Hon.   WM@: TEMPLEMAN (Minister of Inland Revenue) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 110) respecting agricultural fertilizers. He said: The present Act has been found unworkable and ineffective as a protection to the purchaser of fertilizers. It is proposed to repeal the present Act and substitute this one. There are some very important changes but the Bill is along the lines of the existing Act. It is desired to give greater security to farmers in purchasing fertilizers. It requires that all .manufacturers of fertilizers shall register and that they shall sell their products under registered numbers. It also provides that a guaranteed analysis shall be placed on every package of fertilizer sold and provides penalties for contraventions of the Act. A Bill was prepared last session, submitted to the Senate, brought to its second reading and circulated with a view to bringing it before the farmers and others interested in fertilizers. We have had a great many replies and criticisms of the proposed measure and they have been almost unanimously in favour of making a change. The present Bill therefore is in the form of a Bill introduced in the Senate last year with certain modifications and changes to meet the criticisms we have received.


Mr. J. D. REID (Grenville).: Could not the minister insert a clause in this Bill or introduce another Bill making similar provision with reference to the sale of feed for stock ? I have had many complaints from farmers that when they purchased feed, seeds and other things which they did not purchase were found.


Mr. TEMPLEMAN.: The question of an Act regulating the sale of food for stock has been under consideration since last session. Several delegations have visited Ottawa and had interviews with the Min-

ister of Agriculture and myself, and the question of preparing and submitting a Bill at the present session, something along the line of this Bill, is receiving consideration. I hope to come to a conclusion in a week or so with regard to it.


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

[Stage Direction]
On the order for the consideration of an amendment made by the Senate to Bill (No. 8) to amend the Dominion Lands Act.-Mr. Oliver.
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior).: The amendment proposed by the Senate is made at the suggestion of the department and is intended to meet a condition which has arisen by reason of the very large numbers of patents now being granted. Section 90 of the Act relates to the preparation and signing of patents. Provision is made that the patent shall be transmitted to the Secretary of State, by whom, or by the Under Secretary of State, it shall be countersigned. The number of patents has become so great that the signing of them becomes too great a tax upon the time of either the Secretary or the Under Secretary of State and the amendment prepared by the Senate and offered for the assent of the House provides that the patents may be countersigned either by the Secretary of State, the Under Secretary of State as at present, or by ' some other person thereunto specially authorized by the Governor in Council.5 That is the whole amendment and its purpose.
Amendment concurred In.



SUPPLY-TWO CENT FARES ON RAILWAYS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that House go into Committee of Supply.
["I don't think it would vary much-about the same number as at Riviere du Loup.\nAt six o'clock Mr. Speaker took the Chair."]
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York).: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair I desire to bring to the attention of the House a letter which I received this morning as follows :
36 Craig Street West, Montreal.
Dear sir,-I want to ask you to help me to get my money refunded from the Grand Trunk Railway. I came from Toronto and left there Tuesday last. They sold me a second-class ticket and checked my luggage. No one said a word or stopped me getting on the 10.15 p.m. train, but when the conductor came round he demanded $3.35 from me or to make me leave the train. I paid under protest and send you the receipt. I know you are the man who is fighting this question and can get what is right for me.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Findlay Maclean: Sometimes we do get a little compliment outside of this House. The letter continues:


William Templeman: I have travelled by the same train, 10.15 p.m., from Toronto to Montreal, three times before and they have always taken my second-class ticket without a word. I am told that the company are bound to carry second-class passengers by that train. Will you put me right on this matter? Thanking you in anticipation.
Yours truly,



[Stage Direction]
The receipt is enclosed. My contention is, as I have often said in this House, that this man or any other person was entitled to travel for two cents a mile on that Grand Trunk train. His right to travel on a Grand Trunk train at that rate has been vindicated by the highest court in this realm. We had a judgment the other day from the Privy Council in England which declared that the Grand Trunk Railway Company was bound to give a penny a mile service at least once a day on its line from Toronto to Montreal. We know also that this has been confirmed by the Railway Commission of this country and by all the courts, and still the Grand Trunk compelled that man, when he endeavoured to travel for two cents a mile, to pay first class fare and threatened to eject him from the train if he did not pay it. I want to know who is looking after the public interest in this matter. I am getting rather tired of it; at least I am willing to continue the work but I would call upon the government, upon the Minister of Railways and Canals, or upon some official of this country to see that the public get what they are entitled to. For the last few days I have had to devote my time to preparing a case in order to bring another action be fore the Railway Commission so as to try and get this penny a mile service between Toronto and Montreal, or, in fact, to get it for all of the province of Quebec. According to my interpretations of the law, and according to the advice I get from eminent counsel, the people of the province of Quebec and certainly of Ontario up to Toronto are entitled to this penny a mile service. But instead of that this man is refused the right to travel at that rate. He is threatened with being put off the train and he is compelled to pay the additional money. The government, the Minister of Railways and Canals, and the Minister of Justice should be busy at this moment seeing that this man gets his rights.	I
Mr. FOSTER.: Had they no second-class accommodation on that train?


William Findlay Maclean: I am not in a position to say whether they had or not, but the man was entitled to travel at that rate. It makes every Canadian's blood boil with indignation at the thought that the Grand Trunk and Canadian Pacific Railway Companies carry all the travel that originates in the United States across Canada for

two cents a mile or less, gladly accepting that fare, and at the same time threaten to eject a Canadian who demands similar treatment. How long will we stand that in this country? Yet, it is going on every day.
I have investigated it, and I have had it proved time and time again that on travel which originates in Michigan or New York state, the same being true at the Soo and on the Manitoba border, it is carried for two cents a mile while a Canadian must pay three cents and he is not even given second class or third class accommodation. The conductor holds him up and says: If you do not pay this additional sum we will stop the train and put you off in the wilderness. They have done it. The case that we won in the Privy Council arose out of stoping a train and putting a reporter off because he would not pay the additional sum. I am not here to antagonize the railways of this country; I am not here to say or do anything against the Grand Trunk. But, I am here to ask these railways in the first place, to carry out their charter obligations, and, in the next place, to treat Canadians as well as they treat Americans. It is not antagonizing the railways. It is not making an, attack upon their credit or their capital ; but my contention is that they are bound to do this and that if they would agree to do it they would make more money and the people would appreciate it. At this very moment this same Grand Trunk Railway Company is a suppliant to parliament, asking this country to come to its relief in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, and we have already been told that it is to get relief. If the managers of that road are coming to parliament asking for relief is not this the time to put it up to them and say: You are not going to get any help until you carry out your charter obligations and until you agree to give as good treatment to Canadians as you give to people across the line. I know that Mr. Hays and some of his newspaper friends in this country say that I am making an unjust attack on the road and that the Canadian roads cannot live if they carry people at two cents a mile. It has been proved in the United States, as it has been proved wherever it has been tried, that cheap railway travel increases the revenue of the railways. I am prepared to stand here and prove that such is the case and that these roads are not going to be hurt. The attitude of Mr. Hays and of the railway companies is to give as little service as possible and to go at the public with a club. My contention is that they will make more money if they give a better and cheaper service. The people will spend as much money on railway travel but they will get a better service and there will be a better understanding between the railways and the public. I hope that I will 92
have the assistance of the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Railways in trying to get better treatment accorded to the Canadian travelling public and that no Canadian in future will be ejected from a train because he is asking for his rights and for equality of treatment.
Now, I want to pass to the question I raised the other day in this House with regard to the capitalization of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. I then told this House that the capitalization of railway companies was an important matter, that it bore directly on the traffic charges and I said that that had been found to be the case in the United States, and that if we would wait a few days we would hear the deliverance from the incoming president on the subject. Almost the first paragraph of President Taft's inaugural address the other day at Washington was to the effect that the time had come when the capitalization of interstate railways had to be regulated, and that the people who used the railways had to be protected with regard to tariff rates through the regulation of the capitalization of these railway companies. They have found it desirable in the United States that somebody should exercise a scrutiny over proposed increases in the capital of Tailway companies. Yet, here in Canada we have allowed the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to increase their capital by an immense amount, to divide over $60,000,000 amongst the shareholders, thus putting an unnecessary tax, I contend, on the traffic of this country to the extent of whatever the earnings on $60,000,000 may be. I was told that we had no concern with the capitalization. I have proved that we have by the statement of the President of the United States and by the law in existence in the state of New York, and I am now going to show something else which follows from over-capitalization. If we in this country are to establish the idea that this cutting of melons is to be the rule who will invest anything in railway securities unless a melon goes with it? And, strange to say, that very thing is being demonstrated in our own day. If the Canadian Pacific Railway cuts a melon, if it becomes the rule to issue stock in that way and if all the shareholders have the prospect of becoming-shall I say-millionaires, it will continue to do that business and nobody will buy any railway security that has not a bonus or a melon with it. What has happened? The Canadian Pacific Railway can sell all the stock they wish as long as there is a bonus or a melon to cut. The Grand Trunk cannot sell a dollar's worth of stock and they are to-day coming to this country for relief. If they had a melon to cut they would get their money, investors would take up their stock, but what the investor looks for is a security that has a melon attached to it and the Grand



Trunk Pacific cannot sell one of their securities. This man of melons, this man who is making this new class of melonaires, Sir Thos. Shaughnessy, is able to come to the relief of the government and buy some of these Grand Trunk securities that cannot be sold. That is the position of things in this country with regard to railway securities. It is high time that there was a change and that the government undertook to scrutinize all these issues of stock. The government ought to confine the Canadian Pacific Eailway to an issue of 4 per cent bonds. Then I was told by the Minister of Justice that instead of finding out what was the actual investment in the Canadian Pacific Eailway as provided for by the charter, the minister had agreed to hang up for an indefinite period the ascertainment of what the actual cost of the Canadian Pacific Eailway was. In other words, the Canadian Pacific Eailway having been sentenced to be hanged on a certain date, as long as it was pampered and allowed to issue melons it would not ask to be hanged. That is the position in regard to the regulation of its rates as we are entitled to have them regulated under the original agreement.
Then, I want to tell the Minister of Finance how far this bonus business has got to in this country. You cannot issue hardly a security of any kind in Canada unless there is a bonus of some kind with it, and we find our Canadian banks and some of the Canadian insurance companies parties to a new kind of what I consider dangerous financing in this country. They are raising money every day for the development of electrical industries in South America, Central America and Mexico, and all these securities are put on the market largely with the assistance of Canadian financing institutions, and the proposition is in the shape of bonds and with the bonds there goes bonus stock so that you buy a bond for $1,000 and you get $1,000 of bonus stock. That- kind of financing is producing a bad effect in this country and it is getting so that people will buy no security unless a bonus of stock goes with it. And while I say Canadian capitalists aTe free to invest in any way the-"' like, I do not quite think that the Canadian banks and the Canadian insurance companies with the savings of the Canadian people ought to be floating propositions for the development of foreign industries. We have enough industries at home to develop and enough necessity to keen our money here. I want to see the Grand Trunk Pacific built, and if there is Canadian money I would like to see it put in that enterprise. But you will never get investments of that kind taken by the Canadians if this practice of issuing bonus stock is continued. There was a gentleman defending the insurance companies the other day and he said he regarded the gov-Mr. W. P. MACLEAN.
ernment proposal to limit these companies so that they should not indulge in this purchase of bonds along with which went bonus stock, but I say the legislation in that direction is right and that the practice has got to be stopped in this country so far as public action can stop it. We have got to tell the Canadian Pacific Eailway Company that never again will they be allowed to cut a melon and to issue to their shareholders at par a security that is worth $170 and soon will be worth $200. We have got tc stop that once and for all, and in the name of the Canadian people I tell the government here to-day that that must never occur again, and later on I intend to test the feeling of the House on that very proposition. I want to tell the House here to-day that we must stop this financing of foreign corporations with the savings of the Canadian people on this basis of issuing bonus stock with bond securities. It is not in the interest of the Canadian people. Once we establish that habit in this country of dis-tiibuting bonuses of one kind or another with nublic securities, then we will have to give bonuses with all our securities and the first thing we know when this government goes on the London market to get a security issued it will be asked: What bonus are you going to give us; can't you give us some kind of common stock that some dav will be of some use to us, or cannot we get some kind of rights? So, the thing is going on and it is time it was stopped and it must be stopped. I am availing myself of this occasion when the Grand Trunk Pacific Eailway and the Canadian Pacific Eailway is here before us to-day asking for favours ; the Canadian Pacific Eailway is before us asking for an increase of its capital stock and the Grand Trunk Pacific is here as applicants for assistance.
I say now is the time to compel these great corporations to treat the people of this country fairly, and to give us a 2-cent passenger rate, as. they give to the American travel on their roads. Again I say that the Canadian Pacific Eailway financing of this kind must be stopped, and the [DOT]way to stop it is to tell them not only that they must come under the general Act under the control of the Eailway Commission, but that they must use the funds they now have in their treasury, that they must sell their lands, and abandon" that exemption clause which protects them in the west. Al' these privileges can be wiped away when they come here as suppliants, and some kind of concession can be got from them in this respect. Later on I intend to test the feeling of the House on this question. I have now got my facts fairly well before the House and I leave these facts with the House, and this letter which I have read from a common ordinary Canadian traveller on the Grand Trunk Railway, who was threatened with ejectment because he would not pay something he was not

entitled to pay, I commend to the consideration of the Minister of Railways and I hope he will compel the Grand Trunk Railway Company to treat that Canadian as he ought to have been treated and compel them to Tetum to him the three dollars and odd cents which he was forced to pay.


Hon. G. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways).: I will detain the House but for a moment. The question of the Canadian Pacific Railway issue of stock has already been discussed and I will not further discuss it now. My hon. friend (Mr. W. F. Maclean) tells us, and rightly, that there was something in President Taft's address in reference to the issuing of stock. I think his statement was fairly general on that point. .


William Findlay Maclean: Very.


George Perry Graham: President Taft carefully kept away from any detail; he was not as courageous as my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean). What he will do or what he will not do nobody on earth can know from reading his address.


William Findlay Maclean: I'll bet you what he will do.


George Perry Graham: As the hon. gentleman told us what President Taft was going to say perhaps he can tell us now what he is going to do. With that true newspaper instinct of his he had a scoop on the rest of us as to the contents of the address a day in advance, although if I were actively in the business now as I used to be perhaps I would be as fortunate as he was. However, the two cent rate matter was the gist of the hon. gentleman's remarks. I do not know the particulars of his complaint except that as he tells us a man got on the fast train of the Grand Trunk and his second-class ticket was not honored. Well, as I understand it, the judgment of the Privy Council only provides for one train a day between Montreal and Toronto at the two cent rate.


William Findlay Maclean: Was it there?


George Perry Graham: The judgment of the courts would not allow the man to select the fastest train for his two cent ticket and no railway in the world would give him a two cent rate on its fastest train. This train no doubt was selected for the purpose of showing that the road would not give him a second-class fare, but that train I understand does not carry a second-class car at all; it is one of the very fastest trains on the Grand Trunk.


Mr. SPROULE.: I went up on that train the day before yesterday and a lady sitting on a seat in front of me had a second-class ticket was sent out to the second-class car.


George Perry Graham: This occurred on the night train going east?
92}


Thomas Simpson Sproule: My experience was on the fast train going from Montreal west.


George Perry Graham: This occurred on the night train which carried the sleepers, and there was a train on the Grand Trunk which travelled in the same direction a short time before it and on which the second-class ticket would have been honoured. The fast train only carries the sleepers and the first-class car. It is very questionable to my mind whether the gentleman who wrote that letter had any grievance at all. It is questionable whether if the law were enforced to-day that gentleman would have any cause of complaint because the law only requires the Grand Trunk to put on one train per day for the accommodation of second-class passengers and surely they can run as many other trains as they like without a second-class car and not violate their charter. However, the question of a two cent rate is a very large one. My hon. friend will have noticed that within the last few days one of the states he quoted as having a two cent rate has had that law declared unconstitutional simply because the railways cannot carry people at two cents a mile and live. We forget often that the railways in this country are of as much importance to the country as this House itself is; the country cannot prosper without the railways; we are partners in the railways and while I believe in making them live up to their contracts and give the people a good service at a minimum price, we must not run away with the idea that every time we attack a railway we are doing something for the country, while the fact is that' we may be injuring the country in pursuing such a course. Perhaps I should not say so, but at the present moment I do not believe that the railways of Canada run through a population sufficiently dense and affording sufficient traffic to give the people a two cent rate with any kind of living profit to the railways. I believe that is the situation at the present time, and if parliament were asked to pass a law now to compel the railway companies to give a two cent rate I do not believe the House would consent to it. While I agree that my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) has a perfect right to adhere to his idea with regard to a two cent passenger rate, I am inclined at present to take the other view. We cannot compare Canada with the United States or with Great Britain in this respect. In Canada the rate for transportation cannot be governed by the density of population. Canada is a sparsely settled country, as long as the United States, with seven millions of population to feed railways extending from one end of the country to the other, while the United States has over eighty millions of population. It is out of the question, therefore, to expect as low a rate in Canada as there is in the United States. I do not know that I have anything

more to say. After all, if we compelled the Grand Trunk to adhere to what my hon. friend calls the terms of its charter and to the judgment recently given, I doubt if the gentleman who wrote that letter would have any claim at all.
: Hon. G. E. FOSTER (North Toronto). When a railway like th.e Grand Trunk has some trains on which it honours second-class tickets, is it not obliged to point that out by way of advertisement? A traveller may know generally that there is a two-cent fare on the railway, but he may get on the wrong train inadvertently. Is there not a duty on the railway to guard travellers against misapprehension of that kind?
1 Mr. GRAHAM. I think that on every time-table, including those posted on the walls of the stations, there are particulars that enable any one to glean that information; but at the city of Toronto the arrangements are so imperfect, too imperfect for a large city, that people are liable to get on the wrong train. I hold with my hon. friend that the railway should have a regulation to prevent people getting on the wrong train, such as there is at Chicago and elsewhere.
' Mr. FOSTER. When a ticket agent sells a second-class ticket, he should point out to the purchaser what the arrangements are.


William Findlay Maclean: The minister has missed my point, which is that there were Americans travelling at two cents a mile on the same train on which Canadians were given this unfair treatment.


George Perry Graham: I do not know that we have any proof of that.


William Findlay Maclean: I have, on every train.


George Perry Graham: There is this to be remembered in regard to railway travelling, that the rates are governed to a certain extent by the place where the traffic originates. That is true of passenger rates as well as freight rates. Traffic originating in the United States has to compete with the rates prevailing in the United States, and it can be sent either by the American route or by the Canadian route. The railways have to give these rates to comply with the laws of the United States. If they had any traffic originating in Canada, they would have in the same way to comply with the laws of Canada. This arrangement is perfectly feasible, and if brought before the Board of Railway Commissioners to-morrow, they would deal with it just as they deal with this proposition, and my hon. friend gets the benefit. A place like the city of Toronto gets a distributing rate which is not given to other places, and that is what enables the city of Toronto to become a wholesale centre.


George Perry Graham: If my hon. friend's idea were carried to its logical conclusion, that distributing rate would have to be abolished, and our larger cities would not be the wholesale centres they are at the present time. To nibble at the shell of the traffic problem gives one only a little information; but railway tariffs are based on scientific principles. You cannot take an isolated case and make a system out of it. You have to go through all the tariffs and ascertain the principles on which they are based, and then form your conclusion.


Mr. J. G. TURRIFF (Assiniboia).: May I ask the hon minister a question? When the Canadian Pacific Railway Company disposes of $50,000,000 of stock, for what authority has been given by order in council, and distribute that stock among their own shareholders at par, which will be practically dividing $50,000,000 among their shareholders, as the stock is worth intrinsically $200, will they be in a position to say to the Railway Commission, we will no longer allow you to fix our rates, and we want this lawsuit brought to a conclusion?


George Perry Graham: I suppose they are able 'to force this law-suit to a conclusion at the present time, but the Canadian Pacific Railway will never do it. There is no question about their being in that position, and I see no great benefit to be derived to the people of Canada in having it pushed to a conclusion, so long as they do as at present, allow the rates to be governed by the Railway Commission. As I say, I think there is nothing to hinder them asking the case to be pushed to a conclusion, or the government doing the same thing.


Mr. E. GUSS PORTER (West Hastings).: I only arose to call the attention of the hon. minister to the case in hand, to which his attention was particularly called, and to remark that he had apparently overlooked the salient feature of that letter. 'The man applied for a ticket and checked his baggage for the 10.15 train, and when he did that, one would naturally think that he should have been made aware of the fact that he could not travel on that train on that ticket. A second opportunity is afforded when he comes to check his baggage. He must present his ticket, and when he did he should have been told that he could not have his baggage checked 'by that train. But they allowed him to purchase his ticket and check his baggage, and when he got on the train they put him off, although he made three previous trips under the same circumstances.


George Perry Graham: He knew better, then.


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

Intercolonial Railway-cut-off line at Moncton, N.B., $50,000.
George Perry Graham: This is an item I want to explain, because this small expropriation does not really cover what is meant. This line will cost about $357,000. It will be two and a half miles and double-tracked. The idea of this is to save running the heavy freight through the city where there are high grades.


George Eulas Foster: What are you going to get by it?


George Perry Graham: We will reduce the distance quite a large extent and get rid of a very heavy grade and actually make a grade of five-tenths of one per cent that will save our going through the city with the heavy traffic.


Mr. J. HAGGART.: How did you get along before ?


George Perry Graham: Our shops are moved west of that city quite a distance. Before they were in the city. We are going to out off a loop practically, and the Grand Trunk Pacific will connect with the Intercolonial just at that point.


John Graham Haggart: This seems a large expenditure for something never wanted before. It is estimated to cost $350,000, but before completed it will cost half a million dollars, if the usual record on the Intercolonial Railway is not departed from.


George Perry Graham: Our engineer thinks it is absolutely necessary and we will save on the haul as well as on the distance.


George Eulas Foster: When was it begun?


George Perry Graham: It has not been begun. It has always been the intention in the laying out of the yard.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: $350,000 is a large amount for two and a half miles of railway.


George Perry Graham: It is a double-tracked line.


John Allister Currie: How much cutting and filling in to make it cost so much ?


George Perry Graham: I have the items here. 41-2 acres of land, right of way; 17 acres clearing right of way; 3 acres grubbing; 1,000 cubic yards solid rock excavation; 30,000 loose rock; 16,000 ordinary excavation; 200,000 earth excavation; 1,800 yards standard fence; 24 gates; 28 cattle guards; 30,000 lbs. of rails for culverts; 854,000 lbs. of steel trussel at Hall's Creek; one under crossing at north street; 5 miles track laid.


John Allister Currie: What do you estimate the cost of the land for right of way?


George Perry Graham: 


John Allister Currie: If that is intended to be used as a marshalling track, you will require more than two tracks.


George Perry Graham: It is not really a yard. We have an extension yard outside of this. We have constructed a new yard altogether and one shop west of the city. This will start where the Grand Trunk Pacific reaches our tracks and will not run through the city proper. We will escape the trade going down the city.


John Allister Currie: If you are to have 28 cattle guards, that means 14 street crossings on 2i miles of track.


George Perry Graham: There are 2 for each street, and then there are double tracks, which will make 7 streets all told and one viaduct.


George Eulas Foster: Has the land been yet secured?


George Perry Graham: No.


George Eulas Foster: Has the line through which this road is to run been decided ?


George Perry Graham: It has practically.


George Eulas Foster: Then the hon. gentleman is in this position. He has laid down his railway tracks and has not taken any opportunity to secure the land. How does he propose to get the land now?-by expropriation?


George Perry Graham: We have really two lines surveyed, and we propose not to be tied up to either. We are getting a man to make an estimate and get offers from these people. If we do not get a fair price, we will expropriate the land.


George Eulas Foster: But you make the whole matter public.


George Perry Graham: It was difficult not to do that, seeing that we had located our shops there.


George Eulas Foster: We have had land transactions in Moncton before now. The minister was urged, I think by the present deputy minister, though I am not sure, both with reference to Moncton and Halifax land, that it would be better not to let a word get out concerning the government's intentions until they had options on the land. That was the whole argument, in fact, that, if the thing were known, the government would put itself in the hands of the land owners, and that the necessary course was to secure options in advance. Now, the department, with a different minister, but, I think, with the same deputy, thinks it well to come to parliament and advertise the matter of an expenditure of $354,000, although it is tied up within a very small radius of land. I cannot see the consistency of these two situations in the one department. Unless you are going to

expropriate in any event, it would seem not very wise to advertise the whole thing in this manner. We remember that in the matter of the purchase of the sand lands at Kentville for military purposes, we were told that it was necessary to get hold of these lands before it became known to the public that the department wanted them, or they would have to pay through the nose for them. Is this a new diplomacy that the Minister of Railways and Canals is introducing in the management of his department ? I would like to see how he works it out.


George Perry Graham: I will tell my hon. friend, and he will see it in a moment. The purchase of the sand lands, or even the purchase of a building site in Halifax, was a different case. The government could buy in one place or in another. But, in the case now before us, the range of choice is very little, for the railway has to go through from one point to the other.


George Eulas Foster: The minister must go back further than that in order to make it clear. It must have been known several years ago that these shops were to be erected, and it must have been foreseen that, at some time, you would need moTe land there. Why did not the government, before the shops were built, take measures to secure the necessary land, and so apply the principle which has been so often advocated before, that of securing control before the public knowledge of the government's intentions makes the land immensely valuable? The minister can do what he likes, but, in this case, he will pay a great deal more for the land than he would have had to pay had he gone at it in a businesslike way. Even an expropriation court will give the owners a larger award now than it would have given before.


John Graham Haggart: This line was not contemplated when the shops were built?


George Perry Graham: My deputy tells me that part of the surveys were made as long ago as two years. It has always been his idea to have this line connected in this way since the building of the new shops. And the building of the new shops was rendered necessary by the burning of the old ones.


John Allister Currie: I understand that the cut-off is 2J miles. What is the length of the existing line ?


George Perry Graham: Nearly a mile longer.


John Allister Currie: And what is the grade ? What is the ton-mile saving over that piece of road ?


George Perry Graham: The grades will be reduced about one-half.


George Eulas Foster: 


John Allister Currie: How many cars can you take over that grade now with a hundred-ton locomotive such as you ordinarily handle freight with ?


George Perry Graham: The difference would be as between 1,000 tons and 1,800 tons.


Mr. LALOR.: Is this line to be used jointly by the Intercolonial and the Transcontinental ?


George Perry Graham: We expect that the terminals with which this connects will be used by the Grand Trunk as their Moncton terminals or, at least, as a portion of them; and as the freight starts east from there, it will use the double track with the lesser grade. It will be part of the eastern line from our shops.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Is the minister charging the whole of this amount to capital account of the Intercolonial or dividing it between the two lines ?


George Perry Graham: This is all ours. Should we make an arrangement with the Grand Trunk Pacific, they would pay for whatever rights they secured.


George Eulas Foster: Is this improvement necessary for the traffic of the Intercolonial as it is at present ?


George Perry Graham: It could be got along without, but as we are doing the work we thought that we might as well make a complete job of it, instead of being compelled to go back and finish it. We are building our shops and getting them in splendid shape. The whole work will take us two or three years, as the committee will see by the amount asked for in this vote.


George Eulas Foster: Does it not strike the minister that, particularly this year, this is a pretty large expenditure unless it is really necessary ? As I understand it, it i3 not really necessary for the traffic of the Intercolonial, but will only become necessary because the Grand Trunk Pacific is going there and it is believed you will want this cut-off when you get access to the traffic that you expect you will have when that road enters Moncton. The $350,000, which I suppose will run to nearly half a million before it is through, is a very large expenditure for a cut-off of 24 miles. The question would be, I would think, whether it is so necessary that it should be gone on with at once. You are making large expenditures at Moncton, I think the information was it would take $500,000 more to finish the shops. These shops of course would not be necessary simply for the Intercolonial Railway.


George Perry Graham: Oh, yes they are.


George Eulas Foster: You are making them more expensive simply because you are looking to joint interests by the Grand

Trunk Pacific and the Intercolonial Railway.


George Perry Graham: The longer we leave this the more expensive the land will become. The moment the Grand Trunk Pacific gets to Moncton the city as a railway centre will increase in size.


Mr. S. SHARPE.: What is the estimated cost of cattle-guards and is there a uniform pattern?


George Perry Graham: The estimate here is $25 each. They are a steel cattle-guard which we get from the Fairbanks Company. We use this kind in anything new we put in.


George Eulas Foster: That is not a very heavy sum. What is it that will cost so much?


George Perry Graham: Here is a filling, 400,000 cubic yards, that will cost $80,000. Then we have a trestle, 854,000 pounds of steel trestle, that will cost $38,430. Eighty-pound rails and fastenings will cost $21,000.


Mr. LENNOX.: In connection with cattle-guards, the other day we got a return as to the number of protected crossings in Canada. It is stated that there were 15,000 crossings in Canada of which 3,115 were protected, but we could not get particulars as to how they were protected. It now transpires that there has been a great mistake in that matter. The Grand Trunk Railway mistook protection for the people for cattle-guards and in reply to the question sent to them stated that they had 2,888 protected crossings, but this included all the cattle-guards on their line. They have only a couple of hundred protected crossings, and instead of 3,115 we have probably not 500 protected crossings in Canada. I hope the minister will amend his Bill because the cattle-guards do not serve the purpose of protecting the public in the way intended by the legislation before the House.


George Eulas Foster: Who is making inquiry and looking after this land purchase?


George Perry Graham: The deputy has been negotiating himself for the purchase of this land. Some of the land belongs to the Moncton Land Company and some to Humphries. It is mostly vacant land.


John Allister Currie: One hundred dollars a lot should be a good price for the land.


George Perry Graham: I think so, some will run a little higher and some a little lower.
Original construction, $800.


George Eulas Foster: What is that?


George Perry Graham: Every year little claims come up for damages on account of original construction that have not been presented or that have been overlooked. We generally have a small appropriation for that.


George Eulas Foster: It seems to me this is worse than the United States pensions.


George Perry Graham: It is something on the same line I admit. There are some peculiar claims. Sometimes heirs return or something of that kind occurs. We carried last year $1,000 and paid out $634.84 on that account.


John Gillanders Turriff: Before leaving the branci. lines, I would like to discuss for a few mo ments the general question of the acquisitions of branch lines by the Intercolonial Railway.


George Eulas Foster: How can we do that in Committee of Supply on an individual item? I found the very same difficulty. I did not get off what I wanted to get off the other night, but I do not see how it is possible for me to get it off on individual items. I did not know that the minister was going into Supply this afternoon or before he had gone in I would have discussed with him some points. I think my hon. friend (Mr. Turriff) had better take some other opportunity. If we are all going to take up these general questions of policy and discuss them on individual items it will be unsatisfactory, and I do not see how we would get through with the estimates. I would like the minister to let me know the next time he is going into Supply, and then I will be prepared to take up some of these other questions.


George Perry Graham: I have a general one held over-the Trent canal.


John Gillanders Turriff: I am quite prepared either to go on now for fifteen minutes or wait for a further occasion. The other night, when the matter was discussed generally, it was passed around that the minister would adjourn the debate, and I took it for granted that the question would not come up again, or that if it did come up again we would all have an opportunity of placing our views before the House. The particular reason for wishing to place my views before the House is that on that occasion all the members who spoke favoured the taking over of the branch lines, and I thought that if the matter did not come up again the government would likely come to the conclusion that in so far as members on this side of the House were concerned, they were all in favour of the proposition of additional branch lines in connection with the Intercolonial Railway. I was under the impression that possibly we could discuss it on these estimates, but if not we can discuss it on another occasion.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I would not like to refuse any discussion on this question of branch lines on any particular vote, but I have ascertained that the question the hon. gentleman wishes to refer to is still on the Order Paper, and may come up

again. A long discussion on branch lines and their merits would not be in order at this moment, especially as it is still on the Order Paper, although the question might be referred to.


John Gillanders Turriff: If we had the assurance that we would have an opportunity of discussing it again on the resumption of the adjourned debate that would be quite satisfactory, although, in adjourning the debate, the minister took the opportunity of saying that he would refer to the policy of the government on branch lines when he made his statement in connection with the Intercolonial Railway.


George Eulas Foster: So he did to a certain extent.


John Gillanders Turriff: As long as I have the opportunity of discussing it later on that is all I want.


George Eulas Foster: I think it would be better business to take up these matters when the minister next goes into Supply if he will be good enough to inform us when he next proposes to move the House into committee.


George Perry Graham: All right.


Mr. BLACK.: I would like to ask the minister why an examination was not made of the Dominion Atlantic Railway at the time the other branches were examined?


George Perry Graham: The Dominion Atlantic is in a somewhat different position from some of the other roads. I did not know that they had neglected to give us a report on that until my attention was drawn to it. It seems that the commissioners had some little difficulty with the Dominion Atlantic as to their transportation and that instead of facilitating them they put everything in the way of getting a report on the Dominion Atlantic. However, we have the sworn returns of the road every year, and have a pretty good idea of its value, its earnings, and that kind of thing. It is in a different position from some of the other lines because the Dominion Atlantic does not want to lease or sell and the other lines practically all do.


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: But >
the people living along that road may want it.


George Perry Graham: It would be a question how far you could go in expropriating a railway that did not want to sell or lease.


Judson Burpee Black: I do not think that it is
correct to say that the Dominion Atlantic people do not want to sell. There are too many shrewd business men in the company in London to say openly that they want to sell it. They prefer to hold off and be in a position to make the best bargain they Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.
can. I was talking to the manager of that road and he said in one breath that they would not sell and in the next that anybody who bought the road must buy the steamers also. It has been in the air for the last five or six years that the Toad is for sale and that other companies have been after it. If the road were in the hands of anybody who would give encouragement to manufacturers and industries located upon it, it would pay more than it does now. The road is being run, not to the advantage of the country, of the farmers or of the manufacturers, but it is being run in order to skim all it can out of the country, being owned by a company which is out of Canada and which has no interest in it.


William Findlay Maclean: Is that the Evangeline route ?


Judson Burpee Black: That is the Evangeline route. I have received a letter from a manufacturer in one of the towns there complaining that the policy of the road is one of obstruction instead of assistance in the work of developing their trade. They are in continual trouble.


John Allister Currie: How much does that road pay?


Judson Burpee Black: The earnings over operating expenses are $280,586.


John Allister Currie: How many miles?


Judson Burpee Black: Counting the branches and sidings, 298 miles. I think the straight run is about 225 miles from Yarmouth to Halifax.


John Allister Currie: Who is the manager of the road?


Judson Burpee Black: The local manager is Mr. Percy Gifkins. The road is owned in London.


John Allister Currie: Do you not think it would be a good scheme to sell the Intercolonial Railway to that road or buy that manager?


Judson Burpee Black: I think it would be a good
thing to buy that manager.


Frederick William Borden: This Dominion Atlantic Railway passes through my county and I think it is only fair to the corporation to say that it is a road owned by private individuals and is not owned by the government and run, as the Intercolonial is, for the purpose of carrying out the scheme of confederation or of promoting trade between the western and eastern parts of the Dominion, one of the objects for which the Intercolonial Railway was originally conceived and constructed. This railway is owned by private individuals. It must be run in such a way as to pay running expenses and something more or go into insolvency. It had its difficulties in its early years and more than once was on

the verge of insolvency, but I think that during the last 15 or 20 years it has paid running expenses and possibly some dividends. I am not prepared to say that the rates are higher than they ought to be, but I do know that the rates are higher than the rates on the Intercolonial Railway. And, I do know that the people in west* ern Nova Scotia have complained-in fact in former years I brought this matter to the attention of the House on several occasions-that they were placed at an unfair disadvantage in the city of Halifax their principal market, as compared with their friends in eastern Nova Scotia through whose counties the Intercolonial Railway runs. I do not intend to carry this discussion further, but I think it is only fair to the Dominion Atlantic Railway and its management to say that they are operating a railroad owned by private individuals! and built with private money. I do not' think it is fair to charge them with levying too high rates. Their rates are controlled; by the scale of rates adopted for all company owned railways, and they are subject to the control of the Railway Commission. If the rates are unduly high it is very easy for any one to make a complaint to the Commission and to have them adjusted. As to the taking over of this road and the policy of acquiring the branch lines which are feeders of the Intercolonial, should that policy ever be adopted I think there would be no very great difficulty in this case, because if I remember correctly in the original charter under which this road was constructed there is a provision by which the government can take it over at a price to be fixed by certain judges who are named in the charter for that purpose.


William Findlay Maclean: Do I understand the Minister of Militia to say that the government-owned road treats the public better than this private-owned road ?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


William Findlay Maclean: Well, I am glad to have that on record.


Frederick William Borden: It is a fact, and we have a deficit on the Intercolonial Railway as a result.


William Findlay Maclean: You would not think of going back to private ownership later on.


Frederick William Borden: No; it does not go through my county.


Judson Burpee Black: I had a letter from the chairman of the cotton company in the town in which I reside, and he gives me the schedule of rates paid by their company on the Dominion Atlantic Railway and on the Intercolonial Railway, and the last clause of his letter states that it will be seen by the schedule that his company
is paying six times as much for their cotton goods on the Dominion Atlantic Railway as on the Intercolonial Railway. Furthermore, I think I am right in saying that whatever financial difficulty the Dommion Atlantic road has had in years past wa3 not caused by the running of their railroad, but that the loss was made in purchasing steamers and attempting and succeeding in running a rival steamship off the route between Yarmouth and Boston. There was a local steamship line owned by the Eastern Steamship Company which had been in successful operation, and it came into the minds of the London management of that railway that they wanted to compete on that route, and they bought steamers and cut rates and finally ran the local steamship company off. In the end they bought the local company's steamers and then found they had too many boats on their hands.
I think that is about the only loss the Dominion Atlantic has made. I believe that the steamship route does not pay yet, and so it cuts down the large profits which are made on the railway itself. But, that the railroad is a paying concern there is no doubt, and that it could be made still more paying there is also no doubt. It could be made mutually to the advantage of the Intercolonial Railway and to the people along the road, because it runs through one of the richest fruit and farming countries in Canada. A country well suited for manufactures and a country that must prosper. But the industries along that road are hampered by the penny wise and pound foolish management.


Frederick William Borden: I may say to my hon. friend (Mr. Black) that the time to which I allude was long prior to this company owning any steamer.


Judson Burpee Black: They only owned a piece of the road then.


Frederick William Borden: As I remember they had some difficulties five or six years after they commenced to operate, and I think the company's road was opened about 39 years ago. The difficulties have not resulted since the steamships have been owned by the railroad. This Evangeline route affords a continuous line from Halifax to Boston and incidentally to St. John and to Montreal via St. John. It is absolutely necessary they should have lines ox steamships. It is operating very successfully several steamships from Yarmouth to Boston, one to New York, and one or two across the Bay of Fundy from Digby to St. John. It would be a great deprivation to the public if these steamships were not operated and it is not fair to charge up to the steamship lines any loss that may be made on the operation of the system. It would be very difficult to separate the steamships from the rest of the system. It is a through line partly by

steamship and partly by railway from Halifax to Boston on the one hand, and from Halifax to Montreal via St. John and the Bay of Fundy on the other. I have added these further remarks so that the situation of the line may be fairly understood.
Strengthening bridges, $70,000.


Mr. GBAHAM.: Last year we had a vote of $190,000 to do this work and we spent $120,000; this $70,000 is a revote.


John Graham Haggart: Is this a renewal of the old bridges?


George Perry Graham: It is practically putting new bridges. These bridges were al old and we are putting in steel bridges m most of the places.
,,Mr- HAGGART. You are charging the whole cost to capital account?


George Perry Graham: Where a new work is constructed we deduct the value of the old work and charge to capital the difference between the old and the new.


John Graham Haggart: What deduction has been made for the value of the old work ?


George Perry Graham: It would take quite a long while to get that information. Some ot the old bridges have been sold and we give credit for them.
. Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Perhaps the minister takes a short cut by valuing the old work at nothing?
on the Canada Eastern branch, is replaced with an iron bridge that is absolutely new work, and is chargeable to capital.


Mr FOSTER.: Are these all on the Canada Eastern?


George Perry Graham: 
George Eulas Foster: Does the minister know that?	[DOT]


George Perry Graham: I am speaking from information given to my deputy. If it were an iron bridge of an ancient date which was being replaced with one of the modern style, they would sell the old bridge for what it would bring, and charge the difference between that and the cost of the new bridge to capital.


George Perry Graham: Oh, no.


John Graham Haggart: He does not inter to make any deduction because he is char mg the whole vote to capital account.


George Eulas Foster: 
George Eulas Foster: I understand that theoretically that is so, but I am told that the practice more and more is to charge all betterments on an old line of railway to revenue; and I am not sure that under the rules of the commission that is not becoming to a certain extent a necessity.


George Perry Graham: Every year hundreds of millions of dollars are expended on capital aeount on old lines, for replacing bridges, improving grades and increasing rolling stock.
, Mr. FOSTER. My hon. friend is perfectly right in saying that these railroads spend millions on capital account, but he has not traced out the details. If he does that, I believe he will find that these betterments are in a great measure not charged to capital but to revenue account. Of course, if they built an extension, or increased the quantity of rolling stock, these expenditures would be charged to capital account; but I am informed that a great deal of the renewal of rolling stock, even though the new is of greater capacity than the old, is not charged to capital, but to revenue, and that is becoming more and more the case.


George Perry Graham: That is just what we do with a lot of our rolling stock. This year we have constructed a lot of rolling stock,

much heavier and larger than that which it replaces, out of revenue. The principle is that where you are putting in new rolling stock equal in carrying power to the old, you charge it to revenue; but where you are getting something new, that is charged to capital. The Pennsylvania Railroad has expended within a comparatively short time, between Philadelphia and New York, $200,000,000, all charged to capital acount; and that is not a new road, but an old road. By the returns I find that the railroad companies are sinners somewhat in this respect. When their revenues are buoyant, they stick to the line pretty closely; but when their revenue falls off, they charge to capital 'account what they formerly charged to (revenue.


George Eulas Foster: I am not inclined to place implicit confidence in that. I want to show how easy it is to make an impression with 'nothing underlying it. My hon. friend has (stated that the Pennsylvania Railroad spent of late between New York and Philadelphia about $200,000,000. What has that been spent on? On the great New York terminals in the neighbourhood of 42nd street, on tunnels, and on electrifying the [DOT]system within fifty miles of New York city That $200,000,000 has almost entirely gone into that kind of improvement. That is not taking a bit of a bridge on the Mira-tnichi and replacing it and then putting that to capital account.


George Perry Graham: I made no reference to terminals or tunnels.


George Eulas Foster: The hon. minister in his statement paraded the idea that they had bought rolling stock and charged it to capital. That is true of every road. Is it not true also that you have bought a mighty lot of rolling stock and charged it to capital?


George Perry Graham: Certainly.


George Eulas Foster: And that you have lame engines and acres of rolling stock standing along your whole road from one end to the other, which you should have repaired and charged to revenue but which are lying idle, and you have kept your road going by a large expenditure on Tolling stock charged to capital account. Suppose you put an independent man on that Intercolonial Railway and have him take an inventory of every bit of damaged rolling stock and tote up what that would cost for repairs to be charged to revenue, you will have a different set of accounts from those brought down to us. Of course you have paid for rolling stock out of revenue, but I am inclined to think you have paid illegitimately for rolling stock out of capital rather than face the repairing of the old stock and deduct that from revenue. But with reference to the $200,000,000 expenditure on the Pennsylvania road charged to capital, you will find
that the largest part was sunk in legitimate capital expenditure, comprising the almost unrivalled terminal facilities which that road has procured in New York.


