[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 143) respecting the Bell Telephone Company of Canada.-Mr. Belcourt.
Bill (No. 144) to incorporate the Metropolitan Bank.-Mr. Belcourt.
Bill (No. 127) to confer on the Commissioner of Patents certain powers for the relief of George M. Depew.-Mr. McCarthy.

[Stage Direction]
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Wm. Mulock) moved for leave to introduce a Bill (No. 146) for the settlement of railway labour disputes. He said : The object of this Bill is to prevent lockouts and strikes upon railways by providing a more satisfactory way than those violent measures afford for the settlement of such disputes, and of differences as from time to time arise between railway companies and their employees. Although this is hardly the occasion for any lengthened observations, still as the measure is somewhat novel, perhaps a few words now would not be out of place. I would say that the proposition is in fact one for compulsory arbitration between railway companies and their employees in regard to the various subjects of contx-oversy that from time to time arise between those parties. The measure is confined entirely to the railway world, it does not deal with any other than railway industries, and therefore it is not a precedent for the ti-eatment of disputes between other classes. Railway companies, -it is to be remembered, occupy a unique position. Whilst strikes and lockouts upon railways affect the companies and their employees, there is a third interest to be considered, the public interest, perhaps the greatest of all, and that paramount interest appears to give jurisdiction on this occasion for the House to adopt what is apparently an extreme means in order to ward off the evil consequences flowing from railway strikes and lockouts. It is unnecessary to point out what those consequences are, they are apparent to all. When a strike takes place upon a railway the road falls iixto disrepair, the traffic is less safe, the travelling public and the train hands alike suffer and run greater risks. Delays in transportation of goods are moi'e fi'equent, and at times the strike culminates in a cessation of the operations of the railway.
Railways are the creatures of parliament,
they are created in the public interest, and for that reason they are given rights paramount to those of the individual. They are created to serve the public, in the first place, and it is the duty of the people's representatives to see that the object of parliament in granting charters is not defeated, either by the company or by their employees. Last winter there was a wheat blockade in the North-west Territories. We are told that, partial as was the interruption of the railway on that occasion, it caused a very considerable public loss. What would have been the consequences to Canada, if the Canadian Pacific Railway, instead of a partial failure of service on that occasion, had been unable to turn a wheel for a week ? It would have wrought, doubtless, widespread disaster to our country, yet such a contingency is always possible so long as there is ' no satisfactory tribunal for promoting friendly relations between companies and their men, and settling the labour disputes that are always arising between i-ailway companies and their employees. Sooner or later strikes and lockouts lead to arbitration. Why not sooner rather than later ? This measure proposes to substitute the provisions of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, for the present procedure of a strike or a lockout. The measure provides for the establishment of a tribunal equipped with ample powers for the settlement of all these questions. It is proposed to apply its provisions xxot merely to railways operating under Dominion, but also to those operating under provincial charters, and it will also be made applicable to the Intercolonial Railway and to any railways owned by provinces, with the consent of the governments of those provinces. It will apply to a railway operated by steam, electricity or any other motor power. The range of subjects that may be referi*ed is only limited by the variety of the subjects of dispute arising between railway companies and their employees. The "measure declares that strikes and lockouts shall be illegal, and it provides penalties for the contravention of these provisions. For the settlement of disputes there will be provincial boards of arbitration to deal with these questions if they are of a provincial character, but if they are more far-reaching than provincial, then, they will be dealt with by a Dominion board. The different provincial boards will be equipped with a clerk, who will be the medium of communication between the parties to the controversy and the board, and who will perform the clerical duties proper to his position. Each provincial board will be composed of three ai'bitra-tors, one to be chosen by the railway companies of the province, or operating within the province, according to a scale of voting that is provided in the Act, another to be
[Stage Direction]
eliosen by the men, and the third arbitrator to be chosen by these two, or failing their making a choice, then by the Governor in Council. For the purposes of this measure the North-west Territories are deemed to be a part of the province of Manitoba, and there being seven provinces, there will be seven local boards. The railway companies will elect one arbitrator to each of these seven boards, the employees will elect another arbitrator to each provincial board, and these two will elect a third, or in default the Governor in Council will appoint the third arbitrator. Thus you will have seven arbitrators representing the railway companies, seven employees' arbitrators, and seven arbitrators appointed by the government. In the event of the subject of dispute being more than a local one, it will be dealt with by the Dominion board. The Dominion board will consist of five members, two to be chosen out of the seven elected by the railway companies, two out of the seven elected by the employees, and the fifth to be chosen by the four, or failing their making a choice, then, by the Governor in Council. It will l>e the duty of this board, in the first instance, to be conciliatory and to endeavour to arrange a settlement of all matters in dispute. Failing in their efforts in that direction, the board is clothed with ample powers to proceed as arbitrators and to determine the questions referred to it and make an award. The award of the chairman and one other member of the board, being a provincial board, will be the award of the board. The award of the chairman and two other members, in the case of the Dominion board, will be the award of the board. The award of the board will be current for such time, not exceeding a year, as the award states, with a provision, however, that either party to the dispute may terminate it within a lesser period, but nevertheless, the award, when made, will continue in effect until another award has been made to take its place. It will not be permitted to any of the parties to the dispute to appear by counsel or professional gentlemen before the arbitrators unless by Consent of both par ties and of the arbitrators themselves. The award itself will not be cognizable in any court, and it shall not be removable to a court by certorari or in any other way for the purpose of amendment or of being quashed. In reference to the mode of election of provincial boards, the following is the proposal :	There will be at
Ottawa, an officer, to be called the registrar, whose duty it will be from time to time to prepare the election registers. The duration of a provincial board will be three years, the elections being triennial, unless a vacancy shall occur, in which case there is provision for a by-election. A voters' list will be made up for the railways, and Hon. Mr. MULOCK.
another for the employees, each railway operating within the province, being given as many votes in the election of its arbitrator as it has employees within the province. In regard to the employees, each employee in the province will have one vote. There will be two distant registers, the railways voting as one class and electing their representative on the board, and the men voting as one class and electing their representative on the board. They will vote by voting papers to be transmitted to the registrar, and these papers will be opened on a day named. There is provision for nomination and the usual machinery for the holding of such an election. In the event of a railway company. or other party, refusing to abide by the award, the measure provides penalties, and the last clause declares that these provisions shall apply to the government of Canada in refcpect to the Intercolonial Railway and to consenting provincial governments in respect to any railways which they may own and operate, and that the award shall be binding on the, respective governments.
Mr. SPROULE.: I understand that the railway company shall have as many votes as they have employees. How will tliev vote ?


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: That is as between the different railway companies, giving them their relative voting power.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes, just so. It may appear to be an Inartistic method, but if any hon. gentleman can advise any better method, it will be welcome.
I may say that it is not the intention of the government to pass this measure this session. It is presented to parliament and to the country now in order that it may receive consideration at the hands of the'pub-lic, of the railway companies, and of their employees during the recess, and the government will welcome any suggestions calculated to perfect the measure, so that it may more effectually accomplish the object in view, namely, the peaceful settlement of labour disputes Without any interruption to the operation of these railways and in a measure satisfactory to the great interests involved-to the interests of the railway companies and of the men.


Mr. A. W. PUTTEE (Winnipeg).: As regards the scope of the Bill, do I understand that it will apply to all railways chartered by this parliament; to all railways of a local character; and to electric street railways of a municipal character ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes. It will apply to all railways in Canada whether incorporated by the Dominion parliament, or by provincial legislatures, or otherwise; in-

eluding the Dominion government railways ! and also including any railways owned by [ provincial governments, should such pro- j vincial governments give their consent. It ' is not felt that we would have the right to make a mandatory order against a provincial government without its consent. The Bill will include tramways, electric railways, and so on.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (East York).: I would suggest that the Bill include telegraph companies as well. I throw out that suggestion to the minister.


Mr. INGRAM.: Is there any legislation in any country in the world similar to this ?


Hon. Mr. ROSS.: There is a compulsory arbitration Act in force in New Zealand, and it was adopted by the Commonwealth of Australia.


Andrew B. Ingram: I know of the Australian legislation, but is this law similar to that ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: My hon. friend (Mr. Ross) refers to the legislation recently passed by the legislature of New South Wales. That was a law dealing with labour questions between man and man, and I believe the last clause of that measure makes it to some extent applicable to government railways. But it is to be borne in mind that both in New Zealand and Australia the railways are owned by the governments, so that the legislation there is scarcely a precedent for us here. I am not aware of any legislation of this precise nature, although there are features of this measure borrowed from the New Zealand measure, and some parts of the machinery are taken from legislation in our own country.


Mr. CLARKE.: Is it the intention to have a sufficient number of copies of this Bill printed, so as to enable it to be distributed amongst the various bodies interested?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I understand that the printing is controlled by the Printing Committee, but the government would be only too pleased to see a sufficient number of copies printed to meet all possible requirements. I should have added, that this measure will be In charge of the Minister of Labour, and the Bill gives him power to make rules for the better carrying out of the object in view.


Arthur W. Puttee: If I understood the minister aright, there would be only one board in each province which would deal with matters in every city of that province that has an electric street railway. That I presume will take that class of industry altogether out of the operation of the Conciliation Act. I may say that I consider this Bill to be a very important measure indeed.
It seems to me that this is perhaps the most serious attempt along this line of industrial legislation that has ever been introduced into this parliament. I think we can congratulate ourselves, as well as the Minister of Labour, that all interests likely to be affected by this legislation are now in a position to fairly consider the measure: and that there is no antagonism at present between the parties in this country who will come under the scope of this Act. We may congratulate ourselves that there is also in Canada a decided leaning towards the progress of conciliation and arbitration, and that seeing that the Bill is not going to be pressed this session, we may in the meantime have the Bill fully considered by those parties who are interested. In 1900, when the Conciliation Act was introduced, I then was bold enough to say that I did not agree to the principle of voluntary conciliation; that I did not think we were justified in going to the trouble of passing a voluntary Conciliation Act of that kind. I went on record as being absolutely in favour of giving the principle of compulsory arbitration a trial. Since that time I have freely acknowledged that there has been some good accomplished by the Conciliation Act, and for my part, I have always been ready to assist it. I am pleased to say that the Conciliation Act has done some good, but at the same time I have not in any way revised my opinion that is is the most ineffective method we could take to deal with the very numerous cases of labour disturbances of one kind or another, that are bound to occur in this country as well as in other countries. I believe that a proper understanding and a proper application of the principle of compulsory arbitration, will affect a greater number of these cases than can any other system. The weakness of our present Act was apparent last year, when two of the greatest disturbances we have had in the country occurred; one on the Canadian Pacific Railway, extending from coast to coast, and the other in the mines of the mountain country of British Columbia. As a matter of fact, strikes are by no means always traceable to the employees, although that phase of the question is not given much attention. There is more than a suspicion that strikes are some times brought about on account of the needs or interests of the stock market for instance, and this has been charged to be the case in reference to some of the disturbances that have occurred in British Columbia. Our present Conciliation Act cannot even get started to investigate such matters. If I understand aright the proposition that has been put forward this afternoon, as far as the transportation companies are concerned they will mechanically come under the operation of this Bill should it ever become law. The minister has said that it involves the policy of compulsory' arbitration. I did not expect that it went

so far as that. I gladly welcome that however, but at the same time that very principle raises the question immediately, of the amount of caution that must be given to the consideration of this law. There must be nothing added to arbitration that will strengthen the fears of those who think that arbitration is only an extension of the method of going forward in the direction of striking a dead level in the matter of men's employment; or, that the law can be used in any way as an utter bar to progress along the lines that organized labour seeks to adhere to. The organization of labour is not now simply based on restlessness. Organization is now gone into on a business basis. Men give up their time and their money to it. They hire others from their own ranks to give their whole time and attention to the advancement of their interests and they expect to reap the benefit of that. They expect through their organization, througli everything they can command to coordinate their interests, that they are going to get what every business man expects to get from his business-a return for the effort put forth; and in no way must the impression go out that the operation of this measure is going to bar the legitimate progress which the labour organization seeks for. As a matter of fact, it need not; but at the same time the opponents of the method now adopted by organized labour may seek to spread the impresion that it aims only to maintain the dead level. If this Bill should finally become law, its scope will be wider than I had dared to expect the Minister of Labour would put before parliament, because I was told two years ago that these matters were beyond the jurisdiction of this parliament; but if it shall extend to street railways, the scope of the measure will be sufficiently wide to enable us to see how this principle does operate; and I, for one, hope it will be found so satisfactory that we may then feel warranted in extending the operation of the principle to other industries.


Mr. RALPH SMITH (Vancouver).: Mr. Speaker, it is impossible for the members of this House to form anything like an intelligent view of the proposition before them, not having seen the Bill. The only acquaintance we have with the principle at all is obtained from the explanation that has been given by the minister this afternoon. If I understand him aright, the great principle of the Bill is to make strikes impossible on railways. That principle of compulsory arbitration is an experiment in this country, one which has never yet been introduced in any degree in the Dominion of Canada-in fact, I may say on the American continent; but the principle of compulsory arbitration for the settlement of labour disputes is a very common principle in New Zealand and other of the Australian colonies, Mr. PUTTEE.
and a very successful principle at that. I think the minister has acted wisely in not seeking to apply such an important experiment to all the industries of the country. 1 am not certain that even the organized labour men of the country would support the general principle of a national compulsory arbitration. But I think he has acted very wisely in seeking to apply the principle to the operations of railways. A labour dispute on a railway is not like a labour dispute in any other business. We may have, for instance, a strike in a factory, the evils of which are practically confined to the people who live and work in that factory. We may have a strike in a coal mine or in any other kind of mine, the evils of which would be practically confined to the operations of that mine. But in the case of a labour dispute in connection with a railway, we are reminded that the most important factor affected by the outcome of the trouble is the great travelling public. Therefore the minister has acted wisely, when introducing experimental legislation of this kind, in attaching it to that industry which stands not only in greater need, but in absolute need of compulsory arbitration. If the public are to be safeguarded in travelling upon railways, it must be made impossible to have labour disputes on railways. The safety of the public is dependent on a good understanding being maintained between employers and employees on railways, and the only, good reason that can be given for the application of the principle of compulsion in the settlement of disputes between the two parties is that there is a greater party than either which is seriously affected by the operation of a strike. And, Sir, all legislation practically, I may be permitted to say, rests on the principle of compulsion. In almost every instance its purpose is to protect the great public against the peculiar and special interests of private individuals or corporations; and I know no case in which the principle of compulsory arbitration can be applied so successfully as in the operation of railways. I think the minister has acted wisely, too, in permitting this Bill to be printed and circulated through the country for the consideration of the people affected by it. I do not think it would be a proper thing to apply an experiment of this kind without affording the parties affected by it an opportunity of looking into the matter and expressing their opinions upon it. In fact, I think that would be a good rule to follow in connection with all measures of (vast importance-that they should be submitted for the consideration especially of the parties whose interests are likely to be affected by them. That is particularly desirable in a case of this kind, so that the men on the railways and the companies will have an opportunity of looking into this measure fully, and the members of this House will know by next session exactly what the interested parties think of

it, and will then be in a far better position to deal with it. I believe that if this Bill is circulated throughout the country, it will be demonstrated that the employees on railways almost to a man will endorse the'prin-ciple of compulsory arbitration. In my experience, in nine cases out of ten, the labour men all over the country are willing to submit their grievances to arbitration. As a matter of fact, the most important incorporated unions on the American continent have provisions in their constitutions seeking to bring about the settlement of dis putes by arbitration. The whole difficulty about voluntary arbitration in the past has been the objections which corporations have had to the principle. I contend that this is where the government ought to step in, in the interest of the public. It must be admitted by the members of this House that a serious strike on any railway endangers the life of the great public. We must remember this, too, that a strike in a mine may stop the operation of the mine ; but the only people affected toy it are the people directly employed. But a railway must operate. If tha employees refuse to work, or if the employers refuse to concede what they think is their proper claim, the railway must operate all the same ; and there is where the necessity exists for provisions whereby serious troubles on railways may be averted. I think the minister has introduced a principle which will be endorsed by the labour men all over this country, and'I hope he will take every means of circulating this Bill among the interested parties.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it intended that this Bill shall be brought to a second reading so that there may be a discussion on it, or is it intended simply to print it ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Certainly.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It will be printed of course, and the government will endeavour to give an opportunity for discussion on the second reading ; but it is not intended to press it this session.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is intended that a discussion shall take place on the second reading this session


The PRIME MINISTER.: I cannot say that the second reading will be taken this sesion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I mean, will there de a discusion on it without carrying the second reading ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: It is not intended to carry the second reading. We want to have an early prorogration, but if we have the time we will discuss this measure on the second reading.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It is not intended that we should hear any more about it this session.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Perhaps we may, but I cannot say positively.


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

[Stage Direction]
The resolution respecting the appointment of an assistant commissioner of the North-west Mounted Police for the Yukon Territory, at $1,600 per annum, (the Prime Minister) read the second time, and agreed to.
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 147) to amend the North-west Mounted Police Act of 1894.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 112) to amend the Immigration Act read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1.
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: The transportation companies have called attention to the fact that there are cases in which it is necessary to land immigrants for medical treatment, and they fear that the clause of this Bill will prevent this being done. I propose therefore to add the following words :
Such prohibition may be absolute or may be accompanied by permission to land for medical treatment, but only for a determined period as may be provided by the order or proclamation.
The effect of this amendment would be that while we take power to prevent landing of immigrants by order absolutely, we may also permit their landing for the purposes of medical treatment. It might be desirable to remove the immigrants from the ship for medical treatment.


Mr. WILSON.: I do not know whether the hon. minister has had any communication with the American authorities or not with reference to their mode of treating those people. I understand that when a sick immigrant lands at an American port he may be taken to the hospital or any other place. If it then be found that he cannot be treated successfully, he is taken back to the steamer and the steamship company is obliged to take care of him.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: This does not relieve the steamship companies.


Uriah Wilson: I think the most feasible plan would be to enter Into an arrangement with the United States, under which the American officials could examine all parties going to their ports and we would examine all coming to ours, and those not fit to land should not be allowed to land. In that way we would get rid of undesirable immigrants, such as we have in this country now, and get rid of them at very little cost. The United States are spending on our frontier at least $100,000 per year to keep undesirable immigrants out, and I do not see why we should not enter into an arrangement with them. We do not want undesirable immigrants any more than they do, although we appear to have been anxious rather for numbers than far the best kind. We want immigrants who will make good citizens, but unfortunately we are losing a very large number of our own people who are going to the United States and elsewhere and we ,are getting in their place most undesirable people from the older countries-people not allowed to enter the United States. And once these people are in, we have np means of getting rid of them.


Mr. McCREARY.: When the hon. member for Lennox tries to convey the impression that we are getting a lot of undesirable immigrants, such as would not be allowed to enter the United States, he will find, if he will take the trouble to look into the United States reports, that such is not the case. We get nb immigrants who would not be allowed to enter the United States. The class of immigrants with which the United States have trouble is not the Austrians, Germans, Russians or Swedes, but those who come from the towns and cities of Italy and who flock to the cities of the United States. You never see those people go on to the agricultural lands either of Canada or the United States. They go into the manufacturing centres.
They go to the manufacturing states of the Union. That class of immigration is what has given trouble in the United States, but we have not been bothered with it. Now, while I say that, I will admit that a very small percentage of Galicians, Austrians, Poles and Germans have had some diseases, but it is a very small percentage. Still, I think that the minister, when drafting this measure, might as well have gone a little further; he might as well have gone as far, almost, as the United States has gone, by providing that not only can an immigrant be stopped at the port of entry, but that he can be deported within a year after arrival if he develops, for instance, insanity and it could be proven that he was insane before he came here. We have had four or five cases of that kind that have been brought to my notice. Fortunately, we were able to get the railway companies to take Mr. SIFTON.
[ them out without compulsion. But we had | to send a man to the sea-board with the j insane, and that cost us some money at least. Then, convicts-we get a small percentage of these. I think that eight or ten catne before the police court in Winnipeg who had served terms in the countries from which they came. I think that five of them came from Denmark. Then, there may be contagious diseases that will not develop at the port of entry-say smallpox that may have been contracted before reaching Canada, but that may not develop until the immigrants have gone far on their way. We know that in 1883 a large number of immigrants, three or four hundred of them, who came from Europe destined to the United States, and reached Winnipeg before the disease developed, cost for quarantine about $14,000. In 1898 a large number came here who must have had small-pox, but the disease was not sufficiently developed to be detected at the port of entry. It is a question whether the municipality that had to undergo the expense ought not to be remunerated for its outlay. Then,.I see no provision in the Bill to compel the railway companies to carry back these immigrants. Most of the immigrants at present coming in come a long distance west, and the government should not be put to the expense of removing these undesirable immigrants. The law of the state of Minnesota and of other states of the Union provides that the railway companies that brought them 'to the state is to carry them out, and that law, if I am not mistaken, was made a federal law within the last two years. I believe that this measure, when put upon the statute-book. will have a desirable effect, but, in my opinion, it does not go far enough to touch the root of the difficulty.


William Findlay Maclean: I have a letter dealing with the general immigration policy of the government, which I would like to read. It is from the Toronto Trades and Labour Council, and is as follows
W. F. Maclean, Esq., M.P.,
Ottawa.
(Re Immigration Policy.)
Dear Sir,-I have been instructed by this council to call your attention to .he sum of $445,000, which has been placed in the estimates for this year for the assistance of immigration.
A memorial was sent in to you some time ago by this council, pointing out the reasons why we objected unanimously and most strenuously to the expenditure of public money for -his purpose. The members of this council wish me to express their regret that so far their communication has received no consideration in this matter.
Thie reports show that there has been expended for the assistance of immigration during the last ten years $2,400,173. Must not the effect of this policy be to intensify the competition on to which labour is at present subject?

