1914-02-09

DUTY ON AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:-
Mr. KNOWLES:: The Moosejaw Morning News on the 6th instant contained an editorial statement to the effect that this Government will introduce legislation for the purpose of substantially reducing the duty on agricultural implements. I know I would not be in order if I asked the Prime Minister whether the report were true or not, because this is probably not the time to discuss tariff matters; but I would ask the right hon. gentleman whether there is any foundation for the report or whether there has been any utterance by any member of the Government which would be a justification for the report that this Government will introduce legislation substantially to reduce the duties on agricultural implements.


Right Hon. R. L. BORDEN:: I think I am constrained to answer the hon. gentleman's question in the way that he suggests another question should be answered.


William Erskine Knowles: I just wish to ask what the Prime Minister meant by his answer. Did he mean that there had been no announcement made of the proposed reduction?


Robert Laird Borden: I meant exactly what I
said to my hon. friend. Announcements with regard to the tariff are made in this House in the first instance, and on the proper occasion.



VICTORIA COUNTY ESTIMATES.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: I am advised by a person resident in the county of Victoria, Nova Scotia, where a provincial election is now being held, that is, the election which was referred to last week in connection with the customs boat Alert, that persons supporting the Conservative candidate in that election are publicly saying that the Supplementary Estimates contain specific votes for expenditures in specific localities in the county of Victoria. I desire to ask the Minister of Public Works if there is any authority for such statements or if any person is authorized to make a statement to that effect and if such statements

have any foundation in fact. The minister will remember the occurence of a similar matter about a year ago in connection with a provincial election in the county of Antigonish, and I think the Minister of Public Works stated' in Parliament that he deprecated such conduct on the part of any person. Has anybody been authorized to make a statement of this kind, and have advance copies of the Supplementary Estimates been issued from his department and information contained in them placed in the possession of any person?


Hon. ROBERT ROGERS:: Of course, I am not in any way responsible for any statement that my hon. friend the junior member for Halifax may have heard or any reports he may have seen, and not having information as to the exact report or statement to which he refers it would be impossible for me to give a definite answer as far as that part of my hon. friend's question is concerned. I may say, however, in respect to Supplementary Estimates, that whatever we may have under consideration for works to be carried on in this particular locality, the county of Victoria, I believe, they have not been published nor has any information, so far as I am aware, been given to any individual outside of the department.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Has there been
any definite conclusion about any expenditure ?


Robert Rogers: With respect to definite
conclusions they will only be announced when the Supplementary Estimates are brought down to the House.


Mr. CARROLL:: I have a telegram from the same source which says that the Conservative workers in Victoria county are using lists of Supplementary Estimates purporting to be for public works in the riding. Is there some authority for the use of these Estimates? These people must have some source of information, otherwise they -would not be using these lists.



REPORTS AND PAPERS.

[Stage Direction]
Copy of agreement with the Royal Steam Packet Company for the Canada West Indies steamship service.-Mr. Foster.
Report of the Secretary of Stt te for the year ended March 31, 1913.-Mr. Coderre.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. EMMERSON:: 1.	Was a memorandum or agreement entered into within the past six months between the Canadian Government railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, covering the transportation of freight and passengers between Halifax and St. John over the Intercolonial railway, in connection with the Canadian Pacific and Allen line of steamships, carrying British mails, making Halifax the terminal port for such ships? If so, what is the date of its execution, what date did it bear, by whom was it signed, when did it take effect, and for how long a period?
2.	Was the said agreement, if any, ratified and approved by an Order in Council of His Excellency the Governor in Council? If so, what was the date of such Order in Council, and when was it passed and assented to by His Excellency the Governor General?
3.	Did the right hon. Prime Minister, or any other member or members of the Government have a conference or interview with, or receive a delegation from the city of St. John, representing the Board of Trade or the city of St. John, on the subject-matter of said agreement or the draft thereof? If so, what was the date or dates of the holding of said interviews or conference, or of the hearing of said delegation by the Government, or by any member or members thereof?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	Yes. The date of its execution is September 30, 1913. It is signed by G. M. Bosworth, for the Canadian Pacific railway, and F. P. Gutelius, for the Canadian Government railways. It is effective from November 15, 1913, to May 15, 1914.
2.	No.
3.	The department has no information.


Robert Laird Borden: Replying to the third
part of the question of my hon. friend from Westmorland, as to which the Department of Railways and Canals has no information, I may isay that the interview to which reference is made took place, as I am informed-and I can personally verify it-on the 8th of October.


GEORGIAN BAY CANAL.
Mr. DEVLIN:: 1.	Is the Government aware that in 1905 a Royal Commission on Transportation was appointed ?
2.	Is the Government aware that said commission reported in favour of the construction of the Ottawa and Georgian Bay canal, if feasible from an engineering point of view?
3.	Is the Government aware that subsequently in 1908 the Department of Public Works reported that the work was feasible, and gave a detailed estimate of the cost after careful and extensive surveys being made?
4.	What is the cause of the delay in the building of said canal?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No; Commission made no recommendation.
3.	Chief Engineer E. D. Lafleur, Engineer-in-charge A. St. Laurent, District Engineer *Coutlee, and District Engineer Chapleau, made, in 1908, an estimate as to probable cost of the Georgian Bay canal, but no further action was taken by the Department of Public Works or by the late Government.
4.	Matter under consideration.


QUEBEC SEIGNIORIES.
Mr. BOYER:: 1.	How many seigniories are there in the province of Quebec?
2.	What are their names and the amount paid to each of them as an indemnity by the Government, after the adoption of the law of 1854?
3.	What is the value of each of the seigniories on which the consolidated funds were based?


Robert Laird Borden: In the absence of the
Minister of Justice, I am not aware whether any information on such a subject is available to the Government. Can my right hon. friend say with regard to the seigniories in the province of Quebec?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: I may uay
that I discussed that with my hon. friend from Vaudreui.1 (Mr. Boyer), and I do not think the department has any information on this subject.


Robert Laird Borden: I shall bring the question to the attention of the Minister of Justice.


APPOINTMENT OP MESSENGERS.
Mr. KYTE:: 1.	How many appointments were made to the messenger staff of the House of Commons since the present Government took office?
2.	What is the number from each province?


Mr. BORDEN:: 1.	One permanent messenger and thirty -four sessional messengers.
2.	Twenty-five from the province of Ontario; nine from the province of Quebec, and one from Prince Edward Island.


HULL CUSTOMS OFFICE.
Mr. DEVLIN:: 1.	How long has the customs office at Hull been opened?
2.	What have been the receipts since the opening of the said office?
3.	Is it the intention of the Government to erect in the city of Hull a building for customs?


Mr. J. D. REID:: 1.	(Since 1st of April, 1911.
2.	$107,635.

3.	The Department of Customs has no information.


HUDSON BAY TERMINALS.
Mr. DOUGLAS:: 1.	On which side of the Saskatchewan river at Le Pas are the terminals and yards of the
Hudson Bay railway to be placed?


Mr. COCHRANE:: It has been decided
to place the terminals and yards of the Hudson Bay railway on the southerly side of the Saskatchewan river at Le Pas.


TECHNICAL EDUCATION COMMISSION.
*Mr. WILCOX:: 1.	What is the total cost of the Royal Commission on Industrial Training and Technical Education?
2.	How many were on the commission?


Mr. CROTHERS:: 1.	To January 1, 1914, $102,172.36.
2.	Nine. .


GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS-BOX AND FLAT CARS.
Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: What is the capacity of the box and flat cars of the Intercolonial railway, and what is the capacity of the box and flat cars of the Prince Edward Island railway?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	Intercolonial railway box cars, capacity : 1,050 40-ton cars; 6,556 30-ton cars; 837 20-ton cars. Flat cars, capacity: 793 40-ton cars; 1,040 30-ton cars; 1,065 20-ton cars; 207 15-ton cars; 63 10-ton cars.
Prince Edward Island railway box cars, capacity: 186 15-ton cars; 118 12i-ton cars; 7 10-ton cars.
Flat cars, capacity: 129 15-ton cars; 9 12J-ton cars; 16 10-ton cars.


SACKVILLE PUBLIC WHARF.
Mr. EMMERSON:: 1.	When was the new public wharf at Sack-ville, N.B., completed by the contractor, and when was it accepted and taken over by the Government through the Public Works, or other department of the Government?
2.	Has it been connected with the Intercolonial railway at Sackville station by means of a spur line? If not, why not?
3.	Is it the intention of the Intercolonial railway department or of the Government to so connect it, to accommodate the railway, shipping and business interests? If not, why not?
4.	What is the estimated cost of making such connection, and has a survey been made?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	Completed in September and accepted by the Department of Public Works, on the 14th October, 1912.
2.	No. It is not considered necessary, the

Intercolonial railway having connection with the old wharf at Sackville, N.B.
3.	It has not yet been decided to make this connection.
4.	A survey has been made showing two
locations:	Route A, estimated cost, $10,-
949; route B, estimated cost, $12,611.20.


THREE RIVERS PUBLIC BUILDINGS.
*Mr. BUREAU:: 1.	When were the tenders opened for the public buildings at Three Rivers, Quebec?
2.	How many persons tendered and what are their names?
3.	What is the amount of each tender and the amount of the cheque accompanying each tender?
4.	(a) Who was the successful tenderer, and (h) when was the contract signed for the construction of the building?
5.	If no contract has been awarded, what is the reason of the delay?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1. 10th November, 1913.
2 and 3.- F. A. Verrette	1	Tender.	Security.Geo. McLeod	
Wm. Ferron	
R. Ferron	. $163,495	$18,000 00J. J. Collins	
C. O. Baptist	194,900	19,500 00C. E. Deakin	198,000	21,000 00Jos. Bourque	215,000	21,500 00Heon, Roy & McLeod..	224,800	22,480 00John Quinlan	235,000	23,500 00T. Halley	251,956	25,195 604.	(a) F. A. Verrette, Geo. McLeod, Wm. Ferron and R. Ferron; (b) contract now being prepared for signature.5.	Answered as above.


HUMBOLDT HOMESTEAD INSPECTOR.
Mr. NEELY:: 1.	Is one Arthur Smythe still acting as homestead inspector at Humboldt, Saskatchewan?
2.	If so, what salary does he receive?


Mr. ROCHE:: 
Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	No.
2.	Not necesary.
3.	Political partisanship.
4.	The Minister of the Interior.


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Mr. E. LAPOINTE:: 1.	When will that section of the National Transcontinental railway extending from the Quebec bridge to mile 203, be taken over from the contractors?
2.	Is the section to be operated by the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, or by the Government?
3.	When will it be possible to get through rd.t6S ^
4.	Have there been any negotiations relative to through rates?
5.	To whom must applications be made to secure freight rates?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	As soon as posible after completion by [DOT] the contractor, which is expected to be some time next summer.
2.	When completed, will be operated by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company.
3.	As soon as the line is taken over by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company.
4.	No.
5.	Local freight rates may now be obtained from the Intercolonial Railway management from the Quebec and New Brunswick boundary west to St. Eleuthere, and from contractors M. P. and J. T. Davis from St. Eleuthere to St. Jean Chry-sostome (near Levis).


WOODSTOCK COAL SUPPLIES.
Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	How many tons of coal were furnished the Dominion building in Woodstock, N.B., in each of the years ending March 31, 1910, 1911, 1912 and 1913, and the amount furnished during the present financial year up to this date?
2.	Who furnished the coal in each of the above years and the price paid per ton?
3.	Were public tenders called for in each of said years? If not, what method was adopted?


Robert Rogers: 1 and 2.
1909-	10-W. F. Dibblee & Son, 35.79 tons at $8, $286.32.
1910-	11-W. F. Dibblee & Son, 2 tons at $9, $18; 5.14 tons at $8.50, $43.69; 30.712 tons at $8, $245.69; total, $307.38.
1911- 12-H. E. Burtt, 35 tons at $8, $280.
1912- 13-H. E. Burtt, 35 tons at $9, $315.
1913-	14-W. F. Dibblee & Son, 1,800 lb. at $9.40, $8.46; 35.100 tons at $9.15, $320.71; total, $329.17.
3.	Yes. In 1910 and 1913, small lots were purchased in addition to quantity supplied under contract.


Mr. CAR YELL:: 1.	How many tons of coal were furnished the armoury in Woodstock, N.B., in each of the years ending March 31, 1910, 1911, 1912 and 1913, and the amount furnished during the present financial year up to date?
2.	Who furnished the coal in each of the above years and the prices paid per ton?
3.	Were public tenders called for in each of said years? If not, what method was adopted?
Mr. S. HUGHESi
1.	For the year ending Tons. Lbs.
March 31,	1910	
50"	31,	1911	
48	880"	31,	1912	
72	1,477"	31,	1913	
66	1,975January 1,	1914	
51	1,740
2.
Per ton.
1909-10-W. F. Dibblee & Son	 $8 20
, 1910-11-	"	"	
8	201911-	12-	"	"	
8	201912-	13-	"	"	
8	451913-	14-	*'	[DOT][DOT]	
8	603.	Tenders were invited by newspaper advertisement in eabh of these years.


HOMESTEAD ENTRIES.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. NEELY.:
1.	What homestead entries, exclusive of preemption and purchased homestead entries, were granted in 1911, 1912 and 1913, respectively?
2.	What number of patents for original homestead entries were granted in the same years respectively?
3.	What was the number of homestead inspectors employed by the department on October 1, 1911, and what number are now employed ?
4.	How many employees were occupied in the collective Dominion Land offices on October 1, 1911?
5.	What number are similarly employed now?
Mr. ROCHE:: So far as the Lands Patents Branch is concerned:
1.	1911, 38,909; 1912, 35,538; 1913, 31,499.
2.	1911, 16,479; 1912, 21,211; 1913, 24,999.
3.	Forty, on the 1st October, 1911; 60 at present.
4.	Three hundred and thirty-two, including 83 sub-agents.
5.	Three hundred and seventy-seven, including 87 sub-agents.


EXPENSES OF CONFERENCES.
Mr. STEWART:: 1.	Who accompanied the Hon. Sir Frederick Borden to England in connection with the Conferences of 1907, 1909, and 1911?
2.	How many stenographers accompanied or were employed by him or his staff on each occasion, and at what cost?
3.	How many servants or valets were in or were engaged for the party on each occasion?

4.	How many ladies, including wives, daughters or other persons, accompanied the party on each occasion?
5.	Were the expenses of the said ladies, or any portion thereof, paid by the Government of Canada, directly or indirectly?
6.	What was the total cost to Canada for the whole party on each occasion?
7.	What sums or contributions were paid by the Government of Great Britain and Ireland towards the expenses of the party on each trip?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:
1.	Conference of 1907-Sir Frederick Borden was accompanied by his private secretary and Major-General Lake.
Conference of 1909-Sir Frederick Borden was accompanied by his private secretary, Major-General Lake and General Otter.
Conference of 1911-Sir Frederick Borden was accompanied by his private secretary, Major-General McKenzie and Colonel Sam. Hughes.
2.	No stenographers accompanied the party. Stenographers were employed whenever necessary.
3.	Valets for the party were included in the hotel expenses paid by the Imperial Government.
4.	Conference of 1907, two; conference of 1909, three; conference of 1911, three. * 1 2 3 * 5
6.	Conference of 1907, cost of whole party, $4,503.64; conference of 1909, cost of whole party, $5,005.16; conference of 1911, cost of whole party, 5,687.85.
7.	Conference of 1907-The hotel expenses of Sir Frederick Borden, Miss Borden and private secretary were paid by the Imperial Government. A motor car was placed at the disposal of Sir Frederick Borden by the Imperial Government.
Conference of 1911-The hotel expenses of Sir Frederick Borden, Lady Borden- and private secretary were paid by the Imperial Government. A motor car was placed at the disposal of Sir Frederick Borden by the Imperial Government.


YARMOUTH RURAL MAIL.
Mr. LAW:: 1.	How many rural mail delivery routes have
been established in the county of Yarmouth N.S.?	[DOT]
2.	From what post offices do these routes originate?
3.	How many post offices, if any, have been closed owing to the establishment of the said rural mail routes?
. 4. What are the names of said offices ?
5.	Are there any applications for additional routes in Yarmouth county? If so, what are they?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Five.

2.	Carleton (this route being partly in Digby county and partly in Yarmouth county); South Ohio, 2 routes; Yarmouth, 2 routes.
3.	None.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	Yes. Pleasant Valley Corner and South Deerfield, Tusket via Tusket Falls, Ray-nard's Bridge and Gavelton, Lake Annis and Cleland's Comer, Arcadia and vicinity.


EXPERT IN CURING AND HANDLING FISH.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Who is the expert in the curing and
handling of fish in employ of the Marine and Fisheries Department?	.
2.	What salary does he receive?
3.	When was he appointed to this position, and upon whose recommendation?
4.	What are his duties?
5.	Has he made any official report in writing to the department?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	John J. Cowie.
2.	$2,300.
3.	29th May, 1909; on the recommendation of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
4.	Up to the present time he has been engaged in improving the system of gathering and compiling fishery statistics.
5.	His -work is performed directly under the eye of the department and no report is needed.


FENIAN RAID BOUNTY.
Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	Does the Fenian Raid Volunteer Bounty Act provide for the volunteers who were enlisted to repel the Fenian raid in Manitoba in 1871?
2.	If so, have any payments been made to volunteers claiming under that service?
3.	If not, what is the reason?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:
1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	Answered by No. 1.


PENITENTIARIES INQUIRY.
Mr. C. A. WILSON:: 1.	Has the Government instructed any person or persons to investigate in connection with the administration of the penitentiaries in Canada?
2.	If so, who are the persons so instructed?
3.	By whom and how has the appointment been made, and what are the salaries paid?
4.	Has such investigation been held? If so, of what penitentiary or penitentiaries?
5.	What report, if any, has been made to the Government?


Mr. DOHERTY:: 
ST. PETERS INDIAN RESERVE.
Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	How many parcels of land were sold on the St. Peter's Indian Reserve?
2.	How many patents have been Issued In respect to such parcels?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	240. 2. 3.


