules to be put in operation. The Government of Canada allows only two or three months, which will result, in my judgment, to the injury of the railway, of its employees, and of the passengers who travel on that line. The Intercolonial railway has been made subservient to the Canadian Pacific railway in connection with the Gutelius-Bosworth agreement. I have referred to this matter before and shall not now go into it in detail, but let me say that it is an agreement entered into without the authority of law, in my judgment, and without the approval of an Order in Council, whereby the Intercolonial carries a train of 400 to 500 tons from St. John to Halifax for $300, and agrees to bring back the cars to St. John free of charge; and not only that, but to pay the Canadian Pacific railway for the use of the cars which have been attached to that train. The answer has been made that it pays the Intercolonial to do it. I have a return before me showing clearly that it costs the Intercolonial at the very least .56 or over half a cent to transport freight per ton mile. That was the average cost during the months of April, May and June, 1913. That means that it costs $2.24 to carry 400 tons one mile. The distance between St. John and Halifax is 275 miles. A special freight +,'3ln- under the agreement consists of oOO tons eastbound and 400 tons westbound. Special passenger tra:r= aT? limited 
to twelve oars including the vans, which, of course, are governed by weather conditions. That is the contention of the Intercolonial railway. I understand that the Canadian Pacific railway contend that the arrangement includes the carriage of a greater tonnage. But assuming it to be 400 tons, it costs the Intercolonial railway $616 to transport those 400 tons from St. John to Halifax for which it receives $300, taking the return of the Intercolonial itself in respect to the cost of transporting freight.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: Is that the actual cost or does it include overhead charges as well?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I assume that includes all the charges because the statement is headed 'Intercolonial Railway; cost of transporting freight per ton mile, April, May and June, 1913, and April, May and June, 1912.' The items are given in the statement and show the cost per ton mile in 1913, to be -56 while in 1912 the cost per ton mile was only -50. In the month of June, 1913, it was -67.


John Dowsley Reid: Did I understand the hon. gentleman to say that the statement showed that the cost per ton mile for carrying freight on the Intercolonial was -05 per cent?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is a little over half a cent per ton per mile.


John Dowsley Reid: Did I understand the hon.
gentleman to say that 400 tons of freight cost $616? If so, would not that show li cents per ton mile?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, I said that it cost the railway a little over half a cent to carry one ton a mile, and that if you carried 400 tons one mile it would cost $2.24. If you multiply that $2.24 by 275 miles you get the final results, namely, $616.


Robert Laird Borden: Why do you bring in 400 miles and then 275 miles?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I mean 400 tons.


Robert Laird Borden: You said 400 miles.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I was wrong. The
cost of one ton would be a little over half a cent

56.	To carry 400 tons one mile
would cost $2.24, and if you carried 400 tons 275 miles, which is the distance to Halifax, it would cost $616. That is accord- ing to the return placed upon the table by the minister. What does the Intercolonial get for carrying that freight?-$300.
It is inconceivable. What are the charges that are made against the general

public in respect to the carriage of freight? This arrangement discriminates for some particular purpose in favour of the competing railway interest to the detriment of the general interests of the railway. That is my contention and I say it is one of the most iniquitous agreements that was ever entered into, that it was entered into without the authority of law and that the Government condoned and continued it. I am speaking without reference to any rival interests in this regard; I am speaking of this simply in the interest of the Intercolonial railway.


Mr. CARVELL:: They have to bring back the empties?


Henry Robert Emmerson: They have to bring
back these cars free. All deadheading of cuts is done by the Intercolonial without charge.


John Dowsley Reid: But they take
5 p.m. loads back.


Henry Robert Emmerson: No.


John Dowsley Reid: If there is any freight they take it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If there is any freight they utilize the cars, but otherwise the cars are carried free. I have seen empty cars going back from St. John or the other way. One of the most serious 'hitches in this agreement is that it has disorganized the traffic of the Intercolonial railway. They were short of motive power. The discontinuance of many of the suburban trains, about which complaint has been made, was necessitated by the railway utilizing the motive power in order to do Canadian Pacific railway business. Suburban trains had to be cut off. The general interests of the people 'had to be interfered with. They were discriminated against in the interests of a competing railway. Would any such agreement ;be entered into between private railway corporations? Could the Canadian Northern, which has its steamers landing at St. John throughout the winter months, secure rates anything like that between Montreal and St. John over the rails of the Canadian Pacific railway? It would not be thought of, and I venture to say that if a proposition of that kind were made to the Canadian Pacific railway they would spurn it, and properly so, in my judgment.
The Government are responsible for the management of the road. They are responsible for every act of their general manager. They are responsible for this Gute-lius-Boswofth agreement. They are responsible for the importation of men from the 206i
United States to carry on the business of the railway. I do not take the position that simply because a man is an American citizen he should not be employed 'by the Government or by any private interests. I do remember that in 1905, on the floors of this Parliament, I listened to a most severe condemnation of the Government of that day because they had condoned the employment by the Grand Trunk Pacific of American engineers in running the preliminary surveys through the northern part of Ontario and the West. The condemnation by hon. gentlemen opposite was very strong; motions were presented and complaints were made even by my right toon, friend the Prime Minister himself in respect to this matter because, forsooth, American citizens had been employed by the Grand Trunk Pacific in running surveys for the purpose of getting information for the advantage of that railway that they proposed to construct from North Bay to the prairies of the West. A commission was appointed by the Government of the day, at the demand of Parliament, to inquire into that. I believe in reciprocity of trade between Canada and the United States; I believe in reciprocity of brains between this country and the United States; I believe that we have in the pulpits and educational institutions of the United States, Canadians who stand foremost as pulpit orators and great educationists, and I think properly so; and we have in Canada, Americans of the same calibre who are occupying similar positions here. It is well it should be so, but the point I am making is that the Conservative party when in opposition howled themselves black in the face because temporary employees who were United States citizens were taken into the service of the Liberal Government, while to-day they are placing on the Intercolonial permanent officials who are not British subjects. In the town from which I come a party consisting of sixteen or seventeen men and boys is making a survey of the grades on the Intercolonial railway, and three of them are Americans.


John Dowsley Reid: They have been in the country eight or ten years.


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, they are men
brought in by Mr. Gutelius and his friends. The chief engineer of the Intercolonial was appointed when he was an American citizen.


John Dowsley Reid: He has been in the country
eight or ten years.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not know how
long he has been in the country, but he is an American citizen and he has been appointed on the Intercolonial railway.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It makes it all the worse if he has been in the country for eight or ten years without becoming naturalized.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Did the Government
insist on these men changing their allegiance before they appointed them to office? The complaint I have to make is that all this is done to the detriment of the employees of the Intercolonial. There is not an official holding a position of highest responsibility on the Intercolonial who was trained in the service of that railway. You can find men trained on the Intercolonial holding the highest positions in the service of great American railways, and when it appears that this Government has imported twenty-seven engineers to the staff of the Intercolonial to the exclusion of men who had been trained in the service of that railway, it will be easily seen that this system is to the detriment of old employees. The Government has even ignored the age limit in making appointments. Under the Provident Fund Act no man can be appointed who exceeds the age of 45, and if he has no railway experience his age must not be over 35. But this Government, to the detriment of the men on the Intercolonial, are bringing in outsiders from other railways, whose ages far exceed the limit of 45. One of them, for example, was 83 years old.


John Dowsley Reid: Who was that?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Mr. Murphy.


John Dowsley Reid: Is that the only one?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There are others
beyond the age of 45. I mention that case because it was an outstanding case.


John Dowsley Reid: I think you are only imagining the rest.


Henry Robert Emmerson: These men are employed permanently to the exclusion of others, and the result is that the men on the Intercolonial have no hope of preferment, and are injured in their standing as railway men. Mr. Gutelius was imported by the Canadian Pacific railway from the United States, then from the Canadian Pacific railway to the National Transcontinental Railway inquiry, and then he was placed in the position of general manager of the Intercolonial railway at a salary

nearly four times as much as that paid to his predecessor, Mr. Pottinger. Mr. Gutelius believes in the employment of railway men from outside, because they are closely allied with him. We have a general superintendent of the Intercolonial railway with his brother-in-law the assistant superintendent. Nepotism prevails. Talk about political influences; worse than political influence prevails to the great injury of the Intercolonial Railway employees who entered the service years ago and who are familiar with the conditions of that road. Nothing is said against their qualification,
' but other men are placed over their heads. Tt is true that Mr. Gutelius came into the service of the Intercolonial railway, staling that the Intercolonial railway was underofficered and over-manned, hut I think I am justified in making the statement that the Intercolonial railway to-day is overofficered in its engineering staff and in other branches of the service. There are assistants here and assistants there, and offices have been created that were never known before in connection with the operation of that railway, and salaries beyond anything heretofore paid are now being paid to these importations from other railway systems. The men are complaining all over the road of this system, and I think they are justified. It is to the injury of the country and to the injury of the railway. It cauterizes ambition, suppresses the natural aspirations of the employees, and does incalculable injury to the railway itself. I shall not now go into the many details I have at hand in connection with the management of that road; I think I have demonstrated sufficiently the facts to justify me in moving, seconded by Mr. Marcil, in amendment:
That all the words after the word ' that ' In the proposed motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
That the methods of the present management of the Intercolonial railway are oppressive and unfair to the railway employees and to the public and detrimental to the business interests of the country and the railway; and, that in the opinion of this House the Government is deserving of censure therefor.


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Speaker, I may say at the outset that I am sorry the Minister of Rail- [DOT] ways (Mr. Cochrane) is not present to reply to the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) because of course the hon. minister knows more about the whole situation on the Intercolonial railway than I ' could possibly know.
However, I will try to follow the hon.

member and reply to a few of the statements he has made.
He- remarked at the outset that the Intercolonial railway has received considerable attention for a number of years past in this House. That is certainly the fact. I remember that while we were in Opposition we certainly criticised the Intercolonial railway, and I believe rightly. I was very glad to know that the hon. gentleman agrees with the policy of the Minister of Railways and Canals in having the road managed by a general manager instead of by a board of management. Later, of course, he did not appear to be satisfied-


Henry Robert Emmerson: With the selection.


John Dowsley Reid: -with either the selection or the way the present general manager carries on his work. I will come to that later on. The hon. gentleman objects to the statement I made in my speech of the 24th of March, with reference to the board of management putting in force the increased rates on the Intercolonial railway. As I understand the matter, some time previous to the change of Government, the board of management had been considering the advisability of increasing the passenger and freight rates. The board thought it necessary to increase the rates, on account of the increased working expenses of the road. The board had gone into this matter thoroughly, and it takes months and months, I suppose, to figure out a new schedule of rates. They decided upon a schedule that they believed fair and reasonable, and just prior to their going out of office they put these rates into effect. The general manager, Mr. Gutelius, if I remember rightly, did not take office until the 1st of May, some time after these new rates were put in force. When the new rates were fixed, there is no doubt, there was a great outcry on the part of many of those along the line who use the Intercolonial railway for the shipment of their products. But since Mr. Gutelius has had with him Mr. Hayes as general freight agent, to assist him in remedying the grievances that certainly did exist, those grievances were remedied as fast as the work could .possibly be done, Mr. Hayes, took office, I think, on the 1st of July, and the result of his work has been, I think, that there are now no grievances on the Intercolonial railway so far as rates are concerned. So I think I was perfectly justified in making the statement that I made on the 24th of March, that if there was blame in connection with the advanced rates, that blame rested upon the board of management.	[DOT]
Anothor point raised by the hon. member is with regard to the surplus on the Intercolonial railway. The system was adopted-seven or eight years ago, according to the hon. gentleman-under which $25,000 a month or $300,000 iper annum, was to he charged to the working expenses, and to be laid aside instead of being paid into the consolidated revenue fund; and was to be spent each year for new equipment on the road. If at the end of the fiscal year there was a surplus over and above working expenses including this $300,000, the surplus also wa3 to be transferred to this fund and spent for further equipment. In other words, it was decided that all the profits made should go back into the system for renewal of equipment.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Who decided that?
The hon. gentleman means that the minister decided in a particular year to do that.


John Dowsley Reid: It was decided, I understand, in 1906, to charge $25,000 a month, $300,000 per annum, to working expenses. If there was anything over and above that, it was a surplus; if there was any deficiency, it was a loss. Every year there has been at least $300,000 on hand to be expended ior renewal of equipment.
' During the course of his remarks, the hon. gentleman made reference to my statement in which I showed a surplus of $300,000. In this statement, which I made-on March 24-page 2039 of ' Hansard '-I gave the exact figures for every month during the whole of the year 1913-14, with the exception of the last two months. The figures with regard to those months had to be estimated, and I understand that they are about correct. In totalling up the working expenses, this $300,000, or $25,000 a month, was first charged, and the earnings, $12,802,973, show a surplus of $300,000 over and above working expenses. My statement, therefore, was perfectly fair and right; I do not think anything the hon. member has said would justify any other conclusion. I have before me a statement made by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals last session, which, I believe, was made up in the same way as my statement was made up this session.


Henry Robert Emmerson: What does the hon. gentleman say with respect to the figures for last year, which showed a deficit of $161,000 on June 30?


John Dowsley Reid: I have not the statistics before me just at this moment. The hon. gentleman complains that the Government have not taken over the branch line railways. I think that last session it was agreed by every member of the House that it was impossible for the Government to take over the branch lines under the law as it stands on the statute book. This conclusion . was borne out by the fact of the hon. member for South Renfrew bringing in a resolution in 1911 to take over a number of branch lines instead of acting under legislation already on the statute book. The hon. member, with every other member of this House, agreed last year that the Bill which was passed by the House was right and fair; there was not one dissenting voice.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I dissented from it. I said I would not press my opposition to the Bill, but I took exception to the character of the legislation.


John Douglas Hazen: I think the hon. gentleman took exception to the Bill because it did not go far enough.
Mr. EMMEBiSON: I took exception on the ground that it was dangerous legislation; that no minister should have power to purchase a railway 200 miles in length without submitting the matter to Parliament. The point I make is that, regardless of present legislation, the Government of the day can acquire any one of these lines if they want to.
Mr. R'EID: When the Branch Lines Bill was before the House last year, hon. gentlemen unanimously agreed that tne Pill should go through, but, just before the House prorogued, the Senate returned the Bill with an amendment, after this House had unanimously passed it without amendment.


Henry Robert Emmerson: What was the amendment?	.	.


John Dowsley Reid: I have not the Bill before me; at"all events, the Senate amended the Bill, for the purpose, I believe, of preventing it from being passed.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What is there to prevent my hon. friend from making an arrangement to purchase the branch lines and asking Parliament before prorogation to ratify that arrangement?


John Dowsley Reid: I will answer my hon. friend in a moment. As I understand the matter, there is no way in which we can possibly

acquire any of those branch lines without asking Parliament to pass a Bill authorizing us to acquire them by purchase or lease.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What is wrong with that proposition ?


John Dowsley Reid: The session is not yet over. I do not think the Government are entitled to any blame for not bringing in that legislation; the session has not yet come to an end.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Bring it down; we
will help you pass it.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman has no
reason to complain so long as we are here in - session. There is no doubt about the fact that there are some branch lines in the provinces which we must or should have, but until the necessary legislation is passed by Parliament we cannot, under the law as it exists at present on the statute book, take over these railways, unless we do as suggested by the hon. member for Pictou.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am told that an agreement has been signed by the general manager of the Intercolonial railway to purchase the International railway. What is to prevent the minister from bringing down during the present session a Bill to provide for the acquisition of that Tailway?


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member knows
that the general manager has no power to make an agreement with any branch line railway without its being confirmed by the minister, by the Government and by Parliament. I did not know that there was any such agreement; the hon. gentleman knows more about it than I do.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have not seen it, but I am satisfied that it exists. Will my hon. friend the acting minister say that there is not in existence an agreement, signed by Mr. Gutelius, for the taking over of the International railway?


John Dowsley Reid: If the hon. gentleman wants to get information on that point, he will have to ask the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals upon his return. He is running the department; I am only acting for him.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What about the acting
minister?


John Dowsley Reid: I have had nothing to do
with it, so that I cannot answer the ques-

tion. The hon. member complains that the Intercolonial railway roadbed has not been maintained up to a proper standard; that it is not in as good a condition as it was two or three years ago. My information is that not only the roadbed has been kept up but it is in much better condition than it was a few years ago. In fact every person I have met who has travelled over the Intercolonial railway has told me that it is one of the best roadbeds in Canada. So far as the management is concerned I understand that the whole passenger service is carried on in the very best way. I am surprised that the hon. member should make an attack such as he has made to-day with respect to the service because I do not believe that it will be good for the railway to have an attack of that kind made on it when there is, in my opinion, no just reason for making the attack. The hon. member complains about the standard rales. I know that on the Intercolonial railway to-day we have two sys-' terns of rules. We have the standard rules in existence on the part of the road from Montreal to Levis, and then we have the old rules on the other parts of the system. The condition to-day is that different parts of the road are under these two different sets of rules and I think every member will agree that that is not a good plan to have in force on any railway system. In putting the standard rules into force I believe the general manager is right, because every other railway in Canada is adopting these standard rules. .They have been approved by the Railway Commission and surely, if the other large railways, like the Canadian Pacific railway, Grand Trunk and the Canadian Northern railway, are using the standard rules they must be better than the old system that has been in force on the Intercolonial railway for very many years. In putting these rules into force the general manager has given several months' notice to the employees and my information is that up to the present time some fifty or sixty per cent of the employees on the part of the system where the standard rules are not now in force have passed the examinations satisfactorily and are well pleased with the prospect of the standard rules coming into force. In addition to that the general manager tells me that a great many of the rules that are embodied in the standard rales are a part of those that are in force on the Intercolonial Railway system, and therefore it is not so much trouble for the employees to become acquainted with the standard rules in a
very short time. In addition to that the general manager tells me that he has some twelve or thirteen instructors along the line educating the employees in so far as the standard rules are concerned and he is doing everything possible to see that the men who have been on the Intercolonial railway for many years have every chance of learning the rules with the view of keeping them in the same employment that they are in at the present time. In addition to that, in case it should be found that there are any employees not qualified on account of not being able to learn the rules, it is the intention of the general manager that those men will not be thrown out of employment but that they will be given some other position on the Intercolonial railway where they will be well looked after and will continue in the employment of the railway. Is it not right that we should look to safety first? Is it not right, and I am sure the employee himself will agree that if it is found that he is not qualified, perhaps on account of his eyesight or some other disability, to continue in his position on the railway, he should be relieved of the responsibility and put in some other position on the railway? On the other railways the adoption of the standard rules was for the purpose of protecting the public, protecting life from danger; and in putting them into force on the Intercolonial railway that is the object of the management.


Mr. CARROLL:: Has the department
any statistics to show the comparative number of aceidents on the Intercolonial railway under the old rules and on other roads under the standard rules?


John Dowsley Reid: I could not say. I have not been following the railway statistics to get that information on account of the short time I have been acting for the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals. The hon. member also complains because some employees are, as he states, American citizens. There is no doubt at all that the hon. member made that statement for political reasons. He wishes that to be heralded down in the lower provinces that we are putting on American citizens on the Intercolonial railway. Let me tell the hon. member that any men who have been employed on the Intercolonial railway have been in this country for years, and surely in taking them from some other place or position that they have been occupying in other parts of Canada and putting them on the Intercolonial railway, we have not

questioned whether they were Canadian or American citizens.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I know my hon. friend does not wish to misrepresent me. I did not say that because a man was an American citizen he should not be employed. I expressed surprise that a party that would raise such a fuss in 1903 with respect to the employment of American citizens should be employing permanently American citizens on the Government railway. What I did complain of particularly was the importation from the Canadian Pacific railway to the exclusion of Intercolonial-trained men. That was the point I wished to strongly make.	.


John Dowsley Reid: As I understand the hon.
member he claims there are no Intercolonial-trained men occupying important positions on ' the Intercolonial railway. The general manager is Mr. Gutelius. Then there is Mr. Hayes, the general freight agent.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Mr. Hayes is an
American citizen.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not know if he is or not, but if he is he has been in this country for many years.


Henry Robert Emmerson: He is a good man, I am not complaining.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member made that statement for some purpose. He threw out the insinuation that they were American citizens. Then there is Mr. Brown and Mr. Brady the superintendent who was taken from the Canadian Pacific railway by the Government in power at the time he was appointed, so that taking men from the Canadian Pacific railway originated with the late Government.


Henry Robert Emmerson: He was out of employment.


John Dowsley Reid: No; he was taken right from the Canadian Pacific railway.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Oh, no.


John Dowsley Reid: Then there is Mr. Richardson, his brother-in-law, who was put on by the former Government. The four superintendents are all men who have been on the Intercolonial for many years. As I understand, there are four district superintendents, and they have been practically raised on the Intercolonial.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Mr. Hallisey was replaced by Richardson.