Is there any other class in the community which is treated in this way ?
The excuse has been made that assistance is given only to those who intend to settle on the land ; but how can that make the slightest difference? The intention of the government will no more determine the ultimate destination of the settlers, than it will affect the flow of the tides. To say that labour in the rural districts will not compete with the wage earner is just as foolish as to say that water will not find its level. All the facts of the case are against such a contention During the last hundred years the movement on this continent from the rural district to the cities has been sc marked that whereas the civic population a century ago was only three per cent of the whole, at the present time it is upwards of thirty per cent.
While tho general population on this continent has doubled every twenty-five years, the civic population has doubled every ten years. How, therefore, can any government say that the immigration will not drift into the cities, as it has been doing all along ? Suppose the assistance was confined to those who will take up agricultural land would that be the slightest justification for this policy ? When we ask the question, who is it bears the burden of taxation ? Is it the man who works alii day, or is it some other man who collects his thousands of dollars yearly from ground rents or who draws his immense dividends from some coal ' mimes ? There can be no question as to the correct answer. Industry and Industry alone must bear the burden all the time. Then when we ask the further question, who reaps the benefit from this policy, what must be the answer ? Increased population does not increase the price of goods, nor does it increase the rate of wages ; but it does increase the price of land. Already the price of land in Winnipeg, which had almost no value thirty years ago, is now a thousand dollars per foot frontage on the best sites. In this city the best lots have increased fifty-fold in seventy years. Are we not fully warranted in stating that the immigration policy taxes industry to enable the land owner to subject the toilers to still greater exactions ?	_
Has the government ever used one dollar of taxes to enable the workingmen to buy their goods cheaper, or to reduce the exactions of the land owners? Never, but while it places a tariff to shield the employers from foreign competition and whilst it brings increased rents to the land owners, to the working classes there is not merely unrestricted competition, but that competition intensified by assisted immigration.
The effect of this policy must he to keep wages down to the lowest figures.
We regret that we are r.hU3 compelled to draw your attention to this disregard of our request, so reasonable and so just.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,



D. AV. KENNEDY,

[Stage Direction]
Secretary,
59 Edward Street. I
I only received this letter to-day. While it is not quite germane to the particular branch of the question now before the House, it does deal with the government's general immigration policy, and I trust the minister will give some consideration to
this statement made by the Trades and Labour Council of the city of Toronto.
William Forsythe McCreary: I do not wish to speak again on the general question, hut to say a word about the document that has just been read. The inconsistency of the statement made is shown by the reference to the values of land In the city of Winnipeg thirty years ago. There happened to be no city of Winnipeg thirty years ago. I believe it was incorporated in 1874. Before that time, it was only an Indian settlement, and its lands had no value at all. This letter involves a contention that I have often discussed with the labour unions. They wish us to believe that in bringing immigrants and settling them on the land, developing the prairie country and raising forty, fifty or sixty million of bushels of wheat a year, we do not increase the price of labour. I think that is one of the most ridiculous things that could be stated before this House. For instance, take the Canadian Pacific Railway in 1890 and 1891, how much of their rolling stock was standing idle in their round-houses? In some seasons practically 50 per cent of that rolling stock is idle, and. of course, the crews of the engines are thrown out of work. In seasons when there is a large crop, not only are none of these men Idle, but a large number of extra men are employed. We need only look at the facts to see at once the fallacy of this argument.


Mr. OLIVER.: I am glad to see this Bill introduced, very glad to support its provisions, and only sorry that it does not go a great deal further. When we say that we are dealing with the question of increasing our population, we are not dealing with the whole question, for there is not merely the question of increase, hut the question of improvement before us. When we deal with the immigration question without considering it from the standpoint of the possibility and necessity of efforts being made to improve the population as we increase it, we are not dealing with the subject as its importance requires. It seems to me strange that it should be required, at 'this date, to provide checks on the entrance of diseased immigrants to our country. If such checks have not existed in the 'past, they certainly cau-not be provided too soon, nor can they he made too complete.
But from my standpoint the diseases existing amongst Immigrants are hut a trifling consideration in comparison with the general character of the immigrants. I cannot understand the frame of mind which looks carelessly upon the introduction into the very life of our country of a population without regard to whether such population will raise or lower the general standard of our people. Let the people who come in be the healthiest in the world, if their disposition,

and ambition, and inclination are not such as will help us to realize our ideals, then then presence is objectionable and a detriment to us. I am not claiming that we are the best people in the world ; that our civilization is the highest form of civilization ; but I do claim that our present civilization suits us, and it is that which we have set ourselves to improve. Our social system, our political system, our religious system are those which we have inherited and under which we are trying to improve ourselves. Then if it is worth while to organize all these systems for the purpose of improving ourselves in this country, it is surely worth while to take means that our efforts shall not be to a certain extent rendered useless by the introduction of an element into our population which will have a contrary effect. It is not necessary to say that such people are not as good as we are. Possibly a Chinaman is a better man than an Englishman, let the Englishman answer for that himself; a Japanese may be a better man or a Russian may be a better man than the Englishman ; I say nothing about that, he may be a much better man, but he is not one of us, and inasmuch as he is not one of us he is not helping us to develop along those lines that Providence has chosen for us, or that we have chosen for ourselves. His presence is a hindrance and not a help.
This country is of immense extent, it is of equally immense possibilities. The population of Canada at the present time occupies but a very small part of our total area, and turns to account but a very small part of our total resources. We have five millions of people in a country capable of supporting easily fifty millions. It does not need any demonstration on my part to show that if the increase of population which will necessarily take place in the development of those resources, is of a character and constitution essentially different from our own, not only will they build up a different civilization whenever they establish themselves, but they will infallibly control our civilization in this part of the country. One to ten, the odds are too many. The western prairies are the seat and cradle of the future population of this Dominion. They are the seat of power and control, and as' that population is. so will this Dominion be. If you will fill those prairies1 with people of different ideas, different aspirations and different views from our own, you are simply placing yourselves under a yoke, you are swerving your country from that ' destiny which your fathers intended it, and which you fondly hoped you were achieving. It is I say, under the present circumstances of this Dominion, a matter of the highest necessity that the population we introduce into this country should be like minded with ourselves, so far as that is possible, if we are to achieve greatness as we understand greatness, if we are to achieve civilization Mr. OLIVER.
as we understand civilization, if we are to achieve liberty in government as we understand liberty in government.
Some years ago we believed, or some of us believed, that those vast areas of fertile country in the west must for ever remain unpeopled, or become inhabited with such people as we could gather from any corner of the world. But nobody thinks that today. At present people are thronging into those territories by thousands, people equal to ourselves in intelligence, in energy, in ambition, in civilization, like-minded with ourselves in almost every particular. There is no danger that these prairies will not be occupied by people such as we will be proud to work with in building up our civilization. There is, however, one danger, and only one, and that is that they may be occupied by other and inferior people who will keep out those whom we desire to help us in establishing and improving our institutions. I say that every undesirable settler who enters the North-west, who is, we will say, inferior to ourselves in his knowledge of government, in his ideas of liberty, is a detriment to this country, inasmuch as to a certain extent he displaces another man whose ideas are similar to our own.
I believe in immigration, and in a vigorous immigration policy. But I also believe that when we are spending money to bring immigrants into our country the first consideration should be the intellectual as well as the physical quality of those immigrants.
I would like to say that our immigration policy as directed to the United States has been a pronounced success, and I am glad to believe that it will continue to be so. I am sorry to say that as directed to the British islands, to the mother country, or to the mother countries, if you like, it has not been a pronounced success. I think I am safe in saying that up to date it has been a dismal failure. I have heard it said that we need not look to the British islands for immigrants to people our country ; that the supply was practically exhausted. If that is the case, it is a melancholy condition. It is a marvellous thing if those two islands, which have carried liberty and civilization, and conquest, if you like, around the world, are as to population in a state of decadence, and that we cannot look for any further immigration from that quarter. ' But, if we look at the records, we find that people are still flowing out of those apparently, except Canada. I am given to understand that a new system is being adopted in regard to immigration from the British isles. I am not familiar with the details of that system, but I will say that there is no possibility of adopting any system which could be less effective than that which has prevailed during the past years.
I am satisfied that any system that is adopted will be an improvement. Now, I would like to say that in my estimation, if we. as

Canadians, wish to get the fullest benefit from the settlement of the North-west Territories, it is necessary that that settlement should be, as much as possible of people not only much like ourselves, but altogether like ourselves, not only in ideas of civilization, but also in political traditions; in other words, that we should draw upon the British islands as much as possible for our immigration for that country and that every effort should be made to attract immigration from the British isles.
Let me say further that it appears to me to have been a mistake in the past to have spent so much money as we have in paying bonuses to steamship companies for the conveyance of immigrants and for this reason : We made the steamship companies, by that means our immigration agencies, and It did not make any difference to the steamship companies what the character of the immigrant was, who he was, or where he was from, so long as they got the bonus. It seems to me, from my point of view, that this is a most undesirable system and a' most undesirable expenditure, and I would ask that it be not continued. Understand me, I do not object to large expenditures for immigration, but I want these expenditures to be made with a view of securing the better people and not the worse. To depend on the steamship company is to put a premium upon the worse rather than upon the better.
I would like to say still further and to urge upon the House at large, upon hon. members who come from all parts of this Dominion, that the immigrant who is of the most benefit to this country in every way is the man of our own -blood, namely, the native-born Canadian, who, finding it necessary to shift his ground, must go either to the United States or to the Canadian Northwest.


William Forsythe McCreary: What about New Ontario ?


Mr OLIVER.: Well, those who represent New Ontario can talk for New Ontario. I say that in my estimation it is a mistake, and the worst kind of mistake to consider that it is not a question of interest to this country or to this parliament whether our people go to the North-west Territories or not. I have heard it said here, and in the country that we want our people to stay at home. Of course we want our people to stay at home, but unless we nail them down they will not stay at home if the conditions are not suitable. It is because of the disposition and the determination to better themselves that they are so valuable as settlers wherever they may go, and they make such a success. I cannot look upon the matter quietly when I see from the census returns that we have 1,000,000 native-born Canadians in the United States, while we have in Manitoba and the North-west Territories considerably less than half a million of people of all nationalities. There
must necessarily be in the United States four native-born Canadians for every one that is in the North-west Territories. I put it to this House and to the government that this country has made a more substantial loss in all' that constitutes value by the transference of the energy and wealth of our people to the United States rather than to the North-west Territories than it has from any other cause. There is no other cause that has tended so much to the comparatively slow progress of this Dominion as the fact that our life blood has been drained across the line. While we have been trying to develop our own country with other people, the United States has been developed, to a large extent, by our people. It is a matter of the utmost interest to every man in every province of this Dominion that the people of Canada should be retained in Canada, and if they cannot be retained in one part they should lie retained in another, if possible. That there should be no lack of effort put forth to secure the settlement of our own surplus population where we have surplus land to dispose of amply sufficient for all of them.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I would like to say a few words in reference to this matter. I do not know whether any provision has been made by the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Si-fton) in this Bill, or whether provision is contained in the statute already in existence, to compel railway and steamship companies to bear all the expense attendant upon the return) of undesirable immigrants brought by them to the country. My attention has been drawn to chapter 65 of the Revised Statutes of 1886, which deals with immigration and immigrants. Subsection 2 of section 17 provides for a bond to be entered into by the steamship companies for the return of lunatics, or for the indemnifying of a province or municipality in case a lunatic is permitted to remain in the country. Section 18 makes provision as follows :
The proper immigration agent may, with the consent of the Minister of Agriculture, make arrangements with the master, owner or charterer of the vessel carrying the lunatic, idiotic, deaf and dumb, blind or infirm person with respect to whom a bond has been given, or money paid in lieh thereof, or with the master, owner or charterer of any other vessel, for the re-conveyance of such person to the port from which he was carried to Canada.
Section 23 deals with pauper immigration :
The Governor General may, by proclamation, whenever he deems it necessary, prohibit the landing of pauper or destitute immigrants in all ports or any port in Canada, until such sums of money as are found necessary are provided and paid into the hands of one of the Canadian immigration agents, that the master of the vessel carrying such immigrants, for their temporary support and transport to their place of destination.
And so on. 1 believe a proclamation was issued a year or two ago against the ad-

mission into Canada of pauper immigrants. It would seem to me, from what I have seen in the papers since, that the proclamation is practically a dead letter, and that Canada is still being made a dumping ground for a very undesirable class of immigrants.
I noticed in the Montreal ' Herald,' just about a year ago, an article referring to the arrival of a very large number of des-titue Italians at Montreal. The Montreal ' Herald ' is not a paper that would knowingly or wilfully make a statement derogatory to the government. The ' Herald,' of the Cth of April, 1901, had an article entitled : ' Influx of Italians to Montreal.'
' About 2,000 now here.' ' Many of them penniless and unable to find work.' It seems to me that if the provisions of the proclamation issued by the government had been enforced, it would have been impossible for these people to have been permitted to have come into Montreal, and to be a tax upon the good people of that city and other parts of the Dominion. I am not opposed, Mr. Chairman, to any ablebodied immigrant coming to Canada. I rather think that we ought to endeavour to promote a vigorous immigration policy, but of course limiting the immigrants to the right class-of good character and not destitute. So far, the policy inaugurated by hon. gentlemen opposite has not been as successful as we would like to see it in that respect. It is a lamentable fact, a fact which has been substantiated in this House, that a large number of diseased immigrants have been brought into Canada, are now in Canada, and are being maintained at the expense of the Canadian people. The hon. member for Lennox (Mr. Wilson), in the recent debate on immigration, read copious extracts from a statement sent to him by one of the officials of the United States government, stationed in Canada for the purpose of examining immigrants who arrive here destined for the United States, and of determining whether they shall be permitted to enter that country or not. It seems to me a most deplorable condition of things that we should have a staff of thirty-five or forty United States officials stationed in Canada, sorting out and examining the immigrants who land at Canadian ports en route to the United States, and determining who shall be given certificates to enable them to enter the United States, and who shall not. That is a condition of things that should be put a stop to. It can be stopped in two ways; either by having a more careful examination of emigrants before they leave the ports in Europe whence they sail, or, having our own agents take charge of them when they land here, and preventing those who are undesirable in any way from staying in this country. The clauses of the Immigration Act which I read, seem to me to give the government power to prohibit the introduction of diseased pauper immigrants into Canada. But


Edward Frederick Clarke: in the Bill which the hon. minister (Mr. Sifton) has introduced, I do not find that any provision has been made to compel the railway companies and the steamship companies to assume the expense which the people of Canada are put to in order to deport these undesirable immigrants to the country whence they came. The hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) read from a circular which has been sent to every member of the House-a protest from the Toronto Trades and Labour Council against indiscriminate immigration. That is not the first document of the bind which has been submitted to members of parliament during the present session. There was a document issued at the beginning of the session, away back in the middle of February, and which I believe was sent to every member of this House. That document declares very strongly against indiscriminate immigration. It says :
The council-Toronto Trades and Labour Council-does not raise the slightest objection, or refuse the fullest welcome to suitable immigrants who come of their own accord, but they do most emphatically object to the taxation of labour in order to flood the labour market against, the wage earner, and to favour the protected capitalists. While the tariff even favours the employer 50 per cent, the immigration policy cuts down the wage of labour, we know not how much per cent.
If that statement is true with regard to healthy Immigrants, it has much more force In the case of undesirable immigrants; diseased immigrants wbo are permitted to come to Canada-immigrants who are not able to earn tbeir own living and wbo become a tax on the people of this country. The Montreal ' Star,' on the 22nd of March, had a number of sketches of the types of immigrants who have been landing in Canada during the past two or three months. It bad also what purports to be an interview with this very same Mr. Watchorn, the special United States immigration inspector in Canada, and the statement that this gentleman makes shows that a not very desirable class of immigrants is coming into Canada. This article is beaded :
' Menace to the health of Montreal.' ' How the city is being made a dumping ground for immigrants rejected by the United States inspector.' ' Disease and dirt being scattered broadcast amongst them.' ' How the American inspectors carry on theiEB work.' The introductory paragraphs of this article are as follows :
Ninety-eight per cent of the European immigrants who are prohibited from entering the United States by the American officials in Montreal and at other points of entry along the border, are suffering from Infectious diseases which are the direct result of filth and lack of sanitary methods. Such is the startling statement made by Mr. Robert Watchorn, the special immigration inspector, who has charge of all the immigrant inspectors from Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, to Montreal, Including Port Huron'

Detroit, Niagara Falls, Black Rock, Buffalo and Vanceboro, Maine.
How long has the work being going on ?
Officially, since the first of last September.
And what has been the result since the first of September ?
That about 500 persons have been, rejected as unfit, either physically, mentally, morally or financially, to enter the United States.
And these were all rejected right here in Montreal ?
Yes, in Montreal.
To say nothing of the other points of entry where no doubt similar rejections were made ?
Exactly.
What would be the percentage of refusals at Detroit, the Soo, Port Huron, Niagara Falls, Black Rock, St. John and Vanceboro ?
I should say that all these points combined would have about as many as Montreal.
That would be one thousand, and these figures would corroborate the statement made by Mr. Watchorn in a letter to the hon. member for Lennox (Mr. Wilson) in which he stated that since the inspection commenced in September last, 1,000 diseased immigrants, disqualified immigrants, whose destination was the United States, were prohibited from entering that country, and many of them unhappily and unfortunately have been permitted to remain in Canada. So far as I understand this Bill, the minister has not made any provision for the deportation of these people, many of whom are still in the country; nor is there any provision to compel the railway and steamship companies to hear all the expense in connection with their deportation.
My hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Oliver) referred to the decreasing number of immigrants of British origin, who are coming into Canada. From the reports which I have seen in the papers during the last three or four weeks, I am led to believe there will be a larger number of British immigrants coming into Canada during the present season, than for many years past, and X am glad to see that statement made. The hon. member for Alberta said that it was alleged that the stream of immigration from the British Isles has fallen off. That is not the case. If the official statistics of the United States can be relied upon, during the past ten years over three-quarters of a million of immigrants of British birth left the old country and have found a home in the United States. During the past thirty years more than three millions of our kith and kin have left the United Kingdom and have gone to the United States. Greater efforts it seems to me, should he made, and I hope they will be more successful, to induce a larger number of Irish, English and Scotch to make their hotnes in Canada, and to try to turn the tide of immigration from the United States towards Canada. I believe that in proportion to the total number of immigrants coming into this country, we are receiving too large a percentage of foreign-born. In 1891, 118
of our total immigration we received 70 per cent of British origin and about 30 per cent of foreign origin, whereas in the last five years the tables have been turned, the proportion being about 30 per cent British and 70 per cent foreign. That, in my humble judgment, is not a satisfactory state of affairs, and proper steps should be taken to induce a larger percentage of people to come from the old land and settle here and help to build up this country. To show that this undesirable class of immigrants is still trying to find its way through Canada to the United States, and is still being turned back at the frontier, I will read a clipping which I have taken from the Toronto ' Evening Star ' of March 22nd. The Toronto ' Evening Star ' is a very able and enterprising journal, and is not by any means hostile to the government of the day. That journal has a despatch from its Montreal correspondent, dated March 22nd, headed : ' Turned back from border-United States will not admit a woman and her children whose eyes are sore; ' showing how closely United States immigration agents are watching immigrants, as people who have sore eyes are intercepted at the border and sent back. This is the despatch :
Montreal; March 22.-Mr. Joseph Francis, immigration inspector .of the United States government at Niagara, formerly chairman of the United States Immigration Board in this city, was here this week with a family of rejected immigrants, who attempted to get through to Philadelphia by way of Niagara Falls.
The family in question:-a woman and four children:-arrived in St. John, N.B., suffering from trachoma, a peculiar and highly infectious form of eye disease, which leads to blindness. Their destination was Philadelphia, hut being unable to pass' the medical inspector there, she came up to Montreal, and being refused here, she went on to Toronto, representing that she was going to join a cousin there, the cousin in that case representing the relationship of a compatriot, and not of blood. On the second day after her arrival she secured a ticket for Philadelphia and went on by way of Niagara Falls. There she came under the inspection of Mr. Francis, who passed her on to a medical practitioner, who pronounced her to he in an advanced stage of trachoma, and likely to be blind within- a year. Ons of her eyes is permanently closed, and when moving she stoops and leans forward in the manner common to the partially blind. The children have all been smitten, with the disease, tut if properly attended to they may be cured.
This woman, according to this statemeut, came to New Brunswick as an immigrant, intending to go to the United States. The official in New Brunswick who examined her refused to give her the necessary certificate to enable her to pass into that country. Notwithstanding that, she came on to Montreal and from Montreal to Toronto, and at Toronto purchased a ticket in the hope of being able to evade the authorities and pass into the United States by way of Niagara Falls. The vigilance of the officers at Niagara Falls prevented her accomplishing



her purpose, and she was turned hack; and that woman, unless some provision is made by either the United Sates authorities or the Canadian authorities for paying her passage back and the passage of her family, not having herself the means of returning to her native country, will be obliged to remain in Canada, and, unfortunately for herself and her children, will become a burden on the people of this country. This condition of things, in my opinion, calls for the most drastic remedy. The most perfect provision should be made to .stop for all time diseased and pauper immigrants coming into this country. I am not sure whether the Bill of the hon. minister makes the necessary provision, because I see nothing in the Bill which enables the government to collect from the steamship companies the cost of deporting those people and the moneys it will expend in providing inspectors to do this work. In that respect we might take a leaf out of the book of the United States government. I believe that they collect a tax from the steamship companies, which has been found amply sufficient to cover the cost of a thorough inspection of all immigrants who go into that country without the people of the United States having to bear a single dollar of the expense .of that service. The time has come when a similar provision should be adopted here ; and if this Bill is wanting in any of its provisions, the minister should amend it so as to make it as clear and explicit as it can be made. The^ trades and labour organizations of the Dominion, as the hon. member for Hast York (Mi-. Maclean) has pointed out, are objecting strenuously to the expenditures made by this government on account of immigration. In one paragraph of then-circular, they say :
For many years enormous sums, at times exceeding $400,000 in a single year, have been expended for the purpose of aiding the importation of cheap labour into this country.
Further they say :
Agents have been sent ti>
the poorest countries in the world to flood our labour market with a host of men, women and children, anxious to secure work and glad to accept work at almost any price. And these emigrants are induced to come here even at times when thousands of labourers are tramping the streets in idleness, vainly looking for employment. I
I would like to ask the Minister of the Interior to say whether he himself examines the literature which is distributed-by immigration agents throughout the United Kingdom and Europe before it is issued by the department, or whether he keeps any file or record of that literature ; because it is stated from time to time by the representatives of the trades organizations that the most glaring misstatements are made by immigration agents appointed by the government, and that as a result of the distri-Mr. CLARKE.
button of these misstatements many people are induced to come to Canada, who, when they come, find that things are not as rosy as they were painted, and that they are unable to get on as well as they expected, or to find employment as readily as they were told they could. If that is the case, when these people come they get dissatisfied, and are liable to make statements which do damage to the country. I would like to ask the minister if he himself assumes the responsibility for the literature distributed by the immigration agents throughout the old country, because if the allegations made by the trade organizations are correct, many of these statements are entirely unwarranted and misleading.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The House spent a whole day a short time ago in discussing the question of immigration, and most of the remarks which have been made by hon. gentlemen who have spoken this afternoon will be found answered or dealt with in the discussion which took place on that occasion. That may be said, almost without qualification, of the remarks which have been made by my hon. friend who has just taken his seat. The points he brought up were practically all answered in the discussion which took place here on a former occasion, and I would only be unnecessarily detaining the House by going over the same ground again. He will find that I dealt fully with the allegations regarding the wholesale dumping of diseased immigrants at our ocean ports, and showed conclusively that these allegations were wholly unfounded. There has been nothing of the kind to such an extent as even to justify any reference to it in this House. What has occurred has been of a most trifling character, such as is bound to occur under any administration.
Just a word with regard to the position of affairs at the ocean ports. The hon. member for Uennox urges that we should make some arrangement with the United States. There is no necessity for any arrangement. so far as the examination of immigrants is concerned. We are quite competent to attend to that without any arrangement. We have consented to the American officers making examinations at our ports of immigrants in transit to the United States, but as these are practically all examined by our officers, the examination is to all intents and purposes complete.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Would the hon. gentleman allow me to draw his attention to a statement in the Toronto ' Star ' which would seem to show that the immigrants mentioned in that statement, and their families, were permitted to leave New Brunswick and find their way to Ontario. The examination could not have been very rigid or that could not have happened.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I cannot say anything in regard to a spe-

