PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 233, for the relief of Frank William Meek.-Mr. Pardee.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill No. 207, respecting a patent of the Commercial Acetylene Company of New Jersey.-Mr. Maclean (South York). (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)	,
Mr. NESBITT:: This Bill was up on Friday night, but the Chairman of the Private Bills Committee was not present, and no one could tell us why this company wanted its patent extended. The Bill does not say anything about it. So far as I am concerned, I am opposed to patents being extended without some reasonable ground being given.
Progress reported.



PATENT OF MAURICE DELVIGNE.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill No. 208, respecting the patent of Maurice Delvigne.-[DOT] Mr. Barker. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
Edward Walter Nesbitt: This Bill was in exactly the same position; nobody could tell us anything about it on Friday night.
Progress reported.



SECOND READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 229, for the relief of Albert Brit-nell.-Mr. Sharpe (Ontario).
Bill No. 224, respecting the Western Trust Company.-Mr. Turriff.	.
Bill No. 225, respecting the Great West Permanent Loan Company.-Mr. Meighen.
On motion of Mr. Meighen for second reading of Bill No. 226, respecting the Alberta-Saskatchewan Life Insurance Company.
Mr. CARROLL:: When was-this company incorporated ?


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Just before the hon.
gentleman rose, I was complaining that the appearance of my name in connection with this Bill was unauthorized. I can recall nothing whatever in connection with it.


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

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

[Stage Direction]
On what date did Messrs. Archer Macdonald and Elzear Montpetit, each write to the Government asking for the opening of the new post office at Rigaud?
Mr. ROGERS:: No such communications received by the Department of Public Works.


SENATE REFORM.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: With reference to a certain manifesto issued by the right hon. Prime Minister to the people of Canada, containing, among other things, the following language:-
' We declare for such reforms in the mode of selecting future members of the Senate as will make that Chamber a more useful and representative legislative body.'
Does the Government purpose introducing legislation to carry out. this pledge? If so, when ?	1


Mr. BORDEN:: The subject alluded to in this question is under consideration, and any announcement that may be necessary will be made at a later date.


SWIFT CURRENT LANDS OFFICE.
Mr. KNOWLES:: *1. What are the names, dates of appointment and salaries respectively, of the employees of the Dominion land office at Swift Current and Maple Creek, including homestead inspectors?


Mr. CROTHERS:: Office employees, Swift Current.
Name and date of appointment. Salary.
C. H.	E. Clarke, May	22, 1912	
1,200A. J.	Sharp, June 14,	1912	$1,800A. Powell, October 1,	1911	
1,000J. G.	Gorton, September 5,	1911	
960Cihas. White, July 8, 1912	
780Jas. Mackay, August 7, 1911,	
780J. K. Smith, .Sept. 26, 1912	
780W. H. Woodhall, April 10, 1913	
780A. H. Hall, Feb. 12, 1912	
780Jas. Graham, Dec. 19, 1912	
780)Alex. Burnett, Jan. 27, 1913	
780
Miss K. Hart, May 1, 1913	 780
Miss May Malone, Oct. 6, 1911	 660
Miss Grace Heny-e, Dec. 7, 1911	 660
Homestead inspectors, Swift Current.
W. C. Denison, Sept. 28, .1912	 1,200
Wan. Shields, Dec. 1, 1911	 1.200
Peter McLaren, May 7, 1912	 1,200
John McDonald, Dec. 28, 1912	 1,200
Office employees, Maple Creek.
C. H. Stockdale, March 16, 1912	 l,8O0i
J. P. French, Dec. 23, 1908	 1,100
Geo. Lister-Willey, March 1, 1913	 1,000
J. A. Currie, Hay 15, 1907	 1,060
T. W. Clarke, Jan. 25, 1912	 900
Wm. Goehring, March 1, 1913	 780
L. G. Smith, March 8, 1913	 780
Jos. Johnson, March 1, 1913	 780
Wm. Leckie, April 21, 1913	 780
TJlric Isabelle, March 3, 1913	 780
Miss M. J. Ivern, Dec. 7, 1908	 780
Miss P. Cheeseman, not reported	 660
Homestead inspectors, Maple Creek, none.


MOCfcEJAW LANDS OFFICE.
William Erskine Knowles: What are the names, dates of appointments and salaries respectively, of the employees of the Dominion land office at Moosejaw, including homestead inspectors ?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Office employees.
Name and date of appointment. Salary-
G.	K. Smith, November 11, 1911	$1,800R.	L. Kennedy, February 1, 1897	
1,200S.	H. Matcham, October 12, 1908	
1,200C. Bishop, October 14, 1908	
1,100J. A. Dickson, December 18, 1911	
1,000Watson Helm, April 9, 1912	
900G.	L. Marquis, July 1, 1912	
900Norman Hanna, March 7, 1912	
900Peter Kay, December 11, 1912	
780Miss L. G. Tove'l, May 1, 1908	
720Ernest Hinchey, December 2, 1912.. ..	780Geo. Sylvain, December 23, 1912	
780R. W. Lee, December 12, 1912	
780Miss C. J. Goudie, April 1, 1910	
720Miss Clarice Wilson, Nov. 15, 1911.. ..	600Miss W. H. Denison, May 1, 1912	
600Miss Agnes Robbins, March 7, 1913.. ..	600Miss E. F. Fotheringham, Nov. 1, 1909..	700
Homestead inspectors.
P. R. Brandt, December 15, 1911	 1,200
W. H. Exratt, November 30, 1911.. .. 1,200 J. G. Rath well, not reported	 1,200
H.	L. Bowyer, November 30, 1911	 1,200
J. Mines, June 10, 1912	 1,200


CHAMBLY CANAL SUPERINTENDENT.
[Stage Direction]
-*Mr. KYTE:
1.	Has the Minister of Railways and Canals authorized the superintendent of the Chatmbly canal to use paint, the property of the department, for his residence?
2.	Has he also authorized said superintendent to employ any of the canal staff for work about his premises?
Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	No.
2.	No.
Mr. CiROTHEiRS.


GENERAL MACKENZIE'S RESIGNATION.
*Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	When -was [General Mackenzie appointed to his present position?
2.	Was the War Office consulted as to the appointment?
3.	Was -any recommendation made of General .Mackenzie for the appointment by, Imperial authorities?
4.	What is his rank and status in the Imperial service?
5.	When did .General Mackenzie resign?
6.	What reason did he give for his resignation ?
7.	What were the terms of the document?
8.	Was the resignation accepted and when?
9.	Was any communication had by the minister with the Imperial authorities [previous to accepting the resignation? If so, what was the nature of the communication?
10.	When does the resignation take effect?
11.	Has any successor been appointed to General Mackenzie? If so, who was appointed or selected?


Mr. BORDEN (for Minister of Militia):: 1.	1st November, 1910.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	Major-General, General Staff.
5.	7th April, 1913.
6.	None.
7.	Simple resignation of Ms appointment without any reason.
8.	Yes, on April 21st, 1913.
9.	None.
10.	31st October, 1913.
11.	No.


ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE-REPORTED RESIGNATION OF COL. CROWE.
*Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Has Colonel Croive, the commandant of the Royal Military College, resigned?
2.	If not, when does his term of service expire?	.
3.	Was any application for the extension
of his term of service made or suggested? If SO, by whom?	, ,
4.	Was the extension recommended by the
minister ?
5. When was for what term?
Colonel Crowe appointed and


Mr. BORDEN (for Minister of Militia) :: 1.	No.
2.	11th October, 1913.
3.	Yes. By Minister of Militia and Defence, unofficially.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	12th October, 1909; for four years.
EMPLOYMENT OF ANTOINE GOBEIL. *Mr. CARVELL :
1 Is Mr. Antoine Gobeil, ex-Deputy Minister of Public Works, actually in the employ of the Government?	,	.	,	.	,
2.	If so, in what capacity and at what sal-
3-i' y ?	.
3.	What is the amount of his pension?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) In obtaining special and technical information for use in the Department of Public Works; (b) at $5,000, the salary of a deputy minister from which position he had retired; from this amount was deducted his superannuation allowance.
3.	$2,160 a year.


EMPLOYMENT OF JOSEPH GOBEIL.
*Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	Is Mr. Joseph Gobeil, employed iby the Department of Public Works?
2.	If so, what is his salary?
3.	What are his duties?
4.	Is he a brother of Mr. Antoine Gobeil, ex-Deputy Minister of Public Works?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes.
2.	$2,100 a year.
3.	Technical assistant to the General Superintendent of Government telegraph lines.
4.	Yes.
TRENT VALLEY CANAL-CLAIMS OF CCXRRY & LAVERDURE.


*Mr. KYTE:: 1. Has the Minister of Railways and Canals reached a decision concerning the claim of Corry & Laverdure, now pending for several years?
[DOT]2. Is the above claim to be paid out of the sum of $250,000 mentioned in the supplementary estimates of this session, additional amount required for the construction of the Trent Valley canal?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


UNOPPOSED AND UNDISCUSSED MOTIONS.
[Stage Direction]
For a copy of all correspondence and documents of any kind whatsoever relating to the dismissal of postmaster in Bonaventure county, by the present administration, not already ordered and brought down.-Mr. Marcil.
For a copy of all correspondence and documents of any kind whatsoever relating to the dismissal of employees of the Department of Marine and Fisheries in Bonaventure county, by the present 'admini.stration, not already ordered and brought down.
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, petitions, &c., in connection with the building of a post office at DTsraeli, Quebec.-Mr. Tobin.
For a copy of all correspondence, reports, complaints and other communications and documents which passed between General Mackenzie and the .Minister of Militia or his department, previous to, and which led up to the resignation of General Mackenzie; and also a copy of said resignation, and the reply of the minister thereto, and of any and all communications had with the war office thereto, and of all other papers and documents in connection therewith.-Mr. Macdonald.
For a copy of all letters, reports, documents and all other communications relating to the appointment of Colonel Crowe as commandant of the Royal Military College and to his resignation of said position, or to the extension of his term of service or to the termination thereof, and of all papers or letters passing between the minister and Colonel Crowe, relative to his resignation or the failure to extend his term of service.-Mr. Macdonald.
F'or a copy of all papers, letters, and documents relating to the construction of a public building in the town of Laurentides, county of LAssomption.-Mr. Seguin.
For a copy of all papers, letters and documents relating to the building of a wharf in the town of L'Assomption.-Mr. Seguin.
For a copy of all papers, letters, documents, reports and inquiry, relating to the lighthouse keeper of the parish of Repentigny, county of L'Assomption.-Mr. Seguin.
For a return showing a complete list of the seizures made by John C. Bourinot, during his incumbency as acting preventive officer from 1884 to 1886; also during his term of office as collector of customs for the port "of Port Hawkesbury from 1886 to 1898; also during his term of office as special officer of customs from 1898 to 1912; with the date of each seizure, number of each seizure, name of party from whom seizure was made, in case of vessels, the names of the vessels; also the name of the owner or owners, of such vessels the amount of each seizure, name of port where seizure was made, and the amount of the seizures made by him from 1684 to May 1, 1912, for the wholle province of Nova Scotia. -Mr. Chisholm (Inverness).
For a copy of all telegrams, letters, &c., from the Department of Customs sent to or received from John C. .Bourinot, Port Hawkes-bury, customs officer, during the years 1895-6-7.-Mr. Chisholm (Inverness).
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, inquiries and reports respecting the dismissal of Pliilias Habel, lighthouse keeper at St. Louis de Lotbiniere, county of Lotbiniere, Quebec.-Mr. Fortier.
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, inquiries and reports respecting the dismissal of Napoleon Daigle, lighthouse keeper at Barre a Boulard, parish of St. Louis de Lotbiniere, Quebec.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Right Hon. R. L. Borden for Committee of Supply:
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Edmonton):: I
desire to draw attention to the Kitsilano Indian Reserve, which was the subject of discussion on the 24th of April, and upon which further light was thrown by a return brought down dated the 23rd of May. I will read from this return the report of the inspector of Indian agencies which will place the case before the House briefly and clearly, and with more effect than I could. The report is dated, Victoria, April 26, 1913, addressed to the secretary of the Department of Indian Affairs, and Teads:
With further reference to my letter of the Uth instant dealing with the reported surrender of the False Creek Reserve at Van-



couver by certain Indians of the Squamrsh tribe to the provincial government, I beg to state that I have just returned from Vancouver, and wish to confirm the statement contained in the press despatch enclosed with my letter of the 11th instant, in so far as the Indians giving their consent to the sale and receiving the money.
The negotiations with the Indians were Car-Tied on by H. O. Alexander, Esq., stipendiary magistrate of Vancouver, on behalf of the Government of British Columbia. The amount paid to the Indians was $219,750. Nineteen heads of families received $11,250 each and one received' only $5,000, making twenty families in all. The Indians were also paid $1,000 for the removal of the dead bodies from the graveyard. Upon the Indians signing the agreement and receiving the;r money their effects were placed on a scow and towed up the Squamish river to one of the reserves, to which place most of the Indians also went. The expenses in this connection were borne by the British Government.
Mr. Alexander has informed me that he worked on a list which he made up himself, but it does not correspond with the Indian agent's census of this band, for it appears that money was paid to Indians who were not members of the band, while there were members who did not receive compensation. I visited the reserve and found that all the Indians had left.	Their houses
had	been pulled	down	and	burned;
The last house on the water front portion of the reserve was being torn down while I was there on Tuesday, the 22nd, And the workmen informed me that they were (working under the instructions of the provincial government, who also have a policeman on the reserve.
Thi9 is one of the Indian reserves set aside prior to Confederation, and consisted at that time of 37.45 acres: in 1876 (according to the Journal of the Indian Reserve Commission), the Joint Reserve Commission increased the size of the reserve to 80 acres. Since that time 10.52 acres have been sold to the Canadian Pacific railway and the Vancouver and boon Island railway for railroad purposes. The Harrison Mills Timber and Trading Company also have a lease of 11.16 acres of the reserve.
The amount paid to the Indians in consideration of their giving up this reserve ($219,750) appears to he extremely small, so far as land values in that portion of the city of Vancouver are concerned; hut at present, without going into the matter very fully, it is impossible to state definitely as to the true value of the reserve. However, it would not be very wide of the mark to say that it is worth at least ten times the amount paid to the Indians.
It appears from the return that not only did the British Columbia Government remove the Indians from the reserve, burn or pull down their buildings, and establish police authority upon the reserve, but they publicly advertised the jurisdiction of the British Columbia Government over the reserve by notice in tlhe British Columbia Gazette, as follows:
Mr. OLIVER
Department of Lands,
Notice of Reserve.
Notice is hereby given that the certain portion of land officially known as Burrard Inlet Reserve No. 6, and commonly called Kitsilano or False Creek reserve, situated on the south side of the entrance to False Creek and arm or Burrard Inlet, and containing 80 acres, more or less, is reserved from any entry or alienation under the Mineral Act, the PlacerMining Act, the Coal and Petroleum Act, or the Land Act.
Robert A. Renwick, Deputy Commissioner of Lands, Department of Lands,
Victoria, B.C., April 11, 1913.
It (will be observed that the Indians left the reserve on April 9, and, on April 11, the British Columbia Government gazetted its assertion of authority, over the property rights within the reserve. I brought this transaction to the attention of the House and the answer to my question is dated Monday, April 21, 1913. My question was as follows;
Is the Government aware of steps being taken, as alleged, to acquire from the Indians of tihe Kitsilano reserve, Vancouver,
B.C., their rights to the land of the reserve by the provincial government of British Columbia, or by other parties or interests?
The answer to that question was; 'No.'


Thomas Wilson Crothers: the Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, in which he says:
The Kitsilano Indians are being agitated by some white men of their reserve. The white men want to buy that reserve and offered them $10,000 for each living family. Now, they want to know, are they allowed to sell that tract of land while the land question is unsettled. There are some other white men that offer a great deal more than the other party. Shall they sell to the highest offers or shall they sell to special party only ? Or shall they wait until the land question is settled ?
Kindly advise.
I am, Sir,
Your most obedient servant, -Simon C. Pierre, Secretary and. Interpreter, Keatzie Indian reserve Port Hammond, B.C.
It is evident, therefore, that the Government had knowledge of this transaction being in progress and that they took no measure to prevent its being carried forward. So far as we are aware, they have taken no measures to readjust the conditions since the arrangement between the British Columbia Government and the Indians was made; and I submit that the condition is such as to call for a very full explanation from the Government of its position and intentions in the matter.
This document also discloses that a part of this reserve, some thirty-seven acres, was set apart by Governor Sir James Douglas, acting as the direct representative of the British Crown while administering the affairs of what is now British Columbia as a Crown colony. Therefore, there can be no question as to the proprietary rights on the part of this band of Indians to that much of their reserve in any case. In the remarks I had the honour to make some time ago in this connection, I pointed out that the responsibility and control of Indian Affairs was a trust transferred from the Imperial authorities to this Dominion Government, and that there was no means whereby they could properly divest themselves 'of that responsibility. There is some question raised by the British Columbia Government in regard to proprietary rights of the Indians in the class of reserve more recently set apart, but there can be no valid contention made against the absolute right of the Indians to the thirty-seven acres of this reserve received by direct title from the Imperial Government, nor can there be any question of the responsibility of this Government to absolutely protect the Indians in the full enjoyment of their rights in that portion of the reserve, and equally in their right to secure full value for the land should the transfer of that land be made.
This case is the more remarkable because there is an arrangement between the Government of British Columbia and this Mr. OLIVER.
Government for the settlement of the questions at issue between these Governments in regard to Indian reserves. The basis of agreement has been arrived at and a commission has been appointed. Under that arrangement and by the work of that commission, this particular reserve would undoubtedly have been dealt with, and the Government of British Columbia would have been maintained in whatever right it had according to the arrangement arrived at.
Apparently the Government of British Columbia, whether with or without the consent and knowledge of this Government, have seen fit to enter upon this property and assert the right of that Government, irrespective of this agreement. That is to say, they have made an agreement with the Dominion Government, and before that agreement becomes effective they take measures, aside from the agreement, to establish a property right which, in my estimation, they have not at all and would not have under the terms of this agreement.
The Dominion Government, charged with the responsibility of protecting the rights of the Indians, both as to their property and as to their persons, having made an agreement with the Government of British Columbia for the proper adjustment of all these rights according to their judgment, permit the Government of British Columbia to go outside of that agreement, to deal with those Indians in a manner absolutely contrary to the law, to remove them from the reserve, to destroy their property upon the reserve, to assert the authority of the provincial Government in regard to that reserve, and that on a payment of money that is stated even by the officer of this Government to be less than one-tenth of the actual value of the land. I submit that the Government are deserving of censure and of serious censure, unless they can give some better explanation of the case than they gave on the former occasion.
Coming now to the discussion of the arrangement between the Government of the province and the Government of the Dominion ; the provincial Government claims that the Indians do not own this land, that it belongs to the provincial Government, that the Indians have only a right of occupation, and that when the Indians leave the land, the title of the British Columbia Government to that land at once accrues. As I have already said, it was not possible for the Dominion Gov-* ernment to agree to that proposition, and the late Government had arrived _ at an agreement with the British Columbia Government to submit the question, as a legal case, to the judgment of the Privy Council. Later on the British Columbia Government refused to go on with that agreement. Still later this Government took the matter up

and arrived at an amicable arrangement with the British Columbia Government; and as soon as the agreement was arrived at- the British Columbia Government proceeds forthwith to set it aside; they take action independently; and this Government, so far as our returns show, has done absolutely nothing to protect the rights of the Indians in the matter.
In regard to the merits of the arrangement made between the Dominion and the province for the disposition of the rights of the Indians, I can only say that in my humble judgment it is an agreement which is intended to make peace between the province and the Dominion at the expense of the Indians. Under this arrangement the right of the province is admitted wherever the Indians have vacated their reserve or a* portion of their reserve. That is to say, the province claims that wherever the Indians have vacated their reserve the land belongs to the province and not to the remainder of the Indians, and this Government by its arrangement concedes that subject to sale and equal division of the proceeds between the province and the Dominion. The British Columbia Government has secured the vacation of this reserve by payment to the Indians of a quarter of a million -dollars, and claim the absolute ownership of the property. I assume it is in that view that the British Columbia Government have acted.
As to the fairness or reasonableness of such an agreement being entered into whereby the two Governments undertake to dispose of the rights of the Indians without considering what those rights are, without having those rights decided by that authority which is and ought to be the final court of appeal in regard to all such cases, it is a departure from precedent as to the proper discharge of the responsibilities of the Government of Canada in regard to the Indian tribes. It is disregarding the trust that has been placed on this Government by the Imperial authorities in regard to the rights of the Indians, and is net such an arrangement as can be considered to be fair and reasonable or in consonance with the dignitv of the Government of Canada or the responsibilities that properly rest on that Government.
The question of the price cf this land is not a serious matter. The serious matter is that this Government has seen fit-and I am bound to say, on the evidence of this return, that they have seen fit with knowledge-to forego their responsibility of protecting the rights of those Indians in Tegard to that land. They have done it without reason, because there is legislation on the Statute Book which can be brought into play that would effectually protect both the rights of the Indians and the rights of the
people of Vancouver. They have not seen fit to bring that legislation into action. They have seen fit to allow an unwarranted assertion of authority by the British Columbia Government which is neither more nor less than piracy, in taking these Indians ofl their land, burning their houses, in establishing control and asserting ownership of this land, without, so far as this return shows, ever referring the matter to this Government, although it is also shown that this Government had knowledge of the transaction. These are serious matters. When it is established, as it is established, that the Indians have been paid a quarter of a million dollars for land that is worth ten times as much, surely that concrete fact will appeal very strongly to the people of Canada .as establishing the failure of the Government to exercise their proper responsibilty in protecting the rights of those Indians. They have made an agreement with the British Columbia Government. It is an unfair agreement; but if that agreement was being carried out there might be some justification. What has been done has been done in defiance ot that agreement, without regard to it, that is, without regard to its letter; and, so .far as we are aware, this Government has taken no means, directly or indirectly, either to protect the riglits of the Indians in the first place or to restore those rights now that they have so far been taken away from them. They have taken no means to bring into play the legislation af this Parliament, that was provided particularly and especially for meeting just such cases in .a fair and equitable manner.
Right Hon. R. X. BORDEN (Prime Min-i=ter) [DOT] My hon. friend has traversed a good deal of the ground which he went over at very considerable length about a month ago. I am not aware that he has brought to the attention of the House any material circumstances that were not made known then. As he has stated, there is a commission which is investigating the whole question of Indian affairs in the province of British Columbia, and, having been Minister of the Interior for a number of years, he knows, or ought to know, that the rights of the Indians in respect to their lands in the province of British Columbia, or anywhere else, can only be interfered with under the law of this country, and there are two statutes which are available for that purpose. My hon. friend says that there has been an agreement between this Government and the province of British Columbia by which this Government would undertake to do anything that the British Columbia Government might find satisfactory to the Indians.


Frank Oliver: I have mis-stated my
position if my right horn friend thinks that is it.


Robert Laird Borden: What is your position?


Frank Oliver: This Government has
made an agreement with the British Columbia Government whereby, whenever an Indian reserve is partially or wholly vacated, the contention of the British Columbia Government is accepted.


Robert Laird Borden: Where is that agreement to be found?


Frank Oliver: Within the agreement I have here.


Robert Laird Borden: You mean the agreement for the appointment of the commission?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: The terms of that agreement are very well known. As a matter of fact, it is a commission which is not in the nature of an arbitration. The commission was appointed under the Inquiries Act, and its report is subject to the consideration of the Governor in Council. My hon. friend seems to think it is an arbitration. It is not an arbitration; it is purely an inquiry under the Inquiries Act.


Mr OLIVER:: My right hon. friend remembers that there is set out in this return a specific memorandum of agreement.


Robert Laird Borden: 
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: My right hon. friend has not at all submitted to the House the point at issue. It is quite true that the relations of the Indian with the white man are regulated by those statutes; but on the present occasion the point is that neither statute has been followed; both have been ignored. Neither the general statute for the surrender of reserves nor the Indian Act has been followed. It was only two or three years ago that a Bill was introduced in this House to meet a case similar to the present one. That was the case of the Songhees Indians of Victoria. By experience we know that Indian reserves in the vicinity of growing cities are a detriment, not only to the growing cities, but to the Indians themselves, and it is in their own interests that they should be removed from those cities, or their immediate neighbourhood. At the present time the Indians can surrender their rights under the Indian Act; but this requires their consent, and there have been cases in which the Indians have not been willing to give their consent. That was the case of the Songhees Indians at Victoria. The matter had been under discussion between the authorities of Victoria and the Indians, and the Indians always refused to agree to the surrender. At last the Government of British Columbia took the matter up and obtained the consent of the Indians. That? was the occasion upon which I sent the telegram, wthich was quoted some time ago by my hon. friend, and which has been quoted
again to-day, to Sir Richard McBride, stating that the price and conditions, if acceptable to the Indians, would be acceptable to us. The matter had been considered for some years, and the only point was to obtain the consent of the Indians. The conditions that were offered by the Government of British Columbia on behalf of the city of Victoria were acceptable and reasonably fair. We knew that the Government of British Columbia were anxious to have the consent of the Indians, we were willing and anxious to have their consent, and we advised the Government of British Columbia that we would be willing to agree to those conditions. But there is a difference between the Songhees case and this.
In order that the House may understand this question, let me point out that the Indians may surrender their rights; but if they do so, it must be done with the consent and approval of the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs. If the Indians, although they are so advised by him, will not surrender their rights, then the authorities who want the surrender can apply to the Court of Exchequer and obtain judgment of the court as to whether the Indians shall be removed or dispossessed. We thought it would not be fair to dispossess the Indians, even though we thought it was in their own interests, unless we had judicial authority for so doing. We wanted to preserve the sacredness of the trust which has been imposed upon us, as upon all British governments, with reference to the interior races before dispossessing them of their land. But if the Indians are willing to surrender their reserve, as was the case with the False Creek Teserve, you must have the consent of three parties: first, the purchaser-in this case the Government of British Columbia; next, the Indians; and next, the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs. In this case the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs did not participate in the negotiations at all. There was the consent of the Indians' and the consent of the British Columbia Government; but it appears that the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs simply surrendered his rights altogether. The correspondence shows that the Superintendent knew that negotiations weTe going on, but did not interfere at all. My hon. friend (Mr. Crothers) may shake his head, but I would be very glad to have his explanation upon this point.
My hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) presented the case to the House fairly and moderately, and his conclusion is that, if the facts are as they have been presented, the Government are censurable. But he says: I do not want to ask for the

censure of the Government to-day; I -want the explanation of the Government. If the facts are as disclosed by my hon. friend from Edmonton, and if this transaction has taken place with the consent of the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, then he has been imprudent in his conduct; but if he has not given his consent to this transaction, the Government are *certainly highly censurable, because they have been altogether recreant to the duty imposed upon them by the law for the protection of the Indians. As we know, the Indian is the ward of the nation; he is treated as an Indian; he cannot sell a pelt unless he has the consent of the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, through the agent; and shall it be said on this occasion that the Indians can sell their rights to the land which they occupy without the consent of the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs? That is the charge which was made by my hon. friend, and upon which he desires information.
The question as to the general right of the government of a province with reference to the lands now in possession of the Indians is a very large one, and I shall not enter upon the discussion of it at the present moment. But that is 'not a matter in issue at the present time. The question is whether the sale was authorized by the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs. If not, the whole transaction is null and void, and there is no title conveyed to anybody. Do I understand that these men, without the consent of the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, paid $200,000 for this property, when there was another party ready to offer $2,000,0o0? Do I understand that, as alleged, the Government allowed these 'Indians to be deprived of their rights?-because the British Columbia Government have no rights to these lands, unless they have the signature of the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs. Do I understand that without having that authority they have dispossessed the Indians, burned their homes over their heads, and forced them to leave and settle elsewhere? That is the point upon which we must have some information so as to ascertain exactly what has been the conduct of the Government in the matter.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Mr. Speaker, this matter was before the House about a month ago, and there was an answer given at that time to some observations made by my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and also to some made by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver). In face of the explanations that were then given, my right hon. friend asks the question now as to whether the Government were consulted as Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
to this surrender. Did they agree that these Indians should be paid a quarter of a million for property that is worth $2,000,000? All that was answered a month ago, but I do not mind repeating it now; it will not take very much time. I told my right hon. friend then that we had not been communicated with at all in respect to this matter. I told him then that we had not given our consent and I can only repeat that now. I quite agree with him that the Indians have no right to dispose of their interests without the consent of the Government.


Wilfrid Laurier: How is it
that their homes were burned over their heads?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Not over their heads. They went to another reserve. I do not know whether their homes were burnt over their heads.	-


Wilfrid Laurier: That is said in the report.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The Government did
not consent in this matter. The whole question will be taken up by the commission which has been appointed to investigate. They were instructed to investigate this whole matter and report. What is the use of asking these questions again, amdi charging the Government with wrongdoing when we have appointed a commission to inquire into the facts?


Wilfrid Laurier: Do I understand that the Government are proposing to fold their arms, that they do not know whether the Indians have been dispossessed or not, that they do not recognize that they have any duty towards these Indians?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Those questions will
arise when we know what the facts are.


Wilfrid Laurier: There are the facts reported by the commissioner.


Robert Rogers: I would like to say a word or two in connection with some of the statements that have been made. The right hon. leader of the Opposition would seek to leave the impression that the Government are blameable for not having taken certain action. He undertakes to point out to the House that before this transaction could be carried out there must be consent on the part of the Government of British Columbia, on the part of the Indians and on the part of the Indian Department.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Robert Rogers: The fact is that the Indian Department have not dealt with this matter, if I understand it, in any particular, and my right hon. friend and the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) appar-ently-*seek to present, even in the vague

1084E
manner in which they have done so, to this House and the country, that the Indian Department have been responsible or negligent in the discharge of the sacred trust that is imposed upon them in dealing with the Indians. That is a statement to which I wish' to direct a few observations. We absolutely deny negligence in respect to this Indian reserve or to any other Indian reserve in Canada. The acting Minister of the Interior has made clear that no consent has been given by his department, and that consent will not be given until we have the report of the commission now sitting in British Columbia to investigate the Indian titles in that province.


Wilfrid Laurier: In the meantime the Indians have been dispossessed.