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Hallisey has not been replaced; the hon. member knows that. Mr. Hallisey, one of the superintendents, is located at Truro, and I am informed by the general manager that.he is one of the best on the line.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I agree with you.


John Dowsley Reid: A short time ago he was,
unfortunately, taken ill and had to be allowed two or three months' leave of absence. In the meantime Mr. Richardson is acting temporarily in Mr. Hallisey's place, and when he returns Mr. Richardson will go back to his old position. There is nothing wrong in that, surely, and I cannot see why the hon. gentleman should raise a rumpus over it. The hon. member complains that many men are taken on the Intercolonial who are over age, and he mentioned Mr. Martin Murphy.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There are many
others.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member has not
mentioned any others. At all events, Mr. Murphy seems to be the one he has a grievance against.


Henry Robert Emmerson: How old is this gentleman?


John Douglas Hazen: He is not as old as Mr. Schreiber.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member states that he is about eighty. As I understand it, Mr. Murphy held some position in Nova Scotia which puts him in an especially favourable position for collecting certain statistics, and he has been temporarily engaged to do that work. I do not see where the grievances exist. I think my hon. friend has simply made his little speech with a view of trying to make political capital in "the lower provinces. From the information I have, the Intercolonial is running satisfactorily to the public, and I am having no complaints in connection with it. The Ocean Limited, which the hon. member complained about, was taken off because the cost was so great and the traffic so small during those two months that it was considered better to return to the policy that had been in existence for so many years. With only one train running the results are practically the same as -when the Ocean Limited and the other train were running together. At all events, that is the information I had some little time ago, and I believe it is correct. I do not think that the hon. member has made any statement that would justify the House in supporting his motion,

and I therefore trust that it "will be voted down.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The resolution which has been moved by my hon. friend from Westmorland (Mr. Em-merson), 'asks the House to declare that in its opinion the methods of the present management of the Intercolonial are oppressive and unfair to the railway employees and to the public, and detrimental to the business interests of the country and of the railway. The allegation contained in that resolution is but the. expression of the opinion held all over the Maritime provinces in regard to the administration of the Intercolonial by this Government. My hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Reid) congratulates himself that he has not been bothered with many complaints in regard to the Intercolonial; and if he has not, he is certainly entitled to be congratulated. I am satisfied, however, that the hon. gentlemen sitting behind him who come from the Maritime constituencies, have heard a different story. Let me just instance the condition of affairs there as stated upon what must be good authority to my hon. friend. My hon. friend, the chief whip of the Conservative party owns and controls a newspaper in the town of Truro, called the Truro Chronicle. Nobody will accuse the Truro Chronicle of being in sympathy with anything which pertains to the Liberal party in the slightest degree. A few issues ago, it gave vent in a long editorial to the views of the people of the county n.f Colchester, and of the Maritime provinces generally, in regard to the management of the Intercolonial. I will just read enough to disillusionize the acting Minister of Railways of his idea as to the condition of affairs:
We would respectfully suggest to Bight Hon. E. D. Borden that he, as soon as possible, undertake a personal investigation of the Intercolonial railway matters. Do so before it is too late.
As things stand to-day, there is not a constituency through which the Intercolonial railway passes, and that means about ten counties in Nova Scotia, that can he counted safe for the Government.
The statement is not made in a spirit of carping criticism, hut rather in that of the candid friend. Did we want to see the Government defeated, we would hold our peace in respect to these things, knowing that they are working to that end; but we do not want to see the Government defeated, hence we speak out in ' meetin,' and we know what we are talking about.
Unless there is a change right soon, Conservatives representing Intercolonial railway constituencies had better resign now, and thus save themselves the humiliation of being turned down by the people when election day comes around.	j . , .	__j
So that my hon. friend is certainly living in an imaginative staite of mind because tl;e organ of the chief whip of the Conservative party regards the situation so seriously as to call the attention of the Premier himself to it, demanding that he, disregarding the acting Minister o*f Railways and everybody else, should personally give his attention to the situation. I think, therefore, that my hon. friend the member for Westmorland was quite justified in calling the attention of Parliament to the condition of affairs, which my right hon. friend the Premier has entirely failed to look into. The indictment which the hon. member for Westmorland lias presented to-day is but the expression of what is stated everywhere along the line of the Intercolonial from Drummondville to the city of Sydney. And why is that? Let us examine the condition of affairs that has arisen under this Government. My right hon. friend, in the platform which he issued to the people of this coun-. fry, declared that when he came into power he would place in control of the Intercolonial, a commission-no general manager, but a commission which would be actuated by the highest ideals, who would run the Intercolonial absolutely free from partisanship, without any regard to political patronage, animated solely and only by the idea that the best men should be got to fill the superintendent positions, and that the Intercolonial should be run in the interests of the people.
My right hon. friend dilated at very great length, wherever he spoke in the Maritime provinces, upon what he was going to do with the Intercolonial railway and with this commission which was going to be inaugurated. He came in, and found a commission there with limited powers. He said that their powers should be extended and that they alone should control, free from political influences at Ottawa or otherwise, the whole administration of the Intercolonial railway.
The Government assumed office, and the Minister of Railways and Canals immediately proceeded to violate my right hon, friend's promises, to obliterate everything in the way of commission control that had existed, and to find an expatriated American, whom he had utilized for other purposes, the making of reports and such like matters, to take charge of the Intercolonial railway. As a consequence, my right hon. friend's friends are speaking out in meeting, as they say, and asking him to come around and look into the situation because this gentleman who is in charge of the

Intercolonial railway is falsifying all the splendid, idealistic things that he had pictured before the people of the Maritime provinces and his old friends in regard to the operation of the Intercolonial railway.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee on Bill No. 59, respecting the Toronto, Niagara and Western Railway Company.-Mr. Currie. Mr, Blondin in the Chair.
George Perry Graham: The hon. member for
Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) yesterday discussed this Bill at some length and moved certain amendments. Unrevised 'Hansard' got it mixed up in some way, and set forth that the objection of the hon. gentleman was to clause 5, but I think it was clause 7 to which he had reference.


Mr. BLAIN:: My hon. friend from South Renfrew is quite correct; the Chairman of the Railway made the necessary corrections in unrevised ' Hansard.'
On section 7-construction of railway:


Mr. MACDONELL:: We all regret, I am sure, the reason which made it necessary for the hon. member for Lincoln to speak on this Bill in advance of it being discussed in Committee of the Whole. No one regrets the hon. gentleman's ill-health more than I, and trust that the Chairman of the Railway 'Committee may be back here soon in his accustomed good health. I think the hon. gentleman has an obsession with regard to the importance of this section. This Bill was on two occasions before the Standing Orders Committee, once after it had been discussed by the Railway Committee, and it was held that these amendments would be quite proper in the Bill. In the Railway Committee, the corporation counsel of Toronto and others were heard; the matter was fully and thoroughly discussed, and on a vote of 14 to 25, clauses 5, 6 and 7 were, on my motion, added to the Bill. Clause 7 is not a new clause. The clauses were all designed to safeguard the city of Toronto. Toronto has its difficulties with regard to railways entering the city, and it is now in the midst of solving them. For years past the city has

been endeavouring to wipe out all level crossings, and to-day it is contributing over four million dollars to assist the railways to that end. Toronto .asks no special privileges, but, owing to the circumstances of the case and the congestion of traffic, the problem of level crossings in Toronto is very different from that of level crossings in country districts or in smaller towns. The level crossing is now practically a thing of the past in Toronto. The railways along the entire waterfront from the extreme east to the extreme west are now being put on viaducts, and other means have been taken to remove level crossings, *so that it may be said that the city has in hand a complete and final solution of the level crossing difficulty. There soon will not be a level crossing in the south part of Toronto, and the city is now embarking on a scheme for the removal of level crossings in the northern, part of the city. Just where this railway has its right of way, adjacent to the Canadian Pacific railway tracks, the city has, at an expense of between one and two million dollars, contributed towards aiding the Canadian Pacific railway to raise their tracks on a viaduct from Yonge street to a point west of Dufferin street, over two and a half miles in length. The right of way of this road' runs alongside of that.
The chairman of the Railway Committee talks about vested rights, but this company has no vested rights. The hon. gentleman was quite mistaken when he said that this company had undertaken .certain work in the city of Toronto. They have not removed one shovelful of earth, they have not graded a rod, and they have not laid a tie. All they have done is to acquire the right of way, for about two and a half miles, which crosses on the level some twenty-four or twenty-five streets in the city. All that the amendment asks is that this company be not permitted, without the consent of the city, to cross these streets on the level. This company was incorporated in 1903, eleven years ago, and, though it has had various extensions of time since, up to the present they have not done anything in the city of Toronto. They were granted extensions in 1904, 1906 and 1909, and they are now asking for a further extension. The uncontradicted evidence produced before the Railway Committee was that they had done no work outside of Toronto. It is true that they formed some combination with the Toronto

Suburban Railway Company, and that that company has done certain work outside of the city, but no work has been done by this company under its charter either inside or outside of the city of Toronto except the acquiring of a certain right of way. As I have said, they cross twenty-four or twenty-five streets in the course of the two and a half miles which they have already purchased, and they may go through two and a half miles more of the city and cross fifty streets. It is now asked, in view of the fact that Toronto is now spending millions of dollars with a view to removing its level crossings, that this railway should not be allowed to do ^.what other railways are not allowed to do. This same provision has been put in railway Bills during the last three or four years. While the hon. member for South Wellington presided over the Railway Committee, similar clauses, identical in language, were inserted in at least three different railway Bills. In 1910 a similar clause was put in Acts respecting the Western Central Railway Company and the Toronto Eastern Railway Company, and in 1911 in the Act relating to the Hamilton, Waterloo and Guelph Railway Company. Thi3 clause, therefore, has become a practically standard one, as applied to railways getting a charter into the city of Toronto, and similar clauses have been accepted by the committee from 1910 up to the present time, uniformly and without exception. It is interesting to note that the railway company is quite satisfied with these provisions. In their opinion, they are suffering no hardship. In the Railway Committee they agreed to accept these safeguarding provisions, and there can be no objection, so far as I can see, why they should not be inserted in the Bill.
The Chairman of the Railway Committee yesterday protested against the insertion of this safeguarding clause in the Bill because of vested rights. There are no vested rights in this matter; these people have had a charter for eleven years and have done nothing. When they got their charter, the district through which they were to go was almost entirely uninhabited; it was then part of the suburbs or outskirts of the city of Toronto. Now that very district is as near the centre of the city of Toronto geographically, east and west, as any line can be. If the wish of the hon. member for Lincoln is to prevail, they are to be permitted now to lay a railway, ten or eleven years after obtaining
their charter, through a district which is in the centre of the city of Toronto. The reasons for safeguarding the people of that district have arisen since the charter was granted. Vested rights, if there are any, are in the citizens of Toronto through which city that road runs. The right of way bought and paid for by the company is to-day worth many times what they paid for it, and they are suffering no loss or injury in that respect; nor can they by any possibility be subject to any loss or damage in connection with their investment in Toronto. In view of the fact that the committee during the last four years deliberately approved these sections respecting railways entering Toronto, I do not see why at this late date we should make any change, especially in view of the fact that the railway people themselves are perfectly satisfied to accept these provisions. I ask the committee to pass the Bill as it came from the Railway Committee and the other committees of the House through which it went.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: The point raised in connection with this amendment is an exceedingly important one, especially to those who reside outside of the city of Toronto. A very large portion of the people of Ontario desire to go to Toronto and to have every reasonable means afforded to them of obtaining access to the heart of that city. It so happens-and, I think, has happened during the last eight or ten years-'that whenever railway proposals affecting the	city of Toronto	come
before this House or before the Railway Committee, Toronto representatives are inclined to insist upon terms 'being inserted in the charters which are not accorded to any other cities in the province of Ontario or, so far as I am awaTe, in the Dominion of Canada. The question may possibly arise in the city of Toronto by reason of the fact that their street franchise, which is now held by the Toronto Railway Company, will expire in the course of six or seven years and they probably want to control their own streets at the expiration of that time. But apart altogether from the question of Toronto's rights in the matter, the people of Ontario also have their rights. Until the year 1910 I do not believe that any charter was ever granted in this House containing such a provision as section 7 of the present Bill. The reason why similar clauses were inserted in charters to which my hon. friend referred was that they were new undertakings. They had no previous rights; they

had never spent a dollar and the committee took the view that as they had never expended any money nor committed themselves to any great extent, they should be brought face to face with the fact that Toronto did not want any ^railways on or across their streets until the question of their street franchise was decided. That was, perhaps, a reasonable view and in the Bills enumerated by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, clause 7 was inserted. But the Tesult was that these railways were blocked. The Toronto, Hamilton and Waterloo railway, which my hon. friend has mentioned, was granted a charter containing a clause similar to section 7 of this Bill. It was supported by capitalists. A gentleman who. attended the sittings of the committee where the Bill was very strongly opposed was His Honour the present Lieutenant Governor of Ontario. I have been assured by him that clause 7 was the blocking clause which really meant that the enterprise could not enter the city of Toronto except by tunnel, and the cost of that would have been so great that the project was finally abandoned.
But this railway, the Toronto, Niagara and Western, is an entirely different proposition. It obtained its charter, I think, in 1903 or 1904, and it has had its time extended once or twice. In the year 1909, it began active operations, or undertook the work of construction w'ith a definite end in view. For that purpose the company went to the Railway Board, as the law says they shall do, and had their plans approved into the city of Toronto. Their application to the Railway Board was made in December 1909, and I have in my hand the order made by the board on that occasion. It was made in the presence of counsel for the city of Toronto, and for the Grand Trunk .railway and for the Canadian Pacific railway. The company was authorized to cross streets in the city of Toronto to enable them to get at the terminal points they desired. That was only a preliminary order of the board. A subsequent order, made on the 10th of December, approves their plans of location of their line in the city of Toronto, crossing the twenty-four or twenty-five streets mentioned by my hon. friend from South Toronto. Then it was that the company expended its money. They did not take the streets, but they bought their own right of way immediately adjoining the Canadian Pacific railway to their terminal point. They paid a large sum of money, something in the neighbourhood of $100,000 or $125,000. Part of that money was paid to the city of Tor-

onto itself for land which the city sold to the railway company. That location w'as approved by the Minister and approved by the board and they have held that location ever since, being in this respect in the same position as is the Canadian Pacific railway at this moment. Having that entrance, they immediately lookqd around for other points to *which their railway might go in the province oif Ontario. Their charters were from time to time extended-very much extended. They have the right to run from Toronto to Niagara, from Hamilton to Brantford, and on to Windsor; also through the counties of Peel, Halton, Wellington, Waterloo, Perth, 'and I think, Middlesex and Lamibton. The road now under construction is from the western 'boundary of the city of Toronto to the city of Guelph. They have bought all the right of way.


Angus Claude Macdonell: If I may be allowed, *the bon. gentleman, in the committee was aware of the fact that it was stated that it [DOT]was not this railway that was building from Toronto to Guelph, but another railway.


Hugh Guthrie: I will explain that: it is their money anyway.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Hugh Guthrie: Perhaps I can explain that too. They have done their grading on a part of the road-I may say the distance from Toronto to Guelph iis fifty miles. They have bought the right of way through the city of Guelph, and between Guelph and Berlin, and I believe they 'have surveyors out between Berlin and Stratford. Now, we in this House gave them power, not to amalgamate with other railways, tout a peculiar power-power to invest in the stocks of other companies. This Toronto, Niagara and Western Railway Company, under the power we gave them in 1909, did invest in the stock of the Toronto and Suburban Railway Company, and the stock of that railway is to-day owned toy the Toronto, Niagara and Western. The bonds which were sold were the Toronto and Suburban bonds now owned and controlled by the applicant company in the present case, and they obtained their money and went on to construct their road. The building is still going on, and ultimately, I believe, the road on the northern line will extend to Stratford, and perhaps through to Sarnia. On the southern branch it is now at N'agara Falls, it has purchased the right of way to Brantford, and I believe it is graded through the city of Brantford and

the intention is to go on to Windsor-thus making a very extensive system of radial lines in western Ontario. They have spent about <a quarter of a million dollars, I believe. But the whole enterprise is being held up through want of an entrance in the city of Toronto, and if clause seven, as it is printed in this Bill stands, that railway will never get an entrance into the city of Toronto. The Board of Railway Commissioners in the order which they made, took care of the rights of the city of Toronto, placing this company on the same plane as the Canadian Pacific railway. The order of the board quoted last night by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. .Lancaster), is as follows:
One order may go In these twenty-five applications. I think one order will cover the whole of them. They may all be consolidated and one order issued in these terms. Authority given to applicants to construct across the streets mentioned, subject to the following conditions:
1.	That if the tracks of the Canadian Pacific railway are at any future time elevated, then the tracks of the applicants shall be likewise elevated along the course of the line where the right of way lie adjacent to each other, upon such terms as the board may direct.
2.	Protection to be provided at such crossings as the chief engineer of the hoard may require before the road is opened for traffic, and if protection is recommended at crossings that any other road is interested in, then the apportionment of the cost of such protection is reserved.
There is the authority of the board placing the Toronto, Niagara and Western upon the same plane as the Canadian Pacific railway. Now, the Canadian Pacific railway has not elevated its tracks.


Mr. CURRIE:: Excuse me, the Canadian Pacific railway has elevated its tracks.


Hugh Guthrie: In North Toronto, where this road is?


John Allister Currie: 
Angus Claude Macdonell: For two and a half miles from Yonge street westwards.


Hugh Guthrie: Then, the city of Toronto is absolutely protected without clause 7, because they cannot construct without elevating these tracks.


John Allister Currie: Taking into consideration that the Canadian Pacific railway has elevated its tracks, and that the order of the Railway Board says that this company shall do the same as the Canadian Pacific Tailway, and the clause in the Bill being merely to provide the same in effect, I do not see what objection there can be to the clause.


Hugh Guthrie: The clause in the Bill
gives the power to the city engineer absolutely to prohibit the line-


Angus Claude Macdonell: No.


Hugh Guthrie: Read the clause:
Unless with the consent of the city of Toronto expressed by by-law the railway of the company shall not be constructed along, upon, above or below any highway as defined by the Railway Act, but notwithstanding anything in this section the railway of the company may be constructed across any such highway, or along or across any easement acquired for public works in the said city, but only above or below such highway or easement, and only after the levels, plans and specifications thereof are approved by the engineer, for the time being, of the said city, or such engineer as may be appointed for that purpose, and the engineer for the time being of the company, and in the event of the said engineers failing to agree, by the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada.
Now, if the Canadian Pacific railway has elevated its track where they are adjacent to the right of way of the Toronto, Niaga/ra and Western, there is no necessity for the clause, because the order of the board provides that this company's tracks also shall be elevated.


John Allister Currie: The railway does not go
alongside the Canadian Pacific railway for the whole of its length through the city. Is the hon. gentleman going to have it go on the level in these parts?


Hugh Guthrie: The pairts where it is
not adjacent to the Canadian Pacific railway. Now, my information is not the information I have been given by hon. gentlemen opposite, that the Canadian Pacific railway has elevated its tracks.


William Findlay Maclean: I know it.


Hugh Guthrie: A portion of the tracks have been elevated, I know; but there is a large portion of the track that has not been elevated, and it is being operated, and the city of Toronto is not offering any serious objection; and in this c?ase the city of Toronto got our money. Part of the money we paid for right of way was paid into the coffers of the city of Toronto.


John Allister Currie: I am rather surprised to hear the hon. gentleman express his ownership in this Bill. I have the Bill in my name, and I certainly have not a cent _ invested. It is very unusual for a member to come into this House and promote a Bill, stating that he has an interest in it in that manner.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, as a resident of the province of Ontario desiring to enter the city of Toronto as freely as we enter other cities in Canada, I have an interest in it; and if such legislation is to be passed for the city of Toronto, it should be passed also for the cities of Brantford, Hamilton, Guelph and the other cities of the Dominion. Toronto should not have the exclusive right to say what railways shall come in or what shall not. The clause is a useless clause, if the Canadian Pacific railway has elevated its tracks because you have the order of the Board then to compel others. If the Canadian Pacific railway has not elevated its tracks-and I am still of the opinion that it has not for the entire distance-you have no right to stop these people coming. It is all right for the hon. member for South Toronto to say the land they bought is worth more to-day than when they bought it. That is problematical. I know some people who have land in Toronto who do not think it is worth what they paid for it, and they bought it within the last two or three years. This is a narrow strip of land not saleable except for railway purposes. But this company comes here having paid the city of Toronto and the private owners its money, having its plans approved on the order of the Railway Commission; and still because they ask time to complete their road the committee has said: no, we will block you at the city of Toronto. What use is the road to the rest of the province if it is to be blocked at the western limits of the city of Toronto? We do not want to transfer there from this railway to a street railway or one of the other railways. The Toronto, Niagara and Western Railway Company cannot do a street railway business through the streets of Toronto. That is provided against by another clause-clause 5. All the railway company want is a terminal point within the city where they can discharge their outside passengers and freight. The point in' the Railway Committee was not argued very fully; the vote was a small one, only forty members being represented by the vote. The chairman and the minister were present, but expressed no opinion.