cial case reported in a newspaper. In the first place, I do not know that the facts are as stated, and in the second place, the case was never 'brought to my attention. But at present, at Quebec, St. John and Halifax, we have a very complete and thorough system of examinations, and this Bill is brought in for the purpose of remedying a defect in the law. I am advised by the law officers of the government that we have not the power to prevent people of the particular class referred to in this Bill from landing, or to compel them to leave Canada once they have landed. If the hon. member for Toronto would refer to my remarks in the debate on immigration, he will find that I showed by the figures I gave, that there were no people of this class now in Canada, with the exception of four or five who were at St. John, waiting an opportunity to get away, and who in all probability have gone. The government desires simply to be in a position to enforce that which every one admits we ought to enforce. The only point made against the Bill is that suggested by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary). He says that we should take power to deport immigrants from inland portions of the country. We have not yet seen the necessity of doing this, because cases of no importance or difficulty have yet arisen. There can be no special objection to our taking such power, but It has not been thought necessary because no difficulty has arisen.
As regards the literature circulated in the United States and other foreign countries, it is wholly impossible for me to examine all the immigration literature prepared for the department. The superintendent, Mr. Pedley, is directly responsible for the preparation of all literature issued from Canada and sent to the United States. The literature circulated in Great Britain and on the continent has heretofore been almost entirely prepared by or through our office in London, but that system is now changed, and it is our intention that it shall be prepared here, and the superintendent, of immigration will examine all the literature himself and be directly responsible to me. I do not believe that there is any substantial ground for the statement that any of our immigration literature has the effect of leading people to suppose that they can get employment readily in Canada. I am aware that some gentlemen connected with the trades and labour councils of different places are in the habit of making broad statements of that kind. But I have not been able to get any evidence from these gentlemen to indicate that they have any ground for making such state* ment. Under any system whatever of immigration, encouraged and stimulated by advertising and employment of agents, there will always be numbers of people admitted who will not be perhaps the most desirable class, and a certain number will perhaps not 1184
belong to the class the agent thought they did belong to. And a certain number will come in who, perhaps, will not follow the occupation which it was anticipated they would. No department that has ever existed could carry out a system of encouraging immigration without having these results follow to some extent. As to the statement that there is any encouragement, directly or avowedly given to persons to come in for the purpose of finding employment, that is entirely incorrect. I have discussed that question at different times in the House. Cases have been cited of persons who have alleged that they were encouraged to come in under these circumstances. I have always replied that the instructions to the officers of the department were most explicit, definite and positive, and that in every possible way we have tried to prevent any one being encouraged to come to Canada, except those who were desirous of following agricultural pursuits. These things cannot be carried out with absolute perfection, but that is the purpose of the department. Clear instructions are given to that effect, and everything done that is possible to carry out . the policy I have indicated. Now, as to the suggestion made by my hon. friend from Toronto, that we should levy a poll-tax upon steamship companies to pay expenses in connection with this work, I may say that I consider that suggestion wholly impracticable at the present time. If any attempt were made in that direction, we should put the steamship companies who are carrying a portion of the immigrants to Canada out of the business, and, instead of getting 11,000 or 12,000 British immigrants, as we get at the present time, we should get few or none. We have to adapt ourselves to the circumstances as they exist. The circumstances of the United States are wholly different from our own. In the United States they do not wish immigration, they would prefer it if nobody came from outside to settle in that country. Their population is felt to be large enough. The natural increase of their 75,000,000 of people will soon render the position in the United States difficult for the statesmen of that country to handle it. Anything that they can do to discourage immigration they do-in fact, they do some things that they themselves would hardly approve of on principle to discourage the bringing the people from outside. We are in a wholly different position and are seeking immigration. Of course, we do not wish those of an undesirable class ; but, in seeking to make distinctions, we must not adopt a policy that would close up entirely the source of supply. Speaking of the question of the nationality of our immigrants, I do not admit that my hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Oliver) is correct when he says that the policy, so far as the United Kingdom is concerned, could not

have been a greater failure than it has been. I explained in Committee of Supply, when the estimates were under discussion, my reasons for believing that the practice of the department in Great Britain had not been, perhaps, as successful as it might have been, and pointed out that improvements might be made by changing some of the methods that have been followed. I also explained the changes which had been made with a view to improvement. But because I took steps to effect improvement, I do not admit that that shows that the work had been an absolute failure. Far from it. For instance, during the last calendar year, when something like 49,000 to 50,000 immigrants were received in Canada, about
18.000	came from the United States, practically all British-born, and between 11,000 and 12.000 from the British Islands. So, while the statement of the hon. member for Toronto Is technically correct, that nearly 70 per cent of the total immigration was foreign-born, yet, it must be remembered that, for the purpose of making that calculation intelligible, it must be considered that the people from the United States are foreign-born, whereas, they are not so. Not only are they of Anglo-Saxon blood


Edward Frederick Clarke: We had to accept the figures given by the department.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The hon. gentleman knows wnat the figures mean.


Edward Frederick Clarke: We could hardly be expected to go behind the figures given in the report


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The figures show that about 18,000 came from the United States, and something over
11.000	from Great Britain and Ireland. So, out of 50,000, about 30,000 were practically persons of British blood. I have simply pointed out this fact for the purpose of correcting what otherwise might be an erroneous statement.
Now, just a word about the position taken by the Trades and Lab'aur Council of Toronto, and one or two other labour bodies.
I think I received a copy of the communication read by my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean), at any rate I received a communication the same in substance. We might as well have a clear understanding upon this question, and I might as well say now that I wholly and entirely disagree with the sentiments and ideas expressed in that document. In my judgment there is no class of people, at the present time that are profiting more largely by the money being expended for immigration than the mechanics and labouring men of the province of Ontario. If my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) will go from town to town in his own province and ascertain from the men who are carrying on operations in the various factories and are giving employment to


Hon. Mr. SIFTON.: people in the manufacturing towns, where the orders are coining from that are keeping these factories busy, he will find that the orders that they are depending upon most largely are those from Manitoba and the North-west Territories. That is the country to which they are looking almost exclusively for the Increase in volume of their business and the widening of its scope. The hon. gentleman will find this to be the case in almost every line of ordinary manufacture, and it is the mechanics and operators who work in these factories who are benefited! most largely at the present time, and who! will most largely benefit in the future, from our immigration policy and from the placing on the lands of Manitoba and the Northwest Territories of a producing population. I am not going into a lengthy discussion of immigration at the present time. As I say, that was fully discussed the other day, when the immigration question was up before the House, and we shall have the subject of the Committee of Supply before the session is over, When, If hon. gentlemen desire it, it can be discussed still further.


Uriah Wilson: Did the hon. gentleman deal with Mr. Watchorn's statement ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Yes, fully.


Uriah Wilson: I was not well that evening and could not be here


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: If the hon. gentleman will read the ' Hansard ' report of my remarks, he will see that I dealt with it and answered it fully.
I also answered the statement that a large number of diseased foreigners were in the hospitals in Montreal, and I showed by the statements made by the superintendents in charge of these institutions that there was no foundation for the statements that were made, and that no facts existed that could have afforded any excuse for it.
Now I do not know that there is anything further, except the one point referred to by my hon. friend from West Toronto when he quoted the article from the Montreal ' Herald.' I am not able quite to understand what point the hon. gentleman desired to make against the government or its policy-


Edward Frederick Clarke: The article was a pretty lengthy one, and I did not wish to take up the time of the committee by reading the whole of it. But I will get it again and read it in full, that it may be on record.
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR, put what does the hon. gentleman suggest ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: The article is to the effect that there are large numbers of destitute immigrants coming out to Canada who become a burden upon the philanthropic people of the Dominion, and that these immigrants have been induced to come here by

misrepresentation, misrepresentations so great, if I recollect the article correctly, that the Italian consul had cabled to the home authorities with respect to it. In order to be absolutely correct, however, I will get the statement of the ' Herald ' and read it. They were an undesirable


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: They were Italians, were they ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: I do not say that the Italians are an undesirable class, but that these people were undesirable coming out in the condition of destitution they did. And, it would appear, they came out because of misrepresentations made to induce them to come out.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: There could not be a better illustration of the totally foundationless nature of the attacks made upon the department than the statement that has just been made. We do not carry on any work in Italy. No Italians have been induced by the Immigration department, by any representations, direct or indirect, to come to Canada. We have never had an agent in Italy, and, since I have had charge of the department at any rate, have not printed a word in Italian to induce any Italians to come here. If Italians have come here, they have come without inducement or effort on the pa l't of the government or the department. But I wish to get the hon. gentleman to make himself clear about one point. It is easy enough for the hon. gentleman to say that some people have come who are not desirable people, who have made trouble in Canada, and who have become a charge upon the community. Does the hon. gentleman desire that the government of this country should be charged by statute, that they should be given the power of deciding whether people are desirable or not, and to keep out whoever they like ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: I understand that the object of the Bill which the hon. gentleman has presented to the House, and that we are now discussing, is to give the government greater powers of determining who they shall admit and who they shall not admit into Canada.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: ' Persons who are suffering! from any dangerous or infectious disease or malady.' Not paupers, not criminals, not lunatics^ not persons suffering from any disease. Would the hon. gentleman say that we ought to pass a law that will give us power to discriminate, as against people not embraced in those classes, to say who we think it is desirable to admit into this country ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: There has not been a word said on this side of the House that would justify the hon. gentleman in making such a suggestion. We desire, as he desires, I presume, to see eligible immigrants coming
into Canada; we do not desire to see diseased immigrants coming in here. We do not desire to see this country receiving immigrants who are not thought worthy of being admitted into or of becoming citizens of the United States ; and we object strenuously to a condition of things under which forty-four United States officials are stationed in Canada to select the immigrants that may go into that country, to determine which of them shall be admitted into the States and which shall not. We object to those who are not admitted to the United States, who are not thought fit to become citizens of that country, through disease or other cause-we object to them being left in Canada.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The hon. gentleman continues, by implication, to misrepresent the facts of the case.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I do not mean to do so.
The* MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR. There is an entire misrepresentation in the statement which the hon. gentleman makes. The hon. gentleman says he objects to the fact that there are forty-four officials of the United States determining what emigrants are going to be allowed to remain in Canada.


Edward Frederick Clarke: No, but what are to be allowed to go into the States.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Then the hon. gentleman will have to correct himself.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am in the judgment ot the committee. Perhaps the hon. gentleman did not hear me, or I did not make myself clear. I say it is a disgraceful condition of affairs that forty-four United States officials shall be permitted to examine immigrants who are coming into Canada and whose destination is the United States, to determine which of them shall be permitted to enter the United States and which shall not.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Then I may say to the hon. gentleman that I do not see any particular scandal or disgrace in it at all. But the fact is that the United States officials decide who are to go into the United States, and our officials decide who are to come into Canada. The United States officials are permitted to decide who are going into the United States. If there was a movement of immigration from the United States ports into Canada there would be no objection whatever on the part of the United States government to our placing officials at ports in their territories for the purpose of examining immigrants coming into Canada-there would be no objection whatever on the part of any government on ordinarily friendly terms with us to such a course being taken. But the hon. gentleman, in his first remarks, as I understood him, said that these United

States officials decided who should come into Canada. That is a point which I wish to make clear. Whether the hon. gentleman intended to make it or not, I want to make it clear that such is not the fact, that our own officials decide, after inspection, upon the immigrants that are admitted, and thev alone are responsible if any persons are permitted to get past the line and come into Canada and remain, who ought not to be allowed to come in and remain here. He stated the law was objectionable, that the law was defective, because it did not give us sufficient power. But the hon. gentleman has not yet put himself clearly upon record as to what he means by attacking the position of the government, in quoting this article from the Montreal ' Herald.' What I say is that parliament has never clothed the government with power to say that any persons should not come into this country who are in possession of all their faculities, who are not diseased, who are not criminal, and who do not come within the class of paupers, who do not come within any of the classes specified in this Act. They have provided that we might exclude paupers, criminals, persons of unsound mind; and now we ask to be permitted to exclude other persons who have any dangerous or infectious disease. But parliament has never clothed the government with the power of saying to a man at our boundary line, who is sound in wind and limb, perfect physically and morally-parliament has never authorized the government to prevent such persons from crossing the boundary line. The hon. gentleman would like to get away from the point, but he has got to do one thing or the other.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am going to read this whole article.


Thq MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: The hon. gentleman reads an article for the purpose of creating an impression. I want him to understand that the law must be either one way or the other. If Italians come to our boundary line, and if they are going to be excluded, they must be excluded by force of law, there must be some law authorizing it to be done. I say the law does not authorize it to be done, this government has no right to do it, and the hon. gentleman has no right to attempt to create prejudice against the government because these people came in. The hon. gentleman is trying to create a prejudice against the government because these Italians came in, because it was stated in the press that they were persons who were unable to take care of themselves, and would be a charge upon the community, or something to that effect. But I say that people will come to Canada, and some of them may be unable to take care of themselves. It would be impossible for any government under any system which parliament would sanction to prevent that occurring from time to time. So far, however, as relates to Italians being | Hon. Mr. SIPTON.
induced to come to Canada by any representations of the government, that has not taken place since I have been in office. We have carried on no work whatever in Italy, so far as I know we published no immigration literature in the Italian language, nor attempted to get the Italian people to come here. I do not know that it is necessary for me to make any further remarks on that point. As I said, the whole question was thoroughly threshed out on the immigration estimates in supply, and nearly every point that has been raised now was discussed then.


Edward Frederick Clarke: 
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: It is not necessary for me to repeat what I have already said, but I wish to make the statement again that whether it be stated in the Montreal ' Herald ' or not, these Italians were not brought to Canada by the government, or by the authority of the government. Let that be clearly and definitely understood. I do not care what the vice-consul for Italy may have done._ What I say is that this government did not bring these people out. In the next place, I wish to be understood as making a clear and explicit denial of the correctness of the statement made by Mr. Watchorn. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) Trill turn up tlie remarks that were made by me when the immigration estimates were before the Committee of Supply, he will see that I made a clear and explicit statement on that point.


Robert Laird Borden: As I understood the point made by my hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) it was that whether these immigrants were induced to come by the government or not. they were practically paupers, and they were allowed to land.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Hear, hear. That is the point exactly.


Robert Laird Borden: That is the whole gravamen of the charge made by my hon. friend, and the boh. Minister of the Interior has not dealt witli it at all.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: If the hon. member (Mr. Clarke) would state that he understood that a number of Italians had been allowed to come in and would ask me as to -whether that was the fact or not,
I would have to tell the bon. gentleman that I did not know, that I would have to look into it. because as it had never been brought to my attention, I would not be able to say. The hon. gentleman will understand that it is absolutely impossible for any minister to read all the newspapers in the country and every article which they contain, and to know whether such a case as this happened or not. There may be no truth in that statement. I have seen statements in the papers which were wholly manufactured, that were without foundation in fact, or that were exaggerated. If the matter had*been called to my attention, I would at once have had an investigation made m order to see if a remedy could not be ap-
#

plied. As to the future, though I cannot agree with every criticism that is addressed to the department over which I preside I think hon. members will do me the justice to acknowledge that when suggestions have been made out of which I could derive any benefit in the administration of the department, I have never hesitated to adopt these suggestions, and it was because of the fact that I have been very much impressed with the necessity of a stricter enforcement of the exclusion clauses and a stricter exercise of the powers of exclusion in certain cases that this Bill has been brought before the House. I purpose talcing the greatest possible care and it shall be my endeavour to protect the country from the effects of undesirable immigration in the sense in which I have expressed it under the provisions of this Bill, and also under the provisions of the statute as it stands at the present time.


Robert Laird Borden: I thought the hon. Minister of the Interior did not appreciate the point that my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) was making and therefore I made the suggestion to him. I did not suggest that my hon. friend expected the hon. minister, on the spur of the moment, to be able to tell him all the facts, but I quite conceive that it was within his duty, as these statements had been made publicly in the newspapers and had been brought to his attention of his constituents, and also because the statements had been made in a newspaper very friendly to tbe government, to bring this matter to the attention of the committee, and to ask that it should be looked into at the hon. minister's earliest convenience?


Edward Frederick Clarke: The statement has been made by the hon. minister that so far as the government of Canada are concerned, they had no agents in Italy. These immigrants must liav* been brought out here by some person-by a steamship company.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: They may have come across on


Edward Frederick Clarke: They did not swim across. They must have been brought across on board of a steamer, and the steamship company would get the usual bonus for bring-mg immigrants over, I presume.
The MINISTER OF TIIE INTERIOR,


Edward Frederick Clarke: Have they got nothing?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: W *iei1 I say no, the hon. gentleman will understand that I do not know just exactly when this particular circumstance occurred. I remember it, but I do not particularly remember the people to whom the hon. gentleman is referring. But I think I aid safe in saying we have not pirid any bonuses upon any considerable number' of Italians at all; in fact, I do not know that Hon. Mr. SIFTON,
we have paid bonuses for any Italians. I doubt that we have. I would not like to make a positive statement, but if any Italians have been Taid for, there certainly was no considerable number of them. They most likely have been included with other immigrants. They must have come around by Germany and been included with other immigrants.
,M.r- CLARICE. Wore the Italians excluded from the benefits of this bonus ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I do ( not remember that they were distinctly-excluded. I remember a question incidentally asked when the matter of paying bonuses for Italian immigrants came up. and without expressing any opinion ns to the desirability of bringing in Italian immigrants, I said : We will not extend our work to that country or pay. any bonus.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Two years ago I drew the attention of the House to a statement made by the Vienna correspondent of the London ' Times ' and reproduced in the Edinburgh ' Scotsman,' that a large number of immigrants from Roumania were about to start for Canada. I drew the attention of the hon. minister to this statement, and I was informed that the government had no knowledge of this intended emigration. Within two months afterwards these people arrived in Canada. The department did not seem to be apprised of their coming.
I want to point out that, in face of the proclamation issued against pauper immigrants, so lax is the administration of the department that according to the statements from which I have quoted, these immigrants who were in destitute circumstances, were induced by steamship companies to come here, and there was practically no inspection, and no barrier to their entering the Dominion. That proves that the department has not that control over immigrants which, in my judgment, is necessary in the public interest.


Uriah Wilson: A year ago a number of immigrants came to Quebec and they were not allowed to land, but the steamer brought them to Montreal and they were permitted to land there on the special order of Mr. Pedley.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The same lot ?


Uriah Wilson: I dare say it was the same lot. He got from a society in Montreal some guarantee that they would look after them, and so they were allowed to land under the special permission of the superintendent of immigration. These are the things we complain of, and these are the things that should be stopped.


Mr. OSLER.: It would appear that our laws for prohibiting paupers and diseased immigrants from entering Canada, are not as strict as are the laws in force in the

United States. It is clear that the United States officers reject very great numbers that we accept. I contend that the immigrant who is not good enough for the United States is not good enough for Canada ; I do not care how he comes here. I contend that the evidence is plain, that we have not a proper supervision over immigrants. The very fact that the 'Americans have 44 officials in Canada inspecting immigrants whose destination is the United States, is of itself sufficient to show that the Canadian inspection is very lax. The minister (Hon. Mr. Sifton) stated in reply to my colleague (Mr. Clarke) : That if he charged $1 a head poll tax the steamship companies would at once take their immigrants to the United States. That is a very nice admission coming from the Minister of Immigration. It shows that it is not the money that Canada spends, that brings these immigrants to Canada, but that it is the steamship companies who are bringing them here for the sake of the passage money. If one dollar poll tax is going to exclude immigrants, I wonder what is the use of our expending large sums of money on immigration. Let us rather, at once pay subsidies to the steamship companies to bring in whom they like. If we assume that these 2,000 destitute Italians came in here without the bounty, they are at all events included in the number of immigrants that the minister takes credit for having brought here on account of the money expended. The impression left on my mind by this debate is, that the regulations for the inspection of immigrants coming into Canada are decidedly loose, and that people are being admitted here who are excluded from the United States ; people who tend to deteriorate the quality of our population. There was recently a very strong expression of opinion in this House against permitting scrub horses to be imported into the west to deteriorate the stock in that country. Shall we be less particular as to the kind of men we bring into this country to mix with our population, than we are as to the kind of animals we allow to be imported ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I made no statement which would lead the hon. gentleman (Mr. Osier) to infer that the steamship companies exclusively brought immigrants to Canada.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The minister said that if we Imposed a poll tax of one dollar a head the steamship companies would take the immigrants to the United States.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I stated that if we put a poll tax against these steamship agents, that would prevent them bringing these immigrants to Canada. That does not imply that the steamship companies alone are bringing immigrants to Canada. We pay a bonus to the steamship agents for the purpose of putting Canada in the same position as countries which are
competing witn us, and if we excited the hostility of the steamship companies, the agents of these companies would endeavour to neutralize the efforts of our own officers, and the result might be that we would get no immigrants. That is not saying that the expenditure of our own money is having no effect. It is simply saying that if we make the steamship agents hostile, they would devote themselves to counteracting the efforts of the officers whom we are employing. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Osier) says that an immigrant who is not fit to go to the United States is not fit to come into Canada, and he appeared to be under the impression that he was expressing a very lofty sentiment. Well, I express the sentiment, that the government of Canada is at least just as competent through its officers to decide who is to come into Canada, as the officers of the United States government are competent to decide for them. I am not in favour of leaving it to the officers of the United States government to decide who is to come into Canada. If that be the policy which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Osier) advocates, I dissent from it. and I cannot hold out any hope that I am likely to adopt his view. The actual fact is that the whole thing is a tempest in a tea pot. There is actually nothing in it : it amounts to nothing. If the hon. gentleman will read the remarks I made, he wifi see that practically the whole thing reduced itself to something like 33 or 34 people out of almost a year's work, and that there was the merest trifle of difference between the work of the American officers and our officers. There were some 23 or 24 people who were permitted to go into the North-west simply because the United States officers rejected them upon grounds which one of our inspectors did not consider sufficient, namely, because there was some trifling disease amongst the children. Outside of that, to all intents and purposes the result of the examination has been the same.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the minister would do what the country requires that he should do, he would take power similar to that which is in the United States law to send back unsuitable immigrants. He tells us that the number of unsuitable immigrants rejected by the United States was insignificant. but that is not the information which the United States officers say that there were over 1,000 rejected, part of one year, but the minister says there were but an insignificant few. We have, however, very good reason to believe that the statements made in the public press and by the United States immigration officials are correct.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I decline entirely to be judged in this House by a statement published in the Montreal ' Star ' by an American immigration officer. There is a committee of this House which has jurisdiction to inquire into all matters

relating to immigration. The question of immigration was before that committee for a long time this session, and if lion, gentlemen opposite desire to investigate the facts and have evidence produced on which a minister would be quite willing to be judged and which would be satisfactory to the House, they had the opportunity of doing it. But I refuse to be judged by that statement, especially when it is shown to be entirely false by the investigation which has taken place since. I also refuse to be judged by newspaper statements which hon. gentlemen opposite produce and for the accuracy of which they decline to vouch.