Robert Rogers: What, apparently is true, is, that the British Columbia Government have followed the example of the manner in which they were able to deal with the Indian trust under the administration of my right hon. friend. The Prime Minister made it clear that in 1910, when the Song-hees reserve was being similarly dealt with, the position taken by the right hon. the leader of the Opposition, then Prime Minister, was: well, if the Indians are satisfied we are satisfied and we will carry it out under the Indian Act.


Frank Oliver: I draw attention to the fact that the arrangement in regard to the Songhees reserve was brought down to Parliament for the sanction of Parliament.


Robert Rogers: It was made in the first place without any sanction of Parliament. According to a telegram from Sir Wilfrid Laurier to the Premier of British Columbia, the arrangement was made in the first place and probably the British Columbia Government have gone on thinking that the same manner of treatment of the Indians would be allowed to-day. But the acting minister has made it clear that this Government is not doing business as did the late Government in connection with the sacred trust of the guardianship of the Indians. We will protect that sacred trust. I protest against the right hon. the leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) making the implied insinuations they do. It ill becomes the hon. member for Edmonton and members on that side of the House to talk of the sacred trust of the Indians and the manner in which the Indians are being dealt with to-day, in view of the manner in which they dealt with that sacred trust when they were in power. How did the late Government deal with that sacred trust in western Canada when the hon. gentleman was Minister of the Interior? He dealt with it by peddling the Indian lands out to the liberal organizers and
his liberal friends in Saskatchewan. The public records show that contrary to the Indian Act, contrary to the practice, the lands that were surrendered by the Indians on the specific terms that these lands should be sold by public auction were sold by private sale and peddled out to liberal organizers and the liberal presidents and their friends in Saskatchewan, in defiance of the terms of surrender made by the Indians themselves. That was the manner in which the Indian sacred trust was dealt with while the liberals were in power. To give you an idea of how the sacred trust was regarded by my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver), let me read this extract from a letter:
Yorkton, Sask., July 29, 1910. Frank Pedley, Esq.,
Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs. Ottawa, Can.
My Dear Mr. Pedley,-
I am enclosing some correspondence re a* portion of the surrendered portion of the Cote Indian reserve.
Some of our friends at Kamsack, together with myself, are very anxious to obtain some of this land for the Dixon families. There are quite a number of them, all good farmers, fairly well to do, possessed of families, and friends of ours, and it seems a shame that outside parties are capable of having this land held up, thus preventing settlement and getting desirable parties to improve and settle on these lands.
That letter is signed by Dr. Cash. Here is another letter which I may read:
Yorkton, July, 27, 1910.
Frank Pedley, Esq.,
Deputy Superintendent General, Indian Affairs, Ottawa, Ont.
My Dear Pedley,-
I herewith enclose to you a letter and draft for $96,000. The enclosed letter will tell you what I want, and I certainly think you should make an effort to let Mr. Dixon have this land, as he will be a benefit to the country. There are quite a number of them, and they therefore would also be a benefit to ns in the future.
I think if Mr. McBrady has only made application and not paid for this land, the enclosed application should be considered. Kindly let me hear from you at your earliest convenience, and ablige.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) E. L. Cash.
According to the memorandum of the department, Dr. Cash had something like over one hundred quarter sections of this kind at his disposal to peddle out by private sale to his friends in that portion of the territories, notwithstanding that these gentlemen to-day talk about the sacred trust of the Indians. That was the manner in which the Indian trust was being dealt with by hon. gentlemen opposite and they undertake now to try by implication to reflect discredit upon the management of

the Indian Department under the present Administration. It ill becomes hon. gentlemen opposite to make any reflection upon the manner in which the Indian Department is being carried on by the present Administration. I might follow this up further, but I do not propose to do so today, and I might show from the records of this House that even hon. gentlemen who sit upon that side of the House have been peddling these quarter sections themselves, in order that they might make profit, in defiance of the surrender as made by the Indians stipulating that the lands should be sold by public auction. And yet these gentlemen stand up to-day and talk about the sacredness of the trust of the Indians, and make implied insinuations that something has been wrong in connection with this particular reserve. The Prime Minister and the acting Minister of the Interior have made plain the position the Government occupies in this matter. We have given no consent; we purpose giving no consent until the commission now in British Columbia has properly investigated this matter, and we will see that the sacred rights of the Indians are protected in this particular Indian reserve, as in all other reserves in every part of the Dominion.


Frank Oliver: The hon. member (Mr. Rogers) made a very special reference to my administration, and I wish to say-


Mr. SPEAKER:: There is no motion before the Chair.


Frank Oliver: I have only a word to
say; it is not controversial.


Robert Laird Borden: All right, go ahead.


Frank Oliver: The lands my hon. friend *(Mr. Rogers) spoke about had been offered for sale at an upset price. The auction did not yield the upset price. The lands, therefore, remained in the hands of the Government, and were sold afterwards by private sale at the upset price.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
Railways and Canals, chargeable to capital -Intercolonial railway-air brakes, to improve triple valves of, $7,150.
['We have been accustomed to having an interim report of the Transcontinental commission, giving the work up to date on the construction of the line. We will expect that information from the minister when these estimates are taken up. On the item for the Welland canal, I presume the Minister of Public Works will be able to announce the policy of the Government in connection with the Georgian Bay canal. These questions will surely be asked and pressed and I wanted to give notice.\nSome resolutions reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 12.30 a.m., Tuesday.', 'Tuesday, May 27, 1913.']
Mr. CARVELL:: Would the minister say on what principle the improvement of air brake valves is chargeable to capital? I do not wish to be discourteous nor do I wish to limit the minister in his answer, but I would rather he would net tell me that the old Government did the same as this. I know that. I am asking for information, and I would like to know on what ground or principle the previous Government and governments before that Mr. ROGERS. -
and the present Government have charged (these things to capital. It seems to me it would be a great consolation to the people of Canada if they really could know what is the condition of the Intercolonial railway. The minister comes down to the House and says : I have a surplus of $500,000; or he comes down and says there is a deficit of $300,000 or $400,000. During the last three or four years there have been what are called surpluses. But we know that there has been no surplus in fact. If all were charged up that ought to be charged up against income, there would be a deficit, as a matter of fact. The minister may say that other roads keep their books in the same way.	That may be
true. But I would like to know on what principle such expenses a3 these are charged to capital. If he would tell us that, we should have a better chance to judge of what is the real position with regard to the Intercolonial railway. It .will not make any difference to the people; they have to pay it anyhow, whatever it is; and if they could know what the actual position is, it would be so much the better. In many cases it is claimed they are not paying high enough rates on the Intercolonial railway. I think that that is not true. But it seems to me it would be better to understand the basis of these so-called surpluses, and if the minister would give us this information it would help.


Mr. COCHRANE :: I have not here the amount charged to capital.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That does not matter-say four and a half millions.


Francis Cochrane: I will have the
figures later. The same system is adopted on the Intercolonial railway as is adopted on other roads in America-in the United States under the Interstate Commerce law. Nothing is charged to capital on the Intercolonial railway that would not be charged to capital on other roads. As to the bookkeeping, I suppose the surplus is ascertained by deducting the expenses and cost of upkeep from the income. I think that anybody can see the results from the figures of income and expense year by year.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I know that.


Francis Cochrane: What more can I
give?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The minister says that they charge up running expenses and upkeep. If they did that, it seems to me that we should have different returns from what we have.


Francis Cochrane: No, the hon. gentleman ha3 misunderstood me. We charge to capital just what others would charge-the

Canadian Pacific railway, for instance. They charge their running expenses just as we do; they are compelled to do so under the law


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I admit that. But 1
want the minister to tell me on what principle the Government charges to capital sums that are spent in the running and upkeep of the road.


Francis Cochrane: We do not.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Let us see. Here in the next item you have an estimate for the strengthening of bridges. Is not that keeping up the road?


Francis Cochrane: No.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What is it for, then?
If I have a farm and have to build a road through one portion of it, that is to keep up my farm is it not? And if I have a plough and mowing machine that wear out and have to buy new ones, that is keeping up the farm, is it not?


Francis Cochrane: But if you have a
bridge that is sufficient for the small engines and trains of twenty years ago and you want to strengthen it and improve it to suit modern traffic, that means that your road is that much better. With the expenditure the hon. gentleman speaks of, his farm would be worth more on capital account, would it not?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: As the hon. gentleman asks me the question, I can only say that his answer is not a proper one, according to my view of the case. While it is true my farm is worth more, yet I make the expenditure because it is necessary to carry on my farm. If I keep charging up to capital all that I put into the farm, I shall soon find myself bankrupt, although every year my bookkeeping may have shown a surplus. I do not want the minister to think I am finding fault with him. He is doing what other Governments have done. But I want to know the principle upon which it is done. I would like to have it so arranged that the showing of a surplus on the Intercolonial railway would mean that the people of Canada are getting back some return on the money they invested in the road. But we know that to-day that is not the fact. I suppose that in the last ten years the road has, every year been behind from a million to seven or eight million dollars, if you charge to upkeep what you ought to charge. But the supporters and newspapers of the Minister ol Railways come out with the bold statement- just as did the supporters and newspapers of his predecessors-that owing to the splendid management there is a surplus on the road. But on what principle is this kind of bookkeeping carried on?


Francis Cochrane: Would it not be a proper charge against capital, if you had a bridge that cost $100,000, and you were going to strengthen and improve it to 'carry heavier trains?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not think so. If
the conditions of traffic change so that the strengthening of that bridge becomes necessary, it seems to me that the road ought to be in a position to make that change without a charge against capital. But under our present system that is charged up to capital, and a surplus is shown where there is really a deficit.
Any farmer, merchant or businessman could show surpluses in the same way. But if any such man attempts to fool himself, he is going to be undeceived before very long.


Francis Cochrane: What would the hon. gentleman allow to be charged to capital? Would he allow the original cost of the road?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes. And if the minister were to build a mile or two of railway extra, I would charge that to capital. But I think it requires a great stretch of imagination to think that such work as the strengthening of a bridge or improvement of cars should be charged to capital.
Bridges, to strengthen, $190,000.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Is this for strengthening the bridges on some of the branch lines?


Francis Cochrane: One of the heaviest
expenditures under the item is on the West river bridge at Antigonish, which costs $'65,000. Then, there are the bridges at Keenans and at Nashwaak river on the Canada Eastern, the last $59,000.


George Perry Graham: That is at Fredericton.


Mr COCHRANE:: The Canada Eastern
goes down to Fredericton.


George Perry Graham: An answer was given by a very prominent railway man to the question of what ought to be charged to capital. He said:	'Anything that adds to
value ought to be charged to capital.' If a nail driven into a piece of property increases the value of that property, the cost of the nail can be charged to capital. That is the definition given, I think, in connection with the Interstate Commerce laws. It is rather difficult, however, to carry it out. In the United States the law is framed so as to prevent railway companies from charging things to revenue. The reason for that is that the shareholders of the companies might never get any dividends if everything was charged to revenue. On the Intercolonial we thought we had the matter worked out pretty well along the lines of the Interstate Commerce Commission. The law is

made in the interests of the shareholders as well as in the interests of the directors or the managers. It is necessary under that law that certain things should be charged to capital, and the Interstate Commerce Commission go a long way in order to protect the shareholder and to see that he gets his profits.


Francis Cochrane: The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) could get the rates by taking what is charged to capital and computing the interest from that. He rightly says there has never been a proper surlus on the Intercolonial. It has always
een computed on expenditure and receipts. The capital of the Intercolonial, I think, is now about $90,000,000, so that he can easily form his conclusions by adding three per cent, or whatever interest he choses to add to that, and then he gets the surplus or deficit.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The minister ought to
give us a proper statement. He is asking for $7,239,000 for the Intercolonial this year to be charged to capital. I quite appreciate that, under the ordinary acceptance of the the term a portion of that vote could be charged to capital. For instance, he proposes to build the Chatham, $128,000. That is a new line and I think any business man would charge that to capital. The same as the case with dividing the line to Nelson and Derby Junction. While I have some doubt about the wisdom of the move, if it is done, I think it ought to be charged to capital. Among the items, however, I find safety appliances for equipment. Then I find rolling stock, a million dollars.


Francis Cochrane: I wish it were three
million dollars.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The hon. minister will tell us when we come to that point whether that means entirely new stock. Take an illustration. I can understand that, when a road has first been put in operation, it would be fair to charge the rolling stock to capital account, because it is as necessary for the operation of that road as is the roadbed. Let us say the hon. minister buys an engine for $10,000 or $15,000. He runs that engine for ten or fifteen years, and keeps repairing it from time to time. At the end of fifteen years it is like the one-horse shay: it is practically gone. That engine has contributed to the money which the minister says he has received on account of revenue. Without that engine he could never have operated his road. He has made big profits from it. When that engine is worn out, it has answered its purpose in making money for the minister; he buys a new engine and charges that up to capital. That is my point.


Francis Cochrane: When we come to
that item, I shall discuss it.
Mr. GRAHAM.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The same thing with
cars and so on. I judge from the way my hon. friend looks that he is going to explain that. I wonder what becomes of all the repairs and replacing of cars and engines, if they are not charged up to capital account. I hope my hon. friend will give an explanation. I am not asking these questions with any party or fault-finding spirit. I always felt we ought to have a detailed financial statement as to the operation of the Intercolonial. We ought to know exactly what it is costing us to carry on our road. If we are not making a profit, we ought to adjust the business of the road, so as to do so.


Francis Cochrane: I shall be glad to give the explanation desired.
Fredericton-Ao increase accommodation,


George Perry Graham: Would my hon. friend
tell me what has been done in Fredericton? If I remember correctly, a new station was being erected and a general improvement made in the yards. There was an attempt made at one time to make an arrangement with the Canadian Pacific railway by which one joint station might be used in that town, but I think my efforts were a failure in that regard.


Francis Cochrane: The hon. member let
the contract for the new station. We hope to make arrangements on behalf of the St. John Valley road to run not only into their station but through the town on their lines, and save expropriation.


George Perry Graham: You are going to operate the St. John road anyway?


Francis Cochrane: Yes, and we shall try to interchange traffic there.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Has the minister abandoned any hope of having a union station at Fredericton?


Francis Cochrane: I have as far as the Intercolonial proper is concerned, but we have made application on behalf of the St. John Valley road. I think now when we have our own station we might better leave it as it is. It requires only $20,000 to finish up the whole business as far as the Intercolonial is concerned, and we hope to have an interchange station with the St. John Valley road.
At one o'clock, House resumed, and then took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock, and again went into Committee of Supply.
Chatham, diversion of line and branch to! wharf, $128,000.	i


George Perry Graham: How far is the diversion
towards completion?


Francis Cochrane: It just requires the
filling to Walsh's Cove to complete the work.


Mr. LOGGIE:: This vote of $128,000 will complete the work?


Francis Cochrane: Yes.
Diversion line bertwen Nelson and Derby Junction, $128,000.


William Stewart Loggie: I would like to explain to the House the situation in respect to this vote. It is rather an unusual thing for a member representing a county not to support a resolution granting an expenditure of money in his county, but my reasons for opposing this vote are as follows:	Some
thirty-five years ago there was a move on foot to build a railway between Fredericton and end at or near Derby Junction. It seemed to be a difficult proposition to get a company to undertake this work. A charter was obtained from the local government, and a subsidy was promised by the Dominion Government, as well as by the local government. After the charter had been obtained, it was thought advisable in the interests of the county generally, and of the district to build the road to connect with what was then known as the Chatham branch railway. That branch railway was owned by the late Governor Snowball, who with others, interested himself in the construction of the line between Fredericton and eastwards through Northumberland county. He received the consent of the local government to build the line, according to the routing, as far as Blackville, and then to follow the southwest branch of the Miramiehi and connect at Chatham Junction, thus giving a through line between Chatham and Fredericton. As soon as this became known, friction seemed to arise on the part of the residents of Newcastle on the other side of the river, and through our late respected member of Parliament, the Hon. Peter Mitchell, application was made to the Government to build a branch line on the opposite side of the river, on the north side of the Miramiehi. This was agreed to, but the Dominion Government refused to give a subsidy for the line on the south side of the river between Blackville and Chatham Junction for the reason that they themselves were building a line on the other side of the river. That line for which the subsidy was refused was constructed by the company who had received the charter and the local subsidy, and the line on the opposite side of the river was built by the Dominion Government, and operated, I think, for about fifteen miles between Derby Junction and a point known as lndiantown. The Dominion Government compelled the Canada Eastern to build a connection between Blackville and lndiantown, a distance of about six miles. This, however, was not operated, and the line lay dormant
for some fifteen or twenty years. About the time I became member for the county of Northumberland, the Dominion Government decided to take over the line known as the Canada Eastern railway, built by Mr. Snowball and others, under the circumstances I have just mentioned. In taking over the line between Fredericton and Log-gieville, they also took over the piece of line on the opposite side of the river between Blackville and lndiantown, a distance of about five or six miles, which, as I have said, had laid dormant for a great number of years. On behalf of the people of Newcastle, and especially on behalf of the people of Blackville and Millerton, where the Government branch line was, I applied to the Minister of Railways to put in operation the connecting link of five miles, and the Government did so. So that for the last three years the line has been operated between Newcastle and Blackville, a distance of about twenty-five miles.
Now, the facts are that the people on the south side of the rjver, had, as I have explained, a railway for some thirty-five years, built under a charter granted by the local government. Some seven or eight years ago, the Dominion bought that line, paying the Alexander Gibson Railway Company $750,000 for the property. We have put the connecting link in good condition, and we are now operating a daily train between Blackville and Newcastle direct. The line bought by the Dominion Government is operated regularly, there being an express train each way daily between Loggieville and Fredericton via Chatham Junction. I understand that this vote of $128,000 is for the purpose of conecting Nelson, which is now on the route of the main line, between Fredericton and Loggieville, with Derby Junction. It is alleged that the Government propose taking up the rails on the south side of the river between Nelson and Blackville. For a portion of the distance, 26 miles, the Government granted a subsidy, but for another portion there was no Dominion subsidy granted at all. The road has been operated during the last thirty-five years and the residents of the district feel that they have a vested right. About three miles from Nelson there is a village, the post office at which place is known as Reynolds, and you will find passengers getting on nearly every train at Chatham or Nelson and getting off at Reynold's or at what is known as Ivory's Crossing. Then the railway follows up the south side of the river via Chatham Junction until it arrives at Blackville. En route there are several quite large settlements but the country is not thickly populated at all. Chelmsford is perhaps the principal village between Chelmsford Junction and Blackville on the south side of the river. I am speaking for the people of
I

Chelmsford, because to all intents and purposes, I live at Chelmsford. I do not actually live there, but as far as representing that district is concerned, I live at Chelmsford, and I feel that the people of Chelmsford have good cause for complaint if they are deprived of railway privileges that they have enjoyed for the last thirty or forty years. Looking at it from the economic standpoint, from the amount of money that would be involved, I do not think it is a very important consideration. I have no doubt that when the minister replies to me he will tell me that he is going to give us a better service than that which we at present have on the south side of the river. But that is not an answer to me or to the people on the south side of the river, if you remove the rails which have afforded the facilities for the last thirty-five or forty years. At the present time there are two railway bridges which it would probably cost to rebuild anew of concrete, about $200,000. That, I think, is all the expenditure which would be necessary if you continue following the dines on each side of the river. I am not an engineer, nor do I profess to be, but I have no doubt that $200,000 would he eaten up in providing the necessary terminal facilities at Derby junction. There is $128,000 in the estimates for the purpose of providing for the construction of a line between Nelson and Derby Junction, a distance of about two and a half miles. The Government propose building a line of two and a half miles and doing away with the line of 26 miles, if I understand. Of course, this is surmise on my part, because I have no authority to say, except that I can only read between the lines, what this $128,000 is for.
I would like the committee to consider the situation as if they lived along the south side of the southwest branch of the Mira-michi river, as if they had enjoyed railway privileges for many years and as if they had given their lands as a right of way at a nominal sum. Now they have not even bridge connection across the river, and it is not possible to get across the river for about 15 miles, perhaps 18, between Nelson and what is known as Indiantown. I think the minister ought to weigh the matter well in the interest of all concerned and especially in the interest of the settlement known as Reynolds, between Nelson and Chatham junction and the settlements of Chelmsford and Kirk's between Chatham junction and Blackville. I do not think that money considerations ought to enter into the question at all because the difference in cost will not he very great. I assume that there would be a saving in the cost of upkeep. The minister would tell me probably that he will save the upkeep of twenty-six miles as against the upkeep of three miles. That, Mr. LOGGIE.
I have no doubt, would be some saving, but even considering all the circumstances from an economic standpoint, 1 do not think the minister should undertake to remove the rails of these twenty-six miles and to give us a new line of three miles without giving the people who will be affected thereby some consideration. I know that it has been suggested that bridges would be constructed opposite to most of the populous settlements on the south side of the river and that the people could get rail connection on the other side of the river. That has been alleged, but even so, I find that the residents of that portion of the country are very strongly opposed to the Government removing the rails. They have had public meetings, they have made public representations to the Board of Trade of Chatham, and the Board of Trade has forwarded these representations to the Minister of Railways and Canals, and I have no doubt they have received his favourable consideration. I do not know what his decision is, but it has been suggested that the minister may not go on with this, that possibly the money may be voted and the work not actually performed. But, I think it my duty representing the residents on the south side of the river, to protest in their name against the Government taking away privileges that they have enjoyed for so many years. The Government own a piece of railway on the north side of the river, they bought the railway on the south side of the river and it seems to me that this is a very strong reason why they should continue to operate the line on the south side.
I want to point out what, to some extent, has caused this friction. The minister, and especially the deputy minister, very well knows that the line between Chatham junction and Fredericton is operated westward for the reason that the trains connect with the maritime mail trains. A train leaving Montreal this morning will reach Chatham junction early to-morrow morning and will connect with the train for Fredericton. That means that the residents of the county of Northumberland can go to Fredericton, spend four or five hours in the city and come back the same night. Those who live near the western border of the county complain that they have not the necessary railway connection between Newcastle and Chatham on the east, and Boiestown and Blackville on the west. If a merchant living at Boiestown or Doaktown wishes to go to Chatham to do business he cannot get into Chatham and back the same day but he must go down on the train which arrives in Chatham about five o'clock, or on the express which arrives at about eleven o'clock. If he wishes to do any business, he has to remain all night in Chatham, all

the next day and all the next night and go up the following morning because there are no trains going west after bank hours. The people of the county have requested, they have petitioned, they have prayed, that the Government give them a train starting at Boiestown, or, better still, at Fredericton, to leave Boiestown in the morning and return in the evening. The Government, with good reason, I suppose, have not acceded, saying that there is not sufficient business for it. The trains do run the other way, for- the reason that they must be run to make connection with the express and mails for and from Fredericton via Chatham Junction. But, if the Government were disposed to be liberal, surely one additional train could be put on. There is a surplus, and surely this railway is not to be run as if it were a private concern and make everything pay that we do. I think the Government should undertake to have a train leaving the western side of the county in the morning and returning at night. The people of Newoastle claim they have not sufficient railway accommodation. Many times, I have asked the Government if they could not start an express train at Boiestown in the morning to go as far as Newcastle and Chatham on alternate days. It would probably mean that they would have to put in a freight train between Millerton and Newcastle, especially owing to the increase of traffic at Millerton, where lately a new pulp mill has been established. I am as anxious as the people of Newcastle or of Chatham that we should have the necessary railway facilities at each of these two towns, but in order to get the necessary facilities at either place, I do not see why we should take away from certain sections of the community facilities which they already enjoy, and which they have enjoyed for so many years.
iN^r. COCHRANE: This is to continue the direct line, which the hon. member knows was built within the last few years from Chatham down to Nelson, and two miles more will take it to the main line. This is a burning question to some of the people there, as it stands, but when you take into consideration that we will have to extend the service notwithstanding that it is running at a loss, it becomes pretty serious. The bridge on this line that we did propose to take up at Black-ville and Barnaby river will cost, I think, $152,000.


William Stewart Loggie: That is, the two bridges.


Francis Cochrane: It will cost that to
rebuild them. I do not think that the hon. gentleman will contend that there is enough traffic to warrant the Government
expending that amount of money as well as running the train at a loss. The biggest settlement in the district of which the hon. gentleman speaks is at Chelmsford, which is only a mile and a half from the other road. He says there is no bridge. Well, that is a matter for the province. Surely, they could bridge there to take them across. The furthest the lines are apart is three and a half miles. There is not only that saving, but there is the saving on the materials of $120,000 or more that we would take credit for against this building of $138,000, materials to the value, and the actual cost of maintaining that nineteen miles of road running through would be $14,000. I am sure the hon. member would agree that there is not enough traffic to yield $14,000 for the year. In reference to giving the same to the western part of the country and going to Chatham or to Newcastle, he went on and explained very fairly that it was necessary, because of the mails, to run the other way, and we must be guided largely by the service given as to what is required by the number of people that will be served and the amount of revenue we shall receive. Of course, if we were going to run a service to each town irrespective of its cost, and if the people of Canada are willing, I should have no objection. But I do not see that it is a business proposition. While the matter is not wholly decided, as I want to go over the line before I decide on it, I want to vote this money first and settle the matter afterwards. But I feel that as a business proposition, and the matter of doing justice to the people, we should not continue that service or go to the expense of building the new as well as maintaining the road.


William Stewart Loggie: But the hon. gentleman
should not forget that this matter of building the bridges is offset by the extra expense of entering Nelson or Derby Junction.


Francis Cochrane: No, there is the capital charge of $132,369. That is more than we are asking to build the two miles from Derby Junction to the main line.


William Stewart Loggie: What capital charge ?


Francis Cochrane: The charge for two bridges, $122,000.


William Stewart Loggie: You did not need this $122,000 to build the two bridges.


Francis Cochrane: But you want the $13,500 or $14,000 a year. And you get nothing in return.


William Stewart Loggie: That I admit; but it is the only point I admit. There is this mileage.


Francis Cochrane: But do not forget that from the mileage we take up we would

realize $120,000. and that practically pays for the two miles we want to build.


William Stewart Loggie: So far as I am concerned, I cannot see that that is a good reason for the Government taking up a piece of property they bought and impliedly undertook to operate. They bought it from the Alexander Gibson road. Merely because you need a road on the other side, and to operate more economically on the other side, that is no reason why the Government should destroy an existing road. How much will it cost to make the improved facilities at Derby Junction ? It would be necessary, I fancy, to have a station on the south side of the river at the bridge.


Francis Cochrane: That is all included in the $128,000.


William Stewart Loggie: But you will still have to have two station agents.


Francis Cochrane: No, we would move the junction down, and would not have the extra agent.


William Stewart Loggie: You will have_ to have a station agent on the south side of the river.


Francis Cochrane: I know, but we would move Chatham Junction down to it.


Mr LOGGIE:: You are going to move that to Derby Junction, are you not ?


Francis Cochrane: No; down to where the branch line would strike.


Mr LOGGIE:: There is another thing I want'to point out. There is a lumber mill on the road which is enjoying privileges and is shipping one or two million feet a year.


Francis Cochrane: By water ?	.


Mr LOGGIE:: No, they are using the Canadian market very largely. I understand they are arranging to place then output in the Montreal market.


Mr COCHRANE:: We can only judge them by the past. My deputy says they have shipped by water in the past.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have no personal interest in this matter, but I feel I should be lacking in my duty if I did not rise to substantiate and' support the statement of my hon. friend. (Mr. Loggie.) The minister may say it would cost $122,000, but suppose it does, it is only a bagatelle to what he is spending on other parts of the system. You are taking away from people a right they have enjoyed for forty years and which they are entitled to enjoy in the future. It is not fair for the minister to say that he will not give a certain locality Tailway facilities because it does not pay.
Mr. COCHRANE.
There is not a railway on earth that you cannot pick a piece out of which does not pay, and there are a great many spots on the Intercolonial railway that do not pay, but the minister does not take up the rails.


Francis Cochrane: The stations are only a mile and a half apart.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, but you have a river half a mile wide between them. The minister says: let the province look after a bridge across there, but I may tell him that the province of New Brunswick is not wealthy enough to build bridges to accommodate the Intercolonial railway. We have only 370,000 people; our revenues are small, and I see no possibility of increasing them to any great extent unless we resort to direct taxation. We are probably in a more unfortunate position in that respect than any other province in Canada; we have valuable timber lands, but in the last five, yes, in the last ten years, with respect to these timber lands we have been eating up our capital upon which the province depends for revenue. If the province of New Brunswick had $2,000,000 to-day it could spend it on necessary roads and bridges and then it would not have met all the wants of the people. It is all very well for the minister to say that the province should build a bridge, costing perhaps $150,000.


Francis Cochrane: Oh, no, the railway bridge only costs about $54,000.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The minister will find
that $54,000 would not build the piers alone, and even if the cost were to be only $60,000 the province of New Brunswick has not got $60,000 to devote towards giving privileges to the people which the federal Government is taking away from them. We are suffering in New Brunswick for roads and bridges. I do not want to advertise my province; as being in, a poor condition, but I do say that in common with the rest of Canada we could spend a good deal of money on roads and bridges with advantage to the people. If the minister takes up these rails these people must have railway communication, and the minister should hesitate before he pursues that course.


Francis Cochrane: How many people in that section of the country?


William Stewart Loggie: About 140 families.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If there were only one hundred people it is taking away from them rights which ought not to 'be taken and which must be supplied by someone else. My hon. friend from Northumberland (Mr. Loggie) was too modest to -state the real reason for this: I have a suspicion there is -a little jealousy in .thi-s district between the two towns down there and

possibly there has been, some wire-pulling between Newcastle and Chatham, and tor that Teason alone the minister ought not to allow this thing to take place. The minister knows that railway companies operate trains which do not pay. He need not shake his head; I can give illustrations in New Brunswick where the Canadian Pacific railway put on train after train on which they lose money, but ithey 'do so in order to cater to publie sentiment. The Canadian Pacific railwav is running a second train between my town and Fredericton, six-two miles, and they admit they are losing money, but they are doing 'it because the people of Fredericton demanded it. Newcastle is the shire town and Chatham is the business town and these people have to go to both towns, and the minister is cutting off their facilities for reaching both Chatham and Newcastle The minister is putting a great burden on the people, by compelling them to remain over a day in order to make a triD to the shire town of Newcastle or to the business town of Chatham. But that is not half as had as taking away from one hundred and forty families a privilege they enjoyed for thirty or forty years.