Angus Claude Macdonell: The chairman expressed many opinions.


Hugh Guthrie: He left me a letter which he said I might read to the House, but I do not think it becomes necessary to read it. The whole truth of the matter is, so far as the vote is concerned that the

hon. member for North Simcoe, in whose name the Bill stood, accepted certain suggestions of the city of Toronto. That changed the opinion of the whole committee, and after the hon. member accepted	the amendment	of the
member	for South Toronto a great
many who otherwise would have voted to exclude section 7 either did not vote or voted against its exclusion. But to my mind it is nothing but an outrage that those of us who live in the outlying counties, who desire to go to Toronto, cannot enter the city without getting off at the western boundary or taking another line in. We should be entitled to go in on this radial road. This railway runs within 200 yards of the house where I live. I know how convenient it is to me and to many people between Guelph and Toronto and so on to the city of Berlin. For these reasons I submit that the resolution offered by the chairman of the Railway Committee should be agreed to and that clause 7 should be stricken out.


William Findlay Maclean: This road goes
through the constituency which I represent. Ten or twelve years ago we had a population there of some ten thousand. Now the population is a good deal over one hundred thousand. At the time the first Act of Incorporation was given, as was said here this afternoon, there was no population to any extent, not even a suburban population. Now it is largely built up. There are certain things incidental to a railway charter. If you got a charter thirteen years under certain conditions then prevailing, it does not follow that i;f you fail to take advantage of the privilege granted you, the rights you then got must continue.


Hugh Guthrie: That is only four years ago.


William Findlay Maclean: Twelve years ago they got their first charter. They did not act on it. The city has grown and we are trying now in Canada to do away with level crossings, even in the country. Nobody took a more active part than the chairman of the Railway Committe in the fight to secure the abolition of level crossings in connection with the city of St. Catharines, in his own riding. Toronto has become congested as a city and it has gone to great expense to elevate the railway tracks. It is elevating them at the water front at a joint expense of millions of dollars. Now in the upper portion of the city at an expenditure

of millions it is doing the same thing. I think we laid down the principle that all railroads in the city must be elevated, especially those that are to be built hereafter. We get nothing for our policy of trying to do away with level crossings if all those that come along now may make conditions worse after the expenditures we have made to remove this trouble. It is true that the Canadian Pacific railway today is being elevated at the north and where it adjoins this railroad; but this road goes further where it is not adjacent to the Canadian Pacific railway and therefore we will have the evil of a railway coming in to the congested streets of a city with insecure protection to the public. The very same people who have this charter, as I believe, the Canadian Northern railway, recently got legislation to enter the city of Montreal. They come into Montreal by an expensive tunnel; but when they come to the city they were compelled to elevate their tracks and that is only in the last two or three years. The city of Montreal came to this House, represented by their mayor, and made the argument 'before our committee, and practically everything of the Canadian Northern railway is now elevated entering Montreal. I believe that in the public in-'terest this road should elevate its track, but it certainly should consult the city as to its entrance. If they cannot agree they can go, as the Bill provides, to the Railway Commission for relief. In the country we should try and abolish the 'level crossing; certainly we ought to stop it in the city. We are paying liberally to have it stopped and after spending that money if we cannot get relief we expect we might as well have kept our money and have the whole city grid-ironed with street railways on the level. The city itself hopes in a short time to give a tube entrance for all radial lines and I hope by the time this railway is constructed there will be a tube provided for their entrance. One of the great menaces of city life to-day is the destruction of human life, the number of people who are run down by street cars, automobiles and railways makes it a serious risk, and if we are to have railways coming into the city in a congested portion of Toronto there will be great danger to life; it will cost the company as much in the long run even if we do give them the privilege to come in on the level now. After ten years they would have to elevate at their own expense, and it is far better for the city and for the company that that should be done now for
the safeguarding of public life. Safety first is everything in these things. We are making it more unsafe to go into the city, and we are interfering in a way with the right the city of Toronto has to control its own street railway franchises or underground franchises, whatever they may happen to be. Toronto wants to have a high-class city railway service owned by the public. It may take seven years more, or it may take only one year, but the moment the people own the railway the city of Toronto will be prepared to give, on terms, a first-class underground or elevated service for every railway that wants to come in. The city is prepared to put in tubes to give a first-class local service, and to provide the amplest accommodation for every radial to come into the city. We are also forcing another idea; that is, the joint usage of these elevated roads. Why should one compnay be allowed to build an entrance into the city on the level if some other company has already an elevated track? What the Railway Commission should do, and what Parliament should insist on, is to compel them all to come in over the same elevated tracks wherever it may be, thereby avoiding different grades; and we are trying to work that out. We are not trying to keep any railway from coming into the city of Toronto, we welcome them with open arms, but we say: Come in on reasonable terms, and if in a congested district consult the city as to the elevation of your tracks. For that reason I think the amendment already in the Bill is a good one. We have it in other Bills, and I think no injury will be done by continuing the principle and putting the same clause in Bills for other cities if they desire it.


John Allister Currie: As the Bill is in my name, perhaps a word from me may not be amiss. Unfortunately I had not read this Bill when, it was placed in my name. When the Bill came before the committee strong opposition developed, and as a citizen of Toronto I thought that opposition was perfectly justified. I asked the promoters and solicitor of the road if they were prepared to accept the standard amendments which appeared in the Toronto and Eastern Railway Company's Bill. They said, certainly they were. The matter was put to the committee, and it was so carried and so ordered. Let me touch first of all upon the complaint of the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). There is no doubt that the city of Toronto is very badly served by radial railways. That is not the fault of the Parliament of Canada, nor the fault of the
[DOT]3276

legislature. In the first place, Toronto's street railway gauge is not the standard gauge. Everybody knows that radial railway to be successful must be able to carry express and light freight, and be able to handle freight cars, but no radial railway of standard gauge can match up to the traffic of the Toronto street railway, which is carried on a different gauge.
I had the good or bad fortune to be reporting the council of the city of Toronto when that agreement was made.	They decided then that they
did not want any freight traffic over their streets, and they fixed their gauge so that the radial or steam railways could not move along their streets as they do in Winnipeg, St. Louis, Chicago and other places; so a radial coming into the city of Toronto must have a special track of its own or the gauge of some part of the street railway of Toronto must be altered. I think myself that the time has come when the city of Toronto must come to this Parliament to ask for a Bill enabling it to construct certain tracks across the city, if need be, so as to connect up with radial lines of an international character such as this, and which require a Dominion charter. Toronto is opposed to this Bill, and it has been pointed out to me that if this Bill passes in its original form it will virtually give a franchise to this company, on the level, over every street in the city of Toronto. I would prefer to sacrifice my seat in this House rather than have such an injustice done to the city of Toronto, or any other city, and I think that should be the feeling of every hon. member here If the Bill as originally drafted contains such clauses, and does not contain the necessary safeguards for the city, it would be a very great injustice to Toronto, and a very valuable charter to the people who got it. As the promoters have accepted these clauses, and have never expressed anything to me to the contrary, notwithstanding everything that has occurred in this House, I do not see why any hon. member should get up and argue in favour of putting the Bill back in its original form. Bills have been passing in this form for years, and I think all interests will be served if the Bi'l passes .in its present form. I live within gunrhot of the Canadian Pacific railway tracks in the city of Toronto and close to the railway right of way mentioned by my hon. friend, and I know that the Canadian Pacific track has [Mr. Currie. 1
been elevated for a considerable distance and in a few months will be elevated right across the centre of the city. Having seen people killed at level crossings, and having narrowly escaped, myself, once in the city of Toronto, I have no great friendship for level crossings. I think this House has made up its mind that the day of level crossings is ended so far as any new charters are concerned. If this charter is all right and the road was needed, it should have been built [DOT] a number of years ago when the promoters had all the rights which it is held they now want.. I think the committee will be perfectly justified in putting the Bill through as it is, instead of obstructing it and ending by not passing it at all. We have very few minutes left in which to pass it.


Mr. HENDEESON:: This is not a new
quarrel. I think the trouble of keeping radial railways out of Toronto commenced a good many years ago.


George Perry Graham: When I was young.


David Henderson: When more of us
were young, younger than the ex-Minister of Railways. The Hamilton and Toronto Radial railway was the first to be refused the right to go into the city of Toronto. It has been constructed and is running as far as the town of Oakville in my county, which is about twenty miles from Toronto. Some portions of the road between Oakville and Toronto have been completed, but no entrance has been obtained into the city of Toronto; and consequently the promoters of the road are not attempting to connect up the different links between the city of Toronto and, I think, Mimico. True, legislation was passed by this House to enable that road to go into the city of Toronto, but it was on such onerous terms that it was impossible for the promoters to finance it, and consequently the matter has been practically abandoned. It was blocked simply because the city of Toronto got support enough to make the road so terribly expensive that the promoters could not raise the money, and the result is that the road is at a standstill, and will be until some cheaper way of getting into the city is found. I think the next Bill that came before us [DOT]was that for the railway on the east side of Toronto coming from Oshawa or Whitby. The same fight was continued there. The people of Toronto, desirous of keeping every radial railway out of the city-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


David Henderson: They say, Oh, no;
but I know the history of this question. I have been as long in this House as any of these hon. gentlemen, and I know the fights that came up year after year and how many fights we had to try and get an entrance into the city of Toronto from the rural sections. There is no doubt about it that the people of the counties outside of Toronto claim that they have a right- I would say a vested right-to get into the city of Toronto. They have helped to build up Toronto. If it had not been for the people of the adjacent counties the city of Toronto would be a small town. The people of Toronto are indebted to the people of the country for the size of their city and the sooner they permit the people in the counties lying east and west to enjoy the privileges which they are by nature entitled to have the better for the city of Toronto. If they do not want our fresh eggs and prefer eating stale eggs, of course, they can shut us out, but they can have their choice. We prefer the fresh eggs, and we will use them. We have an abundance of them. We can supply the people of Toronto every day with all they want and more than they need if they will only let us in. But, unfortunately, they made a bad contract about twenty-five years ago with a company, giving them a franchise over the streets of Toronto to last for thirty years. That contract will not expire for six or seven years yet, and the people of Toronto are afraid that whoever owns this franchise in Toronto will claim heavy damages if any other electric road is permitted to get into the city and pass over its streets. Consequently these gentlemen are fighting, not for the city of Toronto, but to protect themselves against the penalties that would be imposed upon them if* this road were permitted to get in. I hope and trust that very soon they will be willing to give up the fight, that they will see eye to eye with us and will be willing to let these outside roads find a way in. After they had imposed onerous conditions on the road coming in from the east, another application was made for the Hamilton and Guelph Railway Company-I am not sure whether that is the name or not, as there are so many of them-and these conditions were imposed so onerously that that company was prohibited from getting in. I do not want to talk the Bill out, but I want to get a resolution passed that will repeal clause 7, and then I am willing that the Bill should go through. The Toronto and suburban road is being constructed now through my county from one side of it to 207
the other. It is graded, everything is ready practically to lay down the ties, and then we will have a road running from Guelph to Toronto if we can only get into Toronto. But the people of Toronto play-I was going to say hog, but I shall not use that term-they are very selfish, they say: No, we will not let you in; we have a railway in Toronto that claims the franchise and if we let any other railway in we will have to pay a penalty to Sir William Mackenzie; we do not want to fight him, but we would rather fight the people of the county of Hal-ton. Consequently, they are putting a clause in this Bill that makes it impossible for this company to gat in. I am told as a fact that when this clause found its way into the Bill three clauses were included in one motion. Had they been moved separately I do not believe this clause would ever have gone into the Bill but this was a shrewd plan adopted by those who were promoting the Bill to get this clause in. Consequently, they moved two clauses quite inoffensive and acceptable and a third clause very offensive and not acceptable and all went through together. The result is that the clause as it appears here practically shuts this road out of Toronto as long as this Act remains on the statute book. I appeal to the members of this House to be fair to the outlying counties and give the people the right to get into this big market which I contend the rural sections have created. I am quite sure that the people of Toronto will be well satisfied when they come to find the great advantage that will accrue to them from the operation of this road.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: They will have a chance to get Georgetown stone then.


David Henderson: Yes, they will get it in abundance and get good stone too.


John Allister Currie: Would-the hon. gentleman prefer to have the Bill talked out or to have it withdrawn?


David Henderson: The hon. gentleman cannot withdraw the Bill without the consent of the House.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall clause 7 be
adopted?


Hugh Guthrie: No, Mr. Chairman.
After hearing all that has been
9 p.m.	said-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Shall I report progress on this Bill?
Progress reported-the hour for private Bills having expired.



MANAGEMENT OF THE INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY.

Mr. MACDONALD (resuming):: My right hon. friend who now leads the Government (Mr. Borden) had a policy of his own in regard to the operation of the Intercolonial railway. The basis of that policy was the constitution of a non-partisan commission to rid the railway from all the evils of patronage and of political influence in regard to its operation and to provide for the operation of the railway solely and purely as a business proposition. My right hon. friend, I have no doubt, was sincere when he made those professions in 1907 and in various years down to the moment when the responsibility of dealing with the situation was placed upon him. Then my right hon. friend forgot the promises which he had made, the professions which he had uttered, and we have the system which exists to-day on the. Intercolonial railway. When my right hon. friend had the responsibility of action in dealing with these propositions, he forgot all these professions, and, instead of having a non-partisan commission, he proceeded to do away with the commission which he found in existence when he came to power, and to appoint, as general manager of the road the gentleman who now fills that office. Under the regime of this gentleman we have gone back to all the evils of which my right hon. friend then complained. Partisanship in regard to the employment of men on the Intercolonial exists not only to the degree which he denounced some years ago, but to a very -much greater degree than ever before in the whole history of the road. No man can be employed on the Intercolonial to-day unless he has a letter to the responsible official having to do with the operation of the road, from the Conservative member of the constituency, or from the Conservative defeated candidate, or from the Conservative committee. The Minister of Trade and .Commerce, who sits next the Prime Minister, in the last Parliament moved in this House a resolution in which he condemned in the strongest possible terms the evils of patronage as applied to the selection of officials upon mere party grounds, and as to the purchase of supplies from political friends. Why is it that to-day these professions are forgotten, not only with regard to the employment of -men, but in regard to the furnishing of -supplies to the Intercolonial railway, for no man is allowed to furnish supplies to
[The Chairman.]
that railway unless his name is on the patronage list. And when it comes to the question of the distribution of contracts, I have known the present Minister of Railways to call for tenders for important supplies, and to disregard the tenders sent -in and to proceed to distribute among his .party friends the proportion of the articles required, according as it suited his political judgment.
In regard to the question of dealing with the men, I have here a letter from an employee of the road who gives cases which indicate how, under the present management, men who get drunk while engaged in operating trains are treated with favouritism by the present officials. Here is the case of a conductor whose train while unprotected was run into iby another train, and the conductor had been taking a little something, and thirty demerits were charged against him. A railway engineer in Truro yard was taken off his engine and put on a shunter in the yard because he was shown to have been drunk; another one who had been working on a shunter was given a lower grade of employment, simply and solely because he had political influence to get the rules disregarded. There is a conductor on the Intercolonial railway running out of Truro, who is known to everybody in the province of Nova Scotia who travels on the train as having been frequently drunk while on duty. He was discharged, but he had the political influence to be taken back and he is now running as a baggage-master on one of the through trains of the Intercolonial. These are the conditions that exist to-day, and when my hon. friend from Westmorland (Mr. EmmeTson) moves asking the House to condemn these things, the Prime Minister should remember what he said seven years ago, and if he meant what he said he should at least take hold of this question and, as has been suggested by his own friends, he should inquire into the management of the Intercolonial and see whether he cannot fulfil some of his promises in regard to it.


Robert Laird Borden: Will my hon. friend give the names of these men to whom he has referred?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 
John Dowsley Reid: It was done long before Mr. Cochrane came into office.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The introduction of these rates was not done long before he came into office.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, it was.
M)r. MACDONALD: Excuse me, it was not.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) had an Order in Council ready.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Whether the hon.
member for South Renfrew had an Order in Council or not, the increase of rates never took place under Liberal rule.


John Dowsley Reid: That is because you went out of power.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Let hon. gentlemen on both sides be judged by their actions. Who put these increased rates into force? They were put into force under the regime of the Hon. Mr. Cochrane. And for what purpose? For the purpose of extracting more and unnecessary money out of the provinces down by the sea. The hon. Minister of Railways found, after he had put these (rates into force, that there came from every portion of the country vehement objection to his action. So, when Mr. Hayes came in, he was sent around to deal with the question. And what did he do?


John Dowsley Reid: Reduced the rates.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Not at all. The
rates were increased in the first place from twenty-five to fifty per cent according to the schedule. In my own constituency the products of the farm and the products of the coal mines were increased from thirty to fifty per cent. But after these rates had been in force for some time along came Mr. Hayes. Did he bring these rates back to where they had been under Liberal rule? Not at all. But instead of decreasing them by from thirty to fifty per cent, he increased them anywhere from fifteen to thirty per cent. And them the acting minister tells us that he reduced them. A nice

solutely incorrect statement which he made in giving another reason for the procedure to which I have referred. He said that he did not want the sidings filled up during the winter with steamship freight eoming from Halifax. Fortunately the information extracted from hon. gentlemen opposite by the hon. member for Guys-borough shows the baseless character of that defence for this absolutely unjustifiable proceeding. In an answer obtained by the hon. member for Guysborough to a question he asked the other day, it is stated that the quantity of freight which originated in the province of Nova Scotia during the past year was 2,693,024 tons. What proportion of that amount was made up of freight which came from the seaport of Halifax? This tremendous amount of freight which prevented the general manager of the Intercolonial railway from keeping the coal mines of Nova Scotia going and from saving the coal miners from want. The proportion is 1/26-99,308 tons. That covers not merely the months of December, January, February and March, but the month of April of the previous year as well. So that the freight with which Mr. Gutelius did not want to interfere is but an infinitesimal portion of the freight going over the Intercolonial in winter. I want to submit to hon. gentlemen on the other side the question: Is it fair or right that we who live along the line of the Intercolonial railway and who are debarred in winter from connection by water with the central parts of the Dominion, should be told by the Government railway: we will not burn the coal that you produce in Nova Scotia; we will not haul it over the Government railway; we prefer to pay $1.50 more a ton to the Yankees than to buy our own coal and employ our own men on the Intercolonial railway. Is it any wonder that the hon. member for Westmorland moves a resolution asking that the operation of the railway under these conditions be condemned?
Having given that excuse as to why he purchased the coal last fall in the United States, what did the general manager do next? What did he do when the spring came, when the steamers were running to Montreal and there was no extra freight coming oveT the Intercolonial from the Atlantic coast? He shows the absolute flimsiness of his excuse by writing to the following companies:
J. Bert Ross, Buffalo, N.T.
American Steel Company, Pittsburg-, Pa.
Moreland Coke Company, Pittsburg, Pa.