Uriah Wilson: Will the hon. gentleman allow us to have an investigation and to have witnesses summoned before the Committee ou Agriculture to prove the statements we make in this House ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: It is not necessary for the hon. gentleman to ask me that question. I have never sought to prevent any witnesses being called. I have never, directly or indirectly, in any shape or way, interfered or sought to interfere with the calling of any witness whom any member of the opposition desired to cali before the Committee on Agriculture. I have never attended a meeting of the committea or had anything to do with it further than to tell the officers of the department to go there when summoned and do everything they could to give the committee the information it desired.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the bon. minister does not understand the question of my hon. friend from Lennox. What he desired to ask was : as Mr. Watchorn's statement has been made since the investigation before the Committee ou Agriculture was closed, would the hon. gentleman see that no objection was made to investigating that statement if it was desired ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The hon. gentleman wishes to know if the friends of the government would object to the reopening of the investigation. We have not the slightest objection in the world.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What does the hon. gentleman say he declines to be held responsible for ? It is a matter of indifference to the people of this country whether he declines to' be held responsible or not-the people of this country will hold him responsible. It is not a matter that is optional with him; it is a matter that is optional with them. He says he declines to be judged by a newspaper statement. This is not a newspaper statement, but the statement of an official of the American government, which we believe to be reliable. But the hon. Minister of the Interior, who is charged with the responsibility of preventing undesirable people coming and settling Hon. Mr. SIFTON.
in the country, allows them to come in, and then says, I decline to be held responsible for it. I think the people of the country will form their own opinion with regard to that, regardless of the hon. gentleman's wishes in the matter. The hon. gentleman says we are quite as capable of judging from the evidence as the Americans. We are, but if we never act upon that judgment, what good is it ? And that is the position of the hon. gentleman; he has never acted on that judgment. He has sent his agents scouring around the world to get immigrants, whether they are suitable or unsuitable. Last year he spent $444,000 on immigration, and got 49,000 immigrants. Can he tell us how many of these immigrants were such as the people of the United States considered it necessary to send from their country ? Not by any means. We are quite satisfied that there are some thousands of them, because we have had information that the people of Montreal last year had to support these people for months in order to keep them from starvation. Then, other immigrants have come in who have been diseased. The minister says he had not the power to keep them out. He is taking the power now. He says the number is infinitesimal. Then, why does he require an Act to get the power ? I have always thought that although we require immigrants, the number we bring in is not a matter of so much importance as to know that those that do come are suitable to the country. That, I think, is the first requirement. It is not a fact, so far as the information disclosed enables us to judge, that the number brought in by the present government are all suitable. A large number are not suitable, because of diseases and weaknesses incident to human nature. I think that in future the great source from which we will draw our immigrants will be the overflow of population from the United States. They will be very suitable settlers for this country, and whether we send agents or not, they will come in in thousands to buy lands. This migration started many years ago under the late government, and it has been going on with increasing force ever since, and will continue whether we spend large sums to promote it or not. We have often heard of what the present government have done for the country, how many immigrants they have brought in. They have not by any means brought in as many proportionate to the expenditure as their predecessors did. If they had done so last year, instead of bringing in 49,000 they would have brought over 61,000; or if they had only spent proportionately as much money for the number they brought in as their predecessors spent, instead of spending $444,000, they would only have spent $360,000. So that there is nothing to boast of in their immigration policy, but there is much to be condemned. I believe the steam' ship companies are paid their bonuses every

time, regardless of the class of people they bring to the country. We cannot awake too soon to the situation, when we see the number of people our American friends are sending back. Instead of the number being infinitesimal, as the minister says, I am inclined to think the people of the country will regard it as a very much more serious matter; and they will hold him responsible for doing less than his duty when he has not taken steps sooner to keep that undesirable class out of the country.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I want to draw attention to a statement made in the letter signed by Robert Watchorn, special immigrant inspector. which has been sent to my hon. friend from Lennox. I think the hon. gentleman ought to be thankful to the opposition for drawing his attention to what they believe to be weak points in our immigration policy. I want to draw the attention of the minister and the committee to a specific statement regarding our statistics of immigration. Mr. Watohorn, the United States officer, writes as follows to the hon. member for Lennox :
You will observe on page 34 of the Commis-sit-r er General's report that the increase of immigration' from Canada to the United States from 1896 to 1900 has been very heavy and is in fact very much in excess of what these figures indicate. I think your official reports will bear out the statement that for this year ending June 30th,	1901, approximately 50,000
alien immigrants arrived at Canadian seaports,
24.000	of them destined for the United States, which leaves the inference to be drawn that
26.000	remained in Canada, but these figures are totally misleading.
This is a statement made by Mr. Robert Watchorn. the special immigration inspector for the United States. He declares that these figures are totally misleading and gives as his reasons :
Because of the 26.000 credited to Canada for the time specified, no less than 300 per month were given certificates of admission' to the United States in Montreal alone, within less than 30 days of their arrival at the Canadian port.
Yet we are told that we are getting these immigrants in by the ten thousand.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: How does that effect the point under discussion ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: We are bonusing the steamship companies and employing immigration agents to bring these foreigners to Canada, and the hon gentleman points with pride and satisfaction to the increased number coming here ; but if this statement be correct these people only come to Canada because of the great facilities provided to bring, them here, and then leave for the United States. They only stay long enough in Canada to get certificates from the American officials which will enable them to go to the United States. Is not that statement
worth looking into in order to ascertain whether it is well founded or not? And the hon. minister ought to consider himself indebted to the opposition for .drawing his attention to it. The statements I have quoted are very frequently to be found in the newspapers. I am not responsible for them, but would be derelict in my duty if I did not draw the attention of the minister to such statements when they are brought under my notice. I would ask his attention to the statement I have just read, which was evidently made in good faith, and would urge him to investigate and give us the result of his inquiry before the session closes.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The trouble with my hon. friend is that he finds a statement somewhere and then draws an inference which it does not justify. He has found the statement made by a United States officer, in which that officer starts out by saying that the official reports of his own department are wholly misleading and incorrect.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Of the hon. gentleman's department.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: No, he starts out by saying that the official repox-ts of his own department is wholly incorrect.


Edward Frederick Clarke: No, he is referring to the hon. gentleman's department. He addressed this letter to the hon. member for Lennox (Mr. Wilson) and in it he says :	' I have
your official reports.' I take that to mean the hon. minister's reports. And he proceeds to say that the reports will bear out the statement which I have just read.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: 1 thought from what the hon. gentleman said that he was referring to the reports of the United States Department. But the inference which the hon. gentleman draws is that we are paying bonuses to steamship companies for immigrants who come to Montreal and then immediately go to the United States. It does not require any investigation to show that that statement is altogether Inaccurate. I know it to be utterly unfounded. There is no part of our work which is more carefully supervised than that which relates to the payment of bonuses of that nature. No bonus is paid except to those who take up land and become permanent settlers.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Does the hon. gentleman say that no investigation is required into the statement made by this American officer?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I say that there is no investigation required into the inference which the hon. gentleman attempts to draw, namely, that we are paying bonuses to persons who land at Montreal and then go to the United States.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is it not a fact that the United States officer has declared that from the Montreal district alone they issue 300 certificates per month to people who have come to Canada, and who, within thirty days after their arrival, get these certificates and go to the United States.


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: We do not pay any bonuses to these people, and we cannot prevent people who land in Montreal or any other Canadian port from going into the United States if they choose.


Edward Frederick Clarke: But while our returns show that 26,000 aliens came to Canada, the American officer says that such return is entirely misleading, because within thirty days they go to the United States.


Robert Laird Borden: The bon. minister has pointed out that the policy of the United States is to restrict immigration, and therefore they do not grant bonuses to bring immigrants to their shores. We have the opposite policy and do grant bonuses. What system is there by which we know that these men for whom we pay bonuses do not afterwards, almost immediately, go to the United States-say within three months or six months of a year ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: No bonuses are paid except on the report of an officer in the North-west that the person has become an actual settler. In the case of bonuses upon persons who come from the continent of Europe these bonuses are now paid to what is called the North Atlantic Transportation Company, who are the booking agents. We have a special arrangement with them under which we require that the persons who come through their agency shall each have a certain amount of money, and shall pass the inspection of the department at the port of entry. When these persons become settlers and are so reported upon by the officers of the department in the west, the names are sent on to the department here, the list is checked by the officers and sent on to the office in London and is checked over there. When it is found correct, a cheque for the amount due is sent to the company.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How long must these immigrants be in the country before the steamship companies are entitled to the bonus ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: There is no fixed period. But when we get the report from the officer that the person has actually become a settler, we pay the bonus.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it only from the west you get information with regard to immigrants brought in for whom you pay a bonus ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: If they settle on land anywhere in the Dom-


Clifford Sifton: inion we take means to get a report from some officer of the department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But suppose they settle in Ontario, or become labourers in Ontario ?
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
If they become labourers in Ontario, we do not pay any bonus.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But if they settled on land in Ontario ?
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
Then, we would take means to get a report upon them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Who do you ask for a report in the case of their settling in Ontario ?
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
We would have to get a report. As a matter of fact, the only place where any of the people have gone upon whom we have paid bonuses, except in the west, is in the northern part of Ontario, along the Canadian Pacific Railway, and in the Rainy River district. We do occasionally get a report and pay a bonus upon these.
Mr.	SPROULE.	I notice that quite a
number went into the Lake St. John district and the Mattawa district. From whom does the department get information in cases of settlers in those districts ? Has it special agents whose duty it is to collect that information ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: If necessary we would send an officer out there. In most cases, the people go out in charge of an officer, and we would have somebody there to correspond with and from whom to get a report.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Suppose the steamship company asked a bonus on 4,000 people settled in Ontario ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: They would have to send in the names of every person, and every person would have to be located. We do not pay a bonus on a man unless we locate him.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You have agents hunting up these people all the time ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: They have to be located. Of course we cannot put a ball and chain upon them, but we must know who and where they are.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much does the department pay per capita for immigrants from the United States ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I do not recollect at the moment. But my hon. friend from Lennox (Mr. Wilson) has investigated this matter pretty fully, and I have no doubt he could tell.


Uriah Wilson: Three dollars a head.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Yes, I believe we pay S3 for each adult, and so much for each member of the family.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 2,


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I move that this be amended by inserting after the word ' Act ' in the fifteenth line the following :
Or any Order in Council or proclamation lawfully issued thereunder ; or any person landed for medical treatment who remains in Canada in contravention of such order or proclamation.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I would like to ask just one question. Is it the intention of the minister to make the steamship companies pay the expense of bringing these immigrants back to the ship's side ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Yes, they do that now.


Edward Frederick Clarke: No expense to the country ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: No.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
Bill as amended reported, and amendments read, and concurred in.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



GAME PRESERVATION ACT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 117) further to amend the unorganized territories Game Preservation Act. (the Minister of the Interior) read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
Robert Laird Borden: Are there any other buffalo in the North-west than wood buffalo ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: The only buffalo there are known as wood buffalo.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



DOMINION LANDS ACT AMENDMENTS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 120) to amend the Dominion Lands Act (the Minister of the Interior) read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
The MINISTER OF TH*E INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton). I explained when this Bill was introduced that its purpose was to make the sales and homestead entries subject to the right of the territorial government to open a road across the lands. At the present time the territorial government is called upon to open a considerable number of new roads, and in some places, owing to the fact that the road allowances cut across ravines it is very expensive to build a road. In many cases they find it necessary to open new roads in lieu of the road allowances. The purpose of the Bill is to make entries and sales subject to the right of the territorial government to have a right of way free of charge over those lands. The territorial government find it a considerable burden to have to settle for right of way for every road that they desire to open up. It is no hardship at ail to require persons who buy or enter for homesteads to take them subject to this right. The Bill provides that the amount so taken shall not be more than five per cent of the total. Hon. members will find that the Bill is so drawn that in the eighth line of the first section the words ' heretofore or ' would make the land entered for homesteads heretofore subject to this right. That however is not my intention. I do not desire to interfere with any rights now vested, or to interfere with lands for which the homestead entries have already been granted. I move therefore that the words ' heretofore or ' in the eighth line be struck out.
Motion agreed to.
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The law clerk has suggested two or three verbal changes, in accordance with which I move that in line thirteen, before the word ' surveyed ' the word ' so ' be inserted. It will read then : ' Provided that the aggregate area of the highways to be so surveyed.'


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose the provision has been submitted to the government of the North-west Territories ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: It is done at their request.


Robert Laird Borden: The last two lines provide that no such highway shall be of greater width than sixty-six feet. It occurred to me that there might be a possible construction of that which would be awkward. There is no intention to prevent the highway from being wider than sixty-six feet. The intention is. I suppose, that the land may be taken without compensation.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: The intention is of course that the land taken shall be only sixty-six feet in width. I thought possibly another construction might be put upon it.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: That might be possible.


Robert Laird Borden: It might be expedient in some cases to have the highway wider than sixty-six feet.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: It would not have any material effect any way.
2. Section 1 of this Act shall not apply to any grant as to which there is now in existence any contract, agreement or undertaking to or with which a reservation and exception would be repugnant or inconsistent, nor to any grant containing an express declaration that it is exempt from the provisions of the said section.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I move that this section be amended by inserting after the word ' which ' in the third line, the word ' such ' and after the word ' exception ' in the third line, the words ' as aforesaid.'


Robert Laird Borden: I do not quite understand the force of this section :
Section 1, of this Act shall not apply to any grant as to which there is now in existence any contract, agreement or undertaking.
Perhaps I do not correctly understand the scope of the legislation, but I think the provision contained here relates to contracts, agreements, and so forth, in the future and not to anything now in existence.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: This clause is only put in as a matter of caution. It was suggested by the Department of Justice that there might be lands in respect to which contracts had been made and in which third parties were interested in some way. This provides for a contingency which is not likely to arise.


Robert Laird Borden: I think this section was put in because you have the word ' heretofore ' in' the first section. If you strike that word out this does not seem to me to have much relevancy.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: What the hon. gentleman means is that this applies to nothing except subsequent contracts, because there could not he any contracts, agreements or undertakings now.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, and it is unnecessary if you strike the word ' heretofore ' out of the first section.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I will reserve that matter, and take it up again so as to be sure. It sometimes happens that in dealing with legislation in respect to land, there may be something in the mind of the law clerk when he is drafting the Bill that I may forget when we come to deal with the Bill in the House. At the present moment I think the hon. gentleman's suggestion is right, but I do not like to strike out the section without being sure.


Robert Laird Borden: The last part of the section is necessary, but I should think not the first part.


Clifford Sifton: 


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: We will let that section stand and come back to it.
On section 3,


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The latter portion of the clause is only intended to cover a case in which the declaration is omitted. If a patent should he issued without the express statement that it is subject to this right it would make no difference. The provision in the first part of the section is of course practically directory to the officers of the department, and in pursuance of that it will be the duty of the officers of the department to see that this provision shall be put in every patent. But, suppose it should not be put in the patent, as might happen by mistake, it would not be desirable that this omission should relieve the grant referred to from being subject to this reservation.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course the hon. gentleman is responsible for this legislation and I am not, and I do not want to intrude my own ideas on him, hut I would think it would be very much simpler to say that the section shall apply unless it is otherwise provided on the face of the grant. When you say that there shall be a declaration upon the face of every grant that section 1 applies to it, and when you also say that it shall make not the slightest difference if the declaration is not there it seems to me likely to result in rather a confused condition of affairs.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: A great deal of legislation in respect to Dominion lands is of a character that is directory to the officers of the department, and I think that it is desirable that this clause should be included in the Bill, so as to make it obligatory upon the officers of the department to see that the patent shall contain that declaration. It seems to me, at the same time, however, that if through the neglect or omission of an officer of the department, it would not be desirable to relieve the land from this reservation.


Robert Laird Borden: If the hon. gentleman is satisfied with it I will make no objection.
On section 4,
The t MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR. There have been'two or three words left out in the printing of the original draft. I beg to move :
That the section be amended by inserting the word ' of ' immediately after the words 'section 1 ' in the thirtieth line and by inserting the words ' as the case may be ' after the word ' territories ' in the thirty-fifth line-
So that it will read :
The Lieut.-Governor in Council of the province of Manitoba, or of the North-west Territories, as the case may be, may order the

survey and location upon and across any lands comprised in a grant which is subject to the provisions of the said section 1, of any public highway as aforesaid ; and upon its survey and location pursuant to such order, such highway may be opened and used as a public highway, and shall, as well as the land comprised therein, be vested in, and subject to the direction, management and control of, the government of the province or the territories as the case may be.


Robert Laird Borden: This is a section which deals with the title of the highway after it is expropriated. Would it not be better to say that the title is vested in His Majesty ? If you want to bring an action alleging title it would be a little awkward to have to allege that it was in the government of the province, because that is an expression that is perhaps not technically used in the case of alleging title. I merely suggest that after the words ' vested in ' you insert the words ' His Majesty then will follow the other words :
And subject to the direction, management and control of the government of the province or ot the territories.


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: Both expressions are indifferently used in legislation referring to this subject. The words ' government of the province ' are defined by the Interpretation Act to mean the representative of the Crown acting in the interests of the province or of the territory.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, if you like.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: 1 move that the committee rise and report progress. I want to look carefully into section 2.
Progress reported.



NORTH-WEST TERRITORIES ACTS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 121) further to amend the Acts respecting the North-west Territories (the Minister of the Interior) read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: There has been a question as to whether the legislature of the territories can enact laws with regard to the road allowances which we have handed over to them. Sometimes when they want to open a road they can make a bargain with a farmer to go through his land provided they give him a portion of the old road allowance in return for what he cedes. This is to allow the North-west Territories legislature to transfer the old road allowance.
Bill reported, read a third time, and passed.



ROCKY MOUNTAINS PARK ACT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 133) to amend the Rocky Mountains Park Act-1887, (the Minister of the Interior), re*ad a second time ; and House went into committee thereon.
On section 2,
The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: This section gives authority to the Minister of the Interior to make regulations with regard to the disposal of timber. It is not desirable to dispose of any timber, and I move that this section be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. MONK.: There is to be no expropriation.


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What will be the area of the park as extended ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: 4,900 square miles.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That will be a good sized park. It will be an immense reservoir for game keepers and government employees of all kinds.
Bill reported, read a third time, and passed.



REPRESENTATION OF THE YUKON.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 134) respecting the representation of the Yukon Territory in the House of Commons (the Minister of the Interior) read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: Does my hon. friend want the different sections tq be read ?


Robert Laird Borden: I have not yet had an opportunity of looking over the Bill.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: We might go through the sections. I may say that the principle of the Bill is that there shall be one member. I am going to move a section providing the time when the election shall be held. The qualifications and the other provisions are the same as those in the North-west Territories Representation Act. We might go through the different sections without formally reading them, and then let the Bill stand so as to give the hon. gentleman an opportunity of looking over it, and take it up again.


Robert Laird Borden: That will be perfectly satisfactory.
On section 7,


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: I
desire to add a section, between section 6 and section 7, as follows :
The first election of a member to represent the Yukon Territory in the House of Commons

377G
shall be held on or before the 1st day of January, 1903.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 8,
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think there is a provision here which does not reflect great credit upon the two clergymen whom we have in this House. In subsection ' d ' you mention, among those who may not be elected, ' ministers, priests or ecclesiastics of any religious faith or worship.' Has the experience of the hon. minister with reference to those clergymen who have been elected to this House from that western country not been such as to inspire confidence in that class as members ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: This is only for returning officers. The hon. gentleman surely did not think we were prohibiting clergymen from beeing elected to the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That was my impression. I do not see any more reason why they should not be returning officers.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The idea is that they do not desire to be appointed to that office, and it would not be a proper thing to compel them to accept it if they did not wish it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has the hon. minister consulted them ? How does he know whether they desire it or not ? Why not leave it an open question, and if they do not desire it, they will not be appointed ?
Progress reported.



CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 124) to amend the Civil Service Retirement Act of 1898, (the Minister of Finance) read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. VV. S. Fielding).: The object of this Bill is, as I mentioned when I moved it, to enable the government, in case of the death of an officer in the civil service, and there being a small sum of money payable to him under the Civil Service Retirement Act, to pay the money to such member of the family or person concerned as the Governor in Council may determine, instead of obliging the parties jo take out letters of administration. Often the sums of money involved are so small that the expense of administration is out of all proportion.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Why not make it payable to the legal representatives ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: 
Robert Laird Borden: It seems like a very desirable provision in one aspect.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think it can hardly be questioned.


Robert Laird Borden: It has occurred to me whether, if an individual happened to die indebted, the person who received the money ought not to* be required to account to the administrators. That might complicate the matter, and, on the whole, perhaps this is desirable.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We have had similar provision in the case of other persons. For instance, if an hon. member of this House dies during the se'ssion, instead of having the money payable to him as member of the House pass through the general estate, we generally provide that it shall be paid to such member of the family as the Treasury Board may indicate, giving the money to the family instead of the creditors, who, whatever their claims* may be, have no such claim as the members of the family.


Robert Laird Borden: If the particular sum of money is not something to which the, party is entitled by virtue of the statute, no question will arise. That is the case in the instance the hon. minister has just mentioned. I am not familiar with the statute, and am not aware of the rights of the party under it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Parliament creates that right and can administer it.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, parliament can administer it, and parliament can also get things very much mixed up. However, I have no objection to the measure.
Bill reported; read the third time, and passed.



YUKON TERRITORY ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 113) further to amend the Yukon Territory Act and the Acts in amendment thereof (the Minister of Justice), read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 2,
Robert Laird Borden: This would dispense with one police magistrate ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: Yes. By the first clause we give to the judges the jurisdiction of the police magistrate, and so we can dispense with one police magistrate.

On section 4, subsection 2,


Robert Laird Borden: Tliis gives an appeal to the Supreme Court ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: At present, there is an appeal from the finding of the Gold Commissioner to the two judges of the Yukon Territory. But there is no appeal from that court in these important matters, and it was found extremely important that there should be an appeal to the Supreme Court in mining cases as in ordinary civil cases.


Robert Laird Borden: The Territorial Court in banc is the Court of Appeal from the Gold Commissioner, and this provides that there shall be an appeal from that court to the Supreme Court of Canada ? '


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



SUPPLY-DELAY IN PAYMENT OF WORKMEN.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved that the House resolve itself into Committee of Supply.
['We will reserve the item, so that the hon. gentleman will have another opportunity to speak upon it.\nResolutions reported.\nOn motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 1.05 a.m. Wednesday.\n3S31', '\n\nWednesday, April 30, 1002.']
Mr. GEO. TAYLOR (South Leeds).: 
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tarte).: I think there is only one branch in the Department of Public Works where the men have not been paid promptly, and that is the Rideau Hall branch. The Minister of Public Works is not all powerful in that branch of his department. I think I am right in saying that is the only branch where the employees have not been jmid up to date. There are only six or seven of those em-119
ployees, and if they are too much dissatisfied with the delay and think they can do better elsewhere, there would be no trouble at all in replacing them. I have old employees who have been ten or fifteen years there, and they are very glad indeed to remain. This 60 per cent interest is on the exaggerated lines the hon. gentleman has been indulging in ever since I have had the pleasure of his acquaintance.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is not generous, to say the least, towards those employees for the Minister of Public Works to say that he could replace them at any time. There is no doubt they are in need of money badly, otherwise they would not write as they have. I presume the party who writes the letter is afraid to sign his name for fear of just such consequences as the minister has mentioned. I think the minister should not forget that people receiving a small salary are often in an embarrassed situation, and it is important that they should be paid as promptly as possible.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: People who write anonymous letters are not generally to be trusted. I have found that out every day, as hon. gentlemen have found it out. Employees in the public service who write in that way should be summarily dismissed. If they complained to me I would be very glad to hear them and do what I can for them. I am always easy of access.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does not the hon. gentleman admit himself that these men have not been paid for a long time ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I admit that the seven or eight employees at Rideau Hall have not been paid, on account of circumstances that the hon. gentleman understands very well. We cannot exceed the expenditure voted for this year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Have you spent all the money ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: When we discuss the Rideau Hall items, I will be glad to make a full statement of the case, and to prove that in the past a good deal more money was spent than was voted. We are always afraid to ask for more than the amount necessary. This is a great public establishment, the expenditure on which it is difficult to control.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 1 think the rule as to anonymous letters suffers an exception in this case, because these parties are probably afraid to reveal their name. But in this case the fact alleged in the anonymous letter is admitted. I have not heard the Minister of Public Works explain why these men have not been paid. Has the credit for that particular object been exhausted ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It lias been exhausted on account of circumstances that the hon. gentleman knows very well. When their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of York visited Ottawa we were obliged to spend at Rideau Hall a great deal more money than we had taken an appropriation for.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not think the hon. gentleman is right in taking that position. Surely if workmen have not been paid, and complain through us to this House, we are not only justified but in duty bound to bring their complaint to the notice of the House. In regard to the particular items mentioned by the minister, it seems to me we have voted every cent of the money required for the expenditure occasioned by the visit of their Royal Highnesses.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will now make a statement which I promise absolutely to keep good, and that is that when we fall short in an appropriation, I will dismiss every man employed in that branch.