RICHMOND COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS.
Mr. KYTE:: 1.	How much money has been expended on public works in the county of Richmond, N. S., since October 11, 1911?
2.	Of the money so expended, how much of it was provided in the Estimates of 1911-12?
3.	What amount was expended on the works for which money was not included in Estimates of 1911-12?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	$81,129.03.
2.	Black Point breakwater, provided for, $5,000; L'Ardoise breakwater, provided for, $4,300; Little Anse breakwater, provided for, $10,000.
3.	Arichat public building, $1,348.21; Ariehat wharf, $993.49; Babin's Cove, $191.65; Charles Forest Cove, $84.75; D'Escousse (from general appropriations, dredging), $7,676.88; Fourchu, $117.12;

Little Harbour (Lower L'Ardoise), $2,262.90; Louisdale, $3.26; Petit de Grat (from general appropriations, dredging), $19,633.81; Port Richmond, $94.59; River Bourgeois (from general appropriations, dredging), $18,737.41; West Ariohat, $2,708.78. And total expenditures at: Black Point, $4,996.44; L'Ardoise, $2,099.94; Little Anse, $20,177.80. Total, $81,129.03.


EUROPEAN IMMIGRATION.
Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	Has the Government granted, or promised to grant a tract of land in Alberta for a scheme of European immigration?
2.	If so, what townships are being granted?
3.	What terms and conditions are they being granted ?
4.	What is the name of the organization with which the Government is dealing?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	No.
2,	3 and 4. Answered by No. 1.


PICTOU-MAIL CARRIER.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Who is the mail carrier between Pictou and Saltsprings, county of Pictou?
2.	How long has the present carrier been performing this service?
3.	How much is he being paid?
4.	Is he performing the service under any contract?
5.	Were tenders called for the service?
6.	If so, who were the tenderers, and the amount of each tender?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	J. A. Meagher.
2.	Since May 1, 1913.
3.	$790 per annum.
4.	In view of a possible extens'on of the rural mail delivery in the district supplied by this route, it has not been considered advisable to make a regular contract. The present contractor is employed temporarily pending the rearrangement which will be necessary should the department decide to establish rural delivery.
5 and 6. Answered by No. 4.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY PROVIDENT FUND.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Was William Harris, freight handler at Pictou, placed under the provisions of the Provident Fund of the Intercolonial railway?
2.	If so, on what date and what is the amount of his pension?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) December 1,	1912;	(b) $20 per
month.
AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT INDUSTRY. Mr. NEELY:
1.	What number of agricultural implement factories were in operation in Canada in the year 1911?
2.	What amount of capital was there invested in these industries?


Mr. FOSTER:: 1.	77.
2.	$45,232,098.


CALGARY STORAGE ELEVATOR.
Mr. BUCHANAN:: Is it the intention of the Government to establish other than the internal storage ele-tor at Calgary, province of Alberta? If so, where?


Mr. FOSTER:: Not at present.
ST. JOSEPH DE SOREL POST OFFICE. Mr. CARDIN:
1.	Has the Government been informed that the postmaster of St, Joseph de Sorel, Mr. Champagne, is reported to have changed the location of the post office at that place?
2.	Was that postmaster aumorized to make such a change?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Postmaster has made request to remove post office to a new store purchased by him.
2.	Matter receiving consideration.


ANTIGONISH MAID SERVICE.
Mr. W. CHISHOLM:: 1.	Has the Post Office Department received any petition or petitions for a daily mail between Lower South River and South Side. Antigonish harbour?
2.	If so, what action has the department taken thereon?
3.	Is it the intention of the department to establish such daily service? If so, when?


Mr. PELLETIER:: Applications have
been made for a rearrangement and improvement of the mail service in this district, but so far the post office inspector has not been able to recommend an arrangement which would be suitable to all the people concerned. The matter is still under inquiry.


VANCOUVER ISLAND STRIKE.
Mr. YERVILLE:: 1.	What date was the report of Commissioner Price on the British Columbia trouble given to the department or the Government?
2.	When was it ordered printed?
3.	When was it made public?


Mr. CROTHERS:: 1. A synopsis of the report, with recommendations in full, was received on August 14, 1913,, and the complete report was received August 21, 1913.

2.	The departmental requisition for printing was sent to the Printing Bureau, October 9, 1913.
3.	Distribution to the public began November 17, 1913.


ANTIGONISH IMMIGRATION AGENT.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. WM. CHISHOLM:
1.	Was Colin P. McKinnon, of Taylor's Road, Antigonish county, in tlie employ of the Department of the Interior, as special immigration agent or officer, or in any other capacity, during any part of last year?
2.	If so, when was he appointed, and when did he cease to he such agent'or officer?
3	.Why were his services dispensed with?
4.	What remuneration was he paid?
5.	What was the total amount he received for services, including expenses?
Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	Yes, as special Immigration Agent to Great Britain.
2.	January 30, 1913; May 10, 1913.
3.	Appointment was for three months only.
4.	$100 per month and actual travelling expenses.
5.	$729.48.


ROSTHERN CUSTOMS COLLECTOR.
Mr. McCRANEY:: 1.	On what grounds was Tobias Unruh dismissed from the position of sub-land agent and collector of customs at Rosthern, Saskatchewan?
2.	By whom was Mr. Unruh's dismissal recommended?


Mr. J. D. REID:: 1.	Tobias Unruh was dismissed from the position of sub-collector of customs at Rosthern, Saskatchewan, because he had never been permanently appointed to the position in which he was temporarily acting from August 4, 1911, and because information was received from Donald Maclean, candidate in the last Dominion election, that he had taken an active part in the last provincial and Dominion elections.
2.	Answered by 1.


HEATHERTON, INDIAN RESERVE.
Mr. W. CHISHOLM:: 1.	When did, or does, the lease for the so-called Indian gardens in the Indian reservation at Heatherton, N.S., expire?
2.	Has any application been made for a renewal of said lease?
3.	Is it the intention of the department to renew said lease?
4.	If not, will the Indian gardens be let by tender?
5.	When will tenders be invited?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	First of June, 1914.
2.	No.
3.	Not yet considered.
4.	Do.
5.	Do.


ROSTHERN LANDS AGENT.
Mr. McCRANEY:: Who is sub agent of Dominion lands at Rosthern, Saskatchewan, and what is his salary?


William Roche: E. St. G. Hodgson; $600 per annum.


ROSTHERN CUSTOMS COLLECTOR.
Mr. McCRANEY:: 1. Who is collector of customs at Rosthern, Saskatchewan, and what is his salary?


Mr. J. D. REID:: Mr. E. St. George Hodgson is the subcollector of customs at Rosthern, Saskatchewan. His salary is $600 per annum.


TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION.
*Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Has any change been made in the character of the structure on the National Transcontinental Railway over the Little Mistongo, river ai station, 1040, east of Cochrane?
2.	If so, what is the character of the change?
3.	Who is responsible for the change?
4.	Was the change made necessary by reason of previous defective work?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Substituting a 100 foot steel girder span for a six-foot arch destroyed by clay slides.
3.	The chief engineer.
4.	No.


NORTH SHORE-HUBBARD MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	Who is the present mail contractor for the mail route between North Shore and Hubbard's railway station, Halifax county, N.S.?
2.	When was the same awarded?
3.	Were tenders invited for the said service? If so, in what manner?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	L. W. Dauphinee.
2.	On 7th June, 1913; the contract commenced 1st July, 1913.
3.	Mr. Dauphinee offered to perform the service at a price lower than any previous contract, and as the amount was under $200 per annum, the department did not consider it necessary to invite tenders.


RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS AND SUPERANNUATION.
William Ashbury Buchanan: Is It the intention of the Minister of Railways and Canals, when consolidating the Railway Act, to introduce into the said Act a section authorizing the Governor in Council to provide superannuation allowances for retiring members of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada?


Francis Cochrane: No.


THE IRRIGATION ACT.
William Ashbury Buchanan: Is it the intention of the Government to amend the Irrigation Act so as to provide for the putting in of a system of underdrainage by settlers of irrigable land?


William Roche: The question is under consideration.


RANCHING AND GRAZING INVESTIGATION COMMISSION.
Mr. BUCHANAN:: 1.	What recommendation of the Ranching and Grazing Investigation Commission is it the intention of the Department of the Interior to adopt?
2.	If no decision has yet been reached, when can a decision be expected, and will it be submitted to Parliament?


Mr. ROCHE :: 1.	Matter now under consideration.
2.	In near future. Yes.


OTTAWA RIVER LIGHTKEEPERS.
Mr. BOYER:: 1.	Who were the lightkeepers on the Ottawa river in 1908, at Rigaud, St. Placide, Pte. aux Anglais, Cadieux island, Graham, Vaudreuil, Ste. Anne de Bellevue and lie Perrot?
2.	What was the salary of each of them?
3.	Who are the present keepers and what is the salary of each?


Mr. HAZEN:: 
RIGAUD AND VAUDREUIL WHARFS.
Mr. BOYER:: 1.	"What revenue has been derived from Rigaud and Vaudreuil wharf for the years 1908-09, and 1910-11?
2.	What agreement has been arrived at between the Government and the parties entrusted with the care of these wharfs?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Rigaud, collections 1908-9,	$68.83;
1910-11,	$105.39. Vaudreuil, collections
1908-9, nil; 1910-11, $48.07.
Wharf at Vaudreuil was only transferred in 1910 to the Marine and Fisheries Department.
2.	The remuneration allowed the wharfinger at Vaudreuil is 50 per cent of the collections.
The remuneration allowed the wharfinger at Rigaud is 50 per cent of the collections.


UNOPPOSED AND UNDISCUSSED MOTIONS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Law.-For a return showing the amount expended by the Government on wharfs, breakwaters, public works and dredging in the county of Yarmouth, since October, 11, 1311, and to whom the amounts so expended were paid.
Mr. Verville.-For a return showing the num-her of woollen industries which are being operated in the country; where they are situated, in which province, and in what city, town, or vilage; the number of hands employed in each, and the output of each during the year 1913.
Mr. Sutherland.-For a return showing the number of farm labourers and domestic servants respectively, placed by the Government employment agents during the years 1912 and 1913 ; also the counties where placed and the amount of bonus paid.
Mr. Sutherland.-For a copy of all reports made by the Inspectors of Agents for placing farm labourers and domestic servants in Canada during the calendar years 1912 and 1913?
Mr. Graham.-For a copy of all correspondence and documents in reference to the matter submitted to Sir William Whyte by the Government, the Transcontinental Commission or the commission appointed to investigate the construction of the National Transcontinental railway, between the Government or any member or official thereof, and any official of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company; and also of all correspondence between any member or official of either the above named commissions and the Justice Department, concerning the said matter.

Mr. Emmerson.-For a copy of all papers, letters or other correspondence, instructions, reports, valuations, appointment of valuators, or appraisers, appraisements, abstracts of titles, deeds or other conveyances, in any department of the Government or in the railway office at Moncton, relating to, or in any manner connected with, the purchase of the Intercolonial railway of a property in Moncton, N.B., at the corner of Archibald and Main streets in said city, formerly owned in his lifetime by the late P. S. Archibald, C.E., and now occupied by the General Superintendent of the Intercolonial railway, F. P. Brady, as a residence; together with a copy of all bills, accounts and statement of expenditures for repairs made on the buildings of said property; and also of all accounts, commissions and bills paid to solicitors, attorneys or other agents, for searches, conveyances, and a statement of all moneys paid for charges and expenses in connection with such purchase or the procuring of a deed of said property.
Mr. Emmerson.-For a copy of all letters, telegrams, petitions, reports, correspondence and other documents on file in any department of the Government, or in the possession of any member of the Government, relating to, or in any manner connected with, the proposal to have a spur line or siding to connect the new public wharf at Sackville, N.B., with the Intercolonial railway at that place, and of all letters, telegrams and other correspondence passed between any person or persons and any member of the Government.
Mr. Neely.-For a return showing the names, date of appointment, length of service, remuneration and office held by each of all the employees of the Department of the Interior in the outside service since January 1, 1912, to December 31, 1913, not given in the Civil Service list of 1912 or 1913.
Mr. Neely.-For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents relating to the removal of Jas. T. Richardson as sub-collector of customs at Humboldt, Saskatchewan, and the appointment of a successor.
Mr. Neely.-For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents relating to the removal of T. J. Oliver, as Dominion lands agent at Humboldt, Saskatchewan, his appointment to his present position, and the appointment of his successor at Humboldt.
Mr. Neely.

For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, letters of instruction, or other documents relating to the removal of W. S. McKechnie, as Dominion lands agent at Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, and the appointment of his successor.
Mr. Seguin.-For a copy of all reports, memoranda, correspondence and documents of every nature, relating to the construction of a wharf in the town of L'Assomption, and of all petitions and correspondence in favour or against such construction to date, and the reasons why the construction of such wharf, authorized in the estimates of 1911-1912, has not been proceeded with.
Mr. Seguin.-For a copy of all correspondence, reports, petitions and documents exchanged by and with the Department of Public Works since the 1st of September, 1911, to date, with the reasons why the construction of the public building, authorized in the town of St. Din Des Daurentides, county of D'Assomption, as per the Estimates of 1911-1912, has not been proceeded with.
Mr. Kyte.-For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, petitions and memorials received by the Right Honourable R. L. Borden, Premier of Canada, or any other minister of the Crown since the first day of October, 1911, from J. A. Gillies, Esq., Sydney, N.S., or any resident of the county of Richmond, N.S., relative to expenditure of public money on public works in the said county of Richmond.
Mr. Kyte.-For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, petitions and memorials received by the Right Honourable R. L. Borden, Premier of Canada, or the Minister of Railways and Canals, from J. A. Gillies Esq., Sydney, N.S., or from any resident of the county of Richmond, N.S., relative to the purchasing of the Cape Breton railway by the Government and the building of a line of railway from St. Peter's to Sydney and Douisburg, and of the replies thereto.
Mr. Neely.-For a copy of all letters, papers, homestead inspector's reports, declarations and of all other documents connected in any way with the entry and concellation proceedings against the homestead entry of James Bruce for the south east quarter section 36, in township 49, range 27, west second Meridian.
Mr. Emmerson.-For a return showing the proportion of comparative through passenger traffic from Montreal to Maritime eastern points, and from intermediate points eastward, and from eastern points westward to Montreal, and for points west of Montreal, by the Intercolonial and Canadian Pacific railways respectively, during the years 1911, 1912 and 1913 respectively; and also for a copy of all returns, reports, tables, statements, correspondence or other documents on file in the Department of Railways and Canals, or in the railway office at Moncton, showing such comparative traffic or any division thereof, taken by said railways respectively during the periods named, or during any other period within the last seven years, during which the so-called Maritime Express, the so-called Ocean Dimited, and the Atlantic Express, or the so-called Canadian Pacific Express, were all being operated and run over the respective lines of railway; and also showing what proportion of such traffic was being carried by each of said trains respectively?
Mr. Graham.-For. a copy of all advertisements, tenders, contracts and correspondence in conection with the proposed New Bondon branch of the Prince Edward Island railway.
Mr. A. K. Maclean.-For a copy of all advertisements, tenders, contracts, documents, letters and correspondence relating to the supply of coal for the Government public buildings at Lunenburg, N.S.
Mr. A. K. Maclean.-For a copy of all documents, Orders in Council, correspondence, telegrams, tenders, accounts, vouchers, etc., in connection with the construction of a bridge or work between the mainland and an island known as Boutilier's island, at South West Cove, Lunenburg county, N.S.
Mr. A. K. Maclean.-For a copy of all peti-' tions, memorials, letters, telegrams, papers and documents received by any department of the Government of Canada, or any minister of the Crown from any company, corporation, person or persons, requesting the removal of any customs duties upon wheat or wheat products entering Canada, or protesting against any diminution or removal of such customs duties and any replies thereto.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. A K. Maclean.-For a copy of all tenders, contracts, pay rolls, vouchers, letters, correspondence, papers and documents relating to the following public works recently performed in Shelburne county, N.S., viz.: breakwater and wharf at Froude's Point; breakwater at Jordan Bast; wharf at Shelburne, wharf at Port Clyde; breakwater at Blanche Point; wharf at Centreville ; wharf at West Head; crib-work, etc., at Matthew's lake, and clearing channel at Round bay.
Mr. A. K. Maclean.-For a copy of all accounts, bills, receipts and vouchers in connection with the services of N. W. White, during 1912 and 1913. as commissioner to inquire into Indian lands in the province of British Columbia.	,	.
Mr. A. K. Maclean.-For a return showing the amounts in detail paid to Ward Fisher, of Shelburne, N.S., fishery inspector, for the years 1912 and 1913 for salary, office expenses, travelling expenses, and all other expenses.
Mr. A. K. Maclean.-For a return showing the number and particulars of commissions appointed or issued under the Inquiries Act since Otcober 1, 1911, the purpose or object thereof, the name of the commissioner or commissioners, and the cost of each to the present time.
Mr. A. K. Maclean.-For a copy of all papers, documents, correspondence, etc., since October 1, 1911, relating to the appointment of a postmaster at Upper Ohio, Shelburne county, N.S.
Mr. Robb.-For a copy of all correspondence, including letters, telegrams, and accounts, regarding the purchase during year 1913, of all horses, cattle, sheep and swine for the Department of Agriculture in the provinces of Quebec for experimental farms, or for the improvement of stock, together with a return showing the commission and fees paid, and to whom paid, for and on account of said purchase.
Mr. A. W. Chisholm.-For a return showing: 1. The names and post office addresses of all Fenian raid veterans in Inverness county who have applied for bounty under the Fenian Raid Volunteer Bounty Act, with dates of such applications.
2.	The names and post office addresses of all widows and heirs in Inverness county, N.S., who have applied for bounty under said Act, with dates of such applications.
3.	The names and post office addresses of such veterans' widows and heirs in Inverness county, N.S., who have been paid said bounty, with dates of such payments.
4.	The names and post office addresses of all widows and heirs of veterans in the county of Inverness, N.S., whose applications have been rejected or postponed by the Department of Militia and Defence, with reasons for such rejection or postponement.
Mr. Truax.-For a copy of all correspondence and other documents in reference to the erection of a customs building in the village of Chesley, riding of South Bruce.
Mr. Macdonald.-For a return showing the names and addresses of all applicants resident in the county of Pictou, N.S., for the Fenian raid bounty, designating those who have already received the same, the applications refused, with the cause assigned, and the applications yet to be dealt with; also a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other communications had by the department with Mr. C. E. Tanner, of Pictou, N.S., in reference to same.