Ernest Law & Company, Philadelphia, Pa.
Keystone Coal and Coke Co., Philadelphia, Pa.
Watkins Coal Company, Philadelphia, Pa.
Pennsylvania Coal and Coke Co., New York, N.Y.
Geo. Hall Coal Company, Ogdensburg, N.Y.
J. H. Weaver and Company, Philadelphia, Pa.
Whitney and Kemmerer, Philadelphia, Pa.
Widnoon Coal Mining Co., Buffalo, N.Y. t
H. W. Somers, Albany, N.Y.
He asks these coal operators in the United States if they will submit to him an offer to -supply all the coal required on the Intercolonial railway during the year 1914, 750,000 tons. When the general manager of the road, in the interview which he gave at Montreal, put forward the excuse which he did for purchasing coal from the George Hall Company last fall, he did not give the country the whole truth, If he did, why did he, in the spring of this year, ask fifteen American coal companies whether they would supply coal to the Intercolonial for this year? If somebody had not called public attention to the fact, the acting Minister of Railways and Canals would have been compelled-and I know he would have disliked it very much-to stand up in this House and admit that the Intercolonial Railway management had purchased summer -coal in the United States, and try to apologize for it.
Fortunately for him we succeeded in calling public attention to this matter and scared the general manager of the Intercolonial off so that he did not venture to award any contract for this year to the American coal people. All the while the Department was dickering with these operators in the United States, in every coal centre in Nova Scotia there were women and children who were suffering from want under the conditions that exist under this Government. The conditions in every coal mining town in eastern Nova Scotia during the past winter have never been equalled in any year since 1895, when, fortunately for Canada, the Conservative party were put out of power. They brought all this back again. These gentlemen with their splendid administration of the Intercolonial railway, do not know enough about what is going on down in the country which this railway serves, to know that the last thing they should have done was to do what no other railway company would have done, go to the United States and ask them to supply coal to the Intercolonial during this year.
What further? When they got these offers the general manager, notwithstanding the poor condition of the coal industry in Nova Scotia, proceeded to insist that he would not pay the coal managers of Nova

Scotia last year's prices and so he drove the coal managers of Nova Scotia under these conditions to accept a less price than was paid last year and the year before. That is what these gentlemen are doing in regard to the operation of the Intercolonial in respect of these things. What has occurred further? Of course the general manager, with his huge salary, will probably save enough under this method of oppression which he is adopting in dealing with the coal industry of Nova Scotia, to pay this large salary of his for two years. But is the game worth the candle? Not only are they doing that, but by the increased rates which have been maintained in regard to these products they absolutely prevent the exportation of coal from the Maritime provinces into the central portions of Canada. I think the hon. member for Westmorland, in proposing the resolution, has only put into language what is the opinion of everybody who lives along the line of this railway from a business standpoint. There has been also complete disarrangement of the very satisfactory conditions that have existed among the men. We have in every department of the Intercolonial railway the brotherhood systems that exist on every other railway in the country, and notwithstanding this as a result of these new methods that have been introduced the principle of promotion of men born and brought up on the Intercolonial railway has been absolutely stopped. Wherever a new position was created whose occupant would have to assume some responsibility nobody but a man from some other railway either in Canada or the United States would be appointed. I think we can claim, and the Premier will not venture to dispute the assertion, that the men who are on the Intercolonial railway, no matter what party appointed them within the last twenty-five or thirty years, are the	equal of
intelligence	and	capacity	of	any
other men on any other railway in Canada or in the United States. But no matter what the capacity or ability of a man may be he cannot be promoted. The principle seems to be that such a man is not fit for any job involving responsibility under this Government. The heartlessness that has been exhibited in regard to some cases there is striking. I have here a letter from a poor old man who has been on the railway for twelve years. One day he received a letter without any notice-no allegations of political partisanship about this, no suggestion of anything of that kind-but on March 23 this old man gets a letter as follows: ' Please arrange to make out form
86 for so-and-so, stopping this man from the service. Please see that this man is laid off on the night of March 31.'	A
week's notice to this man who is a car builder in the railway town of Stellar-ton; no complaint against him on the ground of politics; a quiet, simple old man doing his work. But some of these gentlemen in Moncton wakened up to the fact that he happened to be an old man. He had been on the road since January, 1905; his name is William Friel; he has been on the road almost ten years. If he were allowed to remain on until next year he would have qualified under the Provident Fund Act. Into that fund he had paid two and a half cents a day every day he had been on the railway since the Act came into force. He was set adrift almost ' in the middle of winter on a week's notice, no money was given him, not even the money he had paid in. He was told to go out and find what he could do; there was no fault except that he was getting old. I am bound to say that if the Minister of Railways were here-and in saying this I am not reflecting on the acting minister- he would have dealt with this case. Mr. Cochrane knows very well that there exist along the Intercolonial railway numerous cases of men who have grown old who might be thrown out in order to make way for younger men but who had not filled the allotted time. I understood that it was generally understood along the line of the Intercolonial railway that this winter legislation would be introduced to provide for these cases, that they would get back either the money that they had put in or participate in the fund, as they had a right to do. What I complain of is that men managing the Intercolonial railway have so little knowledge of our conditions down there that without any complaint against a man they discharge him on a week's notice, disregarding the claim which he had, if not in law at least in equity, upon the provident fund to which he had paid every day during his service on the road. Then there has been a rearrange^ ment of railway centres in order to gratify the political friends who exercise political pressure. Men who have been living at the various railway centres, who have their homes there, who have had the conditions of life there were twisted around, their runs were changed and they were sent to different places and compelled to be away from their homes at night without any reason whatever. If there had been in charge of the Intercolonial railway a

general manager who had been brought up on the road, these conditions would have been recognized. It is no wonder that the Truro Citizen says to the Prime Minister what the real position of his friends is on the Intercolonial railway and this because of the absolute failure of the management to realize existing conditions that prompt men to make these charges as they occur in the Truro Citizen. We heard the present minister talk about safety first, the desirability of safety first among the employees. I was very much amused to hear him dilate upon that because I discovered in the Truro Citizen, which is said to be the organ of the Conservative whip in this House-whether it is his organ or not he is said to own it ' and probably he cannot control the editor-the paper furnished a veritable gold mine of criticism. It has a sarcastic article saying that under this railway management there are a great number of well-paid men going up and down the line instructing the old employees. One of those special officials sent out from Moncton a week ago a carload of dynamite attached to a passenger train. Such a thing had never been heard of on the Intercolonial before. Dynamite had always been taken under special conditions, and the train crew protested against the car of dynamite being attached to the train on which there were twenty-two passengers.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That was safety last.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: You can have a
great many theories about safety first and bring high-priced people from the United States to operate the people's road in this country, but the first thing the general manager should do is to find out all about the people for whom he is going to operate the road; that is, if he is going to operate it with any regard for their ideas. I do Diink it is the duty of the Government to tuink over, for a little while, this question of the indiscriminate employment of American citizens on the Intercolonial. No man should be proscribed on account of his (birth. Where you have to do with companies, you have one condition; but when the Government of this country employs aliens to perform Government work, you have a condition that is not to be found in any other country in the world. Why, says my hon. friend the acting Minister of Railways, these men have been in Canada a long time; therefore that answers the argument that we should net ercplov them.

They have been in Canada this long, that they do not want to give up their American citizenship. Certainly there has been some legislation removing the difficulties in regard to aliens. My hon. friend the member for Brandon (Mr. Aikins) perhaps can supply the common law on the subject of the employment of aliens under the Crown.


Mr. AIKINS:: Might I ask the hon. member if the people of the United States do not employ hundreds of thousands of Canadians in the services of that country?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend was talking to the Prime Minister about the Canadian Northern railway, and he did not catch my point. When he listens to it I am sure he will agree with me. I offer no objection to a corporation employing a man, no matter where they get him; but I do object to the Government of this country taking money out of the treasury to employ aliens upon Government work when they can get Canadians just as good as the aliens they are employing.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And when there are
thousands of unemployed in this country.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I think that point
should appeal to my hon. friend the acting Minister of Railways because he has had strong feelings upon this question. I recall the vigorous attitude he adopted in this House some three years ago, when he said that Canada's identity would be imperiled if certain things were done. One thing is certain, and that is that one department of the Government will soon be in the hands of an alien race-as they would put it-if the present policy is continued. The Intercolonial will soon be entirely under the control of the American people, who not only want to man it but who go across the line to buy United States coal in order to run it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: An adjunct.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Surely it is about
time this thing should stop. I am surprised at the Prime Minister allowing it, but I do not believe he knows what has been going on. Now that his attention has been called to it, I am sure he will stop it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Quite sure ?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am beginning to
lose confidence in my right hon. friend. He has good intentions, but so far I have failed to see him implement them.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Bad associates.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I think the Prime
Minister has voted in this House for a resolution that it is desirable in the interests of the Intercolonial that we should get branch lines. I am quite sure he has, but he has not been doing much at that particular job since coming into power. He found several propositions at hand which he might have accepted with .the greatest possible ease, and without the expenditure of much money. Having admitted the principle that it is desirable in the interests of the Intercolonial to have as many feeders for that line as possible, my right hon. friend has not been at all active in the pursuit of that laudable idea.
I do admire some hon. gentlemen opposite. When they want to excuse their inaction on any matter they say: The Senate will not permit us to do it. I have been waiting to hear a vigorous denunciation of the Senate from the Prime Minister, and an assertion on the part of the Government and himself of their intention to wipe ouit that nefarious institution; but he does not move on that line at all. He wants the Senate there to be blamed for all the things this Government have left undone that they ought to have done, and so that they can say when this branch lines question comes up: We could nolt take over branch lines because the Senate is there. My right hon. friend knows very well how flimsy that excuse is. When the Senate insisted upon the Government laying before Parliament all propositions for ratification, and insisted upon that principle alone, they were not doing anything so especially outrageous, or deserving of condemnation. My right hon. friend knows that to-morrow he could introduce into this House a Bill to ratify any arrangement that he made to take over branch lines for the Intercolonial. What does he mean by putting on the Order Paper a resolution providing all this money for the Canadian Northern railway. The Senate has not been asked to permit him to do anything of the kind. Of his own initiative he went out and made this agreement, brings it here to Parliament, and, if it is incorporated in an Act of Parliament, he has full rights to carry out the agreement notwithstanding anything the Senate has done. If he has not taken over branch lines for the Intercolonial, it is not on account of the Senate, but simply and solely because he does not want to do it. That is the whole proposition. If my right hon. friend addresses the
House upon this, question, and pays me the compliment of referring to anything I have said, I would like him to meet that proposition squarely, and let the House know as to whether the proposition I make is not correct. As a matter of law and of parliamentary practice, there is nothing to prevent him introducing a Bill, or any number of Bills, to take over any number of branch lines he wants along the line of the Intercolonial. It is just as well for the people of this country to realize that my right hon. friend and his party are responsible for not taking over those branch lines. Not only that, but my right hon. friend has utterly failed to supply the necessary branch lines for which funds had been provided when he came into power. I do submit to my right hon. friend that it was really unfair

he cannot justify it-that out of the .two branch lines for which my hon. friend the member for South Renfrew had provided funds in the session of 1911, he should have picked out the one in his own constituency, and absolutely disregarded the other one for which the people interested had been fighting for a long period of time. That was pretty shabby treatment, and unworthy of my right hon. friend. I am surprised that he should have permitted such a course to be taken. The eastern portion of Nova Scotia is entitled to that railway accommodation. What is the use of the Minister of Railways saying: If somebody will show me where I am going to get some money	out
of this thing, I will consider it. That is not the kind of policy that is adopted in other cases. It is the excuse put forward to strike out of the Estimates all the provisions which had been made by my hon. friend for (South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) and to disregard the contracts which had been entered into for a railway to Guysboro. That is part and parcel of the management of the Intercolonial railway and it is all included in the condemnation embodied in the resolution introduced by my hon. friend from Westmorland.
My hon. friend from Westmorland has referred to the terms upon which the Government have undertaken to haul Canadian Pacific railway trains from St. John to Halifax. I do not think that my hon. friend has quite caught the point in regard to the matter, if .he will permit me to say so. The reason why the Canadian Pacific railway axe paying the Intercolonial for hauling their trains from St. John to Moncton


Mr. LAW:: Wh-at paper is that?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is the Truro
Citizen, .a paper published in Truro and reputed to be owned by the Conservative whip m this House, who founded -it and, as it says, it speaks out in meetings once in -awhile. I might at greater length deal with the various questions that come up in regard to the -operation of the Intercolonial railway, but speaking from the standpoint of the Maritime provinces, living there, connected with the business life ' 10 p.m. of those provinces, knowing something of the men who work on the road, knowing something of the condition of these provinces, I say that at no time in my -recollection has there been such utter and complete disregard of the business interests of those provinces and the interests of the individual men who work upon the road -and the common people of the Maritime provinces. I shall unhesitatingly, and with the greatest possible pleasure, support the resolution of my hon. friend from Westmorland.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, we have spent two
or three hours very pleasantly listening to various disquisitions upon branch lines, aliens, the Senate, coal, and boards of management. My hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) had better get a little instruction from the late Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham). He seems to think that the Intercolonial railway was managed by commission under the regime of that hon. gentleman. I have heard the hon. member for South Renfrew take exception in this House to the statement that the road was managed under a commission, and draw attention distinctly to the point which he had made that the road under his regime was not managed by a commission, but by a board of management. But the hon. member for Pictou, not having looked into that question very carefully, has fallen into a misapprehension in that regard. I take great pleasure in correcting him, and for the purpose of further detail in correction I would refer him to the hon. member for South Renfrew who has made it very plain to the House on various occasions.
My hon. friend from Pictou has made the allegation that the Intercolonial railway, under the management of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane), has been directed entirely by partisan considerations, not by considerations of reasonable business management. I take exception to that in the most unqualified terms, and I say that in so far as I have had a complaint-and I have had a complaint from time to time-in regard to the management of the Intercolonial railway, it has been that the railway has been managed too strictly on a business basis and not according to the basis upon which the management was founded in days gone by. I venture to say that if there is any dissatisfaction with the Intercolonial railway, it has proceeded from time to time more from the fact that the Minister of Railways and Canals has been disposed to give what has been regarded as too strict attention to purely business considerations in the management of the road. I do not think that any hon. gentleman who knows anything of the management of the Intercolonial railway during the last two or three years will venture to dissent from what I have stated in that regard.
A good deal has been said about the freight rates on the Intercolonial railway, but the hon. member for Westmorland apparently has not a very clear recollection of what took place under his own regime.
He has asserted that an Order in Council is necessary to increase freight rates on the Intercolonial; but if he remembered clearly and distinctly the facts, he would, as I am informed, have known that an Order in Council was passed fixing maximum rates on the Intercolonial according to the standard in force on the Drummond Counties railway, and this without any special Order in Council, under the management,of hon. gentlemen opposite, the rates on the Intercolonial were increased, because the increase did not bring them up to that maximum. I am also informed that the recent freight rate increases on the Intercolonial have never on any occasion reached that maximum, and that therefore no Order in Council was necessary, nor has one been passed. My hon. friend (Mr. Emmerson) does not seem to have been very well informed on this point. As to the increase in rates, the justification put forward by the Minister of Railways in this House last year, and I think by the acting minister this year, was, that certain items, amounting altogether to nearly $800,000 per annum, constituted an increase in the cost of operating the Intercolonial, and that among these items were a very proper increase of wages to the employees of the Intercolonial and a very large increase in the cost of coal, which together amounted to nearly $600,000. The Minister of Railways, acting within the maximum rates which had been fixed, not by us but by our predecessors in office, sanctioned certain increases of rates. Those increases were apparently not very well considered in respect to certain items, and complaints were made-and I am bound to say that I think those complaints in some instances were fully justified. Mr. Hayes, who had been appointed as freight traffic manager of the Intercolonial, was directed by the minister, with whom I had conference on the subject, immediately to inquire into these alleged grievances in every case, and, so far as I am informed, at present every grievance that was brought to the attention of the management of the Intercolonial railway or to the attention of the minister has been inquired into and wholly or in large measure redressed. I do not think there is in the province of Nova Scotia at the moment any very serious complaint with regard to increases of rates, upon which subject my hon. friend from Westmorland has so dilated.
He and my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) have dwelt upon the iniquity of the management of the Intercolonial railway by reason of the fact that certain persons who happen to have been born

south of the boundary line between Canada and the United States, but who had been residents and citizens of this country for a great many years, are at present in the employment of the Intercolonial railway. One would think to hear these gentlemen that there was hardly any person in the employment of the Intercolonial railway who was not an American citizen. I have no personal knowledge of the subject, but I made inquiry since this debate began, and I am informed that every .superintendent upon (the Intercolonial railway to-day is a Canadian citizen, and, with the exception of Mr. Richardson, has been brought up -and trained in the service of the Intercolonial. That does not accord very well with the picture that has been drawn by the hon. member for Westmorland and the hon. member for Pietou.
I am entirely in agreement with these gentlemen on the principle that it is a proper thing fox men who have been in the service of that railway to be promoted from time to time so far as their abilities will justify and sio far as their experience will warrant. I would want no other system than that upon the Intercolonial or upon any other railway in this country, and I believe that that principle will be carried out and is being carried out on the Intercolonial. But it is necessary from time to time to obtain some person with peculiar and special experience in a particular line of railway management; and I believe it is only in that connection that a few men, I do not know how many, have been brought in, either from the Canadian Pacific railway or from the Grand Trunk.
The hon. member for Westmorland has taken upon himself to say that there has been not only this indiscriminate dealing in aliens, as he calls them, but that the assistant superintendent is the brother-inlaw of the general superintendent. I do not know that even if that were true it would necessitate taking up more than an hour or two of the time of Parliament in dilating on it; but, as a matter of fact,
I am informed-and I sent a telegram for the purpose of inquiring about it-that there is not one word of truth in that assertion. The charge of nepotism, as it seems to be based. wholly upon the fallacious illustration which the hon. gentleman brought forward, falls completely to the ground.
There has been, I daresay, some dissatisfaction with regard to the management of the Intercolonial railway, both under

this Administration and under the late Administration; but I would like the hon. member for Pietou to remember that that dissatisfaction has not arisen solely in respect to officials appointed by the present Administration. If I am not absolutely mistaken, the hon. member for Pietou himself went on strike, if I may use a common expression, on account of his dissatisfaction with a gentleman appointed by the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) when he wa.s minister, to a very important position on that railroad. I am very glad to observe that the hon. member for Pietou bows assent to what I have just said.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I did not bow.


Robert Laird Borden: It perhaps was an involuntary bowing of the head which might under the circumstances be taken to give assent.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No.


Robert Laird Borden: There has been a great deal of time taken up in discussing the purchase of coal. One would suppose that the 14,000 tons of coal, which were purchased last year by the Intercolonial railway from the United States under very special circumstances, constitute the only case in which coal was purchased for that railway. I think some 60,000 tons were purchased about 13 years ago by the late Administration.
Mr. MA'ODONAILD: How much was it? Mr. BORDEN: 60,000 tons.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Never delivered?


John Dowsley Reid: Oh, yes.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Any coal that was purchased in the United States was purchased at the time of a strike.


Robert Laird Borden: In the first place, my hon. friend says the coal was not purchased at all, and then he says if it was purchased it was purchased during a strike. I think he is confusing two cases: one in which the hon. member for Westmorland was very anxious to have large purchases of coal made in the United States, and the other in which there were actually large purchases of coal made there.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Not in my day, as I recall it.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps not in my hon. friend's day, but I will read documents that will convince him that he was very

anxious that there should be such purchases. In 1901, I think it was, there was a purchase of 60,000 tons of American coal by the late Government. My hon. friend from Pictou says that that was purchased by reason of a strike in one of the mines.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: More than one.


Robert Laird Borden: How many?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: A general strike, as I recollect it.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think there was any general strike in the coal mines of Nova Scotia at that time.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In different counties.


Robert Laird Borden: I speak subject to correction, but I am not aware of any conditions such as my hon. friend mentions having existed at that time, and I believe that what took place was this: A certain coal company, or perhaps more than one- I am not familiar personally with the facts -was not able to fulfil its contract with the Government, and therefore the Government purchased 60,000 tons of coal in the United States. If we are to apply the argument to which we have listened, and with which we have been edified by the hon. member for Pictou, why did not the Government procure that coal from the mines where there was no strike? I presume it may have been because those mines not having made contracts for the delivery of that coal, the Government were not in a position to call upon them. And I should think that if my hon. friend had given to this .subject proper reflection, which evidently he did not give, he might have arrived at the conclusion that the same conditions brought about the purchase of the
14,000	tons of coal to which he has alluded and in contemplation of which he almost wept during the course of his speech.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The general manager never asked fifteen of the nineteen companies whether they could deliver.


Robert Laird Borden: Neither did they in the case to which I refer, so far as I am aware. Does the hon. gentleman undertake to say-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Better bring down
the papers about that.


Robert Laird Borden: If the hon. gentleman
thinks so, he should have fortified himself with the facts before he undertook to make this charge-*


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have all the papers in the case to which I refer. I proved what I alleged, and it cannot be controverted.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend knew
perfectly well in this other case the reasons which brought it about, and he might very well have reached the conclusion that precisely similar reasons brought about the purchase of a much smaller quantity of coal during the past year.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I know what the circumstances were in that case, and I do not know about the other.


Robert Laird Borden: I will tell my hon. friend something about the circumstances to which he has alluded and which perhaps he does not know.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Then, the papers
should have been brought down.