William Stewart Loggie: Would the minister bear in mind that if this was a branch line then, under the policy of the Department of Railways, the Government would consider taking over this branch line and paying interest on it. They have already taken over this line and paid money for it.


Francis Cochrane: If it only paid running expenses I would be glad to give you a train; I would not want any profit on it.


William Stewart Loggie: A branch line of itself
may not even pay operating expenses, but if it brings a large amount of traffic to the main line and gives a long haul, it helps out the_ earnings of the road as a whole. The policy to-day is to endeavour to control and operate the branch lines, even if they do not pay. In the long run they will pay because they encourage business on the branch lines and make increased business for the main line. When this matter was brought up a few weeks ago, I suggested that I could give good reasons why this vote should not pass and why I should move to strike the item out. If I move to do so, I suppose my motion will be voted down. I would rather put the responsibility on the minister, as he has said that he has not finally decided, and promises he will look into the matter by visiting the settlements himself before he takes further action. The people whom I would like consulted particularly are those living at what is known as Ivory Crossing, between Nelson and Chatham Junction. That section formerly enjoyed railway facilities. The road received Dominion subsidies; then the Government bought the road from tne Gibson Railway Company and have continued the railway privileges to that settlement. If the rails are removed, that section will be without any railway facilities whatever. They are not in contact with the river at all, but are two or three miles back from it at Nelson. It is a rather serious matter to take away the privileges which they have enjoyed for thirty-five or forty years. I have travelled in that tram, and there are near!} always passengers for Ivory Crossing.


Francis Cochrane: Is that a village?


William Stewart Loggie: Yes, there is quite a village there.


Francis Cochrane: Are there any industries there?


William Stewart Loggie: No, there are no industries. It is a farming community, and large quantities of wood are shipped to the pulp mills and to the towns.
In regard to the other sections, namely, Chelmsford and Kirks, I must protest vigorously against the minister undertakin? to remove the rails from there, and especially so until arrangements are made for bridges. I do not think anything should be done until arrangements are made, by the local government if you like, to construct two or three bridges. There should be a bridge at Derby Junction. There was one there, but it is beyond repair. The substructure is in places, but the superstruc- [DOT] ture is gone. The local government is building a new bridge between Nelson and Newcastle at a cost of about half a million dollars. They are not contemplating rebuilding the bridge at Derby Junction, and the only way passengers can get across is to walk along the railway bridge, which is contrary to law. Until that bridge is repaired and a bridge is built at Derby Junction, another at Chelmsford, and another possibly farther up the river, the Government should not undertake to remove these rails. Even if the bridges are to be built I protest against the removal of privileges enjoyed so long. The hon. minister will remember that, during the last two months, at the time of the freshets, the bridge at Blackville became in such a bad condition that it was not safe to run trains over it. It was necessary to run the train down theopposite side of the river and then back on the Intercolonial railway to Chatham Junction. In order to give necessary accommodation for freight, the hon. minister had to put on a train between Chatham Junction and Blackville. The minister cannot make the matter satisfactory to-the people living at Ivory Crossing, because there is no possible way of giving them railway facilities in place of what he is taking away from them. In this matter



[Stage Direction]
I am representing the settlements at Ivory Crossing, Chelmsford, Kirks, upper Nelson and Coughlans.
There is another district called Grey Rapids. I have in my desk a letter from the hon. John. 0 Birchill, protesting against these rails being taken up. He has lumber land near Grey Kapids, and it is impossible to take the lumber off these lands except by the railway.
Francis Cochrane: We should be glad to make a contract with him, if he would go at it.


William Stewart Loggie: I presume he will be glad to do so. He did not know it was contemplated to take the rails up. When he heard of it he wrote me. He proposes to have the lumber cut along the railway, and to use the railway in order to carry it to market.
To increase accommodation at Fredericton,


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Do I understand the hon. minister to say that it is the intention that the St. John Valley railway shall use the new station at Fredericton in connection with their road?


Francis Cochrane: The arrangement is not completed, but is under consideration. We hope to have it completed so that they .will use the Canadian Pacific railway station at Fredericton and use part of their track.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Are the Government building the Intercolonial railway station on the site of the old one, that is at the west side of Queen street?


Francis Cochrane: Very near it. The
building is practically completed.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That will be half a mile up the line of the new St. John Valley road?


Francis Cochrane: No, but we propose running it to Fredericton on the Canadian Pacific railway track with the St. John Valley railway, but not with the Intercolonial railway.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think it is a pity they have not been able to make one union station.


Francis Cochrane: Unfortunately it was under contract before I came into this office.


William Stewart Loggie: I understood the minister to say that it was not intended to do_ away with either of the stations regarding the diversion of the line I had referred to before.


Francis Cochrane: It is not.
Mr. LOGGIE


William Stewart Loggie: So that there will still be a Chatham station and a Derby Junction station?


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


George Perry Graham: In his branch line policy, my hon. friend the minister will probably be compelled to take over lines that will not be any better from the standpoint of traffic than this one which he is giving up, and he will not be able to follow the principle that a line must pay. He will have to have one other idea in his mind besides that of paying, and that is the idea of giving facilities to the people. In New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and portions of the province of Quebec they were for a great many years without transportation facilities, but at last they got a certain kind in the way of branch lines that have not paid the companies to operate. My hon. friend should go slowly in taking away any advantages that the people have enjoyed. It is a serious wrench to people who have had accommodation for many years to have it taken away, even if it does not pay.


Mr. BOULAY (Rimouski):: I would
like to ask the hon. Minister Of Railways if, in the item we are now discussing, there is a vote affected to the construction of a viaduct at Petit-Metis? T have asked the same thing last year, and I was answered in the affirmative and nothing *was done. I would like to know if the Minister of Railways intends to build that viaduct this year..


Francis Cochrane: The hon. gentleman
can say what he wants in English.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is not
fair to the hon. member. He can put his question in French, and my hon. friend can answer him in English, if he wants to.


George Perry Graham: I do not think the hon. minister can compel the hon. gentleman to talk in English. If he desires to speak in French, it is his privilege. You, Mr. Chairman, might have to help the minister out in his reply. I understand that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Boulay) can make himself better understood in the French language than in English.


Francis Cochrane: If the hon. gentleman will allow me to explain the estimates, I think that what he wants is included.


Herménégilde Boulay: I do not want this item carried before I get an explanation. I will try to explain what I want in English. I want to know if there is an amount of money in this vote to cover the expense of constructing subways at Macnider. Last year I put the same question and was told that the work would be done, but it has not been done. I would like to know if it is going to be done this year, and if there is

an amount included in this item to cover the cost.


Francis Cochrane: The only subway for
which we have provided in the hon. gentleman's constituency is a little west of Little Metis.


Herménégilde Boulay: That is the one.
We complained some time ago to the Intercolonial railway. On a distance of 120 miles, since a few years, in the county of Rimouski, there are 500 or 600 men employed by the Intercolonial who have not received from their superior-I mean Mr. Brady-all the justice which they had a right to expect from him. The same complaints are also heard from the commercial public of my county who sees its business dwindling away.
I say that the men on the Intercolonial have not received justice. They have even been used roughly by the superintendent, Brady, and I will give the proof of that right now, so that this House may judge if my remarks are well grounded. I have here no bitterness nor rancour towards any one; all I want is to make known a 'few facts which will prove conclusively the lack of judgment, if not the malice and the evident incapacity of that man.
In several circumstances, last year, I have had to make myself heard through the newspapers, and I will read two letters which I .sent to the Progrea duGolfe, in which I had laid a complaint against Mr. Brady, who is still the superintendent of the Intercolonial.
Following an incident which happened at Notre Dame du Sacre-Cceur last year, Mr. Brady had ordered the dismissal of seven or eight men from the service.
After taking communication of the facts, I have come-I am myself an old employee of the railway-to the conclusion that the punishment inflicted by Mr. Brady on those men was altogether unfair and to a certain extent had not been deserved. I [DOT]have taken in hand the case of those men, I have written to Mr. Brady, and when I saw that we could not get justice I wrote the following article to the above mentioned paper. But before going any further I must say that Mr. Brady, before hearing the evidence of those men, and when he should have been present at the inquiry as a judge, saw fit to pronounce his judgment before even hearing what those men had to say. It is customary to hear at first the evidence before pronouncing the judgment, but not so with Mr. Brady; he passes condemnation before hearing those men, and he even goes so far as to say that they have perjured themselves. Here is the article I have sent:
To the Potentate Mr. Brady.
At the inquiry instituted to get at the causes and establish the responsibilities of the accident of Notre Dame du Saere-Coeur, Mr. 343J
Brady, instead of acting as a wise, prudent and impartial judge, you have said before the inquiry was opened that the trainmen were the guilty ones and that there would be perjurers at that inquiry. '	[DOT]
On what ground. Mr. Brady, could you possibly say such a thing?
More than that, during the inquiry, you went so far as to intimidate those poor fellows who were already sorry enough about the accident which had happened them, by hurling to their face the accusation that they were perjuring themselves.
Why were you saying that, Mr. Brady, if you are an intelligent man, if you have an elementary conception of the duties which pertain to you as a commissary of the Intercolonial r And, lastly, what were your treasons for throwing such despisable insults at some brave employees who, so far as honour and respectability are concerned, are certainly the equal of any commissaries on the Intercolonial ?
Why! wTe have here seven or eight men swreanng positively that the semaphore was down when their train passed, while two or three others from the outside swear the contrary. and that was enough for you to say that the first ones were perjuring themselves. But then you are not reasoning at all, Mr. Brady. Or, rather, you are reasoning contrary to the very evidence that was laid before you.
Mr. Brady, if you knew anything about a railway, you might have said to yourself that, in fact, a half minute before the train passed, it could have happened that the semaphore was up, but that through some inadvertanco or oversight it might have been lowered for a few minutes and afterwards raised at the very moment that the train had passed, and that it was at that moment that some people from outside have seen that in reality the semaphore was up and that the train had passed.
Instead of dismissing the eight men you have thus brutally fired, withoift mercy and without any cause whatever, if you had acted as an impartial judge, your duty was then to give them the benefit of the doubt and to act colonial?	,
There is still more than that. Mr. Brady. You went so far as to tell them: 'If you do not speak English, we have no use for you on the Intercolonial.'
Is it true, Mr. Brady, that you have had the imprudence to say such a thing?
If, as some honourable people have told me, you have expressed yourself in the above terms, you do not deserve to be allowed ta move about a single instant in the province of Quebec, because a gross insulter as you are has no right to occupy a position w-hieh puits him in daily contact with French Canadians.
On what right, Mr. Brady, you who do not speak French, could you reproach to a man not to speak English perfectly? You ought to know that indeed every one of those employees has more instruction than you have, in this sense that they all read and understand English, although they may perhaps not all speak it as fluently as if they had been born on the banks of the Thames.
That was obviously no obstacle to the fulfilment of their duties, and it was not neces-

sary to speak English in order to ensure some politeness.	-	_
Happily, all the English people in this country are not of your opinion. Mr. Brady. But the reason you try to avenge yourself on the French Canadians is perhaps because you have not the honour to belong to the noble Anglo-Saxon race.
In conclusion, Mr. Brady, I must urgently ask you to give us an account of your conduct as regards the above-mentioned facts. It would indeed be preferable for you to give us immediately an answer to each accusation which public indignation has forced me to lay at your door. With the conscience of my duty as a representative of the people, I will go to the end of it without fear. You may take that as meaning that I have a good deal more in store for you, because your record is heavily laden.
H. Boulay.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: Has Mr. Brady answered that letter? ,


Herménégilde Boulay: No, I never got an answer. What happened at Saere-Cceur was an accident. There was some fog. at the time, and all the train men swore that the semaphore was down, while the agent has sworn that it was up. In face of the only evidence of the agent, and without having any regard to the oaths of the employees, Mr. Brady has dismissed every one of those men.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: How many?


Herménégilde Boulay: Seven or eight. The least he could have done would have been to give the benefit of the doubt to those poor people?
After I had written the above article, the Society of Railway Employees took the case in- han*l and remonstrated with Mr. Brady. Three or four months after, those employees were taken back. If they were not guilty, why should seven or eight fathers of families have been suspended and suffer great losses, and then admit that a mistake had been made? If they were guilty, why have they been taken back? By so doing, Mr. Brady has admitted that he had been in the wrong, and he cannot escape from that.	.
A little later, I was a personal witness of another accident which happened at Saya-bec.
I was at the station, and I saw conductor Deschamplain at the agent's office. He was then at his post, awaiting orders. Mr. Des-champlain's train was on the side track. That special train, which was stationing on the side track, backed up and struck the Ocean Limited, on a signal given by one of the brakemen or by the engineer to move that train on the main track. At that moment, conductor Deschamplain was on the station platform.
Was it the fault of the conductor rf one of the brakemen made a mistake? Who was Mr. BOULAY.
the one who should have been punished for the order given to back up the train? Was it the conductor or the brakeman? Tbe conductor was then at his post, and he was the one who had the punishment.


Mr. PAQUET:: Was there any inquiry?


Herménégilde Boulay: There was no inquiry, and the very one who was guilty has not been suspended for a single day.
That happened in full daylight, in summer, and in the presence of every one who was on the train at the station.
1 seized tbe opportunity to write another article, denouncing those facts to Mr. Brady. This is what I wrote:
Mr. Brady Judged by his Misdeeds.
Some time ago, Mr. Brady, a slight accident happened at Sayabec, at about 7 o'clock in the morning. I was at the station, and I saw conductor Deschamplain in the office, at his post, and waiting for the Ocean Limited to pass. Conductor Deschamplain's train was on the side track.
I had barely got on board the Ocean Limited, when we felt a great shock and I heard the breaking of glass. Promptly alighting I saw that the special train had backed up and struck the Ocean Limited on a signal given by one of the brakemen or the engineer in order to have that train moved on the main track. At that moment Conductor Deschamplain was on the station platform.
Was it his fault, Mr. Brady, if one of the brakemen made a mistake? And who was the one to be punished in the circumstance: the conductor who was at his post, waiting for the orders which were to be given to him, or the brakeman who made a mistake and who was the primary cause of the accident?
If the same question was put to a child who could have witnessed the accident, I am sure, Mr. Brady, that the answer of that child would be a good deal more logical than your own could be, since in the lofty heights in which you soar and in your much vaunted wisdom, the best you have been' able to do was to hold that poor conductor responsible for the accident.
You suspend him for a month, depriving him of his salary during that time, or rather robbing him of his due, while the true author of the accident has not been suspended for a single day, and could then claim the right to indulge again in the same nonsense on the next day.
Do you know, Mr. Brady, that a man who does not show better judgment than that and who indulges in such foolish mistakes might just as well affirm that two and two make three and might turn a railway topsy-turvey inside of six months? You keep piling on injustices and tyrannies on your employees, you even dismiss those who fulfil their duty and you pretend to be in the right?
The Canadian Pacific saw fit to dispense with your services a few years ago, and I have learned that it could not have been without reason. You ought to learn how to be logi cal, Mr. Brady, and to reason before pro nouncing a judgment. You should never forget that, in depriving of his salary that

poor father of a family, you thereby take the bread out of the mouth of his children, and that the little ones with their mother in tears, are crying for vengeance against you.
The Government, and especially the hon. Minister of Railways ought to put an end to your exactions with the least possible delay, because the times of Nero are now gone forever, when that potentate used to show his cruelty in lighting Rome with living torches. While you are moving about, or rather ' winding along/ on the Intercolonial, in a luxurious private car nut to your disposition by the people, you have become the terror of your er* iplovees wlio hold you in execration more than they dread you, you may be sure of it.
And the Intercolonial is not better managed than it was at the time of old Mr. Pot-tinger, who had alike the respect of the public and of his employees, whom he treated as men and not as brutes, that is with kindness and justice.
Now the game is up to you, Mr. Brady. You must defend yourself, if you are able to do it and if you have that audacity, against the accusations I have laid against you. You must show that you have acted in the right way in dismissing mercilessly Mr. Deseham-plain for an accident of which he was in no way responsible. If yon are able to do that, the public will decide who was right and will see if you have any brain left in your silly head.
Do not forget, Mr. Brady, that you owe to the public without delay, a frank and clean explanation of all the misdeeds I have laid against you. Should you persist in keeping, as usual, a prudent silence, I will be obliged to ask for an explanation of your conduct on the very floor of the House of Commons.
N. Boulay,
Member of Parliament.
Some time after that, I had another dispute with the same man, with regard to another affair, just as ridiculous as the above. It was on account of the lowering of the floor of the freight Sheds, that is those that were to be built. As a rule, the floor of those sheds is on a level with the platform of the passenger station. This makes the handling of freight more easy. By lowering the level, you have an idea of the trouble to which the men are put who have to handle the freight. It naturally follows that those men experience much difficulty in passing from one floor to the other. There may not be any trouble with light freight, but when it comes to heavy loads of 1,500 or 2,000 lbs., it is another affair. When it comes, for instance, to handling a barrel of molasses or a steam engine, weighing often more than 2,000 lbs., you can see at once that the difference in the levels of the floor increases considerably the work of the men, and that those poor people are thus very often liable to accidents. Indeed, accidents are generally the rule, and any one can see at a glance that there is no common sense in tflat.
I have had to fight that during the whole
summer, last year, and I was even forced on that account to come to Ottawa on two occasions. The Deputy Minister of Railways, who is a practical man, has given me justice. He took in the whole situation at a glance, and he admitted that such a scheme was ridiculous. Orders were immediately given to remedy that.
I have still another case to relate, so as to show the incompetence of Mr. Brady, whom they persist in keeping at the administration of the Intercolonial. We had on the railway a conductor named Audette. He was one of the best conductors on that railway, and the travelling public of the province of Quebec had come to know him very well.
That man has been doing service on the Intercolonial during over thirty years. He has been superannuated, although he should still be on active service. But Mr. Brady took into his head that he should be put on the superannuation list. On a certain winter day, when Mr. Audette had presented himself for duty, Mr. Brady did not find that he was sufficiently dressed to meet his tastes, and so, forthwith, and without inquiring about the physical capacities of Audette, he gave him the necessary orders to the superintendent to have the man put on the superannuated list. All the other employees objected to such a proceeding, because they were forced to pay the man a pension under the general fund kept up by those same employees, and that during 10 or 15 years, without any necessity whatever, because Mr. Audette is still able to work during all those years.
But Mr. Brady was not the one who could admit he had made a mistake. He maintained his decision and Mr. Audette was put on the superannuation list. Mr. Audette draws to-day a pension. He is an insurance agent, and, as evidence that he is still to-day quite able to work, he is able to earn a salary equal to the amount of his pension. He is still more able and stronger than any other employee to be met with on that railway.
There is another case I may cite, and which is, so to say, worse than all the others, to show the lack of judgment of that Mr. Brady. What I will relate has happened on the 2nd of February last. A train came into collision with another train at St. Moise. Conductor Smith had orders to run ahead of train No. 99, which had left Camp-bellton and was going to St. Flavie. When he left Sayabec station, he saw that there was a train in rear, but nobody told him that it was No. 99, and he kept on towards St. Moise, which is the next station. Train No. 99, which was really the one arriving at Sayabec when Smith was leaving that station, was obliged to wait about ten minutes so as to leave the necessary interval between two trains following each other.

Now, engineer Matheson was on train No. 99, and he knew very well 'that Smith could not be very far, because he was kept at Sayabee so as to give Smith sufficient time to get away, and his duty was to slacken speed so as to prevent an .accident. Between Sayabee and St. Moise there is an ascent of five miles, followed by a descent of three miles, when coming to St. Moise. As Smith's train was coming into St. Moise at a speed of ten miles an hour, he saw coming towards him in the rear, at great speed, train No. 99. As his orders were to meet train No. 76 at St. Moise, and in order to avoid an accident with the train which should be in front of the station, he was forced to slacken the speed of his own train to ten miles an hour, thereby acting in the way of prudence and acting'according to the rules. He has been censured for not having properly protected his train, but he could not do that, because there is no necessity to protect a train under way, especially when running at ten "miles an hour.
As a sequence to the inquiry, the only man suspended was Smith, who was not guilty. I will read some parts o'f the evidence heard at the inquiry, so that you may better understand all tne facts:
Mr. Brady wrote to Mr. Price as follows: Moncton, N.B., Feb. 22, 1913.
E. Price, Esq.,
Superintendent,
CampbelltoiT, N.B.
Dear Sir,-Referring to yours of the 12th February, relative to the pitdh-in at St. .Moise on the 2nd February, Conductor Smith, and his rear brakeman are at fault for not properly protecting their train. You will suspend the conductor three months and reduce him to a brakeman for six months, and if he does not act as a brakeman for six months he is to remain suspended for six months, and you will suspend the brakeman, Dube, for three months for violation of the rules regarding rear end protection. You will reprimand Engineer Matheson for not using better- judgment in approaching St. Moise station on this occasion. Mr. Matheson admits himself that he could see the van lights of the train ahead of him for sixteen or seventeen telegraph poles.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) F. P. Brady, General Superintendent.
Xhia same engineer, only three weeks before, lost his train and ran seventeen miles into a station without discovering that his train had parted. He was lecommended . by the superintendent to be suspended for two weeks, but has not been suspended, and on thi-s poor fellow, Conductor Smith, has been placed the whole responsibility for the accident. Matheson admits himself that he could see the van light of the train ahead of him for fifteen or sixteen telegraph poles.
Mr. BOULAY.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What do you mean by saying he lost his train?


Herménégilde Boulay: There was a cut-off between the train and the engine, and he went on without noticing that he had lost his train until he got to the station. He had left his train seventeen miles behind. That is the same man to whom the accident happened about three weeks afterwards. In the investigation held into the second accident, the one which occurred between No. 99 and Conductor Smith's train, he admitted that he could see Smith's van fifteen or sixteen telegraph poles ahead of him and he had only fifteen cars on his train then.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Did you ever have any opportunity to complain of this to the minister or why did you wait so long to bring it up here?
, Mr. BOULAY:	I will give you the
answer in a moment. When this was reported to me, I went to the deputy minister's office and explained the whole thing. I will read what Mr. Campbell writes on the matter. He wrote this letter to Mr. Brady:
Friday, April 11, 1913.
Dear Sir,-I return herewith the ineiosure received with your letter of the 28th ultimo, your file B2/9286, re collision between No. 99 train and Smith's west-bound special near St. Moise on Febraury 2 last.
I have gone carefully over the evidence brought forth at the investigation into this accident, and from what I can gather from this evidence I am unable to understand the discipline which you have meted out to those responsible.
In the first place, from Conductor Smith's evidence it would appear that his train was running at about the rate of 10 miles perl hour when struck by No. 99, so that I am unable to undertsand what further protection he could have given his train than he did by having his brakeman jump from the rear of the train to stop No. 99 before that should, strike Smith's special.
On the other hand, Engineer Matheson of No. 99 train, knowing that Smith's special, was only a very short distance in front of him, as No. 99 train had to be held 10 minutes at Sayabee -to .permit .Smith's special to get away, should have had his train under control so that it could have been stopped within the length of his vision. This was not the case, as he stated he saw the rear of Smith's train when within about six telegraph poles from it. In his report of the matter Superim tendent Brice recommends the suspension of Conductor Smith and Brakeman Dube for two months, for not protecting properly the rear of their train, and suspension of Engineer Matheson for two weeks, for not having his train under proper control.
However, in your letter of February 22 to Superintendent Price, you increase the discipline of Conductor Smith from two months1 suspension, suggested by Superintendent Price, to three months suspension, with reduction, to brakeman for six months, and if he does

not act as brakeman- for six months he is to remain suspended for six months; you also increase the proposed two months suspension of Brakeman Dube to three months suspension. On the other hand, you reduce the discipline of Engineer Matheson from two weeks suspension, as recommended by 'Superintendent Price, to a reprimand for not using better judgment in approaching St. Moise station, although you add 'Mr. Matheson admits himself that he could see the van lights of the train ahead of him for sixteen or seventeen telegraph poles/ In his evidence he. states that he was about six telegraph poles from the rear of Smith's special when he first saw it. It would appear, as suggested hy Superintendent Price, that Engineer Mafhe-son should he disciplined, and while conductor Smith might have given further protection by the use of fusees and torpedoes, yet he and his brakeman were on the lookout and his brakeman, in order to flag No. 99, jumped from the train while it was running ten Miles an hour. Doesn't it appear as if Engineer Matheson seeing Smith's train six or seven telegraph poles ahead, should have so controlled his train as to have avoided this accident. Doesn't it also, appear as if Matheson was exceedingly reckless in running into Smith's train while the latter was still moving at ten miles an hour? .There is strong exception taken to the discipline meted out to Smith and Dube, especially in view ot Matheson being allowed to go free.
I wish you would look, over the evidence again, particularly with reference to the points which are referred to in this letter, and let us have your further view's as to why Matheson should not he punished.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) A. W. Campbell.
This letter was written to Brady on April 11, 1913. This was a very sensible letter according to the evidence and what is said there is according to the best judgment of the deputy minister. Certainly between April 11 and this date Brady should have found his way to correct himself m justice to these poor people who were badly treated, but still it is only lately that he has found a way to repair the michief he has done. I shall read his letter later on. He replied to Mr. Campbell on April 16, 1913, as follows:	.
A. W. Campbell,
Chairman Government Railway, Management Board, Ottawa, Out.
Dear Sir,-Replying to your communication of the 11th instant, with reference to the pitch-in between No. 99 train and Smith's west-bound special at St. Moise on February 2 last. I have noted the contents.
Conductor Smith did not put on his protection quick enough. He might just as well under the circumstances not have put it out at all. He could at any point have dropped off a fusee, which is furnished him for this particular purpose without it being necessary for him to have jumped from the tram. This he did not do, and the circumstances show clearly that neither he nor his brakeman jumped from the train until they saw No. 99 coming into them.
Engineer Matheson was within his rights.
I know of no rule or custom that requires a regular train to run at a rate of .speed to enable them to stop within their vision, and if such a rule existed we would never get our regular trains over the road. Matheson claims he had his train under control so that he could have stopped before passing the semaphore if it had stood at danger and the small1 amount of damage done sustains him in this. On account of frosit in the air he was unable to see the semaphore until about the time he saw the tail lights. This accident was due entirely to the fact that the conductor did not protect his train as quick as he ought to have done and as he could have done without any inconvenienec to himself or his hrakemen and they are both responsible.	.
The punishment meted out to these men is similar to the punishment laid down by the hon. the minister in the iSacre Cceur accident; which is similar in all respects.
The great majority o-f the accidents we have had this winter of this nature was caused either through slowness on the part, of the men who should have protected or entire failure to protect.	'
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) F. P. Brady.
I made some further representations, and Mr. Campbell wrote again to Mr. Brady. When I saw that I could not get justice from Brady. Conductor Dube and I went and had an interview with the minister and a letter was written on the 16th April by Mr. Campbell to Mr. Brady. I have not the letter which was written by Mr. Campbell nor have I the reply. These two letters have apparently gone astray. Anyway they were in much the same terms as the letters which I have just read, Mr. Brady taking the ground that he could not do anything.
Now, I will give some particulars from the evidence in this case. I have given a summary of the evidence and I have no doubt that my statement of the case will be understood by most hon. members who are conversant with the running of trains. Smith's train had an order from the des-patcher to run ahead of train No. 99, which was two hours late. After he had started he found that there was another special running ahead of No. 99. He ran ahead of this special train all the time. His order was to run to Ste. Flavie. The order said: Run ahead of No. 99 until overtaken, which means until the train comes near enough to pass you. When he was leaving Sayabec, Smith saw a train behind him which he thought was the special, but which was No. 99. Nobody told him about that train. The despatcher should have advised him that this train was the one which should have gone ahead of him, but for some reason he was not so advised and when Smith was leaving Sayabec train No. 99 was entering the station yard. According to the rule in force on the railway no train may leave a station until ten minutes has elapsed after the departure of the preced-

ing train, and under this rule the agent at Sayabec should not have permitted No. 99 to depart before that time. The train of which Matheson was driver should have waited for seven or eight minutes at Sayabec to allow the ten minutes to elapse and as it did not do this the engineer knew very well that the other train was not very far ahead of him. He knew very well that he was running too fast. There is an upgrade from Sayabec for about five miles and then there is a down grade of about three miles to St. Moise. He had a lighter train than that which was ahead of him. Still he left Sayabec after the expiry of the time, went up the grade, and then struck the three mile down grade leading to St. Moise. He could not have been looking out for the train ahead of him. Conductor Smith had an order to cross another train at St. Moise and the rule says that when a train has an order to cross another at a certain point it must approach the station slowly. Conductor Smith's train was running at a Tate of about ten miles an hour approaching the station at St. Moise where he was obliged to go slow in order to avoid a collision with the train he expected to meet at that station. Still, although running at the rate of ten miles an hour, he was struck by the other train coming behind him. Notwithstanding this, Mr. Brady says that the man ahead must be punished for not getting out of the way of the other fellow. Now, I propose to read some of the evidence.


Mr. MACDONALD:: Will the hon. gentleman tell me who the train despatcher was who gave the orders?


Herménégilde Boulay: I could not tell that.


William John Macdonald: Is he not the man who is responsible?


Herménégilde Boulay: I think the despatcher
should have advised the agent at Sayabec that train No. 99 was close enough to the special ahead to allow it to pass.


William John Macdonald: Have you made inquiry who was the despatcher there?


Herménégilde Boulay: No, I did not inquire.
This was not done, but the driver knowing the facts, he should have been more careful and he is the man who should have been punished and not Smith.


William John Macdonald: Who is the superintendent of the division? .