Mr. Sinclair.-For a return showing the number of criminals released on parole from the various penitentiaries of the Dominion for the year ending March 31, '1913; the offence for which each prisoner so released was convicted, and showing at the same time whether such such offence was a first, second, or subsequent offence.
Sir Wilfrid Daurier.-For a copy of all arrangements made between the Government and the various provinces under the Agricultural Instruction Act.
Sir Wilfrid Daurier.-For a copy of all petitions from British Columbia sealers for compensation for claims resulting from the cessation of Pelagic sealing, and of all correspondence with regard to the same.
Sir Wilfrid Daurier.-For a copy of the Order in Council appointing a commission to investigate the cost of living.
Sir Wilfrid Daurier.-For a copy of all Orders in Council since the 1st of June last in any way altering the rates of duties existing under the Customs Act.
Sir Wilfrid Daurier.-For a copy of all correspondence since the 1st of January last with regard to the calling of an Imperial Conference on the subject of naval defence.
Sir Wilfrid Daurier.-For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, and other documents relative to the report and recommendations of the board appointed under the Combines Investigation Act to investigate the methods adopted by the United Shoe Machinery Company.
Sir Wilfrid Daurier.-For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents relating to industrial disputes during the year 1913 between the operators and employees of any of the companies operating coal mines on Vancouver island, and disturbances arising out of the same; and of any correspondence, either before or since the year 1913 with respect to any of the said disputes. And in particular of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, and other documents to or from the Prime Minister, the Honourable the Minister of Dabour or any of the officers of the Department of Dabour, respecting attempts at conciliation in connection with these disputes, and to or from the Honourable the Minister of Militia, or any officers of the Department of Militia and the Honourable the Minister of Justice, or any officers of the Department of Justice, respecting the calling out and services of the militia in connection with said disputes; and a statement of the arrests made and of convictions, if any, for infringement of the laws. Also a copy of the evidence taken and reports of investigations made by the Honourable the Minister of Dabour, Mr. Samuel Price, Commissioner appointed by the Department of Dabour, and of the Deputy Minister of Dabour; together with a detailed statement of the expenses of all such investigations and expenses otherwise incurred by any of the departments of the Government in consequence of said disputes or difficulties arising out of same.
Mr. Wm. Chisholm.-For a copy of the advertisement for tenders, and of the tenders received last year for the carrying of the mails between Merigomish and Malignant cove, and of all letters, telegrams, and correspondence and documents in any way relating thereto.
Mr. Wm. Chisholm.-For a copy of the contract entered into last year for the carrying of the mails between North Dochaber and College-ville, and of all letters, telegrams, and corre-

spondence referring to said service and the awarding of said contract.
Mr. Law.-For a return showing the names and post office addresses of all parties from the county of Yarmouth, N.S., who have applied to the Department of Militia and Defence for a bounty under the Fenian Raid Volunteer Act, Indicating the date on which each application was received, the names and addresses of the parties to whom such bounty has been paid; and also the names and addresses of the parties to whom the bounty has not been paid, with the reason, if any, for non-payment thereof.
Mr. Wm. Chisholm.-For a copy of the advertisement for tenders, and of the tenders received, and of the contract awarded last year, for the carrying of the mails between Antigonish and Livingston's cove, and of all letters, telegrams, correspondence and documents in any way relating thereto.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier.-For a copy of all protests, if any, by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, against changes in grades of the National Transcontinental railway from Winnipeg eastward, and terminal facilities at Quebec; of all subsequent approvals of such changes, if any, by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and of all correspondence on the above subject.
Mr. A. K. Maclean.-For a return showing the names and addresses of all applicants resident in the counties of Halifax, Hants, Kings, Annapolis, Digby, Queens, Shelbourne, Lunenburg, and Colchester, Nova Scotia, respectively, for the Fenian Raid Bounty, designating those who have already received the same, the applications refused with the cause assigned, and the applications yet to be dealt with.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier.-For a copy of the Order in Council appointing a commission for the purpose of beautifying the city of Ottawa and vicinity, of all correspondence with regard to the same, and of all reports made by the commission up to date.
Mr. Turriff.-For a copy of all letters and telegrams in connection with the dismissal of the postmaster at Fletwode, Saskatchewan, and the changing of the location of the said post office.
Mr. Robb.-For a copy of all papers, documents, correspondence, letters and telegrams relating to the dismissal of Jos. H. Lefebvre, postmaster at Howlck station, county of Cha-teauguay, and the appointment of his successor.
Mr. Sinclair.-For a copy of all agreements made and entered into between the Department *of Marine and Fisheries or the Government and railway and express companies, including the Intercolonial railway, relating to the transportation of fresh fish by fast freight or express, since the year 1906 ; also a copy of all guarantees given to railway and express companies by the Government or any department thereof, relating to such transportation, together with a statement of all disbursements made by the Department of Marine and Fisheries each year under the terms of such agreements or guarantees, distinguishing between disbursements made on account of fast freight and disbursements made on account of express shipments; also the number of refrigerator cars, subject to guarantee, by Department of Marine and Fisheries, forwarded by fast freight from Mulgrave or Halifax to Montreal, each calendar year since 1906, and the number of tons of freight carried by such cars each year. Also number of re-37
frigerator express cars forwarded from said points, Mulgrave and Halifax to Montreal, up to December 31,	1913, under the
terms of an agreement made since 1911, between the Department of Marine and Fisheries and the railway or express companies or both. Also the number of tons of fresh fish carried by express companies, prior to December 31, 1913 under the last mentioned agreement; and the amount paid up to December 31, 1913, by the Department of Marine and Fisheries, under the last mentioned agreement. Also the number of tons of fresh fish carried by express companies from Mulgrave and Halifax to points west since 1906, on which the Government paid one third, but not under the terms of the said agreement made as aforesaid, since 1911.
Mr. Sinclair.-For a copy of all letters telegrams and correspondence of all kinds relating in any way to the applications for Fenian raid bounty in Guysborough, N.S., or relating to or touching in any way the claims of such applications.
Mr. A. K. Maclean.-For a copy of all papers, documents, correspondence, &c., in connection with the dismissal of Mr. Hicks, of Bridgetown, N.S., from the customs service in 1913.
Mr. A. K. Maclean.-For a copy of all tenders, contracts, documents, papers and correspondence in connection with tenders and contracts for the carriage of mails between Bridgetown and Port Lome, Hampton and'Parker's Cove, in 1912.
Mr. A. K. Maclean.-For a copy of all papers, reports, documents, correspondence, plans, &c., in reference to a proposed Government public building at Bear River, N.S., and the purchase of a site for the same.
Mr. A. K. Maclean.-For a copy of all applications, documents, papers, correspondence, &c., in connection Tyith the application of Edward Walker of New Ross, Lunenburg county, N.S., for the Fenian raid bounty.
Mr. Oliver.-For a copy of q,ll papers in connection with the disposition of the S. E. *£ section 16, township 25, range 5, west fifth meridian,

Alexander Kenneth Maclean: For a copy of all correspondence, papers, telegrams, memorials, petitions, etc., and a statement in writing of the substance of oral interviews, negotiations and conversations, by and between the Department of Trade and Commerce, or any department of the Government, any Minister of the Crown, or any officers of any department of Government, and the Canadian Northern railway, or any of its directors or officers or servants, the officials or managers of the Royal Line of Steamships, any board of trade, person or persons, in connection with the adoption of the Port of St. John, N.B., as the port of call of the mail subsidized transatlantic steamers, Royal George and Royal Edward for the winter season of 1913-14.
He said: I desire to avail myself of this opportunity of discussing briefly the matter of the contract for the transatlantic mail service, the selection of the winter ports for this mail service, and what I believe to be the unjustifiable interference of the Gov-



eminent in connection with the selection of the winter mail ports.
Some few months ago it became necessary, under a contract made about a year ago with certain steamship companies for the performance of the transatlantic mail service, to select or designate the winter port at which the mails would be received and from which they would depart. This matter was, of course, of very considerable interest to the only two Atlantic ports suitable for the winter mail service, namely Halifax and St. John. The matter was the occasion of a great deal of local interest in these two ports, but I did not wish to accentuate local feeling in the matter. I do not propose discussing this matter purely from the point of the merits of these two respective ports. That can better be done when discussing the next contract. The transatlantic mail service, performed at a cost to this country of $1,000,000 is consequently a matter of interest to Canada generally. The various sections of the country are very much interested in the promptitude with which transatlantic mails are received and distributed throughout Canada. Prom my knowledge of occurrences during the past few months in connection with this matter, I desire to say that there has been an unnecessary and unjustifiable interference on the part of the Government with the transatlantic mail contract, in so far as it affects the winter service, which calls for some explanation.
.1 may point out to the House that prior to last year, when the existing contract was concluded, it was the practice for the contracting steamship companies to embark mails at Halifax on going to British ports, and land mails at that port on returning to Canada. This method has prevailed for a number of years, not to the entire satisfaction, I believe of the steamship companies. Last year, however, a new contract was entered into with certain steamship companies by the Postmaster General on behalf of the Government of Canada, providing for a more frequent mail service, and leaving to the contracting companies the selection of Canadian ports of arrival and, departure for the summer and winter service. For the summer service the contracting steamship companies were to select either Montreal or Quebec, or both; in any event, I think the mails were to be landed at Quebec. For the winter season it was at the option of the contracting companies to adopt either of the ports of Halifax or St. John. When the terms of this contract were presented to the House by the Post-
master General last year, he said, respecting the ports to be selected for the winter service:
The ships can start from whatever port the companies please provided they do not start from any but a Canadian port, namely, Montreal or Quebec in summer, and St. John or Halifax in winter.
Mr. Pugsley: Not both?
Mr. Pelletier:	Halifax or St. John at
the option of the contractors, which means that each of the ports will stand on Its own merits. We undertake to deliver the mails through whichever of the ports the companies will choose, for both the winter and the summer services.
It will be observed that this is a very clear and explicit declaration of policy on the part of the Government that, having regard to the winter mail service, the contracting steamship companies were at liberty to make selection of whichever port they chose. This clearly was 4 p.m. the intention of the Government, and the same idea was reiterated by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) in a speech delivered at St. John some time in November last in which he dealt with this particular matter, which was of very great interest to the people of his city and constituency. On this occasion the Minister of Marine and Fisheries spoke as follows:
The question of the carriage of mails from Canada to Great Britain has been one that has caused for a good many years past a great deal of discussion, and with a view to having more frequent carriage Of mails and a better service upon the Atlantic, the Postmaster General entered last spring into a new arrangement by which eight steamers belonging respectively to the Allan Line, the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern Steamship Companies, would undertake this work, giving more frequent mail connection between Canada and Great Britain, during both summer and winter. Under contracts which have hitherto prevailed, the mail steamers of the Canadian Pacific Railway and Allan Lines have been compelled to leave their mails at Halifax and then come on to St. John. St. John was in no sense a mail port so far as the contract for the carriage of the mails entered into by the Liberals was concerned. The general demand in St. John was that each port should stand on its own merits, and that it should be optional with the contractors to select whichever port-they chose on the Atlantic for the reception and discharge of the mails that they carried across the ocean. Under the contract for an improved mail service entered into by the Postmaster General in April, last, which is to continue for one year and which called for three sailings each week in summer and two in winter, this provision was inserted, and mails will be delivered to and taken from steamers at Halifax and St. John at the contractors option, and it was generally felt that the result would be to-

fairly test the merits of the two ports so far as mails were concerned.
So, here again, there was a very clear and plain declaration of policy in respect to the selection of ports by the contracting steamship company. According to the statement of the Minister of Marine, the optional feature of the contract was inserted for the purpose of testing the relative merits of St. John and Halifax as winter mail ports, or for the purpose of permitting the contracting steamship companies to be arbiters on this point, thus relieving the Government of this difficult duty. The optional features of the winter mail service contract was also agreeable to the Boards of Trade of the cities of St. John and Halifax, although at first there was, I think, some opposition at Halifax to this suggestion owing, I suppose, to the fact that for a long period transatlantic mails were embarked and landed at the port of Halifax. So far as I was personally concerned, at last session of Parliament when this contract was before us for consideration, I considered on the whole the proposition eminently fair, although a great deal might have been said, for an express stipulation that the port of Halifax be selected as the winter mail port because it afforded the shortest route and its merits for such purpose had been well established. Now, under this feature of the contract, namely the right of selection by the contracting steamship companies, the Canadian Pacific railway steamship line, the Allan steamship line, and the Royal line of steamships, selected Halifax as their port of arrival and departure in connection with the mail service. In addition to that the White Star line which was to substitute in the event of any of the ships hf the contracting steamship companies being out of commission at any time during the life of the contract, had also selected the port of Halifax under the contract, l believe the selection by the contracting steamship companies was made without any political influence whatever. Sir Thomas Shaugh-nessy, president of the Canadian Pacific railway, stated publicly in an interview that the selection was made by his company without suggestions on the part of the Government, and that in no respect was the Government a factor in the selection of that port. They intimated that one of the reasons for the selection of the port of Halifax was the lack of sufficient facilities at the port of St. John, besides, they disliked the two-port call as under previous contracts. But, at any rate, I think I am justified in saying that the selection of the port of 37i
Halifax by the Canadian Pacific railway company was made strictly on the merits of that port. This naturally caused a great deal of opposition in the city of St. John. So pronounced was the dissatisfaction against the selection made by the contracting steamship companies that the political friends of the Government were most pronounced in their denunciation of the Government whom they charged with responsibility for permitting the port selection which [DOT]had been made. In the city of St. John there is a political club named after the Prime Minister of the country, and so antagonistic were they to the selection which was made by the Canadian Pacific railway steamships particularly, and the complicity of the Government therein as they imagined, that the officers of that club saw fit to resign from office.


John Douglas Hazen: They did nothing of the
sort. My hon. friend is simply misinformed.


Mr. MACLEAN:: Surely I have not been misinformed. At least a statement to that effect appeared in the newspapers of St. John and Halifax, and I do not remember ever seeing it contradicted; but I suppose the Minister of Marine will admit that a great deal of hostile opinion was expressed by members of that club in connection with this particular matter. Whether the officers carried their hostility to such an extent as to resign, is not, after all, a matter of very much importance, and I am quite satisfied with the minister's statement that they did not resign. That is a matter of not very great importance, and 1 think we may continue to disagree about it Public opinion was so hostile in St. John as to the action of the contracting steamship companies that a request, it is also said, was made by some of the political friends of the Minister of Marine that he should resign his seat.


John Douglas Hazen: That is not true at all.


William Findlay Maclean: I simply made the remark that this was said. A great many things were perhaps said by the newspapers during the heat of the controversy over this matter that were not strictly accurate. It was charged that the Minister of Marine was actively engaged negotiating with the Canadian Pacific railway for the purpose of inducing them, if possible, to make a change in the port which they had designated under the transatlantic mail contract. I suppose the

Minister of Marine will hardly undertake to deny that. However, the point I wish to emphasize here is that the steamship companies, whose names I have already mentioned designated the port of Halifax as the port from which and at which they would perform their transatlantic mail contract. The selection occasioned a great deal of opposition in the city of St. John, and I think there is evidence that the Government or individual members of the Government intervened and sought to nullify the right of selections which had been exercised by the contracting steamship companies for purely political purposes.
As I have already said, it was rumoured that negotiations were conducted with the Canadian Pacific railway by members of *the Government for the purpose, if possible, of inducing them to revert to the port of St. John instead of the port of Halifax. But it would appear that the Canadian Pacific Steamship Company were invulnerable, and declined to recede from the selection which they had previously made of the port of Halifax. It is unfortunately correct, however, that another steamship company, namely the Royal Line, owned by the Canadian Northern railway, which had also designated Halifax as its port under the contract, subsequently receded from that selection and designated St. John; and it is that particular matter which I desire to bring to the attention of the Government. I believe it is absolutely correct, and beyond contradiction, that this change was made owing to pressure brought to bear .upon this company by the Government of Canada, or by some members of the Government. I say, and I say without fear of any successful contradiction, that this change would not have been made except under the greatest pressure possible or imaginable. The Royal Line of steamships had operated from the port of Halifax for three years preceding this. Sir William Mackenzie, the president of the Canadian Northern railway, on many occasions publicly and privately stated that Halifax would continue to be the port of the Royal Line. At the time, rumours began to float about, that in consequence of the selection of the port of Halifax by the Canadian Pacific Steamship Line the Royal Line would be forced to select the port of St. John in order to pacify party interests there, enquiries were made of the officials of the Canadian Northern railway by .the two papers published1 an Halifax-the Morning Chronicle and the Halifax Herald -and also by the Halifax Board of Trade,

as to whether such a change was contemplated by the Canadian Northern railway. To each of these three inquiries, a very prompt, specific, and emphatic answer was given by Mr. Hanna, first vice-president of the Canadian Northern railway, that no such change was contemplated by (that company, that Halifax was the port of the Royal Steamship Line and they proposed to continue it as such. The fact is, however, that shortly after this the Royal Line did officially announce that their two steamships, the Royal George and the Royal Edward, would sail from the port of St. John during .the winter of 1913-14, and would perform its part of the transatlantic mail contract from that port. I have not the slightest hesitancy in saying that the officials of the Royal Steamship Line and the directors of the Canadian Northern railway protested against leaving the port of Halifax and adopting the port of St. John. I make this statement boldly, and emphatically, and challenge any member of the Government to say whether or not I am correct in this regard. Shortly after the adoption of the port of St. John, Sir William Mackenzie landed there from England, and was interviewed by a representative of one of the St. John newspapers. He was naturally .interrogated as to the mail contract and the adoption of the port of St. John by his company, and he is reported to have spoken as follows to the reporter:
With regard to the probable terminus ot our Atlantic steamship line in winter, we have been working from Halifax and were quite satisfied with the route. I am not yet familiar with the reasons which led to the change this winter, and do not know that it will be continued. At any rate^we have not made any plans for sending our steamers to St. John another winter, and it is impossible to say where they will go-
But, Sir William, the rail haul is considerably less from St. John,' said the reporter.
* Well, we have been working with the Intercolonial railway and would be quite satisfied to continue to do so,' was the reply.
Therefore I .say that so far as the official head of the Royal Steamship Line is concerned, it is evidently clear that he at that moment knew little of the reasons which operated to bring about a change in the port of departure for the Royal Line. It is also quite clear that he was perfectly satisfied with the port of Halifax which they had adopted and constantly used for the preceding three years, and I think, Mr. Speaker, this is some evidence, at least, of pressure of some kind or another having been exerted by some person upon this particular steamship company. The St.