George Perry Graham: The amount I have stated would not cover the terminals or tunnels.
It has spent an enormous amount _ getting rid of grade crossings and making viaducts, over-head tracks and levelling the road._ It is the same old Toad and all these things have been charged to capital. Every, railway in the world has to spend a certain amount each year and charge it to capital account. As to disabled cars, last, year I had the matter looked up and got a percentage made which I gave to the House. According to that, the percentage of disabled rolling stock was slightly less on the Intercolonial Railway than on the Grand Trunk Railway. Every railway has a certain percentage of rolling stock disabled, and ours was a little less than the Grand Trunk Railway a year ago. To-day I state unreservedly that the Intercolonial Railway has not a greater percentage of disabled rolling stock than the Grand Trunk Railway or the Canadian Pacific Railway.


John Graham Haggart: I shall not discuss again the question of charging to capital, because in my view there should be no capital account whatever on the road. Here is a road which had an excellent bridge at Miramichi, an iron bridge, which lasted 30 years. When it became nearly worn out, we took it down and transferred a portion to the Prince Edward Island Railway. And the new one we substituted is charged to capital account. Let me mention another thing. We took over the Canada Eastern read in New Brunswick at a cost of some $800,000. And we had the assurance from the minister of that day that the road was ir. perfect order and could be run a number of years without any expenditure on repairs. Yet within three years we have spent on that road the full amount of its .cost. And to-day the minister asks us for a large sum to replace two bridges upon that road. These bridges were perfectly good two years ago, when we were buying that road at a large price, but to-day they are useless and must be renewed. Such statements as that tend to throw discredit on all statements made with regard to that road. We paid some $800,000 for that Canada Eastern Railway. And then when we bought it, we had the report of the chief engineer that it was in excellent order and would not require repairs of any consequence for a number of years. Yet in a couple of years we have paid in repairs the entire cost of the road.
Improvements at Sackville, $10,000.


George Perry Graham: This is to complete a freight shed. The total expenditure at that station has been $84,515 on everything. In

1907 we expended $26,000; in 1907-8, $58,344; and last year $23,134, making a total of $107,649.


Mr.   POSTER@: From what date do you count that expenditure?


George Perry Graham: The Intercolonial keeps a record of the money expended on capital account at any station since the beginning of the road.


George Perry Graham: It means the same shops on a very small scale. Such shops are at the end of every division of a railway to carry on what are known as light repairs. For heavier repairs, such as remodelling or remaking the locomotives are taken to the central shops at Moncton.


George Eulas Foster: Have you a similar shop at Sydney?


Mr. WRIGHT.: How large a place is Sackville ?


George Perry Graham: I understand it has a population of about 2,000 or 2,500. It is a university town.


Mr. LOGGIE.: It is the junction point of the road that runs through to Cape Tor-mentine.


George Eulas Foster: The backbone of the country, I fancy, is the farming industry.
To increase accommodation at Halifax $180,000.


George Perry Graham: 
George Eulas Foster: How many men are expected to be employed in the machine shop there?	-	r


George Perry Graham: Not many. This is only for ordinary road repairs to engines that come in.


George Perry Graham: No, our shops are at Riviere du Loup, Halifax and Moncton.


George Eulas Foster: None at St. John?


George Perry Graham: We have a roundhouse at St. John.


George Eulas Foster: Were these works done under contract after tenders publicly called for?


George Perry Graham: Yes, every one of them. I have here a list of the prices.
Mr. FOSTER There is nothing done there by day's labour?


George Perry Graham: No, this is all by tender and contract.
Diversion of line, Sydney Mines to River George, $50,000.


George Perry Graham: Last year, we had an item in the estimates for this, and some work was done, but not a great deal. I think I announced to the House that we would go on with the work this year, but, owing to the conditions we have found we have decided that we will merely do as we are doing at Moncton-get the right of way as far as we can and not' proceed with a great deal of the work this year.


George Eulas Foster: You had the surveys last time?


George Perry Graham: I think the surveys are ma'de.


Mr. MADDIN.: Were the surveys completed from River George by Little Bras d'Or to Sydney Mines last fall?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


James William Maddin: What was the cost, $3,500?


George Perry Graham: About $3,600, I think.


George Eulas Foster: When were the surveys carried on?


George Eulas Foster: On engines used all the way from Sydney to Halifax?


George Perry Graham: Yes, we also do repairs for the Dominion Atlantic and the Halifax and South Western. Our larger shops are of course, at Moncton.
Mr. F06TER. Does this mean a duplication of your shops at Moncton?


George Perry Graham: 


George Perry Graham: I think they were begun immediately after the House rose last year.


James William Maddin: And carried on until when?


George Perry Graham: Until the work of survey was completed, I think.


James William Maddin: When was that?


George Perry Graham: I do not Temember the date when the survey was completed. They did not stop work until it was completed, and started it as soon as I could get an engineer after the session closed, and he continued the work until it was completed.


James William Maddin: What is the estimated cost of the line tlo Sydney and River George?


George Perry Graham: $394,135. It is 8i miles.


James William Maddin: When is it proposed to go on with the work?


George Perry Graham: I had hoped and fully intended to go on this year, but owing to the conditions that have arisen it has been deferred.


James William Maddin: What are the conditions that will interfere with the carrying out of the work?


George Perry Graham: The financial conditions.


James William Maddin: Are the financial conditions any worse now than when the House rose last fall?


George Perry Graham: I would not like to make a statement as a member of the government
on that point. Every one who has discussed pro and con the financial position of the world will, I think, approve of the conclusion come to by the government that for this year it would be advisable not to proceed with these larger works or to undertake any new ones. This would involve a large expenditure of money.


George Eulas Foster: Not more than the Moncton cut off.


George Perry Graham: The Moncton cut off calls for only $50,000 this year. We are treating them both in the same way. At Moncton we are asking for $50,000 only instead of $374,000, and in this case we are taking a vote to go on, as far as we can, with the right of way. I can asure my hon. friend there is no other consideration in view in connection with this.


James William Maddin: Was not the necessity of this work impressed on the government to overcome some heavy grades there?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


James William Maddin: Is there not a great deal
of heavy freight to be handled from that end of the island?


George Perry Graham: Yes, a great deal of
freight.


James William Maddin: Is it not important that these grades should be overcome as soon as possible? Are they not more important than the cut off at Moncton?


George Perry Graham: We are treating this in the same way. They both cut off grades, and my hon. friend is mistaken if he thinks I am treating them differently.


James William Maddin: I thought one more important than the other.


George Perry Graham: No, the one is not being held back on account of the other, and I am as much disappointed as my hon. friend that this is not going on this year.


James William Maddin: Can the minister give any assurance that this will be done next year?


George Perry Graham: I would not like to say absolutely. I am not a good promiser, I like to do as I say. I assure my hon. friend that this is one of the first works that will be done as soon as the conditions will warrant such expenditures.


Mr FOSTER.: There is not much activity there now, but there was a lot last October. I happened to be down there and went out one beautiful afternoon to enjoy a drive, and we had to keep a look-out at the masthead for fear of running over these numerous stakes. We called at one store where there was one set of stakes in front and another at the back door ; the proprietor was staked before and behind. We were in dire peril of destroying government works and being taken up therefor.


George Perry Graham: You escaped pretty well.


Mr. MACKENZIE.: This is not at all a new question and it is entirely wrong to suppose it was gotten up for election purposes last fall, although it happened to be prominently before the people, I suppose, at that time. Twenty-two years ago, when the road was located in Cape Breton the island was not as important as it is to-day, the traffic was not so large and the prospects not so bright as they are now. The road was laid out 22 years ago and the best grade and the best route were not selected. The Liberals of the county of Cape Breton and their leaders always contended that the route was wrong, particularly between George's river and Sydney. A short cut was taken between Leitches creek and George's river, over a mountain where there are high grades on both sides. It was always contended by those in opposition in 1887 that the road should have followed the shore as is proposed now, and come down to the town of Sydney Mines, which is an important town of 7,000 or 8,000, putting that town upon the main line, then continuing the line to North Sydney, where the hon. member was tumbling over the stakes, putting it also on the main line and then running on to Sydney. That would have been the proper

course and would have given the level line that you must now, at great expense, obtain in order to handle the traffic. Delegation after delegtion came to Ottawa during Conservative and Liberal rule to have this matter rectified. At last the present Minister of Railways and Canals was persuaded that the change was necessary and that in order to handle the traffic we must have a better route than we have had. It is now found necessary to make that diversion from George's river around by Sydney Mines and thence to North Sydney and to Sydney on the best available route. I think the item is not well worded, diversion of lines Sydney Mines and River George. I understand this to mean a diversion of the line from George's river to Sydney Mines thence using the present line to North Sydney and continuing to Leitches creek to make the proper connection with the Intercolonial which is the intention and is a longer distance than was mentioned by the minister in answering the member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin?. The distance from George's river to Sydney Mines would be 81 miles, and there is the further distance from North Sydney to Leitches creek which would be two or three or four miles, more. I must express my own particular desire that this work should be proceeded with as rapidly as possible. It will be of great advantage to the two towns and to the road itself. I think the deputy minister and the minister know that the train load that can be hauled over this heavy grade from Leitches creek across this high hill to George'-s river now is not more than one half the train load that could be carried all the way from Sydney to Point Tup-per if this diversion was completed. I trust therefore that every effort will be put forth at as early a date as possible to have this road completed and this advantage given to the people of North Sydney and Sydney Mines, as well as to the management of the road. Talking of freight, the smaller of the two great companies down there paid to this road last year the handsome sum of $250,000 in cash for freights. Therefore it will be understood that to give proper accommodation to such a customer as the Nova Scotia Steel Company is itself important if there were no other important customer at that particular place. What applies to it I would say, although I have not the figures, would apply with equal force to the Dominion Steel and the Dominion Coal Companies. There are customers of the road that will all be accommodated by the completion of this diversion of the line. I am disappointed that the work is not being proceeded with this year. Of course, I must accept the explanation of the minister that he is not in a position to go on with it now. I hope that my im-Mr. D. D. McKENZIE.
pression and belief are true that the matter will be taken up and that steps will be taken this year to obtain the right of way and to fix the line where it should be and where it is going to be and that as soon as possible the road will be constructed along the line that will be agreed upon.


Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR.: They will keep it for the next election.


Mr. McKENZIE.: My hon. friend says something about the next election. It is a long time away and the hon. whip, who is getting to be an old man, should be thinking more about the world beyond than about the next election. I am sorry that such frivolous things should bother him so much and that' he should forget better things.


George Eulas Foster: You must be qualifying for a divinity student.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is so little divinity on the opposition benches that I think it would be well for them to borrow some from this side.


George Eulas Foster: You look a good deal like a bishop.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There are a great many things that I would like to point out in reference to this matter, but T think the minister understands the necessity of carrying out this work, having taken the very important step that he did take, and I hope it will be followed up to completion as speedily as possible.


James William Maddin: My hon. friend from Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) has pointed out that this question of diverting the line has been agitated by members of his party in that part of the country for the past twenty years and that it is a mistake to imagine that it was to meet any political exigency that an item was put in the estimates last year to provide for this work. I would like to point out that it was very significant that, although members of the hon. gentleman's party had been sending delegations and praying this government to divert the line, as it is proposed to divert is at the present time, during the years_ of boasted progress, prosperity and overflowing treasury that this country is alleged to have enjoyed, the government did not undertake to make this diversion until on the eve of the election last fall when their resources were very much inferior to what they are to-day. I think the fact that the government now say that they are unable to carry on this undertaking would indicate that there is something to found the suspicion upon that the sum of $25,000 which was put in the estimates last year for this proposed line was to meet some political exigency. The fact that the hon. member is satisfied

with the explanation and that he believes that the work will be completed is not a very satisfactory guarantee looking towards the future. I may say to the committee that the surveyed lines of railway have intersected that county to such an extent that a plan of the county looks like a cobweb. One particular line of railway has served, within my recollection, no less than seven elections. I do not know how many this one is calculated to serve. I think it was not asking the minister too much to say that he would undertake to have this much-needed railway constructed during the next fiscal year. With regard to the friends of the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria having always held that this road was built on the wrong line, that was certainly a matter of opinion and the election was run in that county on the question of two certain routes. The railway was built, as the result of the election issue, by way of the route that it follows at the present time. The route which is in operation now was quite competent to carry the freight at that time. The town of Sydney Mines, as the hon. gentleman points out, has a population of perhaps 7,000 or 8,000. It has grown from a small mining village with a population of only 2,000 or 2,400. The works of the Dominion Coal Company were not then in existence, although some of the older pits were in operation under previous owners. The road, when built, was built to suit conditions as they existed, but it is a well known fact that in the last nine years conditions have arisen there that have called for an alteration of its route and, when the hon .gentleman says that his party have always urged upon the government the alteration of the route, it has to be borne in mind that the opinion in regard to the alteration of the route is shared by all parties in that country regardless of political affiliations.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am sorry that the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Mad-din) thinks it necessary to import severe party politics into this question. If he wants to go into the history of the building of that road in Cape Breton county and if he wants to know something about whether it was ever known politically or not, I would say to him that if he had lived in Cape Breton county at the time this road was surveyed he would know that men were up to their waists in snow banks cutting the trees out of the right of way on the verge of the election of 1887. He would know that a few of our strong Liberals in Cape Breton county had been switched over from Liberalism to Toryism by giving them large contracts for clearing away the woods in the midst of the election of 1887. No influences of this kind have been used in our day and nothing was
said about the building of this road last summer to influence any individual or any set of individuals. The hon. gentleman is too young a man to know much about the political history of the county of Cape Breton, but if he knows anything about conflicting routes in that county he ought to know better than to suppose that there was any conflict between the George's river and Sydney Mines route, and that across the hill from George's river to Leitches creek. The two routes were the southern route via St. Peter's and the central route.


James William Maddin: I did not say that the route proposed to be diverted and the present route were in dispute at that time.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I understood the hon. gentleman to say that the election of 1887 settled the difficulty.


James William Maddin: Not as between these two proposed routes-certainly not.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: My hon. friend gave me a wrong impression then when he said that the election of 1887 settled the question as between the route from Georges river to Leitches creek and the proposed one.


James William Maddin: It did not.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: They were canvassing this change for election purposes. My hon. friend is quite aware that in 1895-1 think it was-when the right hon. Sir Charles Tupper was running an election in our county, he made it a part of his platform and he laid it down as the policy of his government to build this road from Georges river to Sydney Mines. It has been continuously agitated ever since that time in the county. It so happens that the hon. gentleman who is now occupying the position of Minister of Railways and Canals was the first Liberal Minister of Railways who had the courage and enterprise to declare the expediency of this work being undertaken and completed. But the hon. gentleman for Cape Breton must not say the Liberal party did not do anything towards accomplishing this purpose. The hon. member well knows, if he wishes to give the present government the credit for it, that this government extended the line from North Sydney to Sydney Mines; that it has given Sydney Mines the benefit of railway connection, that it has given North Sydney the benefit of that continuous connection. I can tell the hon. member (Mr. Mad/din) that his predecessors in the representation of the county of Cape Breton sat quietly in this House and supported the Conservative government in a proposal to build a road in the county of Gape Breton that clean shut off the two important towns of Sydney Mines and North Sydney. My hon. friend (Mr. Maddin) speaks of Sydney Mines in these days as an insignificant

little village by the wayside. Well, it was just as important as the town of Sydney. The town of Sydney Mines and North Sydney were much upon a par. North Sydney was larger at that time than Sydney, and without saying anything disparaging to the town of Sydney which was the capital, Sydney Mines was just as important as either of the other two. North Sydney and the town of Sydney were incorporated about the same time, and the fact that Sydney Mines was not incorporated did not make it any smaller or any less important. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maddin) wishes to discuss the history of both political parties in respect to railways in the county of Cape Breton, what he has to confront is that the members who then supported the Tory government in this House were perfectly satisfied to get this road any way at all before the Dominion elections' of 1887, when they were trembling in the balance, and if it were not for this road and the impetus given their canvass they never would have been returned. They cared not where the road went once it passed the Grand Narrows. Once it came to the door of the man who was then supporting the government, once it brought grist to his mill they cared not how it got to Sydney. And the hon. member who sat with this gentleman at that time agreed that it did not make very much difference whether North Sydney or Sydney Mines were left out in the cold or not. They had no railway accommodation; we got a section of the road built into North Sydney for which we undertook to pay for all the right of way ourselves. That is the history of his friends in regard to getting railway accommodation to North Sydney and Sydney Mines. But as soon as the Liberal government came in we got better treatment. Up to the time the Liberal government came to power the railway was left out in the woods with no communication with the shore or with tidal waters at all. The Liberal government extended it to the shore, gave us a first-class wharf, gave us communication with Newfoundland, and we have now a steamer running between North Sydney and Newfoundland which is a great feeder to this railroad and which is of course a benefit to the people of Newfoundland and to the people of North Sydney and the country generally. This government gave us further an extension of the railway to Sydney Mines which of course is veTy beneficial to that town. The road from North Sydney to Sydney Mines was built with a view of its extension to George's River and ultimately with a view to the completion of that road in the place where it was intended from the first and where it should have been. Now, Sir, that piece that is built between North Sydney and Sydney Mines will not be lost because it is part of the main line and will link on to it.
Mr. d. d. McKenzie.
My hon. friend (Mr. Maddin) has said that the Liberal government has done nothing during the last twelve years to establish this line of railway. Well, we have done that much, that we have built into North Sydney and Sydney Mines, and that part is completed and the right of way and everything belonging to it is the property of the government. The Liberal government and the supporters of the Liberal government have nothing to be afraid of in comparing their history with the history of the Conservatives, and of my hon. friend's predecessors with regard to this matter. I had no desire to. introduce any politics into the question; I had no desire to treat it in any other way but as a question affecting the whole of the people and which is of great importance to them, but if my hon. friend wishes to launch into political criticism, or if he wants to make any political capital out of it, then, if the hon. gentleman chooses upon the floor of this House to cross swords with me as to the political history of the two parties in this matter he shall always find me ready to meet him.


James William Maddin: I do not know that it is very good taste on the part of the hon. member (Mr. McKenzie) to throw down the gauntlet and then take it up m Committee of Supply. I do not think it is a thing upon which he can compliment himself very much when he says that I have not lived long enough in the county of Cape Breton to be as familiar with its railroad history as he is. I can tell the hon. gentleman I have lived long enough in that county to be as familiar with the best railway routes as he is, and I am prepared to enter into a competitive examination at any time before the Minister of Justice in order to satisfy him that I am just as familiar with the railway history of the county of Cape Breton as he is. The hon. gentleman refers to the great things that have been done by the Liberal party for railway development in the county of Cape Breton, and in enumerating all these great things he points to the extension of the railway from Sydney to Sydney Mines. Why Sir, do you know that in the county of Cape Breton _ every mile of railway in that county owes its existence to the Conservative government with the exception of this two and a half miles from North Sydney to Sydney Mines? If the hon. member (Mr. McKenzie) wants to boast about the records of the Liberal government in connection with that insignificant piece of railway it will redound very little to his credit or to the credit of the Liberal party. And further, when the House learns that it took five years from the time it was undertaken until its completion, and that it cost the people_of this country no less than $58,000 per mile, running as it does parallel with the Nova Scotia Coal and Steel Company's Toad and partly on the same roadbed, the House will see

that the hon. gentleman (Mr. McKenzie) has not much room for boasting. When the hon. gentleman talks about the great benefits the people of Cape Breton county have derived from this government in the matter of railway facilities, I wish to say that they have had to be content with what was handed to them on the eve of the last election. There has never been even an election for municipal councillors that the Liberal party in that county have not proposed some railway scheme or another. It was not an unusual thing in connection with the last election to find a man and a boy bailing water out of a post hole four or five feet deep at high water mark and having to go back into the Bras d'Or lake.


George Eulas Foster: And charging it up to capital?


George Perry Graham: That looks like watering stock.


James William Maddin: Surely that would compare with the condition of affairs in 1887 when men stood to their waists in snow chopping down trees, as depicted by the hon. member (Mr. McKenzie). However, I submit that two wrongs do not make a right, and if the hon. member wants to point out that in 1887 the Conservative party engaged men in midwinter to make a survey of a line; if that was wrong it should not be a justification in the year 1908 for the Liberal government putting in the estimates a sum of money which they did not intend to spend .and did not spend, and having a survey made and stakes put down at every other man's front door or back door for a proposed line of railway, all of which took place between the time intervening after the prorogation of parliament in July and the elections on the 26th of October, and all of which is too significant to require any comment. The hon. member (Mr. McKenzie) may be quite content with the hope that now that the survey is made this railway will be completed, but the industries of the county are not content that it should rest in that manner. This extension is so absolutely essential to move the heavy trains from the Nova Stfotia Steel and Coal Company, from the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, and from the Dominion Coal Company, that it is important the work should be undertaken at once. I have no doubt that the hon. member will be quite content that a sum be put in the estimates and that the scheme will be delayed from time to time, so as to help Mr. Murray in the local elections in the course of a couple of years, and may be to help the hon. gentleman himself when he comes before his constituents at the next general election. But that method of carrying on public works does not meet with the approval of the people of the country. It is not calculated to serve the industrial centres in 93


REVISED
[Stage Direction]
that part of the country, and I would urge upon the minister the desirability of having this grade changed at as early a date as possible.
Diversion of line at Chatham and branch to wharf, $36,000.
George Eulas Foster: What is this?


George Perry Graham: This is an item which we had in the estimates last year. I expected this year to proceed actively with the work, but the conditions were not favourable. I am asking for a revote for the purpose of getting the right of way as far as possible. That is what I had in mind in asking Mr. Henry Reid to go down and negotiate for the land; but he would not accept the position, and we shall have to get some one else.
Locomotive and car shops with equipment and new freight yard at Moncton, $400,000.


George Perry Graham: The total cost of these, With the line, is estimated at about $2,000,000. The total amount expended has been $1,351,446.76. In addition to this vote, we are asking for another amount, which will make for machinery about $500,000.


George Eulas Foster: How are they off for machinery there now?


George Perry Graham: I think about $100,000 will finish the machinery.


George Eulas Foster: Where does the minister bay that?


George Perry Graham: We buy it in practically all cases by tender, and nearly all from Canadian manufacturers.


George Eulas Foster: Who has charge of ma chinery.


George Perry Graham: Mr. J. R. Joughins is our superintendent of motive power.


George Eulas Foster: Is a certain amount of it bought in the United States?


George Perry Graham: Necessarily and occasionally, some machinery which we cannot get in Canada. But we make it a point to buy everything practicable in Canada.


George Eulas Foster: Does the minister give bona fide public notice in these matters?


George Perry Graham: Yes. We send specifications to every manufacturer of these goods in Canada.


George Eulas Foster: Open competition and tender?


George Perry Graham: Absolutely.


George Eulas Foster: Is all this paid for out of capital?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Suppose you have a station house at Sussex which is sufficient


EDITION
[Stage Direction]
for the business and some night it burns down and you build a new station house in the place of it, do you charge the new station to capital?
George Perry Graham: It would depend on cir cumstances. It would depend somewhat on the question of the new style of station we put up. The Canadian Pacific Railway built their Angus shops at Montreal and equipped them out of capital. Conditions vary so much that the railway companies do not stick to one absolute line. These shops at Moncton are absolutely new. The old shops are still there, except the portion that was burned. We had an offer to lease them, but it was so small that I would not accept it.


George Eulas Foster: I understand that the answer the minister would have given is that the new station at Sussex would be charged to revenue?


George Perry Graham: Several of the smaller stations have been replaced out of capital.


George Eulas Foster: When you replace the old shops with new ones, which are a great deal better than the old, would it not be fair to charge some portion of the cost to revenue?


George Perry Graham: The old shops were repaired out of revenue. We spent on them about $56,000 out of revenue. Even if a fire had not occurred, these buildings would have had to be reconstructed. During the last year or two we have been working there under great disadvantages. We hope to cheapen the cost of our productions by having the new shops.
To increase water supply, $74,700.


George Perry Graham: We are endeavouring t0_ improve our water supply at many points along the line, in some cases making a new supply. I have a long list of the places.


George Eulas Foster: Is there a special contractor who gets the most of these?


George Perry Graham: No. Take the water supply at Little Metis, tenders were asked by posters and four were received and the contract given to the lowest, Mr. McManus. At St. Charles Junction, also four tenders were received, and Mr. McManus was again the lowest.
To increase accommodation and facilities along the line, $133,000.


George Perry Graham: This is for a large number of expenditures. Altogether we have expended at different times, since the Intercolonial Railway was constructed, along the line, $539,809. These expenses comprise new Windsor Freight Office, $82,000; tipper Dorchester Sidings, Marieville Freight Sheds and additional sidings, ad-Mr. FOSTER.
ditional sidings at Boiestown, electric semaphore at Petit Rocher, station and platform at Little Metis, and other items of like character.


George Eulas Foster: Was there no station at Little Metis before ?


George Perry Graham: The old building was worth but $1,200 or $1,300 and was practically no station at all, and the tourist traffic demands a decent station. Then there is $7,000 at Princess Pier for additional siding accommodation and track scale; $6,000 for a crossing siding at St. Pacome, and 35 miles of track fencing, not previously fenced, $23,500.


George Eulas Foster: Any buckets or tin pails?


George Perry Graham: No, none in this list.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would like to call
attention to a specific case in North Cape Breton, that at Christmas Island. That i3 a very important country centre at which some very important people live, and it has no station at all. We had a small building there, but it was burnt down a year or a year and a half ago, and I would not care to describe the condition to-day. I hope that out of this general vote provision will be made for a station house, properly equipped and commensurate with the amount of business transacted. It is one of the most important country districts in North Cape Breton. We do not look for anything very expensive, but ought to have a presentable wooden structure which will meet the requirement.


George Perry Graham: I will consider that matter very fully.
Improvements at Ste. Rosalie, $55,000.


George Perry Graham: This is entirely a revote. It is a junction of the Grand Trunk Railway east of Montreal. We are putting up a round house and making an accumulating yard where we have to gather our freight and our trains.


George Eulas Foster: How far from Montreal?


George Perry Graham: Thirty-six miles.


George Eulas Foster: Is that on the leased line?


George Perry Graham: At the junction of the leased line and our own.


George Eulas Foster: The lease provides that we are to participate in their terminals and improvements, I understand ?


George Perry Graham: At Montreal, but they have none at Ste. Rosalie.


George Eulas Foster: Could not this assembling be done at Montreal?


George Perry Graham: On the Grand Trunk branch from Ste. Rosalie into Montreal we carry big trains. One engine from/ Ste. Rosalie hauls nearly equal to two trains. We have all these cars to re-arrange. We interchange with the Canadian Pacific Railway as well. Therefore, we must have large yards to handle the cars. The Grand Trunk are not under obligation to give us terminal accommodation there.


George Eulas Foster: Do they give us in Montreal all that we expected to get?


George Perry Graham: We use their terminals in Montreal. They think we utilize them too much, but we think we do only what we have a right to.
Improvements at Drummondville, $5,000.


George Perry Graham: This is to provide additional yard' accommodation. The whole amount is a revote; we did not get that extended last year. I am surprised that, in the face of an election, we were so moderate.


George Eulas Foster: It was hung up there all the time.
Engine-house, machine shops, &c., at Rivi-fere du Loup, $158,500.


George Perry Graham: This is for the machine shop at Riviere du Loup that I spoke of a little while ago. It is something along the line of the Halifax shops, designed to carry on light repairs.	*


George Eulas Foster: Are these shops at all equal to those at Halifax?


George Perry Graham: Not so large as at Halifax. This is more for locomotives; the car repairs are made more in the Halifax shops.


George Eulas Foster: How much has been expended there?


George Perry Graham: Altogether, since there was a railway, $329,580.81.


George Eulas Foster: How many men have you there?


George Perry Graham: About 150 employed there now.


George Eulas Foster: How many at Halifax, when you were in full swing, but with no election on ?


George Perry Graham: I don't think it would vary much-about the same number as at Riviere du Loup.
At six o'clock Mr. Speaker took the Chair.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

George Eulas Foster: What is to be taken up after eight o'clock?


Mr. FIELDING.: Of course, there will be Private Bills for the first hour, and then 931
my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) will continue, to be followed, should he finish, by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley).


George Eulas Foster: We shall not be able to go on-with the item with reference to the Intercolonial, collection of revenue. We shall have to have our discussion on that. Could we take some part of it, or is it in one lump sum.


George Perry Graham: In a lump sum.


George Eulas Foster: We want a discussion on going into supply on that. We could finish the capital votes to-night, I suppose. Before Mr. Speaker leaves the Chair, I desire to say just a word with regard to the proposed work of Tuesday. Certain information was asked for by the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), and the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) has said that it would be supplied. But the Finance Minister will see that we ought to have it printed, and in time so that we may have an opportunity to study it. Does the hon. minister think he can have that information printed for us in good time for Tuesday?


William Stevens Fielding: I should hope to give the information on Tuesday. The bulk of it does not require much time to digest. The essential elements are simple. ,


George Eulas Foster: We can talk it over on Monday. But the minister had better keep it in mind. This is a very important question, and we should be placed in a position to discuss it intelligently.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes. As soon as mention was made of the matter, I put it in hand and an officer was sent to Montreal to expedite, as much as possible, getting the information concerning the company's affairs.
At six o'clock House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. BICKERDIKE moved the third reading of Bill (No. 71) respecting a patent of Thos. L. Smith.
Mr. PERLEY.: The gentleman who objected to the passage of this Bill the other evening simply wished to know whether the Minister of Agriculture had had it under his notice and was satisfied to have it go through.


William Stevens Fielding: I am sorry the minister is not here. If no objection has been taken

to the Bill the assumption would be that it has received his approval, but I have not spoken with him concerning it.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 481 respecting the Montreal Terminal Railway Company-Mr. Geoffrion.
Bill (No. 66) respecting the Abitibi and Hudson Bay Railway Company-Mr. Geo. Gordon.
Bill (No. 67) respecting the Alsek and Yukon Railway Company-Mr. W. McIntyre.
Bill (No. 68) respecting the Athabask'a Railway Company-Mr. W. McIntyre.
Bill (No. 70) respecting the St. Mary's and Western Ontario Railway Company- Mr. Nesbitt.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Improvements at Campbellton, $64,500.
['This is rather an old story. Mr. Buell has been engaged for some time investigating express matters for the commission. I do not know just what this particular work is but he is not a counsel engaged to present the general complaints of the people against the railway companies. This is rather an investigation into the methods of the express companies which has been going on for a year and a half or two years.']
George Halsey Perley: Will the minister please explain this?


George Perry Graham: This is for continuing the improvements that we have been carrying on at Campbellton. This is for the extension of the water supply, additional accommodation for baggage and express, oil house, six stall section of new engine house, turn table, enlarging station, ice house, &c. There was an expenditure last year of $8,887.78. Tenders were asked for by posters.


George Halsey Perley: As the vote is very much larger this year than last, are some of these new works that you are undertaking?


George Perry Graham: This is a continuation of works that were undertaken last year. They are not new.
Improvements at Point Tupper, $4,000.


George Perry Graham: This is for a brick building, for transfer bridge, engine house, to raise reservoir and a few other minor things.
To provide a subway crossing at Eastville, berts, about two miles north of Londonderry station, $5,000.


George Perry Graham: This is to remove a level crossing.
To provide a subway crossing at Eastville, about one mile south of Londonderry station, $10,000.


George Perry Graham: This is a dangerous crossing in a very deep cut. There have been some accidents ana we have decided to remove the crossing.


William Stevens Fielding: Rolling stock, $170,550.


George Perry Graham: This is to provide a commissary car, to equip 500 platform cars with racks for carrying pulpwood, to increase the size of steam heating pipes in passenger cars, to equip cars with new gas light apparatus and several other contingencies.
New machinery for locomotive and car shops, $95,800.


George Perry Graham: This was explained pretty well before we adjourned for dinner in connection with the several works at the Moncton shops.
Prince Edward Island Railway-branch line, Harmony to Elmira, $50,000.


Mr. FRASER.: I wish to ask the minister if it is the intention of the government to build that railway the present year. I had some questions on the Order Paper some time ago, and I regret to say that the answers were not quite clear. One question was this:
Is it the intention of the government to begin the construction of the road during the present year?
The answer is as follows:
It is the intention to begin the work.
Does that mean that the government is going to start the construction of the road this present year?


George Perry Graham: We have asked for tenders and to assure my hon. friend that we mean to go right on with it we have asked the people submitting the lowest tender whether, if we accept their tender, they will agree to proceed as far as this appropriation will allow them this year, on the understanding that we will provide for some more expenditure during the following year. We are awaiting their reply. We expect to let the contract shortly. We intend to proceed with the work just as soon as the conditions will allow us to.


Austin Levi Fraser: The contract has not been let then?


George Perry Graham: It is just in the condition I have described. We have the tenders and the lowest tender will be accepted if they will agree, as I have suggested, to be content with this expenditure this year, in the hope that we may be able to proceed more rapidly with the work next year. I am asking them to accept the contract on that understanding.


Austin Levi Fraser: The minister is well aware that this is only a very short piece of road and it seems like making two bites of a cherry to extend the construction over two years. The road is only ten miles in length.


George Perry Graham: It is estimated to cost $380,000.


Austin Levi Fraser: The lowest tender is not quite as high as that, I understand.


George Perry Graham: I have not the lowest tender with me. I would not care to make it public until it is accepted.


Austin Levi Fraser: Is it the intention to build the road on the line surveyed? This road has been used as a political football.


George Perry Graham: I would not think that.


Austin Levi Fraser: It is very hard to be responsible for what the minister may think on these matters. I would not like to hold myself responsible for his thoughts.


George Perry Graham: It would be a dangerous experiment.


Austin Levi Fraser: The first survey that I remember was started in 1904, just as the elections were going on, and it ran from Souris in a different' direction from the route according to the last survey. The survey in 1904 was run in the direction of Souris, and although that survey cost three or four thousand dollars, when the elections were over no effort was made to build the line and the whole thing was hung up until the general elections were approaching last year. Then, they ran a survey out to Harmony six miles within the previous survey, and just before the elections tenders were called to be opened on the 31st of October, five days after the elections. Why, the woods were full of people running surveys.


George Perry Graham: It did not seem to do any good in your county.


Austin Levi Fraser: Well, you can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time, and as you could not fool them they elected me. The people were tired and sick of this surveying business. In my county during the last two elections there were surveys made for five or six branch lines of railways and no wonder there is a deficit on the Prince Edward Railway when you are wasting thousands of dollars in fruitless surveys like this. In one of the leading Liberal papers in my constituency published on the 16th of March I find this statement:
The contract for building the Elmira branch will shortly he let and the work is expected to start on the 1st of June.
I ask the Minister of Railways is there any foundation for that report?


George Perry Graham: I am not responsible for what every newspaper publishes, but I have stated clearly and distinctly what is to be done, and I cannot make it clearer if I should repeat my statement.


Austin Levi Fraser: Then, if the tenderers are not satisfied to take the contract with the conditions stated the contract will not be let. Is that your answer?


George Perry Graham: The hon. gentleman will not get me to make any statement along the lines he suggests. We are going to spend the amount of this appropriation on that branch this year, but not any more, owing to conditions which I have explained to the House, and which I think the financial world will say are justified under the circumstances. We intend to build this road from Elmira to Harmony and the fact that my hon. friend was elected will not change our intention one iota. We expect to build a good road there with all possible speed, but owing to present conditions we will not spend more than $50,000 on the work this year.


Austin Levi Fraser: I am pleased to hear the minister say that the road will be built.


George Perry Graham: Don't stop the estimates then, and let us get a start.


Austin Levi Fraser: The minister says the estimate for this 10 miles is $300,000?


George Perry Graham: 


Austin Levi Fraser: My memory is that it was stated it would cost about $200,000.


George Perry Graham: $380,000 is the estimate, and I think the hon. gentleman will find it will cost that before we are done with it. I do not think a railway can be built for less than $38,000 a mile through that country.


Austin Levi Fraser: Is it the intention of the government to delay this until there is another election coming on.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend is not serious in asking that. By the way, there possibly may be a by-election;, has my hon. friend any fears about that?


Austin Levi Fraser: No one on either side of the House can say when these by-elections may come. We have heard complaints in this House about deficits on the Prince Edward Island Railway, but the minister knows very well that part of the waste takes place during election years, and that the deficit in an election year is always larger than in any other year.


George Perry Graham: This year is an exception. I am happy to say the Prince Edward Island has done better this year.


Austin Levi Fraser: That may be, but the history of that railway is that for a month or two before the elections there are spare hands and extra hands employed along the railroad until they are almost as thick as potato bugs. I have a map here which

*shows that there were five or six branch lines from Montague under survey last Summer previous to the election, but not one mile of railroad has been built and there is not one dollar in the estimates to build it. Is it right to use the people's money in this way, sending a number of people out picknicking and chasing rabbits and partridges through the woods in the fall of the year, when you are pretending to make surveys.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What about the tun nel?


Austin Levi Fraser: We will come to the tunnel later on and I hope you will not oppose it. I can tell the minister that if the government is going to build the road from Elmira to Harmony according to the last survey it is going to inconvenience the people from Elmira a great deal because they will have to travel by rail about five or six miles further than if the government had built the railway according to the survey of 1904 which came in on the old line and went through the village of Souris. That is the proper route on which to build the railway if ever it is built. Last year however, they changed the survey and took it out to the old line and you have to travel out to the old line about six miles before you come to the branch, and the people from Souris and east of Souris who will use this railway will have to pay extra freight and passenger rates on this additional six miles which they would not have to pay if the line was built as at first surveyed through the village of Souris and out east. This is one of the things that leads the people to believe that the government is not serious ibout building that road. Can the minister tell us why he changed the route, and instead of starting the railway from Souris, he started it from Harmony?


George Perry Graham: This matter was left to the engineer to give us the most direct route, and I understand that he did. My hon. friend may be speaking for a particular section, but I understand from himself that this road runs through a section of country which it would not run through if it took the route he suggests, through a section which has already railway facilities.


Austin Levi Fraser: I do not think the minister understands the matter clearly. The old route runs almost east and west, but at Harmony it turns and runs almost directly south for a distance of five miles to the village of Souris. Then it runs in a northeasterly direction to Elmira. This route was surveyed in 1904, and it is the proper location. This time, instead of turning into the village of Souris the route stops at Harmony, and runs in an easterly direction to Elmira. The railway will not begin at Souris, but at a side station called Harmony. The people of all parts know that Mr. FRASER.
the proper location is the one surveyed in 1904, to give accommodation to the people of Souris and the public generally. I would ask the minister why he changed the location since?


George Perry Graham: The minister made no change at all. He asked the engineer to survey the most direct route, and he did so. My hon. friend is speaking for Souris, of course, but Souris has already railway accommodation, and to run that line to Souris would be to give it a second line. This line is not continued to Souris, but when it reaches Harmony it goes straight on. I do not blame my hon. friend for urging the claims of Souris; that is natural; but we want to accommodate the most people, and from the railway standpoint, we regard the present route as the best.
Mr. FRASER Why was the survey made in 1904?
M. GRAHAM. I cannot speak as to that. I am speaking of what was done last year. I may say that the chief engineer is going to visit the ground before the road is constructed, and will report upon it himself.


Mr. WARBURTON.: I know a good deal of this section of country, having spent a good many summers there, and I think the route chosen will be found to be the most direct. Personally I would like the road to go to Souris, but that would probably lengthen it. By bringing it to Harmony, and continuing it from there to Elmira, as is proposed, you get a direct and straight road; whereas if you turned to the south at Harmony to carry it to Souris, you would of course reach the harbour, but you would then run northward again and skip a certain portion of country in the centre. The northern shore, near the east point of Elmira, is a very fine part of the country. If you deflected the line to the south, you would neglect the northern and central portions of Kings county. The centre of Kings county is a very fine section, but it has not been very much developed. The woods are excellent and the soil exceedingly good. If it were made fairly accessible, it would be one of the most fertile sections of Prince Edward Island, which is saying a great deal. The line as proposed will be a very direct line to Elmira or East Point. The hon. member for Kings (Mr. Fraser) in criticising the surveys made last year on Prince Edward Island, spoke of some seven lines having been surveyed. I may say that that is a rather unfortunate number for Conservative members to refer to; because I remember that in 1896 the then leader of the Conservative government came to Prince Edward Island, and he used this mystical number of seven in promising branch railways to the people; but it happened that they did not place much confidence in his promises. Among the lines he promised

was this Elmira branch. Every time there was to be an election it was brought up. It was like the robins coming in spring; whenever you heard of the Elmira branch, you knew that an election was coming on. It became a proverb in Prince Edward Island. The same thing happened in Kings county with regard to the Murray Harbour branch, which used to be surveyed whenever an election was coming on; but as soon as the election was over the surveyors were called oft'. It became such a humbug that in 1896, the last time the Conservative government's surveyors came, the farmers pulled up their stakes and drove them off their places . I am glad to say that that road has been since built by the present government. Last year surveys were made where several short spurs were required. Our Conservative friends thought, or sai,d they thought, that every one of these tidal surveys meant a railway which the present government was offering to the people in order to get their votes. One of these surveys was made in my own county, and I hope to see a railway built there before long. It is needed. I have been inquiring, and find that the surveys were completed. The plans and reports are not yet in, hut I hope they soon will be. These surveys were made, the people were told at every public meeting, for the purpose of persuading them that they would all have a railway at their own doors. That was not the case. They were made for the purpose of ascertaining what would be the best route, and the best route would be selected, as will be done in the case of the Elmira branch. No doubt that is the reasou so many trial surveys are made, but my hon. friend seems to think they were done for the purpose of influencing the election. Several of the branches are much needed, and no branch will be built. The Elmira branch will no doubt be constructed. It was proposed by the Conservatives some thirty years ago, but the only hope the people have of getting it is from the present government.


George Taylor: Have the engineers who were on these surveys made their reports ?


George Perry Graham: Yes, but I have not got them here. I will give them to my hon. friend.


George Taylor: I want to read a quotation from a letter I received from a friend of mine a few days ago. In that letter he says:
The great engine in their hands was however railway surveys. Survey parties were at work over nearly the half of Queens county. The place were dotted over with white tents, where so-called engineers with crews of 12 to 14 men were driving stakes through farmers' fields. The railway was of course g-'i".-through their farms and liberal payments were to be made for the rights of way, and
there would be abundance of work and good pay for everybody. Those were called trial surveys, and went to French River, New London, Stanley Bridge, Wheatley river, North and South Rustico, Stanhope, Bedford, Suffolk Covehead, Bedford. Also Valleyfield, Hac-kendale, Murray Harbour Road, Bellevue, Iona, Grand View, Lyndale, Fairville, &c.
The minister has the reports on all these routes and will, no doubt, as he promised, lay them on the table.
The Minister of Railways in the last of the session placed $10,000 in the supplementary estimates, and it was used solely to defeat us. The accompanying map may give some idea of the work. The reports of these engineers should be asked for.
Did the minister put $10,000 in the supplementary estimates of last year, and was that spent paying these tenting parties, which came out just a week or two before the elections and drove stakes and made surveys. My correspondent sends me maps of the lines of survey, and there are red lines in all directions covering every farm on the island.


George Perry Graham: I will bring down the reports and a statement of the whole thing.


George Halsey Perley: How much of last year's estimate of $30,000 was spent?


George Perry Graham: 


Mr FRASER.: What was that $3,000 for?


George Perry Graham: It was paid for the survey.


George Taylor: Did that cover it? *


George Perry Graham: It covered the amount spent on this particular branch.


George Taylor: How much was spent on the island?


George Perry Graham: I will give a statement of that.


George Taylor: Has the hon. gentleman the expenditure in connection with the Prince Edward Island survey ?


George Perry Graham: No, I have not.


Alexander Bannerman Warburton: A great many of those surveys were done since the election.


George Taylor: No, they were called off the next week.