Herménégilde Boulay: Mr. Price. Here is the evidence of Conductor Smith at the investigation :
Statement of conductor E. Smith, before assistant superintendent L. ,S. Brown, present; chief despatcher H. H. Bray.
Q. Dou you remember what orders you had leaving Sayabec?-A. I got an order at Mata-pedia to run ahead of No. 99 until overtaken, and held an order to cross No. 76 at St. Moise ' Mr. BOULAY.
Q. What time did you leave Sayabec?-A. 5.30-K.
Q. Was No. 99 train at Sayabec when yon left Sayabec?-A. No. 99 train was about the east semaphore at Sayabec when I left there, but I did not know it was No. 99 train as Raymond's special was following me at Cau-sapscal ahead of No. 99.
Q. What kind of a night was it? -A. It was a cold night, but the lights could be seen distinctly.
There are two lights on the rear of every special train showing all the time.
Q. How far away was No. 99 train when your train was near the semaphore?-A. About eight or -ten telegraph poles from the rear of my train. '
Q. Could you notice that they were coming fast?-A. Yes.
Q. Did you not think if necessary to put out a signal?-A. I ordered brakeman Dube to put out a signal, he took his lamp and jumped from the train, the red light went out; he had the white light and gave them a signal to stop; he went back about a telegraph pole and was all the time he had. I was on! the rear step of the van and could see him giving the stop signal; I was also giving the stop signal. My reason for not knowing it was No. 99 train following the train order I held read as follows: No. 76 will cross (Smith and Raymond at St. Moise; No. 99 train wasl not mentioned.
The driver on Smith's train deposes as follows:
Q. Did you stop at the east semaphore ait St. Moise?-A. I did not. St. Moise is a -bad>
place to cross -and I was approaching the semaphore carefully. As soon as I saw that the semaphore was all right I released the brake and was running at about ten miles! per hour.
This corroborates the evidence given by the conductor plainly that they were running ten miles an hour. Then the evidence of Driver Matheson is:
Q. How far wou-ld you he from the rear of his train when you first saw it?-A. I would-judge about six telegraph poles.
This man deposed that he saw the train for about six telegraph posts, and any man who' has a knowledge of railroading knows that a train of fiSteen cars, if equipped with air brakes, if the brakes are in good working order, can stop that train inside of five telegraph poles, even though it were running twenty miles an hour. This man admits in his evidence that he saw the train at six telegraph poles from him. He also deposes in his evidence -that he could have seen a train sixteen or seventeen telegraph posts ahead. But, strange to say, after the evidence given in this case, and after the facts elicited, and after representation of the superintendent that Smith be suspended only for two months, Mr. Brady comes and says:	I suspend him for three
months and I give him six more months

braking, and I give no punishment of any kind to Matheson. A man who has no moTe judgment than Brady and who does such a thing to poor people who depend on him for their livelihood, should not be any longer retained in the public service.


Eugène Paquet: Mr. Speaker, during the years 1903-4, the liberal gov-vernment, which was then at the head of public affairs, had on the Intercolonial a deficit of $900,000. In 1904-5. that deficit had increased to $1,725,000. In face of these deficits accruing every year the liberal government had established a commission entrusted with the administration of the Intercolonial, and the results obtained show a notable improvement. And so, under the conservative administration, the surplus have kept increasing considerably.
The hon. member has mentioned Mr. Brady. That gentleman is certainly not endowed with all perfections; but in my county I believe he has given justice, because I can say that in every case the decisions he has rendered have been strictly in accordance with the evidence. At all events, under his administration, and from the information gathered, the results have certainly been 'better than those of former times. We must, of course, attribute a large part of those results to the prudence and ability of the hon. Minister of Railways and of his officers at Ottawa.
I am not prepared to assume the responsibility of all that my hon. friend from Rimouski has seen fit to say about Mr. Brady.
Quite lately the Government has given a strong and energical impulsion to the administration of the affairs of that railway toy entrusting it to a man of great competence.
Before concluding those remarks, I would have a favour to ask of the hon. Minister of Railways, and that is to appoint a Frenchspeaking counsel to whom would be entrusted the examination and settlement of all claims in our province. He will certainly not refuse to do that act of justice to the province of Quebec.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Why did you not keep the one that you had? That was certainlv the time for the member for L'Islet to have shown himself.


Eugène Paquet: I will say this to the
hon. member for Temiscouata. A few years ago, I rose in this House to ask for the appointment of a French Canadian as member of the Intercolonial Commission. My adversary in the elections of 1908 was chosen by the liberal government and was appointed general counsel and member of that commission. On account of my relations with Mr. Caron I did not want to mention him in this House, but I believe
that we could easily know why that counsel has deserved the fate that has happened to him. I may say that having written to that gentleman in order to obtain justice in my county, Mr. Caron gave me to understand in his answer that, as a commissioner, his influence did not amount to much in the commission.
I am asking the hon. Minister of Railways to appoint a general counsel to hear the claims of the French Canadians along the Intercolonial. He should appoint a barrister of some eminence who would be entrusted with the settlement of those claims and who would fender justice to whomsoever it is due.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Why have you not
kept Mr. Caron, who was the only French Canadian, and who has just been (dismissed? It was then that you should have shown yourself the great defender of the French Canadians.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Chairman, as I have been sitting during many years with Mr. Caron, who was then the member for Ottawa, and as I have protested the other day against his dismis- -sal, I believe it is my duty to answer to the somewhat harsh observations which have just been made by the hon. member for L'lslet.


Eugène Paquet: I have been led into
speaking of Mr. Caron by the remarks of the member for Temiscouata.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Obviously the hon.
member for L'Islet has not forgotten the contest in which Mr. Caron was engaged with him, in 1908, in the county of L'lslet. He ought to keep in mind the famous retort of a King of France who was saying:	'The King of France has not
avenged the insults made to the Duke of Orleans.'
Mr. Caron has been during many years a barister practicing his profession in the province of Ontario, among the French population. He is known for his competency, and also for being a man open to conciliation. I may say that if he lyis been appointed a member of the Intercolonial toy the Laurier Government, it was especially due to the fact that he was eminently a conciliating man.
We had been asking since many years for the appointment of one of our own countrymen to hear the claims of the farmers along the Intercolonial. I am happy to say that the ex-Minister of Railways, the member for Renfrew, acceded gracefully to our request, and then appointed Mr. Caron.
That appointment was approved toy all the French Canadians, without distinction of parties, and I never heard that there had been a complaint against Mr. Caron's manner of filling his duties.

Mr. Caron had a very lucrative practice in Ottawa, among the French people of the province of Ontario.
To comply with the law, Mr. Caron had to take up his abode in Moncton, far away from his friends and his family.
Since having been appointed a commissioner, and I have had the proof of it every day, he has rendered justice to the Government and to those who had claims against the Intercolonial. He has that great advantage to speak with equal fluency the two languages, and he is thus able to hear complaints from whichever side they come.
He has now been dismissed. I have just heard the remarks made by the hon. member for Eimouski. He complains of Mr. Brady and of his injustices. I am not familiar with the questions which have been submitted to the consideration of this Committee this afternoon by the member for Eimouski; but I must affirm that those difficulties will come back again and will foe more numerous than ever if the Minister of Eailways does not return Mr. Caron to the position which has been taken away from him in such an arbitrary mannerj or if his place is not filled up in the commission by one who speaks our language.
I do not understand the attitude of the member for L'Islet. During many years he has posed in the province of Quebec as the apostle of national revendicatlons. To his mind, the French Canadian members of the House of Commons, and especially those who were in the Laurier cabinet, were traitors to their race, traitors to the French language, and he denounced them vehemently. Now the hon. member, with all his party, has passed to the right of the Speaker, and the dismissals, I regret to have to say so, have been especially numerous among those who speak the language and who profess the faith of the hon. member for L'Islet. Among those who have thus guillotined the French Canadians, we see, in the first ranks, the hon. member for L'Islet, the hon. Postmaster General, Mr. Pelletier; the hon. Minister of Inland Eevenue, Mr. Nantel, and all those apostles of Nationalism of the -years dating before the contest of 1910-11, all those intransigents who used to say; We must have all or nothing, and now the very ones who are most eager in their work of dismissing their countrymen from public -offices.
Mr. Caron is a victim of the system which has been inaugurated when the conservative party came to power in 1911. And whatever might say the hon. member for L'Islet, it is not true that Mr. Caron has had no influence in the commission. Here is probably what has happened: The hon. member for L'Islet and some of his friends must have asked Mr. Caron to commit injustices. He has not seen fit to grant them what they Mr. LEMIEUX.
were asking, and so he was put in a bad posture.	'


Eugène Paquet: Can the hon. member
show any proof of that?


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Did you show yourself any proofs against Mr. Caron, a moment ago?


Rodolphe Lemieux: This is what happened. So as to put an end to those absoluteilv unfair demands which were made to him by the member for L'Islet and his friends of the same kind, Mr Cajron must have answered that he had not the necessary influence, but every one knows that he was a conciliating man, that he had the confidence of his colleagues, that he was upright and that he would have never submitted to be a party to an injustice. They have taken advantage that the conservative [DOT] party was in power to dismiss him. I have no hesitation to say that such an act is one more nasty trick added to the long list of those already committed by the tory party since they have assumed power.
How do you justify the dismissals, in the Yukon, of Notary Gosselin and of Mr. Laliberte? How can you justify the dismissal, in Paris, of Mr. Poindron, who was the commercial agent of Canada? How do you explain that hon. Mr. Parent, instead of being superseded by a citizen of the province of Quebec, and his place filled by Major Leonard? I do not question the competency of Mr. Leonard, and I simply want to show this; and it is that in spite of his violent declamations, in spite of all that outward show of intransignificance, in spite of all his St. Jean Baptiste speeches, and all that about everything and about nothing, the member for L'Islet has been largely instrumental in having the province of Quebec lose the influence which it had under the old regime.
When I see him approving the dismissal of Mr. Caron, who has given up a lucrative practice in order to take up his abode in Moncton, and whose strong health is now to-day impaired; when I see him rejoice at that dismissal for which there was no cause nor any ground whatever, I say that the member for L'Islet is a false patriot, and that the sooner the electors of Quebec will know it the better it will be for the province and for the county of L'Islet.


Mr. COCHEANE:: I may say to the hon. member for Eimouski (Mr. Boulay) that all the men on the Intercolonial railway belong to	organizations-the trainmen,
enginemen, trackmen, and so on. When any punishment that is unfair is meted out to any of them, the organization is soon after the management to see that the matter is put right. I am perfectly willing to leave it to the organizations to say

1C873
whether pustice has been done or not, because we have no word from them, although the accidents happened some time ago. When men get careless, lives are lost, and punishment must be meted out. If we let them go without punishment, the travelling public and the men themselves would not be protected. In reference to the doing away with the management board, and Mr. Caron, the appointment of a (French-speaking lawyer at Montreal or some other place on the road will take place very, shortly.


Wilfrid Laurier: What will be the functions of that official ?
Mr. GOCHRAN'E: He will do any legal work that is required in the province of Quebec.


Mr. PROULX:: How many lawyers are there to be ?


Francis Cochrane: One is enough in the province of Quebec. We could have another in the other provinces.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Was any charge made against Mr. Caron ?


Francis Cochrane: No charge at all was made against the commission. The commission was done away with, not Mr. Caron.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If there was no charge against Mr. Caron, I appeal to the sense of justice and fairness of the hon. minister. Mr. Caron was a member of this House for several years. He was a practising lawyer in the city of Ottawa, and had quite a lucrative practice in this district.


Francis Cochrane: I do not suppose he practices in Quebec.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, not in Quebec; in Ottawa. He was appointed by the former Minister of Railways and Canals. I presume that the salary paid by [DOT] the department was about equal to the amount he received from his practice in Ottawa. The fact that he left the city of Ottawa ought to be considered. He has been in office for three years and has taken up his residence at Moncton. He has been dismissed -there is no other word for it. If my hon. friend is going to appoint a gentleman who speaks the French language to settle the claims that are so numerous in the province of Quebec on the Intercolonial railway, he might just as well appoint Mr. Caron for these duties.


Francis Cochrane: He is not qualified to practice in the province of Quebec.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is not neoessary that he should practice before the Quebec courts. His duty was to go about and find out what were the claims and to report to the department whether or not the claims should be settled. If the claims are referred to the Exchequer Court, it does not matter whether the lawyer belongs to the Bar of the province of Quebec or to that of the province of Ontario. Mr. Caron has lost enormously over this. He has lost his legal practice. After three years he has been recalled from Moncton to Ottawa, and he has to start afresh in life. My hon. friend says the commission was dismissed. That may be true in one sense, but it is not true in the other. Mr. Brady and Mr. Tiffin are retained under Mr. Gutelius, and Mr. Caron is the only one who is left out.


Francis Cochrane: What about Mr. Pot-tinger ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
Francis Cochrane: He never had anything to do with it.


Eugène Paquet: Will the hon. member
allow me to ask him a question?'


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, when I have done.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: That may have been the price of his treachery.


Eugène Paquet: Mr. Speaker, I must ask the hon. member for Temiscouata to withdraw his words.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: I have no need for
your intervention, Mr. Chairman; I am conscious of having gone beyond the rules of the House; I withdraw those words, we will settle that by and by.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If that is so, then the real author of the dismissal of Mr. Caron is the member for L'Islet (Mr. Paquet).


Francis Cochrane: That is absolutely untrue. The hon. member for L'Islet could . not have anything to do with it.


William John Macdonald: He wanted to have it done.


Francis Cochrane: He did not.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The hon. minister says that there is no charge against Mr. Caron, and that he was a good officer. He says at the same time that Mr. Brady and Mr. Tiffin will remain in the service. Therefore I say there is something mvsterdous about Mr. Caron's dismissal. If there is no charge against him, do the right thing by him. Do not treat him so severely. Consider that he has lost some of his former good health, and that he has taken up his abode in New Brunswick. Consider also that he has lost his practice as a barrister in the city of Ottawa. And if the hon. gentleman has any sense of fair play and British justice he will see that Mr. Caron is treated loyally.


Eugène Paquet: I had no intention to prolong this discussion, but I must protest energetically against the language of the hon. member for Rouville. I must say to the hon. member that I have laid no charge neither directly nor indirectly against the commissioner of the Intercolonial, Mr. J. B. T. Caron. I must say that my relations with him have been friendly, and that I have nothing whatever to say against the manner with which I have been treated in my official relations.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Why then should not the hon. member have him appointed counsel for the Intercolonial?


Eugène Paquet: I have said a moment
ago that I had no intention to introduce the name of Mr. Caron in this discussion, but I have been led to do it owing to the harsh observations made by the hon. member for Temiscouata.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: I must say to the
hon. member that if I have mentioned Mr. Caron's name, it was because he had asked the Minister of Rail-ways to have his place filled by another French-Canadian.


Eugène Paquet: I believe that the hon.
member for Temiscouata lends himself to being carried away by his violence every time I speak in this House. Indeed, i have never asked the hon. Minister of Railways to put another man in Mr. Caron's place, neither did I ask for his dismissal, and if the hon. Minister of Railways appoints him again to the same Mr. GAUVREAU.
place, the member for l'lslet will have no cause of complaint against him.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will you recommend
him? If the hon. member recommends him to the minister, then I am Teady to retract everything I have said against him.


Eugène Paquet: I am ready to recommend him if it can be shown to me that the members of the commission deserve to occupy the position which they had before their dismissal.
I believe my words must be clear enough. The hon. member for Rouville has accused me of having been the means of lowering the influence of my racfe because I had claimed the rights of the French language. I will say this: If in asking that a French-Canadian should be appointed general counsel for the protection of the French-Canadian interests along the Intercolonial, I have committed a crime, then I declare myself guilty; if by so doing I have betrayed the rights of the French language, I am willing to continue to do so in the future as I have done in the past.


William John Macdonald: Mr. Caron was a
member of this House and was known to quite a number who are still members. When he retired and accepted a public office, it was under such conditions that everyone felt that he deserved the position which he was given. I am able to say that, so far as the people along the line of the Intercolonial railway are concerned, they found in Mr. Caron a very satisfactory official. He was popular with both sides of politics and there was no element of partyism evident in any part of his administration. It has long been an unwritten rule of this country that when a man in public life retires and accepts a position in the public service, some exceptional recognition should be given to the fact that he has devoted his life to the public welfare. There are few if any cases in which such men in office, no matter by which side they have been appointed, have been retired.


Francis Cochrane: Why was not the commission made permanent then?


William John Macdonald: The minister has not answered my point. What I say is that the history of this country would be searched in vain for many cases-I doubt that there is one before this of Mr. Caron-in which a member of this House retiring and accepting a public office has bad that office taken from him. Such a man, retiring, knows what his rights are and what his limitations are and how far he can and should go, and I am sure that in the eastern provinces there will not be found a man who will say that Mr. Caron did anything
10881	MAY 26, 1913	10882
in a political way or did anything at all but fulfil the duties of his office in a most satisfactory manner. Therefore, he had special claims upon the Minister of Railways and Canals. To other hon. members of this House the time will come sooner or later when they will wish to retire. There are members on on that side who are already looking for opportunity to retire in some public office. And also the time will come inevitably when their party will be out of power and their opponents will be in office. Do they want the rule which has always been exercised, a sort of free masonry, to be violated, and the consideration which has always been regarded as due to men in their circumstances forgotten? The minister tells us that the member for L'Islet did not want Mr. Caron removed. Well, the member for L'Islet did not do very much to keep him there. He did not go to the minister and ask him to leave Mr. Caron who was a French representative on the Board of Rail-, way Commissioners. He did not tell him: In the readjustment, whatever you do, do not take Mr. Caron away. In his heart, he wanted Mr. Caron removed, because Mr. Caion had been an opponent of his. The fact that the hon. member for L'Islet made such a tremendous somersault on the naval question furnishes some explanation why Mr. Caron was dismissed, and that seems to me a very reasonable explanation. The hon. member for L'Islet, at any rate, is not urging very strongly upon the minister to keep this ex-member of Parliament in office. In fact he is trying to get some other gentleman to fill the place. Do not let us have any misunderstanding about this thing -that is where the hon. member for L'lslet stands, and the minister too. The minister says that the commission was abolished and he had to dismiss Mr. Caron. Well, while Mr. Caron was a member of the commission his duties were well defined. He was dealing with the legal questions that . came up in connection with the administration of the railway. But the minister let Mr. Caron go, and is going to proceed next week to appoint another gentleman simply because he is a French-Canadian, probably a Nationalist out of a job, wanting to hang on to the coat-tails of this Government, fearing that they will soon be out of power and the Nationalist wing will be left out altogether. Mr. Caron, a former member of this House, a man of integrity and ability, is being treated in this very shabby way-no mincing matters, that is where we stand.
I have heard the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Boulay) discuss railway-questions. It was not very clear what his opinion of the administration of the Intercolonial railway really was. Does he think that administration is good, wise and efficient? Surely he did not take up the time
of the committee merely to tell us that here was a man who had committed a wrong, and, instead of getting three months' sus* pension he should have only got two. Is that the complaint he is making, or is that the reason he is taking the position he does in this House? What does the hon. member really think about the administration of the Intercolonial since the change of Government? I would like to hear what he has to say about it.


Herménégilde Boulay: Mr. Chairman, in answer to-


William John Macdonald: Let us have it in English, so we. shall understand what you are saying.


Herménégilde Boulay: I can not offer an opinion on the management of the Intercolonial. I see there has recently been a change, but I make it a practice to judge every one by their own acts; therefore I must wait for a while yet. I think I have said enough to express my opinion on Mr. Brady's management. The hon. Minister of Railways told us that the employees of that railway had associations to protect themselves. I know that such associations are in existence, but it is very well known what a costly experiment it is to bring them into action. The president of the Brotherhood lives in the United States and it takes month after month before you can reach him; and during that time the unfortunate heads of large families are kept out of work waiting for the association to deal with the question. Moreover, it is very important to have as managers of the railway, men who can settle such questions without waiting for the interference of the association.
For the last thirty-five years we have had a man who was general manager of the Intercolonial. I am referring to Mr. Pottinger. His management met with the approval of both French and English Canadians. I, myself, have had occasion to meet him frequently and I have always found him a perfect gentleman, very agreeable in his dealings with all.
He would receive us in his office like gentlemen, and although we did not always get satisfaction, although we sometimes failed to get what we asked for, we left him happy and contented, because we had the answer of a fair and clever man. I am sorry to see such a man leaving the service of the Intercolonial while such a man as Mr. Brady is being kept on. Mr. Pottinger is still in full possession of his mental and physical strength. He knows the Intercolonial from the first mile to the last; he is friendly with everybody in the maritime provinces as well as in the province of Quebec. I have known him since 1875, and I am sorry to see him retired. I hope he asked to be retired, but I cannot believe it

unless I am told so by himself. We will never have a more devoted servant of the country than he was.
It is said that since Mr. Brady has been appointed Chairman of the Board there is no more deficit. That is true, but it must be borne in mind that Mr. Pottinger was there when the road was created. The fact is that he built and equipped the road. There was a surplus then, but everything was to be done. He must have had to submit to political influences and must have had to do things that he would not have done had he been left to himself. With Mr. Brady it is quite the reverse. When he was given the management of the road he was also given leave to do as he liked. He has cut heads off; he has cut down everywhere and he has increased the freight rates. ^Moreover, the traffic has increased largely." It was there the same as elsewhere. Twenty years ago the revenue of the country hardly reached 35 millions; to-day it is 160 millions. Everything has increased in proportion and the revenue of the Intercolonial like the rest. And still we are told that the surplus is due to Mr. Brady's management. It seems to me that is not fair.
During my long experience on the Intercolonial I have not known of one single employee who has ever criticized the decisions of Mr. Pottinger, even when he was not satisfied. I must give him that credit publicly. He deserves it.
As to Mr. Caron, whose dismissal is deplored, I would certainly prefer to see him remain at his post, to having nobody put in his place. Mr. Brady should make room for a French Canadian.
There is another anomoly of which I have to complain. For a few years back, the travelling public observes that the Pullman employees are all or nearly all Englishspeaking people. I have asked the House for a statement of the Pullman car employees travelling between Montreal and Halifax. From that statement it appears that there are 26 conductors in all, 21 of whom are English-speaking and 5 French-speaking people. From a table showing the dining-cars, which are very numerous, we find there are 120 employees, conductors, cooks, table waiters, &c. Of the 15 conductors not one is French speaking. To summarize, out of that number of employees there are only 10 French Canadians, which show that the proportion is not fairly kept.
In 1911, I complained of all these facts, at the management office, which is under the charge of Mr. Archibald at Halifax. I also complained to Mr. Tiffin. I have received from these two gentlemen answers which failed to convince me. One of these letters mentions the fact that the bill of fare is in French. I have no ojection to leaving aside the bill of fare question,"al-Mr. BOULAY.
though, for my part, I do not understand, neither in dining-cars nor hotels, the bills of fare written in English. Many travellers, ladies especially, abstain from going in to take their meals because they could not get the servants to understand them.
I believe it would be in the interest of the railway to have at least table waiters who could understand French. It is not an absolute obligation, as Mr. Tiffin put it, but it wrould be more profitable to the railway.
I think I have said enough on this point, and I think it will be admitted on both sides of the House that, up to the present time, on this last item we are not having a fair deal; out of 120 employees only 10 are French-speaking people; and especially when the others do not speak French, we are not having the proportion we ought to have and the travelling public is not having satisfaction. One-half of the Intercolonial is situated in the province of Quebec, a large portion of its Tevenue is drawn from that province and we are entitled to a greater degree of consideration.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Before the hon. member gets through with his speech, I would like to know what he thinks of the appointment of ticket collectors on board the trains of the Intercolonial in the province of Quebec.


Herménégilde Boulay: I am just explaining this thing, and before the railway estimates are voted, I will have the opportunity of dealing with this question.


William John Macdonald: I have been endeavouring to ascertain what my hon. friend was really saying. I think it is unfair to hon. gentlemen on this side of the House that he did not speak in English, and that his eloquence was confined to his own particular language. I heard him speak in English earlier in the day and he seemed to speak it quite glibly.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He says the_ Intercolonial railway is very badly managed.


William John Macdonald: Everybody knows
that the hon. member for Rimouski has been going about the House complaining of the way he has been treated by the present Minister of Railways, and by the-present Administration, and I was wondering if he had the pluck to say in the House what he was saying outside. I am disappointed that he spoke in French.


Herménégilde Boulay: So far as the new administration of the Intercolonial is concerned, I have nothing to say, because we have to wait before we can pronounce our decision upon their acts. I think I have said enough for the present about Mr. Brady. I did not complain of the minister, or of

the deputy minister. These gentlemen have always been very courteous to me. I have discussed lots of complaints with the deputy minister, and have always found him a true gentleman in all respects. What I said was against Mr. Brady, and I think I said enough to show that I was not satisfied. As for the future, I am going to wait and see the results.


Mr. TURGEON:: My hon. friend from Rimouski has diverted from the question of the dismissal of Mr. Caron. Representing a maritime province constituency, I deem it my duty to pay a tribute to the services of Mr. Caron during the few years that he held the position of legal adviser to the commission of the Intercolonial. Personally I had very few dealings with Mr. Caron during the time he held that office, but along the north shore of New Brunswick, from Moncton to Campbellton, I have never heard a word of dissatisfaction, either from conservatives [DOT] or liberals, as to the branch of administration with which Mr. Caron was connected. As the French member of the commission, speaking both languages, he was legal adviser to the commission for the whole railway, from Montreal to Halifax and Sydney. He not only represented the province of Quebec, and the French element, but, as master of [DOT] both languages, discharged his functions with satisfaction to all, English and French alike. I understand that Mr. Caron, a French-Canadian, is to be replaced by another French representative on the commission, but, as I understand the hon. Minister of Railways, his successor will represent only the province of Quebec. Therefore there will be another legal adviser to the commission for the maritime provinces. If I were the hon. member for Rimouski, I would consider that the French representative of the commission is intended to occupy an inferior position to that which Mr. Caron occupied. He will not be a legal adviser for a commissioner, such as Mr. Caron was. If I represented a county in Quebec, I would not be satisfied to have the French representative occupy such an inferior position. I appeal to the minister, if he wants to give justice to the people, not only of Quebec, but of the maritime provinces, to appoint a French commissioner who would occupy the position which Air. Caron held.


Rodolphe Lemieux: They should reappoint
Mr. CaTon.


Onésiphore Turgeon: They should reappoint
Mr. Caron who as I have said gave satisfaction all along the road, to the English as well as to the French. With regard to Mr. Pottinger, while I am willing to admit that the new commissioner, Mr. Gutelius, may be a man of great railway experience and fine qualities, it will take him many
years to acquire the knowledge and experience of actual railway matters possessed by Air. Pottinger, whom I consider one of the best railway men, not only in Canada, but in North America. While Mr. Pottinger has reached advanced years, his mental faculties are in no way diminished; he is as bright and active to-day as he was years ago. Therefore with all respect to the railway ability of the new man, if I were the Minister of Railways, and wanted to appoint one commissioner for the Government railways, Mr. Pottinger would be the man I would select.