John Standard, a newspaper favourable to the Ministry publicly stated that this change made by the Royal Line was at the request of the Government. I am of course unable to say whether there was justification for that statement or not. The Halifax Herald, another journal sympathetic to the Administration, stated that tremendous influences must have been exerted upon the Royal Line in order to induce them to abandon the port of Halifax. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries was evidently very much interested in the state of feelings which prevailed in the city of St.John. That was only natural, and any hon. gentleman I think would naturally sympathize with him in the circumstances, which were most uncomfortable. I think it was just immediately before the adoption of the port of St. John by the Royal Line was made public that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries went to that city, accompanied by the Minister of Public Works, and there publicly made the statement that the Royal Line of Steamships would for the present season use the port of St. John. I think I may fairly say that when the Minister of Marine went to the city of St. John for the purpose of making this announcement, he evidently intended to take to himself the credit for the change made by this particular steamship line, and it is a very fair inference I think for me to make that the change was made through the interference and influence of the Government, and in that change the Minister of Marine played quite a part. I think there is also no doubt whatever but that some members of the Government endeavoured to influence the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to revert to the port of St. John. That company was invulnerable. Failing in this respect, the Government, or members of the Government, I suppose thought they would then attack that steamship company which was the most vulnerable, and naturally they selected the line of steamships operating under the name of the Royal Line, and owned by the Canadian Northern Railway Company. Just here, one might fairly protest against the pressure brought on this particular steamship line. If the Government were entitled to exercise any influence, it might well have been directed against the Canadian Pacific Railway Steamship Company. They were a strong, independent, and powerful railway and steamship company, and if there were any merits in the claims that were being made by the members of the Government for a reversion to the port of St.
John by that steamship line, the Canadian Pacific railway officials were perfectly competent to decide whether that request possessed merits or not. On the other hand, as everybody knows, the Canadian Northern Railway Company have been for years -they were last session and probably will be in the future-suppliants for Government financial favours, and pressure could very easily be exercised, and very unfairly exercised, upon this particular railway company which owned the Royal Line of Steamships. I say that interference by the Government in connection with this matter was objectionable in any event, but particularly when directed against a company who frequently were supplicants for financial aid from this Government and from Parliament.
It is not necessary that I should say much more. It has been urged by the press in St. John and Halifax, and by friends of the Government, that the Royal Line of Steamships adopted the port of St. John because there was not at the port of Halifax sufficient terminal facilities. In answer to that, I have to say that I do not think the facts will substantiate that position. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company were quite satisfied to adopt the port of Halifax, and the head of that steamship company stated that the facilities at the port of Halifax were sufficient for their purposes, while he was not satisfied with the port facilities at St. John. The Canadian Northern railway officials were quite satisfied with the facilities afforded them at the port of Halifax. There was no contention made on the part of anybody, when, and for some time after the four steamship contractors had made a selection of the port of Halifax under the terms of the contract, that the facilities were inadequate or insufficient. In fact, St. John newspapers friendly to the Government, when the selection made by the contracting steamship companies was first announced, declared that in respect to facilities Halifax enjoyed a stronger position than did St. John, although in neither case perhaps were the facilities up to actual requirements. I do not believe for one moment that any evidence will be forthcoming from any of the contracting steamship companies, or from the Government or any members of the Government, to the effect that a change of port was made by the Royal Steamship line of its own volition, without interference and pressure on the part of the Government, or because

they considered that the port facilities at Halifax were inadequate.
I shall repeat two or three facts which are, after all, the salient facts in connection with the, remarks I have been making, and which are most important in connection with the whole matter of the transatlantic winter mail service contracts. When the present contract was entered into a year ago, it was expressly stipulated that the contractors had the right to select their winter port, namely, Halifax or St. John. It was stated by the Postmaster General when announcing this contract to Parliament, and it was stated by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries speaking only in November last in the city of St. John, that this optional feature of the contract would settle the merits of the ports of St. John and Halifax for winter mail service purposes. This feature of the contract was in many respects commendable, and should not have been interfered with by the Government. I say that there was interference on the part of the Government or some of its members; I say the Royal Line of Steamships did make a change in their selection of port because of the intervention of the Government; and I say further, that this intervention was unfair and unjust to the steamship company itself, and to the port of Halifax as well. For this transatlantic mail service, the country was paying $1,000,000 a year. Time was the essence of the contract, and it was in the interests of every portion of Canada that that port should be selected by the contracting steamship companies which gave Canadians their British mails in the quickest time possible. The port which should be selected was that which was quickest for this purpose and which was also the safest. As a member of this House, and as representing a constituency much interested in this matter, I desire to register my protest against the intervention of the Government, and their apparent violation of the spirit of the contract negotiated and entered into by them on behalf of the people of Canada. I am very anxious indeed to hear from some one on behalf of the Government as to the nature and extent of the interference they made in this matter, and the defence therefor. I trust that all the papers in connection with the subject, including the substance of the oral negotiations, will be presented to Parliament for our information.


Mr. F. B. CARVELL (Carleton, N.B.):: I am very sorry indeed not to have some

reply vouchsafed by the Minister of Marine, if by no other member of the Cabinet, because this is a matter of great importance to his own constituency; it is probably equally as important to his constituency as it is to the constituency of the Prime Minister. The Minister of Marine knows that we might as well discuss this question here for a little while this afternoon, and try to get all the light we can on the subject, because the end has not yet been heard of this matter in the Maritime provinces. The people in the Maritime provinces do not at the present time understand the true significance of this juggling with business affairs and the great transportation interests of this country, which has been taking place during the last six or eight months between the Government, the Intercolonial railway, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Canadian Northern Steamship Company. My hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean) has gone into the matter so exhaustively that it is not my intention to discuss it to any great extent from the standpoint of what took place in Parliament.
I would like, however, to refer to the statement made by the Postmaster General when this matter was before Parliament in the month of April last. I remember very distinctly, when the vote of $1,000,000 for mail subsidies was under consideration, the question being asked, from what port these vessels would sail. The answer was given by the Postmaster General as follows:
Mr. Pelletier: Halifax or St. John, at the option of the contractor, which means that each of the ports will stand on its own merits. We undertake to deliver the mails through whichever of the ports the companies will choose, for both the winter and the summer services.
I am not here to speak for the port of St. John; that is the business of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries. Neither am 1 here to say a word for or against the port of Halifax; that is the business of the Premier and my hon. friend from Halifax. These three gentlemen are perfectly capable of looking after their own interests. I am here to try to point out to the House and to the country the real sufferer in this unfair and unbusinesslike transaction between the Government and their friends, the Canadian Pacific railway, the Canadian Northern railway and all the other parties concerned. In my opinion, the real sufferer in this transaction is the Intercolonial railway. As a citizen of this country, as a member of this House, I am interested in the question as to whether or not the Inter-

colonial railway is being properly handled. Coming as I do from the Maritime provinces, I am interested in the matter probably to a greater extent than would be a member from the western portions of Canada. Nevertheless we are all interested, and I think we could very profitably discuss this matter from that standpoint for a few moments.
When I say that about the 3rd or 4th of October last consternation reigned in the city of St. John over this matter, I am stating the case very mildly indeed. The answer given by the Postmaster General in the month of April last, that the steamship companies would have the right to choose whichever port they preferred from business reasons, was absolutely satisfactory to every man in the province of New Brunswick. From the evidence of my hon. friend from Halifax, I believe it was equally satisfactory to the people of Halifax. I am willing to admit that during the last ten or fifteen years there has been far too much bickering, backbiting and saying of unkind things by people in the cities of St. John and Halifax. Too. much parochial politics has been indulged in by the people representing both of the cities-I do not mean by their representatives in this House, but by the people of these communities in general. This country is big enough and there is sufficient business in it to justify a broader stand being taken, and I for one have never been guilty of taking any part in these debates, and I do not think they tend to the benefit of either port or of the country as a whole.
In April last we thought we had finally got down to the business proposition that the steamship companies would be allowed to choose whichever port they thought was the better from a business -standpoint; and both cities apparently were satisfied. I do not want to say anything unkind about any member of the Government, because it does not do any good. The matter is serious enough in itself without my saying anything that will make it more unpleasant or more serious. We in the province of New Brunswick are asking where the Minister of Marine and Fisheries was when this trade was going on. If I understand my hon. friend from Halifax aright this afternoon, he is now asking where the Premier was when the latter trade was made whereby Canadian Northern boats were switched from Halifax to St. John. I must take the Minister of Marine and Fisheries at his word; he is a gentleman whom I know very well and I am satisfied that every person in the province will take the minister at his word. When
this matter first came up, a telegram was sent by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to the President of the Board of Trade. The substance of that telegram is that the people of St. John must not get excited over this matter because, as far as the minister knew, there was no intention of taking the Empress steamers away from St. John.


John Douglas Hazen: The hon. gentleman had
better read the telegram.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: This is the telegram. I am reading now from the Daily Telegraph of October 7, 1913:
October 4, 1913.
Dear Mr. Robinson:
I am in receipt of yours of the 3rd instant. I have been very much surprised that the Canadian Pacific railway have decided to send the Empresses to Halifax, and can understand the expressions of disappointment that have been given utterance to. The feeling, however, that undue influence has been used to force the shipping people to this action is absolutely and entirely without any foundation whatever. They are perfectly free agents in the matter. The contract entered into was along the lines which St. John has wanted for so many years, namely, that mails should be delivered to the ships either at Halifax or St. John and that they should be at liberty to use whichever port they pleased.
I am more than surprised at the action in view of the statement attributed to Sir Thomas Shaughnessy to the effect that the Empresses would not call at Halifax at all had they not been compelled to do so. It was unfortunate that when a contract has been entered into in exactly the terms and conditions the people of St. John have so long desired that the result should not have been more satisfactory.
Sir Thomas Shaughnessy wired me yesterday that the Victorian and Virginian, together with all the other Allan and Canadian Pacific railway steamers would go direct from St. John, and that that would he all the steamers that the port could possibly accommodate.
Tours very truly,
(Sgd.) J. D. Hazen.
Probably that does not refer to the Empresses. My statement then was not probably exact.


John Douglas Hazen: Undoubtedly that has
reference to the Empresses.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not think so.


John Douglas Hazen: I think so.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not think the minister intended to convey to the people ot St. John that the Empresses would go from St. John.


John Douglas Hazen: No, all the other Canadian Pacific railway steamers, and the Victorian and the Virginian.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is right.
Two or three days after that a delegation

came from St. John to Ottawa to interview the Government. In view of the statements made in that telegram by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and made to the delegation later on, I am bound to assume that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries did not know of the agreement that had been made between the Intercolonial railway and the Canadian 'Pacific railway, or what is known in New Brunswick as the Gutelius agreement. I am bound to assume that it was made behind his back, and perhaps he will not consider me discourteous if I say that he did not at that time appreciate the true significance of it after it had been made. If I wanted any evidence of that, I would simply take the statement made by the Eremier himself when a delegation met him in Ottawa, I think on the 9th of October.
The Prime Minister practically told the delegation that he did not know the terms of the agreement; he understood ft had been made, between the two companies but it was purely a business agreement, one into which politics did not enter and in which no members of the Government had taken any part. I do not know that he went so far as to say that no member of the Government had been consulted or considered, but I think we might almost fairly assume that much from the general tenor of his statement to the delegation. Now, if these statements be true-and I give them for what they are worth, and I will allow these hon. gentlemen to explain them as they wish to -we come down to this:	The Canadian
Pacific railway had been coming to St. John with their Empress boats for three, four or five years. They wanted to continue coming to St. John. It was their home port. The waters of St. John harbour had been found deep enough and broad enough to accommodate the Empresses in the past, and there is no evidence, that the waters were more shallow at St. John in 1914 than they were in 1913. Therefore, so far as physical conditions go, there was no reason why the boats should not continue to come. The Victorian and Virginian also had been coming, and there was no reason why they should not continue to come-and it was agreed, I understand, that they should continue to come. The Royal boats had been going to Halifax for three years. They had all the accommodation they wanted, and did not wish any change. The Allan boats had been going to Halifax. I have no strong evidence as to whether they wanted to change or not. As the Minister of Marine and Fisheries knows, the Cana-

dian Pacific railway had made arrangements and published advertisements of the sailing dates of their steamships from St. John during the winter season. He knows also that they had made contracts in St. John for the delivery of supplies for the whole season. He must know that; or, if he does not know it, he can easily learn it by going to St. John. All arrangements that a steamship company could make had been made for carrying on their business during the season 1913-14. Then, the right hon. Prime Minister knows, the Royal steamships had made arrangements to go from Halifax and wanted to go from Halifax during the winter; it was to their interest to sail to and from Halifax. But suddenly, as if by magic, without anybody asking these people to make the change, the whole thing was turned upside down, the Canadian Pacific railway steamers were sent from St. John to Halifax. And then, in order, as I say, to try to assuage the wrath that was piling up on the head of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, the Royal steamers were taken away from Halifax and sent to St. John. I say, wrath was being heaped upon the head of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. I am reminded by my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean) that this feeling of anger and opposition reached such a point that certain members of the Borden Club of St. John resigned their positions. I have here a newspaper clipping giving a copy of the resolution which they passed, and, I think in view of the dissent expressed by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to what my hon. friend from Halifax, perhaps I had better read this resolution:
Whereas a great injustice lias been done to the port of St. John by the agreement entered into by the Government railway and the Canadian Pacific railway which agreement plainly discriminates against St. John, in that by it the Canadian Pacific railway is enabled to take away its mail boats, and the mail boats of the Allan line, after they had been advertised to sail from St. John direct, and as the hon. R. L. Borden has stated, that it required the approval of the Minister of Railways before becoming effective, we the undersigned members of the R. I*. Borden club, feeling that the ratification should be refused, wish to resign from any active participation in the affairs of the club until this matter has been settled by the cancellation of the Gutelius and Bosworth agreement. We do this as a protest to show that while we are Conservatives, we cannot support a Government if it persists in carrying out this discrimination agreement.
Mr. W. J. Brown, one of those who signed this resolution, had been the Con-

servative organizer for Kings-Albert. I understand that about twelve or thirteen signed this resolution and resigned. I have not the names at hand. This resolution gives you an idea of the pitch to which feeling had arisen in St. John at this time. This was some time in the month of October-the 29th or 39th, I think. When the delegation came to Ottawa about the 7th or 8th October, the Premier told the delegation that he could not give them the exact terms of the agreement, because it was a matter of business between the two railroads, but that later on would send them a copy of it. My recollection is that the delegation remained here for two or three days, but failed to get anything more than the mere headings of the agreement. They then went to Montreal and saw Sir Thomas Shaughnessy, but got very little satisfaction from him. Now, to bear out the statement which I made a few minutes ago that the Canadian Pacific railway wished to remain in St. John, let me read an extract from the St. John Daily Telegraph, of October 6, in which Sir Thomas Shaughnessy is reported to have made the following statement:
St. John, he remarked, Is the Canadian Pacific's winter port, and traffic handled to and from Halifax is by grace of the Intercolonial railway. The Atlantic mail service during the past few years has been most satisfactory, the call at both Halifax and St. John involved-
I think that should be ' unsatisfactory,' but I read it as it is.
-undue risks to the vessels in making the trip between the two ports along the coast of Nova Scotia in all sorts of weather, and eastbound ' passengers who embarked at St. John were necessarily subjected to a delay at Halifax of from twelve to twenty hours each voyage. The company would have sacrificed its interest in the mail subsidy rather than make the two calls again.
According to that, Sir Thomas Shaughnessy would rather even give up the mail subsidy than to call at these two ports. He wanted the mail contract to come to St. John.


William Findlay Maclean: Why did he sign the agreement which took him to Halifax? Can the hon. gentleman explain that ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am coming to that. Of course, I can only give my own version of it. Now, the condition of affairs which 1 have been trying to describe-perhaps at a little too great length-was absolutely satisfactory to all the people of St. John, to the people of Halifax, so far as we can see, and to the railway and steamship companies as well. The Royal people
wanted to go to Halifax; the Canadian Pacific railway and the Allans-which I understand are about the same thing- wanted to come to St. John and had all their, arrangements made accordingly. Now, in order to break up that harmonious condition of affairs between all parties, one of the most memorable agreements in the annals of the Intercolonial railway was prepared and signed on the 30th of September, which, I think, we have from an answer given by the Minister of Railways and Canals this afternoon; and while I have not the agreement in full, I have the substance of it as furnished to the delegation from St. John, which I propose to read. I think this must be practically accurate, because it has been published in the newspapers. My hon. friend from Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) has been trying to get the agreement, or a copy of it, ever since this session opened in January, but has failed to do so. Therefore, I do not think the Government can object to my reading the copy furnished the delegation from St. John, which is as follows:
Memorandum of agreement between the Canadian Government Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company covering the transportation of freight and passengers between Halifax and St. John over the Intercolonial railway in connection with the Canadian Pacific and Allan Line steamships, carrying British mails, making Halifax the terminal port (four ships).
The following rates will govern the transportation of passengers:
Passengers and their baggage between Halifax and St. John in either direction, on special or regular trains, $2. first-class, and $1.50 second-class for each adult passenger, with a maximum earning on this traffic on any one train of $300.
It is understood that when special trains are run they shall handle, if necessary, up to twelve cars, making same time as regular through trains.
The Canadian Pacific to supply a reasonable proportion of the necessary equipment and the Intercolonial to undertake without charge such deadhead movements as may be necessary to properly care for the traffic; it being agreed that the Canadian Pacific will not be asked to hold their cars in Halifax for more than seven days at any one time.
The Intercolonial will assume the cost of transfer of baggage between cars and shed floor.
The Intercolonial will pay the same rental and other charges on cars in this service as at present paid on Canadian Pacific equipment handled over the line between St. John and Halifax.
The Canadian Pacific shall pay the same charges for cleaning, supplies, etc., as now paid the Intercolonial.
Freight of all classes, in either direction, 75 cents per ton of 2,000 lb. with the exception of flour and grain which will be carried at the rate of 60 cents per ton of 2,000 lb. The maxi-

mum earning for this traffic on any one train to he $300.
The Canadian Pacific will assume the cost of transferring freight between ships and cars at .Halifax.
All grain handled-*
There are a few words here which I [DOT]cannot make out.