Austin Levi Fraser: Some time ago I put a question on the Order Paper asking how much had been spent out of this $31,000 for construction and I received an answer that $3,077 had been spent for construction on the Elmira branch. I was very much pleased to hear the minister say that before this branch was finally located, an engineer would go down and locate it "where it will do the most good to the greatest number of people. When the engineers do so, no doubt the branch will be located where the survey was run in 1904.

and that is through the village of Souris East. Souris is the only shipping port in that part of the country for many miles, and all the freight would have to be carried there from East Point and Elmira. If the road is put where the last survey ran, or six miles farther than they would over where the 1904 line was located, because the branch running from Souris to Elmira will be very little if any longer than the branch running from Harmony to Elmira. But when they get to Harmony, they will have to go in five or six miles over the bid road and will have to pay passenger and freight rates on the six miles, which will be a considerable expense and not give accommodation to the people through Souris as if the branch were built through Souris as outlined in the survey of 1904. If the minister will say that before this branch is finally located, an engineer will be sent, that will give assurance to the people because the people want to have the line into Souris East.


George Perry Graham: The chief engineer will go down himself.
To increase accommodation at Charlottetown, $184,000.


George Perry Graham: This is for a wharf and freight shed, $53,000, extension of the east side of wharf $11,000, engine house $11,000, additional freight accommodation $10,000 There was expended last year $138,000.
There has been expended at Charlottetown [DOT]all told something like half a million dollars. Tenders were asked for the wharf [DOT]and Messrs. Reid and Archibald got the [DOT]contract. Mr. Clark got it for the freight [DOT]shed.


Austin Levi Fraser: Has the minister received any complaints concerning the new station built at Charlottetown about a year ago? I have a letter, lately received, saying that the roof is leaking badly, that the plastering is falling down and the workmen are. engaged already making repairs, and also' that there are several large cracks in the stonework and in the concrete around the building. Has the hon. gentleman any information as to the defective work that seems to have been done there?


George Perry Graham: I think the defects cannot be very serious, for we have not heard anything of them in the department. I have had the misfortune to do some building myself, and I imagine that there is no building in the world, if looked at twelve months after construction by a person who wishes to find fault, but some defects will appear. I am informed hat this building in Charlottetown is a first-class building.
_ Mr. FRASER. I am only furnishing the information I have, and if it is true there Mr. FRASER.
must have been some very defective work there.


George Perry Graham: We will make inquiries.


Mr. PROWSE.: I had the privilege of going through there two weeks ago. There were a couple of places where the roof leaked, but not seriously. I did not hear about any cracks, and if they had been there I think I should have heard about them. Some people are apt to make mountains out of molehills, and you cannot always rely on what you hear.


George Taylor: I must ask the minister to let the next two items stand- the Transcontinental and the Hudson Bay Railway.


George Perry Graham: Does the hon. member want the Hudson Bay item to stand also?


George Taylor: Yes; the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) cannot be present to-night, and he has some inquiries to make.


George Perry Graham: The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) asked me not to go on with the working expenses item to-night, and if these others are not to be taken up, I have no more estimates to go on with. I would not have agreed not to go on with the revenue item if I had known that exception would be taken to going on with any of these expenditures on capital.


George Taylor: There are only two items here.


George Perry Graham: I think it not unreasonable to ask that the Transcontinental item should stand, but I think the Hudson Bay item should go through.


Mr. LAKE.: The minister might give some information as to the Hudson Bay vote, and that might be sufficient to allow it to pass later on. We would like to hear as to the surveys, and also as to the future policy of the government in this matter.
U Mr. GRAHAM. Somd days ago, I laid on the table all the information with regard to the surveys up to a couple of weeks ago. The gist of that information is the raising of the question as to whether Fort Nelson is not a more favourable harbour than Churchill. As we wish to get the best possible harbour, I am asking for an appropriation to make a further survey of Nelson as well as Churchill. If I remember well, the engineer figures, that the route to Nelson will be sixty miles shorter than to Churchill. If that be the case, and if we can do as well or better by going tot Nelson, it would be foolish for us to build these sixty miles of road. The country toward Nelson, I believe, is equally as good as the other. That question having been raised by the engineers, my idea was that
2962

we ought to spend a little more money and learn just where is the best port. The road will stand in just the same position as before so far as construction is concerned. We have no idea of abandoning the project, and will proceed at the earliest possible moment that the conditions will warrant, but I am asking for $65,000, part of it a revote, to learn the best route and the best harbour,-but, of course, not to proceed with actual construction.


Richard Stuart Lake: No survey of Churchill has been made?


George Perry Graham: Yes, they have made a survey of Churchill.


Richard Stuart Lake: But not of Nelson?


George Perry Graham: No.


Richard Stuart Lake: Do we understand that this money is simply for the examination of the harbours and nothing beyond that?


George Perry Graham: It is absolutely for survey work; it is to be spent to gain information. Of course, with this amount, we could not do anything in construction.


Richard Stuart Lake: There will be an examination of the harbours, I suppose ?


George Perry Graham: Yes, we are asking our engineers to get all possible information as to the harbours also. The hon. member (Mr. Lake) threw out the suggestions as to the possibility of making ocean navigation as far as Winnipeg. That does not enter into our calculation in asking this amount; that is a question for the future. Our present object is to make sure of the port to which we should build the road.


Richard Stuart Lake: It was understood by this House, I think, that the money to be expended on the construction of the Hudson Bay Railway was to come from a special fund to be created by the sale of pre-emptions.


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Richard Stuart Lake: L understand that a certain amount of that fund has already been provided. Does the minister know how much that fund is at present, and can he estimate how much will be available twelve months from now, when, as I understand, he expects the actual work of construction to go on?


George Perry Graham: This is not in my department, but in the Department of the Interior, but I think little or none of that money can be available yet. If my memory serves me well, the purchasers of these lands have a certain time in which to make payments, and so there will not be any money in the treasury from the sale of these lands at present. An hon. friend near me informs me that there is a small amount on hand.. But, of course, it must go into the Consoli-
19, 1909
dated Fund and be voted out just as though it were not the proceeds of the sale of these lands. There is no intention of abandoning the work, but it is in the same position as other large works and at present we do not feel like proceeding with it. Construction will be proceeded with as soon as conditions prevail that will allow us to undertake it. We want in the meantime to ascertain the b'est available route with the best available port, as between Fort Nelson and Fort Churchill. Perhaps the Minister of the Interior could give the infromation as to the money obtained from the pre-emptions.


Frank Oliver: I had the figures here a few days ago but I have forgotten exactly what they are. The payments on pre-emp-tibns do not become due for three years so that no money has yet been received, but about two millions acres of land have been taken as pre-emptions. Whatever has been paid in on account of purchased homesteads, upon which the first payments are made with the entry, will be in the treasury and could be considered as available for construction purposes, but what the amount is I cannot at the moment say.


Richard Stuart Lake: Will the government wait until they derive sufficient money from pre-emptions before commencing work or will they place the money from the preemptions in a special fund and pay for the construction of the railway from that fund, providing the money for construction immediately and recouping themselves from the fund afterwards?


George Perry Graham: I think that the question of the amount of money received from the pre-emptions would not control the beginning of the road and as proof of that, if conditions had not arisen which have impelled us to cease for a time from undertaking these large works the construction would have been started perhaps this season, but that condition having arisen and there being also the other question which the hon. gentleman has raised as to the comparative merits of the two ports, I think it would be advisable even if we had the money on hand and were otherwise ready to start, to wait until we made a full and complete survey of the other route.


Richard Stuart Lake: I agree as to the advisability of waiting to ascertain which is the best port, but that will not occupy the whole of the next year and the money might now be taken for the commencement of construction. However, the government have decided not to take that money and the opposition have no power to move an amendment in that direction; we have to accept the position as it exists. Is it the policy of the government to construct the road as a government work or to place it in the hands of a private corporation?


George Perry Graham: The question of how the road shall be constructed is a large one. I think that last session it was left in this way, that the government proposed to construct or to have constructed a line from The Pas to a port on Hudson bay. The Premier during his tour stated that the government proposed to construct it as a government road. I do not pretend to be quoting him literally but I think that was the meaning of his utterance at Niagara.


Richard Stuart Lake: I do not think it was as definite as that; I understood at that time he had not made up his mind. He may have made up his mind since, but at Niagara I think he said it was still an open subject as to whether it should be dealt with by the government or handed over , to a private corporation.


George Perry Graham: I would not care to go any further than the Premier's statement at Niagara, and I have given what I construed to be the meaning of that statement.


Richard Stuart Lake: The minister stated that the government was prepared to construct a line to the Hudson bay from The Pas on the Saskatchewan river. What is the condition of the line now running to The fas? Are trains running over it and do the government propose to make it j)art of their system or will they construct abroad quite independently of the present line to I he Pas.


George Perry Graham: The government's idea was to construct from The Pas Mission to a poTt on Hudson bay and not to duplicate a line already constructed. The idea of the construction of the government road was to give railway connection from the nearest line to a Hudson bay port. I think I had some complaint a few weeks ago that trains had not been running regularly on this line. I communicated with the railway company and was informed that the trains were starting on a certain date and since that time I have not had any complaint.


Richard Stuart Lake: The line as I understand was reported completed to a considerable distance last year and the land grant of 12,800 acres a mile was granted to the Canadian Northern Railway. Were trains running over the line so reported as completed during last summer? I Understand that trains can run over the line in winter when the ground is frozen. But I have had information given to me from a credible source that it is practically impossible to run trains over that line during the summer season when the frost is out of the ground. Could the minister give the committee some information in regard to that particular matter? It would be very interesting to me to hear what the condition is and whether the government is propos-


Richard Stuart Lake: ing to take any steps to have that line put into a condition that trains can be run regularly over it during the present season?


George Perry Graham: If I had any information concerning it I would be delighted to give it to the committee. The only complaints concerning this line, as far as I can remember, except my hon. friend's observations last session in the committee, were the ones to which I have referred and no further communication having been made on the subject for a certain length of time-


Richard Stuart Lake: How long?


George Perry Graham: I cannot just say. It was for some time, but I am not prepared to ,say because my memory does not serve me. But, on communication with the railway company they said that they were starting a train. I conveyed this communication to the gentleman who made the complaint. Since then I have not heard. They may be running a train or they may not be. But I should think that a question of that kind would be the subject matter of a complaint to the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Richard Stuart Lake: The minister has stated that it is the intention of the government to run this line simply as far as The Pas from the Hudson bay. I hope he will reconsider that decision. It appears to me that if this line is to be run as a government undertaking, as I understand from the minister that is his general idea of the matter at the present time, it would be very inexpedient to run it simply as a feeder to the Canadian Northern Railway. I have always held the opinion that the Hudson Bay Railway should be a government undertaking and that it should be run so that it could make connection with the three great railways of that country, the Grand Trunk Pacific, the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern Railway, so that the shippers on these lines of railway will be able to get the full benefit from its construction and operation. I hope the minister will come to see that that view of the case is the correct one, and that he will not start out with the idea that his railway is simply to stop at The Pas.


Mr. MAGRATH.: I would like to ask the minister if I am correct in understanding him to say that no work will be done on the construction of the work this year?


George Perry Graham: No.


Richard Stuart Lake: I would like to ask the gov-erment whether the inspector has passed the whole of the road from Etiomami to The Pas? I think the latest information which was given to this House was that a considerable portion of the road had been accepted and passed by the government inspector. Has it all been passed and has the land grant been given upon the whole of the railway up to the present time?


George Perry Graham: My present information is that it has not been altogether, but I would not say that for sure. I can get that information and give it to my hon. friend to-morrow.


Mr. W. H. SHARPE.: From what point is this new survey going to start?


George Perry Graham: It will start from The Pas Mission or from a point on the survey already made to Nelson. It will go along the Nelson river probably.


Richard Stuart Lake: I understand the minister has agreed to give me this information the next time his estimates are up?


George Perry Graham: I will send it to my hon. friend.


Mr. BRADBURY.: I find in the Votes and Proceedings of last session, No. 39, that the following subsidy was given to the Canadian Pacific Railway:
To the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, for a line of railway from Winnipeg beach northerly to Gimli, not exceeding 9J miles; and a line from Gimli to Riverton, not exceeding 25 miles; not exceeding in all 3i% miles.
Under what conditions was that subsidy granted and how long have the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to build that line? This is a very important line to the settlers in that district, and I would like to know if this is just to remain a subsidy or whether the road is to be actually built. The people have been promised this road for years. Before the elections this subsidy was used in that part of the constituency as an inducement to the electorate to vote for the government candidate. I want to know if the government are going to ask the Canadian Pacific Railway to build that line?


George Perry Graham: Of course, this is in the statute now and so long as they comply with the statute the government have no power. They are given the regular time in their charter to begin and to complete the railway. The House need not renew that charter and when their charter lapses their subsidy also lapses. The Subsidy Act itself fixes the time for starting and completing the work. If they do not comply with the statute and if they ask for a renewal of the subsidy, parliament, in its wisdom, may not renew it.


George Henry Bradbury: How long will it be before they will have to ask for a renewal?


George Perry Graham: I would not like to speak from memory. If my hon. friend will look up last year's statute he will find it stated there.


George Henry Bradbury: There is another matter I want to draw the minister's attention to and that is the condition of the Komarno branch through to Icelandic river.
They have built that road to a point on Russell lake. The work was stopped last September and the contractors were taken off, but just on the eve of the election, my opponent, Mr. Jackson, went out and engaged 150 Galicians and put them to work on the dump. As soon as the elections were over these men were taken off. I would ask it the Canadian Pacific Railway will be required to complete that road at once. It is a great hardship to the people of Icelandic river that the road should not be completed. I do not know whether the government or the Canadian Pacific Railway were responsible, but somebody was responsible for putting these men on.


George Perry Graham: These roads are all being constructed under the same condition. I am surprised, to put it mildly, that the Canadian Pacific Railway would do anything to assist the present government'. I did not suspect them, but if my hon. friend assures me that it is so I would take his word absolutely, even although I were not obliged to, because I believe it would be correct if he said so, but it inspires a new feeling within me to think the Canadian Pacific Railway did that.


George Henry Bradbury: I want to assure the minister that it is an absolute fact that 150 men were put on the road and that immediately after the election the men were taken off the work.


George Taylor: They were paid out of the election fund.


George Henry Bradbury: I do not know how they were paid. They got their money I presume.
Public Works, Ont.-Blanche river-improvements on main stream and south branch, $6,500.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: This is to remove snags and cut channels through shoals obstructing navigation at low water on the Blanche river which empties into Lake Temiskam-ing. There is quite a settlement on that river. The work was commenced in 1904-05.


George Taylor: Is there navigation?


William Pugsley: Yes, for small vessels; there are four boats now on the river.
Burlington channel piers-reconstruction, $50,000.


William Pugsley: This is contract work. It is for reconstructing the piers destroyed by storm.


Mr. HENDERSON.: When were they destroyed?


William Pugsley: In the spring of last year.


David Henderson: Will the piers be of concrete?


William Pugsley: Yes. This forms the entrance to Hamilton harbour. We are building piers both on the lake side and on the bay side.


David Henderson: Will this vote complete the work?


William Pugsley: No; the total probable cost will be $110,000.


Mr. A. HAGGART.: Why is the work not included in one contract?


William Pugsley: The head blocks are by contract, but much of the other work is repair work and the engineers say that it can be more economically done by day's labour.


David Henderson: Who is the contractor?


William Pugsley: Joseph Battle.


David Henderson: The work on this channel has been going on continuously year after year for a long time. It is the duty of the government to keep that channel open and it is absolutely necessary to do this work because this forms the outlet from Lake Ontario to the city of Hamilton. I remember that at one time I suggested that instead of spending $50,000 a year the government had much better ask a sufficient amount to complete the whole job at once.


William Pugsley: Since confederation $200,000 have been spent there and before confederation, $400,000.


David Henderson: It would be much better to complete the work at once and give the people of Hamilton the benefit of it rather than to make this vote a kind of hardy annual.


William Pugsley: Repairs have been necessary from year to year, but last spring there was a large amount of damage done.


Mr. BARR.: When will the work be finished?


William Pugsley: In about two years.


Mr. MARSHALL.: What is the length of these piers?


William Pugsley: The wooden superstructure to be replaced by concrete on the south pier is 1,500 feet by 20 feet and there is a further reconstruction in concrete 420 feet by 30 feet. I presume the north pier is about the same length.
Cobourg-Extension of breakwater, dredging, &c., $60,000.


William Pugsley: This is contract work and the total probable cost to complete the improvements will be $154,000 outside of the dredging.


George Taylor: Who has the contract?


David Henderson: 


William Pugsley: The Randolph Macdonald Co., Limited, has the contract for the breakwater; W. E. Phin has the dredging.


John Barr: What do you pay for the
dredging?


William Pugsley: For rock $3 a yard; all other materials, such as sand and clay, 18 bents a yard, scow measurement.
Goderich harbour, repairs to piers, &c., $5,350.


William Pugsley: This is for renewals of the walings on the piers, and general repairs, estimated at $1,000; and for 290 feet lineal of protection work on the inner harbour. This work is done by day's work.


George Taylor: Why not put it under contract?


William Pugsley: These repairs can hardly be put up to tender.
Harbours, rivers and bridges, general repairs and improvements, $25,000.


David Henderson: I think the minister said that the piers of Burlington channel were destroyed or badly damaged a year br so ago by a heavy storm. I may say that at that part of the lake there appears to be a good deal of washing away of the banks. The village of Burlington is within 'about half a mile of the Burlington channel, and there is a continual washing away bf the shore in front of the village, and also two or three miles eastward; and the people there have an impression that it is the duty of this government to construct a breakwater to prevent this continual washing away, otherwise the village may rbe gradually wiped out. It is already encroaching very closely on the leading street of the village. The village has a population of only 1,700 or 1,800, and could not afford the expense of constructing a breakwater, and the people are looking to this government to do something of the kind.


William Pugsley: Why to this government ?


David Henderson: I will tell the hon. gentleman why, and I have a very good reason. The gentleman who opposed me in the last election promised the people that if he were elected he would secure a breakwater. I assume that he did not make that promise off his own bat, but that he must have had some instruction from the Minister of Public Works that a breakwater would be constructed there, and he held that out as a reason why the people should vote for him instead of for me.


William Pugsley: What did the hon. gentleman promise?


David Henderson: I promised nothing. I simply promised that I would call the minister's attention to it.


William Pugsley: I suppose that is all the promise he made.


David Henderson: No, he promised a great deal more than that. I have been informed that he promised the breakwater. The Minister of Agriculture went into that county to speak on behalf of this gentleman, which gave him a standing, and the people had the right to expect that any pledge given by him would be carried out by the government for which he was seeking their support. If the promise was made in good faith by the government or through the government candidate, I think the minister ought to do something about it. I think it is a proper thing to do, and I believe the government is spending money in a great many instances where possibly it would not be doing as good service. I may say that while there is a considerable amount of shipping from that port, it has never to my knowledge had a dollar of government money expended there, either in dredging or in building a dock. Any docks there are private docks, and the government could well afford a do something of this kind for the people. I think it is the duty of the government to protect the village, and not allow a portion of it to be practically washed away. Since the promise was made by the government candidate, I hope the hon. minister will send an engineer to look into the matter and see if something can be done. The matter will have to be dealt with some dav, either by the municipality or by the government. I do not see that the provincial government can be called on to do it.


William Pugsley: Why not? Is it not purely local in its character?


David Henderson: There are a great many local things done by the government. The building of the Burlington piers is local.


William Pugsley: That is for the advantage of navigation.


David Henderson: And the other is for the protection of the village.


William Pugsley: Is not that the distinction?


David Henderson: I do not know that the distinction is sufficient. The inland waters are, I think, under the care of this government.


William Pugsley: Only navigation.


David Henderson: And it is the inland waters that are practically washing away the people's farms and highways. It seems to me that this is the government that will have to do that work by and by, and the sooner it is undertaken the better. If this washing away is allowed to go on for a few years longer, a great deal of harm
will be done, and it will certainly cost more to_ prevent it five years after this than it will now. I would suggest to the minister that while his engineers are engaged in examining the Burlington canal, which is within two and a-half or three miles away from the places I speak of, it would be well to send one to look into this matter.


William Pugsley: Do I understand my hon. friend to say that he knows personally that the Liberal candidate promised that a breakwater would be built and that he had the authority of the government for making that statement.


David Henderson: I did not hear him make that statement, but I have it on authority perfectly reliable, and I have no doubt he promised those people that he would apply to the government for the construction of a breakwater there to prevent the shore from washing away.


William Pugsley: That is a different statement? He said he would apply to the government.


David Henderson: But he did not get
elected.


William Pugsley: That is not his fault.


David Henderson: The people, I presume, did not put much confidence in him and had the good sense to believe that the Minister of Public Works would not be so corrupt as to build a breakwater only on condition that a supporter of the government would be elected. If it is a proper and -wise thing to build that breakwater, I have no doubt the minister would do it just as well as if the other gentlemen were elected. I was not present at any of the meetings and did not hear the gentleman make that statement, but that was the current report, and I have not the slightest doubt as to its accuracy. But apart from that, the claim is a propeT one. That important village and shore has never received any government consideration whatever. It is a place of considerable importance. There is a large amount of grain and apples shipped from there, and they have never received a dollar foT the construction of a pier or the dredging of their harbour. I am happy to say that they have a sufficient depth of water without dredging, but as for the docks, they are private and belong to the men who do the shipping business. If the minister will promise to send an engineer to look into the matter and see what can be done, he will be taking a step in the right direction.


William Pugsley: The reason I asked my hon. friend if he ever heard the statement made by the Liberal candidate that this breakwater would be built, was because I have heard a good many rumours as tc

alleged statements made by Liberal candidates and have found, on inquiry, that they were absolutely without foundation.


David Henderson: No doubt the hon. minister will find that this one is correct.


William Pugsley: If my hon. friend had heard the statement he would be sure.


David Henderson: I did not hear it myself, but have it on the best authority.


William Pugsley: What I would rather assume is that probably the Liberal candidate, being impressed by the necessity for this work, promised that if he were elected, he would urge it on the favourable consideration of the government, and I would rather infer, from the last version which my hon. friend gave, that that was all the candidate said. This matter had not been very strongly brought to my attention, and I certainly gave no assurance that a breakwater would be built there and did not authorize any one to give that assurance. But as the matter is brought to my attention, I shall have it looked into.


David Henderson: That is all I can expect the hon. minister to say at present.


William Pugsley: With regard to many improvements of this character a question of great importance is arising and will no doubt be pressed home upon us very strongly in the future, and that is how far the federal government should go in the carrying on of protection works which are not for the purposes of navigation, but to protect towns and villages situated as Burlington is. I have during the past year been asked to join in the cost of building protection works on the Fraser river; and as towns and villages grow up on that very extensive river, there will be very large demands of a similar nature from them in the future. If I would undertake these works on behalf of this government, the federal exchequer would have very heavy burdens imposed on it. In the past we have done works of this character. On the Fraser river we have borne one half the cost, sharing the cost jointly with the provincial government. We have been asked to do that on the Saskatchewan river near Edmonton and at other localities where there is equal danger. Only the other day my hon. friend from Chicoutimi and Saguenay (Mr. Girard) wrote a very strong letter inclosing petitions setting foTth, the very serious condition of affairs at a place some distance below the Saguenay where there is a large village located on the banks of the St. Lawrence, and where the banks are very high and there is considerable danger of their sliding into the St. Lawrence, causing great destruction of property and loss of life. I did not feel that this was a federal work for which I could pledge the government to ask parlia-Mr. PUGSLEY.
ment for an appropriation. The work has nothing to do with navigation, it is purely local in its character, and hon. gentlemen will see how difficult it is to draw the line. It requires great consideration, because if we undertake in a general way works of this character, it is difficult to estimate where we shall be able to stop.


George Taylor: The village of Burlington, on the shores of Lake Ontario, has been a very prosperous place for a great many years and a large shipping point, yet not a dollar of public money has ever been spent on the wharfs. Look at the millions we are voting to other provinces for similar works. But you may begin at Burlington and go down all the way as far as the province of Ontario extends and all along the shores of the St. Lawrence and Lake Ontario, and you will find that all the wharfs there have been erected by private individuals. In other provinces however the government not only builds the wharfs but will come down with an estimate for a wharf and turn it into a bridge. Here at Burlington, on the shores of Lake Ontario, the people built their own wharf, and not only the wharf, but the town is likelv to be undermined from the lake, yet the government will pay no attention to it although their candidate promised that they would give relief if he were elected. I have drawn attention on several occasions to the township of Wolfe Island. The people on that island have no means of getting off except by boat, and they have to put their hands into their own pockets and build their own wharfs. Wolfe Island is at the foot of Lake Ontario. The only way to get there is by steamer. Steamers ply on both sides and the government have never contributed a dollar. If it were a little creek in some of the other provinces, the government would build the wharfs themselves, and construct docks _ where there is no navigation. Application has been made on behalf of Burlington, and that application should be recognized by the government without delay. Last night we discussed a work carried on by this government-building a concrete pier for the municipality to set a bridge upon-


William Pugsley: That was four years ago


George Taylor: We had it before the committee last night. It was shown that it was built inshore from the current where it would not prevent the silt from coming down as was said to be the purpose. Why should not: the provincial government or the municipality be called upon to do that work? It would seem that the municipalities in constituencies that return sup porters of the government are treated differently from those that return members of the opposition. I think it is time that the government should come to some definite

understanding as to the kind of works it is their duty to erect and as to those which should be left to the province or municipality.
Little Current-improvement of Northern channel in Georgian bay, $28,000.


William Pugsley: This is to complete the dredging work of the year. It is very important work.


Mr. ARTHURS.: At what portion of the channel ?


William Pugsley: Right at the town of Little Current. We are widening the channel and straightening it. There is a very swift current there, and this work will make what is known as 'the inside route' for steamers. That is, it will pass inside Manitoulin Island.


Mr. W. R. SMYTH.: Is this vote of $28 -000 for work that has been done or for work that is to be done ?


William Pugsley: Work to be done during the coming season.


William Ross Smyth: I notice that in the supplementary estimates there is a vote of $82,000 for the same work.


William Pugsley: That is to close up for work done during the current year.


William Ross Smyth: Does the minister intend to deepen the channel beside Picnic Island out of this $28,000?


William Pugsley: No, there would not be enough for that purpose.


William Ross Smyth: How much of the channel is to be completed? I think there is about 1,200 feet already dredged.


William Pugsley: There was about 1,800 feet in which work had to be done, and this is to complete the work.


William Ross Smyth: I suppose that, under this item, the minister could give no information as to the work done on Honora wharf?	j] ;;


William Pugsley: No appropriation is being asked for that wharf, and therefore I have no information before me with regard to it. If he desires it, I will get the information.


William Ross Smyth: The minister is aware that a wharf was built there just before the elections. I shall have something to say about it later on.


William Pugsley: I do not know when it was done. The House did not rise until about the first of August.


William Ross Smyth: To what depth has this northern channel been dredged?


William Pugsley: Twenty-two feet.


William Ross Smyth: And what is the present depth of the part that is being dredged?


William Pugsley: Twenty-two feet.


William Ross Smyth: And what is the present depth of the part that is being redredged?


William Pugsley: When we began the work, the depth was about 14 feet. It will be noted that this is rock drilling and blasting.


William Ross Smyth: And there is no appropriation for widening the channel towards Picnic Island?


William Pugsley: No. To widen it would be very expensive. It is a needed work, but it cannot be done at present.


William Ross Smyth: I presented a petition to the minister from the vesselmen showing the necessity of widening the channel at this point. Does he purpose doing anything about it?
Mr. PUGSLEY'. We have a report on it, and I recognize the necessity for it. But it is one of those works not imperatively necessary at the moment, and I regret to say that we shall be obliged to let it stand over for a short time.


George Taylor: Last session, $125,000 was voted. Did the minister expend that and $82,000 besides on that work ?


William Pugsley: Some money was due from the previous year. I could get the full details if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Geo. Taylor) would like them.


George Taylor: Where did the money come from for the work which has been referred to as having been built just before the elections?


William Pugsley: That has nothing to do with this appropriation.


George Taylor: Was there an appropriation for it?


William Pugsley: I think there was. But we have a general vote of money for repairs.


George Taylor: How much was spent out of the general vote, or out of any vote on this work?


William Pugsley: I have no memorandum of it here.


George Taylor: Will the hon. gentleman get it?


William Pugsley: I shall be glad to do so.
McGregor's creek-renewal of bank protee-tion work at Chatham, $7,100.


George Taylor: This is protection work on a bank.


William Pugsley: This is to complete the renewal of sheet piling protection on the south bank of McGregor's creek, reported by the engineer in charge to be needed to prevent the bank sliding into the creek. Since this estimate was made, a further break has occurred endangering the houses, in fact, some of the houses have actually fallen in. I think a distinction can be made between this work and the work at Burlington, because, in the opinion of the engineer, this has followed dredging operations carried on by the federal government, and therefore we have thought it our duty to build protection works. When I speak of dredging by the federal government, I do not mean the present government, because this was done before the present administration came into power.


David Marshall: Is this work to be done in the city of Chatham?


William Pugsley: Yes.
Montreal river-improvements above Latch-ford, $25,000.


William Ross Smyth: Is this in connection with the dam to be built there?


William Pugsley: This is to construct a dam just above Latchford for the purpose, as the expression is, of drowning out the Pork rapids, and so affording navigation for the conveyance of the large number of people who are going up that river to engage, in mining operations and to settle on the land.


William Ross Smyth: Have negotiations gone on between this government and the Temiskaming^ and Northern Ontario Commission relating to the land about to be drowned?


William Pugsley: Negotiations have gone on for a very considerable time, and it is largely in consequence of these not having been brought to a successful issue that the work of building this dam has not already been undertaken. I desire to say, and I say it with regret, that the commissioners of the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway have not shown the disposition which I should have expected them to show to facilitate this work. We have endeavoured to get them either to make a reasonable settlement as to land damages or to waive any claim for damages because the building of this work will be of great benefit to the interests of the province of Ontario, but so far we have not been successful in coming to an arrangement.


William Findlay Maclean: Are any further improvements contemplated in the Montreal river?


William Pugsley: There is another rapid at which we have been urged to build a lock but we have not decided upon that.


George Taylor: 


William Ross Smyth: Has the matter been brought to the attention of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Mines of Ontario?


William Pugsley: Yes.


William Ross Smyth: I understood him to say he was disposed to make any arrangement to get that improvement.


William Pugsley: We went to the trouble and expense of appointing Mr. Davis of Latchford to get the land damages settled. He reported that he had interviews with the Commissioners and also with the Ontario minister to whom my hon. friend refers, but he was not successful in coming to an arrangement. I hope that now the, matter has been brought more forcibly to the attention of the Ontario government we will be able to come to a satisfactory arrangement soon. The work is important and I regret that we have not felt it was desirable or safe to enter into the contract because of the possibility of having these claims outstanding. The moment I can see daylight, so far as land damages are concerned, I am prepared to go ahead with the work and let the contract, but I do not want to enter on the work with an uncertainty as to the amount of claims to be brought against the government for flooding the lands.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Is it not within the power of the government to expropriate the right to flood these lands ?


William Pugsley: Possibly it is, but I do not think that when the federal government is prepared to engage upon a large expenditure for the purpose of improving the navigation of a river like the Montreal river, which would give accommodation to people going in there to settle upon the lands of the Ontario government, to develop their mining properties, that the Ontario government which owns the townsite upon the shores of Temiskaming lake should make any claim against us for damages that might occur through the flooding of unoccupied lands and particularly of town lots unsold, and not built upon. I do think they should join with us to that extent in having these improvements made and give freely and without compensation the lands which would be affected by the building of the dam.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course I appreciate that the hon. gentleman thinks that the chairman and other members of the Commission and the Minister of Forests, Lands and Mines are not acting in a reasonable way, but it is not impossible that these gentlemen have the same view in regard to himself. I know the chair-* man of the Commission and some of the members and also have the privilege of 'knowing the Minister of Mines, and I be-

lieve him to be not only a very capable but a very reasonable gentleman who would be sincerely desirous of doing everything possible to facilitate the improvement _ of navigation for the benefit of people using that river. Perhaps the minister would bring down any correspondence he may have in reference to the matter, which is of some importance, as the river in the summer should be a very excellent highway, affording access to a country lacking in other communication.


William Pugsley: I shall be glad to bring down the correspondence.


William Wright: Did the minister give directions to his department at Toronto to look after this matter ? It would seem to be of sufficient importance not to leave it to an irresponsible gentleman in that northern country.


William Pugsley: I do not accept the suggestion that the matter was left to an irresponsible gentleman. We appointed a gentleman of high standing in Latchford to endeavour to make a settlement with the owners of land which we thought would be flooded by building the dam. Among the owners were the Commissioners of the Ontario and Temiskaming Railway, representing the Ontario government. We instructed Mr. Davis to confer with the Commissioners and also with the Ontario government and he reported that he had several interviews with the Minister of Lands and Mines of Ontario as well as with the Commissioners, and that he was not able to make a satisfactory arrangement.


William Ross Smyth: What is his profession?


William Pugsley: A lawyer.


William Ross Smyth: He knows nothing, of course, about the value of lands.
Port Stanley-groynes on east side of harbour entrance, $7,100.


William Pugsley: This is protection work for the protection of new Orchard Beach 'from further erosion. The groynes are to be built on the east side of Port Stanley entrance. The claim is made upon us- and this also differentiates this from the case to which some hon. gentleman referred to-night-that by reason of the breakwater built there the waters of the bay weTe given a certain direction and caused erosion of the soil. The department recognized the strength of that claim, and the work of building these groynes for the protection of the land was entered upon.


David Marshall: I think the minister is justified in spending that money just as he says. I know the location and it is necessary work. Will the work be done by day's labour or by contract?


William Pugsley: It is to be done by contract and the contract has been let to John H. Smaill, of Port Burwell. The contract price was $6,535.


David Marshall: Who is the overseer? The gentleman in charge now is named Smith.


William Pugsley: I do not think an overseer has been appointed; Mr. Smith may have been appointed recently but I have no memorandum of it.


David Marshall: This expenditure is very necessary. Port Stanley is an important harbour where there is a large revenue from the coal traffic. The amount is not too large. I find nothing for Port Bruce. Is it the intention of the minister to spend any money in improving that harbour this summer?


William Pugsley: It has not been decided to spend anything at Port Bruce during the coming season. ,


David Marshall: I hope the minister will spend some money there. It is an old harbour gone down. It is now used as a fishing port. There are men engaged in fishing there who have their homes, boats and nets and everything invested in their plant, and unless the harbour is kept open it will be useless. Unless the harbour is improved it will be useless. I hope the minister will set aside something, not a very large amount, to keep the harbour in such a condition that fishermen can go in and out.


William Pugsley: I will make a note of it and have it looked into.
Richard's Landing-St. Joseph's island-repairs to pier, $1,700.


George Taylor: What is the explanation of this? Is not that the wharf that was built up there where the summer hotel was erected?


William Pugsley: No, this is away up in the district of West Algoma not far from Sudbury.


George Taylor: Will this complete it?
Mr. PUGSLEY This will complete the repairs.


William Ross Smyth: Were any of those repairs done last season?


William Pugsley: We will require $1,700 for repairs during the coming season. We have spent, up to the 30th November, $1,398.46. Repairs have been going on during the winter, so that we will have spent about $1,600 by the 31st of this month.


George Taylor: In addition to the $3,000 voted last year?


William Pugsley: Yea, the total estimated cost is $4,700; $3,000 was voted last year and we are asking for $1,700 this year.
River St. Lawrence-improvement of Canadian channel between Kingston and Brock-ville, $75,000.


William Pugsley: This is to improve, by blasting and dredging out what will probably be all rock, the Canadian channel between Kingston and Brockville, so that vessels navigating the St. Lawrence can go through the Canadian channel instead of being obliged to use the American channel. The work is being done under contract. The total estimated cost is $125,000.


George Taylor: Who has the contract?


William Pugsley: Frank Gilbert, of Montreal. Tenders were called and in response to a public advertisement these tenders were received ranging from $3.95 per cubic yard of rock to $4.98. The contract was awarded to Frank Gilbert, his being the lowest tender, at $3,95 per cubic yard of rock.


George Taylor: I understand that most of this is removing an island at Fiddler's Elbow?


William Pugsley: There is quite a large number of points at which material has to be removed.


George Taylor: That work will be proceeded with this summer?


William Pugsley: Yes, it is being proceeded with this winter.
Rondeau harbour-improvements, $25,000.


Mr. BEATTIE.: What is being done at Rondeau?


William Pugsley: There are breakwaters to be built.


Thomas Beattie: I was there a short time ago and I thought the piers were very good.


William Pugsley: This is to extend the breakwaters to afford protection to the harbour. There is a contract let for the construction of breakwaters and dredging.


Thomas Beattie: This is to further improve the harbour?


William Pugsley: This is to extend the breakwaters to a thousand feet.


Thomas Beattie: This is to extend the piers outward? The piers were very good as far as they went. This has become a very important harbour, there is a very large coal business being done and large steamers come there. I think this is a de-sirable,work. Port Stanley and Rondeau are two of the most important harbours on the lake. Besides doing a large coal busi-Mr. G. TAYLOR.
ness I do not know but that they are good harbours of refuge in case of a storm.
Sault Ste. Marie wharf - dredging an-proaches, $55,000.


William Pugsley: This is to complete the work.


George Taylor: That is under contract?


William Pugsley: Yes.
Southampton-extension of and repairs to town dock, $6,000.


William Pugsley: This is under contract also.
Toronto harbour-improvements, $375,000.


William Pugsley: This is the western channel with which the committee is familiar.


George Taylor: This is under contract?


William Pugsley: Yes.


William Wright: Before leaving the Ontario items, I want to draw the minister's attention to the fact that last year a vote was put through for a wharf at Graven-hurst. I also want to draw the minister's attention to the fact that it was not built and that nothing has been done there. It was kept before the electors all summer and when the election time came it was a very important issue whether the people would get their wharf or not. A communication was sent to the minister right in the midst of the election and a telegram was apparently received from him which was published and put in the hands of every elector in the town, stating that it was owing to the persuasive qualities of the Reform candidate that the minister had come to the conclusion that a wharf was necessary.


William Pugsley: Was that a telegram from me?


William Wright: From you. I would draw the attention of the minister to the fact that from time to time representations have been made from the town council of Gravenhurst, and strong deputations have waited upon the government urging this public work. I suppose the government came to the conclusion that they would put a little vote in the estimates for that wharf and apparently the Reform candidate was sent for and came down here so that he might get credit for this appropriation. As I have said, the telegram of the minister was used to that effect in the riding of Muskoka and in the town of Gravenhurst, and the people were led to believe they would get the wharf at once. This was used with very telling effect against myself in the campaign and it lost me a considerable number of votes, and had it been that the minister had twenty-five or thirty wharfs to build in the riding, I

might have lost my election. However, I simply want to express the hope that the persuasive eloquence of my opponent which had such an effect on the minister will not have ceased to exercise its power, and that he will not forget that the town of Gravenhurst needs a wharf very badly. If there are supplementary estimates brought down I hope the minister will include in them an appropriation for this work and that at the very earliest possible moment he will have a decent wharf constructed in the town of Gravenhurst. I have drawn the attention of the minister and of his predecessor to the fact that there is a great deal of shipping in these northern waters and that this accommodation is badly needed. I can tell him that if the wharf is built the people will appreciate it very much.


William Pugsley: Did the hon. gentleman issue a circular during the campaign in regard to his own action in reference to that wharf?


William Wright: I issued no circular with regard to the matter.


William Pugsley: My informatfon was that during the campaign the hon. gentleman either had issued a circular or made a statement that he had succeeded in getting the item in the estimates for the Gravenhurst wharf and repudiating the fact that our friends had anything to do with it. I was asked whether that statement was true and I did either write or telegraph giving credit to the gentleman who had come to Ottawa upon at least one occasion and urged very strongly the necessity for a wharf at Gravenhurst. I placed the credit where it was due so far as obtaining the apnropriation for the wharf was concerned, and to correct any misapprehension which I had been informed my hon. friend was endeavouring to spread among the electors. With regard to the wharf itself, I was impressed with the necessity for it. There is a good deal of shipping at Gravenhurst and the amount was put in the estimates in good faith last session, but unfortunately owing to the condition of the revenues this wharf must stand over for a short time as many other necessary public works.


George Taylor: Will the minister give us a copy of the telegram?


William Pugsley: I have not a copy; I think it was a personal telegram sent from St. John.


James Arthurs: 
William Pugsley: Would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Arthurs) say whether in his opinion both these works are necessary public works and works which should be carried on in the public interest?


James Arthurs: I think the minister will agree with me that the woTk at Parry Sound is most necessary and that the wharf accommodation there is very small considering the importance of the port.


William Pugsley: What about Maganatawan?


James Arthurs: That is exactly in the same position. There are 20 or 25 steamers plying there and there is not room at the wharf purchased by the government for more than one steamer at a time.


William Pugsley: I am very glad that my hon. friend conforms to the opinion I entertained last session that these works were necessary, and I regret that I have been obliged not to include in the estimates an appropriation for them for the coming year; they have to stand over the same as many other public works throughout Canada.


James Arthurs: Am I right in assuming that the minister has stated in the House that those works which had been commenced would be carried on to completion and that the works which had been left aside were those which had not been commenced or for which tenders had not been called?


William Pugsley: I stated to the committee that in drawing the line in reference to works which were to stand over we had provided that where contracts had been let

or where the work had been undertaken by day's labour they should be carried to completion. If any work has been done on the Maganatawan wharf which would be of no value to the public unless there were further work done, or if the work were likely to be damaged if it were not completed then I think it ought to be completed. But if a further extension is only needed to get increased accommodation I think it might stand over without detriment to the public interest the same as many other works in different parts of the country.


George Taylor: The timber is bought and lying there rotting.


William Pugsley: So far as the wharf at Parry Sound is concerned I think that is being done by day's work, and if the timber is there-


George Taylor: Rotting.


William Pugsley: It cannot be rotting because it is only there a short time and we will see it does not rot. I will make inquiries of the engineering department and see what can be done.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: I draw the attention of the Minister of Public Works to Meaford harbour situated on the Georgian bay. I understand that recently a petition has been sent to the Minister of Public Works with reference to that harbour. I quite rerecognize his policy of cutting down the estimates for Public Works, but at the same time I think that in the case of Meaford there should be an exception made. As I understand, the government adopted some plan or scheme for the improvement of the harbour, and in accordance with it have already spent $70,000 or $80,000, for which the town is grateful. But a storm of last fall proved beyond doubt that that plan will have to be radically changed, because it is not such as to prevent the devastation of the harbour. A number of boats lying in the harbour were tossed abortt arid some of their upper parts destroyed 'and some had to be removed to Owen Sound.' I would therefore ask the minister if he can put something in the estimates of the present year to preserve the harbour. This is one of those cases in which, if nothing is done, what has already been done by the government may be permanently destroyed. I understand that a deputation from Meaford is about to come to Ottawa to interview the government and to present a memorial on this subject. The harbour of Meaford is not a small harbour. It has many manufactures, a large elevator and a great deal of the grain from the west passes through that harbour on its way to the sea-board; so that it is more or less a national port. I would ask the minister in all earnestness to see if something cannot be done during the present year, either


Mr.   PTTGSEEY@: by a vote in the supplementary estimates or otherwise, for the purpose of preventing the destruction of that harbour and whether he cannot have an inquiry made as to whether some change should not be made in the plan or scheme adopted.


William Pugsley: I may say to my hon. friend that I have received the memorial to which he refers and I intend to look into the matter very carefully. But as to making provision during the present session-


George Taylor: You have a general vote.


William Pugsley: But out of that we can only provide for small works; we cannot build wharfs or breakwaters. As to putting an amount in the supplementary estimates, I regret that I am not able to give my hon. friend any assurance at the present moment that there will be any supplementary estimates and there is nothing in the present estimates that would warrant me in proceeding with the work in the present year. If there should be supplementary estimates, I will give the matter consideration.