Mr.   I@: I do not think the minister need fly into a rage because this subject is mentioned to him in a very calm way. If any one desired to criticise the hon. gentleman it would be very easy to do so. I do not suppose these workmen ought particularly to stand the brunt of the expense of the visit of the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York to this country. It would have been a very simple thing for the hon. gentleman to come down to the House nearly three months ago, and to have asked for an appropriation to meet that expense and to avoid ahy difficulty of this kind. It may be that the hon. gentleman in the press of his very numerous engagements, overlooked it. We would be willing to extend to him every consideration, but to become enraged because these men are anxious to get their pay seems to be a very petty piece of business on the part of the hon. gentleman, and one which I would hardly expect from a man of his calibre on most occasions. I trust that the hon. gentleman will see that these men are paid.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Department o£ Railways and Canals, including G. A. Bell at $950, and S. R. Loftus at $050, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $43,100.
['I do not think the minister need fly into a rage because this subject is mentioned to him in a very calm way. If any one desired to criticise the hon. gentleman it would be very easy to do so. I do not suppose these workmen ought particularly to stand the brunt of the expense of the visit of the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York to this country. It would have been a very simple thing for the hon. gentleman to come down to the House nearly three months ago, and to have asked for an appropriation to meet that expense and to avoid ahy difficulty of this kind. It may be that the hon. gentleman in the press of his very numerous engagements, overlooked it. We would be willing to extend to him every consideration, but to become enraged because these men are anxious to get their pay seems to be a very petty piece of business on the part of the hon. gentleman, and one which I would hardly expect from a man of his calibre on most occasions. I trust that the hon. gentleman will see that these men are paid.']
Robert Laird Borden: What is the explanation of the increase ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This item is $1,000 larger than the appropriation last year, due to statutory increases with the exception of two special increases of $50 each.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 


Robert Laird Borden: This item refers to the salaries of the staff of the department here in Ottawa ?	*


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, the inside service.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What is the object of the provision ' notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act ' ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are giving two allowances of $50 extra to two of the clerks in the department beyond the statutory increase of $50. Of course, we cannot do that without making an exception and withdrawing it from the operation of the Civil Service Xct.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to call the attention of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, who has a department where there are many positions offering, to the fact that a considerable number of those who have returned from South Africa are disabled and many. of them without positions. I have one at present in my mind who belongs to my own county, who, as a commercial traveller was doing very well, who went to South Africa and lost a leg and who, since his return, of course, is incapacitated for his usual occupation. He, as well as many others, who have returned under analagous circumstances, is rather disinclined to apply for any position to the government. However, I think he did so on one occasion and was informed that not having conformed to the law as respects examination he could not receive a position.
I would recommend to the government if possible to entertain any applications coming from disabled soldiers. I think they are entitled to a great deal of consideration and when they do make application I think the fact that they have been through active service and been disabled should entitle them to the particular consideration of the government, as respects the disposition of the law requiring an examination for entrance to the civil service. I think if we had some assurance from the government that the cases of these returned soldiers would receive special attention, probably several of them who are unwilling to undergo the humiliation of a refusal would be tempted to make application. Every day the government is in a position to place civil servants and I think the cases of those who have been disabled in active service in South Africa, and there are quite a few in the country, deserve special consideration from the government.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There have been two or three instances in which it has been possible for me to consider the circumstances to which . the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) alludes in

connection with the railway service. I am not aware of any applications having been made to the department here, but if such applications were made and the applicants had not passed the examination, of course, there would be a difficulty about entertaining the applications favourably. The Auditor General would require that they should pass the examination. We might have a vacancy which would be available but we could not put a man in unless he had passed the examination required by law.
Intercolonial Railway-Steel rails and fastenings, $600,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: 
Mr. BARKER.: I desire to ask the hon. minister whether there is included in this item anything for the cost of the rails and the cost of fastenings. I would like also to know how many tons of rails the hon. minister estimates for, and at what price per ton ? I would like to know in the first place if there is anything included for the cost of rails and fastenings.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The rails and fastenings are both included and we provide for 25,000 tons.


Edmund Boyd Osler: At what price ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The estimated price of the rails is $28, and the fastenings $50.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Have these rails been bought under the Clergue contract ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The rails we have so far during the current year were not obtained under the Clergue contract.


Mr. HUGHES.: What is the weight of the rail.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: 80 pounds. We expect to get 10,000 tons from Mr. Clergue.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Last year it was intimated that Mr. Clergue would supply these rails whether he manufactured them or not.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The government did not get the rails from Mr. Clergue in any way. We called for tenders from the English suppliers and their agents and we received the rails from them.


Edmund Boyd Osler: None of the rails under the Clergue contract have yet been supplied.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No.
119*


Edmund Boyd Osler: What steps has the minister taken to fix the price of the rails if he purchases them through Mr. Clergue under the terms of the contract.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: As specified in the contract we will pay the ruling price in the English market. We have not yet settled on the price for the next year. I judge it will be some where in the neighbourhood of the price I have mentioned. The rail supply of the United States is entirely under the control of a trust or combine and they have fixed the price at $28. The English market may, show a more favourable figure, but at fill events we have the markets of the world opened to us.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Mr. Clergue is the only one you can buy from, and how are you to arrive at the English price.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The iron founders and rail producers have publications which announce, if not daily at all events weekly, what the market price is. If the hon. gentleman goes to the library and looks at the English hardware journals he will find the quotations from week to week.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Surely the minister does not assume that anybody who is buying rails would take the quotations in any of the trade journals as the price he would pay for them.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not see why not.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Because these are only nominal quotations.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I mean the record of the actual sales.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Oh, no. No one who is buying rails would take these quotations without testing the market to see whether he could not purchase for less. I venture to say that in nine cases out of ten, unless on a rising market, these nominal quotations would not give you an accurate idea of the price. No one would think of buying on these quotations.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman seems to forget that there are records of actual sales which take place from day to day. Of course it would be very proper to verify these by asking for quotations. I suppose the price will remain somewhat stationary because it has been maintained uniform for some months by the rail combine in the United States.


Edmund Boyd Osler: That is quite true. The rail market undoubtedly is very strong and it may be within a month or two rails will jump a dollar or two dollars a ton. What I want to know is how the minister pro-

poses to arrive at the price with Mr. Cler-gue. Mr. Clergue may come to the minister at a date when these rails are at the highest price and ask to have the price fixed. Unless there is an agreement by both parties as to the date the minister is at a great disadvantage. The chances are that between now and the first of July there vmay be a spurt in the price of rails for a week or two, if some one gives a large order for immediate delivery. As I pointed out last year, the weakness of the contract is that Mr. Clergue might come to the minister at a date when the price is high and ask to have a price fixed. The minister should agree with Mr. Clergue as to the date on which the price shall be fixed.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: In a contract covering a term of years we could scarcely agree as to a date, and we might stand a chance of losing rather than gaining by doing so. What I have in my mind to do is this : almost immediately after the vote is passed and parliament has prorogued, we will ascertain what the price is on the English market and then call on Mr. Clergue to renew the contract or to enter into an arrangement for the year to come, because we require to have the rails delivered very promptly. I want to lay as many as we can this year. It will therefore be necessary for us to have an early arrangement with Mr. Clergue. We have to take our chance as to whether the price will be in our favour or not.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The minister proposes to fix the price as soon as this vote is passed ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: As soon as possible after the close of the session.
Mr. OSLER, You are going to accept the delivery of the rails from Mr. Clergue as soon as he is able to deliver them ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Are you going to fix the price before you take the delivery of any rails at all ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Certainly, before we take any on account of the coming year.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: In respect to that Clergue contract, I would like to ask the minister if he considers that it is still in force ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My recollection of it is a little dim since last year, but 1 think Mr. Clergue was to have begun the execution of the contract this year, and he has failed to do so. Did he ever sign a contract ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: And he has failed to carry it out. I would like to know how the government stands in respect to Mr. Clergue ? Is the contract still in force? Has Mr. Clergue been put in default of furnishing the rails which he should have furnished and which he failed to furnish ? Has the government taken any steps to free itself from the contract, which I think was open to considerable doubt as to the time the price of the rails was to be fixed ? Also while on my feet, who furnished the rails which were supplied to the Intercolonial Railway last year, and at what price ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: As to the first question, the contract between us and Mr. Clergue has not been cancelled. Mr. Clergue encountered difficulties in establishing his plant, which prevented him from delivering last fall the proportion of the rails which the contract called for, and it may be said in a sense therefore that he was in default. But as the contract was entered into for the purpose of encouraging the establishing of a steel rail plant in Canada, 1 for one. wcfuld not think I was called upon to treat the contract in the severe and rigid way in which we would need to treat it if we declared the whole agreement at an end.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not advocate that. I merely wanted to know if some changes had been made.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No changes have been made. The agreement has been executed, and is in existence just as it was presented to parliament last year. We did stipulate with Mr. Clergue that he should consent, without abrogating the contract, to our securing elsewhere the quantity of rails we required to lay in before winter closed in upon us. He agreed to that. He promises to furnish
10,000	tons this year within the time they are required, and he has already commenced to turn rails out at his mill. Last year we got 15,000 elsewhere. From Charles Campbell & Company, through James Watson & Company, of Glasgow, we got 7,000 tons at $25.79, delivered at Mulgrave or Pictou as we required, and 3,000 tons delivered at Montreal at $24.90, and 2,000 tons delivered at Pictou at $25.70. From the Barrow Hematite Steel Company we got 3,000 tons at $25.65.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Were these rails furnished by Mr. Clergue under his contract ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, he had nothing to do with them.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The rails the minister bought last year cost the country about $25.50, or $25.75. If I recollect rightly, the minister was to pay Mr. Clergue $32.60 for the rails he was to buy last year, so that the


Edmund Boyd Osler: 37S5

country made, on the rails purchased last year, as we contended, about $7 a ton. Is Mr. Clergue still to furnish 25,000 tons a year for 5 years, or do the rails purchased elsewhere last year come off the total quantity of 125,000 tons provided for in the contract !


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is my understanding.


Edmund Boyd Osler: It should not be the understanding of the minister. It should be the knowledge of the minister.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is what I say. The 15,000 tons were obtained elsewhere with his consent.


Edmund Boyd Osler: That reduced Mr. Clergue's contract from 125,000 tons to 110,000 tons. There are 10,000 tons of rails which Mr. Clergue should have delivered last year, which were not delivered, and which are to be delivered this year. Is Mr. Clergue to receive $32.GO a ton for these ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I should say so under that contract.


Edmund Boyd Osler: It would be a good thing for the country if Mr. Clergue defaulted some more.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman does not attach any importance to the establishment of the industry.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Does the price of $32.60 hold for the first 25,000 tons Mr. Clergue delivers ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It holds for the 10,000 tons only. That is my view.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Is it Mr. Clergue's view !


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have not asked him. I have no doubt about it.


Mr. HEYD.: Is there a supposed uniformity in all these steel rails made by the different makers, so that when a price is quoted, it is understood to be for the same quality of goods ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Oh, yes; we have a specification to which we require the rails to conform. The margin of difference in the price arises partly from the difference in freight to the places where the rails are delivered. I want to say to the hon. member who has just spoken that it is very difficult for the government to judge what it would be possible for them to do to meet the views of our hon. friends opposite in respect to the encouragement of Canadian industry. AVe are charged with perpetrating a very great wrong if we go to a foreign country to buy
an article, when we can buy it very much cheaper there than at home; and if we buy an article at home, we are told that we could have got it very much cheaper abroad. This makes it a little difficult for us to pursue a course which will commend itself to all our hon. friends opposite.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I wish at once to make it plain that there is not one member on this side who would criticise the government for any possible agreement it might make, which would in any way encourage the manufacture of steel rails or any other commodity in Canada, but we are fairly entitled to criticise the contract which the hon. minister entered into last year. We contended last year that it was a most ridiculous aud injudicious one. The hon. minister himself did not know whether he had signed it or not. In fact he said the contract had not been signed, and it turned out to have been signed.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It was the other way.


Edmund Boyd Osler: That is immaterial. He had forgotten whether he had signed it or not, although it was a contract involving millions of dollars.
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. I thought I had signed it, and it turned out that I had not.


Edmund Boyd Osler: It is quite immaterial.
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. Of course, quite immaterial.


Edmund Boyd Osler: It was a contract for 125,000 tons, and the minister forgot Whether he had signed it or not. We contended that it could not be fulfilled. Up to the last moment the minister contended that it could, and would be fulfilled.
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	ANDCANALS. I beg	the	hon. gentleman's
pardon.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Up to the last moment he expressed the greatest confidence that Mr. Clergue would be able to deliver the rails. He was to begin by the 1st of August.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My hon. friend is mistaken.


Edmund Boyd Osler: While we are glad to encourage the manufacture of steel rails and to help on Mr. Clergue or any company that will come to Canada to prosecute that industry, we would like to know how the contract has worked out. 15,000 tons of rails were purchased by the government, but not delivered by Mr. Clergue. That made a saving of $7 per ton. The hon. minister is asked whether that 15,000 tons is to be deducted from the gross amount of Mr. Clergue's contract, and he is uncertain about it. He is asked whether the first delivery of 25,000 tons shall be at the rate of $32.60 per ton, and he says he thinks so, but

is apparently uncertain. He has not even referred the matter to the Legal Department to find out.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman is desirous, no doubt, of stating the facts most accurately, but lie has not succeeded in doing so, for he says that the contract was entered into last year, and that we have in consequence made a loss.


Edmund Boyd Osler: A profit.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: A profit to the extent of 15,UUd tons. He needs to be reminded that the contract was not made last year but two years ago, and made at a time when Mr. Clergue was prepared to undertake to establish a steel rail industry in Canada, but in order to secure the necessary capital for the purpose he required some evidence to show that there would be, at all events, a substantial quantity of rails actually guaranteed, as it were, or for which a market would be available. We may have been wrong as to the desirability of establishing a manufacture of rails in Canada, but if we were it was an error in judgment and an error on the right side; and it was an error which, notwithstanding the extreme condemnation our proposition received from the other side, met with very general acceptance in the country. The prices that were fixed in that contract were the prices current at the time.


George Taylor: When was it made ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The agreement was entered into, and the Order in Council authorizing the execution of the contract made in the month of August 1900.


George Taylor: Just before the elections.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My hon. friend has elections on his mind and cannot shake them oft'. I do not see any reason why because an election is pending, the whole business of the country should be suspended. But my suspicious friends opposite connect the idea of an election with every transaction, even when that transaction takes place a year before or a year after. The hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) has been busy trying to prove that although certain things took place two or three months after the election, they took place .in view of that election. Well, we are conscious of absolute rectitude and can afford to treat with a great deal of indifference the criticisms of my hon. friends. We were serving the interests of the public, and I believe it will be found to have worked out to the advantage of the Dominion. The establishment of these mills at Sault Ste. Marie will be recognized as one of the best things which the government has been instrumental in securing. When my hon. friend talks about a difference of Mr. OSLER.
$7, I hope he will realize that it is very well to talk of what the prices were a year or two years after the arrangement was made, when we know that these things are liable to variation. My hon. friend will not be vocal in praising my first purchase of rails. I made a purchase of 20,000 tons. It is true they were purchased in the United States. We could make a better arrangement in the United States than in England, as we ascertained when we called for tenders. We bought the rails at a price, to be delivered some months afterwards, and when the time for delivery came, we could have made 85 or $6 a ton, the price having gone up. Hon. gentlemen opposite do not seenj to realize that a government, like a private individual, must take these risks. The rails must be bought in quantities before they can be used, and one must take the chances of what the market will be at the time of delivery.


Edmund Boyd Osler: My recollection is that, last year we showed that the price was $25 a ton at the time


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am sure you did not.


Edmund Boyd Osler: We will look at the record in ' Hansard.'


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman gave some figures about prices after the arrangement was made.


Samuel Barker: The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) last session dealt with the prices at the time of the contract.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If the hon. gentleman will look at the prices at the time when the Order in Council was passed, he will see that he is mistaken. The arrangement made with Mr. Clergue was committed to the form of an Order in Council, and, when that was passed, Mr. Clergue was advised of the fact. The contract was not signed-it was not even drawn up-for some time afterwards. But that did not make any difference for we were bound, and so was Mr. Clergue, and we did not think it necessary to rush the preparation of the papers.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I think we can prove pretty conclusively that the price of rails was $25 a ton at that time.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think the hon. gentleman will not be able to confirm that concerning the time when the negotiations took place and the arrangement was made. That was early in July, I think.


Edmund Boyd Osler: To avoid possible future claims from Mr. Clergue, I think it would be well for the minister to have an interpretation of the contract now. For, unless he knows more about it than he did last year, there is a very good chance of his

ideas being wrong. The contract, as I recollect it, might be fairly construed, as a contract for 125,000 tons. I think that the minister should see to it that there is no uncertainty about this matter. I do not find the statement in ' Hansard ' with respect to prices that I expected to find.


William Findlay Maclean: The case as I recollect it, was something like this : In 1900 the government made some secret arrangement with Mr. Clergue. The arrangement was based upon protectionist principle, but it was made at a time when they were appealing to the people as a free trade government. We on this side who are protectionists do not object to a protectionist measure on the part of the government, but we do object to their unbusinesslike way of carrying it out. The hon. minister cannot give an explanation now, that makes the matter clear. He will not justify this contract on the ground of encouraging a home industry but has got it all muddled up. He cannot give a clear-cut interpretation of what the arrangement really is. According to my recollection, we were promised last year that we were to get a new rail made of niekle steel. I would like to know if the rails that are being delivered are of this superior character ?


The MINISTER OE RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: 1 am sorry that 1 am not endowed with the capacity for elucidation possessed by my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean). But I fear that the committee will have to take me as I am. I can assure the hon. gentleman that there was no secrecy about the arrangement. I think we were all rather proud of it. I know I felt that it was not by any means an arrangement that required to be apologized for. I took occasion to speak of it upon the platform, and I understood that some of my colleagues did so also. And we did not put it upon protectionist ground either. This is not a question of protection at all.


Samuel Barker: The Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) defended it on that ground.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANABS.: If my hon. friend (Mr. Paterson) mentioned it in the campaign, I do not know on what grounds he commended it. But the bargain was a very good one, because we bought at the price which was ruling when we made the agreement, though the price did subsequently fall. When my hon. friend speaks of $25 a ton he speaks of what took place months after the arrangement was made. But we could not go back on the arrangement because of the fall in the market. As an honourable man, my hon. friend would not have done so had he been at the head of
the last men in parliament who would go back on a fair, clear understanding. Yet the hon. gentleman criticises us because we did not do a thing which he himself would regard as dishonourable. I think that is carrying a political critical view of things rather far.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I do not think any member on this side of the House for a moment suggests that the government should go back on their bargain with Mr. Clergue. We are criticising the minister for the bargain he made, and that is our right to do. It is not fair that the Minister of Railways and Canals should put into our months statements that we want to repudiate a bargain that the country made.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If that is the case, why does he quote prices that did not rule until long after the bargain was made ? He goes back to the time when we made the arrangement with Mr. Clergue. I recollect that the Order in Council did not pass until some time after this arrangement was made, but the arrangement existed all the same. Why does the hon. gentleman quote prices that ruled subsequently ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: My recollection is that there was a combination of the American manufacturers, and a nominal rise in prices to $31 and $32 a ton. At the time that the minister made his bargain the Canadian Pacific Railway and other railway companies bought rails at $25 a ton


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Mackenzie & Mann told me they paid as high prices as we paid.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I am not talking about Mackenzie & Mann. The minister at the time taunted me in the House with making a statement without a knowledge of the facts. I gave the facts, and the figures, and the dates, at the time that contract was made, running over nearly a month.
Mr. HEYI). Did not the minister also state that contract was brought before the House, that one of the reasons why the government made it was to induce the Clergue industry to start a steel rail plant in this countrv V And would they have started that steel rail plant had not this contract been given ? ,


William Findlay Maclean: It is a fact that the Order in Council was a secret order made in August, 1900, and the existence of that Order in Council was not made public until the discussion in this House last year. The minister stated that the reason lie made this contract was that he wished to encourage home industries, but at the time he did not take the public into his confidence, and when he went to the country he said that he was not doing anything at the time. It was only brought out twelve or fourteen months after lie made this contract, as he
the department. Mr. Clergue had made it
a condition of getting the rail mill in oper-	...
ation, and my hon. friend would bo one of ' said, with that public object m "s lew.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman is altogether mistaken. In speaking at Sault Ste. Marie during that campaign, I myself, stated publicly that we had come to an agreement with Mr. Clergue. I made the same statement in the city of Montreal on two or three occasions. The fact was made known during the campaign itself.
now the hon. gentleman says that Mr. Clergue will be allowed to deliver 10.000 tons this year at the price of last year's contract, which is away above the present price. The minister entered into that contract and agreed to give $32.60, although the market price at the time he made the contract was $25.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am disposed to let bygones be by-gones_ with regard to that contract. But I think it was demonstrated at the time that we were paying $32.60 a ton, a great deal more than wie should have paid, even conceding the point, which I am disposed to concede, that we should encourage home industries, and that, other things being equal, we should pay dearer at home for rails rather than go abroad for them. But the point I was trying to elucidate was this :	What steps did we take
when we found out that Mr. Clergue could not carry out his contract ? Did we consult the Department of Justice to find out whether we could get out of that part of the contract by which we were bound to pay $32.60 for those rails-an exorbitant price when you consider that both the province of Ontario and the Dominion of Canada were paying a bounty to Mr. Clergue 7 Now, the minister demonstrated the fact that we were offering to pay too high a price upon the purchase of rails last year. We have not bought from Mr. Clergue, and we have realized an economy of over $100,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We would have realized an economy by not buying anything from him.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: As Mr. Clergue was in default in fulfilling the terms of our contract with him, it seems to* me we were free to discuss the question of price with him again; yet at this moment the Minister of Railways and Canals comes back and asks us for $600,000, the most of it for new rails; and as I understand the contract, Mr. Clergue can come to us to-morrow and tender the rails we require at that exorbitant price of $32.60. That is the position as I understand it. It is regrettable that the Minister of Railways and Canals did not avail himself of Mr. Clergue's inability last year to supply us with rails, to discuss a new conditions of the contract, and to make new terms which would be less onerous to this country.