Mr. EMMERSON:: It means all grains 'handled through Halifax elevators.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, and it goes on:
-shall pay the usual elevator charge current at other ports.
The Canadian Pacific will assume the clerical work, checking, way-billing and accounting.
The Intercolonial will pay the usual per diem or other charge on freight car equipment engaged in this business, and also all loss or damage which may occur to the freight while in transit between Halifax and St. John.
The Intercolonial will provide the necessary berthing accommodation for the Canadian Pacific and Allan Ijine ships, and will make no greater charge for wharfage and dockage dues than is charged other steamship lines.
This arrangement will remain in effect from November 15, 1913, to May 15, 1914.
Sgd. G. M. Bosworth,
for Canadian Pacific railway.
F. P. Gutelius,
Canadian Government railways.
Montreal, September 30, 1913.
We have to analyse this agreement in order to see the unfair treatment which has been accorded the Intercolonial railway and the city of St. John. It is hard to figure out what it is costing the Government or the country to handle this traffic, but it is very clear that the Canadian Pacific railway is not paying the Intercolonial railway anything like what it Actually costs to handle the traffic-unless all statistics as to the cost of railway transportation which have been given out by railway officials in the past are absolutely false and absurd, and unless freight and passengers can be hauled on railway trains for about one-half or one-third the amount we have been led to believe they *can be hauled for. We find that passengers going from St. John to Halifax, or vice -versa, shall pay $2 a head for first-class [DOT] and $1.50 for second-class accommodation. The distance is 275 miles. I do not know -what the rate would actually be, but putting it at two cents a mile-and the ,hon. member for South York (Mr. McLean) [DOT]can tell me whether or not the Intercolonial railway is giving a two-cent rate-the rate one way would be $5.50, and the Government are hauling Canadian Pacific railway first-class passengers for $2 and second-class passengers for $1.50. If the matter stopped there, it would be bad enough, but 
nothing like as bad as it is, because it is expressly agreed that the Government railway shall haul trains up to twelve cars in a train, and that the total cost of that train shall not exceed $300. We know that the average railway car to-day, such as is used by the Canadian Pacific railway on through trains, carries at least 75 and perhaps 100 people. I refer not to Pullman cars, but to first-class and second-class coaches. At the rate of only 60 passengers to a car, a train consisting of ten passenger cars and two baggage cars would carry 600 passengers, and at that rate you are only getting fifty cents a passenger instead of $2. If 300 passengers are carried, you are getting only $1 a passenger, because, although it is agreed that the rate shall be $2 a passenger, it is stipulated that the maximum earning on any one train shall be $300. When 5 p.m. you read it in that light, you commence to see some of the remarkable conditions of this agreement in so far as passenger traffic is concerned. When you come to the question of freight the conditions are equally as bad, if not worse. The freight rate, the agreement says, shall be seventy-five cents a ton of two thousand pounds, but the same conditions prevail; the total cost to the Canadian Pacific railway on any train shall not exceed $300. I am not sufficiently versed in the doings of the Intercolonial railway to tell exactly how much freight they can handle, but I do know something about railway transportation, and I think I am well within the mark when I say that the average Intercolonial engine- what we call the 100 or 125 per cent engine -will haul at least 600 tons from Halifax to St. John. This 600 tons of freight is hauled for $300; instead of getting seventy-five cents the Government is getting only fifty cents a ton for hauling this freight. Except over heavy grades, such as the Folly Mountain, where a pusher might be required for a short distance, there is no reason why the larger engines running between St. John and Halifax should not haul 700, 800 or 900 tons to a train. If as much as 900 tons are taken on a train, they are getting 900 tons hauled for $300-about thirty cents a ton; and if you take the ordinary moderate estimate of 600 tons to a train, they get this freight hauled for fifty cents a ton. It would be interesting, I am sure, if any hon. gentleman in this House, particularly the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, would take up the freight schedules of the Intercolonial

railway and see how far out of St. John he can have a ton of freight hauled on the Intercolonial railway for fifty cents. I am sure he would be amused to find what a short distance his freight would be hauled for that amount. But, if you take a carload of freight weighing say 30 tons-I think that is about the average-at fifty cents, the cost of hauling that carload of freight from St. John to Halifax would be $15. I wonder whether my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries could have a carload of freight hauled from St. John to Hampton, a distance of some twenty-five miles, for $15. I tell him he could not, and I tell him further that he could not have that carload of freight hauled to Rothesay, a distance of twelve miles, for $15; yet this freight is being hauled to Halifax, a distance of 275 miles, at the rate of about $15 a car. That is not all. In this agreement it is agreed that the Intercolonial will
Undertake without charge such deadhead movements as may be necessary to properly care for the traffic.
In ordinary language that means that they will bring back the empties free of charge. We do not know what proportion of those cars that go to Halifax will come back as empties, but we know that there will be a large number; we know that the outward freight is probably double or treble the inward freight. I think I am right in saying that probably one-half of these cars come back deadheads. I have made inquiries of competent railway officials, and I find that the railway companies can hardly distinguish the difference in cost between hauling an empty car and a full car. A little more coal may be used in hauling the full car, but all the other charges are practically the same. Even the extra coal may be offset by the fact that the train is longer in the case of empties, and that there is more wind resistance to be overcome. So you are hauling one-half of these cars back as deadheads, which will cost as much as hauling loaded cars. Even that is not all. They actually agreed to pay the ordinary per diem allowance for cars, the rental just as they would pay under other circumstances. I think the rate now is 35 cents a day. That is, if the Canadian Pacific railway hands a car over to the Intercolonial railway, the Intercolonial railway has to pay 35 cents per day until the car is returned to the owning company. This ear of freight goes to Halifax and it is at least ten days before it gets back to St.
John. Then there is a payment of $3.50, which the Intercolonial railway pays to the Canadian Pacific railway for the use of that car in hauling that freight practically for nothing.
Let us come back to the passengers. They say that passengers and baggage between St. John and Halifax will be carried on special or regular trains for $2 first-class and $1.50 second-class. I do not know how that wiil work out, because if they are carrying passengers on regular trains, as I figure out, if the regular train earns more than $300 between St. John and Halifax, the Canadian Pacific railway get the benefit of that on whatever proportion of passengers they may have between St. John and Halifax; so you might conceive an instance of the Intercolonial railway hauling passengers for nothing if you had sufficient regular business on the regular train. But I want to be fair, and I assume that the majority of these passengers will be handled in through trains. There might be many cases when a carload of immigrants would be attached to a regular train. As I understand it, you might assume a condition where the Canadian Pacific railway passengers would be actually hauled free of charge, and not only that but the Intercolonial railway would be actually paying rental for the car in which they travelled. This is the means by which they have been able to switch from St. John the traffic which rightly belongs to it. I do not believe, nor does the Minister of Marine and Fisheries or the Minister of Railways, that they can handle this trarffic at the price put down here. If you can haul a carload of freight from St. John to Halifax for $15 and bring that car back empty and pay 35 cents a day for that car while you are doing it, I cad only say that the railway companies of this country have been robbing the people to an extent such as we never dreamed of before. But I do not propose to take that ground; I do not propose to say that the railway companies have charged much more than they should. Possibly the rates could be pared down a great deal and yet the railways could pay dividends; but there cannot be any such fearful difference in the actual cost of carrying freight and the rate the railways have been charging, as will be found in this Gutelius agreement.
In the newspapers and in Parliament, since the 7th of October last, we have been' trying to ascertain the actual cost of carrying these trains, and the Government will

not vouchsafe one particle of evidence. Therefore I am bound to assume, from my little horse .sense and knowledge of railway matters, that they are carrying this traffic at an immense loss. The result is that St. John is losing the business which naturally belongs to it, and the city of Halifax, in order to get around the political difficulties, was compelled to lose business which actually belonged to it. The Canadian Northern, as we all know, do not route their freight over the Canadian Pacific railway through the state of Maine; they do not want to. They want to utilize the Intercolonial from Montreal, and they are doing so, and they want to send their freight from Montreal to Halifax. They want to use Halifax as their port; but, in order to meet the political exigencies of hon. gentlemen-and here I may say the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, because he did get into the worst hole any man ever did in the province- in order to meet the political exigencies of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, they switched the traffic that actually belonged to Halifax away from it; and, in order to meet the political exigencies of the Premier, they switched from the port of St. John the traffic which actually belonged to it, and the Intercolonial railway is carrying that freight for one-half what it costs to operate it, let alone deriving any profit. Sir Thomas Shaughnessy said that this agreement was only made possible by the grace of the Intercolonial railway. If the Intercolonial railway did not haul this freight for less than it cost to do iso, Sir Thomas Shaughnessy -would not have taken advantage of it, and if he had not done so this switching of traffic would not have taken place.
Coming to the very pertinent question propounded by the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean), who wants to know why in my opinion all this was done if the railway companies did not want it and St. John and Halifax did not want it, I may say that if I gave the answer which was in my mind some of my friends might not consider it parliamentary. But I leave him to draw the only inference that can be drawn. I ask him if he believes Mr. Gute-lius was allowed to make this one-sided agreement, so inimical to the best interests of the Intercolonial railway, without the knowledge and consent of the Government or at least of certain members of it. Has my hon. friend sufficient imagination to believe that that would have taken place? I cannot make myself believe that Mr. 
Gutelius or any other manager of the Intercolonial railway would make a contract such as this without some one giving him the wink and saying: Go ahead now, you cannot make it too strong for us. It is not possible; it is not reasonable. If I am right in my suggestions, is it not most remarkable that the Intercolonial railway, the one great public asset of the people of eastern 'Canada, has been prostituted in order to carry out or help smooth over the political exigencies of certain members of the Government?-because there is no other conclusion.
There is another side to this question. I was surprised in looking over the railway statistics recently brought	down-I had
only a hurried glance at them- to find that the Intercolonial railway was run at a loss last year of something like over $250,000. We were led to believe, during the last session of Parliament, that there was going to be a great surplus of about half a million dollars; but I am told that there was an actual loss. If that is the case, what is going to be the result this year? Oh, but, they say, we are going to have more revenue this year. They are hauling Canadian Pacific railway freight for one-quarter to one-third of what it actually costs, in order to play the political game of my friends opposite and in order to make up for that they have increased the freight rates from Montreal to Sydney.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There is not a
member here representing a Maritime constituency, let him be Liberal or Conservative, but will say ' hear, hear ' to that statement. Things got so bad that two or three members supporting the Government threatened to resign if something were not done to ameliorate the condition of affairs thrust upon the people by the action of Mr. Gutelius.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Where is the Minister of Railways?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 
Louis-Philippe Pelletier: does no apply to my department. I do not know very much about it except this: the Canadian Pacific railway had occasion to speak to me in connection with my department, about this contract to which my hon. friend has referred, and far from being under the impression that this was a very bad bargain for the Intercolonial railway, which the hon. member for Carleton has tried to convey to the House, the Canadian Pacific railway were under the impression that if that bargain did not cover mail transportation they had made a very bad bargain for themselves. The question came up in connection with the special trains to take the mails from Halifax. The Canadian Pacific railway pretended they were entitled to handle those mails on their trains from Halifax to Montreal. I need not tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I gave the preference to our own railway.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We know that in New
Brunswick.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I suppose that is another complaint which my hon. friend has. Let him bring it up and I will deal with it to his satisfaction, which is not a very easy thing to do.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: One thing at a time.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. The contract for the carrying of the mails from Halifax to Montreal was given to the Intercolonial railway, and then the Canadian Pacific railway complained very bitterly and very loudly. They said the contract should have been given to them, under the arrangement which has been referred to. Finally, however, the Intercolonial railway got the contract. The complaint by the Canadian Pacific railway was that they had made a very bad bargain indeed, if they did not have the right to carry the mails from Halifax to Montreal. However, I need not discuss the merits of the agreement entered into. I have been very much impressed with the speeches made by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) and the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) whom I see now sitting side by side. I never saw such a case of riding two horses, and, at the same time, riding two horses going in opposite directions, as these two gentlemen have performed today. It was a most wonderful performance.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Was it well done?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It was pretty well
done, but I think it is being carried to such length that the people will understand it before long. These hon. gentlemen surely cannot have any reasonable expectation that the people of Canada will be fooled by the diverse attitudes taken by these two deskmates, one saying you have done wrong to Halifax, and another say-iing: you have done wrong to St. John. How could an injustice be done to St. John by the steamships going there, and at the same time an injustice be done to Halifax by the steamships using that port? However, my hon. friend from St. John says that what was done was wrong, and my hon. friend from Halifax says the same thing, so that an ordinary individual will find it pretty difficult to recognize the consistency of the attitude taken by these hon. gentlemen.	-


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Argue the question and never mind that.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I am trying to find out what these hon. gentlemen mean, because in order to argue the point they attempt to make, I must first know what their point is. My hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) says: 'You have taken away the steamships from Halifax to bring them to St. John.'


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I say you violated your contract.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I say so too.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Then, when the hon. member for Halifax takes his seat, the hon. member for Carleton rises and says: 'You have wronged St. John.' Which of the two are we to believe?


Wilfrid Laurier: Both.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: That is just the kind of policy pursued by my right hon. friend.


Wilfrid Laurier: You are wrong both ways.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The right hon. gentleman- puts two absolutely opposite policies before the country and he tells the people that they must take stock in both of them. We have been told by the hon. member for Halifax and by the hon. member for Carleton, that we entered into a contract which they both agree was eminently fair, for they tell us that the contract which was made by the four steamship companies gave the ports of Halifax and St. John a chance to stand on their own merits, and they say further that every person in Nova Scotia

and New Brunswick was satisfied with that provision. I want to say that we have lived up to that contract. When I submitted the contract to the House, I stated that the companies objected very strongly to calling at both ports, because they said, it was a most dangerous and expensive voyage. They said we will go to one port, but we will not call at both. It was then provided that the steamship companies should call at whichever port they saw fit', provided it was a Canadian port, this being the only restriction which I, as Postmaster General, put in the. contract. We are told by these hon. gentlemen opposite to-day that this was an eminently fair proposition. But can either of these hon. gentlemen contend for a moment that this contract has been changed? It has not been changed. It stands to-day just as it stood when it was entered into.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The minister says the contract has not been changed and that the companies have gone to the port they selected. Will he say that neither the Government, nor any member of the Government, used pressure on the Canadian Northern Railway Company to change from Halifax to St. John ?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: If the hon. member will allow me to make my statement, he will not find it necessary to ask such a question.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I only wanted to have the views of the minister on that point.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: My statement now is that the contracts have not been changed since they were signed; they are contracts only for the current year up to the first of May next. The companies were allowed, under the contract, to choose whatever port they wished. If there has been trouble over the matter it is due*to a fact to which neither the hon. member for Halifax nor the hon. member for Carleton has referred, and which (while I do not want to unduly criticise any one), provoked a most unhappy situation. When the contract was entered' into, I said to the contractors: I will state in the House that the ports are going to stand on their respective merits; that you can make your selection of either, and I did so. Then, at a given moment, when every one believed that each port would be given a fair test and a fair chance to stand on its own merits, the announcement was made that all the ships were going to St. John. This fact has not been referred to by either of the hon. gentlemen opposite, but they know it to be true.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Do you say that all the ships are going to St. John ?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes, every one of them.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I never heard of that.


Wilfrid Laurier: Who made
that announcement?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and the Allans.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We understood that the. Canadian Pacific railway and the Allans were going to St. John, but not the Canadian Northern ships.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I am not referring to, the Royals now.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Nor the White Star.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I refer to the an, nouncement made about all the big ships;: the Alsatian and the Calgarian were ex-, pected to be on the route and they were to go to St. John as also the Empresses, and the Victorian, and Virginian. There was no announcement made so far as the Royals are concerned. One fine morning this announcement was made to the public in St. John. I am not blaming any one for doing it, but I do say that it created, trouble, and that all the trouble to which, the hon. gentlemen opposite have referred, originated at that point. We found these contractors, using the full liberty they had-under their contract, at a given moment changing their minds, and instead of all the steamers going to Halifax it was an-, nounced they were all going to St. John,


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: You were awfully surprised, were you not?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I was awfully surprised, because I did not think it was fair treatment of the people. I say so now on the floor of the House, and I told the interested parties it was unfair for the steamship companies to let the people of St. John think they were going there, and then have men like the hon. member for, Carleton (Mr. Carvell) rising in this House, as he did to-day, and saying that if was the Government that was responsible for what occurred. We knew, considering the kind of political warfare that was being carried on, that we would be told, as we were told this afternoon, that we had power over the contractors to make them do as we wished. The Government were.

no party to the change in any way, shape or form.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The companies had -the power to select their port?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Certainly.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What was the
trouble, then?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The trouble was that they had advertised that they were going ito St. John, and then in twenty-four or forty-eight hours they changed their minds completely and stated that they were going to Halifax.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Amongst whom
would that make trouble, and what was the nature of the trouble?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The nature of the
trouble should be very easily understood by a clever gentleman like my hon. friend from Halifax. Supposing the companies had advertised publicly that they were all going [DOT]to Halifax, and the people of Halifax had been very much pleased over this, and then within forty-eight hours after the people of Halifax had had this good news, the companies changed their minds and all decided to go to St. John; would not the people of Halifax be disappointed. It stands to reason they would.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is what
happened?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: That is what happened in St. John. The companies, after advertising publicly that they would go to St. John, changed their minds two or three days afterwards and, instead of having all their fine ships, the Alsatian, the Calgarian, the Victorian, the Virginian -and the Empresses *going to St. John as advertised, and after having made a timetable for St. John, they -decided to go to Halifax. This was done without the intervention of the Government, in any way, shape or form. It has created the regrettable situation which now exists, and I have had occasion to tell the people who did it what I thought of them. It was done, however. After all this took place, the Royal boats, seeing that all these other ships were going to Halifax, decided to go to St. John. No undue pressure nor undue influence was brought to bear on the Royal line to go either to St. John or to Halifax.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What kind of
influence was it if it was not undue influence? Will the hon. minister describe what influence was exercised?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Well, I cannot describe a thing which does not exist. My hon. friend will have to live a few years longer before he tries to catch me with such a question as that.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I was not trying to catch the hon. gentleman.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I was not born a few years ago.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is information that we are after.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: None of the steamship companies which have entered into this contract has been forced by my department to change the terms of its contract or to enter into a new contract.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Will the hon.
minister deny that he had interviews with the Canadian Northern Steamship Company on this matter?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I will not deny that 1 had interviews with all these railway companies and steamship companies in regard to this matter. I told them what I thought of this advertising which was changed later on and stated that it created a regrettable situation. My hon. friend would have done the same thing had he been in my place. No undue influence or pressure, however, was exercised to bring to Halifax vessels which were going to St. John. If it were true that the Government had taken the Empresses from St. John to put them into Halifax and had taken the Royals from Halifax to put them into St. John, we would have done a thing which would have compensated itself, but we would have created trouble for ourselves to no purpose. The Royals havt been'going to St. John under the terms of the agreement which has been signed and which has not been changed.
The whole situation can be summed up in the following way: Our friends, the Liberals in St. John, say that we are interfering in favour of Halifax, and the Liberals in Halifax say that we are interfering in favour of St. John. They are trying to create local prejudice in both cities against the Government, whereas the Government is trying to inaugurate a great public service in the interest of the country at large. They go to the city of St. John and say: Look at this Government; they are doing this for Halifax and they should do it for St. John. They go to the city of Halifax and say:	Look at this
Government; they are doing this for St.