William Sora Middlebro: Would the minister send a competent engineer there for the purpose of making an examination?


William Pugsley: I have already referred the memorial to the chief engineer of my department.	' -


James William Maddin: Would the Minister of Public Works tell us why the objects for which moneys were voted in the supplemen-tarv estimates of last session are not being carried out by revotes this session?


William Pugsley: Because our revenues will not warrant us in doing so. During the past year there has been a falling 1 off of about $12,000,000 in the revenues, and, as I have already explained several times in the committee, we had to cut down the estimates in my department by some $7,000,000 or $8,000,000. It became necessary therefore to postpone the construction of a large number of very necessary public works which were provided for in the estimates of last year.


James William Maddin: Is it not a fact that the country is better off financially at the present time than it was when the supplementary estimates were brought down in July last? Is not the fiancial condition of the country as good now as it was when he sent that telegram to the province of Ontario to which the hon. member for Muskoka has referred?


William Pugsley: That telegram was only to correct what I thought was a wrong impression that was sought to be conveyed.


James William Maddin: But there was an amount in the estimates?


William Pugsley: Of course there was, and I was only speaking of that, not making any promises for the future.


James William Maddin: Is not the financial condition of the country now better than it was when that amount was put in the estimates?


William Pugsley: I am satisfied that the outlook now is exceedingly good.


James William Maddin: Is not that a reason why the hon. minister should live up to his preelection promises in respect to public works?


William Pugsley: What pre-election promises?


James William Maddin: They were contained in the estimates.
Manitoba-harbours and rivers and bridges -general repairs and improvements, $6,000.


William Pugsley: This is a general vote to do work which is not specially provided for.


Mr. ROCHE.: At what places are you going to have it expended?


William Pugsley: I have no special places in mind at present. Last year the expen diture up to the 31st of December was $3,667, leaving a balance of a little over $2,000 unexpended. There are always repairs and small works to be done in different sections of the country.


George Henry Bradbury: Some little time ago I interrogated the minister regarding the bridge at Lac du Bonnet. The bridge is too low. I understood that the matter was referred to the resident engineer. It is a very serious matter. I have had several letters in the last few days asking if the government has taken any action.


William Pugsley: Who constructed this bridge?


George Henry Bradbury: The city of Winnipeg.


William Pugsley: That would not be a matter for my department specially to interfere in.


George Henry Bradbury: The bridge is across a navigable stream, and I think the government owns it. I do not think the government would allow it to be constructed without its approval.


William Pugsley: The plans would have to be approved.


George Henry Bradbury: I am informed that at high water there is less than four feet between the water and the girders of the bridge, and as the current is very rapid, it is a menace to life and property. Something ought to be done, and done at once.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend can easily understand that if a bridge was not built according to the plans, it would be quite open to any one to file information and compel the city of Winnipeg to remove the bridge. I do not think it would be the duty of my department to do that; it would rather rest with the Attorney General of the province. He is the man in whose name any information for that purpose would have to be laid. However, I have given instruction to have a report made, and shall be glad to lay it before the House as soon as it is revised.


George Henry Bradbury: If the plans were approved by the Department of Public Works, in what position would the government be?


William Pugsley: I would not like to say what would be done in that case. That would show that somebody had blundered in case the plans were defective.


George Henry Bradbury: If the city of Winnipeg had not carried out the plan submitted to the government the city was responsible.


William Pugsley: Yes.


George Henry Bradbury: On the other hand, if it had built according to the plan submitted to your engineer, surely the government is responsible.


William Pugsley: It would be the fault of our department, but as to whether there would be any legal responsibility, I am not at the moment prepared to say. It might be an error of judgment. I have sent for a report.


George Henry Bradbury: This is a serious matter and I hope the minister will take it up seriously. ' There is another matter to which I wish to call his attention. There was placed in the estimates of last year, just previous to the general elections, an amount of $7,500, for the purpose of commencing what was termed a protecting nier at Winnipeg beach. This amount is conspicuous by its absence in the estimates of this session, does that mean the work has been abandoned?


William Pugsley: The fact of its not appearing in the votes ought to be convincing proof to my hon. friend that it will not be possible for me to go on with the work during the present season.


George Henry Bradbury: I want to recall to the hon. gentleman that on the 1st of_ February I asked him the following question across the floor, as will be seen in 'Hansard,' page 352:
What has the government done regarding protection pier at Winnipeg Beach? Is it the intention of the government to proce<d with the construction of this pier at once? If not, when?

The minister replied as follows:
Plans and specifications have been prepared contingent upon certain work being performed by the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Boundary Park Realty Company. It has not yet been decided to go on with the work, but a decision will be come to before very long after we hear what the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Boundary Park Realty Company are prepared to do.
This reply conveyed the impression that the Boundary Park Realty Company and the Canadian Pacific Railway had not carried out their part of the understanding which must have existed between the government and these companies. The reply which the minister gave me at that time was published in one of the Winnipeg papers, and in that way came under the notice of the Boundary Park Realty Company, and the secretary of that company wrote me a letter which I think I should read to the committee for the information of the Minister of Public Works:
Winnipeg, Peb. 3, 1909. G. H. Bradbury, Esq.,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,-In a despatch from Ottawa it is stated that the building of the protection pier at Winnipeg Beach was being held up by the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Boundary Park Realty Company.
Speaking for the Boundary Park Realty Company, I may say that we completed our part some months ago by giving a clear title, free of cost, to the Canadian Pacific Railway to about seven (7) acres of land fronting on the proposed harbour.
They in turn gave us a written agreement to the effect that they would do the necessary work inside within a certain time after the Dominion government built the pier. We have done our part and the Canadian Pacific Railway cannot do anything until the outside work is completed by the government. I understand that the railway are willing and anxious to go on with the work at the earliest date possible.
Any further information you might want from us would be gladly given. We are very anxious, as are all the other Winnipeg Beach residents to see the matter go through without delay as we have waited 'for over a year for a safe anchorage for our boats. Thanking you in advance for the trouble you are taking in this matter,
I remain, yours truly,



[Stage Direction]
I submit that the inference which the minister wished me to draw from his reply was that these companies had not carried out their part of the understanding.
William Pugsley: My answer does not say that. It says that we were waiting to hear from them and then will decide what we will do.


George Henry Bradbury: 


George Henry Bradbury: I think the fair inference is that these companies had not done what they agreed to do.


William Pugsley: I did not say that.


George Henry Bradbury: I think that is the fair inference. When the despatch was published in the Winnipeg papers, that was the inference which the Realty Company drew from the reply.


William Pugsley: The telegram apparently was a misstatement. The telegram said it was alleged that the work was hung up by these companies. I used no such expression in the House. Therefore the company must have been misinformed by the telegram.


George Henry Bradbury: The minister said that the plans and specifications had been prepared contingent on certain work being performed by the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Boundary Park Realty Company. The government therefore were to go on with the work if these companies did what they had agreed to do. Well, the realty company, on the strength of the appropriation voted last year, did dispossess itself of seven acres of valuable land fronting on this proposed pier, and the Canadian Pacific Railway gave them an undertaking that as soon as the government carried out its part of the work, the Canadian Pacific Railway would proceed and do their part.


William Pugsley: Do you not think my department ought to have some word from the Canadian Pacific Railway ? Do you think we are bound by a private arrangement between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Realty Company of which we were not informed?


George Henry Bradbury: I cannot help but feel that the reply of the minister was hardly ingenuous. I think the inference he wished to convey was that these companies had not implemented their pledges; and in view of what has taken place in this committee from time to time, it is evident that when the money was voted last year, previous to the election, there was no real intention on the part of the government to proceed with the work. The minister said to-night that the reason why the government did not proceed with some public works was because of the falling off in revenue. That would be a good reason, were it not for the fact that in the lower provinces the government are providing in the estimates for the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars for works not really as necessary as this one at Winnipeg Beach. At that place it is really necessary, in the interests of life and property, that a harbour should be built. The building of that pier, if I understand the purpose of the government, is required for a harbour. There is no harbour within 25 or 30 miles

along the lake front, so that a very dangerous condition exists. I would strongly urge upon the government to make that expenditure this year. In view of what I know, it strikes me that this was simply a pre-election promise.


William Pugsley: A promise to build an unnecessary work.


George Henry Bradbury: If the minister thinks it an unnecessary work why did he put a vote in the estimates for it last session? Either he must have known then that it was necessary or he was deceived by the then member for that constituency in this House, because when the late member, Mr. Jackson, came before the electors, he referred to that in his address. In that address he said :
$7,500 has been voted for a pier at Winnipeg Beach. This pier is to cost $16,000. The contract will be let this fall.
In addition to that statement in his published address, we had men coming down from Winnipeg and Selkirk, purporting to be contractors and going over the work and measuring it, and giving out all through the district that they were going to proceed with the work as soon as the bay was frozen over. In addition to that, we had the government tug lying there, with its engineer and staff of helpers, during the time of the regatta held there late in September. With four or five thousand people there, this government tug was pointed out by the friends and admirers of Mr. Jackson as proof of how the government was taking care of the people and was so prompt in responding to the request for the building of_a pier. They were told that the pier would be proceeded with and that before spring they would have the pier completed and would have a first-class harbour. This work was dangled before the eyes of the electors during the whole campaign. The same is true of the Elmwood post office. A vote of $10,000 was put in the estimates for . this work. And, further up the lake, $4,000 or $5,000 was to be spent at Gimli. This last-named work was proceeded with, and it was the only one that was proceeded with. It was gone on with during the campaign; men were hired by the day, and the whole dredging outfit that had cost this country a large sum of money was moved, at great risk, from the mouth of the Winnipeg river to the Icelandic river, where it was kept going for several weeks, and $4,000 or so was spent in dredging. I hold that this principle of making appropriations on the eve of a campaign, even if the government is serious and intends to spend the money, is a bad one. But how much worse is it when large appropriations are made running up into tens of millions of money, only to be dropped the following year. Of many of these appropriations made' last year, not a
dollar is to be found in the present estimate. It looks like making pledges to the people that the government never intend carrying out. I am satisfied there were thousands of voters fooled and tricked by these appropriations into voting for the government. It is a deplorable thing that the government of a big country like Canada should be guilty of such conduct as I believe this government stands guilty of. If there were words that I could use that would be strong enough to induce the minister to reconsider his decision in this matter and to implement the pledge that was made


William Pugsley: I must say the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bradbury) has not a very coaxing way about it.


George Henry Bradbury: I grant you, Mr. Chairman, that I have not the same smooth way that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) has.


William Pugsley: It sounds as if you were declaring war.


George Henry Bradbury: I wish to point out to the minister that we are not blind to what the minister and the government did previous to and during the last campaign. The mere fact that, when I asked that question in the beginning of the session, and received the answer I did from the Minister of Public Works, the Boundary Park Realty Company and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company had fully discharged a# they had undertaken to do, convinced me that the minister and the government had no intention, when that money was put into the estimates, of ever expending it. But this is not a political question so far as I am concerned. While this work will be in my constituency, the building of that pier would not go to accommodate my constituents. It would be built at a summer resort and would mainly benefit the people of the city of Winnipeg. I want to to say that this is a very serious matter. Several lives have been lost on that beach, because there was no harbour in which boats could seek shelter from the storms. There is no doubt that the promise was made to build that pier, and the appropriation put in fooled quite a number to vote for the government candidate last election. I have not any great hope, I confess frankly, of inducing the minister to reconsider his decision, because I have noticed his attitude in the House in regard to several of these things, and, no doubt, the government will take the position taken by the minister, that on account of the falling revenue, it is not wise to proceed with this work. I have already pointed out that if this be a good reason now, it was much stronger when this vote was put in the estimates. for everybody who knew anything about the country's finances knew that the revenue was falling and that this condition

would continue. But this did not stop these gentlemen making the appropriation. They were on the eve of an election, and they opened the flood-gates and voted, not merely millions but tens of millions, and, as I have said, fooled thousands of the electors from the Atlantic to the Pacific, into giving votes that they would not otherwise have given.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bradbury) has certainly presented an argument against engaging in this work in Lake Winnipeg. I had supposed, from the arguments presented to me last session by the gentleman who then represented the constituency that while Winnipeg Beach was resorted to in summer by many people, yet this work was necessary in the interest of navigation as .well, and would be an advantage to the commerce of the lake. But the hon. gentleman, says that it is used only as a summer resort for the people of Winnipeg. He presents an argument which makes it very important to consider whether or not this work should be postponed, pending the completion of works that are essential for the commercial and navigation interests of the country. It is a question, and always will be a question, how far the federal government is justified in spending money simply to afford summer resorts for the people of large cities. However, that is a matter that has not been brought to my attention as it has been by the hon. gentleman this evening. But,fcthough he has presented that view of the case, while I do not say that the work will be abandoned, I do say that it will have to stand over the same as many other public works of greater necessity than this would appear to be from the hon. gentleman's statement. I do not think, if he is sincerely desirous of accomplishing anything for his constituency, that he has gone about the matter in a way which one would expect. He acts as if he were seeking to provoke some quarrel-not personal, but political-with myself in respect of this work. I repeat what I have said, that, when this item was put in the estimates last session, it was put there in good faith upon the urgent representation of Mr. Jackson, who then represented the constituency.


George Henry Bradbury: And just on the eve of an election.


William Pugsley: It was put there at the only time when it could be put there. Parliament had to be asked for the appropriation, and parliament did not rise and the Supply Bill was not passed until about July 20. After that we had to consider how rapidly we could go ahead with the works parliament had authorized. The hon. gentleman speaks of Elmwood public building. He does not do himself justice or seek to do me justice in that because Mr BRADPHRY.
we proceeded with that as far as we could reasonably go, we purchased a site, we showed our good faith in that way and we now have the site vested in the Crown and will be in a position to go ahead with the work whenever parliament puts me in a position to do so. All the items were put in the estimates in good faith and not with a view to dangling them before the electors or misleading the electors. The best evidence that we have acted in good faith is that in many constituencies, I would almost say scores of constituencies, which have returned our freinds to parliament we have deferred going on with many of these public works. We have not shown any discrimination and intend to treat the various works in good faith, and with a desire to carry out, as far as possible, the wishes of the people in respect of works which are really necessary and to meet the public convenience as far as we reasonably can. My hon. friend has referred to an answer I gave in this House and he has followed the example of one or two hon. gentlemen opposite, an example which I do not thinkjie. should follow. He says he does not think I was ingenuous in making this answer. Let me see if he was justified in that statement. First, let me say that the answers in my department are not prepared by me, nor are they prepared by the ministers in other departments. We send them to the proper official who prepares the answer in accordance with the facts, and I rarely see the answers until they are completed and ready to submit to the House. His insinuation that I was not ingenuous is not justified. The question was:
1.	What has the government done regarding protection pier at Winnipeg Beach?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to proceed with the construction of the pier at once? If not, when?
My answer was:
Plans and specifications have been prepared contingent upon certain work being performed by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and Boundary Park Realty Company. It has not yet been decided to go on with the work, but a decision will be come to before very long after we hear what the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Boundary Park Realty Company are prepared to do.
My hon. friend says the Boundary Park Realty Company has made an arrangement with the Canadian Pacific Railway ; but my department has not been informed of that. We wete to undertake this work if the Canadian Pacific Railway did a certain amount of work towards the completion of these harbour works. We have had no communication, as far as I am aware, from the Canadian Pacific Railway, and no information as to the arrangement between that company and the Realty Company. When we get word from the Canadian Pacific Railway as to what they are prepared to do,

then I am prepared to bring the matter before my colleagues and the decision as to when the work shall proceed will rest with the government.


George Henry Bradbury: I do not feel like allowing the minister to place_ a false construction on what I have said and I feel he has done that. In the first place, regarding what was said about the pier being of no use to the navigation of Lake Winnipeg, I stated distinctly that lives and property were lost last year because there was no harbour there.


William Pugsley: Did he not say it was purely a summer resort for the people of Winnipeg?


George Henry Bradbury: I did not say it was purely a summer resort. I said it was a summer resort and was largely used by the people of Winnipeg, and not so much by residents of the county of Selkirk. If the pier were converted into a harbour, as it ought to be, it would be of very great value to the navigation of Lake Winnipeg; but according to the hon. gentleman it is to be simply a pier and he says it is contingent upon the Canadian Pacific Railway doing certain work. The fact is that the Canadian Pacific Railway could not do any work until the government had built the pier; their work came in after the pier was built.


William Pugsley: Surely they could enter into an agreement to do the work?


George Henry Bradbury: There must have been some understanding between the government and the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Boundary Park Realty Company before the hon. gentleman authorized an appropriation of $7,500 to start this work. On the face of it it is evident there was, because the Boundary Park Realty Company, on the strength of that agreement, dispossessed itself of seven acres of valuable frontage to the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway gave an agreement to the Realty Company that as soon as the government would carry out their part of the work, the Canadian Pacific Railway would complete their part. It must be plain to the committee that the fault lies with the Department of Public Works and not with the two companies. The government have failed to implement the promise they gave to the people 'and the understanding must exist some place between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Boundary Park Realty Company and the government. The hon. gentlemen say there is no agreement, and that they have had no communication from the Canadian Pacific Railway.


William Pugsley: I did not say that we had had no communication. I said we have had no communication as to the com pletion of the agreement, and no agreement has yet been entered into. There was some time ago a proposed agreement, but we had not been informed of the completion of the agreement with the Realty Company and no agreement has been entered into.


George Henry Bradbury: I do not know how the minister can justify the appropriation of last session if there was no arrangement between the companies interested. There is no question that the two companies had carried out their part of the agreement and the government had failed to carry out theirs. The minister accused me of being unfair in saying he was not ingenuous in his replies and he stated that he had nothing to do with the making up of the replies handed to him. I am not supposed to know that, I am simply taking the reply given by the gentleman across the floor of the House. I cannot hold the deputy responsible for his replies; I must hold the minister who made the replies.


William Pugsley: And the reply happens to be according to the actual facts.


George Henry Bradbury: If the reply is according to the facts, I was quite right in saying that the minister was hardly ingenuous in making the reply, because if he knew the facts, his statement that it was contingent upon the Realty Company and the Canadian Pacific Railway doing something was not accurate. Consequently I think my statement that the minister was not perfectly ingenuous is in accordance with the facts. I do not wish to antagonize the minister ; but I am here a new member and I have a duty to my constituency to perform. This work should have been carried out to protect life and property. If the intention of the government is to create a harbour at that place there is no question that one is needed, that would be open to the lake boats. I understood from the minister that it was simply a pier, and when I made the statement that I had thought it was used principally by people from Winnipeg I stated what was accurate and at the same time if a harbour was created there it would be a great benefit to the lake traffic. I do not intend to take up any more time upon this question, but I am sorry that the minister has seen fit to make the statement across the floor of the House that I have been guilty of conduct that an hon. member should not be guilty of.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: A statement by an hon. member that another hon. member had been guilty of conduct unbecoming to a member of the House would have been checked by the chairman.


William Pugsley: I did not use that expression.


George Henry Bradbury: I do not think I am misquoting the hon. gentleman. I think he made the statement that when I said he was not ingenuous I had done what no hon. gentleman should do in this House. I hold that when I made that statement I was stating simply what the facts warranted me in stating and I think the hon. gentleman ought to withdraw his statement.


William Pugsley: I did not make it; therefore I could not withdraw it.


William James Roche: Is this vote for the repair of bridges built by this government?


William Pugsley: This is a general expression. It says Dominion bridges. There would only be one at Shellmouth.


William James Roche: Is that the only Dominion bridge that has been constructed in Manitoba?
was expended upon that bridge, it was built higher by several feet than there was any necessity for and the result was that it imposed an unnecessary expenditure upon the municipality to build the approaches to the -bridge. There have been other bridges across that river constructed by municipalities in Manitoba at a cost of less than $10,000. This has been a very expensive bridge and the government could easily have constructed three bridges with that amount of money and thus have given accommodation to a greater number of people. I would ask the minister if he does not think that this bridge, is just as much entitled to a grant from the Dominion government because it is as much an interprovincial bridge as the bridge at Shell-mouth ?


William Pugsley: It would be pretty difficult to justify the building of this bridge. We were criticised a good deal by reason of having built the Shellmouth bridge.


William Pugsley: I think so. I am not aware of any other.


Mr ROCHE.: The minister will remember that a short time ago I had some communication with him in reference to a bridge across the Assiniboine river not far from the town of Roblin. The minister's reply was not favourable stating that this bridge could not be looked upon as a Dominion work and explaining that in the province of New Brunswick all interior bridges were constructed by the pro vincial government. That was not very useful information to me inasmuch as each province probably has its own particular system. The province of Manitoba grants fifty per cent of the cost of the construction of bridges and the municipalities contribute the other fifty per cent. In this case the bridge I asked for is very much in the same position as the Shellmouth bridge inasmuch as it is across the same river, close to the boundary line between Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and the people of Saskatchewan make the town of Roblin on the Manitoba side their market town.
I might draw the minister's attention to the fact that the people there have been very hard hit for a couple of years past, they have been visited by frost, their crops have been injured, they are not wealthy people and they are not in a position to construct this bridge. Inasmuch as it is really, in effect, an interprovincial bridge I thought I was justified in asking the government to give a grant as they did in the case of the Shellmouth bridge. I would like to ask the minister to reconsider his decision in that regard. There is this to say about the Shellmouth bridge, that it is a splendid bridge, but far more money was expended on that bridge than there was any necessity for. Upwards of $43,000 1


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: 


William James Roche: Adversely criticised ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


William James Roche: By whom?


William Pugsley: I do not know by whom; probably by hon. gentlemen on that side of the House. If the hon. gentleman had been here last night he would have heard a very severe criticism of my department because, two or three years ago, permission had been given to a municipality in the province of Quebec to rest one end of its bridge upon a wharf which had been constructed by this government. Suppose the constituency which my hon. friend so worthily represents had been represented by a Liberal and he had found an item for building a bridge in that constituency how the hon. member from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) the lieutenant of the leader of the opposition, would have railed against us for engaging in the construction of what should have been a local work. The ground upon which the Shellmouth bridge was justified was that the territory adjoining the province of Manitoba was not a province but was part of the Northwest Territories and all public works at that time in the territories were carried on at the expense of the federal government. It was also justified on the ground that the Dominion government owned a large area of land to which this bridge would give access. It was somewhat difficult to justify it, quite a point was strained, but I am afraid that if we were to build another bridge wholly within a province it would be difficult to justify it. At all events I was obliged to give to my hon. friend the answer that I did give, that I did not feel that I could ask my colleagues for an appropriation for constructing what would be entirely a provincial bridge.


William James Roche: I think the minister is quite incorrect when he says that the grant was adversely criticised in this House. The only criticism called forth by the item was by myself, and it was not adverse criticism, but rather because of the fact that the vote appeared year after year in the estimates and very little progress was made with the construction of the bridge. The item first appeared in the estimates in 1904 prior to the election at the instigation of the then Liberal candidate who made the construction of that bridge his principal drawing card in the contest. This is the first occasion upon which I have heard the reasons assigned by the minister to-night. One was the fact that the government had a certain amount of land in that vicinity and the other was that the province of Saskatchewan had not been formed at that time. I feel convinced that the bridge, the construction of which I am urging upon the government, is just as necessary and just as much entitled to a grant from the Dominion government as was the Shell-mouth bridge. The minister told us' that he had some difficulty in persuading his colleagues around the council board and in justifying the grant to the Shellmouth bridge. I thought that most strange because the bridge was nearly completed before he came into the cabinet at all.


William Pugsley: I had to call for a large additional vote to go on with the work.


William James Roche: $43,000 was too much to expend on that bridge and there is no necessity for any such expenditure.
Lake Dauphin-lowering lake by removing obstructions from bed of Mossy river, $5,000.


William Pugsley: The government are doing this with their own plant.


George Taylor: $10,000 was spent last year.


William Pugsley: Yes. Carried.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: You would not carry that? I would like to know how that expenditure of $10,000 was made last year.


William Pugsley: Cost of material purchased $1,025; day's labour, chiefly the building of the dredge, $8,263.77.


Glenlyon Campbell: What was the material that cost $1,025?


William Pugsley: It would be lumber for the dredge and machinery as well.


Glenlyon Campbell: Where is this dredge being built?


William Pugsley: Right at the site of the work.


Glenlyon Campbell: Where is the site of the work?


William Pugsley: At the Mossy river.


Glenlyon Campbell: Which end of the Mossy river?


William Pugsley: I cannot tell which end; I think it is about the middle of the river.


Glenlyon Campbell: Was this material bought by tender ?


William Pugsley: No, bought at the lowest price in the usual way. We got prices.


Glenlyon Campbell: From whom ?


William Pugsley: I cannot tell you, a great deal of it would be lumber.


Glenlyon Campbell: Has that dredge been built?


William Pugsley: Not completed.


Glenlyon Campbell: Is it even partially built?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Glenlyon Campbell: Well, 1 was at that place and there is no sign of a new dredge being built although there is a pile of lumber there which I was told was for the purpose of building a dredge.


William Pugsley: When was the hon. gentleman there?


Glenlyon Campbell: In November. When were these expenditures made?


William Pugsley: I have not the dates of the expenditure. We have not^had a report recently from the resident engineer.


Glenlyon Campbell: Who is the resident engineer?


William Pugsley: Mr. Dufresne, at Winnipeg. He thought he would complete it in three months.


Glenlyon Campbell: In the case of a large expenditure like this I am perfectly justified in asking from whom the material was bought and why it was not bought by tender." My late opponent was in the lumber business and I want to know how much he has profited, if at all?


William Pugsley: The department would have to communicate with the resident engineer and I would be glad to get the information and lay it on the table or hand it to my hon. friend. I will undertake to wire to Winnipeg.


Glenlyon Campbell: If it was bought from the source I suspect, it came very near be a violation of the Independence of Parliament Act. Will you please take that into consideration?


William Pugsley: I will get the information.


Glenlyon Campbell: Where is the work to be done with this expenditure of $5,000?


William Pugsley: On the Mossy river.


Glenlyon Campbell: Where on the Mossy river?


William Pugsley: Between Lake Dauphin and Lake Winnipeg. There are about 3,500 feet of river to be improved and of course the work will be done where there are most obstructions.


Glenlyon Campbell: The purpose is to lower Lake Dauphin?


William Pugsley: To clear the bed of the river, remove boulders and straighten the course.


Glenlyon Campbell: I am anxious for information about this because the government dredge has been working at the mouth of the Mossy river for the past iive or six years and if this new dredge is going to be operated as the old one was it will not be of miich use. The old dredge was equipped with a crane and the sand and mud taken out on one side of the dredge were dumped again into the creek at the other side of the dredge, to be washed back into the channel with every northeast wind.


William Pugsley: How many years ago is that ?


Glenlyon Campbell: As late as the time of the general elections last year.


William Pugsley: Will you allow me to say


Glenlyon Campbell: Excuse me first, because I don t want you to put words,in my mouth, as I notice you are very fond of doing.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The chairman should be addressed, and if reference is made to any other hon. member he must be referred to in the third person.


Glenlyon Campbell: I submit of course to the ruling of the chair. Does that rule apply both ways?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Yes.


Glenlyon Campbell: Then I would ask the chairman to notice that the Minister of Public Works has been addressing me as you. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The remark T made is applicable to both hon. members who used the expression.


Glenlyon Campbell: The people living on Lake Dauphin are very anxious that this work should be done, and I trust that the money will be properly expended and not absolutely wasted as it has been at the mouth of the river for the past five or six years. They have succeeded in removing in six or seven years one boulder down at the mouth of the river, and as there are some Mr. CAMPBELL.
thousands of them to be removed at the source of the river it will apparently take a considerable time to complete the work. How you are going to remove the boulders with a dredge is beyond my understanding. That dredge has been nothing more or less than a political dredge and the money expended there has been wasted. The government tell us that these are hard times, and so I want the money used and not wasted.


William Pugsley: Hear, hear, that is right; that is the way we try to use it.


Glenlyon Campbell: Mr. Chairman. Is it permissible to look a little lower down in the estimates and to ask if money which is going to be expended in other places should be expended in my riding where it is more necessary?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: It is not in order to move that the money in one item should be used for another purpose.


Glenlyon Campbell: If it were in order, I
would have very much liked that some of the useless expenditure which I see is going to be made in Saskatchewan, for instance, should be made in Lake Manitoba.


George Henry Bradbury: A few evenings ago I directed the attention of the minister to the condition the bridge is going to be left in across the St. Andrews rapids, and I now want to renew my statement that it is the duty of the government to complete that bridge. There is no question that the bridge has cost a great deal of money. The provision for the bridge is made, and I presume that it will be completed and planked, and that it will then be left standing in the middle of the Red River, with no connection at either side. I contend that the large expenditure that has been made on it is entirely unjustifiable if the government does not complete it. The bridge will remain and the planks put on it will rot, and it will stand as a monument that will be no credit to the Minister of Public Works. The reply I got from the hon. minister was that the local government or the municipalities ought to make these connections. Every one from Manitoba knows that the municipalities are utterly unable to provide the money that will be necessary to make those connections. I am told by competent men that it will take from $75,000 to $100,000 to complete the bridge so that a vehicle could drive across it, and it is of course utterly impossible to expect that the municipalities can supply that money. The government have expended nearly $1,250,000 in providing the dam across the river and putting the bridge there, as far as they have gone.


William Pugsley: Building locks as well, so that there would be a bridge under any circumstances.

Mr, BRADBURY. There would be a working bridge; but if provision had not been made for a passenger bridge I am satisfied that it would have cost the country at least $100,000 less than it has cost. My argument is that the government having seen fit to make provision for a passenger bridge, which I think was wise, the intention was to give the residents on both sides of the river a first-class bridge, but if the bridge is allowed to remain as it is, it will simply be useless as a passenger bridge, and the municipalities are not in a position to provide the connections. I again urge the government strongly to complete the work in its own interest.


William Pugsley: I want to correct one statement of the hon. gentleman. He speaks of the planking on the bridge rotting. I may say there is no planking on the bridge. It is to be steel and concrete entirely.


Glenlyon Campbell: Before the item passes, I would like some assurance from the minister that he will see that this money is expended in a proper way, and not in the ways that moneys have been expended in the past.


William Pugsley: That assumes something of which I have no evidence-that there has been any improper expenditure in the past. He would not expect me to admit that.


Glenlyon Campbell: I would like an assurance from the hon. minister that he will see that this money is properly expended for the purposes stated here.


William Pugsley: I think the hon. gentleman can rest assured that the same prudent and economical management will take place in connection with this expenditure as we endeavour to have in all matters connected with my department.
River Assiniboine-improvements near Portage la Prairie, $1,000.


William James Roche: Is this for the same work that was carried on there last fall?


William Pugsley: The same work. This is to settle land damages. The work has been completed.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 11.45 p. m.

Monday, March 22, 1909. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Three o'clock.


REPORT PRESENTED.
[Stage Direction]
Report of the Department of Trade and Commerce for the year ending March 31 1908, part III.-Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day being called:
Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) to a despatch which appeared in the ' Mail and Empire ' of March 14, with respect to the Railway Commission. It says that Mr. Buell, of Brockville, representing the government, is presenting the complaints against the express company. I would like to ask the Minister of Railways and Canals if this is a permanent counsel appointed in connection with the Railway Commission and, if so, why is there this discrimination in favour of the western shippers as against the eastern shippers? Why are not the farmers of North Ontario provided with counsel the same as the shippers of the west are ?


George Perry Graham: This is rather an old story. Mr. Buell has been engaged for some time investigating express matters for the commission. I do not know just what this particular work is but he is not a counsel engaged to present the general complaints of the people against the railway companies. This is rather an investigation into the methods of the express companies which has been going on for a year and a half or two years.



QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE.

Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege or explanation. Bill (No. 69) has been on the Order Paper for a considerable length of time. I was expecting that it would be reached and when it was reached I intended to make an explanation which was due to the House with regard to something I said when the Bill was introduced. It was a Bill to amend the Land Act and I made the statement based on a memorandum handed to me containing the minutes and proceedings of the Senate, which showed that the Bill as it had passed the Senate had contained an amendment. I stated that the amendment made by the Senate had been dropped and that the Bill had passed this House and received the assent of His Excellency without the amendment. I also referred to section 42 of the Bill, but I do not purpose saying anything in reference to that now as at some future time I may have an opportunity of dealing with it. I simply want to say that I made a verv careful inquiry into the whole matter and I found that a misapprehension had been created owing to a mistake made with respect to the matter in the Minutes and Proceedings and the ' Hansard ' of the Senate. I have a copy of the minutes which gives the facts exactly as I gave them to the House, but I

find that the minutes are entirely wrong. The clerk of the Senate turned up the record and showed me that the Bill had passed the House without this amendment being in it, although the minutes stated that it had been carried in the affirmative. It came to this House and was passed. I was quite satisfied that I had done a grave injustice to some person, myself and the House by basing my remarks on a statement that was not justified by the_ facts. I merely make this explanation m justice to the clerk of the Senate and to others through whose hands the Bill passed, lhe mistake was entirely unintentional.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS.

Mr. BARNARD.: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) when the return may be expected that I moved for on the 17th February in connection with the expenditure of public moneys on wharfs in British Columbia.


William Pugsley: Orders have been given to hurry it as rapidly as possible, hut I will make inquiry.


Haughton Lennox: I wish to ask the Minister of Public Works as to the return in reference to Bonaventure?


Mr BLACK.: I want to say a word on a question of privilege. On Friday last I made some remarks with reference to the Dominion Atlantic Railway which runs through the county in which I live. In these remarks I said that I had had an interview with the manager of the Toad. The sentence I used was this:
I was talking to the manager of that road and he said in one breath that they would not sell and in the next that anybody who bought the road must buy the steamers also.
I said that the manager said that they would not sell. * Hansard ' reported me as saying that the manager said they wanted to sell. This may appear a trifling matter, but it is quite a serious matter to the manager of the road. I would like a correction made more in the interest of the manager of the road than of myself.


William Pugsley: That is being hurried along too.


Haughton Lennox: I would like to call the minister's attention to the fact that we are now a month and twenty-two days waiting for it, and it is a long time.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend must bear in mind that there aTe a great many motions foT returns and that ordinarily they have to take their turn in the department. They are being hurried as Tapidly as possible. I will make inquiries.



CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE CO.

[Stage Direction]
Further consideration in committee of the whole of Bill (No. 56) respecting the Canada Life Assurance Company. Mr. A. H. Clarke.
On section 1,

Robert Laird Borden: Mr Speaker, may I be permitted to Tenew my inquiry to the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) as to when there will be some information given to parliament and to the country as to the action which the government propose to take, if the government propose to take any action, with respect to the report of Mr. Justice Cassels relating to the investigation which he has made. The Prime Minister will no doubt remember that I made this inquiry on Wednesday, I think it was, the week before last. The Prime Minister then thought he would be able to make some announcement with regard to it during the then coming week. I understand perfectly that he has been unable to do so and I am not complaining of that, but as the matter may have escaped his attention I take the opportunity of referring to it again.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: The matter has not escaped my attention, but owing to some circumstances I could not take it up last week. Perhaps I may communicate with my hon. friend again on this matter to-morrow or the day after.


Haughton Lennox: On this Bill we have a very eminent legal opinion on behalf of the policy holders, and as consideration was adjourned so that we might hear the opinion of the Minister of Justice I think we should have that opinion now.


Mr. A. H. CLARKE.: That does not apply to the first section.


Haughton Lennox: The opinion of the Minister of Justice may go to the root of the whole matter as to whether we should pass the legislation or not.


Alfred Henry Clarke: Section 2, is the section with regard to which an opinion has been asked. This first section simply deals with the date of the annual meeting of the company.


Mr. MEIGHEN.: It is quite true that section 1 is comparatively inoffensive but when the Bill was brought before us a week ago the member for North Simcoe asked that it be held over pending the opinion of the Minister of Justice both as to its legality and as to the wisdom of passing the legislation asked for. If we pass the recital of the Bill we in a measure commit ourselves to the principle. What can be gained by passing this one clause alone?
Mr. SPROtTLE.


Alfred Henry Clarke: We are on the first clause and not on the recital.


Haughton Lennox: I do not suppose that the first clause is very important but the question now is whether or not we shall have the opinion of the Minister of Justice on this important question to the people of Canada. We might as well get down to the root of the matter once and for all. We have had the gratuitous opinion of the Minister of Justice in a very defined way; I might almost say in an extravagant and heated way, upon a question not so important as this, and if the opinion of the Minister of Justice is not yet ready on this Rill we had better postpone its consideration. I do not say I will be guided wholly by the opinion of the Minister of Justice but I will certainly be influenced by it to the extent of giving it very serious consideration. We have the opinion of a very eminent counsel in England) on this Bill and we know generally speaking that the Minister of Justice has very pronounced opmions upon giving legislation retroactive effect. This is a question that affects 35,000 policy-holders in Canada so that it is a matter of great importance.


Alfred Henry Clarke: I submit that this discussion is entirely out of order and I ask the Chairman to rule that when one section is being discussed it is not in order to discuss a subsequent section of the Bill.


John Gillanders Turriff: I do not agree with the promoter of the Bill (Mr. A. H. Clarke). The discussion on this Bill was adjourned for the purpose of getting the opinion of the Minister of Justice, and after we get that opinion we may not want to go on even with the first clause. I think the promoter of this Bill will make more progress if the Minister of Justice gives his opinion now, as some of us will be guided to a very large extent by that opinion.


Mr. AYLESWORTH.: I understand that some members of the committee have expressed a wish that I should pronounce some sort of opinion with reference to this legislation. I scarcely know upon what point that opinion is desired. Upon any legal question that arises with regard to this or any other legislation which may be under consideration I am at any time ready to. express any opinion that I may entertain, but my difficulty is in seeing what legal question arises upon the legislation now before the committee. It may be that the question is as to the necessity for this legislation, and I can quite understand that there may be different opinions in that respect; it may be that there is no need for it. On the other hand it may be that under the true construction of the statute of 1879, which this legislation proposes to amend or to interpret, a result has been reached which
was not the intention of parliament in 1879 when the previous legislation was passed. Now, with respect to what the true construction of the statute of 1879 may be, the whole question is no doubt one of law as to the interpretation of the language then used. Upon that subject I formed an opinion some months ago when the question was raised before the Department of Justice upon a reference to that department by the superintendent of insurance, and the opinion which I then expressed and which for my part I still entertain as a matter of law is, that under the wording of the Act of 1879, and giving to the language there used its strict legal interpretation, the company or the shareholders of the company cannot deduct from the general earnings of the company a percentage by way of interest upon the amount of their capital stock before calculating 90 per cent of the profits for distribution among the policy-holders.
I presume that the legal advisers of the company are of the same opinion, or this legislation would not be presented. So much for the opinion which as a matter of law I entertain as to the meaning and effect of the legislation of 1879. I do not know any ground upon which the competence and power of this parliament to pass the legislation which is now under consideration could properly be questioned. The matter is, so far as I can see, entirely within the jurisdiction of this parliament. I do not know any other question of law that arises. If it is a question of the propriety or wisdom of passing the legislation which is now before the committee, I respectfully take the position that every hon. member of this House is as well qualified as I am to come to a conclusion on the subject. That is not any matter of law. That is merely a matter of the propriety and advisability of passing or refusing to pass this legislation. But if any hon. gentleman desires to know what course I propose, as an individual member of this House, to take with regard to this legislation, I have no objection to stating it, whatever it is worth. So far as I am concerned, I intend to support the legislation, and I rest myself in doing so upon the action of the committee to which it has been referred. I think, in the matter of any private Bill, it is 'not usual for this House, or this Committee u whole House, to decline to accept the considered action of any special committee which has taken the legislation into consideration and has passed an opinion with regard to it; and certainly I am prepared to credit the special committee in this case with having had established before it, before its report was presented to the House, such considerations as in its view justified it in the report which it made

favouring the proposed legislation. It seems to me peculiarly a question for consideration before a committee. The second section of this Bill, which is I suppose the only one about which any special amount of controversy would be likely to arise, is a declaratory section, stating what was the intention with which the legislation of 1879 was passed. That I take it is a pure question of fact in regard to which the committee which investigated this question is in a better position certainly than I am, and probably than any member of the House can be, to come to a correct conclusion. In the everyday experience of a practising lawyer, it is not an infrequent thing to find, in any legal document, that the true intention of the parties to that document may not have been correctly expressed. Every lawyer is familiar with an action brought by one of the parties to a contract, before a court of equity, to have the language in which that contract, if it has been reduced to writing, has been expressed, rectified by the court-to have the language of the document made to express what was the true intention of the contracting parties. In any such action, if it is resisted, we always have of necessity the opposing litigant declaring that the document as drawn expresses the true intention, that he so understood the bargain; and perhaps he will contend that he has altered his position upon the faith of his understanding of the language used in the document which expresses the contract. To determine what is the truth, in such a controversy, is the function of the court, and the court if it reaches the conclusion that the complainant is right, and that the written document does not truly express what was at the time of the contract the intention of the parties, does not hesitate to correct the writing and to express what it finds to have been the true intention with which the writing was signed. I take it that is exactly the position here. No court could correct this error in the language used by the parties thirty years ago; no court of equity could interfere in a matter of this sort. The only tribunal which could correct the mistake, if there has been one, is this tribunal, the high court of parliament; and in coming to a conclusion whether or not that correction should be made, this high court of parliament, I take it, ought to act not only cautiously and judiciously, but also judicially and on judicial principles. The first thing to be satisfied is that there was a mistake. It was, I take it, the function of the committee which considered this legislation to be satisfied of that; and in the view that before reporting this Bill the committee must have been satisfied that such a mistake did occur, it seems to me there is no difficulty on the part of members of the House who rely


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: upon the work of the committee in accepting its conclusions. If it is the fact that there was a mistake in the language used in the legislation of thirty years ago, then that mistake ought to be now corrected. If the conduct of the parties interested, through all the years since 1879, demonstrates that there was such a mistake, and that that mistake was common to both parties interested, I presume that there would be no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that parliament to-day ought to say in clear terms what it would have said in 1879, if the danger of misunderstanding or erroneous interpretation had been then present to the mind of parliament. This legislation proposes to enact that in the language used in the Act of 1879, what was intended was that before arriving at the amount, annually or quinquennially, as the case might be, of the profits of this company, which were to be distributed to the policy-holders, the interest upon the amount of paid up capital might be deducted.
If that was the intention in 1879, and if that intention had then been clearly expressed, of course there would be no need for this legislation. We are asked to-day to determine what was the true intention in 1879 and to give expression to it. I was not present in the Committee on Banking and Commerce and am not able to say what facts were brought before that committee to satisfy it that this was the intention in 1879; but it has come to _ my knowledge in various ways that ever since 1879, the business of the company has been carried on under that impression. If we look at the conduct of the policy-holders, who received, under the statute of 1879, certain increased benefits, I would think that there was evidence in their conduct pointing to a like interpretation on their part. So far as I understand the situation, from that day to this, every policy-holder has acquiesced in this course of business. I have not heard that from 1879 up to the present time, any policy-holder has effectively objected, by bringing an action to have it declared that the course of business pursued by the directors in this respect was contrary to the true meaning of the statute of 1879. If any such action were before the courts, probably different considerations might arise. Probably, the question then for consideration by this committee would be whether or not such action could be interfered with by legislation. ^ But so long as no litigation is on foot in connection with this difficulty, it seems to me that what we have is at most a difference of opinion between the shareholders and the policy-holders as to the meaning of the old statute of 30 years ago. I do not know that there is such a thing as a vested right arising out of a mistake. I have never ' heard that any defendant, resisting ail

action brought before a court of equity _ to rectify the terms of a writing into which he had entered, could be heard to say that while the writing did not truly express the bargain, he had a vested right to hold his adversary to the consequences of the mistake. The whole question for the court to determine would be whether or not there was a mistake; and if the court came to the conclusion that there was, it would disregard any contention of the defendant that he had a vested right to hold his adversary to the consequences of a common mistake between the two. I speak with some deference. I have a personal interest in this matter. I am a policy-holder in the company to a considerable amount and am not a shareholder. If this legislation does wrong to the policy-holders, it injures me personally as much as any policy-holder whose policy is not greater than mine. But the whole question narrows itself down to the one question of fact, whether or not the Act of 1879 did really and accurately give expression to what then was the intention of parliament and of those who applied to parliament? If it did not, the mistake ought to be corrected, and no one has any right to claim that he is being injured because that mistake is now being made right.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The clause before the committee is No. 1, regarding the annual meeting. If it be the desire of the committee to discuss clause 2, there should be a motion to that effect. Otherwise the committee must confine itself to clause 1.