George Perry Graham: Everybody has been out of order all afternoon. What we have been discussing chiefly is the operation of the Intercolonial railway instead of the capital account. With reference to the new arrangement, the situation is that Mr. Gutelius is not a commissioner, as I understand it, he is general manager. The old arrangement is reverted to, namely, that of having one general manager, the only difference being that Air. Gutelius is that officer instead of Mr. Pottinger. An error is often made in calling the board, which has been in operation for some years, a commission. A commission was in the platform announced by the right hon. the Prime Minister. He was to have a board of commissioners to manage the Intercolonial. I think that was in his Halifax platform. Some fault was found with the administration of the late Government because the board was not made a commission. The difference between a managing board and a commission in brief is that a commission would be responsible to Parliament while a board is responsible to the minister. I prefer the board idea to the commission idea, because I do not believe that even by engaging a general manager the minister can get away from responsibility for whatever is done on the Intercolonial Tailway. The idea of that board is based on what Is done by several of the leading railway companies. They have a board that meets .regularly. It is made up of the heads of the different departments, and these plan the policy, and carry it out. On my recommendation, the late Government tried that experiment in connection with the management of the Intercolonial railway. It had its weaknesses, but I maintain that a vast improvement was made in the administration of the Intercolonial under the board on which each department had its head. In the working out of the scheme a weakness was found, which was that we had no man on the board to handle the legal end of the business. Hon. members of this House who were then members will recollect that a Bill was introduced giving to the local courts in the various provinces

through which the Intercolonial runs power to try suits against the Intercolonial up to a stated amount. That was an advanced step. Before the Act was passed, no matter how small the claim a man residing along the Intercolonial might have against the railway, it was a claim against the Government, and the Government could only be sued in the Exchequer Court, and then only if a fiat had been issued. So the modus operandi of a man bringing suit against the Government railways was expensive and tedious, and as a result there was a great deal of complaint amon'gst those who had sustained losses. An Act was passed placing the trial of these small cases within the jurisdiction of the local courts. That necessitated a legal man on this board. I looked about for a man who was not only a man of good legal attainments, but I thought it was essential that he ought to be able to speak both languages, and Mr. Caron filled the bill in both respects. I admit that, having served in Parliament for a number of years, I have a tendency to giving the preference to one who has been an associate in parliament, because the great majority of members of parliament, notwithstanding anything that is said to the contrary, make sacrifices for the country and, everything being equal, it is not unjust that they should be given the preference in a matter of this kind. Mr. Caron was given the position with the approval, I think, of every member of the House at the time, because I cannot recollect one objection being taken to his appointment. I think that the press on both sides endorsed his selection.
In dismissing Mr. Caron and appointing a mah in the city of Montreal the minister does not meet the difficulty with which he is confronted. The difficulty is that the Intercolonial railway cannot have, with the consent of the Justice Department, a man in the city of Moncton to handle all the legal cases. Some adjustment ought to be made by which one legal gentleman would be able to handle the legal business of the Government railways without all these cases coming to the city of Ottawa for adjustment. From the practical railway standpoint there should be a legal head at the head office of the Government railways, just as there is a legal head at the head office of the private railways. Until this is done there will not be satisfaction in the settlement of claims against the Intercolonial railway. The Justice Department ought to work out a scheme by which all Intercolonial legal business shall be handled by the legal head at the headquarters of the railway. This business should not go through the Justice Department except in some particular cases. That Mr. GRAHAM.
being so, the appointment of one man to look after this business is a necessity, and I do not know of any man better fitted for the position than Mr. Caron. The appointment of a man in the city of Montreal will only mean that he will attend to the cases around the city, and the cases fifty miles away from Montreal will be sent to local legal men by the Department of Justice. If there are half a dozen cases coming on in any one district how is a man in Montreal going to attend to them all? He will send these cases to a man in the locality in which they arise and that, no doubt, is a better way to do it. But tne only way to have them settled properly i* in have a man at the head office of the Government railways! with full pow'ar to handle the legal business of these railways and let him select, just a3 the Justice Department does now, if a case is to be tried in Montreal or at some point where he cannot attend, or is not expected to attend, a representative to look after it. That is the only possibly solution of the question.
If my hon. friend undertakes to handle the legal business of the Intercolonial railway through the Department of Justice there will not be satisfaction. As it is the Justice Department is overburdened with work. We have had a new department added to it recently, and a portion of the money might better have been devoted to the establishment of a legal department for the Government railways. If the minister will work out the scheme along that line he will find a satisfactory solution. One reason why the Government is troubled with all these claims is that there is no man in Moncton who has power to settle them. Even Mr. Caron had not power to settle them. But he did a lot of good work along the line of settling claims without allowing them to come to trial. The legal department might be more usefully employed in settling than in defending suits. There should be some centre of legal authority on the line of the railway so that the public would not have to appeal to the Department of Justice and go through all the red tape in order to secure the settlement of the case. If you had a legal department you could perhaps reach a settlement in twenty-four hours in the case of a man who might otherwise become a litigant, and the only way to accomplish this is to have a legal department established at Moncton. The Department of Justice is not in favour of this because it is contended, and perhaps with some reason, that the Department of Justice is responsible, that it represents the Growrw that this being a Government railway, it is the Crown's, and that, consequently, the legal

business cannot go through any person else. I will admit that the Justice Department is in a measure responsible, but it might have a man at Moncton with power to settle all these claims. I believe that the legal department, the railway department and perhaps the Prime Minister could get together and work out a scheme by which the legal business of the Intercolonial railway could be handed over to a man competent to take charge of it at Moncton, and who would be empowered to settle all claims that came in. I submit that Mr. Caron would be a good man to put in that position because he has had a great deal of experience in that particular line oi work. I think that if the minister takes this up with the Justice Department he will find that the proper solution of the problem is to work out a scheme with their consent u'hereby a legal department will be established at the head office at Moncton with full powers to act and to settle all claims.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not wish to prolong this discussion more than is necessary, but I feel that the Minister of Railways would not wish to do an injustice to Mr. Caron. That is the reason why I insiston his reconsidering his decision. I appeal first, to his good judgment, and second to his sense of justice. I suppose the hon. member for L'Islet will say in private what he has just stated in the House publicly this afternoon: that he would raise no objection to the reappointment of Mr. Caron in the capacity of legal adviser to the board at Moncton. The hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Boulay) also said a good word for Mr. [DOT]Caron, although in former years Mr. Caron was a political opponent. There are things I would not care to mention in this House; anyway, I would not give names; but it is within my knowledge that some years ago a gentleman who had been for many years a prominent conservative member of this House, found himself in pretty difficult circumstances, and someone made an appeal to the then Government, and he was appointed to a position which gave him the necessaries of life. Not many years ago another gentleman who had been a very prominent man in the province of Quebec against the liberal government, was defeated; he had been a member of the House for nearly a quarter of a century; he appealed, and not in vain, to the Government of the day. We found for him a good position as counsel, not in the Civil Service,
I admit, but through the influence of the Government, in a large corporation. I say this only to confirm what the ex-Minister of Railways has stated, that old members of Parliament who have received Government appointments should be protected and not he made the victims of party exigencies. In |
view of the fact that those who may have made complaints against Mr. Caron admit publicly that they would raise no objection to his reappointment and in view of the fact that he has now the experience which is so necessary in the management of the railway, it seems to me that Mr. Caron should get the benefit of the new appointment which the minister is about to make.
The House having resumed at six o'clock:


PERSONAL EXPLANATION-SIR WILFRID LAURIER.
Wilfrid Laurier: Before you
leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I wish to call attention to a statement in the Montreal Gazette of this day. In a despatch from Ottawa to that journal, I read:
There was a sensational story current about the capital to-day to the effect that Sir Wilfrid Laurier had flatly told the Liberal leaders in the Senate that if they did not kill the Naval Bill, he would at once resign the Liberal leadership in the House of Commons!
I avail myself of this the earliest opportunity at my disposal to say there is not the slightest foundation for this statement.
I do not know the gentleman who wrote it, nor do I know where he got this information, but I state that there is not the semblance of truth in it.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.

The House resumed at eight o'clock, and again went into Committee of Supply.


Herménégilde Boulay: Mr. Chairman, I have but a few remarks to make. My hon. friend from L'Islet spoke in favour of Mr. Brady. I am not surprised of it, because his position is very different from mine as far as the Intercolonial is concerned. That railway only runs through his constituency [DOT] for 15 or 20 miles at most, and there is but a score of employees. Things are very different in Rimouski, where there is a dual divisional point. Trains run from Ste. Flavie in both directions, east and west. There are more than 600 employees and naturally I had more dealings with the general manager, Mr. Brady; that is why I have more cause of complaint than hon. member from L'Islet.
Those are the few remarks I had to offer.
General protection of highways, $65,000.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not wish to detain the minister long, but I would like to give him my opinion for what it may be worth that he would be well guided if he would retain the services of Mr. Caron, or, if he is not satisfied with him, appoint



some other man; at any Tate, place the whole question of accidents and small claims in the hands of some one man, and not divide the work. as he purposes doing. The next important thing is to give power to his representative in claims. I have some experience in this, and I think I know what I am talking about. There may be a small claim, the killing of a lamb, the burning of an acre of land ot a few rods of fence. Up to the present the method has been to send a claims agent to get the particulars and report back to Ottawa. The effect of the procedure is to exasperate the officials of the department who seem to think the whole idea is to prevent the farmers from getting his claim, and, what, is worse, it is exasperating to the claimant who thinks he has a good claim against the road. The minister may say that if he hands over power to the claims agent, he is giving power which may be improperly used-the claims agent may be too generous. But all the claims on the Intercolonial railway put altogether would not amount to the aries of half a dozen of his highly-paid officials. Especially, you take the small claims under $100 or something like that. I believe that if the minister could do it, it would increase the popularity of his department if he would place the power in the hands of some person in whom he has confidence, with the right to go to these people and settle the claims in a reasonable time. I do not mean to give every man what he desires-that would be unreasonable. But he must know of some man in whose judgment as to law and as to fact he has confidence. Let him appoint this man to go to the locality in such instances and look the matter over and settle with the farmer. The member himself must have more trouble and annoyance, and I know the farmers along the line of railway have more trouble and annoyance over . these subjects than over all the bigger matters put together. The minister might even take a leaf out of the book of the company roads. It may be said, perhaps, that they do not pay anything they can get out of paying, but the point is that you can get a settlement with them. I have done so in hundreds of cases; sometimes I go to the claims agent or perhaps to the head office in Montreal. The matter is threshed out as a matter of business, and we settle it almost always. But it is practically impossible to do anything with the Intercolonial railway. There is so much red tape that by the time you do get a settlement, the people concerned have almost forgotten what they were talking about. There seems to be a disposition on the part of the officials-I do not know why-to act as though the organization were there to prevent the settlement of these cases. You will never Mr. CARVELL.
succeed in obtaining a settlement of these claims on a reasonable basis until you have a claims agent or a claims solicitor-if the minister would rather leave it in the hands of a solicitor-but whether a claims agent or a claims solicitor, he ought to be a man in whom some power is vested. Heretofore, all the man could do who went down to investigate was to report. Sometimes he gets the facts, and sometimes he does not. He has no power, he has no ambition; he knows that his report is of no value. The officers of the department will not take the opinion of the claims agents, and if he was rash enough to give an opinion, they seem to learn that opinion only to oppose it. If it is possible to take a different course from that recommended they will take that course. The main difference between the claims agent and the officials is that the claims agent has been on the ground and the officials have not. The claims agent may have collected information that he cannot put on paper. He has seen the situation and has formed an opinion whether the road is in the wrong or not. But when the matter comes to the Department, the Department will not pay anything unless it is proven, beyond a doubt that the man has a legal claim. They put the burden on the farmer or local man to prove to their satisfaction _ that he has a legal right, and in thp majority of cases, even when proven, it is not admitted. I know the minister would save himself a lot of worry and trouble, and would make the road more popular, if he would appoint to this position some one who knows what he is doing and big enough to do it. If the minister does not choose one of the officials then let him choose some one else; but let him give the man who is appointed power to settle claims.


Francis Cochrane: I did not know we had been so dilatory in the past. I will look into the matter as soon as the House closes, and see if some remedy can be found.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would like the minister to say a good word for Mr. Caron. Let the minister say he will consider his case.


Francis Cochrane: I said I'would consider it, but that does not satisfy my hon. friend.
Docks and wharfs at Halifax, $100,000.


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):: Is this for the completion of pier No. 2?


Francis Cochrane: Yes. The contract was let about two years ago. It has not gone on as fast as I should like, but they promise without fail to have it ready m October.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Does the minister purpose going on with the other new pier pro-

jected at the same time that No. 2 was projected?


Matthew Henry Cochrane: No tenders were called for. That was for pier No. 5, I think,


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not recall it by
number. Does the department intend calling for tenders for that pier or is that to be abandoned?


Francis Cochrane: For the present. We are going on with the new scheme.


George Perry Graham: How much does this
dock cost?


Francis Cochrane: The contract is for


George Perry Graham: But it will cost more
than that, I suppose?


Francis Cochrane: They have not asked for any more yet.
To increase accomoonidaition and provide, machinery at Halifax, $111,500.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What is that for?


Francis Cochrane: This amount is asked for remodelling Richmond yards and purchase of machinery; extension of pier No. 7, $26,000; bridge to pier No. 8, $10,000; engineering, inspection, advertising and contingencies, $10,000; one forty-two-inch car wheel lathe with motor and hoist for the roundhouse there; one forty-two-inch car wheel borer, one double axle lathe, one forty-eight-inch car wheel press, tracks, trucks, cranes, &c.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This is simply a revote.


Francis Cochrane: Yes.
New terminal facilities at Halifax, $2,500,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I wish to say a few words upon this item. On the occasion, nearly two months ago, when Parliament was asked to vote one-sixth of this amount, I addressed myself briefly to the committee upon the same matter. At that time-I said to the hon. minister and to the Government that I strongly protested against the manner in which the announcement of this proposed expenditure for terminals was made at Halifax, in October last. As I remarked on that occasion, possibly the minister himself was not altogether to blame. It was, however, made the occasion of more or less political jubilation on the part of his friends in that city. This project involved a very considerable expenditure and was an important undertaking, and the announcement, I submit, should have been first made to Parliament, or, failing that, to the public interested, in a frank, comprehensive and businesslike manner, which I claim was not done. The announcement was premature, and clearly for political effect. Concurrently with
344J
the ministerial announcement to which <1 refer, appeared a statement made by the Halifax Herald, a paper friendly to the Administration, that the total expenditure contemplated for the Halifax terminals would amount to $35,000,000. This estimated expenditure was never contradicted or qualified by anybody speaking on behalf of the Department of Railways. The citizens of Halifax consequently, considered that this amount would be expended for steamship and railway terminals at Halifax. This statement of the amount to be expended by a newspaper believed to be speaking for the Government naturally had an effect upon the public. Naturally the proposal to expend such a large sum of money for terminals was gratifying to the people of Halifax and it apparently had the effect of suppressing for a time, any general criticism of the details of the project, although considerable unexpressed doubt existed in the minds of many as to such details. I fear that many persons honestly concluded, that any criticism of the scheme would be construed into opposition, and they preferred for a time, silence to misconstruction. Opposition to the mode of affording the port of Halifax the terminals required, gradually developed, until now I am advised and believe it is quite substantial. This, I venture to say, might have been largely obviated, or would.have culminated more quickly, which would perhaps have been to the advantage of the Department of Railways had the minister taken the public more largely into his confidence, and have afforded them the reasons for the adoption of the terminal scheme as announced. These reasons were apparently given to no person who could or did transmit them to the public. From the * standpoint of the Railway Department this was a mistake; for, in any projected railway location of re-location and construction which affects to any great degree any city or town, it is only fair that they should have an opportunity of expressing their opinion as to the details of .the project. In a projected work involving such conspicuous changes, as in the city of Halifax, it was only fair that the citizens should have had the most ample opportunity of considering the plans and the project generally, so that they might be able to submit their judgment and views upon the matter to the minister for his consideration. The reason why I make that statement is this, that it has transpired that a very strong opposition has developed in the city of Halifax to the proposed location of the projected terminals and this dissentient opinion has never had an opportunity of expressing itself. I am not approaching this matter in a partisan spirit. I have no political interest to serve in doing so. Politics is not the source of the opposition I refer to. I am not even asserting positively that this

1C896
opposition is well founded. I merely say it deserves consideration and attention. I say that in a matter involving as it does the elimination of so much property for residential and business purposes upon a peninsula, now quite restricted for such purposes; involving as it does the creation of a new railway and shipping terminal district- in another part of the city, which* has for a century been used entirely for other^ purposes; involving as it does the question of the practicability of the ocean terminals at the point selected by the department; for these and many other considerations which have, I know, been brought to the minister's attention before this, I do wish to submit to the minister that before making a final determination, further consideration should be given to this matter. A great number of citizens of Halifax, and with some warrant I submit, [DOT]cannot quite understand why sufficient and -efficient terminal accommodation might not have been obtained in that part of the [DOT]city where the railways and principle shipping terminals are now located, or elsewhere on Halifax harbour. It may be that a proper and wise selection has been made, it may be that it would have been, impossible to obtain as suitable and efficient terminals in that portion of the city where the present terminals aTe now located or elsewhere. That may all be true; but I do say this should have and_ could have been made clear to the public. If the city of Halifax could be even yet assured that the best selection was made, that the only suitable, efficient and comprehensive system of railway and shipping terminals was obtainable only at this particular point, then I think any oposi-tion would be largely immediately withdrawn and the minister would hear nothing further about it. My purpose in taking up the time of the committee in relation to this particular matter is to enable me to impress on the minister that there is a very strong desire on the part of a large proportion of the citizens of Halifax that before tenders are asked for and construction of these terminals is commenced, the project as laid out by the engineers of the department -should be made the subject of review by other engineers, particularly of terminal engineers of experience. Some doubt has been expressed as to the experience of the engineers employed by the department on this work.


Francis Cochrane: No.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: At least respecting some of them. I do not approach this question in a partisan way, I have nothing to gain from discussing the matter in that spirit. I have avoided a partisan consideration of the Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax).
matter at all times. I would certainly very much prefer that there was entire unanimity in Halifax upon the subject, I congratulate the Government upon their decision to make the expenditure of money they contemplate for this purpose. I think it was absolutely necessary that an expenditure of this nature should be made in the interest of the port of Halifax, and in order to meet its growing business- I am, of course, speaking generally, and without reference to the specific location of the terminals, and the particular mode of execution. I am not endeavouring particularly to, express my own personal views upon this matter, but am rather trying to reflect what I believe to be the opinion of a very considerable proportion of the citizens of Halifax who are entirely in accord with the wishes of the Government to give that port modern and efficient terminals, but who differ just as to the location of the projected terminals, and I therefore feel that I am justified in asking the minister if he does not think that before proceeding to construct these works he should reconsider the matter of the location of the proposed terminals and have the whole project passed under the review of the very best men he can obtain in the world. I think this a fair and reasonable request. Perhaps an alternative scheme is possible, and which might be better in every respect. I do not think it will take a great deal of time to do this, and the amount of money involved for such a purpose would be inconsequential. In any event a reconsideration of the question will be reassuring and can do no harm. Having put the matter in this way before the minister, I hope he will consider that I* have done it in a reasonable way, because I have no desire to do anything to delay or postpone unduly the construction of the needed terminal facilities at the port of Halifax. I have occupied the time of the committee only because I feel that I o we a duty to many at least'of the constituents whom I represent; and finally because I think I am voicing what is the apparent opinion of a very considerable number of the citizens of Halifax, namely, that the departmental terminal scheme be reconsidered and reviewed by the best port terminal experts available. If they approve of the present government plan and present their reasoned opinions therefor, in preference to any other possible scheme or plan, then I am sure the citizens of Halifax generally will accept the same. They require however some further evidence as to the necessity and advisability of the present plan.


Francis Cochrane: I beg to say that I
had absolutely nothing to do about the luncheon that was given at the time I made the announcement at Halifax. It was a

1089S
non-partisan luncheon, got up by the board of trade, and the president of the board of trade presided, I think a leading liberal there, before that meeting the plans were submitted to them as far as they were completed at that time, so that they could get an idea of what the Government proposed, and I am sorry that I have not with me the telegram that ten leading men of Halifax sent to the Government in appreciation of it. They were five liberals and five conservatives. I have absolutely tried to keep it free of politics altogether. I do not think there has been a great deal of feeling since the announcement was made. Unfortunately, we took options on an old property where we proposed to have this, and on the day of the announcement, people went in to see the options and tore them up, so hostile were they then, because they felt they had lost considerably in giving options on their property before they knew that it was a Government proposition. I do not think that I should be censured for that kind of thing. I feel that we did what was right in the interests, not only of Halifax, but of the whole country.
In reference to the plans, I think I have one -of the most competent harbour engineers that there is on the continent. I understand that a few years ago when the harbour board advertised for plans for Montreal harbour-I think it was at- the time when the board which has now gone out of existence was appointed-the competition was open to everybody, and Mt. Cowie, the engineer who is the adviser of the Government in this case, superintended the whole thing. His plans were accepted in that competition, and I feel satisfied that he is right in this matter. So far as location is concerned, he spent some time down there and looked over the place. He had able engineers there, and they all decided that, unless the Government proposed to expropriate all the wharfs now being used, this was the most feasible and the best plan for the city of Halifax. If we had taken the course suggested and' continued down, it would have interfered with the trade of Halifax to such an extent that matters would have been worse than they are today.
With reference to spoiling the residential portion of the city, I stated when I was there that I would endeavour to do as little damage as possible. It is said that electricity and coke and gasoline have done much in connection with terminals to remove nuisances, and it has been inferred that I would take steps to prevent, as far as possible, nuisance in that section of the country. I propose to act along that line. In reference to the engineering department, I do not think
that any greater engineering feat or more scientific proposition is involved in this than was involved in No. 2 pier which is there now, and I do not think any expert was engaged by my predecessor in planning that out, or in letting the contract.
I do not think he made any mistake. There has been a good deal of talk in reference to using cement piles. It has-been said that a big ship coming up-against them would so jar them as to break them off. Sir John Jackson, who has had considerable experience in these matters, and who has used a considerable number of those piles in building docks, told me that we need not be alarmed, that we are absolutely safe. Therefore, I feel I am going ahead in the Tight direction, in the interests not only of the people of Halifax, but of the whole country, because this is not a Halifax proposition only, but a Canadian proposition.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I have been informed, and I assume correctly, that some time ago the minister had requests-from influential people in Halifax asking for a review of the location and of the project generally as framed by his engineers, and that he gave the matter due consideration and decided to adhere to the present plan, and still adheres to the project as now outlined. In other words, does he decline to reconsider the present plan?


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Has the minister decided how to proceed with the construction of these terminals? I was informed some weeks ago by the minister that so far as the railway part of it was concerned, he proposed asking for tenders, and that he would construct under the tender and contract system. At that time, however, he had not made up his mind as to how the wharfs and piers would be constructed. I was informed that he had under consideration the idea of constructing them by day's work under Government supervision. Will the minister kindly inform us if he has reached any decision on that point?


Francis Cochrane: We propose taking
tenders for the piers, and if they come under the engineer's estimate of what they can be constructed for we will accept them;, if not, we will do the other thing.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What about the railway station? Is the minister proposing to ask for tenders for the railway station at the same time?


Francis Cochrane: Oh, yes._____________


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: In proceeding down the northwest arm of the Halifax peninsula, in getting to the site of the so called terminals, the minister will necessarily interfere very

greatly -with the sewage and water systems; at least I would think so.


Francis Cochrane: We will have to take care of that.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: So that ultimately it
will not be an expense upon the city, is that the idea?


Francis Cochrane: Certainly.


George Perry Graham: I suppose we may take it for granted that this large amount of money for the terminals at Halifax is meant to include accommodation for the Canadian Pacific railway, the Grand Trunk Pacific, the Canadian Northern railway, the Intercolonial railway and the Halifax and Southwestern.	.


Mr. HENDERSON:: And any other railroad.


George Perry Graham: The Canadian Pacific
railway is there now in a way, with certain rights on the Intercolonial, and the Grand Trunk Pacific has in its contract a clause giving it running rights under terms and conditions to be arranged between it and the Government. The Canadian Northern railway will eventually get there in some way. If the minister knows how, I do not, but they are bound to get to Halifax and St. John before very long. The only excuse for this very large outlay would be that it includes accommodation for that traffic. The minister might tell us if it includes accommodation for that traffic. The minister might tell us if it is true that he has arranged to take over the Halifax and Southwestern railway.


Francis Cochrane: I have not heard of
it.


George Perry Graham: I have a good deal of sympathy with some of the remarks made toy the hon. member for Halifax. I am not conversant with the difficulties of locating the line running through the residential property and cannot speak as to them, but this is to toe a very large undertaking. It is a national undertaking, and its object must be borne in mind as the construction goes on. Maybe it is necessary to do what the Government are doing, but what I want to urge upon the minister is that, notwithstanding the ability of Mr. Cowie, and I admit all that the minister says, and in consideration of the fact that this is a national work intended to meet the necessities of the rapidly growing commerce of *Canada, it would be a wise precaution to **at least submit the plans to some authority which Mr. Cowie might himself suggest. There is never a man so great who might not be helped out a little by another view. In the case of the Welland canal, my hon. friend is following that course. I understand he is submitting the plans to Mr. Noble of New York.
Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax).


Francis Cochrane: That is a bigger undertaking, a different thing.	[DOT]


George Perry Graham: It is a different thing, and it is a different engineer to whom he has submitted his plans. Mr. Noble is a good man, and I think the minister is doing right in that respect. He is only following the precedent which was set in constructing the Welland canal in the first place, and also in the reconstruction. I admit there are difficulties surrounding the construction of. the Welland canal that do not appear in this undertaking. I visited the Kiel canal, of great celebrity in Germany, and I consider that the construction of the Welland canal is more intricate in some respects than the construction of the Kiel canal. I am not sure but that in some * points it rivals the Panama canal in difficulties of construction. Notwithstanding that, I approve of what the minister has done there. I think it would be a wise precaution to submit the plans of the harbour part of the work, which would include the terminals, to an expert with ability equal to that of Mr. Cowie, and if these two agreed there could be no question raised. If the other expert disagreed with respect to some details of the work, perhaps he and Mr. Cowie could come to an understanding, because it * might be that Mr. Cowie would agree to what might be. an improvement of his plans. It would be a wise precaution for the minister to take, and especially a wise precaution in view of the fact that this is a great work designed to serve the commerce of Canada for years to come.


Francis Cochrane: I will certainly consult with Mr. Cowie about it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: How long will it take to complete the railway from Fair-view on Bedford basin down to Point Pleasant ? Can you have it finished this year ?
Levis to St. Romuald-double-tracking line, $173,000.


George Perry Graham: How long is that and what is it for ?


Francis Cochrane: This does not appear correctly in the estimates. It should be from Chaudiere Junction to St. Romuald. You know the congested condition there ? We are doing this much this year and we hope to continue it to Levis gradually.


George Perry Graham: And its being in there is an intimation of what is going to happen eventually ?


Francis Cochrane: Yes, but it is not intended to be in there.


George Perry Graham: How long is the line ?


Francis Cochrane: Three and a half miles.


George Perry Graham: That is as expensive as the Transcontinental.


Francis Cochrane: Well, it is pretty expensive ground there, and this amount includes the purchase price. I can give the items:	10,500 cubic yards
solid rock excavation; 5,000 cubic yards loose rock; 25,000 cubic yards common excavation; 16,000 cubic yards burrow; 1,400 cubic yards foundation excavation; 2,100 cubic yards stone-masonry and bridges; 600 cubic yards stone filling behind abutments; 500 cubic yards hand-laid rip-rap; 10,000 feet of 2-inch tongue and groove forms, spruce; 1,000 lineal feet old rails in culvert stop; 20,000 cubic yards ballast; 5 miles track-laying; 20,000 track ties; 600 tons 5-inch steel rails.


George Perry Graham: What is the weight of the rails ?


Francis Cochrane: Eighty pounds to the yard, standard; 50,000 pounds track spikes, and 7,000 pounds track bolts.


George Perry Graham: The rock cutting seems to be quite extensive ?


Francis Cochrane: Yes. And then there is 600,000 cubic yards overhaul 100 feet, and 255,000 pounds of bridge steel. There is very extensive rock cutting. This is the estimate of the district engineer.


George Perry Graham: Mr. Bowden ?


Francis Cochrane: No, Mr. McKenzie, the chief engineer at Moncton.


George Perry Graham: I was going to say a
word further about the construction of the docks at Halifax. The minister may be wrong if he is going to form 'his judgment from the estimate which the engineer will give him no matter how good he is. I understood the minister to say that if the tenders are lower than the engineer's estimate he will let the work by contract, and if not he will do it by day's work. I am not sure whether that is a very "safe guide either way.


Francis Cochrane: It is a check one on the other.	.


George Perry Graham: It is a check but the
.minister says that if the tender is higher than, or as high as, the chief engineer's estimate, he is going to build the docks by day's work. I am inclined to think that his day's work will probably be higher too when he gets it done.


Francis Cochrane: The only objection I
have to doing it by day's work is on account of the big plant that would be required.


George Perry Graham: I was going to point that out as another objection. You have to calculate interest on the plant, wear and tear, and when you are through with it you will have it on your hands for a time at least. There is a great deal to be said in favour of a contract unless the price is not within reason.


Francis Cochrane: I move that the item be changed to read 'from Chaudiere Junction to St. Romuald-double-tracking line.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Levis-improvements at, $160,000.
Rodolphe Lemieux: What are these improvements?


Francis Cochrane: This vote is for the
purpose of buying four pieces of property to extend the terminals at Levis station as follows:
From Rhodes estate: 56,956 square feet of beach at 25 cents, $9,239.
From H. Dussault: 24,420 square feet of beach at 25 cents, $6,105;	22,958 square
feet deepwater lot at 25 cents, $5,714.50; 6,114 square feet wharf at $2, $12,228; total, $24,047.50.
From E. Couture, 5,074 square feet small wharf at $2.50, $12,685 ; 22,657 square feet, large wharf at $2.50,	$56,642.50;	25,015
square feet land at 25 cents, $6,253.75; total, $75,581.25.
Legal expenses, $1,132.25 ;	79 acres of
land for a stockpen, $50,000.
Grand total $160,000.
The accommodation is very .contracted and we are trying to extend it.


George Perry Graham: What plan was adopted in the purchase of these lots? I see that my h'on. friend got into trouble in Halifax by getting opinions and then losing them.


Francis Cochrane: I did not lose them.


George Perry Graham: I understood him to say they were torn up.


Francis Cochrane: Yes, but that did not stop it.	[DOT]


George Perry Graham: Does the minister follow the old method of having valuators appointed, do they give satisfaction or does he occasionally have to change them and get new ones? Who were the valuators?


Francis Cochrane: This is merely an estimate of the cost. We have filed expropriation proceedings; we will appoint arbitrators later or go to the Exchequer Court.


Rodolphe Lemieux: From what I have been able to gather the estimate is not exaggerated.
Moncton-locomotive and oar shops with equipment, $136,000.


George Perry Graham: If the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) were here, be would ask: are you building locomotives or only repairing them?


Francis Cochrane: Only repairing locomotives.


George Perry Graham: And how many cars have you built and of what kind?


Francis Cochrane: We are building box cars.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Where do you buy your locomotives?


Francis Cochrane: From Canadian manufacturers; it is pretty hard to get them.


George Perry Graham: The Moncton shops are not as large but they are as well equipped as any on the continent; will you be able to handle some of the work of the Graqd Trunk Pacific at this point?


Francis Cochrane: I think so. If I had , been in office I would have advocated getting the two yards together and a lot of money could have been saved but unfortunately when I came to the Department the work had gone too far under the late Government. We can repair for the Grand Trunk Pacific but perhaps not build.
Alulgrave-to provide neiv car ferry and ai dock for same, $460,100.
Mr. AlcKENZlE: What kind of a steamer are you getting?


Francis Cochrane: We have not yet asked for tenders. Her length will be 322 feet by 40 feet in width and 14 feet draught. The present steamer is only 282 feet long. The new steamer will have three tracks of .seven cars each. The cars are made longer now and the steamer needs to be longer.
Air. AlcKENZlE: Will there be two boats in use?


Francis Cochrane: Yes. We had to send the old to the dry-dock last May and we .used an old scow which was very dangerous, and yre had to take a great deal of risk.
Air. AlcKENZlE: I think this is a wise expenditure and one which is much needed.


George Perry Graham: I suppose the steamer will be built in Canada?


Francis Cochrane: I am going to try very hard.
_ Air. GRAHAA1: I think the minister is inclined to be a made-in-Canada man if he gets half a chance.
Air. COCHRANE': How much ought we to allow extra for building her in Canada?
Air. LEA1IETTX: Fifteen per cent.
Mr. LEMIETJX


George Perry Graham: I may not be orthodox, but I would be willing to go higher than that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am more conservative than the ex-Alinister of Railways.


George Perry Graham: I would not like to say how far I would go until I saw the tenders, but I would not be confined to fifteen per cent, I think.


Francis Cochrane: The builders in Canada want about twenty per cent extra.


George Perry Graham: I would go that distance to have it made in Canada.


Mr. REID (Minister of Customs):: Would a boat forty-eight feet wide come through the canal? There are ship-building firms at Port Arthur and Collingwood, but I doubt if a steamer of that character could get through the canal.


Francis Cochrane: The deputy minister
tells us the Welland canal is only forty-five feet wide.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: You had better get this ship built in the East.
Original construction, $800.
Mr. A1ACLEAN (Halifax): Is the minister making a survey of the proposed diversion of the Intercolonial railway so as to eliminate the Folly Mountain grade?


Francis Cochrane: I have not done so yet.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Do you propose doing
so this year?


Francis Cochrane: I do, but I would not like to make any promise.


Air. AIACLEAN:: I saw a statement in a newspaper recently that the survey was in progress.


Francis Cochrane: That is not the survey we have been working on.
Improvements at Point Tupper, $90,000.