John and they should do it for Halifax. The Liberals are doing this in order to create local prejudice and they expect the people to believe that the Government is doing these things. I have been disappointed at the way in which this matter has been treated. We have tried to give a good service to Canada. We are disappointed in some respects on account of the <Alsatian and the Calgarian not being in service last summer. We hope to be able to improve the service next year, and have strong reasons to believe that we are going to do so. I think, however, that every member of this House should help us to make this a great public service rather than a question in which petty local prejudice will take first place and first rank.


Wilfrid Laurier: If I understood my hon. friend aright, he said that all the trouble in this matter came from the fact that Canadian Pacific Railway Company, after having advertised that they would take their ships to St. John, within forty-eight hours changed their minds and decided to go to Halifax instead.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I would not like to say that it was within forty-eight hours, but it was two or three or four days afterwards.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is not my point. The important point is this, that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, after having stated to the people at St. John and to the country that their ships would go to St. John, changed their minds within a short time and said that they would take them to Halifax. Can my hon. friend explain how it is that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company would have acted in that way? What was their reason for so doing?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I cannot state what
was their reason, but I told them that it was not fair treatment to the people of St. John to tell them they were going there, and then a few days later to change their minds, thus creating trouble for us. I did not mince matters with them. They said they thought it was in the interest of the company to make the change and they had done it. That is the answer I got.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Was it before the 30th of September, 1913, that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company announced that they were going to St. John, and did they change their minds after the 30th of September?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I could not say
whether it was after or before, because I only came back from the West on the 30th of September. My recollection of the matter is what was stated to us at an interview which the citizens of St. John had with my right hon. friend the leader of the Government. I was present at that interview which took place about the beginning of October. They made the statement that these advertisements had been sent out by the Allan Line and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. After the meeting was over I went to these gentlemen and said that I would like them to show me these advertisements so that I could say that I had seen them. That is what justified me in speaking in regard to the matter later on.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Just because advertisements had been sent out?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Because advertisements had been sent out and made known to the public.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: You think that that is important?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes, I do.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My friend has not left it quite clear in my mind, but I understand that he comes to the conclusion, from what certain gentlemen from St. John told him, that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company changed their minds within two or three days. Did he afterwards get the information from the Canadian Pacific railway, that they had changed their minds?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I heard it in the first instance from the gentlemen who came here on the deputation. I think that the advertisements were published some time towards the end of September, when I was away in the West. I remember coming back to Ottawa on the 30th of September, and that interview took place some time in October. Then for the first time I heard that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Allan Company had done this.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The minister has not
caught the point. Did he afterwards get information from the Canadian Pacific railway themselves that they had changed their minds?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes. I put it up to the Canadian Pacific railway. I said: Why did you do that? They said they thought it in the interest of their own company, and



the contract, they said, allowed them to change their port.


Bt. Hon. E. L. BOEDEN (Prime Minister) :: As I may not have an opportunity to speak this evening, I would like to say a word on this subject in the short time allowed before the House rises. The facilities provided in the way of terminals both at Halifax and St. John have not been adequate in recent years for the traffic. In both cities new terminals are being constructed, and it is hoped that, within a very short time, at both these ports terminals will be provided which will enable them to handle traffic at least on equal terms with any other port on the Atlantic, or any port elsewhere in the world. The contract to which my hon. friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) has referred left it open to each company to select the port from which it should sail. I did not personally conduct the negotiations, but I understood that there was a decided objection on the part of the companies to having their ships call at both ports. ' The desire was that they should call at one port or the other; and we left it entirely open to the companies to select the port from which they should sail. Now the hon. gentlemen who have brought this matter forward have stated the terms of the contract and have said that by reason of some supposed action of the Government the contract has had a certain result. My hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean) who made the motion, endeavours to create the impression that the result operates a3 a discrimination againt Halifax; and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Carvell) who seconded the motion endeavours to make it appear that the result is a discrimination against St. John.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I did not argue that.


Mr. BOEDEN:: That is the direct inference, as I understand it, from what my hon. friend has said; for he complained, in the course of his remarks, that certain steamships which formerly called at Halifax did not now call at Halifax but called at St. John. He attributed that result to the interference of the Government. But the gentleman who seconded the motion complains that certain steamships which formerly called at St. John now call at Halifax, and he, in his turn, attributed that result to the action of the Government. 1 do not think I have characterized the conduct of either of these gentlemen in terms to which he can take exception. So far as we were concerned, we left it open

to these companies to select their own ports. A certain amount of discussion has arisen in Halifax and in St. John with regard to the action taken by the respective steamship companies. They were at perfect liberty under the terms of this contract to select the port from which they should sail, and the Government had no means, so far as I am aware, of compelling them or inducing them to go to either one port or the other. I have observed that it has been freely stated in the press which supports hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House that some inducement was offered by the Government to one or the other of these companies to take the course they did take. I desire to say that any such statement or insinuation is absolutely without foundation. So far as concerns the terms of the arrangement with the Canadian Pacific railway, which my hon. friend from Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell), who seems to be something of a railway expert, considers absolutely unfair to the Intercolonial railway, the general manager of the Intercolonial railway never had any suggestion or instruction from any member of the Government, so far as I am aware

and certainly not from myself-to make any contract which was not fair and just and equitable to the Intercolonial railway on business terms. And when my hon. friend from Carleton, N.B., undertakes to say that the terms are not fair to the Intercolonial railway, I do not propose to set myself up as a railway expert, but I would like to say to him that a little knowledge in these matters, as in some other matters, may occasionally be found a dangerous thing. It was perfectly agreeable to the Government that the terms of this contract should be submitted to the Board of Bailway Commissioners for Canada, and it was suggested, when complaint wras made in regard to the terms that these terms should be submitted, ibut no effective step in that direction has been taken from that time to the present, because, as I understand it, it was not desired to press tiie proposal to that extent.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What would be the user


Frederick William Borden: I do not know what my hon. friend suggests by that question.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The contract was made and the ships had gone to Halifax; what was the use of the people of St. John bothering about the Eailway Commission?


Frederick William Borden: The contract made might be modified. It was made only for six

months. But it was perfectly agreeable to the Government to have the terms examined by any railway expert. It was suggested that the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada should be empowered to do so. My hon. friend says they have no jurisdiction. But they could be given jurisdiction, if necessary, by this Parliament, to investigate any such matter. I am not familiar with the terms of the contract. The hon. gentleman states that as I understand it, that the sum of $15 per car was fixed-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is the way it figures out-$300 a train.


Robert Laird Borden: He calculates the rate at $15 a car from Halifax to St. John; and he declares this rate to be so absurd that it cannot be regarded as a business contract.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am a^guming twenty cars to the train, and that at $300 to the train, makes $15 a car.


Francis Cochrane: That is not the agree ment.


Robert Laird Borden: I took my hon. friend at his word. I do not understand these questions of freight-do not profess to understand them. But I will tell him what the Minister of Railways in the late Government put before this House as a reasonable cost for the carriage of cars of wheat and grain from Montreal to Halifax, the distance being estimated at 828 miles. It was hauled at 2 15 cents per bushel. And it was stated in answer to a question by that minister on that occasion that the estimated cost per bushel for the service operated by the Intercolonial railway was 2-27 cents per bushel.


Wilfrid Laurier: What is my
hon. friend reading from?


Robert Laird Borden: 
Mr. GERMAN:: The right hon. gentleman, neglects this point: In the agreement with Sutherland no maximum amount to be collected was mentioned; whereas in the agreement referred to on this occasion there is a maximum amount of $300.


Francis Cochrane: Not for freight trains,


Robert Laird Borden: I am dealing only with the point brought up by the hon. member for Carleton, namely, that the charge of $15 for the haulage of a car from St. John to Halifax was so absolutely absurd that the agreement should not be called a business agreement. I would point out that on the same basis the Intercolonial railway, for hauling a car from Montreal to Halifax, should have received more than $45 instead of $13.62 or $22.70.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I would call the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that the freight charges on the Intercolonial railway from here to Halifax are-governed by the mileage on the Canadian Pacific, a competing road, and not by its own mileage.


Robert Laird Borden: I am dealing with the point raised by the hon. member for Carleton, and that point .only. I do not profess to be an expert in these matters, as the hon. member for Westmorland is .said to be, and as the hon. member for Carleton claims to be. The assertion wae made that the price of $15 a car from Halifax to St. John was so absurd tbathe agreement could not be called & business agreement. I am pointing out that: in the answer which was given Dy a member of the late Administration it was stated that a much lower rate was a reasonable charge for hauling a car from Montreal to Halifax,, a distance of 828 miles, and therefore I would be inclined to doubt the absolute knowledge of my hon. friend from Carleton with regard to the subject.
I think that the interests of the country may, perhaps, be safely left in the hands of the gentleman who is at present the general manager of the Intercolonial railway, and who is familiar with these matters -certainly more familiar with them than any hon. gentleman in this House can claim to be. So far .as the Government was concerned, the object and desire was to provide a better steamship service across the Atlac-.

tic and a more speedy conveyance of the mails. In doing that, for the reasons which have been adduced by the railway companies themselves, we left it open to these railway and steamship companies to select their own port. It has happened that two of the Canadian Pacific boats which formerly went to St. John now go to Halifax, and that two of the Canadian Northern boats which formerly went to Halifax now go to St. John. That was a matter over which the Government had no control; that was a matter which under the terms of the contract was absolutely open to the railway and steamship companies themselves to settle-[DOT] and they did settle it accordingly. Even upon the assumption put forward by the hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House who have discussed this subject, I do not consider that there has been any detriment up to the present time to the interests of either port. I entirely concur in what my hon. friend the Postmaster General has said, that it is not a desirable thing in this House to stir up and dwell upon local animosities or jealousies, but that the two ports, Halifax and St. John, should work together for a common purpose, namely, that of keeping, as far as may be reasonably possible, Canadian traffic, increasing as it is by leaps and bounds from year to year, for our own ports and our own transportation companies.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Of course there is no objection to the papers in this matter being produced, but I decidedly object to that part of the motion in which we are called upon to bring down conversations. We have no detectaphones in our department.


Wilfrid Laurier: Lucky for you.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I suppose my hon. friend will not mind my asking him to amend his motion to that effect?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not see why the hon. Postmaster General should not tell the House the substance of the personal interviews held between himsejf and officials of the Canadian Northern railway. I know that such interviews did take place.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) and my right hon. friend the leader of the Government (Mr. Borden), in dealing with 
this matter, have confined themselves entirely to contending that this is a difficulty between two maritime cities and that the discussion of it is for the purpose of arraying the one against the other; and the Postmaster General, with a dexterity which is characteristic of him, dealt with it purely from that standpoint. I am not concerned with that aspect of the question. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) has dealt with it from this standpoint, that the Government had dealt with the matter not merely to the detriment of the city of St. John or the city of Halifax, but had dealt with it unfairly and unjustifiably in affecting and changing the terms of a contract, which had been entered into by the Government of Canada with respect to the carriage of mail. The hon. member for Carleton, N. B., (Mr. Carvell), was not seeking to array one city against the other. He was pointing out distinctly that the Government was doing a wrong to the Intercolonial railway and thereby injuring the interests of Canada at large, in doing as they did-bringing influence to bear to change, in the one instance, the terminals of the Canadian Pacific railway mail steamships, and, in the other instance, the terminals of the Canadian Northern mail steamships. I am interested in the discussion of this matter solely from the standpoint of the way in which it deals with and treats the Intercolonial railway. I think that this contract that was entered into between Mr. Gutelius as representative of the Intercolonial railway and Mr. Bosworth as representing the interests of the Canadian Pacific railway is one of the most outrageous contracts ever entered into between railway companies and one that never would have been entered into by two private corporations. I am sorry the Minister of Railways is not in his seat else I would remind him that last session he came down to the House and told of securing Mr. Gutelius upon a two years' contract at the rate of $20,000 a year; he said that he had secured his services as manager of the Intercolonial railway for that period, that he was so im-' port ant a railway man and was considered as having such great qualifications that the Canadian Pacific railway had merely lent him to the Government for two years in order that he could serve the interests of the Intercolonial railway. We find that after he was engaged as general manager of the Intercolonial railway he entered into this contract, an old employee of the Canadian Pacific railway, for the time being in the employment of the Intercolonial

railway, which lailway paid his salary- he entered into a eon tract with the Canadian Pacific railway with respect to traffic rates over the Intercolonial railway. If my right hon. friend the Prime Minister were in his seat I would ask him if it was true, as stated in the Halifax Herald, during September last, that he called upon Sir Thomas S-haugh-nessy and made the request of him that Halifax should be made the Atlantic terminal port for their steamships. It was so stated in the Halifax Herald and it was so represented, that Mr. Borden as leader of the Government and representing the city of Halifax, went to the Canadian Pacific railway, as represented by Sir Thomas Shaughnessy, and requested that this be done, that Sir Thomas Shaugh-nessy's answer was that he could not make Halifax the terminal point when he had St. John fixed for that purpose and that it would entail too serious a loss to the Canadian Pacific railway to change the terminal point and to go to Halifax instead of St. John, and that unless the loss was assumed by the Intercolonial railway he would not make such a change. That is a report of an incident which appears in the Halifax Herald, which certainly is not unfriendly to this Government or to the right hon. gentleman who leads it. We only have the circumstances as a guide to the interpretation of the change that was made. Now it is represented on behalf of the Canadian Pacific railway that going to Halifax would entail a very serious loss to them in the transportation of their freight and passengers to such a distance, particularly in the case of freight. It is recognized that the distance between Montreal and Halifax by way of St. John over the Canadian Pacific railway is shorter than the route over the Intercolonial railway and if the contention of the Canadian Pacific railway, as represented by Sir Thomas Shaughnessy, is correct, that they could not carry their freight to Halifax except at a loss and. that that loss must be assumed by the Intercolonial if he was to be induced to go to Halifax over the rails of the Intercolonial railway, then it must be assumed also that by the longer haul, the greater mileage from Montreal to Halifax, the Intercolonial railway has been sustaining a very serious loss in its export business from Montreal to the port of Halifax. Herein we are face to face with this condition that the Intercolonial railway, if it is true that a loss is incurred by reason of using Halifax as a terminal
point, must assume the burden of its own loss and at the same time, by this agreement, assume the burden of the loss of the Canadian Pacific railway. Evidently the Canadian Pacific railway insisted that the. loss should be borne by the Government through the Intercolonial railway. The agreement entered into is evidence of that fact. My hon. friend from Carleton has referred to that agreement, I hold that it is an irregular and illegal agreement-and I am sorry that the Minister of Railways i3 not here. This afternoon, he brought down an answer to a question that was placed on the Order Paper, stating that the agreement was entered into on a certain date, and that it had not been made the subject matter of an Order in Council. I need only cite to the House and remind the Government-they must haye known it-that under the 46th section of the Government Railway Act of Canada, the Governor in Council, alone, has the right to fix the tolls to be -charged on traffic over the Intercolonial; that the Minister of Railway himself has not the power to fix tolls; that it can only be done on his recommendation under the authority of the Governor in Council. The 46th section reads:
The Governor in Council may impose

' May ' is read in the statutes interchangeably with ' shall.'
-and authorize the collection of tolls and dues upon any railway vested in His Majesty, or under the control or management of the minister, and, from time to time, in like manner, may alter and change such tolls or dues, and may declare the exemptions therefrom.
2. All such tolls and dues shall he payable in advance, if so demanded by the collector thereof.
The 47th section reads;
All such tolls and dues may be recovered, with costs, in any court of competent jurisdiction, by the collector or person appointed to receive the same, in his own name or in the name of His Majesty, and by any form of proceeding by which debts to His Majesty may be recovered.
I hold that in the management of the Intercolonial railway all rates and tolls must first be fixed by the Governor in Council and that they are not -collectable unless made by him; and in the history of the administration of that railway from the beginning down to the present day every tariff, every arrangement made with respect to even special tariffs, has been made under the authority of the Governor in Council, and under that authority only. Even in oases of urgent necessity, where the minister has been called upon to act, or direct

that his manager shall act, with respect to fixing certain special rates, these have always been made the subject matter of an Order in Council. I recall my own ex-xience in that regard. I know of the experience of other administrators of that department. I was amazed when I read the answer of the present Minister of Railways to the effect that an arrangement had been entered into between the Intercolonial Tailway and the Canadian Pacific railway, affecting so seriously the traffic of the Intercolonial railway, and that such agreement bad not been made the subject matter of an Order in Council. It was not even known to the right hon. the Piime Minister an September or October last when he had that celebrated interview with the delegation from the city of St. John. It is evidently not known to the Minister of Railways and Canals, and I am not surprised at that, because things are going on, apparently, which are entirely unknown to Mm, such matters as the changing or discontinuance of trains, which he denies one day in Parliament, and about which he is compelled to give a correction	on
~the next day, and acknowledge that he was wrong and that they occurred without any	information	on
Ms part. It seems strange indeed that when that delegation from St. John questioned the right hon. the leader of the Government and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and the Postmaster General, at the interview held in Ottawa in October last, and asked what the agreement was, they one and all said they knew nothing about it. It was something that had been done by the general manager. At least they must have learned about it a very short time afterwards. If they did not do so, they were recreant to their duty. They must have learned of this traffic arrangement, and I think I have the right to complain, Mr. Speaker, with reference to this matter. We only have before us the heads of this traffic agreement. We have not the agreement itself. It has not been made, admittedly, the subject of an Order in Council. On the very first day of this session I moved for a return asking for a copy of the agreement. It has not been furnished, and no information has been given, as it could have been given this evening by the Minister of Railways, with xespect to that contract. We are discussing a matter that affects vitally the trade and traffic of the Dominion and the interests of "he Maritime provinces, and yet the I Mr. Emmerson.]
Government has withheld-I do not know for what purpose-the full text of an agreement that was entered into by Mr. Gutelius, their servant, without authority. Mr. Gutelius told the people of the city of St. John that he had signed a contract and that it was fixed. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries apparently concurred in the idea, and he admittedly, by his silence, said that it was fixed. The right hon. leader of the Government assumed because Mr, Gutelius made this arrangement, that therefore it was fixed and binding upon the Government of Canada. I charge the responsibility upon the Government itself. If they were ignorant of the requirements of the law under which they were operating the railway, then that is inexcusable on their part. They should have known that no such agreement could be effective or legal unless it were made the subject matter of an Order in Council. But the agreement goes further-