Arthur Meighen: I move that clause No. 2 be considered.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Arthur Meighen: If it was the desire of hon. members to ascertain from the Minister of Justice what position the government took with respect to this Bill and the retroactive character of the legislation proposed, that desire has been disappointed. If on the other hand, it was the desire of hon. members to secure any light on the subject frpm the Minister of Justice himself, in his personal capacity as a member of this House, then that desire has also been disappointed. But if the members of this House expected to have an expression of opinion from the hon. minister, based on reasons that are utterly unfounded, that expectation has not been disappointed. The Minister of Justice takes first the ground that this legislation has reached a status by reason of its having passed the Committee on Banking and Commerce, where he is not as free to oppose it as he otherwise would be. Not being a member of long standing, I do not wish to discuss at any length that position; but I am not aware that the mere passing of a Bill of this char-95
acter through the Committee on Banking and Commerce places it in a position where is is beyond the. responsibility of the government and does not require any endorsation from the minister, within whose particular province it falls. But on the other hand,
I would draw the attention of the Minister of Justice to this feature of his own argument. He assures us that he holds a specific opinion, which he has entertained for some time, as to the legal effect of the amending Act of 1879, which opinion he believes the solicitors of the Canada Life Insurance Company also entertain. Let me point out to him that the very solicitor of the Canada Life who urged the passage of the Bill through the committee, did not make any such representation to that committee but the very opposite. Therefore if the position on that point taken by the Minister of Justice be correct, we should refer the Bill back to the committee, because the committee was absolutely misled regarding the position taken by the legal advisers of the Canada Life. The legal advisers of the Canada Life Assurance Company, or, at least, the adviser who was before the committee, distinctly stated to the committee that, in his view, the amending Act of 1879 meant what they now desire to have it declared to mean-meant that the profits there referred to did not include interest on capital stock. He stated that a contrary opinion had been given, and it was to remove the utmost possibility of doubt that this Bill was before the House. That is very different, and very materially different, from the position taken by the Minister of Justice, which position, he assures the House, is the legal stand taken by the solicitors of the Canada Life. Therefore, the Bill was put through the committee in such a way that it should not receive further sanction or higher status in the eyes of either of the Minister of Justice or of any member of this House. Now, the Minister of Justice goes on to further argue that only a pure question of fact was before the committee, and that that committee was as competent to judge of the fact as he or any other member of the House. What are the facts? In 1849 the Canada Life Assurance Company took out a charter. By the terms of that charter they were required to distribute their profits to the policy-holders and shareholders on the basis of 75 per cent and 25 per cent respectively.


Alfred Henry Clarke: What section of the Act?


Arthur Meighen: I have not the Act before me, but the hon. gentleman (Mr. A. H. ClaTke) will not deny


Alfred Henry Clarke: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Meighen) refers to what was in the deed of settlement. In the Act there



was nothing of that kind, it was left entirely to their discretion.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps it was in the deed of settlement of 1847


Alfred Henry Clarke: You are right.


Arthur Meighen: The point is immaterial. As the law stood at the time of the Act, and perhaps for some years before, the distribution had been on the basis of 75 per cent and 25 per cent, the company besides laying by a reserve of 4:67 per cent interest on their capital stock. By the amending Act of 1879, procured at the request of the company, a clause was inserted reciting that the company had been distributing during these years their entire profits and enact" ing that thereafter the distribution should take place in the proportions of 90 per cent and 10 per cent instead of 75 per cent and 25 per cent. Now, for some thirty years the Canada Life has proceeded upon the basis of the Act but has cpntinued to put by a reserve of 4-67 per cent for the .shareholders before arriving at the profits which they were to distribute in the proportion of 90 per cent and 10 per cent. The Minister of Justice takes the position that the question before us is simply a question of fact. He says the high court of parliament is in the position of an ordinary court of justice which has to deal, with two litigants who have entered into a contract, one claiming that the contract is a mistake and the other resisting the claim, and the one resisting the claim perhaps setting up that he has acquired rights under that contract on the basis of that alleged mistake. The minister says that the parties now come before the high court of parliament in an analogous position. That is the foundation of his case. Is that a correct statement of the position? I submit that it is not. Do the two parties who entered into that contract in 1879 appear before parliament? They do not. The only party to that arrangement of 1879 was the House of Commons of Canada. The parties to the contracts appeared later, and they were the Canada Life Assurance Company and the 35,000 policy-holders, who, since that date, have acquired rights by the Act of 1879. The two parties as they existed in 1879_ do not come before the high court of parliament. If there was any mistake, then it cannot be attributed either to the Canada Life Assurance Company or to the policy-holders, nor can it be attributed to the shareholders of that time. The mistake, if there were a mistake, is to be attributed to the parliament of Canada alone. Therefore, the legislation which the Minister of Justice now favours is not to correct the mistake of any of these other parties in 1879, but to correct a mistake of the parliament of Canada-that is, granting that it is a mistake. But who are the Mr. A. H. CLARKE.
parties who are interested in this matter at the present time? Even assuming that the Minister of Justice's statement as to the analogous position of the parties is right- that is, that the parties to this contract who erred were the shareholders and the policy-holders of 1879-are they the parties in any sense who come before this House now? They are not. The parties before this House are the shareholders and policyholders of 1909-different parties altogether. Thirty-five thousand policy-holders have come in since 1879 who were not parties to the alleged mistake of 1879, who derived no rights from the parties to that mistake, but stand in an absolutely distinct position and on a higher level altogether, and it is from the point of view of these policyholders that this Bill should be .considered. Has the Minister of Justice discussed the case from the point of view of the 35,000 , policy-holders who have come in since 1879? Not a word has he uttered in his statement, which has been looked forward to for eight days in this House, with respect to the policy-holders; not for one moment .has he stood in the position of these policy-holders or argued the matter from their point of view. The innocent policy-holders are the first to be considered. They are greatest in number and their rights are the greatest, and we should discuss this matter, and the Minister of Justice should have discussed this matter, from their point of view.
The Minister of Justice goes on to argue that the policy-holders have acquiesced. I have yet to hear it argued in a court of justice-where some very strange things are sometimes argued-that the acquiescence in any position of any party who is not a party to the original contract is a reason why that party should be deprived of rights which he otherwise would have. These
35,000	policy-holders either have rights under their contract with the Canada Life Assurance Company, or they have no rights. The Minister of Justice was considering whether or not they had rights which this Bill affected, and he frankly comes before this House and tells us that he thinks they have rights and that this Bill affects those rights. But he says that they have had these rights for thirty years and have never come before a court of justice and asked for redress. Is he going to set it up as a precedent that because certain citizens of Canada have slept on rights for thirty years that that is justification for the House of Commons of Canada to pass an Act to cut under those rights and take awav the foundations on which they rest? If he does, where will his precedent carry him? If rights are not to be observed simply because no one has chosen to enforce them in courts of justice, then by what criterion does the Minister of Justice decide whether

he cuts into vested rights or not? This afternoon he comes forward and says there is no litigant. I regret that the rules of the House forbid me from referring to a discussion that took place about two weeks ago in reference to a similar principle. I will say, however, that the acquiescence of parliament has never in the past been held to have destroyed the rights of citizens in any way. Now they have the rights, but the Minister of Justice says they are not in litigation, therefore he says parliament is justified in cutting them out. Does the Minister of Justice lay it down as a principle that vested rights are not vested rights until they are in litigation? Have they no status in his mind until they reach the status of litigation? Are not vested rights just as sacred to him and to this House before they are the subject of a lawsuit as they become by virtue of a lawsuit? Will they by virtue of a lawsuit reach a position and a degree of sacredness that they did not possess before? Furthermore, has it ever been argued by the Justice Department of this country, has it ever been argued within three weeks of this date, that the outrage, that the violation of the 8th commandment consisted in taking away the position of a litigant, the footing of a litigant, after he got into court? Has it not rather been argued that the outrage and violation consisted in denying the right to litigate? It was the right to litigate that was before sacred in the eyes of the minister, it was access to the courts of justice that was sacred to them, and it was the taking away of that access that was an outrage. Why is it not an outrage to-day? Surely it is not the policy of the House of Commons to stand between a litigant and the court. Is it any more right and just to step in between the litigant and a court of justice, than to go to the court and throw the litigant out? I see no difference. It has always been, as I have understood, the doctrine propounded by the Minister of Justice himself, and by the hon. gentleman who proposed this Bill, that the cardinal outrage of legislation of this kind was in cutting out the right to litigate, and not in throwing the litigant out of court. Why is that position changed? Why do the promoters of the Bill now come to parliament and say that these people cannot be said to have vested rights because they have not yet asserted them? Surely, that position is unworthy the dignity of this House, and unworthy the dignity and high standing of the Minister of Justice.
Now, what position are we to take? One of three positions we must take. Either firstly, the Act of 1879 is clear in its terms, and means that the profits include the same profits that any other business would include as profits, and include the interest 951
on capital. If that is the case, then policy-holders who have come in since that time have absolutely vested rights, and this Bill is retroactive and takes away those vested rights. Surely the Minister of Justice, in receipt as he is and as he will not deny, and the Minister of Finance, in receipt as he is, and as he will not deny, and the Prime Minister, in receipt as he is, and as he will not deny, of specific statements of claims from policy-holders, from a policy-holder who has come in since that time, not only of a specific statement of his rights but of an absolute statement that he wishes to litigate those rights, surely these hon. gentlemen, in receipt of that very statement, and knowing his position as a responsible policy-holder of this company, will not say that they are not doing now exactly the same thing as taking away the rights of the litigant, and throwing him out of court as well. That is one case that may exist. Secondly, the Bill of 1879 may be absolutely clear in its provisions, and it may not mean that the profits include interest on the capital stock. If that is the case, then this legislation is null and void in so far as the second clause is concerned. Then the Canada Life Assurance Company would have no reason to come before this House and ask for an interpreting statute, because the legislation is now just in the position they want it. So that on the first two grounds they have no right to ask this parliament for legislation. But another state of affairs might exist. It might be that the Act of 1879 is doubtful in its meaning, that there is a latent or a patent ambiguity in it, and that it may mean that profits should include interest on capital stock, or it may not mean that. But if the third position is a correct statement of the case as it stands, then the courts of this country are established for the purpose of interpreting Acts of parliament; they are established for the purpose of saying what is the real meaning of this clause in the Act of 1879, that contains a latent or a patent ambiguity. Why should the House of Commons, in this case, step in and interpret this legislation, if it is doubtful, unless it proposes similarly to interpret legislation in every other case where it is doubtful, unless it proposes to usurp the functions of the court and act as interpreter as well as an author of legislation? Why does it step in in the interest of a large corporation against the interest of many poor policy-holders? If the meaning is doubtful, it is the province of the courts to interpret it; and I say that when this comes before the courts for determination, the considerations urged by the Canada Life Assurance Company and by the promotors of this legislation will be given such weight at the hands of the court as they ought to receive, as those considera-

tions should receive, no more and no less. Considerations of the intent of parliament, in certain cases, are entertained by the court; considerations of the intent of the promoters of the Bill in certain cases, are entertained by the court, and in every case where those considerations are entertained, they would be entertained in this case. Principles of equity and of justice in this country have determined to what extent and at what time such considerations as intent should apply. Why not leave it to the courts. The answer is that the Canada Life Assurance Company taking the ground that if this Act is doubtful in its meaning, want more consideration given to the intent on our part even as against innocent policy-holders, than they are entitled to have given it in a court of justice.
We want certain provisions to have certain definite meanings just as they would have if they were placed before the proper tribunal for interpretation. We want the rules of equity that apply in courts of justice to apply to this case in order to bring it to a definite conclusion and to achieve a definite result. I say that if this is a matter of doubtful interpretation as they themselves contend it is, it should go to the proper tribunal which will give every consideration its due and proportionate weight and no more. On whatever ground, on whatever principle we may apply with respect to the meaning of the Act of 1879, whether it be the first as outlined, that 'profits' have to be taken as meaning interest on capital, I say, it involves the principle of retroactive legislation and therefore this Bill is distinctly retroactive and unjustifiable on every ground of justice and equity. If it be the second, if the Act is clear and if the word 'profits' does not include interest on capital stock, then there is no need of the Bill at all. If it be the third, then it is clear, and the Minister of Justice will not deny, that it is the province of the courts of justice to interpret legislation. I think I have covered the ground as put forward by the Minister of Justice. Let me now call the attention of the committee to another consideration, which I frankly admit should not bear heavily with the members of this House, and which I do not think comes really to the kernel of discussion, because the kernel of the discussion is whether we are going to cut off these 35,000 policy-holders or not from any sound claims to which they are entitled and from which they will be cut off if this Bill should pass. The phase I desire, however, to refer to is that of an adequate return on invested captial. It is a well known fact that from the time the Act of 1879 was passed up to 1899 the capital stock of the Canada Life Assurance Company was $125,000. On that capital stock 4-67 peT cent was laid aside as inter Mr. MEIGHEN
est before the profits were arrived at. In 1899 that capital stock was increased and up to that time the reserve for interest amounted to the insignificant sum of some $5,800. The Minister of Justice might, in laying this matter before the House, have pointed out, I think very reasonably, that the policy-holders would not have benefited to any appreciable extent individually, by the compelling of their rights in a court as he says they should have done. It is only since 1899 that that might have been done and I think no one would contend that the results to the policy-holders would before 1899 have been at all commensurate with the outlay which would have been entailed in court. During these years from 1879 to 1899 the shareholders of the Canada Life Assurance Company were in receipt of very considerable premiums. They tell us now that unless this Bill passes we, who have put a million dollars into this company, will only get 3-6 per cent or 3-8 per cent and therefore at a very opportune time the Canada Life Assurance Company comes to this House and asks for this legislation. But, it was not always thus, nor would it be always thus? For twenty years, prior to 1899, their capital stock was receiving dividends and interest to the extent of 20,	30
and as high as 70 per cent. It would average, I believe, 30 per cent or probably more for the twenty years on the $125,000 of capital stock. Now they have increased the basis of their capital in order that they might get eight per cent on their money and they have come before us at the very time that the proportion of their capital stock, compared with the volume of their business, is large and when they are not able to extract the enormous dividends which they were enabled to extract in years gone by and which they will be able to extract in years to come. At a time when dividends are at the lowest they seize the opportunity to come before this parliament and ask for legislation. Is there any reasonable anticipation that the low dividends will continue? Just as in years gone by, before 1896, the volume of business as compared with the volume of their capital stock, was great and the dividends that they derived brought them thirty per cent, so, in years to come, as the volume of business of the Canada Life Assurance Company steadily increases, as the volume of business of all large life insurance companies is almost mathematically certain to increase, if this Bill fails to pass, it is practically a mathematical certainty that the rate of dividend which will accrue upon the million dollars of capital will be a great deal laTger than it is today. So, we need have no apprehension on behalf of the shareholders. It is practically certain, there can be no reasonable

doubt, that the condition that prevailed before 1899, when the volume of business held a large proportion to the volume of the capital stock, will recur in years to come and that the volume of business will attain to the same proportion of the capital stock as in days gone by. There is no reasonable apprehension that these people under the law as it stands will not receive an adequate return on their money. The shareholders got together in 1899 and added to their capital stock to the extent of $875,000. Were they compelled to do so by any legislation from this House? I think not. They did so voluntarily and if I am permitted to quote the Royal Insurance Commission, they unwarrantedly increased their capital stock to the detriment of the policyholders. I am quoting that statement from the report of the Royal Commission. The Act of 1879 meant the same in 1899 as it means to day and will always mean unless this retroactive legislation is passed. They added to their capital with their eyes open and if that he so why should we come to the assistance of these people and relieve them from the situation into which they voluntarily plunged and plunged for their own benefit? I do not propose to go on and discuss the action of the Canada Life Insurance Company in piling up systematically, hurriedly, precipitately, its reserve to some $2,500,000 instead of following the course outlined in the Insurance ytct except to say that by that very action the Canada Life Assurance Company have put between the shareholders and possible loss in time to come that fortification, and that absolved them, one would reasonably think, not being an insurance expert, from any necessity of adding to the volume of their capital stock, and it would certainly absolve them from any right to come to this parliament and say that by virtue of adding to their captial stock and of the results thereof they are entitled to an Act declaring the meaning of an Act thirty years old and interfering with vested rights that have grown up during those thirty years. Let me, before concluding, make one reference to a statement of the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice says that the policyholders have slept on their rights for thirty years, that they have for these years been in that position and that they could have gone to the courts. The same argument exactly applies to the shareholders. The shareholders, for thirty years, have let the legislation stand while they could have gone to the court or come to parliament to ask to have it changed. I do not think it is fair to state that the policy-holders have stood on their rights for that time.
The fact that I am a policy-holder in this company for one thousand dollars only will not I hope influence my position on the Bill, but it enables me to say that for the
eleven years I have been a policy-holder I do not recall ever receiving any statement from this company to show that interest had been cut off before the profits were determined. It is only reasonable to assume that very many policy-holders would be in the same position, and even if they took the trouble to scan this report and compare it with the Bill very few would even suspect that their rights were being infringed. We are here to preserve rights as they are and not to preserve rights after they are in litigation. I want to make an appeal to members of the House who perhaps up to this point have been led to support the Bill without knowing its real meaning. I believe there are many members in the House who supported the Bill in select committee without knowing it has a retroactive character as the Minister of Justice has frankly admitted it has. Therefore, the vote of these hon. gentlemen in the select committee in no way binds them to support the Bill in'this Committee of the Whole. Let hon. gentlemen who support this Bill, seriously consider what they will be able to say in years to come when people may come to them and state that undeT a misapprehension of the law they have invested money, and now want parliament to help them out of their difficulty. How can we ever deny to such people redress, even at the expense of innocent parties, if we set a precedent now which I submit will be fatal in years to come?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I wish to raise an objection as to the insufficiency oi the notice to the policy-holders who are affected by this legislation. I wish Mr. Chairman, to call your attention to No. 90 of the rules of the House :
All applications to parliament for private Bills, of any nature whatsoever, shall be advertised by a notice published in the ' Canada Gazette ' ; such notice shall clearlv and distinctly state the nature and objects of the application.	.
Now, in the face of that rule I desire to call your attention to the notice published by the promoters of this legislation :
Notice is hereby given that application will he made to the parliament of the Dominion of Canada at the next session thereof for an Act to amend the Acts relating to the Canada Life Assurance Company by changing the date of the annual meeting and making necessary changes as to notices of meetings consequent thereon, and providing for any further changes in the date of such meeting.
You will see that this is a very formal notice and that it does not really go to the essence of this legislation. Next follows a very innocent little clause in the advertisement which sets out the notice to the

policy-holders who will be affected and it
says :
Defining the provisions as to division of profits.
I submit for your ruling, Sir, that this is not sufficient notice to the policy-holders who are going to be affected by this legislation and that it does not conform to the rule of the House as to setting out the nature and object of the application. Then there is another objection which I take and on which I ask your ruling.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I submit to the hon. gentleman that it would be more convenient to raise one point of order at a time and have that disposed of.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Then, Sir, I ask your ruling on that point, and I submit that the committee should send the Bill back to the Committee on Standing Orders ,to investigate as to the insufficiency of the notice. I do not believe that any member of this House can think such a notice sufficient to the 35,000 policy-holders, especially in regard to retroactive legislation which is undoubtedly detrimental to their interests. The notice does not say whether this legislation is in the interests of the policy-holders or against their interests; it is so baldi that they could learn nothing from it as to the true meaning of the legislation. Then the notice continues to say:
And extending the powers of the company as to holding real estate in Ontario and for other purposes.
It will be seen that the most vital matter in the whole Bill is inserted in the most innocent way between two other matters of a subsidiary character. The policyholders have not received proper notice that this important legislation of a retroactive nature which is detrimental to their interests will be proposed to this parliament. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, if in your opinion you think that notice conforms to the orders and rules of the House?
Mr.	DEPUTY SPEAKER. Whatever
weight there may be in the point raised by the hon. member may be argument against proceeding with the Bill, but this committee is instructed to consider this Bill, and I do not think the point of order is well taken as such. The objection raised by the hon. member should be dealt with either in the previous select standing committee or by the House itself. I do not think it is a question for this committee of the whole.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The next objection I desire to take against proceeding with the Bill at this time is, that the Select Committee on Banking and Commerce has


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: introduced an amendment to the Bill that was not contemplated in the notice given to the public. I refer to clause 4, in which the select committee has changed the denomination of the shares. That goes to the very existence of the company because it gives the power of re-dividing the shares into denominations of $100 from denominations of $400. In other words it gives the shareholder four votes where previously he was only entitled to one vote. I submit that the policy-holders and the shareholders should be heard on this amendment before it is considered by this House. Clause 4 reads:
4. The shares of the capital stock of the said company, which are at present one hundred pounds (Canadian currency) or four hundred dollars each, shall hereafter be divided into shares of the denomination of one 'hundred dollars each, and each shareholder shall thereupon become entitled to, and be deemed the holder of, four shares of one hundred dollars each in respect of each of the shares held by him; and the books and share registers of the said company shall be amended so as to conform to the provisions of this Act.
In support of my objection I refer to Bour-inot third edition, page 779.


Mr. NESBITT.: Mr. Chairman, you have given your ruling and I would ask if the hon. gentleman is in order?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. gentleman is in order; the previous point of order having been disposed of the hon. member is now raising another point of order.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I quote from Bourinot, third edition, page 779:
It is the duty of the committee to which any private Bill may be referred by the House to call the attention of the House especially to any provision inserted in any such Bill that does not appear to have been contemplated in the notice for the same, as reported upon by the Committee on Standing Orders.
In case the committee do not so report, and a member is of opinion that certain provisions of a Bill are not contemplated in the notice for the same, he may raise a point of order, and it will be for the Speaker to decide. In such a case it is the more regular course to discharge the order for consideration in Committee of the Whole, and then refer the Bill to the Committee on Standing Orders.
The committee on a Bill have no authority to make any amendments therein which may involve an infraction of the standing orders, or which may affect the interests of the parties interested, without due notice having been given to the same.
These amendments were not mentioned in the notice to the public, and therefore I hold that we cannot proceed with this Bill. I ask your ruling, Mr. Chairman, on that objection.


Alfred Henry Clarke: Before you rule, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that

the point of order which has just been taken has no reference whatever to section 2, which is now under the consideration of the committee. When we come to section 4, to which the objection refers, then will be the proper time to discuss it.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I might also, Mr. Chairman, call your attention to the following, in the journals of the House of Commons, of the 28tli March, 1870, volume 3, page 116:
The orders of the day being read, for the second reading of the Bill to amend the Acts of incorporation of the Great Western Railway Company;
The Hon. Mr. Carling moved, seconded by Mr. Shanly, and the question being proposed, that the Bill be now read a second time;
And objection being taken by Mr. Cameron, member for the electoral district of the south riding of the county of Huron, that certain of the provisions of the said Bill as amended by the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines were not contemplated in the notice given under the rules of the House, nor in the petition praying for the passing of said Bill;
Mr. Speaker decided that the Bill should be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders to report whether the powers to be conferred are in excess of the notice given, or whether they are substantially included in it.
On motion of the Hon. Mr. Carling, seconded by Mr. Shanly,
Ordered, that the said order be discharged; and the Bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders.
This is a case identically in point, in which the Committee on Railways and Canals made an amendment to a Bill that was not contemplated in the notice. This amendment, changing the denomination of the shares from $400 to $100, goes to the very essence of the constitution of the company and affects the voting power of the different shareholders. Consequently I submit that we should not proceed with the Bill until notice of this amendment is published, so that the parties affected may be informed that such a change is proposed to be made in their vested rights.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: It does not appear to me that the point of order is well taken. It is an argument or reason why this committee might refuse to continue consideration of the Bill and not really a point of order. The words quoted by the hon. gentleman state the fitting course in the House.
In such a case it is the more regular course to discharge the order for consideration in Committee of the Whole, and then refer the Bill to the Committee on Standing Orders.
As the Bill has been referred to this committee for consideration, I do not think the point of order which the hon. gentleman has raised holds.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Do you hold, Mr. Chairman, that I am in order to make that motion?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. gentleman may move that the committee rise and report progress, and then the question will he before the House.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I move that the committee rise and report progress, and that the order be discharged and the question be referred to the Standing Orders Committee.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I do not think this committee can accept such a motion. The hon. member may move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again, or that the Chairman leave the Chair. I would desire further advice on the point, but I am not sure that this committee has any power to discharge a bill or refer it to any other committee.


Robert Laird Borden: I think that is correct. An order for the consideration of a Bill can only be discharged by the House with the Speaker in the Chair. The only course to be taken to carry out the intention of the hon. member would be for the committee to rise and report progress. Then, if the House thought proper, the Bill could be referred back to the Committee on Standing Orders for a further report on the sufficiency of the notice. I would like to point out to the Prime Minister that the notice in this case is extremely meagre, and does not seem to have covered what was intended to be done. The only portion of the notice which could by any possible straining of the English language refer to what was contemplated are the words :
Defining the provision as to the division of profits.
If the notice had announced what was the obvious intention of the promoters of this Bill, it would have stated that it was intended to declare by the legislation contemplated that 90 per cent and 10 per cent of the profits as expressed in the Act of 1879 should not in any way include the profits derived from the investment of the company's capital. That would have given ample notice to every policy-holder throughout the_ country of what was intended. I do not imagine that there is an hon. member of this House who really believes that the notice as printed in the ' Canada Gazette,' gave the slightest intimation to any policy-holder of the real intention of the promoters. As a matter of fact, every one of us knows that no such intimation was made to the policy-holders of the Canada Life. The result is that, without any actual hearing of the men who are entitled to a hearing, this Bill has been passed by the

Committee on Banking and Commerce ex parte in the true sense of the word, without the persons interested in that particular aspect of the question having the slightest notice to come here and maintain their rights. In my opinion the Bill ought to be 6ent back for that reason, if for no other.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend from North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe) has raised, as I understand it, two points of order. The first one is the general one that the notice given was not sufficient to enable the policy-holders as well as the shareholders to know what was the intent of this Bill. I understand that the Chairman has ruled against this objection. The second objection which my hon. friend has taken is that a section has been introduced in the Bill changing the character of the shares by providing that shares of $400 can be converted into shares of $100. This seems to be an objection which is worthy of consideration. But I would suggest to my hon. friend that, as section 2 is now before the committee, we had better pass that section, and when we come to section 4, it will be open to my hon. friend to raise his point, and we shall then give it the best consideration at our command. There is some force in the objection raised by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, that the notice has not been sufficient to cover the Bill. That is a point which has been passed upon already by the_ Standing Orders Committee, by the Banking and Commerce Committee, and by the Chairman of this committee. It is not too late to take it up again, but I would suggest that we had better go on with this Bill ^ and then raise the point when the Speaker is in the Chair, if it be considered necessary to raise it.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand that our Chairman has ruled, and ruled very properly, that this is not really a point of order at all. Even if it were demonstrated to him that no notice had been given, he could not entertain that as a point of order, nor could he entertain as a point of order the fact that sufficient time had not been allowed in the notice. I entirely agree with you, Mr. Chairman, in your ruling, but that does not absolve this committee from its duty. It does not absolve this committee from saying whether or not the
35,000	policy-holders in the Canada Life are entitled to better notice of this Bill than is to be found in the ' Canada Gazette.' Some time or other this committee will have to determine that, and that question arises just as well on this section as it will on section 4. I venture to repeat my conviction that the notice given is not such as was contemplated by our rules.


John Gillanders Turriff: As a policy-holder I may say that I did not receive any information Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
of this legislation. I understand now that the matter was advertised in the ' Canada Gazette,' the Toronto ' News,' the Monetary ' Times,' and some other financial papers. I believe I am in about as. good a position to have received the notice as the average holder of the 35,000 policyholders of the same company; and I am free to admit that if I had received that notice, I would not have been able to understand from it the legislation contemplated in the Bill now before us. Therefore, I think the point is very well taken, and that this Bill should be referred back on account of the insufficient notice.	We must bear in
mind that there are 35,000 policy-holders whose money is at stake and that this legislation proposes to be retroactive, and that it wipes out, to a certain extent, rights which these policy-holders possess or think they possess. In my opinion, had the Committee on Banking and Commerce been given the opinion of the Minister of Justice, they would never have passed this Bill. As the notice sent is not sufficient, this Bill ought to be sent back, so as to give the policy-holders an opportunity to come before the Committee on Banking and Commerce and state their views.


Alfred Henry Clarke: I hope my hon. friend will not go on the platform in his constituency at the next election and make such a grave admission of incapacity as he has just given us.


John Gillanders Turriff: I will take my chances.


Alfred Henry Clarke: He says he has not any knowledge of what is proposed in this Bill almost up to the present moment. Well, the first reading was on the 11th of February, 1909, and the Bill has been on his file in his desk for more than a month. During all that time he has had before him the full text of the section we are now discussing. It is therefore rather surprising that he should get up in his place and say that he has not learned the contents of this Bill up to the present time.


An hon. MEMBER.: He did not say that.


Alfred Henry Clarke: I do not understand that the rules of the House require that full particulars of a Bill should be given in the notice. The notice is to draw attention that a Bill is to be introduced on a particular subject, and I venture to say that in the notice referred to, there is as much information as is contained in any notice of the kind. There is certainly as much information regarding the division of profits as regarding the change of date and the acquisition of more real estate. We have an officer here whose business it is to deal with these matters. Rule 95 is very clear:-
There shall be an examiner of petitions for private Bills.

Petitions for private Bills, when received by the House, are to be taken into consideration by the examiner, who shall report to the House in each case the extent to which the requirements of the rules regarding notice have been complied with; and in every case where the notice is reported by the examiner to have been insufficient or otherwise defective, the petition shall be taken into consideration without special reference by the Committee on Standing Orders, who shall report to the House recommending the course to be taken in consequence of such insufficiency of notice or other defects therein.
Everything was conducted regularly. The petition came before the examiner and he examined whether the requirements regarding notice had been complied with. I suppose if the notice had been put in the Toronto ' Globe ' instead of the Toronto ' News,' my hon. friend would have seen it. but it would not have been seen by others equally interested who read the Toronto ' News' and do not read the ' Globe.' The examiner is an official of great experience. He has been in the employ of the House of Commons many years. He examined the notice in this case and reported that it was in every particular in accord with the requirements of the rules; and on his attention being again drawn to the matter, he still maintained the opinion that the notice was sufficient.


Charles Alexander Magrath: As a policy-holder, I am exceedingly sorry this matter is being discussed here. This discussion will not do the Canada Life any good. Some gentlemen who have amassed wealth may become too aggressive. There is too much haste about this Bill and the way it is going through this House. Two classes of securities are concerned in it-those held by the stock-holders and those held by the policy-holders. The first represent $1,000,000, and the second $25,000,000. I am not saying whether this Bill is right or wrong. As a policy-holder, I do not want my heirs to draw one dollar which belongs to the stockholders, but I do not propose that the shareholders shall draw one dollar which belongs to my heirs. As a policy-holder, and I suppose as a citizen of average intelligence, I should have something to say about legislation affecting my rights, and I positively got no intimation from the Canada Life of what they contemplated. That company, as a business organization, should have notified the people it was doing business with, and for whom it acts as trustee. We have other corporations coming before this parliament for legislation, corporations which have bondholders as well as stockholders; and it is a principle, I understand of legislation, which this parliament insists upon, that the assent of the bondholders should be obtained, up to a certain percentage, before any legislation affecting their rights is passed. I am not asking that in this case, but I say that we
should insist that the people who are interested should be properly notified. I am personally strongly of the opinion that in the Insurance Bill before this House, there should be a clause providing that where insurance companies seek legislation affecting the interests of the policy-holders, they should be compelled to give each policy-holder two or three months' notice _ so that he may be in a position to protect himself. I say again, I do not know that this legislation is bad, I do not know that it is good, but I do know that the people who have a large amount of money in it have not been advised. And I say that it is no excuse to plead that these companies give notice in the papers. Other corporations who come for legislation likewise give notice in the papers, but this parliament insists that the stockholders shall have the assent of the bondholders before that legislation becomes effective. And I think that is a fair position to take. These gentlemen ought to be told to go back, and the policy-holders should be given an opportunity to consider their interest in this matter. It is true, there is a gentleman, Mr. Laidlaw, who has been sending around literature on this subject. I can say that Mr. Laidlaw does not represent me; he has never had authority from me as a policy-holder, to send out complaints to this House. I have not been consulted as a policy-holder. I think it is wrong that this legislation should pass under the circumstances.


Mr. NORTHRUP.: The motion before the committee, as I understand it, is that the committee rise and report progress. 1 think that every hon. member will admit that we are now in a very unusual position. I think that every hon. member will admit that the importance of this Bill and the gravity of the issues involved are such that it would be most regrettable if hon. members, in dealing with this unusual position, did not approach it with perfect calmness and impartiality, and with a sincere desire not only to do justice but to maintain the dignity of the House. I think that your ruling, Mr. Chairman, is, beyond question, correct. I think that no hon. member will dispute the soundness of your statement that the objection taken-that notice was not sufficient-while, in my judgment, a good objection, was not taken when effect could be given to it. But we are in this peculiar position:	Here is an important
point raised, yet it cannot be adjudicated on the merits. We are in a peculiar position also for this reason-and I think I may refer to it on this motion that the committee rise and report. This Bill came before the House a few days ago and the House thought the opinion of the Minister of Justice of such importance that it was

agreed unanimously to let the Bill stand until that opinion could be obtained. The Bill everybody recognizes as retroactive legislation. But the gentleman who promoted the Bill before the committee-I am not a member of the committee, but I am informed-denied that this Bill was retroactive legislation, but said that, inasmuch as the words of the Act of 1879 admitted of the possibility of a different construction, therefore to prevent the possibility of a construction which the House had not intended, it was desirable that this Bill should pass. Now, under the view of the Minister of Justice as laid down, it is perfectly clear that this clause, if it passes, will be retroactive legislation. if that be the case, and if the gentlemen before the committee distinctly repudiated that stand but asked to have this clause passed on entirely different grounds, I think we should not be casting any reflection upon the committee if the House, in its wisdom, should send the Bill back to the committee and ask them to consider this important legislation in the light of the opinion of the Minister of Justice which, for the first time, has been made public to-day. When it comes to the question of the word 'profits,' in the notice given in the 'Gazette,' it strikes me that the notice was really no notice at all, because this word 'profits,' as used in the notice, is a new word coined for the occasion. I am not aware of any case in the English language in which the word is used in the sense in which it is used here in section 2. If a person of ordinary English education finds the word 'profits' in a notice of application to parliament, he naturally takes it in the sense in which he has been accustomed to hear it used, and the sense in which any dictionary to which he might refer would authorize its use. It is a common word; we have banks, loan companies, other insurance companies in relation to which the word 'profits' is used. It cannot be a matter of great difficulty to find out what the word means, and I venture to say that the shareholders of any bank, the Bank of Montreal, for example, would be very much surprised to find that the 'profits' of the bank were only a certain small sum after the interest on the capital-and, I suppose, reserve also for that matter, for that is really part of the capital-had been deducted. Surely, the idea is so monstrous that the only way one can account for its being used in the sense in which it is used in this notice is that the individual and the company have become, as it were, synonymous, and so the gentlemen drawing the application for the Bill fail to distinguish between them. But, in law, they are very different indeed, even though these gentlemen may not be aware Mr. NORTHRUP.
of the fact. It is the company that makes profits, and it is not reasonable to speak of the company as making profits apart from its capital. The money is the money of the company; it is not the shareholders' money. When the shareholder pays in his money for his stock, it becomes the company's money. The company goes into business with the money, employs agents and does everything else required in the business, and makes certain profits, including interest on the money paid in, which is the money of the company, not Senator Cox's, or that of any other individual. It does seem to me, in view of the peculiar circumstances, in view of the fact that the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Samuel Sharpe) has pointed out, that there is a very grave doubt as to whether the notice has been sufficient, and in view of the fact that the Minister of Justice had laid down an opinion not before the committee, it is most important that every opportunity should be taken to consider this matter very carefully. Therefore, I have great pleasure in supporting the motion that the committee rise and report progress, and I do so with the hope that when the Bill again comes before the House it will be sent back to the committee to see that justice is done to all parties.


Robert Laird Borden: May I ask the attention of the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to the exact language of that portion of the notice which relates to this matter. The words are ' Define the provisions as to division of profits.' I am inclined to go further than when I first brought this to the attention of the committee and to say that that phrase seems to have been very carefully designed to withhold any information as to what was the real character of the legislation contemplated. It would be perfectly easy to give proper notice in a few words. Let us suppose that the gentleman, whoever he may have been, who drafted that notice, had inserted these words, ' providing that policy-holders are not entitled to profits accruing by way of interest earned on paid-up capital.' That would have given notice, with a minimum of language, to every policy-holder throughout Canada. They would have understood exactly what was contemplated by the legislation proposed. But when, instead of that, you have an expression of a very nebulous character in these words, 'defining the provisions as to the division of profits ' it seems to me a not unreasonable inference that there was no desire to give very useful information to the policy-holders throughout the country and in that way to prevent the organization of the policyholders in opposition to the proposal of these gentlemen. I am not discussing the merits of the Bill at present, but I am in-

sisting that reasonable notice to the persons interested ought to be given. And I would point out to the Prime Minister a reason which has been already hinted at, but, perhaps, it has not been emphasized, as to why a notice of this kind in a case such as this ought to be very explicit indeed. The shareholders and directors of life insurance companies, under the conditions which attend the carrying on of that business in this country and in all English speaking countries, are such that the directors and share holders stand in a position of trust towards the policy-holders. They have charge of enormous funds, which they are bound to administer in a certain fiduciary capacity. Now they are entitled to make a profit out of the business; they are bound on the other hand, to do justice to those who have insured their lives and made provision for their families by means of the business so carried on. When the directors of such a company come before the parliament of Canada asking that the business conditions as between themselves and the persons for whom they are trustees, shall be altered-for that is the effect of this Bill-then I say that they ought to be held to the very strictest observance of the rules of this House, and every committee of this House ought to see that the notice given by the persons acting in that fiduciary capacity, is such that there can be no possibility of any misunderstanding. I think that is a reasonable proposition, which ought to commend itself, and will commend itself to the Prime Minister. It is very different from the conditions which meet us in respect of ordinary Bills coming before this House. Here we have the directors of the Canada Life Assurance Comoany, both as share holders in their own interest, and acting as trustees of the interest of 35,000 policy-holders, coming to parliament and asking that the provisions of legislation passed 30 years ago shall be altered in their advantage, and to the detriment of the 35,000 policy-holders; and it seems to me that, without, discussing the provisions of the Bill at all, it is a firm foundation to stand upon that we should insist that the notice of that intention shall be expressed in the plainest possible way.


Haughton Lennox: I do not feel disposed to quarrel with your decision, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As to the first point taken by the hon. member for North Ontario, taken as a technical objection, I can realize that you are probably right in saying that you could not entertain it. The second point, probably in the same way, though I was not present. But that throws upon us, the members of this committee, the duty of saying whether, under the circumstances as displayed by that notice, we are going on to legislate against the interests of the
policy-holders. Now it is perfectly clear to me that that notice could not convey to the policy-holders an intimation of what it is now proposed we should do. No person reading that notice could possibly gather from it that we proposed to enact retroactive legislation affecting the rights of policy-holders; and because you, Sir, as chairman, have the right to rule it out as a matter of order, does not take away the fact that it goes to the very merits of the matter we are dealing with; and that we, as a committee, and the right hon. gentleman who leads this House, especially, and the Minister of Finance likewise, who is our guide in matters of this kind, should see to it that this legislation should not progress until it is made perfectly clear that everything has been done to bring to the knowledge of the policyholders that their rights are being attacked. I am not prepared to say at this moment what attitude I should ultimately take as to what legislation should be enacted in this ease. I have a strong feeling against this legislation as it is presented to us, yet I am prepared to consider whether it should be ultimately enacted. But I am firm upon this point, that we should one and all unite to say that until every reasonable facility has been afforded the policy-holders of knowing just what these people are asking, we should not, as a high court of parliament, enact this legislation, or proceed further with the Bill.


George Eulas Foster: I have just one word to say with reference to this, and it depends almost entirely for the present upon the matter of the notice. Until I heard the notice read by the hon. member for North Ontario the other day, I had not seen it, I had not paid any special attention to it. With reference to what had been the practice by this company, with reference to what had been the practice of other insurance companies in the distribution of their profits as between shareholders and policy-holders I knew pretty well what the general practice was. In that respect I had no great quarrel with this Bill. If it had always been the practice to divide the profits on the basis of a certain reservation, first, as remuneration for the shareholders, if that had been apparently agreed to by both parties, and sanctioned by a practice of twenty years, if that was the practice with other great insurance companies, and if there had been a mistake made at first, even although that practice in 1879 was contemplated, which was afterwards carried out, then I would not have been disposed to give much opposition to the Bill. But there was one thing that I should like to have known then, and one thing upon which I got very little light before the Committee on Bank-

ing and Commerce, that is, as to the views of the other party to the agreement in 1879, because the other party to the agreement was conspicuous by his absence-if you can apply the personal pronoun to the policy-holders. But when I heard the other day the notice that was given, and when I knew it was the essence of the law and the essence of the practice of parliament that the notice to be given should be full and explicit, no matter whether the matter is important or unimportant-although I agree that the matter is greater in proportion as the interests involved are more generally distributed and are of greater importance-I came to realize then that that notice would not have been to me, if I had been a policy-holder in this company, the least intimation in the wide world as to what was going to be done; the place that the notice occupies _ would seem to me to give it no prominence. What are the other things asked for? First, there is to be a change as to date of meeting, and notice as to this change of meeting. Then it goes on to mention a provision as to the division of profits. Then there is a third, extending the powers of the company so that they may hold real estate in Ontario, and for other purposes. I do not know what might be held as a sufficient notice under these words 'and for other purposes', but to me as a policyholder, they would not have any meaning at all, and to my mind they would be -no sufficient notice of a meeting.
However, I want to proceed with the second one, that defining the provisions as to a division of profits. Now do we not all know, those of us who were in the Committee of Banking and Commerce, as well as those of us who are here to-day, that the one important thing these gentlemen wanted in coming to this parliament, was to make a change in the division of profits? The important thing is not that they should change the date of their annual meeting, the important thing was not that they should regulate the form of notice which should be given of meetings, the important 'thing was not extending the power of the company as to the holding of a little real estate in Ontario, but the allimportant thing was as to this arrangement about the division of profits. I want to read the whole of the notice to the Prime Minister so that the relation will be seen.
Notice is hereby given that application will be made to the parliament of the Dominion of Canada at the next session thereof for an Act to amend the Acts relating to the Canada Life Assurance Company by changing the date of the annual meeting, and by making necessary changes as to the notices of meetings consequent thereon, and providing for any further changes in the date of such meeting, defining the provisions as to the division of profits, oxtending the powers of the company as to Mr. FOSTER.
the holding of real estate in Ontario and for other purposes.
That is placed there, not as the main object of this legislation, but it is tucked in quietly and comfortably between two other demands, one as to the dates of meetings and one as to the holding of real estate. It does not have the prominent position that it inevitably and certainly has in the Bill based upon this notice. Suppose I had looked at those words ' defining the provisions as to division of profits,'-what would I have said of it? It could have no other meaning than this :	Here is a company with policyholders and shareholders which is engaged in a business; it requires a certain amount of money to run the business and a certain amount is set aside for reserve and the rest is profits. This meeting is held to define as to how these profits shall be divided. Divided between whom? Between the earning corporation and those who have interests in the corporation. That would be the sole idea that would be brought to my apprehension by reading that notice. I would think of nothing else. But when we read the legislation, what is it? It is not as to the defining of the division of the profits, but it is as to discriminating after the profits have been made between the different parties to the corporation as to how much each should relatively get. That is the* whole gist of the legislation. If it had read 'defining the provisions as to division of profits between the policy-holder and the shareholder', then I wouid have felt that there was something in the provision, which, if I were a policy-holder I would like to know more about, and which, if I were a shareholder, I would like to know more about, and I would say to myself: I am going to see what this is going to be. The notice is altogether insufficient, it seems to me, to express, in the plain use of English words, its meaning, and it would, to me, reading it, and I think to almost every other man, simply imply that, after the year's operations were through, the expenses were paid and the necessary reserve was laid aside, there was a plan to be proposed as to how the resultant profits should be distributed as between the corporation and those who held a special or individual inteiest in the corporation. We should be very careful how we pass legislation of this kind. We should be especially careful that the spirit as well as the form of the law and the rules of the House are thoroughly carried out and that the notice is sufficient. I do not believe that the notice is a sufficient one in this case, and therefore I should rather see it go back to the committee so that they might go into that matter specially. I beg leave again to dissent absolutely from the position taken by the hon. the Minister of Justice that my conscience is

absolved, that my responsibility is done away with as a member of this House, because, forsooth a certain recommendation comes from any committee of this House. Even if I were a member of a committee myself and the committee came to a certain understanding and so reported I would have a perfect right in this House, and my duty is not done as a member of this House unless I exercise that responsibility, to dissent and not hide myself behind the supposition that all has been done that has been necessary and that you must not question the result if, forsooth, the Committee of this House have recommended it by a majority vote. I appeal against any proposition of that kind, and I refuse absolutely to be bound by it. It is our right, as it is our duty to discuss the report of any committee and to feel ourselves absolutely free to dissent from it.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: As far as I have understood the observations of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat I said altogether the contrary in regard to this committee. I said that I was prepared to rest upon the finding of fact, which I assumed this committee had made, that there was an error, or mistake in 1879.