Mr. KYTE:: Will the minister explain
what this work is?


Francis Cochrane: We were unfortunate in having a fire there this year, and we are going to repair the damage.


George Perry Graham: Sometimes it is a good thing to have a fire.


Francis Cochrane: We only had $11,000 insurance on' this. The works proposed are: Brick station, $25,000; concrete platform, $2,250; grading around station, $2,000; roundhouse, ten stalls, $50,000; turntable, foundation, ring wall, excavation, ties, &e., $3,737; turntable, 75 feet through, steel work, 102,000 lbs., $4,590; coaling pockets, 16 at $225, $3,600; ashpit, complete, including drain, $1,183; tank, complete,

$4,500; sand house, standard, $1,800; stand pipe, set up, $400; pipe from tank to stand pipe, laid, $300; earth and rock excavation 20,000 c. yds., at 75c., $15,000; earth excavation, 6,944 e. yds., at 30c., $2,083.20; rails 67 lb.,' 67 tons, at $25, $1,675; angle bars, 214 pairs, at 45c., $96.30; bolts and nuts, 856 lbs. at 4c., $34.24; track spikes, 4,500 lbs., at 3c., $135; frogs, rigid, 6 at $26.50, $159; guard rails, 6 sets at $16, $96; split points, complete, 6 sets at $45,	$270;
switch ties, 6 sets at $34, $204; switch stands, * Rampo,' 6 sets at $20, $120; track ties, 1,500 at 33c., $495; ballast, 7,000 c. yds. at 30c., $2,100; labour laying track, $313.43; freight shed, $3,500; fire pump, $1,500; engineering, inspection, advertising and contingencies, $10,850; total, $125,419.19; say $126,000, less estimated expenditure of 1912-13, $25,000, leaving $101,000. Loss to be credited to fire renewal account, $11,000; required for 1913-14, $90,000.


George William Kyte: The new station is a considerable distance from the old station, nearly half a mile, whereas, I understand, the freight shed is to be located where the old station was, behind the track. Objection seems to be made by the people residing there on account of the freight sheds being so far from the railway station. Point Tupper is a place where several lines of steamers call, and these deposit freight and passengers at the wharf, which is near the old station. Heretofore all that was necessary was to land the freight and the baggage at the wharf, and put it in the freight room close by, and, when the train came along there was no expense in transporting it to the car. Under the new arrangement, the passenger getting off the steamer must have his baggage transferred to the freight shed, and then it will be necessary for him to get a dray to transport it to the railway station. I suppose those entrusted with the location of the new freight shed have some good reason for its location, but to one who is not an expert it does seem rather an unfortunate location. The Boston boat calls at Port Hawkesbury, and there is very great traffic in the summer of passengers who are trans; ferred by boat from. Hawkesbury to the wharf at Point Tupper. All these people will be inconvenienced by the new location. I should think the Government ought to undertake the construction of a wharf at the new station, so that these steamers could call there and land passengers for that place at the station, and thus save expense in the transfer. I should be glad if the minister would make a note of this and ask those entrusted with the handling of this matter to make a report as to the
desirability of having a public wharf built near the new station.


Francis Cochrane: I have not been at Point Tupper since the station was built, but I will make a note of what the hon. member says and ask the general manager to look into the matter.


George William Kyte: When does the minister expect that the new ferry steamer will be completed and in commission?


Francis Cochrane: I have not asked for tenders. I am waiting to have the vote first.


George William Kyte: What does the minister intend to do for a substitute for the Scotia should she go in dry-dock this summer?


Francis Cochrane: Do what has been
done in the past-make the best shift possible.


George William Kyte: In other times the SS. Mul-grave was there and transferred freight on barges and carried the passengers. But in the fire last summer the slip and apron were destroyed, and I understand the hoisting machinery was taken away and shipped to New Glasgow, so it will be impossible for the minister to take advantage of the makeshift which was used on former occasions. Should anything happen to the Scotia it will be impossible to transfer a pound of freight across the strait of Canso. I think it is unfortunate that those in charge of these matters did not repair the Mulgrave slip or apron. There is no apron to allow the barges to discharge freight cars at Point Tupper at the present time.
Riviere du Loup-additional facilities,


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: I would like to know if the minister is aware of the scheme under consideration by the former Administration by which extensive wharfs were to be built at Fraserville, not only for un- [DOT] loading coal for the Intercolonial railway, but especially for the development of the lumber industry. I do not know whether the Minister of Railways and Canals is aware, but Riviere du Loup port is one of the best ports below Quebec, in spite of what my hon. friend from Rimouski (Mr. Boulay) would say. The reason why the scheme could not be carried out, as I have been informed, was that the Minister of Public Works at the time could not get the ear of the Minister of Railways to make him share in the expense of the work.. Last year we had in the estimates of the Public Works Department for rivers and harbours in Quebec, an item of $75,000 or $78,000. Nothing was spent last summer. Perhaps the Minister of Public Works did not feel like inviting the Minister of Railways to share the expense. This year we have in the Railway Department $78,000,

and, if you look at the item for harbours and rivers under the Public Works Department you will find an item for $50,000 for improvements in the harbour. I would like to know from the Minister of Railways if he is converted now to share the expense of _ the work we were promised. What is going to be done about that work at Riviere du Loup?


Francis Cochrane: I think the hon. gentleman has got the wrong idea about fhe Minister of Public Works being converted. The arrangements were made last year, but we did not go on and spend the money, because the work which had to be done under the Public Works Department was not finished and our work could be done so much quicker. The wharf was not of much use to the boats because the water is shallow.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: How is the $78,000 to be spent?


Francis Cochrane: We have to build a
track down to the wharf. I believe this work is a good business proposition. We haul up to Quebec by boat about 50,000 tons of coal for Riviere du Loup, and we rail it down. If we had this dock and the track and other facilities for unloading- which I hope will be better than they are at Quebec, because the unloading costs about forty cents to sixty cents a ton more than we could buy the coal for at Montreal-we could save a great expense on that rail carriage and handling, besides making the transport by vessel a little cheaper than to Quebec.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: There is nothing in
that amount for the building of a new station at Riviere du Loup?


Francis Cochrane: You have a pretty
good station there now.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Then the minister
. must have passed at Riviere du Loup during the night, if he speaks that way; but, after all, if we can get that amount spent on coaling at Rivi&re du Loup, I shall be satisfied for this summer.


Mr. MICHAUD:: Is it impossible for passengers from the province of Quebec, taking the train at Rivi&re du Loup, at 11,30 p.m. to find out from the station agent an hour or two before the express comes in whether or not they can get accommodation in the pullman? A number of passengers come to that place about nine o'clock in the evening and cannot get any such information from the station agent. If the conductor of the pullman would wire from Ste. Flavie that he has certain berths vacant, it would accommodate the public.


Francis Cochrane: I shall be very glad to make a note of it and look into the matter.
Rolling stock, $1,000,000.


George Perry Graham: This rolling stock for
capital account is $1,000,000, but that is not all to be spent on rolling stock?


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


George Perry Graham: This question came up this afternoon on some other item. In the management of the railways, three new accounts have been established; I do not know whether they are maintained or not, there is the equipment renewal account, the rail renewal account and the fire protection account.


Francis Cochrane: They are all kept up.


George Perry Graham: I should like to know
what amounts are expended each year out of revenue. Take the tail renewal account. An amount is taken out of revenue and placed in that account. While it does not appear in the estimates, it is in that account just the.same; but it does not have to be reported as it has been taken from the surplus. The same thing happens with the equipment renewal account and the fire protection account. These will not appear in the estimates as they are included in the amount required for operating expenses and not for capital account. I should like to get a statement of the three accounts.


Francis Cochrane: For the rail renewal account, $150,000 is the amount kept up each year; equipment renewal account, $300,000; fire protection account, $60,000. This is what we have bought out of revenue since April 1, 1912: one hundred and thirty coal cars, sixty refrigerator cars, one hundred and fifty wooden box cars, one snowplough, twelve thousand steel box cars, one hundred and fifty platform cars, two tank cars, one hundred dump cars, ten first-class passenger coaches, two dining cars, two sleeping cars, three baggage cars, thirty consolidated locomotives, four switching locomotives.


George Perry Graham: These purchases have
been made out of revenue and not out of capital at all?


Francis Cochrane: Yes. Out of the
present $1,000,000, four hundred steel frame cars and twenty freight engines have.been ordered. The cost of the freight engines is $470,000. The cost of the freight cars is $484,000. Inspection, &c., makes up the million dollars.


George Perry Graham: What has been spent out of fire protection?


Francis Cochrane: About $17,000 up to
the 1st of March.


George Perry Graham: The question of all steel construction of passenger coaches has been taken up by all the leading railways, parti-
Mr. GAUVREAU,

cularly where there are fast-running trains. I think the time has come when we might begin making up that- fast train the Ocean Limited out of all steel cars.


Francis Cochrane: It is well worth looking into.	.


William F. Carroll: Have any changes been made in the tariff of freight rates charged to the Dominion Steel Corporation at Sydney?


Francis Cochrane: The figures have been raised. We .could not go on paying the coal company an increase of some fifty cents per ton and the men some $750,000 or $1,000,000 more, and still charge the same rate. I do not think we have made a dollar out of the steel company's business from Sydney to Montreal. No freight on this continent is carried as cheaply as theirs.


William F. Carroll: Some time ago, while
some of the hon. minister's estimates were being considered, I brought to his attention the fact that a report was current that there was likely to be a change in the Dominion Steel Company's tariff over the Intercolonial railway. At that time I gave expression to a hope that the minister would * reconsider any notion that he had of increasing this tariff. I do not know whether or not there should be any favours in this country, so far as real favouritism is concerned, but I do contend that the Dominion Steel Corporation having been given in its earlier days a schedule of freight rates over the Intercolonial railway that were somewhat lower than the ordinary rates, that at this particular period of the history of that institution the freight rates should not be raised. The Dominion Steel Corporation, like other new corporations in this country, has much to contend with. The gentlemen who saw fit to put their money in the new scheme of manufacturing steel on the harbour of Sydney were given certain privileges by the people of the city of Sydney and by the Dominion Government in the shape of tariffs and of bonuses, they were also granted certain privileges by the Government of Nova Scotia, all those things were done at that time with a desire to influence the men interested in the Dominion Steel Corporation to start operations in this country. Some of these privileges were afterwards taken away, the bounties on steel rods were removed by the late Government and although the Conservative party in the eastern part of Nova [DOT] Scotia was profuse of promises prior to the last election that if returned to power they would renew the bounties on steel, not only was there not a renewal of the bounties but, now we find that their rates over the Intercolonial railway are being raised. First of all the tariff
in the sheds at Sydney has been raised one hundred per cent, and now the corporation has as much as it can do to make both ends meet. It was granted those privileges with the idea of influencing these men to put their capital into the enterprise. These institutions are up against a proposition that not only are they not receiving those bounties, but also they are finding that they are compelled to pay higher rates of freight. I contend that every dollar that the Dominion Steel Corporation are obliged to pay over to the railway over and above their freight rates of the past, is a dollar taken out of the workmen of eastern Nova Scotia, because if the Dominion Steel Corporation has to pay more freight they will certainly have to make a decrease in their wages in order to make both ends meet. I think it is most unfair that this institution, the Dominion Steel Corporation, having been given the idea that they were to have a cheap rate over the Intercolonial railway, should at this particular period of its history be made to pay a higher rate than they have hitherto paid. The eastern section of the Intercolonial railway is the best paying part of that railway, or if it is not the best it ranks second only to the Montreal-end. I say it is discouraging to capitalists who have placed their money in this province, it will discourage future capitalists from doing so under the idea that they are getting certain privileges and, as representing the constituency where the Dominion Steel Corporation carries on its business, 1 protest to the minister and this Government, I protested when this news gained currency, that it is unfair not only to this corporation but to eastern Nova Scotia and unfair to the workingmen of Nova Scotia. The steel corporation of Sydney has been instrumental, [together with the coal company, in building up good towns in Sydney, Glace Bay and other parts of the country. These towns afford markets for the farmers of Nova Scotia, not only of Nova Scotia but of Prince Edward Island and the eastern section of New Brunswick and I think it is rather discouraging that the Minister- of Railways should see fit to make this change in view of the fact that this end of the line is one of the very best paying sections of the whole road. I can only add my word of protest against this increase so far as the eastern section of Nova Scotia is concerned. What does this mean? It means this, further, that the Intercolonial railway are not going to gain- anything by this change, for I dare say the Dominion Steel Company will hereafter ship as much as they can by water rather than submit to this increase in freight rates over the Intercolonial railway. If the Intercolonial railway were going to gain by this increase it would not be so bad but I believe the

railway will be the loser. The corporation are bound not to pay such a high tariff and having that in view they will endeavour in every possible way to make all shipments from Sydney by water.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Is the minister going to let a contract this summer for the work at Riviere du Loup?


Francis Cochrane: If the Minister of Public Works goes on we certainly will.


Mr. MARCIL:: With regard to the explanation the minister gave concerning rolling stock, do I understand that the number of freight cars on the Intercolonial railway has been increased?


Francis Cochrane: Yes, largely increased.


Charles Marcil: That was a source of
complaint last winter. With your permission I should like to read extracts from a number of letters that have a bearing on this matter. I have already had an ap-portunity in the present session of congratulating the minister on the improved passenger service he has given in our constituency by maintaining the Ocean Limited throughout the year. That was a good move and the result was very important to the Gaspesian peninsula where people are landed at Metapedia at nine o'clock in the morning instead of at two or three in the morning. I hope that the freight service will be equally improved, and for this reason I would call attention to some of these letters which have been in my desk 4oi some time past, although the conditions may not be quite the same as when these letters were written. I have a letter here from a leading merchant in Bonaventure enclosing letters from millers with whom he deals. His letter reads:
I inclose letters received from some of the millers with whom I deal, which speak for themselves. They might be of some use tc you and you could mention facts and omit the names of the firms. One car of flour left Brantford on November 30 and arrived ai Giroux January 7, the other left Seaforth first week of December and arrived at Girous on January 7 also. I got sold out of flour before the holidays and there was a genera' King out. for flour from Nouvelle to New ifrchmond. I disappointed my customers, lost '[DOT]jade and feel that I have a clear damage foi the break m trade which $1,000 would not cover.
Attached to this letter are two letters from large milling firms of Canada, one of which reads:
We are in receipt of your favour of the 27th, and in reply beg to say that we are very sorry for delay in delivery of your car, and we are tracing same. The railroads are very much behind in their deliveries on account of congestion of freight.
Another milling firm is somewhat outspoken in its language, but I shall read it as it is. By this letter there seems to be a difficulty somewhere; it reads:
Montreal, Jan. 6, 1913.
We have your favour of the 4th and we certainly'do not blame you one bit for making a big kick about the delay in the delivery of your car. It is a downright 6hame the way the Intercolonial railway people are de4; laying some cars. We must say that the, greater part of their cars seem to go through pretty well, but occasionally there are cars that are held around Montreal, Campbellton, and other places in a most vexatious way to the very great annoyance and loss of the buyers. If you do refuse the car we will not blame you. If refused we will sell it to the best advantage we can and will endeavour to make an example of the Intercolonial railway over it. We do not think, however, that our cars are any worse delayed than thosei shipped by our competitors. You know that it is not our fault. We are tracing cars till we are black in the face, and we are doing everything we possibly can to get them forward quickly. The only thing we can suggest is for the shippers and buyers of flour! to get their heads together and make a determined protest against the damnable treatment we are getting from this Government road. There are no politics in it with us, not a hit, but business is business, and it is a crime the way the public are being served. For our part, we do not pretend to submit to it, and if we can get the necessary help, we will stir up a rebellion if this thing goes on any longer. What do you suggest your self
This letter contains only a portion of the truth. I have heard a number of complaints in this House about the shortage of cars, and I thought they applied only to the western part of Canada, hut I see that the same evil has occurred in the eastern part of Canada along the line of the Intercolonial. The Intercolonial railway may not be wholly responsible, or may not toe responsible at all, but the inconvenience is there, and I think it my duty to call the minister's attention to it, to see if- it cannot be remedied. I consider the branch line in my constituency practically a branch of the Intercolonial, and I would like to read an-extract from another letter showing the great disadvantage to which merchants using that branch line are put to. This letter reads:
As it is now, it is getting so we can't ship anything, its too costly.^ I shipped one car of potatoes in December billed from St. Godfroy to New Carlisle, a distance of 10 miles, $10, and New Carlisle to Matapedia, 98 miles, $24. You can see what amount the poor farmers have to pay; they have to give their good^ reduced to compete with the farmers on the Intercolonial railway.
I have already called the minister's attention to the advisability of taking over the Quebec Oriental railway and the Atlantic, Quebec and Western railway. Among
Mr. CARROLL.	'll

documents brought down to the House last week there is an important letter, which might not have attracted the minister's attention, and which I would like to read. It might be an encouragement to increase the number of cars on the Intercolonial railway, because all the cars used on that branch line come from the Intercolonial railway. The letter is from the St. Lawrence Pulp and Lumber Corporation, and reads:
Pabos Mills, P.Q., April 1,1913. E. A. Bouillon, Esq.,
Baspebiac, Que.
Dear Sir,.-In further reference to our conversation regarding proposed operations, I beg to state that we propose erecting a pulp mill with an output of 30.000 tons per annum, and sawmills to cut 30,000,000 of feet per annum- with a probability of an increased output later on.
Naturally, we have been counting to a great extent upon railway facilities for our operan tions especially as regards our -winter operas tion; and, the lack of an effective railway service will, of course, have the effect of obliging* us to curtail our contemplated manufacture-! if indeed we do not take steps to manufacture elsewhere, by shipping the raw material ini summer, by water, to a more congenial spot. This -would naturally have a very discouraging effect, and I sincerely trust that you may succeed in your endeavours to have the Govt ernment take over and operate the railway.
Regretting my inability to be present at Ottawa,	.
I am, yours very truly,
St. Lawrence Pu'lp and Lumber Corporation, per H. W. Racy,
Manager. |
That is another important statement in regard to the shortage of cars in that district, and I hope that in the estimates the minister has now before the House provision is made for this car shortage, so that it will not occur again. In that particular portion of the province of Quebec, we have not the advantage possessed by our friends in New Brunswick or Nova Scotia, where they have several railways. We are entirely dependent on the Intercolonial, and when the Intercolonial fails us, everything fails us. So far as the Intercolonial is concerned, any improvement will receive my hearty support. I know from experience that the passenger service has been very much improved, and I am glad to know that the minister is taking steps to improve the freight service.


Francis Cochrane: The very thing upon
which my hon. friend congratulated me in connection with the running of the Ocean Limited, had the effect of making her short of motor power. We had a good deal of trouble last year, and for three reasons. The first was that the yards of the Grand Trunk railway were very congested, and it was almost impossible to handle the freight and to hand it over to us promptly, -with the result that cars lay there for a
month. The congestion was so great that we had to put a man there and get right after them. Then we were short of motor power, and made slow time. We are trying to rectify that as fast as we can, and hope that next winter the service will be much better. There were a good many complaints about the Ocean Limited being late, but at one time, owing to the deep snow, we thought we would not be able to continue it. Fortunately we were able to do so, but it took up a lot of motor power. We would have changed the time table had we thought we were going to run the Ocean Limited all winter. We were trying to make summer time in winter, which was impossible and unsafe. I have had an occasional complaint in respect to cars from the branch line referred to, and I would be very glad if we had enough cars to serve the purposes of all those who want them, but we have to take care of our own traffic first. But with this vote I hope to have more motive power, and with the cars already received, and with those on order now, we will be able to give better satisfaction to the people there.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I understood the minister to say that they set apart $100,000 only for the replacement of cars. That would mean twenty or twenty-five miles of rails. Would that be sufficient on the average to cover the wear and tear of the rails?


Francis Cochrane: I would not be able to express an opinion upon it, I do not know.. I am told that the amount is $150,000.


Mr. McKENZIE:: There are two or three
things in connection with the rolling stock to which I wish to call attention. In the earlier part of the session, I spoke of the defective locomotives on the Cape Breton end of the road. I do not know if anything has been done to better the situation. Last October, November and December, the conditions were very bad indeed, as the minister knows. I do not know whether it is the custom to transfer locomotives across the Strait of Canso. I suppose it is not desirable to transfer them frequently. The traffic from Canso down to Sydney is very heavy and I would urge upon-the minister the necessity of giving us good locomotives. I think that one or two good locomotives should be put there, and as the run is only about ninety miles, the rails heavy and the road bed fairly good, they should last quite a long time. We had too many experiences last year of being three and four hours late in that short run from Point Tupper to Sydney. I trust it will not be necessary to say anything further to the minister on that subject.
There is another matter that I brought to the attention of the minister last winter when we had something up in connection

with, the road. I refer to the necessity of supplying cars, not cold storage cars, in which to carry fish. In the fall of the year, in the part of the country I come from, it is impossible to get sailing vessels to come in for the fish that are caught away north and right out into the ocean. The market for these fish is in the New England States, Boston, New York and other places and the only way of sending the fish is over the Intercolonial railway. We have a steamer running from North Sydney down the shore. She brings the fish to the end of the Intercolonial railway and iwe could send it out if we could get the cars. Last year we could not get cars. We were told that fish gives a 'bad odor to a car and that possibly it would not be suitable for anything else. That is hardly a sufficient reason. I think that there could be a few cars set apart even if they had to be devoted altogether to this kind of work. As the Intercolonial is our only railway we should be given an opportunity of shipping our fish out over it. In the fall of the year there is splendid fishing. Great runs of fish come in along the coast very late in the fall until it gets too cold for people to go out and fish, and if we could get cars we could always count on a catch of fish to send away. I hope the minister will provide us with some cars.
There is one thing more, and it has reference to the train connections at Truro. I do not know whether the matter can be remedied or not. As I have personal knowledge of this matter I wish to bring it to the attention of the minister. The last time I had to go to North Sydney from here I went by the Intercolonial railway and arrived at Truro at about four o'clock in the afternoon. The Intercolonial train came along from Halifax at about eight o'clock. Passengers who * had come from the west had to stay at Truro from four o'clock in the afternoon until eight o'clock in the evening. Then the Intercolonial came in from Halifax and the passengers were ready to go right on to Sydney but they had to stay there until one o'clock in the morning waiting for the Canadian Pacific railway train. My hon. friend will realise that it is a rather tough proposition for a passenger to get to Truro at four o'clock in the afternoon, get his own train at eight and then be obliged to stay there until half past twelve or one o'clock in the morning before he can make a start to go home. This may be impossible of improvement but as this was my own personal experience I want to inform the minister that if there is any possibility of bettering that situation I would like to have it done. The stay is altogether too long. I have no doubt the man who is coming on the Canadian Pacific railway is very anxious to make connection, and Mr. McKENZIE.
I sympathise with him, but if something could be done to better the [DOT] situation I think it would be hightly desirable. It discourages traffic on the Intercolonial railway. If you know that. you are going to be kept seven or eight "hours at Truro you feel that you might as well go by the other road and not be detained at all.


Francis Cochrane: I will be very
glad to look into these matters.


Herménégilde Boulay: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bonaven-ture has just complained of the want of freight cars on the Intercolonial. For my part I have received a great many complaints about this. We have a real grievance in Rimouski in connection with the want of cars for the shipping of freight in the Metapedia valley and other parts of the county of Rimouski, where there is a big trade in potatoes. I may say that I have been overwhelmed with letters on this subject and I know that the superintendent of the railway has been hard pressed to give patrons of the road the cars that they needed. It often happens that one has to wait for over a month and after the cars are loaded they are left for a full month on the sidings.
In days gone by it was sought to make the Intercolonial pay by cutting down the expense for the purchase of cars and even of engines. That was the way they tried to get a surplus. I am glad to find a substantial increase in the amount to be voted this year for rolling stock. I have even strong doubt of the amount being sufficient. Traffic has increased and is constantly increasing on the Intercolonial, as elsewhere, for that matter, and moreover there are new branches built Which are using our cars. In that way t'he Baie des, Chaleurs, Intercolonial and Caraquet railways are using our cars to carry their freight. Instead of supplying cars for the service of those lines connecting with the Intercolonial, it would be more practical and more in the interest of the country to buy these branch lines of railway. We are already supplying them with the cars they need. The Intercolonial could operate these railways cheaper than they can be operated by the companies; it already has the necessary plant, such as shops, &e., and it could realize better profits than the companies. I hope the.hon. Minister of Railways will take the necessary steps for the purchase of these branch lines before the Pacific Company takes hold of them. There is the railway from Ste. Flavie to Matane, the International, the Caraquet railway, the Baie des Chaleurs railway, I mean the road that goes from Metapedia to Gaspe. I hope that means will be taken to purchase these branches and thus increase the profits of the Intercolonial.


Charles Marcil: What the hon. gentleman from Rimouski says is quite true, that the branch lines in eastern Canada are provided with Intercolonial railway cars. On this two hundred miles of railway on the Gaspe coast the cars all-belong to the Intercolonial railway, with a stray Grand Trunk railway or Canadian Pacific railway car. The same thing is true of the Caraquet railway, and several other branch lines. This may be a strain to the Intercolonial railway, but it is also an argument in favour of taking over the branch lines, seeing that all the business comes from and goes to the Intercolonial railway.


George Perry Graham: Someone has suggested
that all these cars have not been purchased by tender during the past year.


Francis Cochrane: Except the last five hundred for which the order was extended.


George Perry Graham: A year or so ago the contract was given, and it was extended without asking for tenders.


Francis Cochrane: Oh, no, it was only given two months before the extension.


George Perry Graham: If that be the case it is almost a violation of the statute.


Francis Cochrane: No.


George Perry Graham: I am told that at the
time the order was extended these cars could be bought for $100 each cheaper than was paid for them.


Francis Cochrane: We asked for tenders from all the concerns. We extended the contract because they said they would give us the cars before navigation closed.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Where did you buy the cars?


Francis Cochrane: The Nova Scotia Car Company of Halifax.
Mr;. GRAHAM: I (aim told ithat you could have got them for $100 per car less at the time the order was extended.


Francis Cochrane: .1 would like to know where. There is a company which started up since which could not have given us cars ait the time.


George Perry Graham: I did not refer to that company.


Francis Cochrane: I was told something similar since by the hon. member for Pictou.


George Perry Graham: I did not know that company was doing business. My information was, of course it may not be correct, that tenders were asked for and after several months had elapsed the order was extended for five hundred more cars costing $600,000, and that if tenders had been asked for at the time the extension was made, the cars could have been got for one hundred dollars each less.


Francis Cochrane: Where ?


George Perry Graham: Perhaps the same company; the price quoted was less generally.


Francis Cochrane: The tenders were
exactly the same, and I do not think the cars could have been got for less. If they could, I would like to know where.
Safety appliances for equipment, $21,000.


George Perry Graham: How long will it be before all the old cars are equipped with safety appliances ?	*


Francis Cochrane: In about two years.
St. John-to increase accommodation, $18,000.


George Perry Graham: There was an arrangement made at St. John with a sugar refinery that they were to ship their freight. Has the refinery shipped any freight yet ?


Francis Cochrane: I do not think so. The arrangement was completed only last fall.
Surveys and inspections, $25,000.


Mr. CHISHOLM (Inverness):: I accompanied a delegation which waited on the minister with respect to the pi*bposed branch line between Orangedale and Cheti-. camp. I have discussed the merits of that branch line in the House on two occasions. At the time the delegation met the minister I suggested that he should send one of his engineers down and report on the merits of this line from a traffic standpoint. The minister acquiesced, and I am glad to say carried out his promise, and the report is now in his hands. I asked for the report five or six months ago, but did not get it.
I believe the report is very .favourable to the construction of this li-ne, and I am, convinced it could not be otherwise than favourable. I give myself credit for being candid enough to say that I would not suggest to the minister. that he send his engineer down there .if I did not believe in the merits of the proposed railway. I have watched the policy of the minister with regard to branch lines, and I may tell him, as I told him before, that I have always had faith in his line, and I have faith in it now more than ever. It is n,ot necessary to take up the time of the committee to go over the same ground again, as I have discussed it on two occasions. The minister knows my opinion; he has the opinion of the delegation that waited on him, and he has the opinion of his own engineer, to which I attach a great deal of importance and which I believe is-favourable to the construction of the line.
I trust the minister will give this proposi-

tion careful consideration, and as soon as possible will do something to start the construction of that line. And I would like if the minister would be good enough to give the committee his opinion of that report.


Francis Cochrane: The report is altogether too rosy, I am afraid; the actual facts would not bear it out.


Alexander William Chisholm: I am glad to get the minister's opinion. I suppose I can have very little hope for the construction of that line under the circumstances. The engineer who reported was selected by the minister and I suppose he -was one with the necessary qualifications to make a thorough report. But now, because the report is too favourable to the road the minister thinks it too rosy. I thought I had accomplished a great deal when I got the minister to give consent to send the engineer down. But now, having received the report of the engineer, he considers it too rosy.
Sydney Mines, diversion, $10,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This is a very important piece of work. I suppose every member of Parliament regards the work of his constituency as important, but this has been regarded as important from the Intercolonial standpoint. It will have the effect of removing a serious defect in the line of that important railway. It is getting rid of a very serious grade and will enable the road to do three times the business that it is capable of doing to-day. A considerable amount of money has been expended in building the line as far as Sydney Mines. I have no hesitation in telling the minister that the expenditure that has been made will be useless unless the work is completed. It is necessary to extend the line. Of course, when he gets to Sydney Mines he can link up with the Intercolonial railway which carries him to ,North Sydney. We have the line completed from Georges River to Little Bras d'Or, and from. Little Bras d'Or to Sydney Mines. But from North Sydney to Leitch's Creek, four or five miles the line is not yet touched. I have urged the minister to fill in that gap. The sum of $40,000 will not complete that work, and it is important to complete the whole loop from Georges River to Leitch's Creek. So far as my own town of North Sydney is concerned, that has far outgrown the local terminals there. The min-isfer's officials will tell him that the Newfoundland traffic has grown so enormously that the terminal facilities he has there cannot handle the traffic at all. While I am anxious to have these terminal facilities at North Sydney, I tell the minister frankly that it would not be well for him to spend money on the terminus he has now. He must remove it, for the present location will not afford him the facilities necessary Mr. CHISHOLM (Inverness).
for the road. I pointed out to his officials that the proper place for the terminus is what is called Ballast Ground. I do not wish to bind the minister to any particular route; but I do say that if he and the Government are willing to properly equip that terminus, they will put the rails down on Ballast Ground, where they have a magnificent area and plenty of room and deep water all around it. There is no other spot in North America quite so well fitted for an ocean terminal as Ballast Ground at North Sydney. I trust the minister will build these terminals and build them quickly. I have urged this upon these officials, also the building of the gap between North Sydney and Leitch's creek.