Samuel Barker: It seems to me one of the plainest business propositions that when Mr. Clergue agreed to supply last vear 23,000 tons at a particular price and failed to deliver them, we are not bound to take any of that quantity this year. Surely anv business man knows that. He agreed to deliver
25,000	tons at a certain price last year, and another 25,000 tons this year at the market price of this year. The government had to buy 15,000 tons elsewhere last year, and Mr. MACLEAN.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I beg your pardon.


Samuel Barker: The hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Osier-) stated it in this House, and quoted prices that he obtained from the Canadian Pacific Railway at the very time when the Minister of Railways and Canals made that contract for $32.60 a ton. What was the answer of the Minister of Railways and Canals ? Why, this was done to encourage manufactures in Canada. The government was to give $7 a ton more than the market price at that time. The hon. gentleman forgot, as I pointed out to him last year, that .in addition to the $32.60 per ton, the country was giving a bonus of between $6 and $7 on the manufacture of the steel in this country. According to that, Mr. Clergue was to get $32.60 from the Minister of Railways and Canals and between $6 and $7 as a bonus from the Dominion and the province of Ontario. That was the position. We were to give about $39 a ton for these rails when they could have been bought for $25. All these facts I think are clearly found in the ' Hansard.' The Minister of Railways and Canals had a different statement to make to us every time this question was up. Now what was the original story ?
I recollect it as well as if it was yesterdav. The hon. gentleman began his negotiations first when this House was sitting. His excuse for not laying the negotiations before the House was that it was towards the end of the session, the House was busy, and he did not wish to lay them before the House. At that time the price at which Mr. Clergue offered to supply these rails was $32 per ton, but, after the House prorogued, Mr. Clergue and the hon. minister met, and although he admitted that there had been no change in the market price of rails, the hon. minister increased the price to $32.60 per ton.	.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That was for delivering them down on the road.


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman was asked if there had been any change in the market price of rails between the time he received the offer from Mr. Clergue during the sittings of the House and after the meeting with Mr. Clergue in June and he said that he had allowed him 60 cents per ton extra because Mr. Clergue thought he ought to have it. That is what the hon. minister said. In that way the hon. minister in a moment agreed to give $15,000 more for the 25,WO tons of rails than Mr. Clergue had

offered to supply tliem for. Then, later than August, very close to the end of parliament -I think it was as late as October-an Order in Council was passed authorizing a contract for 25,000 tons at $32.00 a ton and for
100.000	tons more, at the market price, for the following four years. The hon. gentleman had agreed to pay the very large price of $32.00 per ton for 25,000 tons and Mr. Clergue was not able to deliver one ton. It is quite true that the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Dyment), who intervened in the debate last year, stood up in the House and told us that he had just been up at the Soo and that everything was in readiness to deliver the rails and that delivery would begin in August. We have heard to-day that you are not A bit further advanced. The hon. gentleman had to buy 15,000 tons and he was able to get them at $26 a ton instead of being obliged to pay $32.60. He seems to think that he is to dole out the money of this country at will. The gentleman who failed to comply with his contract and who has not delivered one ton of the
25.000	tons is to be treated as if he had complied with his contract, and he is to get $32.60 a ton now when the hon. gentleman admits that he is able to buy rails at between $25 and $26 a ton. I wonder if the hon. gentleman thinks, that, in his own behalf, lie would pay, or that on behalf of any other person, he would be justified in paying out money in this way. WThat does the hon. gentleman say ? He wants a vote from this House for 25,000 tons of rails. He says he is going to pay $32.60 per ton for 10.000 and $28 per ton for the remainder. That would amount to $746,000 for rails alone, and the same item of the estimates includes fastenings at $50 a ton. How is the hon. gentleman going to pay for these 25,000 tons of rails which come to $746,000, besides a lot of fastenings when he is only asking for $600,000. That shows that these estimates are perfect nonsense. Where is the reason in submitting such an estimate as that to anyone who understands business and who knows what he is talking about ? The hon. gentleman stands up and tells us that he proposes to buy 25,000 tons of rails this year, that he is going to pay $32.60 per ton for
10.000	and $2S per ton for 15,000 tons and he only asks $600,000 to pay for them. How he is going to pay for these rails out of this $600,000 and pay for the fastenings as well, is something that I think requires a little more explanation.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I was unfortunately not in the House when the discussion upon this subject opened. As to what is the proper price to be paid for rails during the current year, that is a subject on which I do not care to offer any opinion, not having been present when the discussion began, but I dissent entirely from the statement of the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) as to the arrangement which was made last year. It was not such an arrangement as the hon. gentleman described.


Samuel Barker: I am speaking from the debate.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Like the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk)
I have to confess that my recollection of this matter is a little dim, because I have not had occasion of late to deal with the subject. My recollection is that at an early stage of the season-I forget at what particular date-Mr. Clergue discussed with the hon.	Minister	of	Railways	and	Canals(Mr. Blair), on behalf of the government, the question of assisting the starting of this Canadian enterprise by giving an order for rails. It was discussed with various members of the government, but chiefly with the hon.	Minister	of	Railways	and	Canals
asi his department was more particularly concerned, and it was agreed that an order should be given to Mr. Clergue for a quantity of rails at the then market price, whatever that market price was. My hon. friend (Mr. Barker) shakes his head, but I want to insist in this respect that my recollection is right. It was agreed that the rails should be taken at the market price when the arrangement was made and Mr. Clergue was so informed and it was so understood. But, it so happened that that was not expressed in a report of the hon. minister until a little later, and that the report of the minister was not expressed in an Order in Council until a little later. Hon. gentlemen make their comparisons as to the price of rails at the date of the passing of the Order in Council, and say that the price was too high, because, in the meantime rails had dropped in price. But it is necessary to remember that the price agreed upon, or the price at which the rails were contracted for, was the price of the market at the time the arrangement was made. It was a fair price, and the fact that rails subsequently dropped in price is something that might occur in any transaction.


Samuel Barker: There was no drop between June when the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals made a contract at $32.60 and the time at which the Order in Council was passed.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My impression is that the hon. gentleman is entirely mistaken on that point. What the government meant to do and what it understood it was doing was to give Mr. Clergue the benefit of an order at the market price at the time, which was a fixed price-of course you could ascertain the existing market price-and to bargain that for a period in the future he should have further orders at the market price prevailing at the time of manufacture. As to the bounty my hon. friend mixes that up very unfairly

with the arrangement. The bounty has nothing to do with it. If Mr. Olergue makes steel ingots he will get any bounty that is given by the government for the manufacture of steel ingots. He gets the bounty whether he makes rails or not. If the hon. Minister of Railways were buying steel rails he would have no difficulty in buying them from Mr. Clergue or anybody else at the market price and the bounty would have nothing to do with it whatever, so far as the hon. gentleman imports the bounty into the matter, it is unfair because it has nothing to do with it.


Samuel Barker: What I contend is that the bounty satisfies all questions that have been raised as to encouraging manufacture in this country.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No.


Samuel Barker: Yes, the bounty satisfies that portion of it and after giving the bounty we are entitled to buy the rails at the market price.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We have been granting a bounty on iron and steel for a number of years but we have not had a rail manufactured in Canada up to the present time, unless Mr. Clergue is now turning them out. Therefore, as the bounty on iron and steel has not created the industry of manufacturing steel rails, something more is necessary. We have been paying an iron and steel bounty for the last ten or fifteen years and we have not yet had a rail made in Canada. It is an advanced process of manufacture. Therefore, the object of tuis government in making the contract was not merely to continue something that had already existed under the bounty, but to create another stage of manufacture, to carry the process further, and to bring about the manufacture of steel rails. I think that was a fair statement. My hon. friend will see that when he says the bounty was enough to create the industry of rail manufacturing, experience has shown that he is mistaken.


Samuel Barker: Does the Minister of Finance pretend that the Minister of Railways and Canals has the right to increase the price of rails in order to encourage their manufacture. Is that within the functions of the minister.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I contend that the minister had no right to do so and did not do so. Mr. Clergue was the only intending manufacturer of steel rails in Canada, and we agreed with Mr. Clergue, irrespective of the bounty, to buy a quantity of rails at the market price at the time the arrangement was made. That was the basis of the contract, and that is what the Minister of Railways and Canals says he intended to do, and that is what he did do. The fact that the rails afterwards | Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
dropped in price proves nothing. In all commercial transactions the man who buys takes the risk of the price dropping, and if it does drop he may be sorry he bought so much, but that is a risk common to every one.


Edmund Boyd Osler: From ' Hansard,' Vol. 2, 1901, page 3,572, I find the following :


Edmund Boyd Osler: The last time this item was discussed, the Minister of Railways laid *what we all supposed wras the contract on the Table. He defended that contract from one end of it to the other as a contract in the interests of the country. He said the price was good and favourable, that it was the lowest price at which the rails could be purchased. He stated that the general opinion was that rails were not on a falling market, but on a rising market. Now, as it happens, at that time there had been a large sale of English rails, English manufacturers had not been able to overtake the demand, and consequently they were not selling further rails. In the States production had overtaken the demand, consequently the rails were steadily falling. In the States rails had fallen within two months from $35 to $26 a ton, at the date on which the minister made this contract, he paid $7 a ton more than the price for which he could have got rails. Now, as Liberal-Conservatives and as protectionists, there is no reasonable limit to which we on this side of the House would not go to establish and protect a steel industry in this country. The difference between the two parties is that the Liberal-Conservatives would have made this contract openly, and adopted it as part of their policy. The government made this contract secretly, they covered up their contract and did not want the country to know it. There is the clearly defined difference between the two parties. Now let me show you that our contention was right as to the prices, and that the minister made his contract in a falling market. The price of manufactured pig iron in Canada during July, and up to the 28th of August, delivered at the Hamilton furnace, was $23 a ton; from the 28th of August to the 20 th of September, it was $20 a ton ; from the 20th of September onwards to October, and to the end of the year, it was $18 a ton : and to-day it is about $17 a ton. So there is a difference as between $23 and $17 a ton for the raw material. The price of rails in England kept up for some time, btit no English rails were sold on this continent because American rails were bought, the price being so much lower.
There is my direct statement as to the price of these rails on a certain date.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: When was that.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The date on which the contract was made. There was a discussion on this subject later on and from the ' Hansard ' of May 15th page 5,235, I quote the following :


Edmund Boyd Osler: That is quite natural. You could not make a contract to-day for rails for present delivery.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: For delivery in the autumn, in this season.



Edmund Boyd Osler: Certainly, no one v/ill make a contract now, or in the beginning of June, for rails to be supplied in July, August or September. But when we were discussing the matter the contract could have been1 made for much Isss.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am glad to get that acknowledgment from the hon. gentleman, because not only he, but a dozen members 'on the other side pointed to the present price and said we were paying $7 more than we should.


Edmund Boyd Osler: But the minister will find that all the statements were regarding a contract made in October, the prices were then stated on this side of the House, and it was shown that he made the contract for $7 a ton more than rails could be bought for then. You cannot go into the market to-day and bny rails for delivery a month or two months hence ; it would be an absurdity.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I ask the hon. gentleman to turn up what he himself said on that subject in this House, and he will find that the criticism he mndie upon this transaction was to the effect that you could buy rails in the United States to-day for $26 per ton.


Edmund Boyd Osler: At the time the contract was
made.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: At the time the hon. gentleman made the statement he said the price was $26 a ton. He is not willing to go back to a date at the time when this arrangement was made with Mr. Clergue in the month of August. He has to come down to the month of November before he will find the pries quoted m the United States below the price I have named. He will find, if he chooses to look at the published reports in the trade papers, what steel rails were quoted for at those dates. To-day, he has to pay $28 a ton, and I do not believe he could get delivery in any part of this season. I do not care what portion of the season he chooses. Up to the close of navigation he cannot get a contract for delivery at the works cf any of the companies at less than $28 a ton. I do not think he can get it at $28 a ton, because an offer made to the Grand Trunk Railway Company for 50,000 tons at $28 a ton ten days ago was withdrawn because the price is going up.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Two days before I made the statement in this House I had seen a contract made by the Canadian Pacific Railway at $-*->
a ton for steel rails delivered in Montreal this year.
I distinctly stated, and I state again, that at the time the minister made that contract he made it at $7 a ton more than the price of fails in the United States.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Osier) is entirely mistaken. If he means to refer to the date the contract was drawn and sent forward for execution it might be the case, or even when the Order in Council was passed, but my recollection entirely agrees with the Minister of Finance. That the agreement in effect was made anterior to the drawing' up of the Order in Council, and even somewhat anterior to the sending of the report to council.


Edmund Boyd Osler: When was the agreement made.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think it was made in June, but at all events when my recollection was fresh on the matter I stated to the House when the agreement was made. My hon. friend confirms the very fact which I am trying to impress upon the committee when he reads the statement that there was a variation in the price of rails which were .$35 a ton and in two months fell to $26. I say that the price was not $35 at the time this arrangement was entered into with Mr. Clergue, but I do say that the sterling price in the English market was over six pounds and under six pounds ten shillings.
I brought it into parliament last year but of course hon. gentlemen would not look at it. They were bound to condemn whatever the effects might be, it was their business to do so I suppose ; probably it is a legitimate part of the game. If hon. gentlemen opposite can succeed in convincing people that there was something crooked in the transaction they are entitled to it. I read from the ' Trade Review ' and the journal quotations as to the sale of rails on the English market which the hon. gentleman admits himself stood firm for a long time, and that these prices were not lower at the time this arrangement was made than the prices we paid. If the hon. gentleman cares to look up ' Hansard ' he will find that.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The price of rails on the English market was seven or eight dollars a ton more than in the United States.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is the English market we agreed to be bound by all through as the fairest market.


Edmund Boyd Osler: My goodness ; why in the world should the minister hind himself by a market that was $7 a ton higher than the United States market. He might as well say that he would be bound by the price in the Chinese market. I made the statement here and I was not contradicted by the minister.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am not contradicting the hon. gentleman now, but I say that the hon. gentleman is taking the wrong date.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I am taking absolutely the date that the contract was made and that is a fact to my own knowledge. I am taking the date on which the minister said the contract was made, and I have quoted statements which were made in this House, and not denied by the minister or any one else.	.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not deny them now.

3S00


Samuel Barker: Will the minister state why he wants to pay this year $32.60 per ton for 10,00C tons, which Mr. Clergue is obliged to deliver at the market price in England to-day ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I did not say that the government had decided to pay any such price. I have stated what I thought would be fair and reasonable, and I still think so, seeing the object we had in view in starting the industry. But whatever price will be paid is a matter that will have to be considered and decided in council.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Well, that is accepting the statement I made that the minister does not know anything about it, and that the matter is still under discussion.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If it gives the hon. gentleman any comfort at all, I will make him a present of it.


Edmund Boyd Osler: That is just what we want to get-that the matter is still to be decided in council, and that Mr. Clergue will get the best end of the stick, as he has done so far.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I suppose I might treat that contract as absolutely thrown over, and say to Mr. Clergue that he could do as he liked ; but that is something which I cannot do, which I have no power to do as one individual member of the cabinet; and the matter will no doubt be disposed of by the government at the proper time when the question arises. It has not arisen yet.


Samuel Barker: The bon. gentleman is a aware that this one item makes a difference of $70,000; so that I think it demands a little attention from the minister and the government. I still call the minister's attention to the fact that he is buying for this year 25,000 tons of rails, which, according to his estimate, will cost $746,000. He is also asking for a large number of fastenings which will cost $50 a ton, and he is only asking $660,000 for both. I ask him how many tons of rails and how many tons of fastenings he is getting ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The estimate is 25,000 tons of rails at $2S a ton, and 4,020 tons of fastenings. at $50 a ton, and the cost of relaying the rails.


Samuel Barker: That is labour. This item is for steel rails and fastenings, and I want to know what they are going to cost.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The statement is $901,000.


Samuel Barker: That includes maintenance items, whereas this is a capital expenditure. How much under capital does Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
he propose to pay for steel rails and fastenings ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I say the estimate is $901,000 for the rails and fastenings, and we credit the old rails at $15 a ton and the fastenings at $20 a ton, amounting to $361,075. Take that from $901,000 and you get the $600,000. [DOT]


Samuel Barker: That brings up the question we discussed the other day, and I propose to move that this capital expenditure be brought down to a proper footing. I have contended in this House that the ordinary rule as to charges for capital should govern the book-keeping of the hon. gentleman. The rule is that he can charge to capital account only the increased weight of the rails he lays on the track. The hon. gentleman is laying, I understand, an S0-pound rail, and taking up a 67-pound rail. If so, he is entitled to charge to capital account only 13 pounds of steel. The rest is a maintenance item.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I suppose the hon. gentleman hardly expects to invite a repetition of the discussion we had on this question. The hon. gentleman who was Minister of Railways preceding myself admits that it is simply rubbish to talk about capital in connection with this matter. You have to put down rails, you will not have the earnings to do it out of, and how does it become any more capital charged in this way than it would if charged in any other way, when it has to be paid either out of the surplus Income of the year or out of bonds if there is not a surplus ? How are we to get the appropriation ? We have to put down the rails. I would not mislead parliament by saying that we are going to have surplus enough to meet that out of the earnings. If I do not ask it out of capital, how am I going to get it ? It simply means that you cannot do what is necessary to be done on the Intercolonial Railway at all unless you do it in this way.


Samuel Barker: The hon. minister says that the hon. ex-Minister of Railways said it was all nonsense. I say he never said anything of the kind. He agrees entirely with the contention I make, that the only charge to capital that the hon. gentleman can rightly make is the increased weight of the rail he puts on the track. The hon. gentleman asks what difference does it make ? The difference is that when he makes the proper charge for revenue, we know whether he is operating the road at a profit or not. We want to know that the hon. gentleman keeps his account correctly, that is all. The hon. gentleman has actually been charging to capital account the labour of replacing the rails on the track. Surely that must stop if we are ever' to know whether the hon. gentleman is working the road at a profit or "not. He has


3S02
[Stage Direction]
told us that lie is charging some amount, $50,000 for labour in this item. Last year he charged $200 a mile for the labour of putting down new rails in the place of old. But that is a maintenance charge, just as much a working expense as the wages of conductors and foremen. He asked what difference it makes, as he has not the revenue. Well, he had not the revenue to pay the $188,000 last year which he was short. What did he do ? He had to admit it was a deficit and added it to the debt of the country. He can do the same with this item and show us what the deficit really is.
I move that item No. 122 ' steel rails and fastenings, $600,000 ' be reduced to $200,000.
That is more than the amount which he is entitled to charge against capital. The balance of the $600,000 he can charge against maintenance, after deducting the value of the old rails taken up.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not underestimate the importance of having a true line of division between revenue and capital account, but I venture to say the public at large will not attach the same importance to it as my hon. friend does. The public will take the rather practical view of the matter that the expenses of the railway whether we call them capital or income account, have to be met by a general charge on the public treasury, and whether you charge the item in one or another column is not a matter of very great importance, so far as the public is concerned. They have a habit of dealing with what Mr. Mantilini calls 'the demnition total.' And if the money is faithfully expended if there be no charge of malfeasance and the works are useful, the public at large are not deeply concerned as to whether a particular item is charged to capital or income.


Samuel Barker: Why not be correct if it makes no difference ?	[DOT]


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It would be quite impossible, in the case of a railway under the circumstances of the Intercolonial Railway to carry out in every respect the views my hon. friend has expressed. As a matter of book-keeping it is desirable that there should be a broad distinction between revenue and capital, and I suppose that in the case of private companies it is essential the line of distinction should be clearly drawn. No doubt a company would every year lay aside a certain portion of its earnings in order to create a fund for the purpose of maintaining the road, and then, when it became necessary to renew the rails or do anything of that nature, there would be a fund available, which could be drawn on without touching the capital. But there is no such condition on the Intercolonial Railway. Without attempting to find fault with the
administration of hon. gentlemen opposite, as a matter of fact, when the present Minister of Railways took office, the railway was in a somewhat run down condition. At all events it was not up to date. It was not up to the conditions of a modern railway. It was just about then that the conditions of railroads on the continent of America began to experience a very material change. It was discovered that it was necessary to have better roadbeds, heavier rails and better grades and curvatures, larger engines-entirely different conditions from those which formerly prevailed. The Minister of Railways had to dp one of two things. Either let the railway go down and fall back in the race, or meet these new conditions by providing the money. * Since there was no fund available, my hon. friend had to draw his provision from capital or not at all. I do not see any means of getting over that. Is my hon. friend to be told that the large expenditures rendered necessary in order to improve the road and buy new engines and all that were to be paid out of the earnings ? My hon. friend knows that that is impossible. There is no other fund created, no reserve fund on which he could draw, and he had to get this money and charge it up to capital or go without it.


Edmund Boyd Osler: It is rather surprising to hear the Minister of Finance tell us that it is quite immaterial whether you charge expenditure against revenue or against capital.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman might as well be accurate, I did not say anything of the kind.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I think that what the Minister of Finance said was that the money had to be provided, and it made no difference whether you charged it to capital or revenue. Let us see where the difference is. I say it is vital. This is a public work belonging to the people, and the Minister of Railways is just as much bound to show to the public exactly what it costs to operate and own that railway as are the directorate of any private company to show their shareholders the exact profit or losses. If we were to accept the theory of the Minister of Finance, we could make that railway show a profit of a million or two million dollars, by simply charging sufficient expenditure against capital account to produce that result. That would not make any difference to the treasury in the end, but the country is entitled to know exactly what really is the result of operating the road. I quite agree that when there is a very rapid increase of business, which causes additional expenditure, you must charge a portion of the expenditure to capital, but it is absolutely fallacious to cook the accounts of the Intercolonial Railway and make it appear that road is being operated at a profit, when instead it is being operated at an enormous loss.
[DOT]3803

The accounts last year showed that the toss on the Intercolonial Railway was about half a million dollars, whereas, if the accounts had been kept properly they would have shown a loss of twice, or, perhaps, three times that amount. I say that, in the interest of the country the accounts should be kept properly, so that the people may know exactly what it costs to own and run the railway. Let us not make the mistake of believing we are operating the road *on a paying basis when, as a matter of fact, we are adding to the debt of the country by millions of dollars. Operating it for the benefit of the country we may operate it indirectly at a profit, but we ought to know what it costs us in the ordinary railway sense to own and operate the road. I am surprised that anybody, above all the hon. Minister of Finance, should advocate any other course.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I presume that my hon. friend, as a public man, has been watching for many years the manner in *which tlie Intercolonial Railway has been managed in this regard. I presume that when his friends were in power, he saw that appropriations were being asked for on capital account on the Intercolonial Railway, year after year, for the same class of expenditures as we are asking for to-day.