William Stevens Fielding: It is a well understood rule that where a member has not had an opportunity or when, for any reason, a member fails to make any very close investigation of a private Bill, he accepts the judgment of the committee, not necessarily as a finality, but because the committee has undertaken the work which he perhaps was not able to do. It is only in that sense, I am sure, that any member would urge the principle that the finding of a committee should be accepted. I hesitate not to say that if any member is willing to go to the trouble to look into a Bill for himself and to make a careful investigation of it he is not bound to pay the slightest attention to the judgment of the committee. But with regard to most of these private Bills, it happens that many members, either from disinclination, or occupation in other directions, do not attend the committees and do not give close attention to the details. It is therefore the practice! of the House in such cases to accept the findings of the committee, and I think that as a rule that practice has worked well. Let me say, that the point as to the insufficiency of the notice has perhaps considerable strength. In a matter of such grave importance, affecting the interests of a great financial institution and affecting the interests of a very large body of shareholders and stockholders, there is everything to be gained by proceeding cautiously and slowly. It should not be said that this House is disposed to pass any legislation of this character if the legislation will not bear careful investigation
and critical examination, just as any legislation that we pass should, and I would therefore say to my hon. friend in charge of the Bill that I hope he will accept the suggestion that the Bill be not proceeded with further to-day, but that progress be reported with the view of permitting the Standing Orders Committee to make further inquiry into the question as to the sufficiency of the notice. Speaking entirely for myself, as this is a private Bill which does	not call	for	any	declaration	ofpolicy on the part of the government, I am inclined to think that this Bill is a good one, that it is a Bill that is necessary in the interests of a great number of people. I did not take any part in the	discussion in	the	Committee	of
Banking and Commerce, but I listened very closely to the proceedings. I was particularly impressed by the powerful speech in support of this Bill made by the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Barker) who, with a full knowledge of all the facts and of the history of the Canada Life Assurance Company, reviewed all the circumstances of the case and gave very powerful reasons why the Bill should pass, reasons which influenced his mind as well as mine. For 30 years it has been the practice of the Canada Life Assurance Company to apply this method of declaring their profits, first to charge interest on their capital and then to strike the balance and distribute the profits accordingly. We have therefore the practice of 30 years of the Canada Life Company which has never been called in question. There must be some statutory limitation in all these things. And, while one may hesitate to adopt legislation which is of a retroactive character, while one may hesitate to adopt legislation which would take away some man's private rights, I say there ought to be some statutory limitation and that if men have slept upon their rights for 30 years they ought not to complain very much if it becomes necessary to confirm a practice which they themselves have acquiesced in.


George Eulas Foster: What about the policy holder of a year ago?


William Stevens Fielding: Then there is the next point: that the practice of the Canada Life has been the practice, I am advised, of every other company issuing a participating policy in Canada; it certainly is the practice of the companies generally. I do not know that there are any exceptions, but as a rule the same practice which has been followed by the Canada Life for thirty years is followed by the other companies. That practice has been subject to the inquiry and investigation of the Insurance Department and no question has ever been raised as to the propriety of that method of computing the profits. The third point is that

it is, I am advised, the practice in England, where under precisely similar conditions interest on capital is charged before profits are declared. Now, all these are strong reasons I would say for confirming the practice which has existed for such a long time, and that practice is so well established in the minds of insurance men that in the preparation of the general Insurance Bill which is now before the House that practice has been imported into the Bill, and it is specifically declared that in the computation of profits you shall first charge interest upon capital. That provision in a general Bill will of course not be retroactive ; and of course this special Bill would be necessary to make the provision retroactive.
There is another view: that for many many years the capital of this company was $125,000 and the profits were distributed over that sum. After this practice wdiich has now been called in question had been continued for a very long time, the shareholders put in $875,000 of new capital. I submit that these shareholders in putting in that new capital had a right to expect the continuance of the practice as to the regulation of profits that had been in existence for so many years. And when, a few years ago, they put in $875,000 of new capital with the full expectation that they were to receive interest on that capital before profits were declared, that being the practice of the company from its beginning, then if we are to turn round now and tell them that practice is wrong, the shareholders who put in that new capital are the men who would have the right to be aggrieved. If it be declared that the interest is not to be allowed before profits are declared, then clearly they were induced to invest that $875,000 of new capital in that enterprise upon a misunderstanding, to put it in the mildest form. And if this modern contention, which is only now brought to the front, is to prevail, then surely these gentlemen have a perfect right to say to parliament : let us take back the $875,000 which we invested upon the faith of an understanding which it now appears is wrong, I will put it as strongly as possible and I will say that I think this is retroactive legislation. Taking the opinion of the eminent English counsel which has been published in one of the documents; taking the opinion of the Minister of Justice; taking such information as I can get upon the subject I am inclined to think that while there would be no absolute certainty in the matter-while it may very well admit of a legal dispute and I suppose you can get good lawyers on one side or the other to argue the case-I am rather inclined to think it is retroactive legislation. I am inclined to think *it interferes with rights which policy-holders may have. But, they are rights which the policy-holders neveT knew they possessed, rights which they Mr. FIELDING.
never expected to possess, rights which they are not entitled to possess in equity, and therefore I would say that notwithstanding the fact that it may be retroactive legislation ; nothwithstanding the fact that you will say some action has been raised in court-although I believe that while there is actually no suit in court there may be one at any moment-notwithstanding all that, if we were dealing with the merits of the 'question, I should say that for the prevention of confusion and disorder it would be wise for this parliament to pass this Bill. See what will happen if you do not. Thirty years ago a shareholder in the Canada Life received a larger measure of profits than he was entitled to receive; he is dead; hi3 estate has been closed up; if you want to get the money back how are you going to get it? Take the other side of the argument -thirty years ago a policy-holder received less profits than he was entitled to receive; hedid not get what he was entitled to ; he is dead and his estate is closed up; how are you going to adjust the matter now ; how are you going to get it from the shareholder who is dead; how are you going to find the policy-holder to give him what he should receive? There are possibilities of great disorder and of great trouble. I say there would be no wrong in giving legal effect to the understanding and practice which appear to have existed for thirty years and which every policy-holder of the Canada Life, so far as he knew anything about it at all, accepted. I say there would be no wrong in giving legal enactment to such measures as are necessary to carry out that understanding.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In view of the statement of the Minister of Finance that the policy-holders have never raised objection I want to say a word from their point of view. The fact is they never knew they were being improperly dealt with. I have a very strong letter from one who has been with the company for many years and his statement is that the profits he supposed were properly divided until of late years, seemed to dwindle away and could not be accounted for, and he says : I did not object because I did not know but that what I was getting was all that the law entitled me to. I expect that would be the case with practically the 35,000 policy-holders of the company. If they did not raise a claim because they were not getting what was coming to them under the law it was because they were not in a position to know how the division of profits was made and they took it for granted that the division was made according to law by honest men. But now it is brought to their attention and they feel very keenly with regard to it. The next question is as to whether they were or were not deceived. Take

the preamble of the Bill of 1879 and what would any ordinary business man in this country think of this :
The profits allotted are divided amongst the persons assured upon the participation scale; 75 per^ cent of all the profits realized from the entire business.
Would not any business man say that included profits from any source? If the English language means .anything it means that, and if the policy-holder believed he was getting a fair division of all the profits realized from the entire business of the company, then he would naturally come to the conclusion he was getting all he was entitled to. _ The Prime Minister told us that the objection taken did not apply to the clause we are considering; but my answer is that the question of the sufficiency or insufficiency of the notice vitally affects the whole Bill and every clause in it. We would not be doing our duty in my opinion if we proceeded with the consideration of the Bill without knowing whether the notice was sufficient or insufficient, and I believe the only proper course for the committee to take is to report progress and let the House deal with the Bill.


Alfred Henry Clarke: Though I have charge of this Bill, I have no other interest in it other than that of a policy-holder; so that I am dealing with it in my own interest as such, and I believe that if the construction now sought to be put upon it should prevail, it would virtually ruin the company. It would reduce the dividends of the shareholders from 8 per cent to less than 4 per cent, while the corresponding benefit to the policy-holders would be insignificant. Based on a capital of $125,000 it would not amount to over five cents a year on a $1,000 policy. The interest of the policy-holders is wrapped up in the security of the company; it is of the utmost interest to every policy-holder that the permanency of the company be established. But if you reduce the stock to a basis of less than 4 per cent and compel the shareholders to contribute 90 per cent of their earnings on the stock of the $875,000 as well as the original capital of $125,000, they will get less than one half of one per cent on the capital they put into the company in 1900. It seems so unfair a proposition that I cannot imagine that any policy-holder would seek to put such a construction on the Act.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Was this an important question when there was only $125,000 of stock paid up? It only became important after the shareholders put in the additional stock?


Alfred Henry Clarke: Quite so, because in the one case they would only pay on $125,000, while in the other case they would
pay on the whole $1,000,000. If the interpretation now sought to be put on the Act is right, the shareholders, in paying up the stock of $875,000 in full, were making the company a charitable institution. People may be charitable if they wish to be, but it is not the business of the legislature to compel them to be charitable. It might be that the policy-holders of to-day would get an immediate benefit; but in the ulti mate interest of the policy-holders it would be one of the worst things that could happen for the company to be placed in such a position that the shareholders would not get such a rate of interest on their investment as would induce them to carry on the company. I have no personal interest in this Bill. I told Mr. Bruce, the representative of the company, that I would take charge of it if it were a meritorious and reputable Bill, and he assured me that it was. Whatever hesitation I may have had about it, the more I have studied the question, the more convinced I am that the Act which this House is being called upon to confirm is not only doing justice to the shareholders and preventing a fraud being committed on them, but is in the interest of the policy-holders themselves. Having stated my position a week ago to-day, although it was said that the Minister of Justice had been asked to give an opinion upon the Bill, I understood that it was desired to leave it over in order that it might be further considered, and I immediately acquiesced. Far be it from me to try to force this or any other Bill through the House if it has not had proper consideration. What is the object of the notice ? Notice of a Bill must be given five weeks before it comes up. That is to inform the public that a Bill involving certain questions is to be brought before parliament. That notice, I suppose, is not seen by one out of a thousand of the insured. Very few people ever see the 'Canada Gazette,' and very few read the newspaper advertisements. But the matter becomes known when the Bill is introduced in parliament. Then all the newspapers put the facts, not in their advertising columns, but in their news columns, and the policy-holders and every other class of people find them out.
I have just come from the west, where everybody knows about this Bill, and is talking about it. Although I am not a member of the Committee on Banking and Commerce, I was there one day, and I do not think it is possible to advance any argument here that was not brought up there.
I think the notice was sufficient, and the opinion of a man like Mr. Panet, who has been in charge of that class of work for many years, that it was sufficient, leads me to feel that we are not very far astray in

accepting it as sufficient. However, if members want to further consider the Bill,
I am not going to stand in their way. Though I am a little suspicious that these tactics are obstructive, I am going to give the benefit of the doubt to those who say they want to have further light on the measure, and therefore I am willing that the Bill should stand until next Monday, as I cannot be here again before then. I will therefore move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 79) respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. W. McIntyre.
Mr. RUTAN.: By subsection A of this Bill the Canadian Pacific Railway are asking for authority to build a branch line from Lannigan into Prince Albert, but our people think this branch line comes really under the charter for the Manitoba North Western Railway, which charter is also owned by the Canadian Pacific Railway. The people of Prince Albert are not satisfied to accept the mere promise of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and feel that they should be given some surety that the Canadian Pacific Railway will_ implement its promises. That company should be compelled to build a certain number of miles every year, under penalty of forfeiting its charter. The old Manitoba and North Western Railway was given a charter in 1883, and previous to that a charter was granted to the Portage and Western Road. In the former there was a building clause provided, under which a certain number of miles were to be built each year, and by 1890 the road was to be completed into the town of Yorktown. But this building clause was not carried out, and in 1893 the Canadian Pacific Railway acquired the Manitoba and North Western charter. That charter also carried a provision that at least 20 miles a year should be built until the line was completed into Prince Albert. But this was not done, and the Canadian Pacific Railway repeatedly came to parliament asking for an extension of time, until 1902, when the Canadian Northern were building their line from Dauphin north and west to Prince Albert. The Canadian Pacific then made two surveys over the old proposed line of the Manitoba and North Western, for the purpose of hampering the competing line, but they did not build a mile of that railway. They then came back to this parliament and applied for authority to divert their own line from Shebo west to Saskatoon. And on this occasion, the people of Prince Albert endeavoured to Mr. A. H. CLARKE.
have a clause inserted providing that for each mile of railway built west, there would be one built northwest. This was not accepted by the company, and parliament allowed them a charter to build west. There are people in that section who moved out some 60 or 75 miles expecting this railway to be built because the charter carried a clause requiring so many miles to be built, each year. Many hon. members here will know that Prince Albert district was settled as early as Regina on the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and therefore had the Tight to expect some consideration from the granting of the charter to this Manitoba and North Western Railway.
It was not until the Canadian Northern had purchased the line from Regina to Prince Albert that the Canadian Pacific Railway asked for a charter to build from Lannigan to Prince Albert. This charter was granted, and it was thought by the people of that section that the Canadian Pacific Railway would fulfil this promise because they had been cut off from their connection with the city of Prince Albert, but we find to-dav that they are not prepared to go ahead and build although they have had their charter two years. Instead of doing so, they are again asking for an extension of time. As they have been promising to build the Manitoba and North Western over 16 years, the people of Prince Albert are justified in questioning the sincerity of the company, and are asking that they' should be compelled to give some evidence of good faith by building a certain amount of road each year. The Canadian Pacific Railway have another Bill asking for an extension of time to build the Mam-toba and North Western to Prince Albert I do not think it is possible that they intend building two lines into Prince Albert. It would Tather seem to me as if they wanted to hold the two charters and blanket the two passes available from the south and southeast into Prince Albert through the Birch Hills in ordeT that no competing company may get a charter through those passes. Evidently in 1902 and for some years later, when the Canadian Northern was building branches through the west, they and the Canadian Pacific Railway twere common enemies, but apparently there is to-day an understanding between them to try and cut out the Grand Trunk Pacific and other lines from getting charters to build through these routes. The people out there are compelled to haul their grain long distances and they feel that they should not be asked to take the mere promises of this railway any longeT without insisting on some guarantee. I therefore beg to move as a subsection to clause one that the company-, build 30 miles in 1909 and 30 miles each year until the road is completed.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The amendment proposed is hardly in order in its present form, because paragraph A of the Act of 1907 does not appear in this Bill. There is merely a passing reference to it. The amendment might apply as a separate subsection.


William Windfield Rutan: Then, I move it as a separate subsection.


John Gillanders Turriff: I also wish to move an amendment


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: If there is no notice given of the amendment, it may not be in order at this time.


John Gillanders Turriff: The amendment I wish to move, Mr. Chairman, alter you have disposed of the one now before you, is that letter (g) be struck out of section 1 of the Bill under discussion.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: For such an amendment as that, 'one day's notice would be necessary.


John Gillanders Turriff: Then, I give the necessary notice, and, as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wilbert McIntyre) who is in charge of the Bill is absent, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and progress reported.

Mr. SPEAKER.: The Committee on Bill (No. 56) respecting the Canada Life Assurance Company reports that it has made some progress and asks for leave to sit again. When shall the committee have leave to sit again?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I understood that the arrangement was that this Bill was to go back to the Banking and Commerce Committee.


Alfred Henry Clarke: Why should it go back ?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: There are two reasons: In the first place, the committee could inquire into the sufficiency of the notice, on which point, if necessary, they could refer it back to the Committee on Standing Orders. In the second place, they could take into consideration the opinion given in this House to-day by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth). Therefore, I move, in amendment, that the order be discharged and that the Bill be referred to the Committee on Banking and Commerce.


William Stevens Fielding: If the point is to be as to the sufficiency of the notice, I am not sure that
the Banking and Commerce Committee is the proper one to refer it to.


George Eulas Foster: It seems to me the proper committee would be the Committee on Standing Orders. Then, it can come back to us from the Committee on Standing Orders and we can refer it then wherever we like.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. SIFTON-by Mr. A. H. Clarke -
asked:
1.	What is the total number of employees upon the operating staff of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway above the rank of brakemen ?
2.	Of the total number how many are British subjects, and how many are citizens of the United States?
3.	What is the total number of employees upon the engineering staff of the Grand Trunk Pacific, exclusive of labourers?
4.	Of the total how many are British subjects, and how many are citizens of the United States ?
Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	The information to answer this question is furnished by the vice-president and general manager of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, as follows:	Total number
of men above the rank of brakesmen, is 135.
2.	It would seem to be impossible to secure information as to the nationality of the men mentioned without making a complete canvass from Edmonton to Prince Rupert, where many of the employees are in practically inaccessible locations at this time of the year. The correspondence indicates that it would take at least three months' to get the information. It is also stated that 90 per cent of the employees referred to are British subjects or have been residents of Canada for from three to ten years, this assertion being based on the March pay-rolls and from information at hand.
3.	231.
4.	Answered by Number 2, in addition to which it is stated that the following are British subjects: Second vice-president, chief engineer, bridge engineer, freight traffic manager, assistant freight traffic manager, travelling freight agent, assistant passenger traffic manager, district passenger agent, general solicitor, assistant solicitor, general auditor, auditor of disbursements, auditor of freight accounts, auditor of passenger accounts, travelling auditor, treasurer, local treasurer, manager of telegraphs, land commissioner, right of way agent, master mechanic, assistant master me-



chanic, purchasing agent and representative at Vancouver, car service agent, chief medical officer, and district medical officers.


MARINE AND FISHERIES DEPARTMENT -PURCHASE OF SUPPLIES.
Samuel Simpson Sharpe: 


BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY BELT-LITIGATION BETWEEN DOMINION AND PROVINCE.
Mr. J. D. TAYLOR asked:: 1- Are there any matters in litigation between the government of the Dominion and that of British Columbia respecting rights within the Railway belt in British Columbia? If so, what are the issues, and what progress bas been made towards determination?
2.	Does the Dominion government exert any jurisdiction over the foreshores of the Fraser river ? If so, to what point on the river does the asserted jurisdiction extend?


Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH (Minister of J ustice):: 1.	An action is pending in the Exchequer Court on the information of the Attorney General for the Dominion against the Bur-rard Power Company, Limited. The claim in the action is to have the court declare invalid a grant to! the defendant company by the Water Commissioners for the district of New Westminster of certain rights to the waters of the Lillooet lakes and river, and for an injunction to restrain the company from taking any further steps in regard thereto. The matter was referred by the court to a special referee to take evidence and report upon the facts. The government of British Columbia was made a party in the proceedings upon the reference, evidence was taken and the report of the referee has been filed. The case now stands for hearing on a motion for judgment, made on the 16th March instant, and then adjourned to a date not yet reached.
2. So far as the Fraser river lies within the limits of the railway belt in British Columbia, or so far as relates to subjects covered by the 91st and the 108th sections of the British North America Act, the government is advised that the river and its foreshores are within the jurisdiction of Dominion authority.


WOLFE ISLAND CANAL.
Mr. EDWARDS asked:: 1.	When was the Wolfe Island canal constructed?
2.	Did the government contribute to the cost of said canal? If so, to what amount?
3.	Has the Dominion government contributed anything to the maintenance of said canal?
If so, in what years, and to what amount in each ?
4.	By whom is the canal now owned?
5.	How long since the canal has been used?


William Pugsley: There are no records in the department from which .an answer could be given.	J


Mr. GRAHAM.: 1.	Has the Marine and Fisheries Department continued to buy supplies, or give contracts to the individuals, supply men, or companies on whose behalf commissions, gratuities or interest were paid to officials of the department, as found by the Cassels Commission ?
2.	If so, what are the names of such individuals, supply men and companies, and the amount paid or to be paid to them since the receipt of said report by the government?
3.	Have any other departments purchased supplies or given contracts to any such individuals,. supply men or companies since the receipt of said report by the government? If so, what are the names and amount thereof?


Mar.  C. H.@: '
1 and 3. There may be cases in which it will be in the public interest to do business with some of the parties referred to. Each case will have to be considered on its merits as it arises.
2. If any particular name be mentioned the information will be given to the House.


George Eulas Foster: I call the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that the first clause of the question is not answered. It is as to whether it may be done or not; has the Marine and Fisheries Department continued to buy supplies?


Wilfrid Laurier: I think the second answer governs that.


DREDGING IN OTONABEE RIVER, PETERBOROUGH.
Mr. BRADBURY asked:: 1.	What is the name of the contractor doing dredging at or near Hunter street bridge, in the Otonabee river, at Peterborough?
2.	What was the object of said dredging?
3.	What amount of dredging has been done by the government during the year 1908 on said work, and what was paid during 1908 for said dredging?
4.	Did the government own any (boats or machinery used on this work?
5.	Was any of the government material or machinery used on this work sold or transferred? If so, to whom, and what was received for same?
6.	Were any contracts made by tender for this work? If so, were they called by public advertisement, and how many were received ?
7.	What are the names of the parties whose boats or dredges have been employed in connection with said dredging?
8.	Have any of those engaged upon said works been employed by the government otherwise than by contract? If so, how much did they receive?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	6 and 8. Work done by day's labour with dredge hired from Conroy Brothers.
2.	Construction of turning basin above
Hunter street bridge.	.
3.	Some 2,167 cubic yards dredged during 1908; nothing paid yet.
4.	No.
5.	No.
7. Conroy Brothers.


FILE HILLS INDIAN AGENCY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. CAMPBELL-by Mr. Bradbury-asked :
1.	Has Mr. Godfrey, clerk to Inspector Graham, of File Hills Indian agenoy, resigned?
2.	Has Mr. Godfrey made any charges against inspector? If so, what are the charges ?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to investigate the charges? If so, when?
4.	On whose recommendation was Mr. Godfrey, lately clerk to the inspector of South Saskatchewan inspectorate, appointed?
Hon. GEO  P.@: GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals);
1.	Yes.
2.	Mr. Godfrey has made certain statements to the effect that Inspector Graham has not been dealing honestly with the department's funds and other property.
3.	The department has the matter now undeT consideration.
4.	The appointment was made upon the department's being satisfied that it was necessary.


SQUATTERS ON LANDS NEAR DAUPHIN.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. CAMPBELL-by Mr. BradbuTy- asked:
1.	Is the government aware that houses and outbuildings of squatters on lands south of Dauphin, lately taken into the permanent timber reserves, were said to have been burned last fall by government officials?
2.	Did the government give instructions to have these buildings burned? If so, is that the policy of the government?
3.	Did the government take any steps to care for the women and children so rendered homeless at the beginning of the inclement winter season?
4.	Did the government give instructions to its officials to seize hay put up by said squatters? If so, have they paid or do they intend to pay for such fodder?
Hon. GEO, P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):
1.	Yes, but the statement was not correct.
2.	No.
3.	Any provision necessary to assist squat-[DOT] ters removed from the reserve was made
and most of them have made written statements that they are well satisfied with the treatment given them.
4.	No. If the squatters obtained the hay undeT permit it would be their property
96i

[Stage Direction]
Mr. COWAN-by Mr. Blain-asked:
1.	What is the present indebtedness of the
Grand Trunk Railway Company to the Dominion of Canada?	.
2.	What are the several dates on which that indebtedness was incurred?
3.	What rate or rates of interest does that indebtedness bear?
4.	What payments have been made on account of that indebtedness or interest, and when?
5.	If the company's indebtedness has been wiped out or reduced, how and when was this done?
William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman will find that information was given to the House several days ago. I would refer him to the * Hansard ' of March 17, page 2840, which I think covers the whole question.


OSHAWA HARBOUR.
Mr. HUGHES asked:: 1.	Since taking over Oshawa harbour what officers have been appointed and what are their salaries, for duty at that harbour or in connection therewith ?
2.	What products have been landed at the said harbour by water route since the date referred to?
3.	What duties, fees or receipts of cash have been collected by each department of the government since that date?
4.	What expenditures upon the harbour or any part of it have been made by each department of the government since the date of taking over?


Hon. WM. PATERSON (Minister of Customs) :: 1.	No customs officer has been appointed since taking over Oshawa harbour, 8th April, 1901, for duty on account of such harbour.
2.	Anthracite coal to the value of $79,251 has been landed at said harbour by water route since 8th April, 1901.
3.	No customs duties have been collected on goods landed at said harbour since that date.
4.	There has been no expenditure on said harbour by the Department of Customs.


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works).: 4. Expended by the Department of Public Works, $21,279.49.
POST OFFICES IN PEEL COUNTY. Mr. BLAIN asked:
1.	How many post offices are there in Peel county, and what are their names?
2.	Is each office in receipt of daily mail?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General):: 1. There are 63 offices in the county of Peel, as indicated by the following list:-

Albion, Alton, Alloa, Bolton, Belfountain, Boston Mills, Brampton, Britannia, Burn-hamthorpe, Castleberg, Cedar Mills, Coventry, Caldwell, Caledon, Caledon East, Cataract, Credit Forks, Campbell's Cross, Cheltenham, Claude, Churchville, Clarkson, Cooksville, Castlemore, Coleraine, Derry, Dixie, Elmbank, Erindale, Grahamsville, Huttonsville, Hanlan, Inglewood, Kilman-agh, Lockton, Lisgar, Lome Park, Macville, Mono Mills, Mono Boad Station, Mount Wolfe, Mellville Cross, Mayfield, Malton, Meadowvale, Mount Charles, Nortonville, Palgrave, Palgrave Station, Port Credit, Rockside, Sleswick, Star, Sandhill, Snel-grove, Streetsville, Summerville, Stanley Mills, The Grange, Terra Cotta, Tullamore, Woodhill, Wildfield.
2.	No.


DUTY ON BEET SUGAR.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BELAND-by Mr. Lavergne-asked:
1.	Has the government any information regarding the production in Canada of pulp and paper during last year? If so, what are the figures in tons?
2- What quantity of pulp was exported to the United States and England, respectively, during last year?
3.	What quantity of paper was exported to the United -States and Great Britain, respectively, during last year?
4.	What amount in cords of pulpwood was exported to the United States during last year?
Hon. WM. PATERSON (Minister of Customs) :: 2.	During the last fiscal year, ended March 31, 1908, the quantity of pulp exported to the United States and Great Britain was as follows:


Mr. HUGHES asked:: 1.	Is there any agitation or movement to have beet sugar refiners prohibited from importing their raw sugars from Europe under the preferential tariff?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to grant to the beet sugar refiners the same rate of duty on European sugar as refiners now obtain on their raw sugars?
United Great States. Britain.
Wood pulp, chemically
prepared, cwt	
769,514	13,660Wood pulp, mechanically ground, cwt	
3,033,885	973,5983.	The exports of paper during the above period to United States and Great Britain were as follows:


William Stevens Fielding: If there is any agitation it is rather the other way. In regard to the second question, it is not expedient to -nake any announcement except in the Budget speech.


MAIL CARRIAGE-PICTOU TO MAGDALEN ISLANDS.
Mr. FRASER asked:: 1.	Has the contract been let for the carrying of the mails by steamer from Pictou to Magdalen Islands?
2.	Were tenders called for the said contracts?
3.	What are the names of the tenderers and the amount of each tender?
4.	What class of steamer did the tender call for ?
5.	What is the class or description of steamer provided by the successful tenderer?


Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Messrs. Bouchard Bros., Quebec, $10995; Wm. Maclure, Pictou, N.S., $12,000; Magdalen Islands Steamship Co., Halifax' N.S., $10,000; Magdalen Islands Steamship Co., Halifax, N.S., $15,000.
4.	The call for tenders required that the tenders should state speed, class and capacity of vessel to be employed.
5.	Built 1895. Length 188 feet 6 inches, breadth 29 feet, depth 11 feet 1 inch. Gross ions 565. Net tons 159. Speed 111 knots.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: ' Great Britain. United States.
Wall paper, rolls. Felt paper, rolls. Wrapping paper,
lbs	
Paper, n.o.p. . .$ Printing paper .$1
Quan-	Quantity. Value, tity. Value.
512 $ 159	19,794 $ 6,440
5,060 21,898 109,863 101,835
594,695 $ 24,265 354,887	34,673
922,278	791,533
4. Cords of pulpwood exported to the United States during the above period were 901,861.


DRY DOCK AT NEW WESTMINSTER.
Mr.  J. D.@: TAYLOR-by Mr. Burrell-asked :
1.	Has the government under consideration any application for assistance to a dry dock or marine ways enterprise at New Westminster?
2.	If so, by whom was such application
made, and what is the extent of assistance applied for?	*
3.	Are there any other enterprises of like character in the neighbourhood? If so, what is the extent of the assistance extended to them by the government, or contemplated to be extended?


William Pugsley: *
1.	Yes.
2.	By Mr. Ed. Mercer, who asks that government subscribe fifty per cent of cost.
3.	Yes. No assistance rendered and none applied for.


MILES OF RAILWAY IN ALBERTA AND SASKATCHEWAN.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MCCARTHY-by Mr. Herron- asked:
How may miles of railway were under operation in the territory now comprised within the boundaries of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, respectively, on December 31, 1896, and December 31, 1908, respectively ?
George Perry Graham: To the 30th June, 1896, 1,772 miles; to the 30th June, 1908, 3,404 miles.


PORT OF PORT CREDIT.
Mr. BLAIN asked:: 1.	What was the total revenue for customs at Port Credit for the last three fiscal years, respectively ?
2.	Has the sub-collector been superannuated? If so, what is his superannuation allowance?
3.	Has his successor been appointed? If so, who received the appointment, and at what
salary ?
4.	What are his duties?
5.	Upon whose recommendation was he appointed ?


Hon. WM. PATERSON (Minister of Customs) :: 1.	The total revenue has been as follows:
Year ending June 30, 1906..	..$22,000 98
9 months ending March 31, 1907. . 25,759 54 Year ending March 31, 1908	 45,209 28
2.	Yes; $343.33 a year.
3.	John W. Heary has been appointed acting sub-collector of customs at Port Credit. Salary, $850 a year.
4.	His duties are to receive customs entries and duties and perform the usual work of a customs collector.
5.	He was appointed by the Minister of Customs.


DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS-CONTRACTS FOR DREDGING.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACDONELL-by Mr. Geo. Taylor-asked:
1.	What were the contracts awarded early in 1908 by the Department of Public Works for dredging in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec for work to be done during the year 1908, and did such contracts terminate and expire when the season closed?
2.	If not, what contracts extended into and to bo continued during the present year in said provinces?
3.	Has the Public Works Department expended or awarded any of such contracts in said provinces for work to be done during the present year? If so, to whom and at what points and prices?
4.	Were public tenders called for any such renewals or new contracts?
5.	Is it the intention of the government to advertise for tenders for work to be done at the several points as mentioned in current estimates where work is to be performed in said provinces? If so, when will said tenders be called ?
6.	Is it the intention of the government to renew any dredging contracts in said jjro-vinces which expired last year, without advertising and calling for tenders in the usual public manner?
William Pugsley: 1 and 2. In Ontario: Blind river, Burlington, Cobourg, Collingwood, Goderich, Hamilton, Kincaidine, Little Current, Meaford, Midland, Nigger and Telegraph islands, Owen Sound, Penetanguishene, Picton, Point Edward, Port Burwell, Port Elgin, Rondeau, Summerstown, Thames river, Thornbury, Toronto, Trenton harbour and Dark channel, Waubaushene, Wiarton, Wingfield basin.
In Quebec:	Batiscan, Becancour river,
Blanche shoals, Chateauguay river, Dorion, Fraserville, Godfroy river, Hay island, Hudson, L'Assomption, Maskinonge river, Nicolet, Port St. Francis, River Jesus, Riviere du Loup (en haut), Rivifere Ouelle, Saguenay river, St. Francis river, St. Lambert, St. Maurice river, St. Pierre les Bee-quets, St. Placide, Vaudreuil, Yamachiche river and Yamaska river.	_
All these contracts were made subject to extension if considered advisable. Contract with the C. S. Boone Dredging and Construction Company for dredging at Little Current specifies that work shall be completed within two years from date of signing, viz., 26th June, 1910.
3 and 4. No.
5 and 6. Matter under consideration.


DOMINION ARSENAL AT QUEBEC.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. STANFIELD-by Mr, George Taylor -asked:
What were the names of the bidders, the brands, and the prices in connection with the recent tenders for spelter for the Dominion Arsenal at Quebec, for which tenders were called for January 31. and opened on February 1, as the former date was Sunday?
Hon.   S@: No tenders were called for January 31, nor opened on February 1, and therefore the gratuitous information that the1 former date was Sunday lacks point.
Tenders for ingot copper, pig lead and spelter were invited for January 30, and opened and awarded same day, by circular letter by the superintendent, Dominion Arsenal, Quebec, dated 22nd January last, from the following firms: Thos. Robertson aud Company, Montreal; B. J. Coghlin and Company, Montreal; Lewis Bros., Montreal; Jas. Robertson and Company, Montreal; H. A. Drury and Company, Montreal; the General Supply Company of Canada, Ottawa; Mr. L. S. Macoun, Ottawa.
The quantities required were:	Copper
ingot for brass strip work, 219,000 lbs.; copper ingot for cupro-nickel strip work,

142.000	lbs.; pig lead, 290,000 lbs.; spelter,
122.000	lbs.
Contracts were made as follows: With B. J. Coghlin and Company for copper at $13.95 per cwt. j with Thos. Robertson and Company for lead at $3.31 per cwt.; with L, S. Macoun, for spelter at $7.75 per cwt. each of these being the lowest tender received.
The only other tender for spelter received besides Mr. Macoun's was Messrs. B. J. Coghlin and Company's at $8.10 per 100 lbs.
Messrs. Coglin's tender was for 'Golden Rod' spelter; Mr. Macoun's for 'Bertha' spelter; both in accordance with specification. A copy of the specification governing the supply of spelter is attached hereto.
The circular letter of the superintendent of th- Dominion Arsenal inviting tenders, read in part as follows:
Sealed tenders marked on the outside ' Tenders for supplies Dominion Arsenal ' addressed to the Director of Contracts, Militia Department, Ottawa, w_ill he received up to 12 o'clock noon on 30th January, 1909, for supply of materials specified in attached statement.
Tenders were accordingly received by the director of contracts and opened by him and by a clerk in his branch conjointly, at 12 o'clock noon on Saturday, January 30. the successful tenderers and the superintendent, Dominion Arsenal, were notified, by telegraph, within one hour of the opening of the tenders.



SPELTER SPECIFICATION TO GOVERN SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
1.	The spelter to be of good quality and must not contain more than 0 1 per cent of iron or 0-1 per cent of lead and only traces of any other impurities.
2.	Each is to bear the manufacturers' name or recognized trade mark and customary brand for quality of metal supplied.
3.	Specimens will be taken indiscriminately from the supply and chemically analysed to ascertain if the metal conforms in quality as above.
4.	The supply will be subject to the ip-spection and approval of an officer of the department.
NOTE-Certain	Brands, viz: 'Lehigh
Valley', 'Empire', 'Vieille Montagne', 'Extra Pure', 'Bertha', and 'Crescent', or any brands of equal quality and similar conditions, are found to be worked in this department-samples may be seen.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. STANFIELD-by Mr. Geo. Taylor-asked :
1. Was an order in council passed in December, 1908, changing the date allowing small 1 Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.
vessels carrying coal, under 1,500 tons, in our coasting trade from July 1, 1909 to 1912? If so, at what date and at whose solicitation?
2. Was an order issued by the Customs Department regarding the coasting trade of Canada in December, 1908? If so, what were the orders issued by the collector of customs?
Hon. W. PATERSON (Minister of Customs) :: 1.	No.
2.	The orders issued by the Customs in December, 1908, are as set forth in memo. 1510-B of December 17, 1908, and memo. 1514-B of December 31, 1908. I attach the
memos:
File No. 71723.	No. 1514 B.


MEMORANDUM.
[Stage Direction]
Department of Customs, Canada,
Ottawa, 31st December, 1908. To Collectors of Customs:
Coasting Trade of Canada.
Referring to memo. 1510 B, in the above matter, you are advised that by order in council of this date it is declared that steamships of foreign countries which had been admitted to, and were under charter to engage in the coasting trade of the Dominion of Canada, at 31st December, 1908, shall be permitted to continue in the coasting trade of Canada, in the carrying of goods and passengers coastwise in the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Quebec, on the same terms and conditions as are applicable to Canadian vessels until the first day of July, 1909, notwithstanding anything in the order in council of 17th December, 1908, respecting the coasting trade of Canada.

[Stage Direction]
Commissioner of Customs.
Mailed direct to outports and stations.
File No. 71723.	No. 1510 B.

[Stage Direction]
Department of Customs, Canada,
Ottawa, 17th December, 1908. To Collectors of Customs:
Coasting Trade of Canada.
Referring to memo. 1452 B, of 13th January, 1908, you are advised that an order in council, dated the 17th December, 1908, contains the following provisions, viz.:-
At the Government House at Ottawa, Thursday, the 17th day of December, 1908. Present:
His Excellency the Governor General in Council.
Whereas, by an order in council dated 13th January, 1908, it is provided that certain orders in council by which ships and vessels of certain foreign countries had been admitted to the coasting trade of Canada, are repealed on, from and after January 1, 1909.
And whereas applications have been made to allow the ships and vessels of certain foreign countries to participate in such coasting trade to a limited extent and for a temporary period, pending the acquisition of suitable British ships, to which class of vessels

under the provisions of the order the coasting trade would on and after the said date be confined.
Therefore, His Excellency the Governor General in Council is pleased to order that the said order in council of the 13th January, 1908, shall be and the same is hereby revoked and the following provisions substituted for the provisions therein contained:-
All orders in council admitting ships or vessels of any foreign country to the coasting trade of Canada shall be and the same are hereby revoked on, from and after the 1st January, 1909, and thereafter such ships and vessels shall be subject to the provisions of sections 952 to 957 of the Canada Shipping Act, both inclusive;
Provided, that steamships of not less than fifteen hundred tons gross tonnage each, of the following countries, namely: Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Austro-Hungary, Denmark, Belgium, the Argentine Republic and Japan shall be admitted to the coasting trade of Canada in the carrying of goods and passengers coastwise between any port in the province of Nova Scotia and any port in the province of Quebec, and vice versa, on the same terms and conditions as are applicable to Canadian vessels, until the 31st day of December, 1811.

[Stage Direction]
Commissioner of Customs.
Mailed direct to outports and stations.
REPAIRS TO CANADIAN SHIPS, &C.
Mr. J. A. CURRIE asked:: 1.	Were representations made to the Customs Department by any person as agent for the Dominion Marine Association, urging the government not to impose a duty on repairs made to Canadian ships in certain cases? If so, what are the names of such persons?
2.	What ships have been purchased by the Dominion government from British shipbuilders since 1896?
3.	What are the names of the shipbuilders who built each ship and the purchase price of each ship?
4.	Were any tenders received for the building of these ships from Canadian shipbuilders? If so, what were the amounts of the Canadian tenders for each ship and the names of the tenderers?
5.	What amount of money was spent on each of these ships for changes, improvements, additional equipment and repairs since they were taken over by the government?
6.	Who were the Canadian agents, or persons representing each individual British ship-builder who secured a tender for the building of any ships for the government of Canada?


Hon. W. PATERSON (Minister of Customs) :: 1. Mr. F. M. King, secretary of the Dominion Marine Association, has represented to the Minister of Customs that by unanimous resolution the Annual General Meeting of the Dominion Marine Association resolved to ask that the statute of last session imposing duty upon vessel repairs should
be amended so that vessels should only require to go to a Canadian dock in cases where the accident occurred nearer to a Canadian dock having proper facilities for repair work, than to any dock in the United States; and then only when a Canadian dock is immediately available. My colleague, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries will have to answer the other question.


John Allister Currie: Let it stand as a separate question.


Mr. PATERSON.: I understood my colleague to say that he would like to have it stand as a notice of motion for a return.


John Allister Currie: It is so very simple that it is hardly worth while to let it stand.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Stands.


MR. W. A. HICKMAN.
Mr. J. D. TAYLOR asked:: 1.	Was W. A. Hickman employed at any time between the years 1898 and 1904 by the Department of Agriculture in connection with immigration work or any other work in New Brunswick or elsewhere, or by any other department of the government?
2.	During what years was he employed, and for what length of time each year?
3.	At what kinds of work was he employed?
4.	What was the rate of wages or salary paid to him, and for what period was he paid?
5.	What was the total amount paid to him for salary or wages, for expenses, and for any other purposes, respectively?
6.	What was the total amount paid to him for all purposes?


Hon. G. P. GRAHAM (for Minister of Interior):: 1.	Yes. By the Department of the Interior.
2.	From 1st May, 1902 to 30th September, 1903, continuously.
3.	Immigration.
4.	$100 per month; see answer to No. 2
5.	Salary $1,700, expenses $3,496.36, other purposes nil.
6.	$5,196.36.
At 6 o'clock House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.
MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT DIS^ CUSSION.
For a return showing the claims of any person or persons in Nova Scotia against the government, by reason of personal damages or losses of animals or damages to property on account of the Intercolonial Railway, settled or paid between June 1 and December, 31, 1908; together with names and addresses of suoh persons, the nature of their claims, how settlement was effected, and on what date settlement was effected in each case.-Mr. Rhodes.