Robert Laird Borden: The Dominion Coal Company had a contract for 100,000 tons of coal to be furnished from the Springhill mines. The quantity they should have delivered by the end of September at the average monthly rate was 50,000 tons; they had actually delivered 41,335 tons, or nearly 9,000 tons short. The Maritime Coal, Railway and Power Company was under contract to supply 120,000 tons. By the end of September they should have delivered 55,600; they had delivered only 49,850 tons. The Minudie Coal Company were under contract to deliver 130,000 tons; by the end of September they should have delivered 65,000 tons; they had delivered only 17,333 tons. The Acadia Coal Company were under contract to deliver 100,000 tons; they should have delivered by the end of September 50,000; they had actually delivered more than that-57,680 tons.
The Intercolonial Coal Mining Company was under contract to deliver 65,000 tons; their deliveries up to the end of September should have been 37,500 tons, but the actual deliveries were only 14,240 tons. It is only fair to observe that in the contract with the Minudie Company there is included 60,000 tons of run-of-mine coal. The company were under the impression that this tender had not been accepted, but Mr. Lavoie said it was-the' Intercolonial railway, through their officer, was under the impression that there was that contract. Under these circumstances, as the time had passed in v hich the coal could be ordered from Nova Scotia to be delivered by water carriage, 13,393 long tons were ordered from the George Hall Company at $3 net ton delivered f.o.b. cars Massena Springs; duty 53

cents, freight 57J cents, total $4.10i per net tom delivered at Ste. Rosailie Junction. Under the circumstances, I do not know what the Intercolonial railway authorities could otherwise have done. They were able to get 17,334 tons from the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company at $3.95 per gross ton delivered in vessels at Princess pier near Point Levis, and also from the Canadian Import Company, agents of the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company, 15,000 tons at $4.20 per gross ton f.o.b. ears at their discharging plant, Montreal. But they were obliged to get also 14,000 tons from the United States, and they did so for the reason I have mentioned and no other. Under the circumstances, I think there is ample precedent in what took place ten or twelve years ago for the purchase made last year.
Now, as I have stated, in 1900 or 1901,
60,000	tons of American coal were purchased by the late Government. This was not because there was a strike, as the statement was given to me, but because a strike among the miners in Nova Scotia was anticipated, and this quantity of American coal was laid in to prevent the railway being caught short. This coal cost $4.85 per gross ton. At that time the railway was not paying custom charges, but duty has been included to make the comparison. The hon. member for Westmorland, I am informed, was very anxious in 1907 to have extensive purchases of coal from the United States. To refresh his memory, I will read one or two telegrams furnished me by the Department of Railways and Canals, which would seem to indicate that what I have said is quite correct.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There was a great
strike in that year, and the Dominion Coal Company, the biggest producers in the province, were not raising coal at all.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend nods his head as if he thought he had scored a great point, but I would like to say to him that I think Mr. Butler succeeded in making arrangements to get the coal elsewhere. Here is a telegram-
Cleveland, Ohio, Nov. 13, 1907.
M. J. Butler,
Deputy Minister of Railways,
Ottawa, Ont.
If coal not secured, could make good arrangements here Pittsburg run-of-mine, which would satisfactorily meet your requirements. Could you inform through rate gross ton from Cheswiek on Bessemer and Lake Brie railway via International Bridge and Grand Trunk to Montreal or Ste. Rosalie? Wire early to-morrow Hollonden House here.
H. R. Emmerson.
Here is another from Mr. Butler:
Ottawa, Ont., Nov. 14, 1907. Hon. H. R. Emmerson,
Hollanden House,
Cleveland, Ohio.
Please make best price f.o.b cars. We will figure out duty and freight and will take care of same for say 50,000 tons.
M. J. Butler.
The hon. member for Westmorland then sent this telegram:
Cleveland, Ohio, Nov. 14, 1907.
M. J. Butler,
Deputy Minister of Railways,
Ottawa, Ont.
Can arrange 50,000 tons delivered on cars Cheswiek, Pennsylvania, at rate of one thirty-eight two thousand pounds. Delivery beginning first of December, finished first March. Wire me Manhattan hotel, New York, to-morrow, if you wish me act. Coal represented very best for your purposes. Could get cheaper quality. Would require special arrangement made for return of cars to International Bridge to prevent detention by Grand Trunk.
H. R. Emmerson.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I was not Minister of Railways at that time; I was simply getting some information for Mr. Butler. The statement referred to the period when I was Minister of Railways, and I stated that there was no actual purchasing during that period. This relates to a later period, when the hon. member for South Renfrew was Minister of Railways. If I had been minister, it is well recognized that my views on fiscal matters as a free trader would have justified the action.


Robert Laird Borden: Let me read another telegram from Mr. Butler:
Ottawa, Ont., Nov. 15, 1907. Hon. H. R. Emmerson,
Manhattan Hotel,
New York, U.S.A.
Have placed order with Moreland Company for twenty thousand tons at lower price and hope to get balance of requirements from Nova Scotia.
M. J. Butler.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I was simply getting some information for Mr. Butler.


Robert Laird Borden: Apparently, as Minister of Railways my hon. friend thought that this coal should be purchased outside of Canada, but as a private citizen he thinks it is right to buy it in the United States. That is a rather remarkable suggestion.
Coming back for a moment to the rates which I mentioned a moment ago, I am informed by officials of the Department of Railways and Canals that although there has been this slight increase in rates upon the Intercolonial, they are lower to-day than corresponding rates on the Canadian Pacifie railway, the Grand Trunk Pacific

railway, the Canadian Northern railway and the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway. Of course, I have no personal knowledge of that, nor, indeed, would I be competent to make a comparison of the rates, but that is the information which has been afforded by the officials of the department.
The hon. member for Westmorland endeavoured to make a very strong case against the Government in connection with an arrangement which was negotiated between Mr. Gutelius and Mr. Boswell of the Canadian Pacific railway, and my hon. friend is of the opinion that the rates are altogether too low. Is my hon. friend aware of the fact that under his own administration, in the case of wheat carried from points in Ontario to Halifax, for the 837 miles of haulage over the Intercolonial railway, the Intercolonial received only 95 cents per ton? The hon. member will see that as the distance from Halifax to St. John is a little less than one-third of the distance from Halifax to Montreal, the corresponding rate in respect of the distance from Halifax to Montreal would be $1.85 per ton. The comparison so far as flour is concerned is perhaps not so cogent. Flour from Toronto is carried to Halifax over the Intercolonial railway, and the share of the Intercolonial railway for the 837 miles of haulage from Stontreal to Halifax is $1.49. Under the arrangement which has been made between the Canadian Pacific railway and the Intercolonial railway, the corresponding rate would be about $1.85. I do not pretend to have sufficient knowledge to say whether or not this is a fair rate, and with all due deference to my hon. friend the member for Westmorland, although he was for a certain period Minister of Railways and Canals, I doubt very much whether he has the expert knowledge to make the necessary comparisons and to take into consideration everything which must be taken into account in coming to a conclusion as to whether or not this is a paying rate. Officials of the Intercolonial railway who have this matter in hand say that the rate is a paying rate under the circumstances, and a fair rate. In the absence of anything better than has been suggested here to-night, I am bound to accept their conclusion, and so is the Minister of Railways and Canals. Further than that, I placed before this House on a previous occasion a comparison of this rate with rates upon grain which was hauled in 1903 and 1904 from Parry Sound to Halifax. I pointed out then in detail what I shall
only allude to at the present time, that is to say, that the rate provided in the contract between Mr. Gutelius and Mr. Boswell is very much higher than the rate which the late Administration said was a fair and paying rate at that time-two or three times as high, if I remember correctly. The statement is already upon ' Hansard,' and I shall not take up the time of the House in giving it again.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not pose as a
freight rate expert, but I was pointing out from, the return of the Department of Railways that it was costing the Intercolonial much more for train hauling between St. John and Halifax than they were getting. I was not presuming or assuming; I was making and basing my assertions upon the figures furnished by the department itself.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend did not
take into account some of the things which are contained in the agreement: the assumption of clerical work, checking, waybilling and accounting, by the Canadian Pacific railway, and, so far as I understand, the assumption by the Canadian Pacific railway of certain liability for loss and damage, as well as of certain terminal charges. There are a great many matters of that kind which must necessarily be taken into account. It, is necessary also to take into account, as I understand it, the rate at which new and additional business may be profitably carried when the road is already under operation.
I am informed by the traffic expert of the Intercolonial railway that, taking all these things into consideration, the rate provided in the agreement which has been alluded to was a fair and reasonable rate.
My hon. friend has endeavoured to cast discredit upon the statements made in this House as to the surplus claimed for the operation of the Intercolonial railway last year. I understand that $300,000, or $25,000 per month, was set aside for the improvement of equipment, and that $300,000 was set aside at the end of the year for the same purpose, making a total of $600,000 taken out of the income of the road for the purpose of improving equipment and keeping it up to the proper standard. My hon. friend has endeavoured to cast discredit on that by comparing the railway statistics issued by the department but made up for a different fiscal year; they are made up for the year ending 30th of June, while the accounts of the Intercolonial railway are kept by the ordinary

fiscal year of the Government, which ends 31st of March. I do not think that any comparison instituted in that way could be a very fair or convenient comparison, and the statements given to the House by the acting minister in that respect are statements furnished to him by his officials on which he has a right to rely and upon which also the House has a right to rely in the absence of some criticism more cogent than that which the hon. member for Westmorland has been able to make against it.
He also finds fault with the standard rules. I do not know very much about these rules. I do not know in what respect they differ from the rules which have prevailed in the past on certain portions of the Intercolonial railway but the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada has made it necessary for all railways of Canada subject to its jurisdiction to adopt these rules. My hon. friend from Westmorland says that these rules constitute a menace not only to the men employed on the Intercolonial railway hut to the passengers carried on that road, at least I so understood him. It seems to me remarkable that rules adopted by all the great railways of Canada, except the Intercolonial railway, and approved by the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada are likely to constitute a menace to the men employed on the Intercolonial railway or to the people carried over it. My hon. friend from Westmorland-


Henry Robert Emmerson: My right hon. friend did not quite apprehend my statement. My complaint was that they were making the change so suddenly when other railways have taken two or three years to bring about the change gradually, not attempting to do it within so short a period, and that in doing so it was a menace and a danger to the railway and to the passenger.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend would have more knowledge as to matters of that kind than I would as he has been in charge of the Railway Department; but, with deference to what he has. said, my information is that roads have sometimes adopted these rules within a shorter period than that provided in the case of the Intercolonial railway. Certainly there is no desire to *act oppressively towards these men or to have the rules 'adopted in too short a time. I am not aware of the terms on which these rules are to Ibe adopted, hut I am sure that the time provided is ample and I cannot understand what motive could

induce those who' are managing the Intercolonial railway to seek to adopt these rules within too short a period. If there is any error in that respect it is an error of judgment and not of intention most assuredly, and I Still deny that there is any such danger as my hon. friend suggests.
Returning to the question of promotion upon the Intercolonial, as I said, I am heartily in sympathy with the idea of men working up in the service as their experience 'and ability will entitle them to work up and I know that the Minister of Railways and Canals has that idea in mind also, and wishes to carry it out. He wishes to carry it out apart from any party political consideration. I know that that is his thought; but as a matter of fact for many years now past we have had this experience upon the Intercolonial railway. We found men leaving the Intercolonial railway and going into the service of other railways, either in Canada or the United States, and obtaining very high positions. I remember Mr. Pottinger, whose management of the Intercolonial has been referred to in terms of praise to-night-and in those terms I entirely concur-I remember that within the last 'two years. Mr. Pottinger made out for me a 'memorandum of twelve or fifteen men who had entered railway service on the Intercolonial railway during the period when he was general manager, who had left the service under one Government or the other and had attained splendid positions in the United States or in Canada. That does sometimes happen, and I for one am very sorry that the Intercolonial should lose such men. I would like to have the services of these men retained for the Intercolonial railway and I hope and, more than that, I am absolutely confident that the Minister of Railways and Canals will adopt no other policy or principle in his management of the Intercolonial of Canada. It is a right principle, it is a proper principle that there 'should be promotion according to ability and experience and that men who have the capacity to hold high positions in the service of any railway, should iu the service of the Intercolonial be promoted as their ability and their experience would justify. If any departure from a policy of that kind should be entered upon, as far as the Intercolonial railway is concerned, I for one would be disposed to enter my strongest caveat against it, because the principle which 'has been spoken of in that regard by the hon. member for Westmorland and the hon. mem-

her for Pi-ctou is an absolutely sound and correct principle in which I thoroughly concur.
Something has been said about branch lines, and if I am not mistaken my hon. friend the member for Pictou has challenged me to make some observations upon this question. Otherwise I would not refer to it as my views with regard to it have been expressed on more than one occasion. The hon. member for Pictou says that if at any time we desire to acquire a branch line for the Intercolonial railway in any part of the country upon any terms whatever, we can do it, we can come in here and be absolutely sure that the proposal of the Government will receive the sanction not only of this House but of the Senate. I am very glad to have the assurance of the hon. member for Pictou in that regard although it goes a little farther than I would really desire because I would hardly expect that a proposal of any kind that we might bring in here for the acquisition of a branch line of railway in any part of Canada would necessarily receive the support of one or other branch of the legislature. What happened last year is well understood, although the hon. member for Westmorland sought to minimize it. I did declare in the election of 1911 that I was in favour of a general policy of acquiring branch lines for the Intercolonial, and for very good reasons as it seemed to me, because a great trunk line must necessarily have feeders and even if those feeders are not profitable at the very first they usually become profitable in a very few years. A road cannot exist without local traffic, and local traffic can only be gathered up in a large way by means of these feeders. We brought in last session a Bill in the form of a resolution empowering the Minister of Railways and Canals to make contracts for the purchase or sale of branch lines, and it was in terms so wide that when I discussed the subject with the Minister of Railways after it had been debated in committee I frankly told him that I thought his resolution was too wide and conferred too much power upon him, and I myself drafted a resolution in very much narrower terms which I brought into the House, handed to my hon. friends opposite and asked them if they desired to take time to consider it. They looked over it and said that they did not desire delay and that they thoroughly approved of it. It passed the House unanimously and the Minister of Railways and Canals introduced the Bill. The hon. member for Westmorland had criticised the first resolution 208
but he did not criticise the second. When the Bill was introduced he raised the question as to whether or not the lines which the minister might construct, should exceed ten miles in length. We were prepared to cut the figures down from twenty-five to twenty miles, but the hon. member for North Cape Breton and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) entered a strong protest against it being cut down at all. My hon. friend from Westmorland did not seem to have any support, so it went through in that way. It went to the Senate, and some hon. gentlemen opposite have stated in the course of this debate that the Bill came back from the Senate in a workable form. I say it came back from the Senate meaning absolutely nothing. It simply said that we could do what every hon. gentleman on the opposite -side of the House has said we can do without any Bill. It provided that the Minister of Railways might make a contract and bring it to Parliament for ratification; but he can do that, as has been urged by hon. gentlemen opposite, without any Bill. Therefore, the Bill as amended by the Senate meant absolutely nothing, because it conferred no greater powers on the Minister of Railways than those which, according to the statements of hon. gentlemen opposite, he possesses at the present time. I expected that the hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House who had unanimously concurred in this Bill would stand strongly in support of the Bill which had passed this House without one dissenting voice, and therefore, with some confidence I rose in my place and said: 'We cannot agree to the amendments of the Senate, because they have absolutely emasculated the Bill and made it meaningless and useless.' To my astonishment the very gentlemen on the other side of the House who had concurred in the terms of the resolution which I had drafted as embodied in the Bill, stood up and voted that they were absolutely wrong on the previous occasion. Now, this story is not out of comic opera; it is a sober and accurate statement of what actually took place in this Parliament last session.


George Perry Graham: My right hon. friend
edited the article. It is not really what occurred.


Robert Laird Borden: In what respect is it not?


George Perry Graham: I will tell my right hon. friend in a few moments.


Robert Laird Borden: I say it is absolutely
what occurred, -and, further than that, I say that when I made the statement in this



House as to what had occurred with regard to the resolution upon which the Bill was founded, my hon. friend (Mr. Graham) stood up in the House and stated that my account of what had taken place was absolutely correct-and his words can be quoted from ' Hansard ' to that effect. If I have mis-stated anything in that regard, I have done so inadvertently. I have endeavoured to give an absolutely accurate statement of what took place. I say in the first place that the resolution which I substituted for that of Mr. Cochrane was approved by gentlemen opposite when I submitted it; and I say further that I offered to give them time for further consideration, but they said they did not want it. The resolution as orginally proposed was then withdrawn, and Mr. Cochrane substituted therefor the resolution which I had submitted to my right hon. friend. That resolution went through the committee without a dissenting voice, and the Bill founded upon it went through this House without a dissenting voice, and when the amendments came back from the Senate-unless I am very much mistaken-hon. gentlemen opposite stood up and voted in support of those amendments.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not think that
is correct.


Mr. BOEDEN:: I thought there was a
vote on it; I am not absolutely sure.


George Perry Graham: I do not think there
was.


Frederick William Borden: I will not contradict my hon. friend in that regard, because I have not a clear recollection, but at all events that is the history of what took place on that occasion. So far as branch lines are concerned, we are absolutely of the same opinion as we have always been. We think that a number of branch lines ought to be acquired if they can be purchased or leased on reasonable terms. We are desirous of going on with that policy, and hope to carry it out in one way or another in the early future.
So far as the general condition of the Intercolonial is concerned, I am sure that the description which my hon. friend has given of the service upon that road is one which he can hardly be prepared to endorse upon a little reflection. He said that the passenger service and the freight service have deteriorated; that the roadbed has not been kept up to the proper standard. For my part, I have had no knowledge or intimation that such is the case except that

which I have derived from my hon friend the member for Westmorland. I know it is the desire of the Minister of Eailways and Canals to keep that road up to the highest possible .standard, and to give the best possible service to the people of Canada, especially the people of Quebec and the Maritime provinces. My hon. friend from Westmorland and other members of this House will- remember that the efforts of the Minister of Eailways and Canals in that regard have received marked and unusual commendation from some of their own political friends in the Maritime provinces.
I am sorry that some [reflections have been made on the Minister of Eailways and Canals while he is not here in person to answer them. I find no fault with any criticism of him or of his administration, because, although he is necessarily .absent, members of this House have a perfect right to criticise him as a member of the Government. I am sure, however, that notwithstanding any such criticism, hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House ais well as hon. gentlemen on this side realize that it is the desire and purpose of the Minister of Eailways and Canals to make the Intercolonial railway worthy of the people of Canada, and by means of that railway to give the best possible service to the people of this country.
Hon. GEOEGE P. GEAHAM: The right hon. the Prime Minister has invited me into this discussion. Being somewhat polite I do not like to decline the invitation. I had not intended taking any part in this discussion, as I thought the members from the Maritime provinces were fully competent to discuss the Intercolonial railway in all its phases. My right hon. friend, a moment ago, took exception to my statement that he was editing some of the proceedings of the House. I meant by that, that he was rather revising the record and putting it in a way which was not warranted by the Tecord itself. He intimated that we were performing an act of comic opera in that members of the House stood up and said they were all wrong in their previous attitude on the resolution in regard to branch lines. The Prime Minister was wrong himself, in my judgment. I think there was no vote taken in that case. There very seldom is in such a case, unless it is forced to a vote, hut the Government would not acquiesce in the amendments by the Senate.

Even if there had been a vote my hon. friend would hardly be justified. Bill after Bill comes back from the Senate amended, and these amendments are agreed to by this House, although the House has unanimously passed another kind of Bill altogether. Cases identical to the one referred to by my right hon. friend occur here every day and no person is accused of any inconsistency. We take the Bill with its amendments sooner than have no Bill at all. If that change had been adopted it would have meant that this House is in favour of branch lines with this amendment while the other side declared itself unfavourable to a Branch Line Bill, unless it could have its own scheme. My right hon. friend supported the amendment to the Bank Act, altering the Bank Act materially, and I would not charge that in voting that way he resembled comic opera because the Bank Act did not go through as he voted it should go through. These things occur every day, and there is no criticism to be directed at either side of the House or any member in it for saying: We will accept the amendment of the Senate. We do it every day, that is if a Bill is amended we accept it sooner than have no Bill at all. In the history which my hon. friend gave of the Branch Lines Bill his reference except this departure from the record was absolutely correct. In the first place, his Minister of Railways introduced a resolution that he himself said was a bad resolution I am not speaking from .comic opera; it actually occurred. His own Minister of Railways, after full consideration, no doubt, in Council brought in a Bill which was all wrong and which he could not agree to himself. I am not quoting from comic opera; I am quoting from what the Prime Minister told us. This resolution as brought in by the Government, would have allowed the Minister of Railways and Canals to have taken over the Canadian Pacific railway without coming to this House, and after a good deal of argument the Prime Minister was convinced that the resolution should be withdrawn, and he prepared another one himself. He submitted the one which he had prepared to myself, my hon. friend from Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) and others. After conferring with my right hon. friend I said: These are powers never before given to a minister, but I am prepared to go that far so that there may be no obstacle in the way of this Government implementing the promise of its leader and taking over the 208J
branch lines. Under the Bill founded on that resolution we gave greater powers than were ever given to any minister.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Never before given.


George Perry Graham: Never given to any minister. The Senate said we went too far, and when the Bill came back with an amendment that the Government should be responsible to Parliament and that the business should not be done by Order in Council, we said: We will take the Bill as it has been amended, but hon. gentlemen opposite said: We will have the Bill passed or nothing. At bottom I do not believe the Minister of Railways wants to take over the branch lines. When I first brought in a Bill for the acquisition of branch lines, I was met with constant and persistent opposition, not by the then leader of the Opposition, but by men sitting behind him from the province of Ontario. My right hon. friend did not help me to get this Bill through at all, but it was clipped in all its features at the demand of members of the then Opposition.