Samuel Barker: Not for steel rails.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I cannot see that there is so great a difference in this respect between steel rails and rolling stock that one rule should be applied to one and a different rule to the other. My hon. friends never thought that the books were being kept wrong by their friends. They have only discovered that the books are wrong with the change of government, and now what they approved of for many a year they condemn. One cannot resist the conclusion that, with hon. gentlemen opposite, it makes a great difference whose animal is being gored. What was right for them is wrong for me. I would like to ask my hon. frieud (Mr. Osier) how an expenditure of say .54,000,000 required in the interests of the railway should be secured V Would he be prepared to justify me in making an appropriation of $4,000,000 more on revenue account ? We have obtained a grant of -$5,000,000 for operating expenses. If I came to parliament and asked for $9,000,000 for operating expenses, would the hon. gentleman approve it V If I told him I was going to buy locomotives and cars and put down more rails, would lie regard that as a justification ? By no means. He would condemn it in unmeasured terms and would say that we had no business to ask for money for these purposes under the head of operating expenses. And I quite agree with him. As we have not the money on hand, where is it to come from ? It can Mr. OSLER.
only be by an appropriation on capital account. The other night the hon. ex-Miu-ister of Railways (Mr. Haggart) not seeing where his argument was landing him, told us with the utmost seriousness that the capital expenditure toy this government on the Intercolonial Railway was $22,000,000. In this he was actually giving a complete answer to my hon. friend's arguments, though without intending it. What was his (Hon. Mr. Haggart's) contention ? He said that we had spent $22,000,000 on capital account on the Intercolonial Railway. On a previous occasion he had said that we had spent $23,000,000 in this wav. And how did he make it out ? Why, by adding the deficits to the expenditure on capital account making the whole expenditure up to about $21,200,000.


Samuel Barker: He added the deficits to the government's capital expenditure.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: He called it capital expenditure in effect. He did not say that it was technically capital expenditure, of course. The effect of his argument was to support the point I have been making and to answer tho speeches of my hon. friends.


Samuel Barker: The hon. minister asks how' he could get this appropriation except by the way he suggests. I think I can show him with the utmost ease. If he will turn to item 208, which was passed at his instance the other night, he will find that he has taken an estimate for his working expenses, including maintenance, for the coming year of $5,500,000. But the hou. gentleman does not put all these expenses in here. He can just as easily make that $0,000,000 as make it $5,500,000. As the Finance Minister practically admits, the hon. gentleman is charging to capital, items that are really maintenance charges. The Finance Minister says that it does not really make any difference and that it would be inconvenient to charge them. Let the hon. Minister of Railways put the whole truth into these items, and then we shall understand what he is doing and know what his deficit really is. He has been saying for the last four or five years that his deficits are so much or so little. But he has never shown the public the whole truth. Last year, he did not show half his deficit. As the hon. member for West Toronto has said, under the system now pursued, the hon. minister can make his deficit as much or as little as he likes, or he can create a surplus if he likes. Surely, the public do not want accounts kept in that way. Unless we have the accounts kept properly, we shall never know whether this or any minister is earning a profit or making a loss. That is the object of keeping the accounts properly. The hon. gentleman cannot be even compared with himself, that is, one year of his working cannot be compared with another, because he charges to capital

wliat lie pleases during one year, and arbitrarily charges as he wills in another year. The iion. gentleman says :	What about the
rolling stock ? I admitted the other day that the moment the ho>n. gentleman added one car or one locomotive to the Original stock he could charge that to capital. Nobody says anything to the contrary. He has got to maintain his original stock out of maintenance, and everything he adds to his original stock he is entitled to charge to capital. He can charge as much as he likes to capital, providing he is adding to his stcck and adding to the line. _ When 1 asked the question of Mr. Pottinger the other day as to the propriety of charging the whole of this to capital, his answer was a very simple one : Why should I object as long as parliament grants the money ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: When these gentlemen get into a corner and are hard pressed for an answer their argument invariably is, well, your party did the same thing before we came into power. Now, I for one have not got the sins of the Conservative party before 1896 on my shoulders, and I think there are many new members in this House in the same position. I for one, in my innocence and in my foolishness, thought that in many ways the present government were going to be an improvement on the Conservative government. I find that I was entirely mistaken. I must say at once that I do not propose to accept that answer to any argument that I make. It is the school boy reply, You're another, that should not be used in this House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The general public is interested in knowing what the Intercolonial Railway has cost. We have had a good deal oi' controversy over it during the last few years. Hon. gentlemen opposite have contended that there was a surplus when in reality there was none. I think there ought to be some system followed by both sides under which the people of the country would know the exact state of the case. The present government contended that the system followed by their predecessors was wrong, and now we find them going still further in the same direction. We should endeavour to discover some system by which the people will understand whether the Intercolonial is a paying scheme or not.
Item voted ; nays, 21 ; yeas, 56.
To increase1 accommodation- at Sydney, $77,-[DOT]000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The appropriation which we are asking for under this head is to enable us to establish car and machine shops, store buildings, to put in machinery and tools for boilers, to arrange for water service, and to provide for an addition to the track yard. Sydney is becoming a very Important point, and is really the center
and headquarters of the service in Cape * Breton. We require to be able to repair our plant whenever that becomes necessary, and we require to have a proper equipment and buildings for headquarters. The business is growing very rapidly at that point. The operations Which are being carried on by the Nova Scotia Steel Company, and which I understand are going to be enlarged, render it necessary that we should make provision for a considerable extension of our business.


Samuel Barker: Has the hon. gentleman estimates in his department showing the works proposed to be executed, and detailing the cost ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Samuel Barker: So that they will be available when we want to see what the expenditure is ?
The MINISTER OF RAIL vv'AYS AND CANALS. Yes.


Samuel Barker: Has the hon. gentleman ever estimated what the whole cost of the works at Sydney has been, and what is further contemplated ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I can furnish information as to what has been expended, but not what will be.


Samuel Barker: We spent last year $139,000 at this point. When are we going to be done with Sydney ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The very moment that the necessity for the expenditure is at an end. We must furnish this accommodation. We have cut down our demands to the lowest possible figure. I would not take the responsibility of saying that we can dispense with any of this vote. We have gone into it with our engineering staff as carefully as we could.


Samuel Barker: When the hon. gentleman is entering upon a large work of this kind does he not get an estimate at the beginning, showing what is intended to be done ? The hon. gentleman surely does not go on year after year spending hundreds of thousands of dollars without knowing what the end is likely to be. Has the hon. gentleman ever got an estimate from his engineers of what, the whole yard and the works will cost ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We know what the plan which we are proposing to adopt must necessarily cost, but we do not feel called upon to embark upon that in all its details-at the start. We proceed gradually in order that we will not be making unreasonable demands upon parliament, but the neces-

3S0S
slty of the work is such that it must be done.


Samuel Barker: Are we nearly through with it yet ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have made pretty fair progress.


Samuel Barker: Why should not the hon. gentleman be able to tell us how near we are to the end ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think I will be able to give the hon. gentleman a very fair estimate as to the progress of the work. I think we are very nearly reaching the end of this particular work at Sydney.


Samuel Barker: I have no objection to the item passing if the hon. gentleman says he will furnish the information.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: I think it would be necessary to have from the hon. minister an estimate of what the cost will be and whether, if he finds himself short, he will make up the shortage by drawing upon any other item instead of confining himself to this item. This has been done in the past, and I think it is4 time it should be stopped. There is an item for increased accommodation at Sydney and another for additional sidings along the line. The hon. gentleman has taken money from the second head and applied it to the first head, and he should not have done so. The hon. gentleman has no more right to expend money in that way than any private member of this House has the right to take money for public purposes for which it has not been voted. When the hon. gentleman asks for an amount with which he proposes to undertake a new work, he should be prepared to bring down an estimate of the cost of that work, so that every hon. gentleman would know exactly what we are going into, and then, each year, if the government are not prepared to pay the full amount, to have the work completed and ask for a portion of the amount, we should know what the balance is that they expect will be necessary in order to complete the work.


Samuel Barker: In confirmation of what the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Ingram) has said, I would say that in 1900-01, the hon. gentleman spent $41,000 at Sydney which was voted for ifnprovements along the line.


Arthur W. Puttee: This is a considerable item, and I imagine that a number of contracts will come under it. Therefore, I would like to call the attention of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals to the shortcomings of his department in the matter of contracts containing the fair-wage


Hon. Mr. BLAIR.: clause. The Department of Labour issued their annual report some time ago, and I find an account of the contracts given out by the various departments. For instance, there is a list of :
Contracts entered into by the Department of Public Works during the year ending June 30, 1901, containing fair wages schedules end above cited conditions for the protection of labour.
There is a page and a half of contracts given out containing fair-wage schedules, but I find upon turning over to the list of the contracts entered into by the Department of Railways and Canals that while there is an extensive list of contracts containing the 'above cited fair-wages and other conditions for protection of labour,' there are no schedules to go with these contracts. To find out to what extent such contracts had been awarded, I moved for a return which was brought down to this House, dated March 11, this year. A number of questions was put to find out if possible on what conditions these contracts were let, and I find these answers :
The number of contracts in which the schedule of wages was prepared by the fair wages officers :	None. .
The number of contracts in which the schedule of wages was prepared by the contractors and accepted by the department :	None.
The number of contracts which were unaccompanied by schedules of wages : All.
I am not satisfied that the Department of Public Works should have all the credit for the enforcement of this fair-wage resolution that was passed by this House two years ago. As a matter of fact, nearly all the contracts now given out by the Department of Public Works contain not only that clause, but the schedule of wages current in the district in which the work is being carried on. I believe that the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Tarte) could tell us that the Department of Labour looked after this matter. They have officers appointed and paid to prepare these schedules, who speak both English and French, so that they can handle all kinds of contracts in any district in the country. I think that if the Department of Railways and Canals will hand the matter over, as it should be, and as the Department of Public Works has done, to the Department of Labour, it will cause no more trouble in the department, and it will be satisfactory to all interests. In the Department of Marine and Fisheries, where they have different kinds of work to give out, there are no schedules, but there is this clause :
If this condition

That is the payment of wages current in the district.
[DOT]-is violated, the said party of the second part may cancel the contract and refuse to accept any work done thereunder.
In the Department of Railways and Canals there are no schedules or conditions what-

3S10
ever. In view of the fact that this matter has been passed upon by this parliament and that the fair-wage condition has been carried out successfully in the Department of Public Works, it seems to me only reasonable that the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals shall, as far as possible, have a fair-wage schedule put in.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I must confess that I was under the impression that the general clause covered the ground pretty well. If there had been any complaints that proper wages were not being paid we would have been in the position, under the general clause, to have called the contractor to account, and I think we would have been able to ensure the employees proper consideration at the hands of the contractors. But, since my hon. friend (Mr. Puttee) and others have been pressing on me the desirability, the justice and fairness of having schedules included in the contracts, I am not unwilling to give the matter my very best consideration as to the contracts which will be entered into in the future, in order to see what we can do towards meeting the wishes of these hon. gentlemen.
Original construction, $2,000.


Andrew B. Ingram: What is that for ?


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is an item that has appeared, I might almost say, from time immemorial. It has reference to the claims that are still arising in respect to the first work that was done on the Intercolonial Railway. Every year the same amount is asked for, and it has been asked for during all these years. We have to have a general vote to cover it. Last year the amount we had to pay out was $1,728.52. We have expended during the year in which we now are, $758 on that account. These claims are constantly coming up, the result sometimes of litigation and sometimes of settlement in other ways.
Strengthening bridge-3, $175,000.


Samuel Barker: Will the minister explain what this is for ?


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The extreme pressure under which the bridge companies were working last year made it impossible for them to supply what we required within the fiscal year, and so $75,000 of this has to be revoted. We started out with the idea that by spending $100,000 a year, we would in five or six years sufficiently strengthen our bridges to bear the heavy locomotives.


Samuel Barker: Is this taking the place of old work ?


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No. The bridges that were built on the Intercolonial Railway were nearly all built after one pattern, and if they were 120
not called upon to carry heavier trains than prior to 1898 they would last for many years to come. We have been obliged to increase their carrying capacity, and what we do is to take one span out and add it to the existing span of another bridge, then replacing the one which we have removed by a new span.
Mr. BARKER, None of the old structures have been taken away ?


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is the work progressing from Montreal to Halifax or from Halifax to Montreal ?


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No regular system of that kind has been adopted. There is always some little difference in the condition of the bridges and we have been working on those which most needed prompt attention.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is there an estimate of what the total cost of this work will be ?


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have only expended $225,000 out of the $600,000 which it was originally estimated we would require.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is this work done by contract and tender ?


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Invariably.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Who are the principal contractors?


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The Hamilton Bridge Company; the Canadian Bridge Company; the Montreal Bridge Company; the bridge companies who do that kind of work are invited to tender.
Increased accommodation at Ldvis, $22,000.


Mr. BENNETT.: Does any of this money go for the land which has been the subject of an action in the Exchequer Court ?


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is nothing in this vote to pay for land. I believe that litigation is still pending.


Edmund Boyd Osler: What is this money for ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: To grade the yard; to complete the track laying; to provide for a water service; to build a concrete walk; for sidewalks alongside of the tracks; for a wooden covering.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I was in Quebec a few months ago, and from the Quebec side I saw a balloon like structure of wood, something like what would be erected in a mushroom town. It appeared to be a regular fire trap. Surely the minister is not putting up a wooden structure at Levis. I am not



3S12
finding fault with the expenditure, but it did seem to me to be a most unsuitable structure, judging by the appearance from the other side of the river.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not know that my hon. friend (Mr. Osier) is speaking of the station that is in course of erection at Levis. The description he has given would not suggest it to my mind.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I asked what it was and they told me that it was the Intercolonial Railway station.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Will the minister furnish us at a later stage with similar information with regard to Levis that he promised with regard to Sydney as to the total cost, and so on ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.
Additional sidings along the line, $50,000.


Mr. FOWLER.: Is it the intention of the minister to make any improvement in the sidings at Apohaqui ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have not made any provision for Apohaqui.


George William Fowler: The necessary improvement there would only cost a very small sum, and it is greatly required in consequence of the amount of business done there. The siding should be extended. It is now only possible to load four cars at a time. To give an idea of the extent of business done there, I may say that this year between the 1st of January and the 1st of July there will be shipped about five million feet of lumber besides a very large quantity of tan bark and cord wood. I think some little improvement was about to be made this spring to the through siding, but the other requires to be lengthened and graded. I will furnish the minister with a plan which I have had prepared showing the improvements that are necessary.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We might possibly be able to do something in connection with that in the supplementary estimates, but it is a long and tedious job to get these items extended. We have to spread them over years, and we take first those for which there is the most urgent need. I will note what the hon. gentleman has said, and will see what can be done.


George William Fowler: The minister will see from the number of cars of lumber shipped this year the amount of business, and it will not diminish in the near future. For the want of this improvement shippers are caused a great deal of inconvenience and expense.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I know that the trouble is serious.	'


Edmund Boyd Osler: 


Samuel Barker: I suppose the minister will give us a list of these sidings. If he will lay it on the Table with the other papers, we will not delay the item.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I will do so.
To exchange drawbars of freight cars, $3.5,009.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have no alternative but to put air brakes to freight cars and to change the couplers of passenger cars and the drawbars.


Andrew B. Ingram: Are these the master car builders' drawbars ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They are.
New machinery for locomotive and car shops,


Andrew B. Ingram: We would like a little explanation of that.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Hon. members can understand that in having to handle heavier cars and locomotives we require heavier machinery, and we are endeavouring to supply that need as rapidly as we can.


Andrew B. Ingram: What class of machinery?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is the ordinary machinery required for handling our locomotives and cars in the workshop.


Andrew B. Ingram: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will give us a 'statement showing the kind of machinery.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I will try to do so.
To equip 10 passenger cars with Pintsch gas apparatus, $8,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are equipping all our cars with that.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Will it require a vote every year ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think not. I think we ought to be able to complete all of them by next year.
New superstructure for six spans Mirimichi bridge, $51,000.


Samuel Barker: I make the same objection to the whole of this charge being made to capital that I did with regard to steel rails. This is for substituting a new superstructure for an old one. and the amount should be less by a proper charge to maintenance as regards the old superstructure.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is there any estimated charge to maintenance, as in the case of other railways ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are transferring this bridge to the Island Railway. So far as weight goes it is a first class bridge.


Samuel Barker: Are you crediting this account with the full amount you are charging the Prince Edward Island Railway ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes. There will be no profit between the two.


Samuel Barker: What about the cost of replacing the new bridge ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are valuing the old bridge at .832,000, as a bridge for the Prince Edward Island Railway.


Samuel Barker: W'hat about the old bridge on Prince Edward Island ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is no old bridge. This is entirely new.
Rolling stock, Intercolonial Railway, $500,000.


Andrew B. Ingram: The present system is entirely wrong. Just fancy this new master mechanic being engaged here for some months and not knowing the condition of the rolling stock of the road. Why should it not be the duty of the master mechanic to see that the hundreds of cars which are laying by, some of which require very little repairs, are repaired instead of buying new cars ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The cars that are worth repairing are repaired.


Andrew B. Ingram: Not according to the evidence.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The repairs may possibly be deferred owing to pressure of work. I do not know that the hon. gentleman Is in any position to condemn the mechanical superintendent. It would be an injustice to any officer to iset him aside in that off-hand way as incompetent. This mechanical superintendent was formerly in the service of the Grand Trunk Railway as assistant to the chief mechanical superintendent and is a very bright man, and I shall be disappointed if he does not turn out exceedingly capable. But I would not expect him to be able in a few months to do work which, under ordinary conditions, would require a great deal longer. I ask the hon. gentleman to suspend judgment. No political aim can be served by his laying the weight of his condemnation on this young man who has done remarkably well up to the present. I found him very reliable as far as I could judge. One of the first things I asked him to do was to make up a schedule and prepare a scheme governing the wages and employees and the grading of employees in the shops. It was a new thing, but this gentleman ap-1201
plied himself to it at once with energy, and worked out a scheme that seems to have met with very general approval. I was well pleased with the work this young man has done. I endeavoured to get his predecessor interested in the work, but he did not seem able to take it up. This young man, however, took it up and dealt with it very satisfactorily.


Andrew B. Ingram: I have not made any remarks for the purpose of belittling the mechanical superintendent. My sole object was to improve the working of the Intercolonial Railway. So far as this young man is concerned, I believe he is a practical man, but I am taking the statement he made at the committee. When asked whether he had examined all the cars, he said no, but he looked at some.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: How was it physically possible?


Andrew B. Ingram: He saiid why it was he had not the other cars examined. It was because he was not directly concerned in them, but was more concerned in anything he undertook since engaged by the government. Just as that young man said, these cars are automatically reported to the department, and those not requiring large repairs would naturally be repaired at the shops, but I understand in this instance there was a large number that require very little repair. Why should not the government repair these old cars and charge them to maintenance instead of buying new ones ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We require additional cars as well.


Andrew B. Ingram: You are having cars lying around now, which the government is getting no service out of. It is for these reasons that the Intercolonial Railway is not economically managed. The hon. gentleman asked to-night how we would save expenditure ? In the first place, you should not buy three times more ties than are necessary, nor, should you have cars lying by idle when a little repairing would make them lit for use. Unless you can economically conduct your road, you are not going to make any money out of it. There is a large number of cars lying to one side, which could be used with very little repairs, according to the evidence of this young man, and why, they should not be used is more than I can understand.


Samuel Barker: In addition to the cars which have been referred to, which are capable of repair, there are 364 condemned cars. Those cars ought to be replaced out of capital. They are never going into service again, and it is absurd to go on pretending to work them. They are set down in the hon. gentleman's stock list as 364 condemned cars and remaining condemned to 1st July, 1901. The hon. gentleman should

replace those cars out of his revenue account. He must keep up his stock. Instead of charging the whole of this .$500,000 to capital account, he ought to charge 364 cars to maintenance and the excess go to capital. Mr. Mulilfeld, the new mechanical superintendent, told me that from 25 to 30 locomotives were so worn that they could not be used economically. They should also be replaced before the hon. gentleman charges another locomotive to capital.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think my hon. friend must be referring to a number of cars which we got a great many years ago and which have been condemned for years, and have not been replaced in the ordinary way at all. They were coal dumping cars of an old pattern-short boxes with small hoppers- which have gone out of use.


Samuel Barker: Mr. Muhlfeld says that there are 25 or 30 locomotives on the line which are so old that they cannot be used economically. These should be sold to some contractors for $1,000 a piece and the money credited to revenue, and they should be replaced at the charge of revenue. No auditor of an ordinary railway company would allow him to charge one locomotive to capital until he had done that.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We turn out of our shops or are buying on maintenance from six to nine of these big locomotives a year, so we are doing more in the way of getting new locomotives on maintenance account then was formerly done.


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman is buying twenty-six on capital account.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: But the others were played out years ago.


Samuel Barker: What difference does that make ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Does the hon. gentleman say that it is fair that I should take the accumulation of cars and locomotives that were out of date before I came into the department and replace them on maintenance ac-cunt, and so swell the maintenance account away beyond the appropriation of the year ?


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman made the same defence last year. WThen I was referring to his condemned cars, the hon. gentleman asked me if I had taken the trouble to look at the state of the rolling stock account when he took the line over. I said that I had and gave him the figures for every year, and showed him that he had more than doubled the number of condemned cars. He had at the beginning of last year, and during the year, over 500 condemned cars, and although he replaced some he still left 364 on the condemned list.


Samuel Barker: 


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: With the enormous growth of the business and with the limited capacity of our shops, it is impossible to keep up. I am in hopes that we are approaching the time when, with these appropriations we shall be able to get this work off our hands as the demands arrive.


Sir. EMMERSON.: The hon. minister has said that the former mechanical superintendent did not seem to be able to prepare a schedule of wages as it has been prepared by the gentleman who now fills that position. I would like to know if the former mechanical superintendent ever received instructions to prepare a schedule covering the whole number of men employed in the shops.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I had a good many conversations with the former mechanical superintendent, and had not a word of complaint to make. I did not think he took hold of the idea with the same promptness that the present man has done. That is all I said.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What proportion of this sum is for cars, for locomotives and for passenger coaches ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is all for locomotives-twenty-five at $20,000 a piece.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: And all to be built at the Kingston Locomotive Works, none in the United States ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No. I want to assure my hon. friend that there has not been a single locomotive ordered or purchased or built in the United States for us when the Kingston Locomotive Works have been in such a state of operation as to be able to undertake to carry out our contracts.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: So far as I am concerned, that assurance is perfectly useless, for I maintain that years ago we should have placed ourselves in the same position as every other great railway in this country and had our locomotives built here. So, the hon. minister need not give me that assurance with the idea that it will produce any change of conviction in my mind. I say we should have had our locomotives built here' ever since we had the Intercolonial Railway.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: How would the hon. gentleman propose to do that ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Like the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk-build locomotives. Why not ? There is no reason.