For a copy of all correspondence, petitions and reports addressed to the government, or Post Office Department, and all correspondence and orders consequent thereon, relating to the change of the name of the post office of Weymouth to Weymouth North, and of the post office of Weymouth Bridge to Weymouth.-Mr. Jameson.
For a return showing the names of villages, towns and cities in each province where post offices, customs buildings and armouries have been constructed during the years from 1903 to 1909, and cost thereof, the expense in each case of the yearly lighting, heating and caretaking, the revenue, if any, from any of these buildings, a list of buildings now under construction, the contemplated cost, and the probable expense of yearly lighting, heating and caretaking.-Mr. Samuel Sharpe.
. For a copy of all orders in council directing that repairs be made on different wharfs in the county of Soulanges, a copy of all correspondence, reports, accounts and pay-rolls relating to the valuation of these work9, the payment and the list of names of all who were employed as day labourers on these works; a copy of all letters, reports and recommendations exchanged between the government and) all other persons relating to the choice of men to be engaged on these works and those who should be refused employment ; a copy of the report of accounts produced by Mr. Alfred Bissonette, wharfinger at St, Zotique and of Mr. Trefle Poirier, wharfinger of the wharfs of the canal and river St. Lawrence in the parish of Des Cedres, and of thiode of Mr. Isaie Lalonde, son of Albert, farmer, of St. Zotique, a copy of accounts for furnishing wood, iron, cement, sand and stone used in the building of said wharfs, and also a statement of the materials purchased as aforesaid, paid for by the department, and which were not used because they were considered unfit for the building of these wharfs-Mr. Lortie.
For a copy of all letters, correspondence, statements and writings between the Gjand Trunk Pacifio Railway Company, or its engineers or agents, and the commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway, or their engineers or agents, and between the commissioners and their engineers, and between the commissioners and their engineers and agents and the contractors or sub-contractors on districts B and F after-mentioned, as to classification or alleged over classification on districts B and F of the eastern division of said railway, and of all estimates, returns, certificates, memoranda, statements or writings, showing classification or over classification of the cuttings and work on said districts B and F.-Mr. Lennox.
For a return showing the names of Intercolonial employees dismissed or suspended during the year 1908, the position held by each, the date of dismissal or suspension, and the special cause alleged therefor; also the names of any such persons so dismissed or suspended who have been reinstated up to February 28, 1909, and the dates of reinstation?-Mr. Foster.
For a return showing: 1. Who were employed to value the land of the right of way for the canal from Holland river to Newmarket, and what other duties than valuation of lands these parties were entrusted with.


Mr. GRAHAM.: 2.	The remuneration of each of these valuators.
3.	How long they were employed, and upon what terms.
4.	(a) What properties they valued, (b) at what amount or rate in each case, (c) the acreage of each property, (d) in how many eases, by names, the valuations were accepted by the owners, (e) in how many cases, by names, the valuations were finally rejected by the owners, (f) in what cases expropriation proceedings were resorted to, and (g) the result as compared with valuators' figures.
5.	What titles to all properties have been required.-Mr. Lennox.
For a. copy of all correspondence, communications in writting and documents to the Minister of the Interior, or any official of the department, and the replies or communications from the minister or any official of the department, since January 1, 1905, relating to the transfer of certain swamp lands in the Big Grass Marsh, in the province of Manitoba, to His Majesty King Edward VII., for the purposes of the province of Manitoba.-Mr. Malloy.
For a copy of all correspondence, tenders and documents in connection with the construction ot an ice-breaking steamer for Northumberland _ straits, let to Messrs. Vickers Sons and Maxim; also the same in connection with the construction of a lighthouse tender and buoy steamer for the Great lakes, by Messrs, Swan, Hunter, Wingham and Richardson.-Mr J A Currie.
For a copy of all correspondence and memor-anc'a. relating to rural mail delivery in the province of Alberta ?-Mr. McCarthy.
For a return showing the amount of produce of the following lines shipped to Great Britain or other countries in cold storage, or ' a,r, chambers, during the years 1907 ana 1908: Apples, m barrels or other packages, nears, plums, tomatoes, fresh meat, in lbs., rowi, fish, butter, eggs and cheese; to what country or countries they were shipped, and their condition on landing; the system of ,	principally in use on the steamships carrying such produce.-Mr. Sproule


GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY INDEBTEDNESS TO THE DOMINION.
George Taylor: For a copy of all orders in council, reports, accounts, contracts and other papers and documents of every kind, nature and description touching or relating to the indebtedness of the Grand Trunk Railway Company to the Dominion of Canada.


William Stevens Fielding: There is no objection to the motion passing, but I do not think there are any papers; I think all the information on the subject was given to the House the other day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. A. K.: MACLEAN (Lunenburg) moved ;
For a copy of all correspondence, reports, documents, orders in council in the possession of the government relating to the establish-

ment of a geodetic service bureau, aud the commencement of a geodetic survey of Canada.
He said : I must confess that what little knowledge I have on the subject of a geodetic and trigonometrical survey is due to the fact that last year some members of the Canadian Royal Society together with some members of the Canadian Institute of Engineers placed in my hands some literature on the subject and requested that I should discuss the matter in the House with a view of endeavouring to enlist the interest of members of parliament in this question which to them is of very considerable importance.	.
The terms ' geodetic ' and ' triangulation as applied to surveys may be alarming to some hon. gentlemen, as they were to me, when first I heard of them, and possibly I had better venture, in an imperfect fashion no doubt, a brief statement as to the import of these terms.
There are two methods of fixing a position on the earth's surface; first, there is the astronomical method, wherein the latitude and longitude of a given point are fixed by observations of the heavenly bodies ; secondly, there is the geodetic method, whereby positions are locate^ or determined from observations or measurements, made from a known point on the earth. The former method is open to error, owing to what is technically known as the ' deflection ' of the plumb line, or the deviation of the spirit level from the horizontal plane. This error varies with the topography of a country, and is more pronounced in mountainous countries. Errors in astronomical surveys amount in the average to one hundred yards, and in extreme cases to a mile or more. It is obvious therefore, that for accuracy a fixed and accurate starting point on the earth's surface is necessary, and this is obtainable only by a geodetic survey, or geodetic methods. It might be of interest to relate that McGill observatory in Montreal is the best located point in America, in other words, it is the primary meridian as regards longitude in America, and has been adopted by the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey.
The phrase ' triangulation survey,' or ' trigonometrical survey ' may be defined as one where a base line is very accurately measured between two stations; and one or more of the points are accurately fixed geographically, by determining the longitude and latitude to the nearest practicable limit. These triangles are then expanded working on the sides all over the country, thus ensuring accurate measurements; and all permanent points of the country are tied in to the triangulation-in this way permanently recording the fixed features of the country by a method that cannot vary; namely, that of tying it to the stars through
the latitude and longitude of the determining points.
The importance of accurate maps for military. and other purposes in connection with the administration of the country and the development of its economic resources are obvious. Possibly I cannot do better than to quote from Major E. H. Hills, head of the Topographical Section of the War Office, who some years ago made a report on the survey of Canada at the request of the Canadian government to show the value both to the state, and to private corporations or individuals, of a comprehensive series of topographical maps of the country. He enumerates them as follows
(a) Administrative and Political.
In all questions relating to the administration of public lands the sale and transfer of such; the setting out upon the ground of provincial, township and other public boundaries, the valuation of property for the equitable adjustment of sales, taxation and assessment, the administration of public works, such as canals, reservations, parks and highways ; the reclamation and improvement of waste lands, and as base maps for all statistical purposes for the graphic representation of facts relating to population, industries, products and similar information.
(b) Military.
For military purposes such maps are Invaluable in peace and necessary in war. In peace they are used for training and manoeuvre purposes; for the laying out of camps and exercise grounds; for the planning of permanent defensive and offensive works; and for the representation and discussion of all military and strategical problems connected with the defence of a country and the successful prosecution of military operations on or outside its frontiers.
In war accurate maps are a matter of vital necessity and are of use for conveying information as to the nature of the country, means of communication, water supplies, natural resources, &c., and for planning marches, camps, fieldworks and general strategical operations.
(c) Engineering and Economic.
As preliminary maps for planning railroads, highways, electric roads, canals, aqueducts, seiverage, drainage and water supply schemes. In all such works the cost of preliminary surveys is thus saved.
For showing the extent, location and accessibility of lands, waters, forests and valuable minerals.
As base maps for hydrographical, geological, and mineral surveys.
I may say that all countries have recognized the value and necessity of carrying out precise surveys of their territory such works as completed were in progress in the United Kingdom, British India, British South Africa and in all the European countries with the exception of Turkey.
It might be interesting to note at this stage what work of this character has been

performed in Canada by the federal or provincial governments, and how far it approximates accuracy and general usefulness. We have land surveys carried on by the provincial governments; Dominion land surveys, and the surveys^ of the railway belt by the Dominion Surveyor General, and topographical surveys by the Geological Department. In addition to this may be added military sketch maps made by cadets from the Eoyal Military College during summer trainings, and surveys of the coast by the Admiralty and the Department of Marine and Fisheries.
Again perhaps I could not do better than to read to the House some of the comments of Major Hills upon the character of these independent and disconnected surveys respecting provincial land surveys. He says:-
The provincial land surveys have been done by various methods, and, as naturally might be expected, are of varying orders of accuracy. Roughly speaking, all those dating before 1850 were done with the compass and are liable to large errors. Since that date they have, for the most part, been carried out with theodolite and chain, and there has, no doubt, been a considerable increase in precision in this work in recent years. At the same time it must be remembered that much of it has been done by inexpert men who, having been paid upon the piecework system, have had little inducement to strive for any degree of perfection. The actual work of the provincial surveyors has been marking out of the township and subdivision lines upon the ground. The townships in the older part of the country average about 10 miles by 10 miles, in the newly settled districts they are made 6 miles square, divided into 72 lots of 320 acres each. The surveyors are supposed to record anv features, roads, streams, &c., which cross the boundary lines, and to make a traverse survey of any lake of which the area exceeds 20 acres.
These townships plans have been put together by the provincial land department into maps. In the work of compilation the actual position on the map depends upon points determined astronomically by crude methods. In the eastern provinces the fundamental positions are those of the old admiralty charts. There has as yet been no attempt to recompile them upon the precisely determined fun-daraental points which are now available. It is furtnermore, evident that the combination of a number of plans, themselves inaccurate, can only result in the accumulation of large residual errors; so it is hardly surprising that such maps should be described by a competent authority as ' grossly erroneous/ All the work of the several provincial departments is valueless as a basis for a topofraphical map of any pretentions to accuracy, t is possible that some of the traverse lines especially those done in recent years and where the original records are available, might be of some slight assistance in the progress of a topographical survey, though it is questionable whether the attempt to use them would not ultimately prove unprofitable.
The land surveys carried out under the direction of the Dominion Surveyor General in


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN.: Manitoba and the Northwest and along the railway belt in British Columbia, are of a far higher order of precision. The work in this case is of the same nature, namely, the demarcation on the ground of the township and section lines, and the method of execution is that of accurate chainage from well determined astronomical points. Many of the positions are referred to the international Canada-United States frontier, which was determined by a joint commission, using Talcott method of latitude determination. Other astronomical latitudes have been fixed in recent years with all the precision of which this method is capable and the longitudes oi fundamental points have been deter-mmed by the exchange of telegraphic signals, the surveys are not topographical, in the sense that they include neither heights nor contours, nor other representation of the form ot the ground, but the points are probably hxed with an accuracy sufficient to enable a preliminary topographical map to be based upon them.
i	course of the survey of the railroad
belt of 20 miles on each side of the Canadian JL aoino railroad line a ohained traverse has been carried over the whole line from Calgary to Vancouver. The precision of this work is mot quite up to th|e standard of which the method is capable, but it is not probable that the position of any point on the road is in error by more than a quarter mile A certain amount of topographical work has been done along the railway and a map of the whole belt on a scale of 1: 500,000, or 8 miles to an inch has been produced. It is the intention of the department to extend the map to the southern boundary of British Columbia.
The work done by the Geological Survey Department may be defined as a mixture of compilation and original survey. In the eastern provinces, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, where the provincial surveys are either non-existent or valueless, the work has been entirely redone by the method of chained traverses filled in by the compass. The resulting maps therefore attain a considerable degree of precision and in the. case of Nova Scotia, where the survey on the 1-inch soale is about two-thirds completed, could doubtless be used as the basis for a preliminary topographical map. The fundamental position upon which the mans of this province are based is that of Halifax as taken from the admiralty charts. The latitude and longitude both of this place and of points at the north and south end of the peninsula, say Sydney, Cape Breton and Yarmouth, might now with advantage be redetermined.
In the case of New Brunswick a map of surface geology and forests on a scale of 4 miles to an inch, is now nearly completed. Three sheets in the northern part of the province remain to be done. In this map a number of heights taken from the railway profiles and from aneroid observations are given, the hills are shown by vertical hachures, and all the features as far as is possible on the scale are indicated. With a revision on the ground to add new roads, eto., and if reprinted with the elimination of the geology this map would make a fair preliminary topographical map of the province. The determination of the astronomical position of one part in the

province, say Moncton, should at the same time be undertaken.	.	.
In Ontario and Quebec the provincial surveys have been readjusted on new traverse lines and astronomical positions, and in the west also the work is partly original and partly based upon the Dominion land surveys. Most of the maps, with the exception of those covering Nova Scotia named above, and a few special sheets are on a scale of 4 miles to an inch in the east and centre, and 8 miles to an inch in the northwest Three special topographioal sheets, on a scale of 4 miles to an inch, have been done in the mountain region adjoining the railroad line. The method employed has been a very rough triangulation, based upon the points on the railway determined by the traverse already alluded to, with the details filled in by sketching. These maps have been reproduced in an attractive form with contours and hill shading, but they cannot claim to be more than reconnaissance sketches.
In addition to the work carried out by the; civil departments, a considerable amount of military sketching has been done by the cadets of the Royal Military College, Kingston. Owing to the short time available for instruction and to the unsystematic way in which the work of the different men has been put together, the maps compiled from these sketches have hitherto been of less value than might fairly be expected. Lately a more scientific method of compilation has been adopted with a corresponding improvement in the results, but no method of compiling can by any possibility lead to the production of a complete map of a country which will, for a moment, stand comparison with one produced by actual survey.
In the report of the Geographer to the Department of the Interior for 1902, Mr. White, alluding to the difficulties met with in compiling the map of Canada on a scale of thirty-five miles to an inch, wrote:
The lack of an accurate topographical survey, the numerous sources from which information must be obtained, the difficulty in many cases of obtaining access to the plans of old and almost forgotten surveys, the necessity of incorporating surveys that are being made concurrently with the compilation of the map, which frequently alter the work almost as soon as completed, all tend to make the compilation of such a map a long and tedious operation.
Further on in the same report he wrote:
The difficulties encountered in compiling the new map of Canada emphasize the need of a topographical survey of at least the well settled portion of the Dominion. A few years ago I made a survey between two well determined points on Georgian bay and the west of Lake Ontario respectively, which showed that part of central Ontario, as shown in the best existing map, was over two miles out in longitude, and over a mile in error in latitude. Although our maps show streams, lakes, &c., even in the extreme north much of the information upon which they are based is of the vaguest kind.
A geodetic survey of Canada has been the subject of discussion by the Royal Society of Canada. On January 7, 1904, a deputation from the Royal Society of Canada waited upon the Hon. Clifford Sifton, then Minister of the Interior, to present the views of that society. The delegation consisted of Mr. T. C. Keefer, Sir Sandford Fleming, Prof. C. H. McLeod of McGill University and Hon. Senator Casgrain. This delegation urged upon that minister the necessity of a trigonometrical survey.
The Canadian Society of Engineers has memorialized the government upon this subject, and I desire to read just one feature of their address to which I particularly desire to call the attention of the House. It is as follows:
Referring to these requirements, it is understood that there are at the present time in the Dominion government some eight or more independent or semi-independent surveying branches, each of which conducts its operations after its own methods. These methods being conceived separately and in each case for special objects, do not of course accord, and the results obtained through them cannot be of a uniform standard as regards accuracy or topographical detail. The representations of such work on maps or plans are also carried out under varying methods of projection and on a great variety of scale. Such lack of unity of method and also of proper connection between separate surveys must obviously reduce very largely the permanent value of the work as a whole, and there is therefore not realized from our surveys that return which the money expended upon them would seem to justify.
Later, in November, 1906, by order in council, a committee on surveys was appointed to consider and report upon the necessity of an accurate survey of the Dominion, and the production of a topographical map of Canada based upon a network of triangulation. The committee consisted of the chief astronomer of the Interior Department, the Deputy Minister of Railways, the director of the Geological Survey, the chief of the general staff of the Militia Department, the Surveyor General of the Interior Department, the chief clerk of the Engineering Branch of the Department of Public Works; the chief of the Hydrographic Surveyor of the Marine Department, Prof. C. H. McLeod, Professor of Surveying and Geodesey, McGill University, Prof. Stewart of Toronto University, and the Principal of the Polytechnic School, Laval University. The committee on February 15, 1907, submitted the following conclusions to the Minister of Militia and Defence:
1. The committee is of opinion that a comprehensive and reliable survey of the Dominion for the production of an accurate topographic map, based upon a network of triangulation and showing the natural and artificial features of the country, is of urgent

necessity to the people of Canada, from the standpoint of public economy, the extension or public undertakings and the development of the natural resources of the country.
Public economy will be served by the early production of accurate maps, by the collection and record of reliable data for the benefit of all parties interested, public or private, and by the avoidance of the duplication or overlapping of survey work which at present frequently occurs, different parties surveying the same area independently for different purposes.
The extension of every class of public undertaking will be promoted, because such topographic maps will greatly assist in the location of roads, railways, canals, water supply, drainage and irrigation works. This has been found to be the case in all countries where such maps have been produced.
Development of the natural resources of the country will be furthered by the assistance winch a reliable survey will afford to the geological examination of areas likely to possess mineral deposits, by the information it will give as to the location of agricultural or timber lands, and by the data it will afford for the preliminary investigations of water-powers, waterways, or other natural aids to industrial enterprise.
A reliable topographic map of Canada is absolutely essential for military purposes, to afford the fullest possible information as to the configuration of the country, its natural and artificial features.
It would be a basis for maps graphically illustrating all matters in connection with statistics such as population, industries, the products of the country, the areas of economic minerals and forests, qualities of soil, drainage and catchment basins of rivers and streams, the position of water-powers and the
I desire to call attention to the following remarks contained in this report, being a reference to the bearing of a geodetic survey upon hydrographic surveys. I was told some months ago by a gentleman qualified to speak, that some years ago, on the Atlantic coast it was discovered that a certain point of danger was inaccurately placed upon our charts, the error bein'* some several miles. I do not recollect the exact point. The report proceeds:
An important benefit to he derived from a topographical and hydrographic survey would be the accurate delineation of the coast line of the Atlantic and Pacific sea-boards and the inland waters. It is inevitable that until this is accomplished many disasters must happen to shipping, which might be avoided in a great measure, if there were reliable charts of these waters. One of the first requisites in making hydrographic surveys for the production of accurate charts, is that control points must be accurately established on the shore. Large sums of money are annually expended on harbours, lighthouses and other improvements,
in many cases the geographical positions or thse harbours and improvements have not been accurately determined.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The report goes on to say:
In political and legislative matters, a topographical map would furnish useful and accurate information as to the boundaries of villages, towns, municipalities, &c., and it would also be of great utility in the administration of all public works and services.
It is possible, with a good topographio map, to plan and lay out engineering works to better advantage than by means of the ordinary preliminary survey. A topographio map would thereby effect not only a saving of large sums of money now annually expended by the government and by private companies in* surveys for such undertakings, hut would minimize to a great extent the cost of construction, since a better location may be obtained in many cases from a topographio map than from preliminary surveys.
In short, the benefits arising from a good general topographio survey may well be described as practical, political, administrative, military, statistical and economic.
2.	The elaboration of a comprehensive scheme that will permit of a satisfactory coordination of existing survey material, whether due to the work of government survey departments or to private enterprise, is also a matter of national importance and great practical utility to the people of Canada.
Eor the proper do-ordination of existing surveys and the effectual control of future surveys, it is necessary to establish in a permanent manner the network of triangulation already referred to, so as to provide a series of points of reference, at convenient distances apart, whose geographical position and absolute altitudes have been accurately determined by appropriate astronomical observations, chains of refined geodetic triangulations and nets of precise spirit levelling.
3.	Provision should be made for perpetuating bench marks, points of control, and important pointg in the interior detail of surveys by permanent monuments. This rule should be applied to all surveys of standard accuracy made under Dominion authority.
4.	In order to secure the maintenance of adequate records, there should be a central record office in a suitable fireproof building, where the results of all surveys, inclusive of accurate copies off plans and profiles with brief descriptions, should he filed. For purposes of reference, these documents, when not required ito be treated as confidential, should be made readily accessible to all departments or branches of the government service and to the public.
Deposit in this office of all such results, plans or other documents should he made compulsory upon the departments conducting surveys, and upon railway and other companies working under Dominion charters.
5.	It is highly desirable that all general and sheet maps should be produced under standard arrangement as regards scale, projection and execution.
For the production of such maps the existence of a central bureau, where maps may be compiled, edited and engraved for the general survey, and, on repayment, for other depart

I ments requiring the same, would present I many advantages. This provision should not prevent any department equipped for the

purpose from preparing its own plans or maps.
6.	In order to secure unity, co-ordination, and efficient administration, as well as the systematic utilization of all survey material, and for the production in sheets of an accurate topographic map of Canada, it is desirable that the controlling and topographio surveys, the land triangulation basis of the hydrographic survey and the map bureau and record office should form branches of one department of the public service.
It is also desirable that these branches should be included with the department of the Geological Survey, together with such other branches of the publio service as deal with the natural resources of the Dominion and the quality of whose work depends largely upon accurate maps of the areas under investigation.
7.	The prosecution of surveys for special purposes, such as construction of canals or railways, improvements of rivers and harbours. laying off land for settlement, and the like, would be left ;bo the departments to which these matters now appertain, but the departments interested in such surveys should be invited to carry them out, so far as consistent with the end in view, in accordance with such s-vstem as may appear best adapted to render the results of permanent value for topographio purposes.
8.	The co-operation of the provincial survey departments should be invited.
The report then proceeds to deal with the cost of this proposed work, which I had better put upon ' Hansard ' at this point, although that phase of the question is hardly applicable to this division of my remarks. It says:
9.	It is not contemplated that surveys extending over the whole country should he undertaken at once. Their extent must be determined by the urgency of the requirements, and the control survey would in the first instance be confined to the better settled parts of the country and to those portions where geological and other researches into the natural resources of the country demand reliable maj^s upon which to base their operations.
The appropriations in the estimates now before parliament for the work of the branches which we recommend should be brought together are:


SALARIES AND EXPENSES.
[Stage Direction]
Geological Survey, Supt. of Mines
Branch	$242,475
Hydrographers' Branch, including
veys	 269,067
Hydrographers' Brandi, including
new steamer	'Tidal' survey	 349,500
Geographers' Branch	 58,890
Total	$919,932
The money provided in these estimates if administered under the unified management, is sufficient, subject only to such natural development as may take place in the future, for the establishment of a systematic survey, without additional appropriations therefor by parliament.
Of the sums mentioned above there is available for field work of surveys:
Geological survey	$ 25,000
Astronomical branch including Boundary Surveys and Trigonometrical Survey	 204,000
Hydrographic Branch.. .. <. 150,000
_	$379,000
Out of the chief astronomer's vote, $50,000 has already been noted in the estimates as for the trigonometrical survey, in connection with which some work has been done in the vicinity of Ottawa in 1905 and 1906, and triangulation forms part of the plan of operations of the International Boundary Surveys. A portion of the expenditure for the latter, say $10,000, may be consequently credited to control work making, with $50,000 above mentioned, a total of $60,000, available for purposes of control.
This will be sufficient to carry on the triangulation eastward from Ottawa towards Montreal and the Richelieu river, to conduct some triangulation on the River St, Lawrence, to assist the liydrographer who will thereby be enabled to devote the funds at his disposal more directly to sounding, &c., and to contribute towards control of work in the west, such as the continuation eastward along the 49th parallel of the boundary survey triangulation. AH this work is such as will necessarily be included in the Geodetic Survey so soon as the methods of conducting the latter and the areas over which it shall extend shall have been determined.
Meanwhile ';he control work may be gradually extended over the country connecting the new surveys and correcting the old. It is thought that, with the union of the surveying departments mentioned, it will be posSible in future years so to distribute the tunds devoted to surveys among the several
sysdemaGcafiy d6Vel°P the top°graphic maP
The inauguration of a systematic survey of Lanada, therefore, calls for no immediate increase of expenditure. Whether there shall be increase, or continuance of the present expenditure in the future is a matter for future decision, based on consideration of the cost ot the work m relation to the beneficial results obtained from it. This decision will
ment^0 ~ W1^ government and parlia-
10.	Eor the complete working out of all the details which will arise from the foregoing, and especially to provide for that accord whio°h is necessary in the operations of the several survey branches of the Dominion a Permanent burvey Board should be appointed.
Ihe board should be similar in composition to the present survey committee, and have power to call in consultation such other persons as from time to time it may desire.
The board should advise as to the development and methods of the control survey. It should suggest such regulations as it might consider necessary or desirable regarding all surveys and mapping, and should invite cooperation towards securing the practical application of the same. It should constitute a hoard of conference for the several survey departments.
A reasonable appropriation, say $8,000 per annum, should he made for the necessary expenses of the board.
[Stage Direction]
In the event of these recommendations receiving the approval of the government the immediate appointment of the board is urged, in order that they may undertake their duties without delay.
I do not know that I could do better at this stage than give to the House statements from individuals and reports showing the benefits that are possible from accurate topographical surveys. I desire to give to the House first a statement made by President Van Hise, of the University of Michigan, and which is, I think, a very practical illustration. He says:
A railroad company owned two lines in northern Michigan and Wisconsin which they wished to connect by a branch some forty miles in length. The country was unknown between the two lines. Under my direction topographical, geological and timber maps were made of about twelve hundred square miles, at a cost of about $35,000. After these maps were made the line was laid down in the office with a beautiful grade, and with the best location possible with reference to iron ore and timber. One of the features of the line was that it crossed a bold trap range which was supposed to be impossible to cross except at great expense, by finding gaps through it. This line crossed the branch of another railroad about twelve miles long, which because it went around the end of this trap range, when the gap was directly in front of it, was at least two miles longer than was necessary. These two additional miles of road cost fully as much as the entire survey of the twelve hundred square miles.
It is my profound conviction if topographical surveys were made of broad zones where it is expected to project railroads through forested country, that many times the cost of the survey would he saved in the construction of the railroads, besides getting a better location both as to resources and to grade than is possible by the random methods employed at the present time for the locating of railroads in rough forested country.
In answer to a question asked by the member for Cumberland a few weeks ago the Minister of Railways stated as to a recent survey for a projected diversion of the Intercolonial Railway, completed only about two months ago, that the cost thereof was $9,914.05. The greater portion of this amount might doubtless have been saved had that section of an old province like Nova Scotia been properly surveyed in the past. The statement has been made by General Francis A. Walker that:
If the state of Massachusetts had had a good topographical map in 1863, some $20,000,000 would probably have been saved in its public railway expenditure.
The area of the state of Massachusetts being 8,315 square miles, this saving would amount to over $2,400 per square mile. The topographical survey of the state has cost $13 per square mile. Dr. Frank D. Adams in a recent paper read before the Canadian Mr. A. K. MACLEAN.
Institute quotes from a letter from Dr. C. D. Walcott, lately director of the United States Geological Survey, as follows:
Such maps
[Stage Direction]
-those iof the the United States Geological Survey
[Stage Direction]
-are as essential to the proper development of all the resources of a state. We have reached the point where officials of railroads, of trolley lines, those interested in highway improvements and in the development of city water supplies and sanitary measures as in general engineering work, do not think of spending one dollar on field surveys until they have first procured from this office the topographic maps and the records of levels run in connection therewith. We are in daily receipt of testimonials showing the sums of money and the time saved in connection with all preliminary and also of some location survevs for such enterprises. Above all, however, is the topographic map, an essential to the study, along modern lines and by best methods, of the mineral resources of a region. The old descriptive methods of discussing the geology of a district have long been abandoned in this country. It has been found that every dollar expended in preparing a mathematically correct base map upon which to map the geologic formations for strikes and dip and from which to oonstruot structural sections, is returned many-fold in the value and accuracy of the resulting studies of the geologic formations and their economic possibilities. A good topographical map is just as essential a frame work upon which is to reproduce a facsimile of the underlying geology, as is the steel frame which modern architects use for, and support a masonry building of modern design.
I might give to the House many other statements and reports upon the urgent necessity of a trigonometrical survey of the Dominion, but it appears to be unnecessary to extend those already given. Now, I think this is an important matter and I believe a geodetic survey should be commenced as early as possible and that some work, even though but little, be performed each year. I believe also that this work should be carried on by a new departmental branch to be established, and not by one of the existing departments. This branch might be officered by the deputy heads of the departments now carrying on survey _ work. However this is but a matter of detail, and after all, is secondary to the main idea of a geodetic survey. I trust the government will see fit to take this matter into consider ation and adopt at an early date a policy which will ensure the commencement of an accurate survey of Canada.
Frank Oliver: There is no question as to the importance of the survey work carried on from time to time in this country, as any one may judge from a glance at the estimates or at the Auditor General's Report. It is a necessity in the development of our

country, and it is right that the fullest, attention should be given to the matter. I am glad that my hon. friend has brought this matter before the House. I can hardly allow the motion to pass, however, without giving some information, and the views I hold based upon that information, which views are not altogether in accord with those my hon. friend has expressed. There is no doubt that the great feature of a survey is that it should be accurate, and that the various surveys should be properly related to each other. If it were possible that there should be a geodetic survey of the Dominion of Canada in advance of all other surveys, it certainly would be in the end a measure of economy, and would undoubtedly secure an accuracy that is not at present possible. But I need hardly suggest to the House that when it costs so much money as it does to keep within measurable distance of the actual survey requirements of the country as it progresses, the task of keeping ahead of the requirements with a geodetic survey would cost a sum beyond which I think the country could afford, or that parliament would sanction. If it were possible to keep in advance of settlement, in advance of railway construction, in advance of geological investigation, by a geodetic survey, still I do not think it would be advisable for the government to enter upon the enterprise, unless we assume that the country is made for the surveys and not the surveys for the country. A railroad survey is necessary because, for one reason or another, it is in the public interest that a railroad should be built, although there may have been no other reason for survey in the locality traversed by that railroad. It is desirable that there should be geological exploration, which should only be limited by the extreme bounds of our country; it is desirable that there should be lands laid out for settlement, well in advance of settlement, so that pioneers may have security in their holdings. But it would not be well that all these enterprises should have to wait until an accurate survey had been made in that part of the country where it was required for these various purposes. The theory that my hon. friend has expressed is an excellent theory, and no doubt it would work well if Canada were an island or a small and fertile country. But Canada being so extensive, the conclusion to which I am forced to come is that the proposition is not a practicable one, is not a business proposition, is not within the resources of the country, and would be greatly to the disadvantage of the country if it were undertaken. I speak however of a geodetic survey made in advance of the actual requirements, which is the ideal condition that my
hon. friend has suggested. But a geodetic survey that will follow these requirements which I have mentioned, that would check up and bring into their proper relationship the surveys already made, is another matter. It is not as theoretically sound, but it is much more sound practically. It is within reach, it is possible and it is not only being undertaken but it has made very substantial progress. The representations which my hon. friend has mentioned were made to the government some years ago have been dealt with, have been acted on to a certain extent; and the astronomical surveys branch of the Department of the Interior, some two or three years ago, took up the subject of the making of a geodetic survey of Canada, beginning in those parts which were already settled, where surveys for settlement, or railways and roads had already been made. These surveys were not in themselves accurate and it was thought necessary and desirable that they should be established in their proper relationship to each other. In pursuance of that work parliament has voted, from year to year, a considerable amount of money and is being asked to vote $50,000 for it during the present session. The work of the geodetic survey has been in progress, has covered a very considerable portion of the better settled^portions of Ontario, and is also in progress in the St. Lawrence valley in the province of Quebec. A number of members of the House have, from time to time, inquired as to the purpose and meaning of certain wooden towers which they have seen in different parts of the country. These towers are in connection with the geodetic survey and it may relieve the minds of hon. members of the House to know that they are not for any more harmful purpose than merely to establish the proper relationship of different points on the different surveys to the parts of the country in which they are situated.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are they all wooden towers or are some of them iron?


Frank Oliver: I think they are wooden. They are for the purpose of observation. The work has been undertaken, has made good progress and so long as parliament is willing to pay for the work so long can it be continued. There is no difference of opinion between myself and my hon. friend as to the desirability of a geodetic survey, but what I want to place before the House i3 the difference between a theoretically desirable geodetic survey which shall be in advance of all other surveys and a practical geodetic survey which shall, as circumstances admit, follow upon the surveys already made for the various purposes for which surveys are necessary. It is true that there may be to some extent a duplica-

tion of work in the surveys which have been made. That is only to a very limited degree. The survey which is required in the western country for the allotment of settlers and the surveys which were required in this country in the early days for the allotment of settlers do not interfere with or duplicate the surveys necessarily made for the construction of railways or in geological investigations. There may be instances where the work overlaps but these instances are of very trifling moment. The main point is that the need of the country, as it is at the moment and in the places in which it exists, is met as at present without delay, or with) the least possible delay and that, I submit is the object and purpose of any system of surveys. The absolute accuracy that is secured by the geodetic survey is something we can wait for until we can afford it, but we cannot afford to wait for it in pushing settlement and enterprise throughout the vast extent of this stupendous country. A geodetic survey of Belgium, or the state of Massachusetts, or of Ireland even, is one thing; a geodetic survey of the Dominion of Canada is quite another thing. Even a geodetic survey of the United States with its population of eighty millions and its stupendous revenue is quite a different thing from a geodetic survey of the Dominion of Canada with its population and revenue.


Robert Laird Borden: What progress has been made in the United States?


Frank Oliver: I have no idea.


John Allister Currie: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important subject and one that the House should not dismiss hastily. I very heartily agree with the remarks made by the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Maclean). The hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) who has just sat down, unfortunately, does not seem to grasp the basic idea of, the remarks of the hon. member for Lunenburg. He seems to think that a geodetical or a topographical survey is a theoretical survey and that th? only practical survey is the method at present in vogue by his department in laying out town lots, farm lands and work of that character. Let me assure him that as far as practical work is concerned the most accurate method is that which conforms to the requirements of the triangulation and topographical survey, and that the theoretical and purely nebulous idea is the idea at present in vogue of having surveys made without having any fixed point and without showing any topographical features. It is well known that in every country in modern Europe and in the United States there is a topographical and geodetic survey. The hon. member for Lunenburg has explained very clearly the difference between the present system Mr. OLIVER.
of surveying and a geodetic survey. Let me point out here that a geodetic survey commences first with the measurement of a known base. This base is measured with very accurate instruments and the error in a mile would not amount to the thousandth part of an inch. Taking a point say at McGill university,-a mile would be measured and from that the whole country would be triangulated and measured within the thousandth part of an inch. This work should be done, if it is to be done by , us, with exceeding accuracy. The United States government undertook a survey of this description of the great lakes and I noticed by reference to some of the correspondence of the ' Waterways Commission, that the survey of the great lakes has proven to be false in many respects because there was a slight error, possibly when they began, which, of course, increased into a vast error when the large number of angles were triangulated and closed up. Of course, the triangulation of the country in connection writh a geodetic survey could be very rapidly done and could be completed from coast to coast possibly within three or four years. Following that comes the topographical survey which radiates from the points fixed by the triangulation. I know a little about the subject and I may therefore be excused if I deal with it briefly.
The Department of Militia and Defence has already had a number of these topographical surveys made and I must say they are admirable so far as they go. Now, suppose the surveyors of farm lands throughout Canada were compelled to insert the topographical features necessary for a military map, the added cost would not be 25 per cent over the present cost and the work would be done at once and finished for all time. We were told by the Minister of Militia that the great general staff system of England is to be adopted in Canada. In every country in Europe one of the functions of the great general staff is to carry out an accurate topographical survey of the whole country. Nobody can doubt that at present there is an enormous waste in the making of surveys under our system. Even in the older sections we have surveyors privately employed in every township and their work is never finished because if they require to draw a second line after having drawn a first, there is no map and the work has to be done over again. We have also, under one department of government, the surveying of land into sections and quarter-sections, and that survey could just as well be conducted on the lines of a topographical survey in the first place. To do this it would need only the addition of one or two extra men to the surveyor's staff, because experience has shown that one square mile per day can be done by two men with such

a degree of accuracy that in no place will the work be out more than a foot or two at any particular point. Compared with the geological maps of the United States, our geological maps are but a laughing stock and as the attempts of school children. The railroads of the country do a great deal of topographical work, but the government of the country does not benefit by that at all. Then, the provincial governments are constantly spending money in making surveys and the existing system does not enable these to be available to the general advantage of the people of the country. We should understand, however, that a great many of the old surveyors are entirely opposed to a topographical survey because their system compared with the system which obtains in the best and most modern surveys is as different as night from day. They work with a chain, a field book, and a theodolite, but the modern system adopted in other countries is to do this work by the plain table method. Not one out of five of the old surveyors, good men as they are, understand anything about topographical work, using what is known as clinometer and prismatic compass and running various section lines over a square mile of territory, sketching the under features on a small portable drawing board as they go along. That is the military system of surveying, and it is as far in advance of the old method as the modern trolley car is ahead of an oxcart. In the United States the engineering and surveying work is under the control of the war department, but in Canada almost every department of government has its engineering staff and at the present time we have the Public Works Department conducting a survey of the Niagara Peninsula to ascertain the best place to run the Welland canal, when at the same time we have an excellent map, prepared by the Militia Department, which would give the Public Works Department in fifteen minutes all the information required without going to extra expense. Here is an instance of duplication. If we are going to adopt the methods which have been found satisfactory in England and other countries we must group all our engineering staff under one department and that one department should be the Department of Militia and Defence. I say this with a good deal of diffidence, because of my being associated to some extent with the militia of Canada, but it is a fact that in the United States the geological survey and other surveys and all public works are carried out under the supervision of the war department, and with possibly one or two exceptions the records of the Uuited States for the last twenty years have shown nothing dishonourable in connection with contracts, and the contractors have had to live up to their agreements, because the men in charge of the engin-97
eering work were men of as high honour as could be found in any service in the world. We have in Canada the Royal Military College, which is educating the very men best fitted for this kind of work. The Minister of Militia will agree with me that every graduate of the Rcyal Military College must be a thorough topographical surveyor as well as an ordinary surveyor. If all the surveying and engineering work of the government were grouped into one bureau, then the various departments of the government could submit their proposals to that bureau, the engineering work could be done by it; and we would avoid the duplication of effort which we have at the present time, and I believe several millions of dollars per annum could be saved to the country. I submit that this board which has been referred to should be made a section of the general staff and we should in its initiation include among its members the very ablest engineers and surveyors in the country. Any one who looks at the German maps will see that they are done in two colours, black and white, and you can tell from a glance at them where every vineyard, every stable, every house, every elevation or under feature of the ground is located. As has been pointed out in the statement of Professor Van Hise, the cost of this work is trifling, and when once it is done it is final. If you want to find out anything about the topography of the country you will not have to send a band of surveyors to run lines or go on a voyage of discovery; any engineer can take a map of that kind and ascertain where a railway or a street car line or a canal should be located and all that remains to be done in any engineering scheme is to put down the posts in the places marked on that map.	.
This is a subject which I think this House should take into its very serious consideration, because it is not wise for us at enormous expense to commence adding additional boards or commissions or departments of work. Would it not be better to have more centralization of this work and to have it under a competent head ? I know I am advancing revolutionary sentiments, so far as the ministers in certain departments are concerned; but ministers in charge of departments carrying on public works must realize that this is the way work of this kind is done in the mother country, to whose experience we constantly anpeal for the best methods. The Minister of the Interior says that this system would tend to make the country for the surveyors rather than the surveys for the country. I claim that it would not. Any engineer who understands topographical surveying will testify that the additional cost, for instance of laying out a country in the northwest by a complete topographical survey



would not be more than 25 or 30 per cent. The only additional cost would be in having a department where the maps would be accurately defined on copper plates, and the plates would be kept in a safe place, so that if at any time additional maps were required, the plates could be taken and the maps printed from them. I understand that the Waterways and Boundary Commission are adopting that method for the lake surveys. A department has been established in Buffalo where all the work of their engineers is transferred to copper plates, so that it will form a permanent record. I think this House cannot do better than adopt the resolution, or at least the sentiments, of my hon. friend from Lunenburg. The hon. Minister of Militia is doing excellent work in this direction; and though his colleagues may think that he is throwing away good money in having topographical maps provided, I think that he who understands the matter will assure this House that for the defence of the country alone it is a wise expenditure of money. It is only within the last year that we have had any topographical maps of this country which would enable officers not acquainted locally with the country, even in the older sections, to find their way. An officer who understands the reading of such a map and knows its scale, can fix his position on the map in two minutes, and if ordered to march twenty or thirty miles to a given point, he could, by means of his compass, find the direction in which to go; and, even if he had to pass through forests and ravines, he could come within a few feet of the very spot to which he was required to go. I would like very much to hear from the Minister of Militia on this question, in view of the fact that we have now pledged ourselves as a country to accept the staff system adopted by England; and it should be our desire to carry out that svstem faithfully by establishing' a department for carrying out both topographical and geodetic surveys.


Charles Alexander Magrath: Mr. Speaker, being in an agreeable mood to-night I am disposed to agree to a great extent with the gentlemen who have preceded me. We had a scientific survey, topographical and geodetic, started in this country in 1876, in Mr. Mackenzie's time. That survey was carried on in the western country for three or four years, and was then abandoned; but provision was made in the Surveys Act under which men were to be qualified and known as Dominion topographical surveyors. I have devoted considerable study to that branch of my profession. There are two interests to be served in connection with surveys, the commercial and the scientific. While I agree with the mover of this resolution that it is very desirable to get a scientific survey started, I Mr. J. A. CUREIE.
must at the same time admit the position taken by the Minister of the Interior that our great work is to get the country settled and to make the necessary surveys for that purpose. One criticism which I have to offer in regard to the move made by the government in collecting information is this, that it placed the matter in the hands of the officials of the various branches. While I have nothing to say against those gentlemen, while they are very able men, I feel that there must always be a certain amount of jealousy between the different branches. Under these circumstances it is desirable, if you are going to appoint a commission to investigate the question of a scientific survey, to go outside of your own officials. For my part, I would like to see a commission appointed by the government to investigate the methods in use in the United States, in France and in other countries, and to prepare Canada to take up a geodetic survey on the very best and broadest lines. I see no harm in that; I think it is a good move. I want to draw the minister's attention to the fact that in our western country we have a treeless area of from 50,000,000 to 70,000,000 acres. We have streams there running from the mountains and discharging into Hudson bay at from 200 to 300 feet below the level of the prairie. We have a soil largely clay, through which there is practically no percolation, so that it is almost impossible for people to get water in springs; and I take the position that any country where that is the case must be pronounced largely semi-arid in its character. I am not going to mention any particular localities; but if you examine the meterological returns covering fifteen or sixteen years, you will find many settlements where there is not on the average more than nine or ten inches of rainfall in the year. In this district near the Ottawa river, the water is carried near the surface, and the character of the soil is such that the water percolates through it, and in addition there is a very heavy rainfall. If nine or ten or eleven inches of annual rainfall is sufficient for crops, and if we are going to put an immense population into that western country, we shall have to have some system of water distribution. We cannot depend on the rainfall to secure for a very large population sufficient water both for domestic purposes and to supply the necessary moisture for crops. That in my opinion is a serious question, one that concerns every member of this House; because if there is any ground for my fears, we want to get busy, and get busy very quickly to see what we can do to help the people of our western country in this matter.
The mover of this resolution referred to Dr. Walcott and the work of the geological survey of the United States. That work was taken up some 15 or 20 years ago. In addition to taking thorough measurement of the

various streams, they also established contour lines throughout the country. The work is done at very reasonable cost, but it takes a series of at least 15 years for any scientific investigation to get with any reasonable accuracy what that water service is going to amount to, and the sooner we start that work on good broad lines the better. Take the river that passes our door, that river has been changing the last ten years or more. If we had been measuring that stream during all those years, we would have been notified by those measurements of certain things transpiring within the drainage area of that stream, and the same remark applies throughout the whole country. Our waters are the most valuable asset our countrv possesses and the sooner we get to work to obtain better measurements of our various streams the better. This is a matter which I commend to the hon. the Minister of the Interior for his most serious consideration. T?i the estimates there is a sum of about $10,000 for that purpose, but that is not sufficient. I spoke of this to the former Minister of the Interior a few months before he retired (Mr. Sifton), and he told me he would endeavour to put $20,000 in the estimates for that kind of work.. We need a great deal more than that to do the work properly. The commercial end we must look after, and the scientific end will follow. Take the west, where we have these irrigation companies, we ought to have certain surveys made there. Let me mention one case for the benefit of the Minister of the Interior. We ought to have a survey made from the Old Man river to see if it is not possible to carry water from it into the district in between the Little Bow river and the Belly river, for the purpose of running small creeks through the country to supply domestic needs.
I had no idea this matter was coming up to-night, or I would have been prepared to go into it to a much greater extent, but I should think it would be only necessary to draw the attention of the Minister of the Interior to the work for him to see its necessity. I want to get from under the load if there ever should he a time in the prairies when the people will not find sufficient water for their necessities. The matter is one of most serious import to that country, and I most sincerely trust the hon. Minister of the Interior will take the same view of it.