Robert Laird Borden: Was it not the Senate, that clipped it?


George Perry Graham: No, the Senate did not', do the clipping at that time. It was the members behind my right hon. friend who did the clipping.


Robert Laird Borden: I am speaking seriously; did not the Bill come back from the Senate-with a very important amendment, and were not some amendments accepted?


George Perry Graham: That was another Bill. I am referring to the first Bill that I introduced. I think that my hon. friend has reference to the second Bill that I introduced. I accepted amendment after amendment made by hon. members of the then Opposition. One of them was that no road should be taken over unless it was in the interests of the Intercolonial railway, which was a departure
11 p.m. from the idea in my mind. I accepted a number of amendments in order to get the Bill through. The then leader of the Opposition put this question to me: Does my hon. friend mean to say that he has not power now to take over branch lines if he so desires without this Bill? My reply was that the Government did have that power with the sanction of Parliament, but that I was very anxious to get the Parliament of Canada committed to the principle of taking over branch lines, and I was therefore willing

and each month there was set aside a certain sum of money for this rail renewal account. Then there were certain losses every year by the burning of freight sheds, and necessary replacements on account of small fires, and there was set aside a certain amount each year for fire protection work. That was the custom when I was in the department and I think it is the custom still, and these amounts are recognized as part of the expenditure of the Intercolonial railway, and until they are set aside each year there cannot he any surplus. I believe this is being carried out at the present time. I suppose it is the same now as it was then. And I say fearlessly, and after having investigated the matter thoroughly-for the hon. member for North Toronto and I had several tilts over this question,-that when I left the department, the Intercolonial railway was spending more money out of revenue for betterments-more by thousands of dollars - than the Interstate Commerce Commission would allow a company under their jurisdiction to spend without charging it to capital.


Frederick William Borden: Out of income?


George Perry Graham: I say that the Intercolonial railway at that time spent thousands every year out of income and for betterments that the Interstate Commerce Commission would compel any company under their jurisdiction to spend on capital account. This they would do in order to protect the shareholders. It would be saying to the railway in effect: You owe that money to your shareholders in dividends and not in betterments. There is a distinct line of demarcation drawn between capital expenditures and revenue expenditures, and the Intercolonial railway, so far as my knowledge goes, exceeds the limit of what is ordinarily spent out of revenue. I think it is better that it should be in that condition than the other way.
Now, I have one word to say about branch lines in connection with the Intercolonial railway. I wish to make it clear, and I think that in what I say, I voice the opinion of practically every man in Ontario. We want the Intercolonial railway line kept up to a high state of efficiency and we want it to serve the people well, and we do not want a cent of profit ourt of it. We are prepared to bear our share of the expenditure to acquire branch lines,, not merely where they can pay but where the people require these transportation facilities wherever it will help to make these people
I Mr. Graham. 1
more contented we are prepared to pay our share of taxation to give them such facilities as we enjoy, whether it pays the Intercolonial railway or not.


John Douglas Hazen: The hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) has asked this House to say that the Government is deserving of censure in connection with the management of the Intercolonial railway for two reasons-first, because the methods of the present management are oppressive and unfair to employees and the public; and second, because the methods of the present management are detrimental to the interests of the country and of the railway. I have listened to every word of the speech of my hon. friend, as well as to every word of the speech of the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) and of the speech of the hon. member for South Eenfrew (Mr. Graham), and while it may be said that I am not an unprejudiced judge as to what the hon. gentleman said, yet I submit in all candor and fairness to this House, that the hon. gentlemen have not laid before the House facts that would make out a case in support of the position taken in the resolution.	*
Now, the hon. member for Westmorland dealt very largely in generalities. But where he came down, as he did in one or two instances, to give concrete examples in support of his position, it became clearly evident that he has been willing to listen to every rumour, to every word of gossip [DOT]circulated regarding the officials of the Intercolonial railway and has not taken the pains to investigate for himself, an investigation which I think the gravity of the subject would deserve, and which he should have taken before asking that the Government be censured for the acts of these officials. Early in his remarks he told the House-I think I quote him correctly- that nepotism was rampant in the affairs of the Intercolonial railway. The only instance he gave of 1 nepotism ' was that Mr. Brady had appointed a gentleman named Eichardson, who was his brother-in-law, to take the place of Mr. Hallisey, a trusted official of the Intercolonial railway. It appears now from the statement made by the Prime Minister that there was no justification for the allegation-that Mr. Eichardson is neither the brother-inlaw nor any other relation of Mr. Brady, and that he is only temporarily taking Mr. Hallisey's place, and that as soon as Mr. Hallisey recovers from the illness from

which he is suffering, which we hope will be in a very short time, he will return to the position which he has filled so long and so acceptably, and Mr. Richardson will cease to fill that position.
In his opening remarks, the hon. member referred to the branch line policy of the Intercolonial railway. In the Maritime provinces, and among those who have studied the question whether they live in the Maritime provinces or not, there is a practical consensus of opinion in favour of the Government of Canada purchasing or acquiring by some means the branch lines of railways and running them as part of the Intercolonial Railway system. The belief is that not only would such a policy be much to the advantage of the country through which these branch lines run, but in the interest of the Intercolonial railway itself, giving it important feeders. And these branch' lines operated from the head office, it is believed, would be operated more in the public interest and with greater economy than it is possible to manage them as separate unit3 each under its own company and having no harmonious management in the interest of all. Therefore this feeling strongly exists, and the hon. gentleman knowing that it exists, takes the opportunity to try to create feeling against the administration of the Railway Department by complaining that steps have not been taken for the acquisition of these branch lines. Now, I am not resorting to the tu quoque argument, but it would be interesting to ask what the hon. gentleman did to acquire branch lines when he was Minister of Railways and a supporter of the Government of the day. I think I am correct in saying that the hon. gentleman became a member of Parliament in 1900. Subsequently he became Minister of Railways. As he has been fourteen years a member of the House, and for a part of that time Minister of Railways, I think I am justified in asking what he did when supporting the Government in power or when he was himself a member of that Government to bring about the acquisition of branch lines which he condemns the Minister of Railways for not acquiring. It is true, he acquired the Canada Eastern from Fredericton to Chatham and Loggieville, a distance of about 112 miles for $300,000, or about $7,000 a mile.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It i3 136 miles.


John Douglas Hazen: That it is expedient to provide that the Minister of Railways may, subject to the authority of the Governor in Council, construct, purchase, lease, or otherwise acquire, in whole or in part any railway, railway bridge, railway station, railway terminal, railway ferry, or other railway work, and that any such railway or other work shall become part of the Government railway system.
That resolution was discussed at some length. Permit me to say in passing that I think my hon. friend, as well as other hon. gentlemen on the other side, did the Minister of Railways and Canals an injustice-unintentionally, no doubt-when they made the assertion that the minister was opposed to the acquisition of these branch lines. When this resolution was introduced, the hon. member for Westmorland said:
I do not think that my hon. friend (Mr. Cochrane), in this instance is frank with the country in regard to it.
The following discussion then took place:
Mr. Borden: He is decidedly frank.
Mr. Emmerson: He may be frank, hut not candid. He has, in remarks which he has uttered in this House, given us to understand that he does not want to acquire any branch lines that he does not think it in the interest of the Intercolonial that they should be so acquired.
Mr. Cochrane:	I do not think I was as
frank as that.
Mr. Emmerson: Well, I so understood my hon. friend. Does my hon. friend repudiate that insinuation?
Mr. Cochrane: I repudiate the broad statement that was made. I said that I did not want to acquire some of the branch lines.
Mr. Emmerson: Well then, my hon. friend wants to acquire some of them ?
Mr. Cochrane: Yes.
This extract which I have read from ' Hansard ' shows that the contention of my hon. friend the member for Westmorland and other hon. gentlemen, who say that the Minister of Railways and Canals was opposed to acquiring branch lines, is unjustifiable. After a considerable discussion the resolution as introduced by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals was withdrawn and another substituted in its place. This resolution, which may be found on page 8874 of ' Hansard ' of the year 1913, met with the unanimous approval of the members of this House. There was no division; not a single member criticised the resolution	in any way	whatever.On May 12 the Minister of Railways and Canals moved in the House the second reading of the Bill to amend the Railway Act, and the House went into committee	thereon.	This	Bill was
criticised a little on the ground that the Government should not be allowed to build 25 miles of railway under the provisions of

this Act without first coming to Parliament for authority to do so. The contention was made that it should be reduced to 20 miles, and at that point the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) interposed in the following emphatic language :
This idea of 25 miles strikes jne with great significance, and I would not like to see it cut down at all. It fits in splendidly for the county of Victoria. I had an idea that the minister had that section particularly in his mind.
After this remark on the part of the hon. member for North Cape Breton, all opposition vanished, and the Bill was agreed to without a dissenting voice, and was sent to the Senate for consideration. Although unanimously agreed to in this House, when the Bill went to the Senate it was emasculated and its purposes entirely destroyed. Under the Bill as it came back from the Senate, no power was given to the Government other than they would possess without the passage of the Bill at all. When the Bill came back to the House the Minister of Railways moved that the Senate amendment should not be concurred in, giving the reasons therefor. A discussion ensued, and I would commend to hon. gentlemen who say that the amendment made by the Senate was harmless and that it did not affect the Bill in any way, the remarks- of the hon. member for the city of St. John (Mr. Pugsley), who discussed the matter on that occasion. By his remarks he showed that he regarded the amendments made by the Senate as being very important and as very considerably affecting the Bill. He said:
It seems to me that there is not very much in issue. The amendment, as I understand it, is that such lease or contract of purchase shall be laid before Parliament for ratification. The Senate has omitted one of the most important features of the Bill; that is, the entering into a contract to build 25 miles of new road.
There we have the hon. member for the city of St. John saying that the Senate has omitted one of the most important features contained in the Bill. He goes on to suggest that there should be a conference between the House and the Senate with a view to coming to a compromise. He said:
The minister might he authorized to lease a feeder of the Intercolonial without the authority of Parliament. That is, if in any case, the minister might think it in the public interest to acquire the absolute right to the railway, he might put in the lease a provision that the minister, with the approval of Parliament, might purchase the road at a price which should be named in the lease, within a certain period of time which would be specified.

The hon. member for the city of St. John takes distinct issue with the statements made here to-night by hon. gentlemen to the effect that the amendments made by the Senate were colourless and [DOT] did not affect the Bill. He points out that they omitted one of the most important features of the Bill, and suggests a compromise in order that some arrangement should be effected.


Henry Robert Emmerson: What was the answer of the Prime Minister to that suggestion?


John Douglas Hazen: The Prime Minister said:
Mr. Borden: I think it would be necessary to send an answer to the Senate, and I doubt very much Whether a formal conference could be held at this stage of the session, which would accomplish any good result. I think the Minister of Railways would be perfectly willing to hold an informal conference, which would answer the purpose, and some hon. gentlemen of the Senate might be appointed.
Mr. Graham: That could be done informally to-night.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier: The matter can stand. Mr. Cochrane: If you want a conference, should not the motion pass so that the Bill may go back to the Senate, and if they want a conference, I would be very glad to meet them.
In that discussion the Prime Minister stated the facts accurately as he has stated them to the House to-night, that he drafted this resolution which was substituted for the one originally introduced, that he sent it over to the member for St. John and the member for South Eenfrew, that he discussed it with them, that it was unanimously accepted by them, and that amendment went through-
-without a single word of objection and with the absolute assent of hon. gentlemen on the other side, after I had privately discussed it with the hon. gentlemen whom I have mentioned and others, and when some question was raised about reducing the twenty-five miles to twenty, the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie), insisted that it should remain exactly as it was, because he hoped to havte a branch constructed in his own county.
In that the member for St. John and the member for South Eenfrew agreed, and their words are on * Hansard,' that that is an accurate account of what took place. During the debate I asked the hon. member for Westmorland if he did not say he did not think the Bill went far enough. The hon. gentleman stated that he did not recollect that he said anything of the sort. My question was based on my recollection of these words, which I find in the speech of the hon. member for Westmorland on June 5, referring to the fact
that he was anxious for the legislation to go through:
I was equally anxious because I have to acknowledge that I have taken a very deep and sincere interest in this policy. I would like to see it carried out and I would even give great powers to the Minister of Railways in respect! to the matter. I do not know but that I would go so far as to permit him to legislate on the matter, although I do not think his sympathies are quite as strong on behalf of the policy as I would like them to be. I think he has doubts and I do not think that he recognizes the branch lines as feeders, because he said on the floor of this House that they are milkers and not feeders. I certainly think it would be very desirable that an understanding should be had with the Senate. We must all be desirous of seeing this policy put into execution and of seeing these lines acquired. I do not think there is such a case of urgency with respect to the construction of branch lines because parliament is sitting long enough to enable any legislation to be put through to construct the railways. I would strongly urge that there be a conference and that some united action be taken in regard to the matter..
He also advocated giving the Ministex the power of expropriating the branch lines. What was the purpose of my hon. friend in urging that there should be a conference and that some united action should be taken in the matter, if his opinion then was as he expressed it to-night, that the Senate had not interfered with this Bill and that the Senate amendments were of a harmless character? It is perfectly clear that the gentlemen interested in the passage of this Bill, the hon. member for Westmorland and the hon. member for St. John, fully agreed with the position taken by the Minister of Eailways and the Prime Minister that the amendments made by the Senate were not only vexatious but were absolutely striking at the foundation of the Bill, and that they did not take the view put forward in this House to-night that the amendments were simple and innocent in their character and that the Bill as it came from the Senate was all that the Government would require. I desire the fact to go out to this country that it was the interference with this Bill by the friends of hon. gentlemen opposite in the Senate of this country that has prevented the Government up to the present time from taking effective measures to acquire branch line railways, and that if it had not been for the emasculation of that Bill in the Senate arrangements would have been made by which branch lines of the Intercolonial railway would have been taken over and acquired by the Intercolonial, not only in the province of New Brunswick but in every other province

through which the Intercolonial railway runs.
My hon. friend, as an instance of the way in which public interests are being neglected under the present Intercolonial management, referred to the Ocean Limited. The facts in connection with the Ocean Limited are these, that until 1913 this train never ran during the months of February and March. In 1913 the Minister of Railways and Canals made the experiment of running the Ocean Limited during those months, and the result of that experiment was a loss to this country of several hundred thousand dollars, and it was demonstrated that running the train during those months, when the travel was light and there was no tourist traffic, was not in the fiscal interest or other interest of the country. Consequently, in 1914, the Railway Department very properly as I submit, returned to the policy off not running the Ocean Limited during February and March. Why should they run that train during February and March when their experiment in 1913, when there was more railway traffic generally and more travel in the country than in 1914, had demonstrated that it could only be run at a tremendous loss to the Canadian taxpayer? It seems to me that instead of being condemned for not running the Ocean Limited during February and March in 1914, the Minister of Railways and the Railway Department, in view of their experiment in 1913, would have deserved condemnation if they had continued to run the Ocean Limited during February and March, 1914. No interest has suffered by their not doing so, and no condemnation will be made in this country of the Railway Department for their course in that respect, when the facts are known and the case is fairly placed before the people for consideration.
My hon. friend also says that there has been an increase in freight rates on the Intercolonial, and that there has been dissatisfaction in consequence. I am not prepared to dispute that statement, but a little glimpse into the past history of the Intercolonial railway will show that there has been dissatisfaction during every period of transition in regard to the management of that railway. Gentlemen within the sound of my voice to-night will remember that previous to 1896 the management of the Intercolonial railway was a frequent subject of attack, and that after the Liberal party came into power in that year and Mr. Blair became Minister of Railways the 
statement was heralded all over this country that business methods were going to prevail in the management of that road, that there would be an entire change in the system of management resulting in large surpluses and better results generally. After the Liberals had been in power for a short time they started upon this system of business management, and they pushed to one side Mr. Pottinger, who had been so long general manager. Mr. Blair sent down to manage that road a gentleman by the name of Harris then, and now, occupying a position of importance with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. What was the result? The rates were put up far higher than the ratio of increase which occurred after the change of Government in 1911. My hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) quoted from a newspaper published in the town of Truro to the effect that the Governmen were in danger of losing all their seats in the counties through which the Intercolonial runs. There may be gentlemen opposite -who will remember that after Mr. Harris had been in charge of the Intercolonial, and after the Government had started on their plan of business management of that road, a gentleman who represented the constituency now represented by my hon. friend from Guysborough, and who was afterwards Lieutenant-Governor of Nova Scotia, came back to this Parliament and made the announcement that if that management continued on the Intercolonial the Government would not carry a seat within fifty miles of that road. In any period of transition there is bound to be trouble. There are always people who will feel aggrieved when changes take place from any one system to any other; and therefore with the changes that have taken place in regard to the Intercolonial in recent years, with the appointing of a general manager instead of a board of control, it is not at all extraordinary that there should have been grievances among the patrons of the road in different parts of the Maritime provinces, who were not at all favourable to the changes that took place. The rate increases took place possibly without the consideration required, but I am here prepared to state that those increases made under the Order in Council passed by the previous Government-not by this Government- were small compared with the rate increases made by the Liberal Government after they came into power in 1896. A gentleman of prominence in the commercial life of St.

John-a largo patron of the Intercolonial, and one whose word would carry weight wherever he is known, and that is very generally throughout this country-made an estimate showing that in consequence of the readjustment made when the Liberals came into power in 1896, an additional $100,000 were taken from the people of New Brunswick alone every year by the increase, not in the through rates but in the local rates that were imposed by hon. gentlemen opposite at that time; and those rates have continued year in and year out. Mistakes may have been made in changing the rates on the Intercolonial in the last few years, and I am not here to argue to the contrary. The management found themselves face to face with this condition: they had to meet the demands and wishes of the brotherhoods and unions, and very justly give wages to the railway employees that would be in accord with the wages paid on otheT railways in this country; they found that their annual expenses for this reason alone increased by about $350,000; they further found that in consequence of the large increase in the price of coal another $350,000 was added every year to the expenses of that road, and there were other expenses which in accordance with the advance in price of all materials which had to be borne. Under those circumstances, they felt there should be some readjustment of the rates. This readjustment did not give satisfaction; on the contrary a feeling of hostility was caused, but so far as I know the difficulty has been settled in such a way that there is now little or no complaint along the line of the Intercolonial over the rates that are being charged. The people of the Maritime provinces do not want any undue favours at the hands of the Intercolonial authorities, or anybody else; all they ask is fair play. The question is, are the rates charged on the Intercolonial to-day unjust as compared with the rates charged on the Canadian Pacific railway, the Grand Trunk railway, and the other railways of this country? The statement has been made to-night that they are less than the rates on those roads, and less than the rates on the Temis-kaming and Northern Ontario railway, which is owned and operated by the Province of Ontario. If that is the case, the people of the Maritime provinces have no complaint to make, and I believe that at the present time, with the consideration that has been given to the
new rates and the reductions and readjustments that have taken place, there is little fault-finding in the Maritime provinces with regard to the rates. My hon. friend referred to the taking off of the suburban service. I think that was a mistake, and I so expressed myself at the time. It interfered with people in Halifax and St. John and in places in Westmorland and York counties, who had been for years depending upon that service. The facts were made known to the authorities and investigated, with the result that those suburban services which were changed without a proper knowledge of the localities affected have been restored, and as good suburban services are now being given as before. As I said, in any transition period there is bound to be trouble, as was demonstrated by Mr. Blair's experience with the Intercolonial; but after a few months of operation, and when conditions become better known, these troubles disappear. That will be the case with the grievances that existed along the line of the Intercolonial some months ago but which do not exist nearly so strongly to-day. I think my hon. friend would have had better ground for moving his resolution some months ago than at the present time.
My hon. friend has dwelt upon the fact that men are employed on the Intercolonial who have been previously employed by the Canadian Pacific railway, and from that he draws the conclusion that the Intercolonial is being made subordinate to the Canadian Pacific railway.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That was not the only reason. I referred to the Gutelius-Bosworth agreement.


John Douglas Hazen: I do not think my hon.
friend is justified in drawing any such conclusion. As was pointed out by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, the Government at the time when the hon. member for South Renfrew was Minister of Railways, required a man for a high position on the Intercolonial went to the Canadian Pacific railway and obtained from them Mr. Brady.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Mr. Brady was not
employed by any railway at the time of his employment by the Intercolonial.