Francis Cochrane: This item is to finish the work we have been constructing. There is in the supplementaries $100,000 to start the connection the hon.- gentleman is so anxious to build. The land damages on the front line are very high according to the figures I get and that may confine us to the back line which we can build for less than a half of the other and make as good connections. The matter has not yet been settled as to whether we shall take the front line or the back, but we are making progress and propose to go on.
Increased accommodation and facilities along the line, $126,000.


Francis Cochrane: I have here a list of the proposed improvements:
Sydney drop pit	$ 1,000
Between Sydney and Jefferson's siding
to hold 30 oars	 3,551|
11 aw kes buliy Junction, extension or
siding, 20 car lengths	 1,432
New Glasgow, additional sidings..	..	7,8161
Stellarton drop pit	 1,000
Westville, extension of freight	shed..	1,775
Pictou, extension to ice house	 1,020
Oxford Junction, hot water heating in
station	 700
Springhill Junction, extension of siding	 768
Amherst, additional sidings	 4,900
Boundary Creek, addition to freight
room	   1,085
Hampton, turntable at	 3,500
Bathurst, extension of siding	 3,104(
Rimouski, tracks to freight shed	..	..	2,683
St. Romuald, enlarging station building and additional yard accommodation	 4,953
Ste. Rosalie, additional siding....accommodation	_	i	5,270
College Bridge, new station	 4,500
Drummondville, coal handling yard and extension to freight shed..	..	..	9,200
Chaudiere Junction, additional sidings and drop pit	 31,000
U.nforseen	1 25,000


Charles Marcil: No items in the Matapedia valley.


Francis Cochrane: I did not read them
all.


Charles Marcil: Are there any from
Matapedia West?


Francis Cochrane: St. Andre, Causapscal, Moffat's, Montmagny.
Truro-to increase accommodation, $155,000.


George Perry Graham: There used to be an
annual discussion about some place that required filling in these towns. What became of that?


Francis Cochrane: I think they are all
filled now. $99,000 of it is a revote.


George Perry Graham: Will this amount finish the station and everything at Truro?


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


George Perry Graham: What will the whole amount be?


Francis Cochrane: $294,887.
Spur line to Wallace harbour, $69,500.


Francis Cochrane: This was an agreement entered into by the coal company. They have not carried out their part of it. They were to build a dock and do the dredging done there. We are revoting it to some extent.


George Perry Graham: To see what they would do?


Francis Cochrane: When they start
work we will carry it out. We made a contract to haul a certain amount of coal down there at so much per -ton, but they have not done their part yet.
To increase water supply, $41,500.


Francis Cochrane: This is at different
places along, the line. Matapedia-pipe line, dam and tank, gravity supply, $17,100; Assemetkwagan-pipe line, dam and tank gravity supply, $7,400. We find it pays to put in these tanks.


Charles Marcil: The next station west
from Matapedia is St. Alexis. Has anything been done there?


Francis Cochrane: I have no vote for it. There is water supply at the following stations: Bloomfield, Merrigomish, Broek-ville, Cold Brook, Dorchester. Wells at stations, $3,900.
Towards the construction of a railway from a point on the Intercolonial railway at or near Dartmouth, in the county of Halifax, via Musquodoboit harbour and the valley of the Musquodoboit to Dean's settlement in the said county, $1,000,000.


George Perry Graham: This is one of the lines for which a contract was given some years ago. How long is the road, and what is the estimated cost per mile?


Francis Cochrane: Seventy-three miles;
estimated cost, $28,545 per mile.
345	' ' "*>
I


George Perry Graham: This road will run
through some timber territory.


Francis Cochrane: I do not think it gets as far as the timber territory.


George Perry Graham: What weight of rails are you using on that road?


Francis Cochrane: 65 and 67 pound, the old rails. $600,000 of this is a revote.


George William Kyte: In the absence of the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair), I should like to ask if the hon. minister is prepared to make any announcement tonight as to whether the construction of the Guysborough railway will be undertaken.


Francis Cochrane: Not yet.


George Perry Graham: Is that the road which had the very high estimated cost?


Francis Cochrane: It was $68,000 a mile there.


George Perry Graham: The estimate was made almost on a Grand Trunk Pacific standard, which was not necessary at all.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Has there been any
change in the classification on the work now under construction from Dartmouth eastward? A very serious change was made in the classification after the work was well under way, a change which means a great loss of money and possibly ruination to some of the sub-contractors. I am speaking now from some professional knowledge of the subject. Certain contractors and sub-contractors tendered on the work along the lines of classification that had held good in eastern Nova Scotia for many years. After the work commenced and for some months down, I think, to the month of May or June of last year, they received a classification which gave them a fair profit after paying their ordinary expenses. For some reason a new order went forth from Ottawa, and the engineers on the work were ordered and compelled to give an entirely new classification, I understand, very much against their better judgment.


Francis Cochrane: That is absolutely untrue. No new specification and no new orders have been given.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I did not say there was a change in the specification; I said there was a change in the classification,


Francis Cochrane: There was not.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I tell my Ron. friend
that there was.


Francis Cochrane: I know, but the hon. gentleman makes a statement that it was given forth from Ottawa. I say that is absolutely untrue. I know what I am talking about.



1092T


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think I know what I am talking about. If necessary, I _ shall be glad to produce the proofs. Engineers in Nova Scotia did get instructions from Ottawa, and acting on these instructions changed the classification and cut it down until some contractors will lose money. There is hardly a man on the work but will lose money, let alone making a profit. It may be that it was the proper classification, I am only telling the minister the facts that took place. I know because clients of mine were interested. I not only heard them but I went on the work myself.


Francis Cochrane: That would not prove the classification.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I saw the engineers and the instructions. If the minister will investigate he will find I am telling what is true and the classification was changed.


Francis Cochrane: No, Sir.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It was changed in May or June of last year.


Francis Cochrane: Neither one nor the
other.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: And amounts were
taken out of the estimates which had been given before, in June, July or August of last year, in order to bring it down to the new classification. A great injustice has been done to practically every contractor on the work. I shall give the minister privately the- names of the officials in Ottawa who gave the instructions. I wish he would make the inquiry.


Francis Cochrane: I have been into it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I wish he would do
justice to these people and put the classification back where it was.


Francis Cochrane: This contract was
let when I came in, the specifications were drawn and there were no changes in the specifications or classification. The point is it was let to Messrs. Davis and Company and they sub-let to another and this sub-contractor again sublet so that there are two rake-offs, if these men are losing money. The question of hard pan comes in but that hard pan was to be seen and ii the men the hon. member speaks of had gone over the ground they could have seen for themselves. There is at least 20 per cent profit being made off the sub-contractors. The contractors took the easy sections themselves and then these men went on blindfold and we are hot the parties to make good to them. We are holding the original contractors, and it is to them that the sub-contractors should go if they have been misled in any way.
Mr. COCHRANE.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The minister has not
denied one statement I made. I know that the contractors were the Davis firm and that they sub-let portions of the contract. I think the first twenty miles was sublet to one firm.


Francis Cochrane: There have not been
two interpretations of the specifications.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have seen the original estimates and 1 tell the minister that a certain classification was given in June and May and after that that classification was taken away. While the first classification would yield a profit, the other classifications entailed an actual loss.


Francis Cochrane: Here is the deputy
minister and he does not know.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Let him go to his chief engineer and he will find out there.


George Perry Graham: When does the minister expect this to be completed?


Francis Cochrane: We hardly hope it
will be finished this year up to L6vis.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Engineers on the work
advised contractors who were going to throw up their job to go on with the work with the promise that the May classification would be restored.


Francis Cochrane: He had no authority to do anything of the kind.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He did it,


Francis Cochrane: I connot help that.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He did it to me personally, and the result was that the contractors went on and did the work and they have had their classification reduced and lost money. The trouble with my hon. friend is that he will not believe a man is telling the truth when he is.


Mr. GERMAN:: It seems to me that the hon. member for Carleton has made a serious charge, if he has received information from engineers in the department that is not in the possession of either the minister or the deputy. If that is so, the minister should ascertain it, and such a man should receive his conge in rather short order.


Mr. D. A. LAFORTUNE (Montcalm):: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, when the Great Northern Railway Company buil't the branch line which starts from Ruisseau St. Jacques and goes to Rawdon, it was agreed that a siding would be laid near the village of St. Alexis, to accommodate the interests in that parish. Since then the company has often been approached but it has failed to grant the demands of the people, and interested parties in St. Alexis had to build that siding themselves, at their own cost, which is a crying injustice, and such an j important company as the Great Northern

should not be guilty of leaving this siding to 'be constructed by the people instead of building it themselves.	.
That road shortens by about two miles the distance between Euisseau St. Jacques and St. Alexis.
Had that siding been built as agreed, the distance to the main line would only be one and a quarter miles. I't is a great hardship, especially when the roads are bad, to be obliged to go four miles. It is still harder for the traders, farmers and manufacturers who are obliged to go to that station. The company has often 'been asked to lay that siding, and recently the parishioners, seeing that nothing was being done, have felt compelled to build it themselves.
It is a crying injustice. These companies ask subsidies from Parliament, they are well treated and liberally subsidized. It seems to me that means ought to be taken to compel them to grant such just requests made by the tax-payers and to force them to build these roads themselves.
I ask the hon. Minister of Railways, who seems so well disposed, to give justice to whom justice is due, and to see that the cost of that road, built at the expense of the rate-payers of the parish of St. Alexis, be reimbursed to them and that an order may issue to give justice to these honest people.
I also wish to ask the hon. minister what has been done with regard to the proposed line of railway which, from Rawdon, was to be continued to connect with the Transcontinental? I was called upon to examine the plans submitted to the Great Northern Company. These plans were deposited in my presence and approved of by the hon. minister. Since then, I have not heard what has been done. Has there been a beginning of the work between Rawdon and the Transcontinental, such as proposed by that company?


Francis Cochrane: I cannot give the hon. member any answer, because I do not know anything about it.


Charles Marcil: Perhaps I might explain. The hon. member appeals to the minister to use his good offices to induce the Canadian Northern to construct a siding at the village of St. Alexis, and he also wishes to know what progress has been made with the construction of the line from Ruisseau St. Jacques to Rawdon in the county of Montcalm. He is under the impression that plans were approved of, and he wants to know if any progress has been made.


Francis Cochrane: Has the line a Dominion charter?


Charles Marcil: Yes, to connect with the Transcontinental.


David Arthur Lafortune: The plans were submitted to the minister in my presence and
345i	i
I understood they were accepted. I want to know what has been done.


Francis Cochrane: Of course the approving of the plan does not build a railway.


David Arthur Lafortune: I want to know if something has been done?


Francis Cochrane: I do not know anything about it. I do not know how much they have built or what they will do, but I will take a note of it, and write to the Canadian Northern, and do anything in my power in connection with the matter.


George Perry Graham: If the line to which my hon. friend (Mr. Lafortune) refers has a Dominion charter, an appeal to the Board of Railway Commissioners would compel
the company to do what he suggests.
Prince Edward Island Railway-to increase accommodation facilities along the line, $5,000.


Mr. HUGHES (Kings, P. E. I.):: I wish to call the minister's attention to the fact that the Railway Department owns a wharf at Souris, P.E.I., which cost a considerable sum of money. The cars go down to that wharf and a steamer calls there four times a week, carrying a good deal of freight. She does not call at the railway wharf, and the freight has to be carted from the railway wharf to a private wharf at considerable expense. The boat is subsidized by the Government. There is considerable expense to some person, either to the consignees or to the department if it pays for the cartage. It appears to be such a strange thing that I would like an explanation.


Francis Cochrane: It has never been brought to my attention before, but I will make a note of it.


James Joseph Hughes: Does the department
know anything about it?


Francis Cochrane: The deputy minister does not know, but I will make a note of it.


James Joseph Hughes: The Department's wharf there is a large expensive wharf, but it is left, without facilities for doing business. There is no proper freight shed.


Francis Cochrane: Does the boat not call there?


James Joseph Hughes: She does not call at all.


Francis Cochrane: Is there any reason why she should not call?


James Joseph Hughes: I do not know of any reason.


Francis Cochrane: It ought to be looked into.


James Joseph Hughes: Some facilities are required tor doing business at the wnart.

There is an old freight shed there, which is hardly suitable. It is not exactly in the right place. Another thing very much required is a weighing scale. A thousand dollars would put a suitable freight shed and scale there. I would like the minister to look into the matter.


Francis Cochrane: All right.
Prince Edward Island Railway-to provide car ferry and make necessary alterations incidental thereto, including change from narrow gauge to standard gauge, $1,000,000.
JMr. HUGHES: I would like some information about this. I presume that tenders have been called for the construction of the piers.


Francis Cochrane: Tenders have been received, but I do not know whether the contracts have been completed or not. The award has been made.


James Joseph Hughes: What are the amounts of *-the tenders that have been accepted?


Francis Cochrane: Let the item stand until we get the information.


James Joseph Hughes: And the tender for the steamer that has been accepted?


Francis Cochrane: I will get the information for the hon. gentleman if he will allow the item to go through, both with regard to the boat and each terminal.


James Joseph Hughes: All right. Will the hon. gentleman get it to-night?


Francis Cochrane: Either to-night or in the morning.


James Joseph Hughes: I secured an order of the House about twelve days ago for some information as to what the completion of the Elmira branch cost, when it was taken off the contractor's hands? I would like to get * that information.


Francis Cochrane: I think we had to
send to Moncton for it. We will get it as early as possible.


James Joseph Hughes: I do not know whether I shall have an opportunity of discussing [DOT]this matter again.


Francis Cochrane: Yes, when the supplementary estimates are under consideration.


James Joseph Hughes: We may be rushed for time. I would like to point out some things in connection with it that I think the department should know. This work cost a great deal more than it should have.


Francis Cochrane: It cost a lot of money, I know.


James Joseph Hughes: It was very badly managed. There were men employed by day-labour, after the work was taken off the contractor's hands, who were not capable Mr. HUGHES (Kings, P.E.I.)
of doing half a day's work. I have information that the coalshed was painted after it was covered with ice and snow and that when the ice melted off there was no paint left on the building. The cemgteries were not ransacked, but actually men were taken out of the poorhouse to work on that road. The local politicians got charge of it. I do not suppose that the department knew what was going on, but whoever was in charge of that work ought to be called to account. If there was an engineer in charge of it he was no good or he was overruled. The work cost twice as much as it should have cost. It was the most notorious piece of graft that has ever taken place in that part of the country. Surely someone is responsible. I would ask the minister to look into it. I wish to discuss it when the supplementary estimates are under consideration.


William John Macdonald: I would like the
minister to tell us how soon he expects the car ferry to be completed and whether he intends to proceed with the widening of the gauge of the Prince Edward Island railway this summer?


Francis Cochrane: No.


William John Macdonald: I would also like to ask him whether he intends to do the work by contract or day labour, whether he intends to take over as part of the Intercolonial line from Cape Tormentine to Sack-ville, and if so what arrangement he has made in that regard.


Francis Cochrane: We hope to have the car ferry running by the 1st August, 1914, the docks completed and the boat there. We do not propose to start the widening of the railway this year. We have not made any arrangements for getting to Cape Tormentine yet. That will come in under our branch line policy and we will construct a line if we cannot make suitable arrangements.


William John Macdonald: Does the minister
intend to proceed to widen the gauge of the Prince Edward Island railway by day's work or by tender and contract?


Francis Cochrane: I said that we were not going to do anything with it this year, and we have not discussed it or decided on any plan.


James Joseph Hughes: With regard to freight rates, the people of Prince Edward Island thought they had a promise that the disadvantage of the three short hauls would be eliminated when the car ferry would be established.


Francis Cochrane: When was the promise made?


James Joseph Hughes: I think on the eve of the last election.


Francis Cochrane: Well, I do not know anything about it. Did you make it?


James Joseph Hughes: No, I think the Prime
Minister made it. I am not quite sure, but that the Minister of Railways and Canals made it.


Francis Cochrane: The Minister of Railways?


James Joseph Hughes: Yes.


Francis Cochrane: and that was before the last election?


James Joseph Hughes: I am quite satisfied that gentlemen supporting the Government made the statement that they had that assurance from the Prime Minister.


Francis Cochrane: I did not make it, I can assure you.


James Joseph Hughes: Can the minister give us any statement with regard to it?


Francis Cochrane: No, it is a matter that has not come before me to my knowledge.


James Joseph Hughes: It has not been considered yet.


Francis Cochrane: No.	.


James Joseph Hughes: Well, then, we will have to depend on the future?


Francis Cochrane: i would be almost
willing to give them the railway if they would only undertake to run it and build the ferry too.


William John Macdonald: Does the minister intend to operate the car ferry as a part of the Intercolonial railway when it is completed, or is he going to allow the Department of Marine and Fisheries to have anything to do with the operation of the steamer?


Francis Cochrane: It is a matter that
will have to be decided in the future. I could not give the hon. gentleman an answer because we have not discussed it.


William John Macdonald: The trouble with this car ferry proposition and the attitude of the Government has been that the whole thing has been a leap in the dark. My hon. friend's proposition to-night indicates that he does not know what he is going to do. The only thing he knows is that he has let a contract for a car ferry and that he is going to construct two docks at the Prince Edward Island mainland terminals.


Francis Cochrane: What would the hon.
gentleman do?


William John Macdonald: If I had the responsibility I would be able to tell the hon. gentleman when he would ask rhe, and I would be in a different position from what he is in to-night. I would know what I was going to do, because he apparently does not
know what he is going to do. The minister proposes letting a contract in his department to provide transportation facilities between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. I was going to ask him, if it is really his desire to give proper communication with Prince Edward Island, to take over the control of the winter service between Pictou and Charlottetown and Georgetown and: operate it as a part of the railway system of the Dominion. The gievance that Prince Edward Island has had against the federal Government, and it is one which still exists, arises out of the extra cost of the transportation of its products during the winter months. The railway brings them to the sea-coast, and they are placed upon boats which are controlled by the Department of Marine and Fisheries and where the charges are of such a character that it is impossible for the products to be sent forward except at a great disadvantage. Notwithstanding the car ferry between the capes, the Government will have to continue the operation of the winter boats,, which ply to the two great ports of Prince Edward Island. Has the minister considered that phase of the question; have his supporters who come from Prince Edward Island urged on him the desirability of taking over the operation of the two winter boats, and lightening the cost of the transportation facilities in that way so that the people of the island will have a real and substantial benefit?


Mr. McLEAN (Queens, Prince Edward Island):: I understand-


William John Macdonald: I did not ask the
hon. gentleman; I asked the minister.


Angus Alexander McLean: I have the right to speak in this House.


William John Macdonald: Usually when a
minister is asked a question, the courtesy of the- House allows him to make a reply.


Angus Alexander McLean: I am going to make a few remarks notwithstanding the objection of the member for Pictou. As I understand it, the railway system of Prince Edward Island will be connected by means of this car ferry with the Intercolonial railway system on the mainland, and that will be a fulfilment of the terms of Confederation which require continuous communication between the island and the mainland. The car ferry will be regarded, as I understand it, as so many miles of railway, and the Prince Edward Island railway will, when the car ferry is in operation, be simply a section of the Intercolonial railway. That is the arrangement, which as I understand it, is made by the Government with the people of Prince Edward Island, and such an arrangement will. be. carried

out when the car ferry is established. I am glad the minister is able to tell us this system will be completed on the 1st 'day of August, 1914. We have looked for it for many years; ever since Confederation, practically. We have asked the successive Governments of Canada to fulfil the terms of Confederation in this regard, but until the present Government came to power we have been unable to get anything. There have been three short hauls to connect with the mainland, which has been a great expense and disadvantage to the people of the island in the past, and when this car ferry is in operation, it would practically mean one haul, and the people on the island will be put on an equal footing in that respect with the people of the mainland. That is only due to the people of the island and it is nothing more than fulfilling the terms of Confederation. The people of Prince Edward Island have just as much right to this car ferry as the people of the mainland have the right to have filled in any gap between two parts of the same line of railway. I cannot see any reason why the contention should be raised that there should be any extra charge for the car ferry service than if the freight were carried just the same number of miles on a section of the Intercolonial railway.


William John Macdonald: The hon. member
for Queens, Prince Edward Island (Mr. McLean) evidently knows more about what this Government is going to do than does the Minister of Railways. If he had only waited until the minister answered the question, the House would have obtained a statement from some responsible authority as to the policy of the Government. I want to know whether the minister will assume control of the transportation facilities between Prince Edward Island and the mainland including the winter steamers.


Francis Cochrane: Do you mean when
the ferry is started?


William John Macdonald: Yes.


Francis Cochrane: I misunderstood you. I thought you asked if when the ferry was completed the Department of Railways is going to run the ferry. As to its being one straight haul, it will be taken as part of the transit across there and in that way will be about the same as a tunnel, so far as the terms of Confederation are concerned.


William John Macdonald: There is nothing about a tunnel in the terms of Confederation.


Francis Cochrane: I know, but I suppose this would be a continuous communication.
Mr. McLEAN (Queens, P.E.I.)


William John Macdonald: Continuous communication was to be maintained between^ the island and the mainland, and the minister is going to have a ferry boat and two wharfs built to cost a large sum of money, but he does not know how he is going to get down from the Intercolonial railway at Sackville to Cape Tormentine; whether he will take over that railway there or build a new one.


Francis Cochrane: I would not tell you if I did know. There is no use stating to the House what railways I will buy or what railways I will not. There is lots of time to build a road there or to buy the existing railway or to rent it.


William John Macdonald: My hon. friend the minister says he would not tell me if he was going to buy that railway.


Francis Cochrane: I would not,


William John Macdonald: I am not so very anxious to know that, but what I do want to know is whether or not the minister is undertaking to assume the solution of the transportation problem there. I am telling him that although he may have a car-ferry service in August he will not escape the demands which will be made by the people of the island. Notwithstanding the statement of the member for Queens, P.E.I., that the demands of the people would be satisfied with a car ferry. The minister will have to assume the responsibility of meeting the request of the people of Prince Edward Island that the winter boats which now run from Charlottetown and Georgetown to the mainland, will be kept on. The solution of the problem by a car ferry service is of a most doubtful character, while these winter boats built at great expense, have practically solved it. Have any of his friends or supporters from the island placed before him the proposition that he should regard it as his bounden duty to at once provide cheap transportation on these winter boats? Will the minister tell me whether he will take these winter boats over?


Francis Cochrane: No.


William John Macdonald: Why not ?


Francis Cochrane: Because that is in another department at present, and I am not going to take it out of that department. If we do not find our scheme satisfactory, we will have to adopt some other scheme, but I will wait until the time comes. It is time enough to bid the devil good morrow when you meet him.


William John Macdonald: You will not help the people of Prince Edward Island ?
10933	'


Francis Cochrane: I have helped the people of Prince Edward Island, and the hon. member has sat in this House a number. of years, and he never did anything to help them.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William John Macdonald: My hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Stevens), who arrived in this House about a year and a half ago, knows so much about the province of Prince Edward Island that he thinks it very amusing that these questions should be discussed here.


Mr. STEVENS:: The hon. gentleman from Vancouver has respect for the minister, and your impertinent cross-questioning is enough to make anvbody resent it.


William John Macdonald: I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to call the hon. gentleman to order. I was not impertinent. The hon. member has no right to make that remark.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If I did withdraw it, I would only have to say that it was not true.


The CHAIRMAN:: The hon. member, of course, understands, that nothing offensive is to be said in debate.


William John Macdonald: As the member for Vancouver has been in the House only a year and a half, he certainly displayed a great deal cf temerity in the remark he made commenting on the request I made of the minister in the interest of the people of Prince Edward Island. The minister has been treated very well by the Opposition-I think he is bound to admit that. The Minister of Railways and Canals is one of the ministers who has always received special consideration from this side of the House. So far as I am concerned, I have no complaint to make of his courtesy. But I do not propose, when discussing a matter in which the people I represent are interested, to be deterred from seeking information by any little demonstration on the part of hon. gentl.emen opposite. The minister was good enough to say, when I put a proper question, that he was not going to do anything about this question of a winter service in the meantime, and I want it distinctly understood whether that is the position of the minister or not-that although the people of Prince Edward Island have a problem of winter communication, he does not propose to remedy any of the grievances with regard to the cost of the transportation of freight. He said that I had been in the previous House and had supported the late Government, and that this, that or the other had not been done. Surely, after this country has been governed for almost two years by this great Conservative party which once claimed to have the only initiative in government given by divine or any other authority, and whose leader went to Prince Edward Island and pledged himself in advance to deal with this question and to satisfy the needs of the people, they ought to be able, when a courteous question is asked of the minister as to his policy, to give a better answer than that their predecessors had not done these things. What were they given power for? Merely to follow in the footsteps of their predecessors?


George Perry Graham: They came in to build a tunnel.


William John Macdonald: They gave the impression that the building of a tunnel or the providing of a car-ferry was a part of the terms of Confederation. Apparently, the situation is that the minister is going to have a car-ferry, but he is not going to have the means to get to it so that he can operate it. When it is there in 1914 he cannot tell the House whether that ferry can be operated in the winter months or not.


Francis Cochrane: The hon. gentleman
does not know that it will not.


William John Macdonald: If I had the responsibility, I should be ready to make a definite statement one way or the other.


Francis Cochrane: We are going on; that is a definite statement.


William John Macdonald: And the minister is asked whether he is going to operate the car-ferry in the winter time, and he gives no answer. He will find that he cannot operate in the winter time. I warn him of that in advance and tell him that the winter service will have to be kept on. I am warning him in the interests of the people of Prince Edward Island that he should give cheap transportation this winter and take charge of the whole system of connections.


Angus Alexander McLean: For
many years in this House the members for Prince Edward Island argued that it was necessary in the interests of the people of Prince Edward Island that these three short hauls should be done away with. The hon. member for Pictou was a supporter of the Laurier Administration for fifteen years, yet he threw cold water upon the request of the people of Prince Edward Island for this boon. He laughed and jeered at practically everything the members from Prince Edward Island said with regard to lowering freights between Prince Edward Island and the mainland, but now when he sees that this car-ferry is going to be put in operation between Cape Traverse and Cape Tormentine, sixty miles from his own town, he is getting a little anxious and for the first time argues in favour of the people of Prince Edward Island. The people of Prince Edward Island do not want his assistance, and

have never asked for it. On every occasion when they asked for anything, he was the principal man on the other side. He laughed and jeered at the project of a tunnel, and now he laughs at the project of a car-ferry inaugurated by this (Government. I think the car-ferry will probably fill the bill and will be of the greatest benefit to Prince Edward Island. It may not be of much benefit to the people of Pictou whom the hon. gentleman represents. I know he feels sore that the Government have taken this up, but the people of Prince Edward Island do not care a rap how he feels.


James Joseph Hughes: The information sought to be obtained 'by the hon. member for Pictou was proper information. In the event of the car-ferry not being a success, he wished to know from the minister whether the transportation between Georgetown, or Charlottetown, and Pictou would be maintained. That is information useful to the committee. I would like something definite on this subject. I understood the minister to say that the car-ferry would be in operation in August, 1914, and also that the result of its operation would be the elimination of the disadvantage of the three short hauls, that is, that people living in Prince Edward Island could export and import at the same rates for equal distances as those on the mainland. For instance, people living at Souris would be able to send goods to Montreal or Toronto at the same rate as those of Pictou, assuming the distances to be the same. I understood the minister to make that statement.


Francis Cochrane: No.


James Joseph Hughes: The hon. gentleman
made some statement with respect to the elimination of the three short hauls. Would he be good enough to tell me what it was?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


George Perry Graham: That is not the way to get on.


Francis Cochrane: The statement I am asked to make is one I should really consult the Government before making. Some people say the Prime Minister made a statement to that effect. If he did, he will carry it out. But I did not make it.


James Joseph Hughes: I thought the minister made the statement just now.


Francis Cochrane: No. But the Prime Minister made a statement to that effect, hon. gentlemen can rest assured it will be carried out.


James Joseph Hughes: The member for Queens-


Francis Cochrane: The member for
Queens says he saw a letter to that effect.
Mr. McLEAN (Queens, P.E..I).
Whatever promise was made by the Prime Minister will be carried out definitely.


James Joseph Hughes: The member for Queens made the statement, if I understood him correctly, that the disadvantage of the three short hauls would be eliminated. That must mean that freight would be carried to and from Prince Edward Island at the same rate as on the mainland for a similar distance. The member for Queens must have had some authority for thats statement. I am sure he will tell me what that authority was. Does the hon. gentleman not know anything about it?
Mr. McLEAN (Queens, P.E.I.) The hon. member for Kings is in the habit of catechising members who speak in this House. He heard what I said. I make this statement, and I think it is one which must be correct and in line with the policy the Government have formed in regard to the car-ferry-that the car-ferry will be simply so many miles of railway, and when a man ships goods from Charlottetown to Montreal, he will ship at the same rate as if the water were land. That is the way I have understood it, and so by reason of the construction of the car-ferry, the three short hauls will be eliminated.


James Joseph Hughes: Would the hon. gentleman tell me on whose authority he makes that statement?


Angus Alexander McLean: The hon. member for Kings made a motion in this House for the production of certain papers. Those papers were brought down and he knows what was in them as well as I do. He knows that a car-ferry connecting the railway system of Prince Edward Island with that of the mainland was set forth in those papers. When you connect two systems of railway and buy a car-ferry, it means that the car-ferry is part of the railway.


James Joseph Hughes: I do not know that I can take that meaning out of the correspondence. There is nothing in the correspondence, so far as I can remember, stating that this disadvantage of the three short hauls would be eliminated, or that the people .in Prince Edward Island could export or import goods at the same rate for the same distance as they could be carried at on the mainland. The minister will not make that statement to-night. We want to get something definite now. I think the responsible minister who is in charge of this, if such information is in existence, should be able to give us definite information on the subject.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


James Joseph Hughes: Then, I have this information to ask from the minister. In the

event of the car-ferry being a failure, will the present service be continued?