Hon.   S@: We are very much indebted to the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Maclean) for having brought this matter up and also the	hon. member	for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) for the very able manner in which he seconded the motion. We are much indebted to these gentlemen for the very clear way in which the question 97 i
has been discussed and the very valuable information vouchsafed to the House. I did not intend saying anything but since the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) has appealed to me, I feel it would be only courteous that I did say a word or two, particularly as I have had something to do in a small way with certain surveys which he has been good enough to characterize as excellent and which, I am happy to know, have been appreciated throughout the country. I do not intend to enter upon a discussion of any controversial character. It is a matter of little consequence to me whether the surveys are carried out by the Militia Department or by the Department of the Interior, so long as an accurate survey is undertaken promptly, and I am glad to hear from my hon. colleague the Minister of the Interior that such a survey is actually being carried out. In the United States, as my hon. friends from North Simcoe and Lunenburg have observed, these surveys, and in fact all engineering work, are absolutely under the control of the war office, and after the experience of a century the system has been found to work amirably. As the hon. member for North Simcoe, (Mr. Currie) has said, in not more than one or two cases has the good faith of the engineers in the United States, connected with public works, ever been questioned in the slightest degree. It seems to me to be reasonable too that if in a peaceful country such as the United States has generally been, and in Canada such as we hope it will always be, it is necessary to maintain a military force and an engineering branch in connection with that force, it is very desirable that some important work should be given to that engineering staff. In the United States the engineering staff has been engaged in work of this kind. I think it would be desirable, in view of the class of men we have now in the engineering branch of the) Canadian militia, that some work of this kind should be given them, and we have undertaken to do mapping work and surveys for the defence purposes of those portions of the Dominion of which an accurate knowledge of the topography is absolutely necessary if we are to know anything about the means of defending the country in the event of an attack being made.
As to how quickly this work shall be done that is a question, as my hon. colleague has pointed out, very largely of money, and I did not understand him to say that he in any way objected to carrying on a geodetic survey or a triangulation of the whole Dominion except from the point of view of the very great expense, and his

view is that it should be done gradually and that the surveys already carried out should be co-related for future use, I should hope that the report moved for will be brought down and printed and that every hon. member will carefully read it, and that parliament will be ready to vote to my hon. colleague the necessary sum to enable this geodetic survey and triangulation to be carried out in the most rapid manner possible, which very likely would not take, at the most, more than ten years.
My hon. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. A. K. Maclean) has quoted the statement of a very prominent gentleman of Massachusetts, a statement which I have read myself, to the effect that if there had been a geodetic survey of the state of Massachusetts fifty or sixty years ago, millions upon millions of dollars would have been saved to the state in the construction of railways and other public works. The same thing would be true of this country. Fortunately for Canada, the country has only begun to be settled, and it will be possible, I hope, to have the advantage of a geodetic survey in many portions of the country before the construction of railways is extensively undertaken. The papers moved for, I believe, are under control of the Militia Department. I shall have pleasure in having them brought down, if this motion is carried, almost immediately.


Mr. ANDREW BRODER (Dundas).: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the discussion on the motion of the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. A. K. Maclean). I think that surveys of this nature, so far as this country is concerned, have been perhaps too much a matter of secrecy; the public generally have not had the advantage of the information contained in those surveys. I think we differ somewhat from the Americans in that respect. There is not the slightest doubt about the benefit to the public in the United States from the topographical maps. For one thing, they have saved a great deal of expense to the agriculturists of that country in the carrying out of drainage works. The federal government has undertaken the reclamation of large areas of swamp land, and these surveys have been very valuable to the people interested in that matter. I think they estimate something like 73,000,000 acres of swamp lands to be reclaimed east of the Rocky mountains, and these maps which have been issued to the public have been used largely with a view to assisting the agriculturists .in that respect. It seems to me that, under whatever department these surveys may be made, they ought to first take up the country that is more thickly settled, and where the information would be of greater interest to the public than in the outlying district. I can quite understand the force of what the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) says in reference to Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.
the expense. In a new country like this, we have to do a good many things in the rough, so to speak, because we must keep in advance of the immediate requirements of the people and the development of the country. The relation that these surveys may have to commercial enterprises is manifest, and I think that if they were taken up with a view to assisting in these as well as in military work, it would be greatly to the advantage of the people in the more rapid development of the country.


Robert Laird Borden: I listened with a great deal of attention and interest to the very instructive speech of the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. A. K. Maclean) and I entirely agree that he is entitled to the thanks of the House for having brought a matter of so much importance to our attention. The subject was mentioned to me, I think about a year and a half ago, by Professor McLeod, of McGill, the professor in charge of this work in that great university. I was very muck impressed with the view which he then urged, and on that account I have listened to the debate this evening with all the greater interest. I appreciate what has been said by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver). We cannot expect settlement or mining development or any other of the great enterprises of this country, to wait until we have had a thoroughly scientific survey. That goes without saying; it is hardly necessary to urge it. I did not understand that the hon. member for Lunenburg did urge it. But he did urge the very great importance of having a thoroughly scientific and accurate survey undertaken and carried out as rapidly as might reasonably be expected, having regard to the undoubtedly very great cost of work of that kind. The minister tells us that the work had been undertaken and has already made considerable progress. I should have been very glad indeed if he could have given to us a little more information as to the progress made, but that, perhaps, will be disclosed in the documents moved for by the hon. member for Lunenburg. The Civil Service Commission of 1907 pointed out in their report, if my memory serves me correctly, that a good deal of work in surveying by the different departments was duplicated, or perhaps, done three or four times by different departments. My hon. friend the Minister of the Interior does not seem to attach very much importance to that. But, possibly, there is more waste of that kind than one would gather from the hon. gentleman's speech this evening. Of course, we should all think it highly desirable that duplication of work in that way should be avoided, that the departments should co-ordinate to work a little more. I suppose there is always a certain amount of red tape wherever there are departments.

I remember my surprise some years ago on being told by a certain minister of the Crown of that day that his department had been obliged to pay demurrage for, I think, about ten days, while another department of the government was making up its mind whether it could use the wharf of that department. In the meantime, the public money was being paid over to the owner of a steamship with certain commodities aboard designed for the use of one of the departments. This friction and red tape as between the departments, should be put on one side, and these surveys should be carried on, as much as possible, without duplication of work. I do not know how far this work has progressed in the United States. They have been at work for many years. I should have been glad of information from the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) or the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) on that point and also on the question how much these may expect to accomplish in ten or fifteen years. We have not received much information on that point. Perhaps it also will be disclosed in the papers brought down. I understand that the military surveys which have been referred to by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. J. A. Currie) and the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) are topographical and not geodetic. Passing from that for a moment, let me draw attention to the necessity of emphasizing the views put forward by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Ma-grath). I am not nearly so familiar with conditions in the west as is that hon. gentleman or the Minister of the Interior, but I have been through the west on three or four occasions and have every reason to believe that settlement there is being retarded at the present time by the lack, in certain portions of that country, of water necessary for domestic use. The hon. member for Medicine Hat has pointed out the necessity of an accurate survey, especially in the west, of our water supply, * 1 *1' is water supply not only for purposes oi irrigation, but for domestic use.
He intended to point out, as he has just now observed to me, the importance of some scheme by which the abundant supply of water flowing from the mountains through the great regions of the west which might be regarded as semi-arid, could be utilized to a greater extent than it has been utilized for domestic use, and he is under the impression that that could be done, by a series of creeks or channels which would forward settlement very much in some of the regions where settlement has hitherto, been difficult, and in that way give to the people of that western country a supply of water for domestic purposes which has been lacking to a great extent. When I was in the west about five years ago I was approached by the inhabitants of two or three different communities, who told me that they had
been sinking artesian wells in various places to a great depth, but had not been able to secure water, and that some intervention or assistance from the government was absolutely necessary if those communities were to continue. It may be that in the particular instances which I have now in mind some relief has since been found, but there is no doubt whatever that this is a very serious matter in some portions of the west, and that it deserves the consideration of the government and of this parliament. I would only say in conclusion that while I thoroughly appreciate the attitude of the Minister of the Interior as to the necessity that great enterprises of settlement should go on without waiting for a scientific survey, still I am of the opinion advocated by my hon. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. Maclean) that an accurate scientific survey such as has been carried on, or is now in a very far advanced stage, in every civilized nation of the world, should be carried on in this country as well, and that a reasonable amount of the revenues of the country should be yearly diverted to this purpose in order that we may not be behind other great nations in this regard.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. PIUS MICHAUD' (Victoria, N.B.) moved for
Copy of all corespondence and reports between the United States and the Dominion governments respecting the diversion of the waters of the Allegash river, a tributary of the St. John river.
He said: I desire to submit to the House a few remarks in support of this motion. We see in volume 1 of the United States statutes, under the heading 'Constitution of the United States,' that the constitution and the laws of the United States made in pursuance hereto, and all treaties made and to be made with other countries, including those with respect to boundaries between Canada and the United States, are to be regarded as the supreme law of the United States, and every state in the union is bound thereby, notwithstanding any legislation it may pass. By the Ashburton treaty, the River St. John, which is 450 miles in length, taking its source in the state of Maine and in the province of Quebec, was made the international boundary between the United States and the province of New Brunswick, at a certain point where the said state borders opposite Madctwaska county. By this treaty it was provided that in order to encourage and promote industry of the inhabitants living in the state fo Maine, or the province of New Brunswick, the waters of the River St. John and its tributaries, be free for the transportation of the products of
[Stage Direction]
the forest and of agriculture. Now, Mr. Speaker, I desire to state that by the provisions of that treaty all lumber cut at the head waters of the St. John river was to be free to float down to the mouth of said river at St. John, on the Bay of Fundy. The Allegash river is a tributary of the St. John river, and is entirely within the state of Maine. In 1841, a year previous to the Ashburton treaty, an application was made for the purpose of cutting a canal between Lake Chamberlin and one of the branches of the Penobscot river. We find that this application was refused, for several reasons. In 1846 a company known as the Lake Telos and Webster Pond Log and Sluiceway Company was chartered by the legislature of the state of Maine, and was authorized to cut a canal between Lake Churchill and one of the branches of the Penobscot river. I desire to explain that the River Allegash takes its source in Lake Churchill, Lake Chamberlin and Lake Heron and a few other lakes. In 1874, another application was made for authorization to build a dam at the foot of Lake Churchill in order to divert the waters of the Allegash river into a branch of the Penobscot river, and prevent the lumbermen on the River St. John from enjoying the benefit they had derived from the waters of that river. Under the authority expressed or implied in this Act, the lumbermen of the state of Maine cut the canal and diverted practically part of the waters of the Allegash river into a river of their own. In 1903 our American friends were not satisfied with having diverted the waters of that river to their own use, and they made another application to the legislature of the state of Maine for authorization to build the dam a litle. higher in order to secure still greater advantages. The people of the province of New Brunswick at that time were aware of what was going on, and they hired a lawyer and sent him over to Augusta, the capital of Maine, to oppose that legislation.
1 am sorry to say that the legislature granted the application and consequently further authority was given to build dams, to cut canals and to divert more water from these lakes and from the Allegash river. What is the result of diverting that water from the St. John river? The lumbermen in the northern part of the province of New Brunswick are suffering every year. The lumber is driven down in the early part of the season passing the point at which Allegash river falls into the St. John river. In the beginning of June the water of the St. John river is lowered and a large quantity of lumber driven down from the headquarters of St. John is held back and part of it remains along the shore of the St. John river all summer. We know as a matter of fact that when a log remains exposed to the weather and the heat of the Mr. MICHAUD.
sun all summer its value, when it is manufactured into deals and boards the following season, is found to have decreased by probably one third. This is a great loss to the lumbermen of St. John and along the St. John river. This is a matter that I think should be brought prominently before the parliament of this country. We have tolerated the course of our friends in the state of Maine for years but I think the time has arrived when we should take steps to put an end to this grievance. We have now to submit our grievance to a commission and I am glad to say that the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugs-ley) has seen fit to look into the matter very closely and that a commission has been appointed to deal with it. The commissioners, I understand are about to commence their investigation in connection with the troubles which now exist between the lumbermen in the state of Maine and those in the province of New Brunswick. The treaty lays it down most distinctly that the interests connected with the St. John river should be protected. It is a matter of surprise to know that on different occasions the state of Maine has passed a law authorizing people in that state to cut canals, build dams, and divert the water of the Allegash river into the Penobscot. The laws under which treaties are made are called the supreme laws of the land. I cannot understand how the government, the legislature and the senators of the state of Maine should have passed laws at direct variance with the provisions of this treaty. We cannot help feeling very deeply the injury done to our industries by not abiding by this treaty. We have felt the insult to our honour as Canadians and British subjects. The treaty has not been carried out to the letter as it should have been by our friends. Since they call every treaty made under their institutions the supreme law of the land they should be the first to observe it. I hope the commission already appointed will take this matter into their serious consideration. I hope they will not only inquire into the trouble which now exists between the two countries but that they will go farther and ascertain the damage which our people have suffered for forty or fifty years by the diversion of the water of the Allegash river into one of their own rivers.
William Pugsley: Mr. Speaker, the question which my hon. friend (Mr. Michaud) has brought to the attention of the House is certainly one of verv great importance not only to the people of the province of New Brunswick who are engaged in lumbering operations upon the St. John river, but also to a considerable section of the inhabitants of the state of Maine, who are also carrying on lumbering and business

operations on the river and who are equally interested with the people of New Brunswick in seeing that the navigation of the river is preserved. This diversion of the waters of the Alleeash from the river St. John into the Penobscot took place a great many years ago and, as my hon. friend has so well stated, it has been the cause of a great deal of dissatisfaction on the part of the people living on the St. John river, and it has led to very serious difficulty on several occasions, and, I think, I am safe in saying that upon more than one occasion it has almost led to bloodshed. Our people have felt that those who have acted under the authority of the legislature of the state of Maine have acted in disregard of those national obligations which the people of that country ought to observe towards the people of a friendly nation. While I was a member of the government of the province of New Brunswick I was the medium through which his honour the Lieutenant Governor was recommended to have a communication sent to the British ambassador in the hope of inducing, the United States government to intervene and to prevent this diversion of which our people complain. The protests were sent forward by this government in the ordinary way and through the ordinary channels, but, unfortunately, they have not so far resulted in the grievancei being remedied.	Of course,	one difficulty under which our people have suffered is that we can have no redress in the courts, because, if we were to proceed in the courts of the state of Maine, our people would be met by the fact that there has	been	passed	a	statute	ofthe legislature of the state of Maine authorizing	the	company	to	which	myhon. friend	has	referred	to	divert	the
waters in the manner which has been complained of. Therefore, it would seem as if the only recourse we could have is through diplomatic correspondence in the hone of inducing the government of the United States to take such action as may bring about a discontinuance of the interference with the navigation of the St. John river. I am happy to say that I believe, that, as a result of the feeling to which expression has been given by the government of the United States in agreeing to the waterways treaty and also in agreeing to the commission to consider the obstruction to the St. John river, there is apparent a desire, a sincere desire that these difficulties shall be overcome and that . all the causes of friction shall be done away with. It is a very important fact that in the waterways treaty which has been submitted to parliament it is expressly provided that there is reserved to each country the rivht to insist upon the necessity of navigation being preserved, and that neither country shall have the right to divert any waters flowing into
boundary waters or boundary rivers which would in any way materially lower the level of the water or interfere with navigation. If this treaty should become law, we will have in it a recognition of that principle and that right, and the logical consequence which I hope will follow at no distant day will be, that the United States government will take steps to do away with the provisions which have been made for diverting the waters of this very important river into a river in the state of Maine, and allowing it to flow again in its natural channel, thus preserving to our people the navigation of the St. John river which, as the hon. gentleman has said, is of extreme importance to the Dominion. I can assure my hon. friend (Mr. Michaud) that the papers for which he has now moved will be brought down as soon as possible.


Mr. JAMES CONMEE (Thunder Bay and Rainy River).: The question raised by the hon. member is of more far reaching importance than its relation to any particular locality. I take it for granted that many of the boundary streams could be affected by conditions similar to those he has represented in this case. What has been decided by the authorities of the United States having charge of the department which deals with waters of this character ought to be applied here. A question arose of a very similar character with regard to the diversion of waters from the Rainy river. An American company, relying on legislation which it had obtained in the state of Minnesota applied to the department at Washington foT the ratification of plans for the permanent diversion of a portion of the waters of the Birch lake drainage basin which was solely within the state of Minnesota, but in its course discharged southwesterly into the Rainy river which is an international stream. The Waterways Commission dealt with this matter and their report was ratified by the Secretary of War of the United States, and in giving their reasons for their finding and quoting authorities, they quote the opinion of Mr. Evarts, at one time Secretary of State of the United States, on a question between the United States government and the Mexican government with regard to the waters of the Rio Grande river which takes its rise in one country and flows into the other. The complaint in that case was that too much of the water was being diverted for irrigation purposes in the one country to the detriment of the citizens of the other who desired the water for the same purposes, and it was on that point that Mr. Evarts gave his opinion. The Waterways Commission commenting upon Mr. Evart's opinion reports :
It would seem that comity would require that in the absence of necessity the sovereign

power should not be exercised to the injury of a friendly nation or of its citizens or subjects without the consent of that nation.
If I understand aright the contention of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Michaud) it is not that there was diverted into the state of Maine the actual boundary waters of the St. John river, but the waters of a tributary of that boundary stream, and this was a similar case :
The common law protects riparian owners against permanent diversions of waters which injuriously affect their rights, and this law is founded on principles not merely of social necessity, but of justice and right. While the common law is not a part of the law of nations its principles so far as they are founded in justice and equity, ought, where practicable to be applied by nations acting in their sovereign capacity. The Department of State of the United States has adopted this principle in the past and although the application was made in the case of conflicting riparian rights on a boundary stream.
That is very close to the conditions here:
Yet the commission can see no sound distinction between the position taken by the government of the United States in the case referred to, and cases of diversion of water wholly within one country where the diversion injuriously affects riparian owners in another country.
That, I take it to be upon all fours with the situation in this case. Then it says :
This application of the common law was made by Mr. Evarts, Secretary of State.
So that, having Tegard to international law and to the comity between friendly nations and to equity and right as laid down by this authority, it seems to me that the diversion of the waters in this case was not justified. I call attention to this for the reason that it is not happening on the St. John river or on the Rainy river alone, but that it may happen and is likely to happen in very many other cases, affecting vitally the interests of this country. I think, Sir, there ought to be a little more attention paid to this subject and still greater supervision in regard to these matters.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That in the opinion of this House such steps should be taken as may be deemed most effective in conserving the home market to the Canadian Coal Operators.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is only the urgency of this question that tempts me at this rather late hour to detain the House for a short time while I bring to the notice! of the government and of the country gen-1 erally the great question of the coal industry in Canada. That question has been re-Mr. CONMEE.
ceiving attention in parliament ever since we first had a parliament, that is, since the days of confederation; and in connection with that question has been considered the question of free trade or protection in relation to the conservation of the market for our coal in Canada. I only call attention to the question now because of the great agitation that is going on [DOT] at present in respect to the future of the coal market in this country. Let me point out the great interest that are involved in our coal trade. In Ontario and in the great west it may not be generally realized to what proportion the coal interests have grown in the province of Nova Scotia, particularly since the year 1893, when what is known as the Whitney legislation brought a large influx of capital into, the province and put the coal industry on a much stronger footing than it had been before. To show the extent of the commercial interests of the province of Nova Scotia, let me lay before the House a synopsis of the trade of the province during the last calendar year:
Coal	$ 16,200,000
Coke	 2,000,000
Gold	  237,000
Gypsum, limestone and other
materials	 725,000
Stone and other building
material	 250,000
Pig iron	 1,425,000
Steel	 3,800,000
Steel rails, rods,	&c	 8,112,000
Fisheries	 8,000,000
Manufactures, ships and
freights	 38,000,000
Products of	the	farm.. ..	26,500,000Products of	the forest.. ..	2,000,000Total	$107,249,000
I give these figures because at the very basis of the prosperity of Nova Scotia as a country, in its various industries, lies the coal trade. And this is so not only in the province of Nova Scotia, but throughout the whole Dominion of Canada. For that reason I think I am justified in calling the serious attention of this House and of the country generally to anything that may detrimentally affect that very important trade. I might point out also the amount of capital that is involved directly in the coal trade of other parts of Canada. The annual coal production of British Columbia between the years 1836 and 1865 amounted to only 5,500 tons, from 1865 to 1898 it had grown to 1,000,000 tons; from 1898 to 1906 it had grown to 2,000,000 tons; and I suppose that to-day it amounts to about 2,500,000 tons. The capital invested in the industry in that province amounts to a large sum. rThe Wellington colliery has invested in it about $10,000,000, and it is equipped for a daily production of 5,500 tons.
The Western Fuel Company has a

capacity of 5,400 tons daily. Other companies in British Columbia are developing their properties very rapidly, and will in a short time have a production equal to that of the older and larger companies. The approximate amount of capital invested in British Columbia in coal alone is about $20,000,000. In the province of Alberta there is invested about $15,000,000. In that province there is an immense area of coal, extending from the Rockies to Manitoba and from the international boundary to the Peace river. In the province of Nova Scotia we have invested in coal alone, the following amounts:
Cape Breton	county	$39,080,000Inverness	"	
10,500,000Victoria	"	
500,000Richmond	"	
2,000,000Piotou	"	
5,350,000Cumberland	"	
7,490,000Total	$64,920,000
In the industry of iron and the making of iron and steel and steel rails, which is almost directly dependent on the success of the coal industry we have a capital invested in the Dominion Iron and Steel Company of $30,000,000. I am not in a position to say exactly what the capital of the Nova Scotia Steel Company is, but it is a very large and prosperous company. The Londonderry Drummond Company has $1,000,000 invested in iron in the county of Colchester, and this industry depends to some extent for its existence and growth and prosperity upon the prosperity of the coal trade in the province. I am bound to say anything that I can say in support of this industry from the standpoint of capital, for it is important to us in Canada that every man who invests a dollar in any industry in ithis country should receive attention and protection from this House so far as this House can afford that protection consistent with the general interest of the country.
I am bringing up this question because this House is the tribunal which alone can deal with questions of this wide character, affecting the different provinces. If it could be dealt with by the legislature of Nova Scotia, if that legislature could protect and safeguard this great industry, I would not be troubling this House with any argument on the matter. But this question does not come within the sphere of any provincial legislature, and therefore I am obliged to appeal to the only tribunal which can deal with it. While it is the interest of this country that capital should be safeguarded and capitalists the world over be given the assurance that in Canada we have a parliament and parliamentarians who always keep their eye upon the best interests of those who are willing to invest their capital in this country, it
is equally in our interest that we should likewise keep in mind the men, women and children who are dependent upon this particular industry in every part of Canada, and in doing this we are likewise improving the position of those who invest capital in Canadian industries. We have in Nova Scotia 103,000 people who are depending for their livelihood upon coal cutting and mining. That is a very large number of people. I do not think it would be exaggerating to say that the average family of the miner numbers four and that consequently four people are directly dependent upon every head of a family of every mine operator. I have said in Nova Scotia there are 103,000 people employed in the mines, and taking in those employed directly in the coal mines in other parts of Canada, we have 113,109 miners engaged in the mining of coal. Multiply that by four, and you have 452,436 directly dependent on this work. If you undertake to feed them as they must be fed and estimate the cost at the very small amount of $10 a month, you have $4,524,360 for the feeding alone without saying anything about their housing and clothing. That is an amount of money which even Canada, with its enormous trade, cannot afford to treate lightly, and it is an amount which the traders in Ontario and Quebec, who are directly interested, must not ignore. We are apt, in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, where the great question seems to be to get coal without paying any duty and therefore as low as possible, to ignore] this factor. To get coal cheap seems to be the paramount question of importance in Ontario and Quebec regardless entirely of the trade dependent on the production of coal in this country. I submit that taking the 103,000 in my own province engaged directly in the production of coal, not more than ten per cent of their requirements is found in that province. You would be surprised to know that of these 103,000 people, mostly all are non-productive, that is as far as what they eat and what they require for clothing are concerned. It is important therefore that the large manufacturing centres of this country should realize that the flour, beef, pork, molasses, sugar and other goods which these people consume do not come from Nova Scotia except in a very small proportion. I venture to say that 75 per cent comes from Quebec and Ontario. For that reason it is highly important for those two provinces that the coal industry in the county of Cape Breton and the other parts of Nova Scotia should not be neglected.
There is one point I wish to make in respect to the trade in coal between Cape Breton and the city of Montreal and in respect to the steamers that ply hack and forth between Sydney and Montreal. The idea * seems to be in Ontario and Quebec

that if we had reciprocity the coal from Sydney and Louisburg would go to Boston and other New England ports. But our friends in the upper provinces who are now trading extensively with us in Nova Scotia, must not forget that if the coal trade of the maritime provinces should go to Boston, there also will go the other trade in dry goods and provisions and everything else which the miner requires. To-day the steamers which go to 'Montreal with coal bring back no other goods except those which the miner purchases, and these goods enjoy the advantage of cheap freight rates; whereas if the trade is directed elsewhere, we shall not have that steamer connection and these goods will not be sent to the people of Cape Breton as they now are. That is the point I wish to emphasize. I wish to point cut that this question of protecting coal is not a one-sided one. There is no class of people so profitable to the traders as the coal miners. A farmer may be well off and a merchant or a professional man, but, so far as purchasing powers are concerned, the
coal miner is a much more profitable citizen so long as he has the money to spend. He is not as a rule stingy about spending money. He feeds and dresses his family well and is not at all conservative about his wealth. For that reason the miner and the working men generally in the coal mining district^ are the best kind of customers, and it is well worth the while of our manufacturers and traders to see that the coal miner is in a position to bring up his family well and be of such assistance to the commercial world as he now is. What has startled myself and some others is the falling off of our trade in the St. Lawrence. I am not in a position to say exactly what is the cause, but what we do know is that year ofter year, particularly for the last two or three years American coal is gaining ground along the river St. Lawrence, in the province of Quebec, to the exclusion of our own coal. Let me draw your attention to the figures for the seasons 1906, 1907 and 1908.
Mr. d. d. McKenzie.
Comparative Receipts of Coal in the St. Lawrence-Seasons 1906, 1907, 1908.
Names of Coal Companies.	Montreal.	Sorel.	Three Rivers.	Quebec and Levis.	Recapitulation.	1906	1907	1908	1906.	1907.	1908.	1906.	1907.	1908.	1906.	1907.	1908.	1906.	1907.	1908.Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Co. Dominion Coal Company, Ltd.	142,581 1,043,493	77,567 937,421	70,304 1,204,573 1,830 19,150	11,909 8,257	23,879 4,373	33,704 4,373	3,919 42,641 1,400	8,061 63,476	7,167 37,700	64,869 80,230	53,515 82,939 738 37,862 1,960	94,785 101,957	223,308 1,174,621 1,400 69,889	163,022 1,088,209 739 77,196 12,206	205,960 1,348,551 1,830 81,976 20,450 733 30,365 69,125Inverness Railway and Coal Co	34,405	39,334 8,646	10,342	1,600	25,142	62,826 26,450	733 30,365 69,125	Intercolonial Coal Company..	48,025 59,861	36,371 62,532	5,000	9,507	53,026 59,861	45,878 62,532	Nova Scotia Coals	1,328,365	1,161,871	1,396,080	30,508	28,252	38,025	47,990	73,137	44,867	175,241	186,521	280,018	1,582,104	1,449,781	1,758,990Scotia and English Coals	
American Bitnm Coals	28,900	7,000	4,0(H)	46,990	650	14,000	33,550	67,99013,000	52,063	130,443	2,560	702	1,800	25,000	51,100	64,782	39,800	105,723	195,9271,370,265	30,508	53,790	200,891	1,655,454	1,213,934	30,812	73,137	237,621	1,555,504	1,533,523	38,727	91,857	358,800	2,022,907Mining Record Dec. 23, 1908.	3093	MARCH 22, 1909
Now, I wish to bring particularly to the notice of the people that, so far as efforts to bring about reciprocity are concerned, reciprocity in coal in former days has not been a boon to the investors in coal mines in Nova Soctia or elsewhere in Canada. And when I speak of the coal trade of Nova Scotia, I am sorry to say I am not speaking of money invested by the people of Nova Scotia alone. The wealthy men of Quebec, Montreal, Ontario and other parts of Canada, have invested in these mines rather than the people of Nova Scotia. And, when I call upon the representatives in this House of all parts of Canada to take an interest in this question and safeguard the coal Hade in the province of Nova Scotia, I am not asking them to safeguard the interest of the people of Nova Scotia only, but the interest of the people of every part of Canada.
In the year 1865, the coal trade had become such an important factor to the province of Nova Scotia, through the increased coal sales of the new collieries, which were opened out when the leases were granted, outside of the general mining association, that it was deemed necessary to appoint an inspector of mines, who could look after the mining interests of the province. This appointment was the first inspector of mines in America. In the year 1867 the government of the United States imposed a duty of $1.25 per ton on all coals entering their ports. The imposing of this duty very materially affected the output, and expansion of the trade of the whole province of Nova Scotia, as up to this time the New England states had always been their best customers, no other markets being then available, as at that time the local markets were small and restrictive, few miles of railway having been built, and all the coal being water carried by sailing vessels.
From the year 1850 to 1854 coal was admitted into the United States at a duty of 24 per cent ad valorem, and in 1853 the coal shipped amounted to 124,764 tons. From 1854 to 1866 coal was admitted free, when the exports rose from 139,125 tons to 404,252 tons. In 1864, a duty of $1.25 was imposed, when the shipments fell to 165,431 tons. In 1892, the duty was reduced to 75 cents, and the exports gradually fell until 1893, when the entire shipments of Nova Scotia coal to the United States only amounted to 16,099 tons. In 1894 the duty was changed to 40 cents for screened coal, and 15 cents for slack-through i-inch apertures in screen bars. In 1896 the shipments of coal amounting to 174,919 tons. In 1897 the duty was made 67 cents. The shipments had increased until 1903, when the shipments were 968,832 tons, but have again decreased to 616,312 tons in 1907 and less for 1908, as the figures for the Port of Boston (Everett) are:	1907, 545,652 tons;


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: 
Mar.  C. H.@: & P. Co	 1 Minudie Company	L									
Strathcona and others	 J									
	1,050,000	167,000	1,217,000	2,05o	6,500	9,000	9,500	21,500	
C. B. County - Dominion Coal Coy											
	3.750.000 1.050.000 150,000			8.300 2.300 350	21,000 11,000 1,200	25.000 15.000 1,500	40.000 20.000 2,000	40.000 20.000 2,000


Nova Scotia S.: & C. Co										
Other Collieries										
Totals												
	4,950,000	1,358,000	6,308,000	10,950	33,200	41,500	62,000	62,000	
Inverness County- Inverness Coal Co										
	464.000 150.000			908 350	1,500 900	3,000 1,200	] j- 5,000	22,000	
									
									
	614,000	194,500	808,000	1,258	2,400	4,200			
New collieries										
	24,000	75,000	99,000						
									
GRAND TOTAL. Wages		$ 7,890,000 Wages and supplies	 10,003,000 Number of employees	 16,750 Dependents on employees	 57,350 Dependents on coal mining	 125,000 Population appreciably benefited	 ... 175,000									
McKenzie.
Coal Trade by Counties for the Year Ending September 30, 1908, Province of Nova Scotia.
Tons in 2,240 lbs.

* 	Pictou.	Cumberland.	Inverness.	Colchester.	Percentage of Coal taken by Provinces.	Province to where Coal is Shipped.	Cape Breton.	Totals.	1908.	1907.1,102,531 243,760*	337,478	97,346*	73,2831	422	1,611,050J	By sea	9,979	1,382	84,4594	339,581	1,346,2914 166,6574	347,447	98,728*	157,742|	422	1,950,631|	35 56	36 5074,159	236,621	31,212	1,681	510,330* 207,062	930 3 75	8-46179,790 33,740 1,667,747	24,690	2,582	1-53 3387 00 0524,590J	63,3304	115	Quebec	191,982	68,064j	119,845	2,047,6384	37'33	456,518	1,091	41,8254	12 23 00 154,697	008	4,697 193,352 8,907	405193,352	352	8,907	016	Total in tons (2,240 lbs.)	4,062,900	639,369	445,239	335,9724	2,103	5,485,5834	100 00	100 00District percentages.-Totals, 1906 	
1907	
1908	p.c. 74 36 73 45 74-08	p.c.	p.c. 10 69 8-14 8 TO	p. c. 375 593 6 12	p. c.	11-65	0C05	-3103	COMMONS	3104
Without saying very much upon this point I think I have shown sufficient of the facts and made out a case strong enough to call the attention of the government and the House generally to this very important question and to impress them with the necessity of taking some steps to preserve to the people of Canada the excellent market which we now have for the coal of Nova Scotia and wherever else coal is produced. I would submit. Sir, that while it may be a hardship in some cases to buy coai, as we sometimes consider it dearer than we would like to pay, we should not forget that the people of the great country to the south of us have pursued the policy which I am advocating. The people in the New England states have no coal, they have to reef ive their coal from the west and they pay a higher price than they would have to pay for Nova Scotia coal. Still, there is enough national spirit to induce them to bear with any little extras they would have to pay in order to develop in the west great coal centres and keep the trade within their own bounds. I submit that in the centre of Canada our people do not view with a proper spirit the necessity of developing the coal of our own country. The proper thing to do in Canada is to develop the coal resources of Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia so that they can be made available for the necessities of the people in the great centres of the west which are now being developed. We heard to-night of the necessity that exists for providing water for the people in the west. I certainly approve of any means that are adopted to bring to their doors those things which are necessary for the purposes of the great development that is now going on there, but if the settler must have water to boil the meal and if he must have water to drink he must also have fire with which to cook his meal, to keep warm his children and for the comfort of his household. It is necessary to have that and it can only be obtained by the proper development, the bringing of that coal to the doors of our people in the west. We have inexhaustible stores of coal in Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia and w'hen the excellent railroads that they are building there with low grades and equipped with big locomotives are completed the loads that can be hauled will be simply enormous and something that we do not calculate upon to-day. For that reason I think it will be quite proper to direct our attention to furnishing fuel to our own people in the west from our own mines. We are expending a great deal of money upon our militia and the development of arms in this country. It is quite proper, but I want to know how long we could stand a war in this country if we had it in mid-winter without the capability of supplying our own people in the west with fuel. The Americans would starve us out in two days. There is nothing said 98
about that. We are furnishing the militia and the arms, but we are making no provision for supplying fuel in winter to our people and ve can imagine what would happen if our fuel supply in the United States were stopped in mid-winter. At no time in winter is there more than a two week's supply in the province of Ontario of the quality of coal which they get from the United States because they depend upon getting it on short notice, and if communication with the mines of the United States were suddenly cut off they would be in a position to which they have not given sufficient thought. I say, after deliberation and after having given the subject a great deal of thought, that 1 believe that with some attention to transportation we can send our coal from the east as far as Toronto, and I submit that with proper attention to the question of transportation that portion of the country west of Toronto can be supplied from the west. I say that as a country that expects to develop, that expects to be independent of the outside world, to as great an extent as any country can be, with reference to the question of power, as power is produced or generated by coal, and as far as everything that is produced or dependent upon coal is concerned, the wise policy on our part is to develop our own coal resources and coal trade and not depend upon the whims of any outside country. As far as Nova Scotia is concerned, so important was this question in 1897 that the premier of that province dissolved the legislature and asked the verdict of the people on the question as to whether or not they wanted the duty retained on coal in the Dominion of Canada. The verdict of the people was almost unanimous in favour of the retention of the duty. I believe that the same verdict would be rendered to-day if that question were to be submitted to the people there. It is important in Nova Scotia and it is also important in every other part of the country, in Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Quebec, because of the great trade which we furnish to the people of Canada and if measures are not taken to protect this industry and to keep the prosperity which we have to-day it may not be so useful to the country as it is at the present time.
Now, I simply want to point out one more thing to the government and to the House and I shall consider that I have put this question, as far as I have any figures or facts at my disposal, before the House to the fullest extent. This government has undertaken to do some things for other industries in this country. , A few years ago the steel industry in Canada was in such a position as to require care, protection and fostering at the hands of this government. The government was equal to the occasion and took steps to safeguard the capital that was invested in that great



industry and also to safeguard the people whose living and every day employment were dependent upon it. As the government has encouraged our steel and iron industry by bounties and duties for protection and assistance, and as we are paying out our good money to assist that industry, there is no reason why some steps should not be taken and even some sacrifices indirectly incurred in order to safeguard our coal mining industry. I have reason to hope that the government will be equal to the occasion and that this House will support the government in inquiring into the cause which is bringing about such a great influx of American coal into Canada to the exclusion of the use of our own Canadian coal, and that whatever steps are necessary to conserve to us our own markets and to exclude American coal shall be taken. I regret that I have been obliged to speak at such length but the question is a very important one. I am not presenting alone the case of the capitalists for whom I can assure you I have no retainer, but I feel that it is my duty as representing a large number of working men to bring their case as near to the foot of the Throne as I can, and so far as I am able to submit to the government and to the people generally that some measures should be taken to enable these working men to have employment every day and to earn sufficient money to support themselves and their families in comfort. I regret that this winter they have not been kept in continuous employment because of this displacement of Canadian coal in the home market by American coal. It is not at all necessary for one to call himself a labour candidate or to sit in this House' as a labour member in order that he should put these issues before the House. Representing as I do a large number of working people, although I do not pose as a labour candidate, I believe that it is my duty to the best of my ability to present to the country and to the House the interests of these people, and to appeal for a remedy to the only institution in the land which has the power to provide a remedy which will relieve us from any further imposition of this kind, and which will hold the markets of Canada for Canadian coal which we are capable of producing just as well as they can produce coal in a foreign country. One more observation Mr. Speaker, and I have done. It has been contended that the price of Nova Scotia coal is too high, that we are making too large profits on it, and that the people who have to buy our coal in Montreal and other cities are obliged to pay too high a price for it. I do not know whether it is a popular suggestion to make or not, but I submit that if the day should ever come in Canada when there is any hardship on the Canadian Mr. D. D. McKENZIE.
consumer because of the high price of coal there is power in this House to put the regulations of the price of that commodity in a commission just as the value of other public utilities is regulated. I consider that the power that is in coal is a public utility, and if ever it should come about that the people of this country are imposed upon, this parliament has the power to protect the consumer so that none but a fair price should be charged. I have presented my views and these statistics to the House in the hope that the government will take into serious consideration the circumstances of those who are dependent on this trade for a means of livelihood as well as those who have had the courage and the enterprise to invest millions of dollars in the development of out coal areas in Nova Scotia and elsewhere in Canada.


John Allister Currie: Would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Mackenzie) please tell the House the price of coal at the pit mouth in Nova Scotia and the price of the same kind of coal at the pit mouth in the Alle-ghanney Valley or in Ohio?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not pose by any means as a coal expert and I only speak of the facts as I know them. I can, however, tell my hon. friend that for domestic use. at the pit mouth in Nova Scotia we pay $3 per ton, although I understand that those who buy in large quantities get it cheaper.


John Allister Currie: As a purchaser of coal I can tell my hon. friend that the price of soft coal at the pit mouth in Pennsylvania is from 65 cents to 85 cents per ton.


George Perry Graham: Run of mine?


John Allister Currie: Yes, run of mine. That coal comes in here and pays 53 cents a ton duty and it competes with Nova Scotia coal which you cannot buy at the pit mouth in Nova Scotia for less than $2.50 per ton. It is quite clear, therefore, that unless there is a reduction in the price of Nova Scotia coal to a reasonable figure or until there is a corresponding increase in the price of Pennsylvania coal, the Nova Scotia coal must necessarily be cut out of the Canadian market. I for one as a consumer of coal in Ontario feel that we would like to use Nova Scotia coal altogether even if we had to pay a trifle higher for it, but if we have to pay $1 or $2 per ton more than for Pennsylvania coal then it becomes another question altogether.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not imagine that my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) desires to divide the House on this question to-night, especially as there is a very slim attendance of mem-
.3109

bers present. I take it for granted that the purpose of his motion was to have an opportunity of presenting these very interesting statistics to us and to urge, if it be necessary to urge, the importance of this great mining industry. There will be no difference of opinion in that respect. We all recognize that the coal industry of the country, not merely in Nova Scotia but in other parts of the Dominion, is a very great industry and that whatever may reasonably be done to advance the interests of our Canadian miners should be done. It is, however, a very vexed question. It is a question on which there will not be by any means unanimity of opinion. I do not imagine that my hon. friend desires to-night to challenge an opinion, and I would suggest therefore that the debate be adjourned so that at a later date, when there is a better attendance of members, any hon. member who desires may continue the discussion.


Haughton Lennox: Will it ever be reached again?


William Stevens Fielding: It may be.


George Taylor: We are all prepared to support his motion on this side of the House, we are all protectionists.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Currie) wants the price reduced before he says very much about that.


David Henderson: I have been very much interested in listening to the remarks of my hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) and I congratulate him upon having made a strong protectionist speech. Sometimes we on this side of the House are taunted by the Minister of Finance with divergence of views on a question such as this, but I think we never have made such a great departure from our political principles as the hon. gentleman (Mr. McKenzie)) has made from his to-night. All I wish to say is that it has delighted me beyond measure to hear my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) free trader as he is make such a strong protectionist speech. It shows just how far a man can get right when his own interests are brought into question.
Mr. ROBERT SMITH (Stormont) moved the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.
George Taylor: May I ask the hon. leader of the House what the business for to-morrow will be?


William Stevens Fielding: We had in contemplation proceeding with the resolutions respecting the loan to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, but by arrangement 981
that goes over till next week. In the meantime, with the view of expediting the passing of the estimates, both for the current year, which will expire in a few days, and for the coming year, the House will be moved into Committee of Supply. I understand that a motion is to be made in amendment, bearing on one branch of the public expenditure. I take it that will not occupy much time, and afterwards we will go into supply and take up the estimates of the Public Works Department and several items scattered through various departments.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.25 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 23, 1909.