John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend may be
correct, but my information is that Mr. Brady had been an official of the Canadian Pacific railway practically up to the time of joining the Intercolonial. I do not for a moment think that because a man has been trained in one railway service, and to better his condition leaves it to work for

another railway that he is therefore) going to be disloyal to the corporation or Government who have obtained his services. Nor do I think it can be argued for a moment that he will have any desire to advance the interests of the company from which he came to the disadvantage of the concern employing him. It is not an unusual thing among the banks of Canada for a man to leave one bank to become manager of another, but does any one argue that this gentleman will be loyal to the interest which he has left to the disadvantage of the interest which is employing him at the time? We find the same thing in commerce. Surely it cannot be argued for a moment that because a man has been employed by the Canadian Pacific railway before coming to the Intercolonial that he will therefore, try to make the Intercolonial subordinate to the interests of the road he has left. I am sure my hon. friend himself would not subscribe to a doctrine of that sort.* If men are required for positions on the Intercolonial, and if it should be that there are not suitable men in the employ of the road to advance to those positions, I would ask where could you get better railroad men than those trained in the employ of the Canadian Pacific railway, which has been the most successful railway in the world and whose success is largely due and dependent upon the training and ability and loyalty of its officials? But my hon. friend goes farther. He could not, of course, ask anyone of intelligence to accept that argument, and therefore, he says: ' Just look at what was done in connection with the Gutelius-Bosworth agreement. That is conclusive evidence that Mr, Gutelius is playing the game of the Canadian Pacific railway and is not loyal to the Intercolonial.' If such is the case, I would ask my hon. friend what conclusion he would draw from the fact that the Canadian Northern railway were given running rights from Quebec down to Halifax at a rate far less than the rate paid by the Canadian Pacific railway from St. John to Halifax under the Gutelius-Bosworth agreement. Would he not draw even more strongly the conclusion that the officials who were responsible for entering into that agreement with the Canadian Northern railway, for the handling and transportation of freight from Quebec to Halifax, were playing the game of the Canadian Northern railway and were loyal to the Mackenzie and Mann interests to the disadvantage of the Government of Canada which they were serving.
The facts in connection with the GuteliusfMr. Hazen.]
Bosworth agreement, to which I wish to refer, are briefly these: The Board of Trade of the city of St. John, approaching this question in no narrow spirit, are. of opinion that the rate charged is not an adequate rate and that the agreement is not justified from the railway standpoint. They did not take the ground that the Intercolonial should refuse to haul the freight and cars of the Canadian Pacific railway from St. John to Halifax, or any other point, hut they did take the ground that if they did so they should do so at the proper rates and at rates that are justifiable from the railway standpoint, at such rates as the Board of Railway Commissioners would prescribe if a privately owned road went to the Railway Commission and asked for running rights over some other road for which rights rates should be prescribed. That is the position that was taken *by the Board of Trade of St. John and they made application to the Minister of Railways and Canals asking that the agreement should be submitted for the consideration of the Board of Railway Commissioners. The Minister of Railways and Canals acceded to that request. The Railway Commission were prepared to hear the matter at any time. The Council of the Board of Trade of St. John retained counsel, one of whom was my hon. friend who represents the city of St. John (Mr. Pugsley) and the other the recorder of the city, and they placed the matter in their hands. But from that moment to the present, no application has been made by, or on behalf of, the Board of Trade to the Railway Commissioners to secure an opinion or a decision as to whether that agreement was fair and just from a railway standpoint or whether it was discriminatory against the port of St. John. The reasons that induced the Board of Trade not to proceed with this matter I do not know. I understand that it was considered that as the agreement was only for a few months, and as it has expired now, no good purpose would be served by pressing the matter before the Board of Railway Commissioners, but the fact remain that the Minister of Railways and Canals at once acceded to the request that the matter should be referred to the Railway Commission and the commission were prepared to give a decision in regard to it.
I have felt it only right to refer to this in view of what my hon. friend from Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) has said. Different opinions have been expressed. Mr. Gutelius has asserted that from the railway traffic standpoint the agreement was thoroughly justifiable. Other gentlemen

have made different statements and my hon. friend from Westmorland has made a statement to the same effect hut at that time my hon. friend did not know of the rates which were given to the Canadian Northern railway from Quebec to Halifax.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That does not affect
the question.


John Douglas Hazen: That does not affect it
except to make it so much worse for the arrangement entered into by my hon. friend and the Government which my hon. friend supported because the rate was not an adequate or proper rate and not one which could be justified from the railway standpoint.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That does not justify this.


John Douglas Hazen: If this cannot be justified what will be said of the arrangement entered into by my hon. friend to enable the Canadian Northern to take its freight from Quebec to Halifax? I have every confidence that the difficulties which have existed in connection with the Intercolonial railway will disappear, and that the gentlemen who have been placed at the head of the railway will do their very best to meet the requirements of the country and of those who are connected with the railway itself. I further believe that all these difficulties which have been so often exaggerated and dwelt upon by hon. gentlemen opposite and by the press which supports their party will disappear entirely before long and that it will be found that the road will be run in the interest of the Maritime provinces and for the general good and welfare of the people of the country as a whole.
There were other matters that I intended to refer to but I think that at this late hour' I wiil not farther trespass upon the time of the House. I submit again to you, Sir, with all possible confidence that no case has been made out by the hon. gentlemen who have addressed this House in support of. this resolution that would justify the House in voting that the Government is deserving of censure on the ground that the methods of the present management of the Intercolonial railway are oppressive and unfair to the present railway employees and that nothing has: been shown to the detriment of their interests or that of the business interests of the country.


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIB (Guys'borough):: Mr. Speaker, if I can get the attention of the House for a few minutes I will endeavour
to (be very brief in the remarks which I intend to make. It is an easy matter to find fault with the management of the Intercolonial railway. It has been always more or less easy, but, in my judgment, it never was so easy at any time in our history as under the present management. My desk is full of various kinds of complaints against the way in which the Intercolonial railway is managed. I have reason to know that the desks of hon. gentlemen sitting around me are in the same position.
I do not intend to refer at all to these complaints. We, on this side of the House, unlike my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen), who has just taken his seat, are not thinking of yesterday. We are thinking of tosmorrow. The question is: Can the Government of Canada successfully manage a big enterprise like this? Can the breath of life be put into the management of the Intercolonial railway? Can it be built up to be a great transportation system with modern grades, curves and branch lines reaching out for traffic in all directions where traffic is available and in this way become a real factor in the development of the great natural resources of the country through which it passes? In the past the Intercolonial railway has actually retarded the development of the Maritime provinces. It is doing that to-day, and the question is: How long will it continue to do that? The fact that the Intercolonial railway occupies the field has kept other railway 'companies out of the field. No company wants to compete with the Government. The de-12 m. lay in extending the railway to the island of Cape Breton is a good illustration of the apathy that has characterised the Intercolonial railway ever since inception. It cannot be disputed that the ninety miles of railway in the island of Cape Breton is the greatest traffic-producing part of the road, but Confederation was twenty-five years old before. that railway ran to the island of Cape Breton. Does any man -believe that any progressive company would have looked across the strait of Canso for twenty-five years without endeavouring to tap the resources of that rich and prosperous island? The first minister of railways to pull the Intercolonial out of the mud was the Hon. A. G. Blair. His successors in the late Administration followed up ihas good work. He saw that the Intercolonial railway never could succeed while its terminus was in a field at Levis. Within one year from the date on which the late Govern-

ment took office the Intercolonial railway was extended to the oity of Montreal. Immediately improvements began to be made; the road-bed was improved, the light 65-lb. rails were taken up and 80 or 90-lb. rails were put in their places; the Maritime Express was greatly improved and made into a modern train. Past freight trains were added toy which freight was carried from the ports of the Maritime provinces to Montreal on schedule time, something that had never been done in Canada before. Then again the Ocean Limited was added to take care of the tourist traffic. Shortly before the defeat of the late Administration, they embarked upon the policy of acquiring and building branch lines but they did not have time to develop this part of their policy prior to their defeat. It is true that this Government have talked a great deal about branch lines and the improvement of grades and curves, but it has all ended in talk. If they had kept their hands off we would have had now two important branch lines in eastern Nova Scotia, but the step having been taken by the late Administration, the present Administration and no Administration in Canada can go back.
We on this side of the House were much encouraged a few weeks ago when the views of my hon. friend from North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) were accepted by the House, and we hope that this indicates a change of heart on the part of the Administration. The resolution of my hon. friend which was, carried unanimously on March 16, was in the following words:
That, in the opinion of this House, the time has arrived for the extension of the Intercolonial Railway of Canada into the non-railway sections of the Maritime provinces within reasonable range of the said railway.
The House of Commons is supreme in these matters; the House of Commons has said that the time has arrived for the Government to act in regard to that question, and the House of Commons having said so, it is now the duty of the Government to carry out the mandate of the House of Commons, or else to take the advice of my hon. friend from West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) and make room for some more capable Government which will do so. It will not be denied that this resolution has special reference to a branch into the constituency I have the honour to represent. My constituents will await with a great deal of interest the action of the Government when the supplementary Estimates are brought down. There is no use in any more empty promises of investigations and of surveys; the only thing

that will count now is cash to be expended in actual construction. 'Even then it will be difficult for my constituents to forget that this Government cancelled a contract made by the late Government and deprived ns of our rights for three years.
The Prime Minister has told us to-night that there is an absolute absence of political or party consideration in the management of the Intercolonial railway. I am compelled to take direct issue with the right hon. gentleman on that statement. I will say on behalf of the Minister of Baihvays, whose absence and whose illness we all regret, that if he had his own way I think there would be less politics in the management of the Intercolonial railway than there is to-day, but if there are no political considerations in the management of the Intercolonial, how does the Prime Minister explain the dismissal of so many of its officials. A large number were dismissed in the eastern part of Nova Scotia, and in my own constituency there were men dismissed on evidence that turned out to be perjury; but the official has not been restored to his former position.


John Douglas Hazen: How does my hon. friend from Guysborough explain the wholesale dismissals after the return of the Liberals to power in 1896?


John Howard Sinclair: I am not making the statement that there were no politics in the Intercolonial under former /management, but the Prime Minister has stated to-night that there are no political consideration governing the management of the Intercolonial railway to-day, and I am refuting that statement, and I say it is impossible for the Prime Minister to square that statement with the fact that a large number of officials have been dismissed. I have referred to some dismissals which took place in my own constituency, and I am informed that in the county of Antigonish, two out of every three employees on the Intercolonial were dismissed by this Government, and that some of them were replaced by men who were beyond the legal age.
Will the Prime Minister say that if the county of Guysborough and the county of North Cape Breton had returned supporters of his Government at the last election that he would have cancelled these two railway contracts? I question very much if the Prime Minister will make that statement, and if he cannot make that statement it is idle for him to tell us that there are no political considerations entering now into the Intercolonial railway management.

My hon. friend (Mr. Hazen) said that in regard to the branch lines, he wanted the idea to go abroad throughout this country that the defeat of the Branch Line Bill by the Senate is the reason why the Government were not taking over the branch lines throughout eastern Canada.


George Perry Graham: Did he say that?


John Howard Sinclair: He did. But even
though that statement does go abroad, the people of the country will not believe it because they know that numerous branch lines have been taken over by the Government and by the Intercolonial without any Bill such as he speaks of. What about the Drummond County railway, a large and important railway, in respect of which there was no general authority enabling the Government to take it over? What about the Eastern Extension railway, which became part of the Intercolonial some years ago; what about the Sunnyhrae branch and numerous others which have been taken over without any such Bill? In each of these cases the transfers were authorized by Parliament. It is idle for the Minister of Marine to try to spread throughout the country the idea that the defeat of that Bill is the reason why the Government is failing to do anything with regard to the branch lines.
There is another matter I wish to draw attention to and that is an interview given by Mr. F. P. Gutelius, the general manager of the Intercolonial railway, and published in the Montreal Gazette on the 23rd of March last. This interview was referred to by my hon. friend from Pictou to-night, and it was given for the purpose of explaining the purchase of United States coal for use on the Intercolonial. Mr. Gutelius travels out of his way to discuss other matters relating to the railway, and he undertakes to inform the public as to the most profitable section of that system. This question is one of considerable interest. It is always regarded as important by members representing constituencies in Nova Scotia, when we are asking for improvements or additions, or for branch lines, if we are able to show that the roads that have been built in Nova Scotia are profitable to the Government. I make the statement here that every expenditure of that kind and every branch line that has been built in Nova Scotia has been an excellent investment for the Intercolonial railway. Here is what Mr. Gutelius is reported to have said in the Montreal Gazette:
As far as the revenues of the road are concerned, Mr. Gutelius said there was no questioning the fact that the province of Quebec is the banner province as far as the revenue producing capacity of the Intercolonial railway is concerned. The money is made in Quebec, New Brunswick comes out about square, while the loss is in Nova Scotia, notwithstanding the statement made in a pamphlet issued down in Pictou showing the earning qualities of that section of the railway.
That is a very positive statement. Mr. Gutelius says there is no question about the fact that Quebec is the banner province as far as revenue producing qualities are concerned, and that the loss of the Intercolonial is made in the province of Nova Scotia. But what are the facts? I do not profess to be an expert on these matters, nor do I profess to know more about the revenue producing sections of the Intercolonial railway than does the general manager. However, I felt confident that the statements made by Mr. Gutelius to the Montreal Gazette on that occasion were not in accordance with the facts. I accordingly moved for a return to ascertain the exact facts as to where the revenues came from and that return was brought down a few days ago. It was delayed for some weeks, as I understand the information had to come from Moncton, and I have no doubt the return was made under the direct supervision of Mr. Gutelius himself. And, when brought down, it turns out to be a direct refutation of the statement made by Mr. Gutelius. This return shows that in Nova Scotia, with only one-third of the mileage of the Intercolonial, produces about one-half the revenue, and, instead of Quebec being the banner province so far as traffic is concerned, it is shown by this return that Nova Scotia is the banner province. It is also clear that this high-paid official did not know, when he gave that information to the newspaper, what he was talking about. In order to be fair to the House, I shall read the exact questions I put to the acting Minister of Railways, and the answers I received in reply. The following are the questions and answers:
1.	How many tons of freight were carried by the Intercolonial railway during the year ending March 31, 1913, distinguishing between eastbound and westbound traffic?
The answer to this question brought down by the acting minister is, as follows:
Total eastbound traffic	
2,182,084	tons.Total westbound traffic	
3,021,385	"Grand total	
5,203,469	"
The other questions and answers were as follows:
2.	How many tons of freight referred to in paragraph one, originated in the province of Nova Scotia, including all freight delivered to the said Intercolonial railway at the seaports of the said province?
Answer: The tonnage originating in the province of Nova Scotia during said year was 2,693,024 tons. Of this amount, 99,308 tons were delivered to the Intercolonial railway by steamships at the seaports in Nova Scotia for furtherance by rail.
3.	What was the gross amount received by said railway during said year for passenger traffic in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec respectively?
Answer:	.
Nova Scotia	$1,128,640	07New Brunswick	
670,343	47Quebec	
844,783	09Total	$2,643,766 634.	How many tons of the total freight carried by the Intercolonial railway during the said year originated in the province of Quebec and New Brunswick respectively':
Answer:
Tons.
Total number of tons originating in
New Brunswick	 799,824
Total number of tons originating in
Quebec	 1,008,406
Now, making a short abstract of these answers, we get the following result:
Year ending March 31, 1913.
Tons.
Tonnage originating in Nova Scotia.. 2,693,024 New Brunswick	 799,824
Quebec . . . . 1,008,406 "	Ontario and
elsewhere	 702,215
Total	 5,203,469
So you will see that Nova Scotia contributes more than hall the tonnage of the Intercolonial railway. Now, let us turn to the passenger traffic. The following is the amount of cash taken for the tickets sold in the various provinces through which the line runs-leaving out of course, the province of Prince Edward Island:
Nova Scotia	$1,128,640	07New Brunswick	
670,343	47Quebec	
844,783	09Total	$2,643,766 63
So you will see that Nova Scotia contributes about half the total passenger traffic of the road. Thus it is shown that the general manager in this interview made a reckless .and incorrect statement, reflecting upon the business of Nova Scotia. I submit, that when the general manager undertakes to make a business statement to the 
public on a matter of this kind, he should be very careful to be correct in his facts.


John Allister Currie: With the permission of
the hon. gentleman, I would like to .ask if in the statistics he has prepared he has compared the profit or loss of handling the traffic in these several provinces. The bulk of the traffic might originate in Nova Scotia and yet that traffic might be carried at a loss per ton mile as compared with the other provinces, and no doubt that is what the general manager means.


John Howard Sinclair: I assume that freight
can -be moved as cheaply in Nova Scotia as in Quebec. I do not pretend that this statement that I am giving is absolute proof. It may require some qualification. I am only showing that the province of Nova Scotia, with one-third of the mileage, produces about one-half the freight traffic, and brings in about half the money paid for passenger tickets.


John Allister Currie: 

REVISED

[Stage Direction]
venture to say that he could not earn one-half that sum in any other profession or calling that is open to him. The hon. member for Westmorland pointed out that the service given by the Intercolonial railway was never worse than it has been since this highly-paid official came into charge, and that is absolutely true. My only purpose in calling attention to this interview is to induce the acting Minister of Railways to instruct this bumptious official of his to stop issuing manifestos in the newspapers and to attend to his business with a view to making some adequate return for the money which the people of Canada are paying him, and with a view to rescuing the Intercolonial railway from the condition of confusion that has overtaken it since he assumed its management.
Mr. ONESIPHORE TURGEON (Gloucester, N.B.):: I shall give my support to the resolution moved by the hon. member for Westmorland. I wish to say that I agree with what has been said on this side of the House with regard to the management of the Intercolonial railway.
A great deal has been said with regard to the branch lines policy of the Government and the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, who is not now in his seat, has criticised the former Administration, and more particularly the former Minister of Railways and Canals, the hon. member for Westmorland, as well as the hon. member for South Renfrew, for the manner in which they dealt with this question when hon. gentlemen on this side were in power. I may [DOT] say in a few words that we on this side of the House have had to educate the people of Ontario to a realization of the fact that the Intercolonial is a Canadian railway, not the sole property of the Maritime provinces, and no person has given more devotion to that principle than the hop. member for Westmorland. May I be permitted to say that we in the Maritime provinces owe a great debt of gratitude to the hon. member for South Renfrew for the better feeling which he created in Ontario from the moment he took charge of the Intercolonial railway. It is to the credit largely of the hon. member for South Renfrew that it is possible for the Government of the day to acquire branch lines to be operated as part of the Intercolonial.
My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has made a statement which I am not prepared to accept, notwithstanding the courtesy which I wish to extend to him at all times. My hon. friend