Francis Cochrane: Certainly.


James Joseph Hughes: In that event, will the three short hauls be eliminated by the other route?


Francis Cochrane: 1 do not know.


James Joseph Hughes: The Government own and operate the railway on Prince Edward Island, the railway on the mainland, and the only steamers that connect with these two railways. If the Government really were sincere in eliminating the disadvantage of the three short hauls, it could be done now.


Angus Alexander McLean: Why did you not do it when you were in power?


James Joseph Hughes: The hon. member for Queens says that he got a promise that it *would be done. I am only asking the present Government to carry out that promise. They do not appear to be ready to say that they will.


Francis Cochrane: I isaid tihat, if the promise was made, I would carry it out. I have said so three times, but somehow I cannot satisfy my hon. friend, although I would like to do so.


James Joseph Hughes: What were the promises that were made?


Francis Cochrane: I do not know. I have not seen the promises.


James Joseph Hughes: The hon. member for Queens says that the promise was to the effect that goods exported from Prince 'Edward Island, say from the town of Souris to Montreal, the distance being the same as from the town of Pictou to Montreal, would be carried at the same rate for similar goods, and from Montreal or Toronto to Souris or Charlottetown.


Francis Cochrane: If that promise has been made, it shall be carried out.


William John Macdonald: Let me point out to my hon. friend the minister, who is willing to earry out promises which he does not know were made or not, that his leader in 1907 promised that, when they came into power, the Intercolonial railway would be put under the control of a commission who would run it absolutely free from party influence of any kind whatever. That promise is contained in documents which have become a matter of public property. The hon. minister is not carrying out that promise.


Francis Cochrane: He was not elected in 1907. The people did not want him then.


William John Macdonald: My hon. friend is
pleading the statute of limitations. He is
not very clear as to what promises his leader really made. My hon. friend from Halifax, Mr. Maclean, confirms the impression which 1 have in my mind that the present Premier of this country in 1911 reiterated that promise, and assured the people of the maritime pro^ir*es that, when he came into power, the Intercolonial railway would be run by a non-partisan commission, free from party influence.
Mr. COCHRANE; It is now.


William John Macdonald: Where is the commission? My hon. friend has dispensed with the board. He does not propose to have any commission. He has appointed a general manager.


Francis Cochrane: It is run in a nonpartisan way now.


William John Macdonald: My hon. friend runs and intends to run the Intercolonial as a non-partisan institution?


Francis Cochrane: I am doing so now.


William John Macdonald: Does my hon. friend have a patronage list? Will he accept recommendations from reputable people in the maritime provinces?


Francis Cochrane: That would be partisan. I am running a railway as a railway should be run.	'


William John Macdonald: That is all very well in theory. My hon. Friend is not doing that. He need not pretend to say to anyone coming from the maritime provinces that he is not accepting recommendations from Conservative members and defeated candidates all along the line of the Intercolonial. He is running that railway as a partisan institution. He does not propose to carry out the promises of his leader. He knows that his leader promised a non-partisan commission, and he is not going to have a commission at all. What is the use of attempting to bluff the House of Commons?


Francis Cochrane: Mr. Chairman, is
that word parliamentary?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I think that word is rather strong. The rule is that nothing offensive shall be said.


William John Macdonald: My hon. friend is
not offended. He does not mind being told that he is a bluffer. He knows that he is an old hand at bluffing.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend (Mr. Macdonald) does not play the game.


William John Macdonald: My hon. friend (Mr. Stevens) seems to think that members on this side of the House have no rights at all. We are here at the close of the session. Nobody on this side of the House is obstructing

or doing anything of that nature. We are asked to discuss this vast expenditure on railways and to do it in one day. The minister and I understand one another. I say he tells the hon. member for Kings, Prince Edward Island, that he does not know whether his leade#make a promise or not hut if he did he will carry it out, no matter what it is. I might call attention to the fact that his leader made a promise in 1907 and in 1911, and that the minister knows his leader made it.


Francis Cochrane: I do not know.


William John Macdonald: Will my hon. friend dispute the copy of the Conservative literature of both those years containing that statement on the Halifax platform?


Francis Cochrane: I do not know it.


William John Macdonald: The hon. member
does not know anything about the Halifax platform. If the present Premier in 1907 and 1911 promised that the Intercolonial would be run by a commission as a nonpartisan institution would he carry out that promise?


Francis Cochrane: That is not under discussion at all.


William John Macdonald: Oh yes it is. It is very apt and very important in order that my hon. friend and the people of Prince Edward Island may know whether he is going it blind or whether he will carry out the promises made by his leader no matter what they are. The minister knows that his leader promised he would run the Intercolonial railway by a non-partisan commission. He knows himself that he does not intend to carry out that promise.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Suppose he had discovered a better way?


William John Macdonald: As the hon. member for Cape Breton says, the alarm clock has gone off again. If the minister has discovered a better way we will consider that. The minister does not take that position.


Francis Cochrane: Time will tell.


William John Macdonald: Time will tell, we
will watch to see whether Mr. Gutelius is going to run the Intercolonial railway as a non-partisan institution and whether or not the promise of the Premier will be carried out in the operations under his control. The people of the island will have to accept the assurance and go it blind, that whatever the Prime Minister promises the minister will carry out. I would like to ask the member for Queens, P.E.I., who is so ungenerous in regard to the good word I am inclined to say for his province, that last year I had the pleasure of visiting the island, the constituency of my hon. friend for Kings, and meeting a large number of the people of that Mr. MACDONALD.
splendid little province. My hon. friend does not speak for the whole people of the province; I am proud to believe that in that province there are a number of friends who are my friends and who believe in regard to this attitude whicn 'I am taking on this question that I am acting in their best interest. I defy the hon. member for Queens to stand up and say he is not in favour of the position I am taking, that the minister should take over the operation of the- winter boats, cut down the freights and give advantage in regard to transportation of goods which he says he proposed to do when the car-ferry is in operation.


James Joseph Hughes: I asked if the contracts
for the ship and for the piers have (been let?


Francis Cochrane: 
James Joseph Hughes: Will these amounts complete the piers and the boat ready for service?


Francis Cochrane: That is the understanding.


George Perry Graham: I suppose when my hon. friend speaks of widening the gauge of the Prince Edward Island railway the proposition is to introduce a third rail until the present rolling stock has been worn out?


Francis Cochrane: I had an engineer all summer working on the question of the car-ferry but I have not had an examination as to the third rail or the conversion of the Prince Edward railway to standard gauge. You would practically have to rebuild the road to put on the third rail.
Hudson Bay railway-construction and terminals,-$4,500,000.


Frank Oliver: How much of this is for railway construction and how much for terminals?


Francis Cochrane: The contracts as let,
as near as we can get at them, are: from the Pas to Thicket Portage,	500,000, one
hundred and eighty-five miles; from Thicket Portage to Split Lake Junction, $1,000,000; from Split Lake Junction to Hudson bay, $1,000,000. That is as near as we can get at the cost of rne railway at present, that is from the Pas to Nelson.


Frank Oliver: This vote is enough for
the whole construction then?


Francis Cochrane: We have got to put
in something for the harbour work. We expect to send a number of men with supplies and a complete plant down this year

to start the development of the harbour there, they nave dredges and cement and a regular plant for the development of the harbour.


Frank Oliver: What part of this vote is for the harbour?


Francis Cochrane: $1,500,000. We do not expect to spend all of it this year.


Frank Oliver: And how much is it
estimated that the harbour improvement will cost?


Francis Cochrane: I have not a definite estimate. The trouble is to get into communication there. I propose to put a wireless station at the Pas and one at Nelson. The one at the Pas we can move to some other place afterwards when we get the land lines through. The one at Nelson we will, of course, require permanently. We have only had one communication since navigation closed last fall, since I came out in fact, and I cannot say definitely what the total cost will be.


Frank Oliver: It is definitely decided to establish the terminus at Port Nelson?


Francis Cochrane: Yes, it is so much
shorter than the other route. There are seventy miles of barren land on which it is difficult to say how the operation of a Tailway would act. It is frozen, and I think there are from three to seven or eight feet of muskeg on the top. It would be difficult to get over.


Frank Oliver: I think the Government
is not well advised on deciding on Port Nelson until information is at hand as to what the cost will be of establishing proper harbour facilities at that point. My information is that the expense will be stupendous, and that under no circumstances can an entirely satisfactory port be established at Nelson.


Francis Cochrane: That is not our report.


Frank Oliver: The reason being that there are many miles of shallow water from the shore until deep water is reached. There will have to be a dredged channel tor
some ten or fifteen miles, to enable vessels to enter the harbour at the mouth of the river. It is absolutely impossible that vessels can reach the sheltered mouth of the river by way of that dredged channel in any hut calm weather. That, as it appears to me, is a tremendous objection to the establishment of Port Nelson, as the terminus of the railroad. At any rate, I want to place before the Government my view that they should have the fullest information as to what the cost will be before they begin to make large expenditures. There is no doubt that at Churchill there is a harbour at the present time, a harbour easy of access, and safe when reached, not large, but possibly large enough for any reasonable requirements. I quite appreciate what the minister says against Port Churchill. The distance is greater, and there are certain questions as to railroad construction. That, of course, must be admitted, but on the other hand we know that there is a practicable harbour at Churchill; we know that 'if we are to have a practicable harbour at Nelson it will have to be made, and I say again that we ought to know what it will cost to make that harbour before we make large expenditures upon it. I understand from the minister that he proposes to spend a million or a million and a half of dollars upon that harbour, and as much of that amount as possible during the current summer without having full information as to what the expenditure required to complete the work will be. If that is the position, I think it is hardly a desirable position.


Francis Cochrane: The hon. gentleman
has got some wrong information. Shortly before I arrived at Nelson last year, the Minto was up within a mile, I think of the place where it is proposed to have the harbour. There is a channel there, over twenty feet deep, and there is no aid to navigation. There are no buoys or anything of that kind to guide a vessel up to the harbour. That matter will have to be straightened to some extent, and buoys will have to be put in to guide a ship up. I do not intend to go on with any elaborate expenditure until we know something definite about the navigation. If we are sure on that point, wre will go in and make a permanent place, but until we find out about the navigation and see what benefit it is going to lie as our grain route, I would not care to go to any great expense there. But I saw the place myself. The water is shallow, but the channel is there, and it can be made more navigable without a great deal of dredging. They propose to run a pier out into the stream rather than dredge, because they think it would be cheaper to do so.


William Manley German: The hon. minister has
made a remark which appeals to my mind very strongly. He says he does not propose to make any very great expenditure in connection with the harbour at Port Nelson until he has assured himself that that will be a satisfactory harbour. That will certainly be an act of wisdom, and I trust he will retain that idea in connection with the building of the so-called Hudson Bay railway, and will not proceed with any lavish expenditure in connection with that railway until he has absolutely assured himself that its construction will work to the advantage of Canada generally. I am one of those who doubt that the construction of the Hud-

son Bay railway will be of one dollar's worth advantage to Canada.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Hear, hear.


William Manley German: The wheat from the Northwest cannot reach the British market by the Hudson Bay railway and Hudson bay during the year in which it is grown and harvested. It could only get through Hudson bay in the following year. I maintain that if you satisfactorily deepen the St. Lawrence navigation route you will get a transportation route, which, together with the railway facilities that we have, will carry to Great Britain every bushel of grain likely to be grown in the Northwest during the next 100 years, at a cost less than you could carry it over the Hudson bay route, and it would be carried at a much more rapid rate, so that it would reach Liverpool earlier than grain carried by any Hudson bay road you can build. Although this Hudson bay route was suggested by the late Government, I was opposed to it, and I am opposed to it to-day, and until I see some evidence more clearly showing that the construction of that railroad will be to the general advantage of Canada, I shall retain the opinion I have always had, that it will not be to the general advantage of Canada. The history of that country teaches us that the Hudson bay is not navigable except for about three months in the year.


Francis Cochrane: It never freezes.


William Manley German: But the straits are impassable. No boats carrying wheat from the Northwest would ever attempt to go through there, excepting for about three months of a year. No insurance company would insure them. It is to my mind an absolutely impracticable route, and I am not alone in saying that. I have asked men of wide experience and wide knowledge, of much wider knowledge and experience than I have. Such a scheme, as a financial proposition and as a scheme for the general advantage of Canada, is absolutely absurd and it is throwing money into a hole. It is an absolute waste of material. Let us use our money to better advantage. I trust that my hon. friend, pursuing the policy which he has announced with reference to Port Nelson, will use some degree of wise discretion in regard to the construction of the railway and not spend very much money or go ahead rapidly until he has absolutely satisfied himself, as the level-headed business man he is, that the construction of the railway would be for the general advantage of the country and that the money cannot be used to much greater advantage in the building up of our water transportation.
Mr. GERMAN.


Mr. FOSTER (Kings):: Having had the pleasure of travelling over that section of northern Canada last year, I feel that I should not allow this opportunity to go by without saying a word with regard to it. While perhaps the opinion of a man of my years would, not weigh as much as that of the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), or of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane), or of other older gentlemen, I may say that I have formed a conclusion in regard to this subject that is the result of personal observation and study. In this connection let me point out that the report issued by the Senate in 1905 or 1907, gave a very large amount of information in regard to that north country, to which information I gave particular study last year. I am of the opinion that the Hudson Bay route is navigable for four or four and a half months in the year, and that any expenditure which this or any succeeding Government may make with regard to the extension of a railway into that section of Canada in order to make that route available, will in the future result in immense good to the country. Fort Churchill, as the hon. member for Edmonton has stated, is one hundred and fifty miles north of Port Nelson and is only five hundred miles in a direct line irom the heart of the Peace river valley, an area seven hundred miles long by one hundred and fifty miles wide, and possessing, according to statements by agriculturists of the most advanced knowledge, probably the finest agricultural land in Alberta. Let us consider that Fort Churchill is some fifty-eight miles nearer to Liverpool by water than is New York, let us consider that the heart of the great provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan is within a five hundred rail-haul of water communication, that the products of that great country can be placed in a ship at Fort Churchill and Port Nelson and transferred across the water by a route which is admittedly fifty-eight miles shorter than from New York to Liverpool, and we must come to the conclusion that these conditions are bound to contribute to the greater development of Canada in the future. Few hon. gentlemen apparently have given the matter sufficient study to warrant them in coming to a final opinion in regard to the matter. In consulting the records in regard to the natural resources of that section of the country, we get an idea of its tremendous area and the variety and volume of its products. The United States consul at Kingston or Toronto, I forget -which, in Dreparing data for the United States Government in regard to the forest belt of nortnern Canada, describes what he calls the spruce belt of Canada, as running from Labrador north-westerly to

Alaska, a stretch of land in area some fifty-four times larger than the state of New York and possessing untold millions of feet of timber, spruce, fir, pine and birch. That is not all. In that great northwestern country there are 3,000 miles of inland navigable waterways which can be connected by the building of a short line of railway of only thirty miles and that inland water communication, at present navigable, is only five hundred miles from Fort Churchill and some seven hundred and fifty miles from Port Nelson. When we consider the fact that the isothermal lines in northwestern Canada do not run east and west, as I venture to suggest hon. gentlemen have believed offhand, but run north and south and that, therefore, the ability to raise wheat and vegetables has been demonstrated as far north as within fourteen miles of the arctic circle in the great Mackenzie valley, we can picture with some degree of accuracy, we can prophesy with some degree of certainty, what the future of this great section of the Dominion will be. The question which presents itself to my mind is whether or not the expenditure of a million or two millions in the Hudson Bay district will not be the percursor of expenditures which will contribute to the building up of a larger Canada in that great northwestern section of this continent than we have at present under civilization. From what study I have given to this subject I am profoundly enthusiastic over the great possibilities of this northern country. I am profoundly impressed with the belief that any expenditure wisely made by this Government or by succeeding governments cannot but contribute to the future development of the country.	[DOT]
One word more and it is in regard to the point that was made by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) on the question of the navigation of the Hudson'Bay route. He says that he does not think that the-straits are navigable. It has been demonstrated that the Government steamer went in there in the early part of July and that it came out on the 5th of November last year. We know from personal observation that we have found greater obstacles in the straits of Belle Isle and north of Belle Isle, where steamers operate in the early part of the summer, than we found going through the Hudson straits on our trip last year, and from which I gained a most favourable opinion as to the feasibility of that route. Some information has been given us by Captain Bartlett who went through the straits on the Minto. It must not be forgotten that instead of a day of ten or twelve hours they have in that north country a day of nineteen hours or twenty hours and at some seasons of the year they have not more than three hours of night. All these things taken together must convince anybody who
studies the question that this expenditure in that country is a worthy undertaking and that it will redound to the benefit of the Dominion generally.


Frank Oliver: 
Francis Cochrane: I think it would cost almost as much to do what I propose doing at Nelson as it would at Churchill. I was at both places and it is shallow out a long piece and there is no channel at Churchill. I think it would cost at much at Churchill as it would at Nelson, and of course it would take a great deal to build the railway eighty-five miles further.


Frank Oliver: It would certainly cost
more to build the railway to Churchill. I am not quarreling with the minister because he is making an attempt at Nelson. I appreciate the advantages of Nelson if it is practicable, but I want to guard against the supposition that Nelson is the only alternative.


Francis Cochrane: I understand that.


Frank Oliver: I am pointing out that
there are certain difficulties at Nelson and I would be glad to see them overcome. If they are not satisfactorily overcome and if they cannot be, then there is no doubt that a practical port can be found at Churchill. One point in connection with Churchill is that it is more directly accessible to the Peace river country than is Nelson. When the Peace River country is developed, Churchill would be the natural port for that country, and it would give the Peace river wheat region closer access to the ocean, that than Manitoba has to-day, and thus cheapen the cost of the transportation of the product of that country.


Francis Cochrane: It is a very barren
place?


Frank Oliver: No doubt, but still the
isothenpal lines in the western part of the central country run [DOT] far north, so that directly west of Churchill is a wheat-growing country when you reach the Peace river. How many miles of the railway are actually under grading at present?


Francis Cochrane: The bridge across the Saskatchewan river was unfortunately only

finished last month and they only commenced this month to lay the track. 1 have not a report as to the number of miles of track laid. I think the grading is done for 100 and some odd miles; we hope to have the rails on the first 185 miles this fall.


Frank Oliver: Will the work be opened up beyond that point this summer?


Francis Cochrane: They have provisions in to work on any rock work there may be found there.


Frank Oliver: How many men are employed?


Francis Cochrane: Speaking from memory the last report said there were between 400 and 500 men.


Frank Oliver: Are there any heavy bridges on that 185 miles?


Francis Cochrane: There are quite a
number of bridges, but I do not think any large ones. -


George Perry Graham: Lest my silence might
be construed that I have lost faith in this work, I may say that I have still faith it will be a practicable and profitable undertaking and if I had not I would not have committed the country to the expenditure. I would go so far as to say that the railway should be constructed even if it had not any steamship connection to Europe. Railways have been constructed in different parts of Canada where' there is far less prospect of doing business than in connection with this project. Irom what I know of the country and the prospect of traffic from the bay I would be in favour of building the line even if there were no ocean ports there at all. I always favoured Nelson from the informa>
tion I had in the department, and that view seems to be confirmed. If the traffic is to assume any dimensions at all-and unless the department were satisfied it will, they would not go to the expense of having very costly terminal facilities there-if the traffic is to assume any proportions a good harbour is necessary, and from the information in the department the best harbour is to be found at Nelson, provided the difficulty referred to is overcome. I -would not say that navigation would be opened for four and a half months, but it has always been my opinion that it will be open for between three and a half and four months, and even at that it will relieve the congestion very materially.
And I would like to point out to the doubting Thomases this:	they refer to grain
only; but the dairymen and stock raisers cf eastern Canada may well keep in nrn 1 the fact that that part of the West is goinsr to be a great dairying and stork raising ccun-Mr. COCHRANE.
try. Nobody need tell me that stock that can be put on shipboard with a rail haul of two cool nights and one day and then taken by a cool route to Liverpool, will not be in better condition than if carried by a long rail haul. The amount saved in shrinkage would alone be a large item. All this must be taken into consideration when we are thinking about the effects of this route.


Mr. EDWARDS:: And there is the import.


George Perry Graham: Yes, there must be the return cargoes to the West. Even if we say that it is only for three, or three and a half, or four months in the year, I cannot see but that the expenditure will be in. the interest of the people of Canada not only of the West but of the East as well. Is the minister any nearer to arrangements for a steamship connection than he was a year ago?


Francis Cochrane: That is hardly in my line. I have been urging it on the Government, but I do not know that much has been done. We shall have to subsidize a line-


George Perry Graham: No doubt.


Francis Cochrane: And we shall have to-give what some people regard as a heavy subsidy; but to have a proper test, this will have to be done. This is going to help out Nova Scotia and the East, especially in the shipping of steel rails to the West. There is a steamer haul of two thousand miles from Sydney to Nelson, and then a rail haul of six or seven miles would distribute over quite a large country in the West.


George Perry Graham: Where are the rails purchased for this road?


Francis Cochrane: At Sault Ste. Marie, Of course on a shipment by way of Fort William, we get a much lower freight rate than the other way. Until we get a wharf and a track and have other facilities for handling freight, the rates by the other way would bte very high, because handling freight by lightering it out in small boats is very expensive. I think I am safe in saying that it takes $3 to do what $1 would do with proper facilities.


Frank Oliver: Are the wireless stations to be built this summer?


Francis Cochrane: The one at Port Nelson goes up 6n the first boat, and the one for Le Pas is ordered now. By means of these we can keep in touch and get information.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I wish to say a wordin favour of the Hudson Bay railway, as I was a member of the Government which first encouraged this national undertaking. When the Canadian Pacific railway was

started thirty years ago there were many doubting Thomases, and yet events have proven that it was a successful national undertaking. When the Grand Trunk Pacific was started under the leadership of the present leader of the Opposition there were many who predicted that it would be a huge failure, yet to-day we are not satisfied with two transcontinental lines but are building a third, and probably shall be asked within a day or so to help that third line. When the people of the West are clamouring for the construction of the Hudson bay railway, and when, according to the experts, there is a legitimate expectation that it will bring relief to that section of the country which is building up so rapidly, and which in twenty-five or thirty years will be the home of millions of people from all parts of the world, I think it is only fair that the Government should begin now to provide for the future. What I wanted to lay emphasis upon was this further fact that, when you have completed the Hudson Bay railway from the centre of the prairie region to the great sea of Hudson, when you have reached Port Nelson you will be face to face with this difficulty that the straits will be kept open only for a limited period of the year.


Francis Cochrane: I do not think that has been definitely settled.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It has not been dealt with definitely, and I do not suppose it will be in the near future. It is admitted, however, that the straits cannot be kept open for a long period of time. Once the grain has reached the shores of Hudson bay, if the straits are closed up, I believe the next 'best thing to do is to build a railway from the head of James bay to Montreal, tapping the Transcontinental at Cochrane.


Francis Cochrane: No, it would be farther east of Cochrane.


Rodolphe Lemieux: East of Cochrane, and from there to Montreal or Quebec, then working in conjunction with the existing main lines in this section of the country. The Hudson bay itself-I am not speaking of the straits-is navigable for at least eight months in the year, according to the reports. Grain can be shipped more cheaply by water than^by rail. You can certainly save a large amount of money on big shipments of grain via the Hudson bay from Port Nelson to the head of James bay. If you have a railway from James bay to Montreal or Quebec, which will put this whole railway system in communication with the eastern parts of Canada you have found the key, the solution to the transportation problem of Canada during summer and winter. I hope the hon. minister will look favourably upon that project.
The legislature of the province of Quebec has heavily subsidized that section of our transportation system between James bay and Montreal. It will develop the resources of northern Quebec and I think, at least incidentally, part of northern Ontario. That region, which I had the advantage of visiting last summer, strikes me as being very rich and capable of a vast development. The government of the province of Quebec has opened up new townships in that region, and already a large number of settlers have gone there. The reports received so far are most favourable. This railway system from James bay to Montreal, working in conjunction with the Hudson bay railway is bound to be a great success in the near future. That is why I vote, without any hesitation, the necessary moneys for the construction of the Hudson Bay railway. I care not whether it benefits the West; I sincerely believe it will benefit the country as a whole. What benefits the West, benefits the East. For my part, as a member of the late Government, I claim some credit for having with my colleagues shaped the policy in favour of the construction of the Hudson Bay railway. If the present Government will continue in our footsteps, I will say * Yea ' with great pleasure.	[DOT]


George William Kyte: Will the hon. minister give me some information with respect to the expropriation of land at St. Peter's canal? The minister was good enough to place the file in my hands. I cannot understand, however, why the award made by O'Dwyer, who was sent down by the department to value those lands, was revised by three men in'Lhe town of St. Peter's, all of whom are personal and political friends of Mr. J. A. Gillies, the defeated Conservative candidate, who owned the land. The hon. minister stated to me last year that, if the owner of the land was not content with the valuation placed on it by that gentleman, the matter would have to go to the Exchequer Court.


Francis Cochrane: I sent Mr. O'Dwyer
down there as he had done good work as valuator for the Intercolonial. When his report came in, I thought it was high, just as the hon. gentleman stated in the House, and so I apointed the others. Their award was very little less than Mr. O'Dwyer's. I was aware, when the second award came in, that we would have been in a difficult position had we gone to the Exchequer Court at that time, because they could have summoned these men and produced their valuation. I have in the supplementary estimates a sum for a valuator of the department, whom we can send around. He has been working on the Intercolonial and has done good service. He will soon have completed his work there.


George William Kyte: Will the hon. minister tell
me who recommended those valuators at St. Peter's?


Francis Cochrane: I cannot give the information at present, I could look it up in the department.


George William Kyte: I presume these appointments would come through the person having the patronage in the county of Richmond?


Francis Cochrane: Absolutely no.


George William Kyte: The recommendation would rather suggest that.


Francis Cochrane: No.


Frank Oliver: How long will it be before the road will be completed to the bay?


Francis Cochrane: They have taken the contract to complete it next year. From the progress they have made I question whether it will be finished then or not.


Frank Oliver: Is there a reasonable prospect of its being completed by 1915?


Francis Cochrane: Yes, I do not think there is any doubt about that.


Frank Oliver: Is there any mention of
reaching Split Lake in advance of railway construction?


Francis Cochrane: I think there is a way up. They go up Lake Winnipeg; there is a chain of lakes which they use in order to strike the railway very near there. I think Split Lake will probably be the next point to which they will move their headquarters in the fall.


Frank Oliver: Have the locations of the terminals at the Falls been decided upon?


Francis Cochrane: Yes, on the south side.


Frank Oliver: Are they acquired from the Indian reserve?


Francis Cochrane: Yes, the Indians are being given valuation on their property. I hope it will not be too high. I do not think their land is worth much.


Frank Oliver: The question has been
raised here in regard to the cost of this railroad, the charge upon the treasury. Some years ago the principle of pre-emptions was introduced into the western country, with the understanding that the fund accruing from the sale of pre-emptions would be considered as an extra source of revenue from which the Hudson Bay railway might be constructed. There was no ear-marking of money received. When the policy of sale of pre-emption was introduced, it was introduced with the understanding that a new source of revenue was being created which would relieve the general treasury from the cost of the Hudson Bay railway. Therefore the treasury of Canada is not Mr. COCHRANE.
finding* the money for building the railway. It is the land of the Northwest and the price that is being paid for that * land that is building the Hudson Bay railway; and enough money is being taken out of preemptions in the West to pay for that railway. I think it is just as well to have that statement made.


Francis Cochrane: The road will be built anyway.


Frank Oliver: I want to relieve the assertion that the road constitutes a serious charge upon the finances of the country. As a matter of fact, it does not. Another point was that the grain that was raised in a certain year cannot go forward by the Hudson bay route during the same calendar year. That is measurably true, but it is also true with regard to grain going forward by the St. Lawrence route. Only a portion of the year's crop goes forward during the calendar year in which it is grown. I think it is safe to say that by far the larger part goes forward after having lain in storage not less than four, five, six or seven months. Therefore the disadvantage of the Hudson bay route in that particular is not serious. The disadvantage of navigation of Hudson straits is spoken of. Surely Hudson straits are more easily navigable during their proper season of navigation than the straits of Belle Isle. The straits of Belle Isle are three or four miles across while the Hudson straits are from forty miles to one hundred miles across. Yet an enormous traffic goes through the straits of Belle Isle when they are open. It is dangerous but it is short and much traffic is handled that way. In the Hudson straits there are disadvantages but they cannot be as great as in Belle Isle and the shortness in distance compensates for the disadvantages. The Hudson bay route was for two hundred years the only route by which could be reached what is now our prairie west and if it was adequate for the purposes of that trade during that time with the means of navigation that then existed, surely it will be of advantage under present conditions where the needs are so very great and the means of navigation have so greatly improved. In any case, it is a matter that may be talked about interminably without any conclusion being reached. The only way in which the question will ever bje solved will be by laying the rails from the wheat fields to the bay, and the sooner the rails are laid to the bay the better for the country and the greater the credit to this Government.


Francis Cochrane: I think the greatest difficulty that navigators will experience will be drift ice and fog. I do not think the straits ever freeze over, from all the information I can get, but the raft ice and

fog during a portion of the year are very bad. You cannot do much even with wireless where you have ice. If it was only fog, if the straits were free of ice, you could have wireless stations and guide the steamers tip through the straits but where you have both it will be very difficult.


George Perry Graham: We will go on with these estimates to-morrow?


Robert Rogers: I think we will take up ithe militia estimates and the Justice Department estimates to-morrow. An understanding to that effect has been reached between the whips.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Could the Justice Department estimates be taken up, as I want to be present when the militia estimates are taken up, and I have to attend the Railway committee for some time in the morning.


Robert Rogers: Yes.


George Perry Graham: We have been accustomed to having an interim report of the Transcontinental commission, giving the work up to date on the construction of the line. We will expect that information from the minister when these estimates are taken up. On the item for the Welland canal, I presume the Minister of Public Works will be able to announce the policy of the Government in connection with the Georgian Bay canal. These questions will surely be asked and pressed and I wanted to give notice.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 12.30 a.m., Tuesday.

Tuesday, May 27, 1913.