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It is only a temporary agreement.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I care not if it were only for one week. I say that the Minister of Railways himself could not enter into such an arrangement, much less could his general manager acting under him, and therefore it seems to me that while they are operating under this 'agreement they are doing it illegally, against the authority of the law. They must know with respect to the matter. I think my right hon. friend the leader of the Government and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries treated somewhat cavalierly the delegation from St. John. I think that their promise, that they should have the full text of the agreement-which has never been implemented-was just a piece of jollying. I am sorry to come to that conclusion, but I am bound to do so, and I think my right hon. friend in dealing with this matter this afternoon in this House was not treating the House in the way he should. He was not dealing with this matter seriously. He must know that the agreement is not a legal agreement and not binding; he must know that the Government of Canada cannot, His Majesty the King cannot, legally recover any freight charges made under that agreement. The Minister of Railways repudiated the idea that $300 was the maximum charge on a freight train which might contain 30 cars or 50 cars, between St. John and Halifax, but he admitted that $300 was the maximum charge on a 12 car

passenger train. Let me point out to him that the agreement says:
Freight of all classes in either direction 75 cents per ton of 2,000 lbs, with the exception of flour and grain which will be carried at the rate of 60 cents per ton of 2,000 lbs; the maximum earning for this trafflc on any one train to be $300.
It is hot unusual that freight trains between St. John and Halifax may consist of 30 cars, or 40 cars, and even 50 cars; it is largely dependent upon the capacity of the cars hauled and the power of the locomotive used, and yet it is clear that $300 is the maximum charge no matter what the size of the train. I do not think it is opportune for me now to discuss the financial features of this arrangement, but there is no doubt that here we have an arrangement entered into between the Government of Canada and the Canadian Pacific railway, an arrangement not authorized by the Government by Order in Council but carried into effect by their servant and subordinate, and an arrangement which entails upon the Government of Canada the enormous burden of hauling between St. John and Halifax heavily loaded freight trains for the munificent sum of $300. This agreement involves further, the carrying of these empty cars back to St. John without -charge; it involves the payment to the Canadian Pacific railway of a per diem and wheelage allowance on the use of these cars, because the Intercolonial railway is compelled to pay wheelage on these empty cars. What a magnificent contract! Can there be found for it a parallel in America or in the entire railway world? Can there be found anywhere on this continent a like arrangement between any two railway companies? It is not necessary for me to discuss the ulterior motives, if any, the parties had in executing such an arrangement; it only rests with me to state the facts. But, Sir, it involves more than the payment of a merely nominal charge for the carrying of this freight and passenger traffic between St. John and Halifax; it involves the cancellation of trains all over the Intercolonial railway. And why do I say this? I say it because in order to carry out the agreement entered into with the Canadian Pacific railway, the Intercolonial railway, short as it is of motive power, have been compelled to discontinue ordinary trains and take away locomotives for the transportation of special trains for the Canadian Pacific railway between Halifax and St. John. And all this has to be done on account of this nominal remuneration paid to the Intercolonial railway. More than that, and I have proof of the fact, the Intercolonial railway trains are held up repeatedly in order to allow the special trains of the Canadian Pacific railway to have the right of way, the Intercolonial railway trains being subordinated to the convenience of the Canadian Pacific railway trains. Not later than Saturday last, an important train to the business interests of that section of the country represented by my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes), the train known as No. 83, running from Springhill to Moncton daily except Sunday, was filled with passengers, among them many from Amherst going westwards, and that train was held up for 27 minutes at Aulec station to suit the convenience of a Canadian Pacific railway special running under the terms of this agreement. That same train on the same day was held up for 20 minutes at Sackville, in order to accommodate another Canadian Pacific railway train, so that the large number of passengers on the Intercolonial railway train were delayed 47 minutes to suit the convenience of the Canadian Pacific railway.
But that is not all. The Intercolonial railway trains have been disarranged and cancelled to the disadvantage of the employees of the Intercolonial railway, and to their loss and damage. I am amazed that hon. members from the Maritime provinces, who support the Government knowing as they must know the inconvenience and loss and damage to the people of the Maritime provinces, do not protest against this agreement. It is not too late yet for them to protest. The Government has not ratified the agreement by Order in Council; they have been shielding themselves behind Mr. Gutelius; and who is Mr. Gutelius? I do not know that he is even a Canadian. At one time, I know that he was an importation from the United States, and he came to the Intercolonial railway after he had attempted certain work in connection with the Transcontinental railway, and perhaps we will have the evidence of that work this week as promised by the Minister of Railways. He came to the Maritime provinces and took charge of the Intercolonial. With what effect? With this effect that to-day there is not a man who has been trained on the Intercolonial holding a responsible position on the Intercolonial. The head of the department of maintenance and way, the head of the engineering department, the head of every responsible department of the Intercolonial, who heretofore have been

trained up from the ranks of the Intercolonial, almost every one of these men have disappeared hither by way of dismissal or of retirement under the convenient provisions of the Provident Fund Act, and in some instances illegally retired under the provisions of that Act and disturbing its equilibrium. I could hot speak too strongly with respect to this matter.
Where four years ago on the Intercolonial there were three engineers doing the work, to-day there are fourteen or fifteen men doing the same work. Where did these men come from? In almost every instance they came from the Canadian Pacific railway, where Mr. Gutelius came from. Not only that, but many of them have come there as relatives of Mr. Gutelius, the general manager of the Intercolonial. Intercolonial men displaced, sent out of employment in many instances in mid-winter, deprived of their livelihood! For what purpose? To make room for importations from the Canadian Pacific railway and from the United States.
A few weeks ago I was sitting in court in the county of Westmorland, and I heard the affidavit and application of the chief engineer of the Intercolonial for naturalization. He had been in Canada for some years; he had been in the employment of the Canadian Pacific railway, and his appointment at Moncton was brought about by the displacement of an old and retired Intercolonial engineer, a man against whom naught can be said, a man whose qualifications are the equal if not the superior of those of the importation to whom I refer. Mr. Brown, the chief engineer of the Intercolonial, made application for naturalization. I think it was in December, 1913, but a few weeks ago. At that time he had been in	the employ of
the Intercolonial for nearly a year. Others have not yet made application for naturalization. What is more, some of them were brought from the Canadian Pacific railway; they were pensioners on the Provident Fund of the Canadian Pacific railway, and they are receiving employment from the Government and being paid wages by the Government, while at the same time they are receiving pensions from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. Many of these things are the result of this illegal, this improper agreement.


Mr. RHODES:: Will the bon. member give the names of any men who are pensioners of the Canadian Pacific Railway

Company and at the same time employees of the Intercolonial railway?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The names will appear in the returns that have been moved for. I cannot recall any names from memory; I only know the fact, and I know that the statements which I make cannot be successfully refuted.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: Never denied.


Henry Robert Emmerson: for an action which is disadvantageous to the people of Canada, to the trade of Canada as a whole and to the Intercolonial railway itself. The very discharge of men on the Intercolonial railway and retirement under the Provident Fund provisions disturbs the equilibrium of a great fund provided for the protection of the employees. More than that, it imposes burdens on every young man called into the employ of the Intercolonial railway during this year or in future years. The present administration of the Intercolonial railway is working havoc with its business. The discontinuance of the ' Ocean Limited ' will disturb the traffic between here and the eastern provinces to such an extent that that traffic will not be recovered when the Intercolonial railway begins running the Ocean Limited next spring, if it does begin to run that train. We all know that men get into the habit of going to certain hotels and travelling by certain routes. I believe the Intercolonial railway route is by all odds the best. I am anxious to see the Intercolonial railway succeed in every possible way. But this Government, apparently, seeks to undermine the business of the Intercolonial railway, business that belongs to it properly in view of its location and circumstances. The Government, I say, are chargeable with disturbing that traffic and injuring the Intercolonial railway to that extent.
My right hon. friend the Prime Minister made reference to a statement made by Mr. Sutherland, who was acting Minister of Railways in 1903, in respect of freight charges. My right hon. friend knows-and if he does not he should know-that the through traffic over the Intercolonial to St. John and to Halifax is governed by the mileage of the Canadian Pacific railway; that is to say, the shorter mileage of the .competing route governs the freight charges. Although it is upwards of 800 miles over the rails of the Intercolonial between Halifax and Montreal, the freight rates are computed not on that mileage, but on the mileage between Montreal and Halifax by the shortest rail route-that is over the Canadian Pacific railway via the city of St. John. If you take the Intercolonial at Montreal and go to the city of St. John, you travel many more miles, but you pay the same as you pay on the Canadian Pacific railway, which follows a much shorter and more direct route. So that it is the rule of all railway companies to base their charges on the shorter mileage of a competing route;
' therefore the reference that was made by my

right hon. friend does not apply and is no guide in this instance. In brief, tne matter stands this way: This Government, in order to disarrange its mail contract, and void its terms; in order to go behind the ordinary selection that would be made by the steamship companies; in order to render nugatory the binding contracts entered into by them one year ago in respect of mails and transportation, have illegally, improperly and surreptitiously entered into a contract with the Canadian Pacific railway, through a servant of theirs who had no authority whatever to execute such a contract without the approval of the Governor in Council-which latter authority has never been given-and they are seeking to shelter themselves behind that agreement. I wish that this motion were one involving the condemnation of the Department of Railways and Canals and the Government for even permitting to continue an agreement so outrageously wrong and so absolutely without a parallel in the history of railway contracts.


William Findlay Maclean: I
do not intend to go into the discussion of the rival claims of St. John and Halifax in this matter. I was glad to hear the Prime Minister say that new and first-class terminals, the very best in the world, were to be constructed at St. John and at Halifax in connection with the Intercolonial and with Atlantic transportation from those ports. But there is a view of this matter which has not yet been presented to the House, and for a few moments I intend to ask the attention of hon. gentlemen to that special view. I think I am well in order, inasmuch as the motion calls for a copy of the agreement between the Canadian Pacific and the Intercolonial, and in that agreement is involved the question of transportation charges generally. Four great steamship companies are involved in this discussion and in the motion, and the Government of Canada is to-day dealing with these four great Atlantic transport companies in the matter of the carrying of our mails. But there is also involved in this discussion, as I say, an agreement between the Intercolonial and the Canadian Pacific. The farmers of the Canadian west are complaining very much of the enormous freight charges upon the wheat and other products of the Canadian west and the most serious charge-and the one to which the attention of this country has been called recently with great vigour-is that of the enormous increase in ocean freight rates that took place within the last two or three years.

We even sent the chairman of our Railway Commission across to the old country to try to find the source of that great increase in ocean freight rates, and the origin of that most serious tax on the wheat and the Hour of the Canadian west. Arrived in the old country, the chairman found that there was a great increase in charges 9 p.m. -I believe he has made a report in the matter. The impression has gained ground in this country that in some way the powers of this Parliament or of the Railway Commission are not sufficient to reach whoever is at the head of this great Atlantic combine which has doubled the rates on ocean freight. To my mind the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in this country is the head of that great ocean combine. The White Star Line, which figures in this contract, is also in that combine, as well as the Canadian Northern's Royal Line, and the Allan Line, which to-day, so far as I can gather, is owned by the Canadian Pacific railway. The only chance I see of reach ing that combine is not by going to England; not by appointing international commissions to investigate the matter, and then going round the world and asking France, [DOT]Germany, Great Britain and the United States to regulate this ocean combine, but the way to reach it is by trying to regulate it in our own country. My view of it- and it has always been my view in this House-is that if we find any corporation in this country which has been created by Parliament and is treating the Canadian public unfairly, then we ought to do business no longer with that company. I contend that before this agreement was made with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, giving it very substantial advantages in connection with the Intercolonial Railway Company, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company should have been compelled to explain its connection with the combines affecting Atlantic transportation and freights on the Atlantic, and we should have had no further dealings with the Canadian Pacific railway until it declared its willingness to dissolve that pool. The Canadian Pacific railway, the Allan Line, the Royal Line and White Star Line, doing business with the people of Canada to-day, are all in that great combine; they are the people who are doing most unfairly by the farmers of the West. I charge it here that the Canadian Pacific railway, the Grand Trunk railway and that company that came here last year, the
Richelieu and Ontario, for the purpose of securing additional legislation, are all in another combine, the details of which will be unfolded in a few days, to control absolutely every boat doing freight business from Duluth right down to the city of Quebec. And all these are being put into another great pool, so that this great combine will control the ocean freight, the river and lake freight, and the railroad freight; in that way one combine will dominate this whole country from the Pacific clean across to the market for our produce, Great Britain. If that is the case, and I challenge any one in this House to deny it, then Parliament should have no dealings with any corporation in the way of giving that corporation increased privileges on our great national railway, without demanding from it an explanation and insisting on that corporation withdrawing from that pool. The Prime Minister this afternoon, in discussing the great port development and the great terminals in connection with the Intercolonial railway at St. John, Quebec, Halifax and Montreal, said that these were to be great ports and great terminals. Are they to be given to the use of the Canadian Pacific railway and the Allan line and the Royal line and the White Star line, while these same companies are in a pool to uphold freight rates to twice what they were two years ago, and who, if allowed to continue this policy, can put the rates up still higher ? Freight rates are the greatest issue in this country. The development of the West turns absolutely on that question. We have had delegations down here asking for free wheat. The movement for free wheat into the United States, to my mind, turns on the question of freight rates more than any other question, and by free wheat competition in freight rates and competition in prices might be secured. And certainly low freight rates will never come if we shut our eyes to the fact that the great railways of this country are the head of the Atlantic pool and that the greatest sinner of all is the Canadian Pacific railway. This same Canadian Pacific railway has been given substantial advantages over the line of the Intercolonial, and I think the time has come to call a halt m this matter and to have no dealings with any corporation that will enter into a combination of that kind. Certainly no more relief, no more legislation of any kind ought to be given to these great corporations without first insisting upon their presenting a clean bill oFTiealth that they are not in that com-

bine, whether on the lakes and rivers or on the ocean. There is no other way to reach them. It was suggested to me to-day that it would be a fine thing to get another great big commission and to send it abroad and to get all the facts about this ocean combine and create international legislation regarding a thing which we can regulate here at home and in this House of Parliament. There is only one way to do it and that is to refuse to have any relations with these railways or to give them any rights and to refuse them any further legislation. I call the attention of the people of the Northwest to the fact that as long as we give them legislation or other substantial relief in the way of money grants or loans or anything, or give them rights over the Intercolonial railway, we will be showing ourselves incapable of taking care of ourselves. We are making them the rulers of this country, we are not making them serve the country as they ought. That is a point that comes home to me in this discussion in regard to transportation questions which demand so much attention in Canada at this moment. While this seems a small agreement and a simple agreement, and it can be terminated, from what I heard to-night, at very short notice, it cannot be terminated too soon for me in view of the fact that the Canadian Pacific railway is at the head of the ocean combine, and of the further fact that directors of the Canadian Pacific railway are now lining up this great inland navigation deal. I spoke about it here last session when the Richelieu and Ontario Navigation Company were here for legislation and when they did not get what they wanted, they resorted to other means. It shows that if you take advantage of these men when they come here and insist on them doing what is fair by the Canadian people, you can control these things. I presented the idea to the right hon. leader of the Opposition on several occasions when he was in office that any time these people came as petitioners asking for aid of any kind, asking for legislation and most of all asking for running rights over the Intercolonial railway, they should be denied and should not be listened to in any sense whatever unless they explained their connection with this Atlantic pool, explained their connection with this inland navigation combine and expressed their willingness to withdraw from it. I say it is absurd that a country like Canada cannot control these people, and that the view is going out to the coun-
try now in- all directions that somehow we cannot control them. There is a constitutional cure for every grievance in this country within the walls of our own legislature, within the covers of our own statute book, if we care to use it. When these railways come here as suppliants for money or legislation, for privileges, we must insist, first of all, on asking them to explain their conduct in the past and to explain, as these railways and steamship lines ought to explain, why they are subjecting the Canadian people to this unfair treatment in regard to freight rates. As I said, the question of freight rates is of interest to all Canada. The farmers in the West now are up against it. A commission has been sitting in the West and that commission has found that a farmer can hardly make money out of wheat when he gets 64 cents or 65 cents a bushel, which was the average in Saskatchewan last lear. That commission says it costs over 60 cents to raise wheat. There is no profit in it for the Canadian farmer; if he does not profit 25 cents a bushel on wheat he cannot succeed. This Parliament, if it wishes to protect the rights of the people of this country, must istop making agreements with corporations, and if this agreement with the Canadian Pacific railway can be cancelled in a very short time I say it ought to be cancelled for the simple reason that the Canadian Pacific railway is the head of the Atlantic pool, it is to-day the head of the inland transportation pool, and it controls the freight rates in the West.


Mr. MACDONALD:: What inland transportation pool?