Henry Robert Emmerson: When the late Hon. Alexander Mackenzie was Minister of Railways and Public Works he established at

Moncton machinery for the construction of engines and locomotives. But, as soon as the change of government took place these works were practically dismantled, and they ceased to do any such work. That was a complaint for years against the government of the day after 1878. Mr. Mackenzie started out with the idea that the Intercolonial Railway would build its own locomotives. He did build excellent locomotives, and they stand there today, monuments to his good judgment, and to the good work that was done at Moncton. I think that recently there has been an attempt to renew these works.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is high time that this kind of argument, this tu quoque argument, should cease. It is getting a little old. What have we to do with what was done by Alexander Mackenzie and by those who immediately succeeded him? Nothing whatever But we have a right to ask the government to adopt the same policy in one department as in another. The Minister of Public Works requires dredges and many other things to carry on the deepening of the St. Lawrence, and he establishes works at Sorel in order to have these things constructed in our own country. Our contention is that the same thing should be done in the case of the Department of Railways and Canals. But the answer that is given us is that Mr. Mackenzie established locomotive works and that those who came in after him, some of whom I have never seen or known, destroyed his work. That is a strange argument in the mouth of hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson.)


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: 1 confess that my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) surprises me, and I am unable to understand precisely the object of his remarks ? A moment ago, when I made the statement I did, the hon. gentleman in a sort of contemptuous way, said I need not press any such argument upon him because it made no impression upon his mind. Of course. I must submit in all humility, but I can only conclude that the hon. gentleman's mind is not open to access by reason or common sense. Does the hon. gentleman think that, coming into the department in the latter part of the year 1896, and requiring locomotives and which could not be built at Moncton, I was not compelled as a matter of duty to go out of the country to ],uy those locomotives when I could not get them here ? Apparently, the hon. gentleman thinks that I ought to be able to improvise by a breath a complete equipment of shops and everything ready to turn out locomotives.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: When did the hon. gentleman begin ordering those locomotives in the States ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The first locomotive we ordered
was in 1897. I could not get any appropriation until the end of the session of 1897. Would it be reasonable for me, or .could I justify myself in advising my colleagues and parliament to spend enough money at Moncton to manufacture engines and turn them out in the time we required them. All we needed to do was to keep renewing and repairing, which would not require works of anything like the same magnitude as to turn out 100 locomotives in three or four years. Our works are large enough to turn out seven, or eight or ten locomotives a year.


Andrew B. Ingram: They must be very small shops.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: A locomotive a week is a pretty good production. I do not know whether the Kingston works were ever able to turn out more than one locomotive a week. But one thing is clear, it was utterly impossible for me to get locomotives except by going to the United States for them.


Andrew B. Ingram: Did the hon. gentleman buy any during the last fiscal year ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, except what we got from the Kingston works.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Have there been any cars purchased in the States during the last year ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: None. A statement was made by the ex-minister of railways (Hon. Mr. Haggart)-I am sorry he is not here-that only one locomotive was bought by him. He was referring to an incident that occurred before the Public Accounts Committee about locomotives being condemned by this circular that was issued, when it came out that some of those locomotives were made in the United States in the year 1S93. The hon. gentleman denied it and said there was only one, and it was got from the Cooke Locomotive Works. The reason, he said, why he did not get any from Kingston was that the Kingston works were shut down. I said that when this item was up I would furnish some evidence to show that the hon. gentleman was mistaken. I have before me a certificate from Mr. Bir-kett, the secretary treasurer of the Canadian Locomotive and Engine Company, and he certifies that the above statement is correct, and that the works at Kingston were going continuously from 18S8 until the liquidators closed them in September, 1900. He says there was a large amount of jobbing done, besides making locomotives, and several marine engines were made. He commences his statement with 1888, and gives the output of the locomotive works from that year down to 1893. I need not particularize every year. The point I want to make is that the locomotive works were in actual operation

at Kingston at the very period the hon. gentleman went to the Cooke concern to procure locomotives.


Samuel Barker: As the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Maggart) is not present, would the minister read the number of locomotives purchased in each year.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: In 1SS8 they turned out 16 : in 1899, 10 ; 1890, 28 ; 1891, 12 ; 1892 26 * 1893, 2 ; 1894, 11 ; 1895, 3 ; 1896, 3 ; 1897, 4 1898, 4 ; 1899, 5 ; and under the reorganized management in 1900, 36.
29, the Portland Locomotive Works 11, the Danforth Locomotive Works 4, the Hinckley Locomotive Works 9, the Rhode Island Locomotive Works 5, the Cooke's Locomotive Works of Paterson, New Jersey, 2. They were the two that were got in 1893, and the Dubs Locomotive Works furnished 15. Two of the Grant, six of the Manchester, and one of the Danforth engines were furnished before 1875.


Andrew B. Ingram: - Does that include the eight locomotives you got from the Manchester and Richmond locomotive works ?


Samuel Barker: In 1893 there were only 2 ? *


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Only 2 turned out. The hon. gentleman went to the United States for locomotives and declined to take those he could have got from the Kingston works. I have a letter or two here which perhaps may throw a little light on that subject. Mr. Lee, who is the mechanical man in charge of the Kingston works, wrote as early as April 15, 1893, to the department stating that he had received the specifications of the two locomotives that were required, and he says that he will ' mail an offer for those two locomotives on the 17th of April if possible, on the 18th of April, at the latest.' Then I have a copy of the specifications. On the 9th of May, 1893, I see Mr. Pottinger wrote to this effect :
I have your letter dated May G, with reference to the locomotives. The matter has not yet been settled. It is now being considered by the department at Ottawa.
So they were able to furnish locomotives. Mr. Lee writes again to know whether they would take the two locomotives, and he is advised that the department has not yet settled the matter. Apparently when it was settled, it was against giving the order. I have a letter dated in August, written by Mr. Birkett, secretary treasurer, to the late Minister of Railways and Canals, in which he complains about the delay. He says he would like to have an opportunity of building those, and ' owing to the depression in the United States a number of men have returned out of work, and we could offer them work on a government contract,' and so on. They came from Cooke's. I have here also a memorandum which shows that instead of there being only one such purchase made, there was quite a number. The Kingston works commenced operation I think in 1875, perhaps in 1S73 ; I see where they furnished locomotives in 1875 to the government. I find a statement of the number of locomotives purchased from the time the Kingston works commenced operations don n to the advent of the present government. and the total number bought in the United States was 91. The Grant Locomotive Works of Paterson, New Jersey, furnished 15, the Manchester Locomotive Works


Andrew George Blair: 


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not think the Richmond locomotive works were established at the time these were got.


Andrew B. Ingram: Does that include the locomotives which you got last year ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No it does not include what we got. This is up to the time that we came in. It does not include what we got since we came in.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: How many locomotives have been purchased by this government since 1S96 ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I would not like to say off hand. As soon as the Kingston locomotive works were got in operation, under the reorganization, we gave them an order for twenty locomotives, and we have given them two orders of twenty-five each, which would be seventy, speaking from memory. I would not want to be exactly precise about that. I think likely we must have got thirty-five or forty, perhaps, in the United States.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It'seems to me that this might have been foreseen and it seems to me a very poor answer to give when a wrong is pointed out or a fault indicated to say that the same thing was necessary under the previous administration. I was given to understand before I came into this parliament that the previous administration had been a very bad one. If that is to be the rule and at a certain time we come into power we can always point to something these hon. gentlemen have done as an excuse for what we do ourselves, and it would be a very easy way to get out of many difficulties. It seems to me that since we have been purchasing seventy-five or more locomotives in the United States not counting what we have purchased here since 1896, it would be well worth while to consider whether it would not be better to place this railway on the same footing as other great roads in Canada are, on the same footing for instance as the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway.
If it be true, as I have no doubt it is, as the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. 3821	APRIL 29, 1902	3822
Emmerson) lias stated, that Mr. Mackenzie had established locomotive works at Moncton, surely it cannot be very hard, with the extensive works I have seen there when I passed, to carry on locomotive works, and it would be much more satisfactory to do the work ourselves. It must be more profitable since this is the system resorted to by the other railways in this country.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The Canadian Pacific Railway are buying sixty or eighty locomotives today.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: They have locomotive works at Montreal and they are constructing locomotives year after year and so are the Grand Trunk Railway.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: And so do we.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: You are constructing locomotives ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, from start to finish.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Where ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: At Moncton-since we came in.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: How long has this been carried on ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: In 1896 they resumed the construction of locomotives. The works have been enlarged and I quite agree with the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) that the works might be still further enlarged in that direction. They have been greatly enlarged and they are doing more construction work there now. But, it must be remembered that with the extension of the Intercolonial Railway the repairs are greater than they were and they want more room. The original works, as established by Mr. Mackenzie and Mr. Brydges, in their day, must necessarily be more crowded to-day than they were then. There would necessarily require to be some extension of the works if the government enter into the construction of locomotives to a greater extent than at present. I quite agree with what the hon. gentleman has stated. I think it would be well for the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals to inquire into the matter as to whether the construction works should not be enlarged at that point. I do not speak from a sectional standpoint merely because Moncton is situated in the constituency I have the honour to represent, but it seems to me that in view of the character of the locomotives constructed in former years at Moncton, of their excellence and durability, it would be well that the works should be enlarged and that this work should be extended.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I understood from the hon. member for Westmoreland that we did not
construct locomotives and I understood the same thing from the hon. minister. I thought the works which had been erected for that purpose at Moncton had been demolished. That was the expression used by the hon. gentleman.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Dismantled, or dismembered.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: How many locomotives were turned out at Moncton last year ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I would not like to commit myself as to how many were turned out last year, but I will ascertain the number. Four or five were turned out last year or the year before.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Were the works dismembered ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, they weire not dismembered in the sense that they could not be used at all. We had to repair our locomotives but the works were not equipped for anything more than the necessary repairs to the locomotives as they came in. That would be my judgment about it.


Samuel Barker: I think that all you did in 1901 was to repair locomotives.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Perhaps that may be all we did in 1901. I do not want to be positive. But,
I have a very distinct recollection of being told that we had turned out four or five engines in one year. Perhaps it was in the year before last. But, I will get that information. My hon. friend will see that in view of the urgent necessity there was of meeting the demands upon us, we were asking parliament for very large sums of money and we could not ask for an unlimited vote, we could not give priority to the enlargement of the locomotive works for the making of locomotives when we could get these elsewhere and use the money that parliament would be willing to vote for the necessary purposes of handling the traffic. We could buy locomotives, but if we had put the money into the form of more buildings, machinery and plant and left these necessary services unprovided for, hon. gentlemen would have had good reason to censure me if I had advised that course and my colleagues if they had adopted it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not want to prolong the discussion, but I must confess that I am very much impressed with the idea that our expenditures upon this road in 1900, would have been much wiser if we had installed proper locomotive shops at Moncton or elsewhere. The minister must not forget that in 1900 we bought 1,300,000 ties, when the most we ever used in a year on that railway was 500,000; that we purchased 1,300,000 tons of coal, when the most we ever used in a year was 500,000 tons; and
3S23

that the purchases of stores in that year were enormous. Out of that immense amount of money which seemed to have been expended uselessly, we might have equipped proper locomotive works in Moncton, tvhere we could have puilt those engines ourselves, instead of even depending on Kingston, and especially saving us from going to the United States. In spite of what the minister said the other day ; that I do not represent public opinion in the province of Quebec or in the city of Montreal, I can assure him that it is the sincere belief of the people of my province and of the city of Montreal that the expenditure on this railway is not directed as it should be.
Mr.^ BENNETT. This vote is intended for 25 locomotives at an average price of $20,000 each ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


William Humphrey Bennett: How is this price arrived at ? Were specifications prepared in the department and submitted to other locomotive concerns ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are getting these locomotives made on what may be called the standard specification for that weight of engines. They are practically the same class as are being made in the United States. We asked the prices from different manufacturing companies-and that was before the trust was organized too-and after getting prices we offered the Kingston works a contract for the number of locomotives we required. Our information led us to agree upon the price of $20,270 each.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The minister forgets that that famous telegram was the only negotiation.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: What famous telegram ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The telegram that was sent to Kingston ordering these locomotives. .


Samuel Barker: The minister paid $20,000 to_the Kingston works, when they only paid $15,000 for the standard locomotives bought in the States.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman entirely ignores the fact that when the $15,000 was paid the price of locomotives was down to the lowest possible notch.
ing the Kingston people the benefit of the duty.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Are we not to consider that the manufacturer has to pay duty on some of the materials which enter into the construction of the locomotives? Would it be fair and reasonable, even from a moderate revenue tariff point of view, to tax the manufacturer for the material he uses, and then to bring in the manufactured article free of duty ? Might not even men who believe in a low tariff admit that the manufacturer is entitled to that degree of protection which he would have in another line of manufacture ?


Samuel Barker: You added 33 per cent.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We added the duty less $500. Hon. gentlemen opposite must not blow hot and cold on this question. They say we ought to build these locomotives in Canada, and when we do they tell us that we are doing too much for the home industry.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Who says that ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) who has given so much attention to this railway question, says we are paying the home industry too much for the locomotives. Not only that, but in the Committee on Public Accounts the ex-Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Haggart) attacked us because we made advances to the builders of these locomotives to encourage them to go on with this work. Take the rail contract. There again we were trying to do something to encourage home industry, and hon. gentlemen opposite attacked us and said we were doing too much. If we get our locomotives made at home these gentlemen attack us, and if we bring them from the United States they attack us as well. They are very hard to please.


Samuel Barker: We want you to buy them in Canada, but we want you to pay reasonable prices for them.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Is it not reasonable to say that the government should pay the same price that would be paid by the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Canada Atlantic Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway, when they bring locomotives into Canada ? Is not that fair ? We do better than that. We take $500 off the duty and we agree to that price.


Samuel Barker: For ten locomotives that the minister bought at Kingston he paid $19,000, when he only paid $15,000 in the States.


William Humphrey Bennett: To how many firms in the United States were these specifications sent ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are buying them in Canada, and we are adding the duty less $500. That is what we are doing for the purpose of assisting Canadian industries. We are giv-Mr. MONK.
The MINISTER OF RAII/WAYS AND CANALS. We called for prices and we did not find much difference in the prices. We took the lowest price as the basis upon, which wo would negotiate with the Kingston firm. It will stand investigation gen-

tlemen: we will be very happy to have it investigated; it is a fair business transaction. and you can look into it.


William Humphrey Bennett: I was not reflecting upon the minister, I simply want information as to how the price was arrived at. Personally speaking, I should prefer to see every locomotive manufactured in Canada.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is no great difference between the locomotives we get in the States and the locomotives we get in .Kingston.


William Humphrey Bennett: I presume that every lion, gentleman would prefer to see the locomotives used in Canada manufactured in Canada, but while there is a protective tariff the government assume that is sufficiently high to protect the industry. I submit that the government when buying locomotives as everything else should go to the open market, and have competition, and If the Canadian manufacturer is not prepared to produce the article as cheaply as another does, the country should get the benefit of the lowest price.
The "MINISTER OF CUSTOMS. With the duty added.


William Humphrey Bennett: Yes. even conceding the addition of the duty.
that we should give locomotive works in Canada, whether at Kingston or anywhere else, a premium of $4,000 each for locomotives, and will he blame the' Minister of Railways for buying locomotives in the United States at $15,000 when locomotives of the same power might be produced in Canada for $19,000 ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think I have made my position clear, and I do not think I can make it clearer. I think we should encourage home manufactures after having obtained tenders, and doing it in a different manner from what was done in the case of the Kingston Locomotive Works. But I prefer the system adopted in the Department of Public Works; when you find that you require to incur a considerable expenditure for dredges or for locomotives, it is better for a government to be independent of manufacturers and to manufacture for itself. Of course, nobody would go the length of pretending that we should manufacture our own rails. It may be a joke of the Minister of Finance.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Why not 7


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Let us be satisfied with getting good locomotive works in the beginning.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My. recollection is that there was a telegram sent to the Kingston people on the eve of an election in Kingston and that telegram was read in the House, and will be found somewhere in ' Hansard.' There was an order for so many locomotives at such a price, and there were no specifications or tenders or anything of the kind. My desire is -that we should encourage home industries. We all desire that. But I do not say that from what experience we have had I believe it would be better for the government to construct its .own locomotives so as to be independent of outsiders.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I hope my hon. friend will give me his assistance, then, to get the necessary appropriation for the purpose.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Well, I do it with the greatest diffidence, for my hon. friend is k very expensive Minister of Railways.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I suppose we ought to have a rail mill, and make our own steel rails too?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The hon. Minister of Finance may find this very amusing, more amusing that I do.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend is not even amusing.


Mr. TALBOT.: Does the hon. member for Jacques Cartier endorse the position the hon, member for Hamilton is now taking,


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: If 1 am not mistaken, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company wanted to get the locomotives at the prices at which we were getting them, which I think would be a very good criterion of their value. The bargain was that the manufacturers should get the benefit of the duty less $500. The Canadian Pacific Railway or any other company that brought in locomotives would of course have to pay the duty, while the government could bring them in free, and the Minister of Railways would get his locomotives cheaper if he got them in the States ; but that is the understanding we had with a (view to encouraging the industry in this country. Then, there is a very large amount of duty Which the locomotive manufacturer pays into the public treasury on his raw material, which the locomotive manufacturer in the United States does not have to pay; and it would not be fair to ask a Canadian manufacturer who has to pay a heavy duty on his raw material to compete in the open market with the United States manufacturer who has no duty on his raw material to pay. I think the hon. member will admit that it is a very good bargain. The hon. member for Hamilton suggests that the hon. Minister of Railways should replace all these worn-out engines with new ones of the kind he is buying. I would like to ask him if he thinks it would be fair for the purposes of comparison, or for the purpose of keeping proper accounts of capital and maintenance, that a 30-ton or 40-ton locomotive should be replaced by an 80-ton one.


Samuel Barker: The practice of all railway companies is to replace one locomotive with another. They do not go into the fine points of putting the cost of one against the cost of another. When a business is improving so as to require larger locomotives they are very glad to have the opportunity of putting them in. If the hon. minister came here and said that he would even charge to revenue the old locomotive at its original value, putting the extra cost of the new, larger one, to capital account, nobody would probably find much fault with him. What we are finding fault with is that he is turning it all over to capital. I may say that the practice of the railway companies is also to set a new car against an old one, and I may add that the Grand Trunk Railway Company at their last meeting proposed to close their capital account altogether.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is inconceivable that a company which is replacing a worn-out locomotive with a new one of about three times its tonnage and costing double the price, charges the one against the other, and I will take the trouble to inquire immediately of the two railway companies to ascertain what is their usage in that regard. I am glad my hon. friend the Minister of Customs has made the reference he has, because it recalls to my mind a rather cogent fact. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company, knowing that the Kingston works were manufacturing locomotives for us, and ascertaining what price we were paying for them, offered us $3,000 in advance on the price we were paying if we would allow them to have a portion of those locomotives; but of course we could not spare them, and did not let them have them. But that is some evidence 'that we did not pay an exorbitant price.


Andrew B. Ingram: The Canadian Pacific Railway have been very short both of engines and cars, and have tried everywhere imaginable to secure them; so that they might perhaps be willing to pay extravagant prices in order to get them. I have not heard the hon. minister say what he proposes to do with the old engines.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are not doing anything with the old engines that are not worth being repaired. If a demand arises for them, we will sell them at a fair price if we can.


Andrew B. Ingram: Does he intend to sell them as scrap ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We do put a certain quantity into scrap every year.


Andrew B. Ingram: No other railway in Can ada finds it profitable to break their old engines into scrap, for the reason that they have not the cheap labour which is em-Hon. Mr. PATERSON.
ployed for that purpose in the United States. If the hon. gentleman will sell them, such as they are, that would be the better way of getting rid of them.
New superstructure for Restigouehe bridge,

New superstructure for North-west Mira-michi bridge, $123,000


Samuel Barker: What is being done with the old bridges ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: One is going to Prince Edward Island. It is required across the river, where there was no bridge before, in connection with a new railway, the Hillsborough and Murray Harbour Railway.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does the contract provide that the old superstructure will go with the new work ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are not contracting for the superstructure but for the substructure.
Improvement at Point Tupper, $30,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is to provide a freight yard.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Will the hon. gentleman let us know how much has been spent altogether for improvements at Point Tupper and bring down a statement.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.
To provide yard for freight business, Riviere du Loup, $25,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is for yard room and track. The yards are altogether too restricted. A portion of this is for land. We have not got the land yet, but it is estimated that $15,000 will be sufficient to buy the land and grade it and put it in shape and $10,000 will put down the tracks.
To provide addition to erecting shop at Moncton, $15,000.	.
To provide freight car repair shop at Moncton, $25,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We propose to put up an entirely new building 100 by 50 and about 50 feet high.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: " Are you going to build engines there 3


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I hope so.
To provide engine house, machine shop, ear shop, store office, &e., Riviere du Loup, $50,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: How many private cars are now owned by the country, as compared with the time the present government took office ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: In consequence of the visit of the

Duke and Duchess of Cornwall we bought one more, and there is one which was purchased by the traffic superintendent at a very small figure from the Grand Trunk Railway. He paid $4,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What unfortunate minister uses that one ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: How can a minister be unfortunate ?


George William Fowler: Is it the intention of the minister to rebuild the engine house at Sussex to replace the one that was burned down a year and a half ago ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have not that in contemplation at the moment. It is not one of the urgent things. I suppose the hon. gentleman refers to a place into which to run the engines, not repair shops ?


George William Fowler: The hon. minister knows that what is known as the Sussex train runs between Sussex and St. John, and the engine running it is kept at Sussex. The engine house was burned down and has never been replaced. There is a sort of shed there which is a disgraceful looking structure.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am glad the hon. gentleman has mentioned it and I will look into the matter.


George William Fowler: The hon. minister, might at the same time, consider the building of a new station at Sussex. This is one of the most important stations on the line of the Intercolonial Railway and among those yeilding the highest revenue.


William Humphrey Bennett: I did not catch the reply of the minister as to how many of these so-called government cars there are.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I did not state that because the question was not asked. I was asked how many more there were now than in 1896.


William Humphrey Bennett: I also asked the other question, but, perhaps, the minister did not hear. I will ask it now. How many of these cars are there ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I could not say off-hand, I would have to count them up. There are four, I know.


William Humphrey Bennett: That is besides the Governor General's car ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, that is the Governor General's own ; he pays rent for it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: As to this expenditure at Riviere du Loup of $50,000. Is this for the erection of a new building ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, entirely new. [DOT] My hon. friend may not be aware that this is not only a divisional point, but it is the point where we do our repairing for the upper end of the line. We are erecting a new round-house or engine-house. It must be new, because the locomotives are large, and we cannot house them or repair them or do anything with them in the old shops. We also propose to erect a machine shop and to make it large enough so that we may have store accommodation and office.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What is the amount of the contract 1


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No contract is let yet. We have not yet got the appropriation. I understand my hon. friend to ask if it will be by tender, and I tell him it will.


George William Fowler: Has the hon. minister erected the station at Passekeag ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I don't think it is completed yet.


George William Fowler: Has it been begun ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It ought to have been begun before this.


George William Fowler: It ought to have been begun two years ago. Tenders were called for two years ago.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Not over two years ago, I think.


George William Fowler: Six months before the election.
Canals-chargeable to Railways and Canals capital-Prince Edward Island Railway

Murray Harbour branch and Hillsborough bridge, $500,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It would be better to leave that until some other time.


Mr. LEFURGEY.: I would like to make a few remarks on this subject


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We will reserve the item, so that the hon. gentleman will have another opportunity to speak upon it.
Resolutions reported.
On motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 1.05 a.m. Wednesday.
3S31



Wednesday, April 30, 1002.