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
imputed motives to the Minister of Railways in the late Administration in connection with the taking over of the Canada Eastern Railway. The minister seemed to dwell upon the fact that that railway was owned at the time by one Mr. Gibson, whose son was then a member of this House, supporting the Liberal Administration. I cannot allow that assertion to pass without refutation. The real desire was not to favour Mr. Gibson or his son or any member of that company; the time had come when that railway would be taken over by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company if it had not been acquired by the Government of the day. It would have been the greatest misfortune for the people of the Maritime provinces had the Government of the day allowed that railway to go into the hands of the Canadian Pacific railway, because it carries a great deal of the trade of the counties of Northumberland and Kent, being particularly valuable for the transportation of fish from points in Gloucester and Kent counties.
The hon. gentleman says that because of the action of the Senate the branch lines policy was not put in operation last year. Although we on this side of the House agreed with the members of the Government to accept the Bill as presented by the minister at that time, the Senate were not prevented from looking into the constitutional aspect of the matter. The Senate cannot be accused of partisanship in that regard. We on this side of the House agreed as to the desirability of the taking over of the branch lin£s by the Government, to be operated as part of the Intercolonial railway, but the Senate thought that it was not in accordance with the principle of the constitution to give the minister power to acquire and build branch lines without the . authority of Parliament. The people of this country to-day understand the duties of both branches of Parliament. The people understand that the Senate as well as this branch of the legislature should perform their duty to the people of Canada and that they were justified in introducing that amendment, which merely provided that the minister should obtain the authority of Parliament before purchasing or building branch lines. When that Bill came back to the House the Government refused to accept this amendment made by the Senate, although hon. gentlemen on this side were willing to accept it. It has been said that the ex-MinisteT of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) suggested that fMr. Turgeon.]
a conference should be held between this House and the Senate and, therefore, if my right hon. friend and the members supporting him really had had at heart the acquisition of these branch lines-, in the Maritime provinces more particularly, they could have -either accepted -the amendment or had a conference with the Senate and I for one feel that, in the exercise of my duty, I have to cast the bl-ame upon the Administration of to-day for having failed to acquire some of these branch lines. I am more particularly interested in this because in my county there is one of the longest and most productive branches along the Intercolonial railway, extending from Bathurst to Shippegan, sixty-five miles and from Inkerman to Tra-cadie, twelve or fifteen miles, and the people have been waiting for relief. We in that county are now subject to a double tariff; since the Intercolonial under its new management raised "the freight rates the Cara-quet company have also increased their tariff and therefore our people have to pay much more than they used to.
There is another branch to which I wish to call the -attention of the Prime Minister and more particularly of the Minister of Marine, that is -th-e extension of the Bathurst line -to the harbour of Bat-hurst. This question was mentioned some time ago. The Minister of Marine has given his support, when Premier of New Brunswick to the construction of this road. I referred to the line from Bathurst Mines to Nepisiguit Junction, four miles. The mine will certainly continue to be operated because it is inexhaustible and, much as I regret the cessation of business by -the Canada Iron company, I am in a position to say that arrangements have been made with the receiver by another company bo operate-the mines and therefore shipments will continue from the mines to Nepisiguit Junction and to Newcastle for some time. This line should -be taken over and operated by the Government. The traffic for that line is not confined merely to the shipment of iron ore. The town of Bathurst is well known to the Minister of Marine. He has encouraged the railway by giving a guarantee of about $15,000 when he was Premier of the province. I have done everything I could in behalf of that enterprise and urged it upon the former Minister of Railways and Canals -and -the former Administration had pr-actieally decided to build the railway and operate it themselves when the Canada Iron company suggested tha-t they would pref er to build it and operate it for their own business.' There is now a considerable lumber

industry there which would provide additional traffic. The minister is aware that a pulp and paper mill upon which $3,000,000 or $4,000,000 will be spent is under erection at Bathurst and it will continue to give trade on that line from the harbour of Bathurst to Bathurst Mines. The Government should build the rest of that line from Nepisiguit Junction to the harbour, four miles, which would make a saving of over thirty-seven miles in the transportation of the ore. I do not think it would be necessary for the Government to put an item in the Estimates for this season for the construction of that line, because the harbour improvements which I hope will be completed early next spring are not yet ready. I would hope that a survey be made of the balance of that railway out from Nepisiguit Junction to the Harbour, four miles, and meanwhile the department might communicate with the receiver or the proper authorities of the Canada Iron company. They have had a double subsidy, one from this Government and one from the Federal Government. The road bed is a first class construction. I ask the Prime Minister to take this matter into his consideration and I hope before long he will have his engineers make this survey.
I shall vote for the amendment brought in by the hon. member for Westmorland.
Mr. H. BOULAY (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, it was my intention to address the House at some length in regard to the question brought forward by the hon. gentleman from Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson); but in view of the lateness of the hour, I shall be content with a few remarks suggested by c-ertain statements which hon. gentlemen opposite have ventured to make.
They endeavoured to show, among other things, that the Bill passed by the House last year, making provision for the taking over of the branch railways by the Intercolonial, had not been effectually sidetracked through the action of the Senate, where their party is in the majority. The truth of the matter is that in this House that Bill was unanimously carried; tooth parties having come to an agreement in regard to the matter, the taking over of these branch lines was decided without a dissentient voice. It was the general opinion that such taking over was of absolute necessity in the interest of the Intercolonial, as well as of the province of Quebec and of the Maritime provinces. The matter was so well understood, that not a dissentient voice was heard condemning the proposal.
209*
To my mind, that would be an additional reason for the Senate to pass the Bill without changing a word, since no differences of opinion had been voiced in the House of Commons in connection with the proposal. It seems to me that in respect to such an important Bill, when there was unanimity of feeling, the Senate should not have taken the liberty of mutilating the Bill as forwarded from the House of Commons, in such a way as to render it useless. The Senate might have been justified in taking such a stand in respect to a measure which had been the occasion of much wrangling in this Chamber. But that was not the case as regards that Bill; and1 the Senate amended it to such an extent that the Government was no longer in a position to make use of it, and as a consequence the branch lines were not taken over.
It was even stated that the hon. Minister [DOT] of Railways was opposed to the policy of acquiring those branch lines, and that this was probably the reason why the Senate amendment was not accepted. Now the facts point in the opposite direction. I>t was the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Cochrane) himself who introduced the Bill, who put it through the House, and that hon. gentleman is too much of a business man not to have perceived at once that this was a vital issue and of the greatest -moment for the future of the Intercolonial. There is, for instance, the International railway whose earnings cover ten times over its expenditure; the Caraquet railway which shows a handsome margin of profits; also the Chaleurs Bay railway and the Canadian-Gulf railway, which runs from Ste. Flavie to Matane, and shows receipts double its expenditure. So it will be seen that the Minister of Railways had no reason whatever to object to the taking over of these branch lines.
Exception has also been taken to the doing away with the train service known as the Ocean Limited, between Halifax and Montreal. On that point I agree with those hon. gentlemen, and I say that the said train should have been left on. If it was necessary to cut off some of the trains, it would have been preferable to do away with train services 33 and 34, so-called. There is not the least doubt that during some winter months, such as February and March, two passenger trains are more than is required. Undoubtedly the Ocean Limited is by far the most convenient for those who travel between Halifax and Montreal, and the people of the province of Quebec, especially as it runs by night. If I had any

suggestion to offer to the hon. Minister of "Railways, it would be to out out those two trains 33 and 34, and leave on the Ocean Limited.
Exception was also taken to the management of the Intercolonial. As to the condition of the railway proper, I am bound to say that, as stated by the hon. Prime Minister this evening, it is in as good condition us it was two or three years ago, that is under the management of hon. gentlemen opposite. But the criticism I have to offer, and the grievance which is complained of in my district, at any rate, is that the engines used in the Matapedia valley are rather too heavy and bulky for the curves to be met with along that part of the road. Whoever is acquainted with the valley of the Matapedia between Camptbellton and Ste. Flavie, realizes that those engines are ' too heavy and that it would be advisable to use lighter engines, as on some occasions those heavy engines have caused the trains to run off the tracks and inflicted losses on the Intercolonial railway. But all that does not affect the condition of the road, and it is as good as it was under the Liberal rule.
I noticed that the hon. member for Pictou charged the Government with being too lax in its repression of the use of liquor. It was stated that 'both an engineer and a . conductor in Nova Scotia had been kept on the service after some rather damaging evidence had been adduced against them. Well, I do not know whether the Intercolonial has two weights and two measures, hut I doubt very much the correctness of the charge, as, in my county, I know of two men who were dismissed for taking a single glass of liquor. I should add that under the circumstances I found the measure rather drastic, and it surprises me that such laxness should have been shown in Nova Scotia, as contended by the hon. member for Piotou. I do not understand why so much harshness should have been shown in the province of Quebec in dealing with two men who acknowledged taking some liquor. The circumstances are well worth stating. At Campbellton, for some time past, the disappearances of large quantities of liquor had been noticed on the Intercolonial, and steps were being taken with a view to finding out those who were guilty of these pilf-erings. A Moncton detective approached these two men, who were working on some engines, with a view to obtaining some information from them, and, to attain his object, he promised them on behalf of the officials that, should they give out information in their possession concerning these

liquor thefts, no action would be taken against them. The promise was made to them that they would be exempt from all punishment, and under such circumstances, as is well known, in any court of justice, the King's evidence goes scot free. Besides, those people not being under oath, were not obliged to state the truth. They admitted, in answer to the detective's questions, that they had taken a glass of liquor, and immediately they were dismissed by the Intercolonial management, in spite of the promise of immunity which had been made to them.
All that leads me to think that the charge (preferred by the hon. member for Pictou is without foundation, unless the Intercolonial has two weights and two measures.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: Is the hon. member
in a position to say where they had secured those two glasses of liquor?


Herménégilde Boulay: They had got the liquor from another man in the employ of the Intercolonial. That was the whole of the evidence adduced at the time. However, that was enough to put the detective on the track of part of the stolen liquor. What I find to blame under the circumstances, is the dismissal of those two men, after they had been promised exemption on behalf of the management of the Intercolonial railway.
Mr. W. F. CARROLL (South Cape Breton)-Mr. Speaker, at this late-hour, and as the question has been fully discussed I do not intend to take up much of the time of the House in a further discussion of the state of affairs on the Intercolonial. There are, however, a few observations which I wish to make. I do not intend to go into the question of the acquisition of branch lines for the Intercolonial, or into the question of building new lines as feeders for that railway, which, incidentally, would open up new country in the Maritime provinces. My views on that question are well known to the House, and particularly as regards the taking over of the St. Peter's road by the Intercolonial, and its extension to -Louisburg, thence to the mining distrcts of Cape Breton county and on to Sydney, opening up new country and giving to the mining people of Cape Breton county a chance to get lower freight and passenger rates than they at present enjoy under the system of railways which we have in that part of the country. I wish also to say a few words on the question of the management of the Intercolonial promoting men fsom the ranks of that rail-

illS
way to its high positions. I also wish to say a word or- two as to the advisability of this or any other Government buying coal for fuel on the Intercolonial from the United States or any other country but Canada, in view of the fact that we have as good a supply of coal for that purpose in the eastern part of this country as can be obtained anywhere in the world. I shall also say a few words as to the introduction of standard rules on the eastern section of the Intercolonial.
With reference to the promotion of men from the ranks of the Intercolonial to the higher positions on that road, I wish to say that neither this Government nor any other Government in this country has given that question the serious consideration which it demands. If I had time, I could show that men who have grown up in the service of the Intercolonial have obtained positions of the very highest character in railways across the line, and in the Canadian Pacific railway, and Grand Trunk in this country. The Premier has [DOT] told us that it is the policy of this Government to promote men from the ranks to fill the high official positions on the Intercolonial.0 I am sorry to tell my right hon. friend, and this House, that the Government is not putting that policy into effect. On the 26th of February last, I asked the following question:
1.	What are the names of the new appointees of the head office staff of the Intercolonial railway, since September 21, 1911?
2.	Who were their predecessors?
3.	What is the salary of the individual new appointees, and what is the salary of their predecessors respectively?
4.	On what railways did the new appointees see service, and what were their respective salaries there?
The answer was that nine changes had been made in the head office staff at Moncton, and the House will be surprised when I tell them that not one of those nine were taken from the ranks of the Intercolonial. Mr. F. P. Gutelius, previous to his appointment, was employed by the Investigating Commission of the Transcontinental railway, and previous to that by the Canadian Pacific railway; C. A. Hayes, who took the place of E. Tiffin, and who previously had a salary of $700 a month, came from the Grand Trunk railway and was promoted to the office at Moncton at a salary of $833.33 a month. H. F. Alward, who had previously received a salary of $3,200 a year, was promoted from another railway and given a position on the Intercolonial at a salary of $333.33 per month;
C. B. Brown, who came from the Canadian Pacific railway to succeed W. B. Mackenzie, and who had previously received a salary of $4,500 a year, was appointed at $500 a month; W. A. Duff came from the Transcontinental railway to take the place of A. E. Killam. He had previously been getting a salary of $250, and receives the same from the Intercolonial; R. G. Gage was appointed at a salary of $200 a month to take the place of E. A. Rolfe. He came from the General Railway. Signal Company of Canada. W. R. Devenish came from the Transcontinental Investigating Commission and receives $200 a month; G. E. Smart came from the Canadian Pacific railway and assumes part of the duties of W. N. Appleton, W. E. Barnes and Mr. Sharp, at a salary of $300 a month. Robt. Klock is the only person of the whole nine who can be said to have had any experience with the Intercolonial. He came fiom the Department of Railways and Canals, and probably had very little experience with the Intercolonial. So while the Prime Minister tells us that it is the policy of the Government to fill these high positions on the Intercolonial with men who have grown up in that service, I want to . point out as evidence of their not putting that policy into effect the return which came down on the 26th of February last, and from which I have just been reading. I take the ground that there are men in the employ of the Intercolonial as well equipped to	fill the places of responsibility on that road, either in connection with the head office * or any other department, as you can find anywhere on the continent of America; and there is no justification in the world for this Government or any other to go outside the Intercolonial to get excellent men to fill those high positions. I am not going further into that question, except to point out that all the chief offices of that railway which have been filled by this Government are occupied by men who had previous experience on other railways than the Intercolonial, and therefore this Government is not making effective the policy which was announced in the House to-night by the Prime Minister. I could go on and .point out further cases of men who have given their life's work to the Intercolonial-for a consideration, to be sure-good men, qualified in every respect, but who were overlooked in favour of men taken from other roads to fill places which they could well have filled.
In connection with the buying of coal

for the Intercolonial; I take the stand that *where it is at all possible to buy coal from the mines in the province of Nova Scotia, or in other parts of Canada, it is not good policy for this Government or any other government to go abroad to buy coal. The
15,000	tons of coal purchased by the general manager of the Intercolonial this year could have been obtained from the collieries of Nova Scotia. In the interview which Mr. Gutelius gave to the press of this country, he showed no justification whatever for going outside the province of Nova Scotia to buy this coal, especially in view of the fact that the 15,000 tons which he imported from the United States cost the Intercolonial about $1.25 a ton more than the Nova Scotia coal would have cost, and this at a time when the mines of Nova Scotia, especially the smaller ones, were working half time, and when some of their employees were absolutely in want. I want to point out another thing in connection with the buying of this coal. This Government has gone far away from the policy that any government in this country should have in asking fourteen or fifteen coal dealers in the United States to tender for the coal supplies of the Intercolonial. If these tenders had been awarded to the Nova Scotia collieries in December, January or February for the supply of coal for the following year the collieries of Nova Scotia would have been in a position to mine the coal which was demanded, because the collieries are not going to bank up their coal if they have no prospect of contracts in the near future. That gave vise to a lot of hardship and inconvenience to the coal miners of Nova Scotia during the past winter. If these contracts had been made it would have given a great deal more employment to the people who make their livelihood by digging coal and other work in oonne'ction with mining. The fact that Mr. Gutelius, bought 15,000 tons of American coal, though there were fifteen collieries in Nova Scotia, never even approached, to ascertain whether they could give the supply that was demanded by the Intercolonial railway was met by the statement that in 1901 coal was bought from the United States by the late Administration. I am not partisan enough not to condemn that act if there was no justification for it. But in 1901 there was a coal strike threatened in Nova Scotia and the managers of the collieries were not in a position to say whether they could give the Intercolonial railway a full supply of |Mr. Carroll.]
coal. Notwithstanding that fact there were only fifty thousand of sixty thousand tons of coal purchased. In 1907 there was no coal purchased from the United States but there was threatened strike then and there was an actual strike in the mines at Springhill which, unfortunately, became widespread in the year 1909. It was for that reason that the Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals at that time was 'seeking to ascertain what prices would be quoted for coal on the other side of the line. But notwithstanding the fact that there was a strike in the Nova Scotia collieries at that time no coal was bought outsile Canada. I take the ground that no tenders should be asked for the supply of coal for the Intercolonial railway from collieries outside of Canada. I take the ground that where it is at all possible to obtain
1 a.m. a supply of coal in Nova Scotia coal should not be imported for the Intercolonial railway.
In reference to the introduction of the standard rules on the Intercolonial railway, it is true that the Board of Railway Commissioners issued an order to the effect that the railways under its jurisdiction should bring into operation the standard railway rules. But that has no bearing whatever upon the management of the Intercolonial railway because the Board of Railway Commissioners has no jurisdiction and does not take jurisdiction over the Government railway. Therefore, the order of the board has nothing to do with the rules of the Intercolonial railway. Some days ago I put a question on the Order Paper to the acting Minister of Railways and Canals as to why these rules were introduced and what their introduction had cost. The answer of the minister is as follows:
Standard rules are all in force on part of the Intercolonial railway and many of them in force on the balance of the Intercolonial railway system.
He also stated that there were as many as fourteen tutors employed by the Government to bring the rules into effect on the Intercolonial and that it had cost the management $5,000, the payment of these tutors, to teach men the railway business who probably knew far more about railway operation than the tutors did. But the most wonderful paTt of the answer that I got from the acting minister was this. I askqd him why these rules were brought into effect and his answer was:	To promote

safety on the Intercolonial railway. When the minister was making his statement in this debate to-night I asked him a question as to the	loss of life and the
number of accidents on the Intercolonial railway as compared with other railways of this country. What was the answer he gave me? Notwithstanding the fact that about four days ago he gave as the reason for making these rules effective that it was to promote safety, he could not answer the question that I put to him because he knew nothing at all about it. Therefore, when he answered the question I put to him as to the reasons for putting these rules into effect he gave the answer he did because he did not have any statistics to show that the standard rules had promoted safety any more than the rules which we have had in force on the Intercolonial for many years. He also gave the answer to my question that these rules had been adopted to promote ' economy and despatch in the operation of the railway,' Complaints have come, to me from railway men operating between Truro and Sydney, which latter place happens to 'be in the constituency I represent, against the introduction and operation of these standard rules. There are very many old employees who have served twenty, thirty, or forty years on the Intercolonial railway, who have been in the service since the inception of the road, who have grown old in the service, and who do not readily understand how to grasp these rules and how to put them into force, they having been brought up from their childhood so to speak, to the rules which ihither-ta have ibeen in effect on the Intercolonial railway. The result is that many of these old employees are unable to make themselves sufficiently acquainted with the standard rules to put them into effect on their trains, and they will, in consequence, be forced to leave the employment of the Intercolonial railway. The acting Minister of Railways and Canals to-night gave force to their contention by saying that there were some of them who were not becoming efficient in the enforcement of these rules. What is he going to do with them? He could bring in men from the Canadian Pacific railway and the Grand Trunk railway who know these rules and who understand how to use them. He would place them in the positions which have been occupied by imen who have grown up in the service of the Intercolonial railway, conductors, etc., and he would place these old conductors perhaps in positions as switchmen, or something like that at very much reduced
salaries. I ask the acting Minister of Railways arid Canals if he thinks that is (a fair proposition to make. I ask him if, in view of the fact that the railway employees in that part of the country have sent him statistics to show that there have been less accidents on the Intercolonial in proportion to the number of passengers carried than on any other railway in Canada, it is necessary to introduce these standard Tules especially on the eastern section of the Intercolonial railway. What were the reasons which actuated the Board of Railway Commissioners in recommending the standard rules? The standard rules were recommended because in Toronto, Montreal and the larger cities of central Canada different railway companies were operating on same lines. In order to promote safety on such lines it was necessary to have uniform railway rules, but no such reason as that obtains in the eastern section of Nova Scotia, and no such reason obtains on any part of the Intercolonial with the exception of the line towards Montreal, and if I am correctly informed the standard rules have been in effect there for some time.
There are very many other matters in connection with the Intercolonial that I would like to discuss, but I will not delay the House at this late hour. The acting Minister of Railways need not come to this House and say that he is not receiving remonstrances from the railway men as well as from the patrons of the Intercolonial . railway in the eastern section of Nova Scotia. If he does not receive'such remonstrances he is the only member of the House who does not, because every member from Nova Scotia and from New Brunswick and from the eastern section of Quebec received day after day a list of grievances from the employees of the railway and from its patrons, which should be looked into by the Government. The acting minister told the hon. member for Westmorland that he brought this resolution to the attention of the House in order to make political capital out of it. Let me assure the hon. gentlemen that if the Liberal members of this House were only looking to make political capital out of the Intercolonial they would never have brought this to the attention of the House at all, because we have it on the responsibility of the editor of a newspaper in Nova Scotia, which is owned by the chief Conservative whip, that if the Government adhere to their present policy of operating the Intercolonial railway they will net have a Conservative candidate elected in any of the counties of Nova
331 n

Scotia through which the Intercolonial railway runs. If we were only looking for political effect, we would leave well enough alone and let the Government hang itself and defeat its own friends in Nova Scotia. But I think any hon. member of this House through whose county the Intercolonial runs would be remiss in his duty if he did not bring to the attention of the House and the country the grievances which exist which demand a speedy remedy. There has never been a time when the Intercolonial was more unpopular, botn with its patrons and employees, than it is to-day, and I trust that the Government will undertake to at once remedy the defects. I hope they will see to it that the Intercolonial is not run on the same basis as a company railroad, because it was never built with that intention. The Intercolonial railway was built as the people's road and has been operated as the people's road, and if ever there was a time when it ceased to be such, the people rose in their wrath and forced the Government of the day to a true understanding of their duties in respect to it. It is with that intention that mv hon. friend has moved the amendment which I cordially support.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I was paired with the hon. Minister of Finance. Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


George Perry Graham: I am paired with the hon. Minister of Railways. Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. BELAND:: I was paired with the hon. junior member for Ottawa. Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am paired with the hon. member for Cumberland. Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. FOWLER:: I am paired with the hon. member for Sunbury and Queens. Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am paired with the hon. member for York, N.B, Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. KNOWLES:: I am paired with the hon. member for Comox-Atlin. Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment,


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am paired with the hon. member for Bonaventure. Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.
Amendment negatived.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Robert Laird Borden: The hour is too late to undertake any business, I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Borden, the House adjourned at 1.32 a.m. Wednesday.	-
Wednesday, May 6, 1914.