William Findlay Maclean: Every inland navigation company on the St. Lawrence and on the lakes, clean up to Duluth or Fort William, or Port Arthur, is being consolidated to-day, and if you read the financial reports from London to-day you will see the first flotation of bonds is being put on the market. If you look at the names connected with it you will see boats called after directors of the Canadian Pacific railway, you will see directors of the Canadian Pacific railway on some other companies that are being consolidated into the combine; and wherever you go you see this enormous combine-and you see it taking the last dollar out of the farmers of the Canadian West. They are committed to what was discarded in the Western States years ago. The principle of the railways in arranging their freight rates in the Western United States some years ago, before the establishment of the Interstate Commerce

Commission, was to take as much out of the farmer for freight rates as would keep him a poor man on the land. That is what we are doing with this vaunted West of ours, we are putting the farmer at the mercy of the transportation companies. We would not even let him have access to the United States market because the competition of the American roads and of the ships going out of the city of New York would perhaps compel a reduction in these freight rates and perhaps the Americans, before we do it, might find a way of breaking up these combines and we might get the benefit in that way. My contention is, and I present it with all respect -to -the House, that it is time we quit talking about these things in the direction of going outside of our own country and getting outside aid to discipline these roads. It is -time to quit dealing with any of these companies that have been proved to be an outlaw in any way, and least of all should we give a road that is an outlaw-and I contend that every company in that steamship combine on the Atlantic is an outlaw-any rights over the property owned by the -people of Canada. To my mind the Intercolonial is the greatest asset Canada has, and it ought to be kept intact, and if we give the Canadian Pacific railway running rights over the Intercolonial why should not we get the same terms from the Canadian Pacific and extend the Intercolonial to Toronto, Winnipeg and British Columbia. I would like to see the Canadian Pacific giving the Intercolonial reciprocal terms over their line!


Wilfrid Laurier: Sign a similar contract to the one we have now?


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, if they will sign it. I would be glad to endorse that if the Intercolonial could go over the Canadian Pacific on equal terms, I am not against all the roads in Canada having running rights over the Intercolonial if they will reciprocate. That would be -a good thing for the Intercolonial; it would get built up in that way. But I do not like a onesided bargain, and I do not like trading with a corporation that to-day is maintaining freight rates away above wh-at they ought to be, and away above the rates that would be imposed upon them if we had some jurisdiction over them. I believe the steamship companies come under our jurisdiction by the powers conferred in the Railway Act, and if that Act does not give us power over these companies we can revise it, so as to reach this ocean combine. But I am against dealing with these corporations at the present time or giving them any privileges over the national property or at the national ports. What good would the Minister of Public Works do this country if he spent $50,000,000 in great terminals at Halifax and St. John and if he allowed the Canadian Pacific to use them and that company charged what it liked on the ocean. We are always doing something new, giving some advantage to somebody, but we are not getting the advantage ourselves -and if we are to have the same experience with the railways as we have had in connection with ocean -freight rates the benefit of our national ports will go to these railways and all they will do is to take advantage of them -and put increased rates on the farmers and business men of the West. That is not good policy. It has got to stop and it must be stopped right away. And that contract, if it can be withdrawn-and I believe it can-ought to be withdrawn in the interests of this country unless the Canadian Pacific can show the Government that they -have a clean record in regard to the Atlantic combine in the matter of freight rates. Otherwise, they should not -have that contract for a day longer than is necessary to cancel it. I have said wh-at I 'have to say -and I think I -have presented this question in a new way. I do not present it in a partisan way at all. I do not want to place any criticism on either side of the House, for wh-at has taken place in the past, but I do want to show this House and all the people of Canada the connection between these railways and these ocean lines and the -high freight rates prevailing in this country. The time has come when there must be no dealing with a transportation company that seeks to control the freight of the railways, to control the cartage agencies even, the lake and river freight and ocean freight, and the farmer who grows the grain and the miller who grinds the flour; and it is_ the western miller who is complaining most bitterly about the Atlantic combine. I say that once for all we ought to stop having dealings with these corporations in the way of giving them running rights and special rates as long as they give the people of Canada most unfair, most unjust and burdensome freight rates in connection with the ocean, in connection with the inland lakes and the railways.
, Mr. O. TURGEON (Gloucester):	I did
not expect to discuss this evening the question of ocean rates, but 1 must say that the argument of my hon. friend who

has just taken his seat has appealed to me very much, and I think if the Canadian Pacific railway were to come into contact with the many companies operating on the Atlantic that an arrangement more satisfactory to the people of Canada would be effected. I think I may say to my hon. friend from South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) that in my estimation he can expect but little relief in that respect for the farmers of the West, and the importers on the other side of the Atlantic, at least so long as the Conservative Government and the Canadian Pacific railway are in existence in this country. I am not a resident of St. John, nor am I a citizen of Halifax, and therefore I cannot be accused of being actuated by jealousy. [DOT] I belong to the north shore of New Brunswick, about equidistant from Halifax and St. John, and I look on this question from the broad standpoint of a Canadian citizen, more particularly as a Canadian of the province by the sea, and we in those provinces know that the immense harbours we have at Halifax and other places have been placed there not so much for the benefit of the citizens of St. John and Halifax, out more particularly they have been put there by Providence to aid in the great development of the West and the ports of Canada generally.. Not only the people of St. John, but the people of New Brunswick as well, were simply astonished when those reports cajne last fall that the Canadian Pacific railway would terminate its business with St. John without any further declaration. This uneasiness of mind was not confined to the people of Halifax or St. John at that time, but permeated the brain of every citizen of New Brunswick and the Maritime provinces. We know that from the Canadian standpoint we) should encourage the shortest route possible for bringing passengers to our ports; more particularly does this apply to the transportation of mails. Every possible hour that can be saved the people of the West in getting their mails should be saved. The American people have always been on the lookout for anything tending to a quicker mail delivery. Years ago I advocated in this House and elsewhere a fast mail service between Ireland and St. John's, Newfoundland, and if ever the day comes when that service is put into effect, we ishall have the ideal fast mail service for this country. The Postmaster General has explained that it was left to the steamship companies to select between St. John and Halifax as a winter [Mr. Turgeon.J
port, and the Canadian Pacific railway and the Allan Line chose St. John while the Canadian Northern Steamship Line selected Halifax. We know that both harbours are equally well equipped and that improvements are going on daily; but I maintain it was to the advantage of the commercial interests of Canada that the steamers should continue to call at St. John. However, without explanation from the Government or from the steamship companies, the change was made, and the steamers were withdrawn from St. John, and everybody in the Maritime provinces began naturally to inquire into the cause. The Postmaster General told us that the Canadian Pacific Railway Steamship Company changed its mind as to the port of call, but it must be remembered that while probably the representatives of the Canadian Pacific railway were giving this information to the Postmaster General, at that very moment the Gutelius agreement was in existence. The Postmaster General has not yet told us that he was ignorant of the agreement, and the people of New Brunswick have been greatly impressed with the co-existence of this agreement and the appointment of Mr. Gutelius as General Manager of the Intercolonial railway. Neither the Postmaster General nor the Prime Minister has yet told us whether any legal agreement was made between the Government and the Canadian Pacific railway. We know that when the agreement was mooted, the Board of Trade of St. John, composed of citizens of all political parties and of probably more Conservatives than Liberals, appointed a delegation to interview the Prime Minister and the Minister of Railways, with regard to that matter, and they were told that so far as these ministers were aware no agreement was in existence. The delegation of the St. John Board of Trade returned to their city in the hope that no such agreement would be brought into force, but almost at the very moment that the delegates were in Ottawa, to protest against the agreement made between Mr. Gutelius for the Intercolonial railway and Mr. Bosworth for the Canadian Pacific railway, Mr. Gutelius was laying it down in the language of a Russian czar to the people of St. John that the agreement would be put in effect. When he was asked if the agreement would be cancelled, the answer he gave to the council of the board of trade was: ' I would not say that, but if you think an agreement signed by the vice-president of one company and by the

general manager of the other is not binding, then you had better go ahead. We know now that Mr. Gutelius put this agreement into operation without even the consent of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada. We are told to-day that this agreement is only for six months, but that is long enough for the Intercolonial railway to lose its traffic between St. John and Halifax, and if we did not object to it, there is no doubt that it would possibly be renewed for so long as this Government remains in power.


An hon. MEMBER:: That will not be long.


Mr. TURGEON:: I know it will not be long, but in the meantime it is our duty to endeavour to remedy the conditions existing along the line of the Intercolonial railway. As representing a northern New Brunswick constituency, I may say that we have always feared that the construction of other railroads would take away some trade from the Intercolonial railway and reduce that part of it in my district to the position of a local road. That fear has been renewed in our minds by the conduct of this particular official of the Intercolonial railway who has been so severely criticised by the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson), who was able to speak as an expert. For the information of the Prime Minister and the Postmaster General, who have told us that the agreement was only for six months, I wish to point out that there is an immense discrepancy between the rates charged by the Intercolonial railway to the shippers of the Maritime provinces and the amount charged under this agreement to that wealthy corporation the Canadian Pacific railway, for this traffic between St. John and Halifax, the result of which agreement will be to divert from St. John that traffic which legitimately belongs to it in the winter months.
The freight rates charged by the Intercolonial to the ordinary shippers of freight are ten or fifteen times more than those charged to the Canadian Pacific railway under the Gutelius agreement. The people of the Maritime provinces along the north shore wish this matter rectified just as much as the people of St. John and Halifax do. Here is a comparison of the rates existing at the time of the Gutelius agreement given at the meeting of the St. John Board of Trade.
The freight charges to the general shipper on flour and grain between St. John and Halifax
in carload lots is fourteen cents per hundred' pounds or $2.80 per ton as compared with the Gutelius agreement with the Canadian Pacific railway of three cents per hundred pounds or sixty cents per ton.
The charges to the general shipper on general freight range from thirteen to thirty-five cents' per hundred pounds in carload lots as compared with three and three-fourths cents' per hundred pounds or seventy-five cents per ton under the Gutelius agreement with the Canadian Pacific railway.
General freight charges, so far as the general shipper is concerned, are divided into* ten classes ranging from 35 to 12 cents per hundred pounds. For example the rate for class 1, which includes groceries and glassware, is 35 cents per hundred pounds; the rate for class 5, which includes molasses, sugar etc., is 17 cents per hundred pounds; the rate for class 10, the lowest class, which includes lime, etc., is 13 cents per hundred pounds.
Thus the lowest charge for general freight to the general shipper is 13 cents per hundred pounds, as compared with the rate of 31 cents per hundred pounds under the Gutelius agreement.
The Gutelius agreement states that no train of twelve cars is to exceed in earnings to the Intercolonial railway more than $300. Under ordinary circumstances, a train of twelve cars, carrying 500 people, at $6.25 a piece,-the lowest priced ticket issued between St. John and Halifax, commercial travellers' rates- would exceed in earnings $3,000 for the people's* railway, or, if the train were a freight train of twelve cars, which would be 720 tons, the ordinary rate of $2.80 per ton would mean a revenue to the Intercolonial railway of $2,016, as compared with the $300 under the Gutelius agreement.
Should the cars used be Canadian Pacific railway cars, that would, of course, make some difference in the value of the service.
This shows the difference between the charges which the people of the Maritime provinces are called upon to pay to the Government and the charges to the Canadian Pacific railway under the Gutelius agreement. If it is necessary to impose these charges upon the people of the-Maritime provinces, it is nothing else but robbery to make the people pay for the advantage given to the Canadian Pacific railway. I hope my hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean) is interested in these figures. They will appear in ' Hansard ' tomorrow for the study of the people of Canada.
My hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean), my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) and my hon. friend from West morland (Mr. Emmerson) have given the true state of affairs, and therefore I need not spend more time on this question. I simply wish to emphasize what they have' said, and to state that members on the other side of the House must not think for a moment that the people of St. John and*
fi08


Robert Rogers: I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Before the motion is put, I should like to say a word or two, not with the idea of prolonging this [DOT]discussion at too great length, but certain remarks have been made in the course of

this debate with which I do not quite agree. I am somewhat surprised that the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries has made no statement in regard to this matter, and that the hon. Minister of . Railways is. not in his place to discuss it. Although the Postmaster General nominally has to do with the mail contract, every one knows that the two ministers whom I have named have more to do with the working out of the matter than the Postmaster General has.
What are the facts? The Canadian Pacific railway made up their minds that they were going to bring their large steamers to Halifax this year and to sail them from that port. In order to do so, they had to get running rights over the Intercolonial from St. John to carry the passengers to and from their steamers. I am not one of those who regard it as unfortunate that the Canadian Pacific railway want to run their steamers from Halifax or that the Canadian Pacific railway want to run their trains into Nova Scotia. But when the hon. member for York comes here and wants to dictate what is to be done in regard to the Intercolonial railway, I must tell him that I come from a province where the onlyrailway of any kind which enables us to maintain communication with the rest of the transportation facilities of the country is the Intercolonial railway, and that railway to-day, run with excessive freight rates, without any competition whatever, is a great and onerous charge upon the business interest of that province. ,We want the Canadian Pacific railway, we want the Grand Trunk Pacific when it is completed, and like all the other provinces we have our right to desire every one of these transportation systems within our borders. These systems should not be precluded from going to that province; and, speaking for Nova Scotia, I claim for our people the benefits of competition. When the Canadian Pacific railway decided to come to Nova Scotia, having no railway communication, it was a fair business proposition to go to the Intercolonial railway and ask their permission to came in on fair terms. And when I recall the position taken by the St. John Board of Trade and other gentlemen in regard to this agreement., I recall that there was a lot of talk about what St. John was going to do about it. But why did they not go to the Railway Commission and ask that the agreement be reviewed? I would like to ask the people of St. John, who, as everybody knows, are complaining of the way they are dealt with,. why they did not have that agreement reviewed.


William Findlay Maclean: Does the hon.
gentleman contend that it is within the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I know it is not, as a matter of fact, but I saw it stated at the time on reliable authority that the Railway Department were willing to submit the terms of this agreement to the Railway Commission, waiving any legal or technical objections.


William Findlay Maclean: Would it not be an unfair discrimination, and thereby come within the purview of the Railway Commission?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am not discussing the technical question whether they could go there or not, because it was understood that they could go there. But what I say is, that the people of St. John should have acted upon their opportunity to go before the Railway Commission and have that agreement reviewed. I was not here when that phase of the subject was under discussion, and do not care now to discuss whether it was too much or too little. Every one in the Maritime provinces knows that the Government in that matter were playing politics. The Canadian Pacific railway wanted to come to Halifax with their big steamers. They decided to come there, no matter what happened. To placate St. John, the influence of the Government and of the Prime Minister, who represents Halifax, was exercised with his particular friends Mackenzie & Mann to take their steamers away from Halifax and send them to St. John. That is the cold English of the situation.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He says no.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If he did not do it
himself, he got somebody else to do it. So far as the facts are concerned, one does not need to have state papers brought down to make clear what any man of ordinary common sense knows to be the fact; as I venture to say that whatever diplomatic denials may be made, it is regarded as a fact.


Robert Rogers: I am sure the hon. gentleman will accept the word of the Prime Minister.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am bound to accept his word in this House. It may be that some other member of the Government went and did this thing behind his back. But in the city he represents he is held responsible for the fact that some [DOT]one in his Government arranged the deal 39
under which these two boats of Mackenzie & Mann were taken from the city of Halifax. The idea that they went of their own free will and accord is absurd. Sir William Mackenzie said so. Mr. Hannah kept wiring the people of Halifax day after day up to the eve of the withdrawal of the boats that he was not going to take them away and could not be induced to take them away. That is the situation-the Government is playing off one port against the other. But some day they will have to come out of the woods and settle what they are going to do. Up to that time, I suppose, they can fool the people of St. John and they can fool the people of Halifax.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, they cannot fool
St. John any more.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: They are making a brave effort to do so; and the same with Halifax. That is the whole thing with regard to. this discussion concerning the removal of these steamers. But my purpose in rising is to emphasize the fact that we want the Transcontinental lines in Nova Scotia, and we do not propose to be the only province in the country that is tied up to one railway system. Look at British Columbia. In a few years that province will have every one of our great transcontinental lines in it; and in that province the natural trade flowing to the Pacific through Vancouver does not begin to be as great as that which flows in winter to the Atlantic seaboard. But when we come to the Prime Minister and ask for even necessary railway accommodation, he declines to give it.


Mr. MICHAUD:: Will the hon. gentleman explain to the House how the freight rates have increased now that the Canadian Pacific railway has the right of running over the Intercolonial railway?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The freight rates,
under the Administration of this Government, have increased by leaps and bounds. Within the past year they have increased by almost fifty per cent on staple articles. Representations were made by the business interests of Nova Scotia, and as a result a reduction of this high increase was made, but the average freight increase paid by those interests last year is at least 25 per cent higher. And when we go to the Minister of Railways and ask him to give us merely reasonable railway improvements, we cannot get them. He gives the Prime Minister a road in his own constituency, but he will do nothing for



anybody else. So, I go on record for Nova Scotia as being anxious, for the purpose of competition and increasing of business, to have these transcontinental lines in our province. Under the Liberal Administration, we could send our coal, our iron, our steel, to Montreal in winter at rates that enabled the interests engaged in the production of these articles to make money. To-day, under this Government, through the increased freight rates imposed, it is impossible to send these products, which are staple products in our province, to the centres of industry of Canada. To the question as to what this Government should do in regard to the winter ports, it is time they stopped their shuffling. Every one in the Maritime provinces knows that they have been playing a game, and the sooner they stop it the better.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It was understood with the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) that he would expedite the conclusion of this debate at the first opportunity.


Robert Rogers: I understood from the
Minister of Marine and Fisheries, who is unavoidably absent this evening, that he was anxious to take it up at the first opportunity. That is why I moved the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate
10 p.m. adjourned.

Mr. PEOULX moved:: For a return showing the total amount of the travelling expenses of the members of the Government since their advent to power; the number of trips to other countries, Europe included ; the names of the ministers who have travelled at the expense of the public treasury ; the total amount so expended by each of the ministers who have so travelled; the objects of these visits, and how long each one lasted.


Mr. CEOTHEES:: I would like to suggest to my hon. friend a slight amendment to this motion. I would like him to add after the word ' Government ' in the second line, the words, ' including those of their private secretaries '; and that the first four words of the third line ' their advent, to power ' be stricken out, and the words ' January 1, 1897 ' be inserted in lieu thereof; and after the word * ministers ' in the fifth line that the words ' and by their private secretaries ' be added.


Edmond Proulx: I have no objection to
that, but I do not think we should go back
[ Mr. Macdonald. ]
to 1897. My motion concerns the present Government.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: We will let it stand if there is to be any controversy about it.


Mr.   SPEAKEE@: It can be moved by way of an amendment now, if it is agreeable.


Robert Rogers: We had an understanding that we were to go on with these resolutions this evening, and if there is any trouble about it, and my hon. friend will not allow it to stand, we will let it pass.


Edmond Proulx: I will consent to add the words ' and by their private secretaries ' but that is the only thing I will conse n to change.
Motion stands.
On motion of Mr. Bogers the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.
Tuesday, February 10, 1914.