Mr. T. B. FLINT (Yarmouth) moved :: That that portion of the 49th rule which limits the time for presenting private Bills be suspended in reference to the Bill respecting the Subsidiary High Court of the Ancient Order of Foresters of the Dominion of Canada, in accordance with the recommendation contained in the 11th report of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders.


Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: Before that motion is put, I wish to draw to the attention of the right hon. First Minister the frequency with which the rule with regard to private Bills is asked to be suspended. Earlier this session I drew his attention to the same thing, and I understood him to say that the first session of the new parliament was the proper time for the House to put its foot down on this growing practice, which tends to lengthen the session. Although we must he drawing measurably near the end of the session, the same disposition to suspend the rule continues. It is an evil that should be stopped, and I hope the government will exercise some reasonable control in the matter.


Thomas Barnard Flint: I wish to state that the urgency of this particular Bill was mentioned at the time permission was given to present the preliminary petition. It is the only Bill at all likely to infringe the rule of the House. It is of great importance that it should be passed this session. It is exactly similar in its terms to another Bill in regard to another society which was passed a week or two ago, and I trust the hon. gentleman will not insist on his objection.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I agree altogether with the sentiments expressed by my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) ; but, we considered this particular case a few days ago, and came to the conclusion that the rule
ought to be allowed to stand aside with respect to this Bill, but with respect to this Bill alone-nothing else.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 120) respecting the Subsidiary High Court of the Ancient Order of Foresters of the Dominion of Canada.-Mr. Heyd.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of the Prime Minister, the names of Messrs. McKinnon and Halliday were added to the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines ; the names of Messrs. McKinnon and Henderson to the Committee on Public Accounts ; and the name of Mr. Halliday to the Committee on Agriculture.


Mr. HACKETT asked :: 1.	Is Mr. William L. Prince employed as clerk in the railway offices at Moncton?
2.	If so, what is the amount of his salary?
3.	How many days during the year 1900 was he at work?
4.	What amount of salary was he paid for his services during the year 1900?
5.	On what dates during the year 1900 was he absent from his duties?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	Mr. William L. Prince has been in the government railway service for many years, and is now employed as clerk in the audit office at Moncton.
2.	His salary is $58.33 a month.
3.	He worked twelve days in 1900.
4.	Mr. Prince is 83 years of age. and in consideration of his great age, his long and faithful service, and the fact that he was in ill-health, he was paid his full salary in 1900 of $699.96.
5.	He was absent from duty in 1900 except on January 4th, 10th, 14th and 15th ; February 5th, 7th, 10th, 12th and 20th ; March 5th and 12th.
I may add that I, as minister, had no knowledge of this matter whatever, not even being aware of such a person being in the employ, or of such having been a usage in the department at Moncton as respects any of the employees.


EXPENDITURE ON GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BARKER-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	What are the amounts of the payments made from 1st July, 1900, to the 20th March, 1901, chargeable to consolidated fund
[Stage Direction]
(a)	In respect of the Intercolonial Railway.
(b)	The Windsor Branch Railway.
(c)	The Prince Edward Island Railway.
2.	What are the amounts of the payments made from the 1st July, 1900, to 20th March, 1901, chargeable under the head of collections as set forth in the ten days' statement of receipts and payments of Canada (item 41) :
(d)	In respect of the Intercolonial Railway.
(e)	The Windsor Branch Railway.
(f)	The Prince Edward Island Railway.
3.	What are the amounts of all expenditure on capital account, between the dates above mentioned, on the respective railways aforesaid?
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: I assume that the first question has reference to expenditures chargeable to income. The answer to the question is : nothing.
2.	(d) Intercolonial Railway $3,516,789 24
(e)	Windsor Branch Railway	 11,393 78
(f)	Prince Edward Island
Railway	 181,458 35
Total	$3,709,641	373.	Intercolonial Railwaycapital	$1,561,578	11
Prince Edward Island
Railway-capital	 78,741	42
Windsor Branch Railway, nil.
Total	$1,640,319 53
MR. JOHN MacINNIS'S DISMISSAL.
Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER-by Hon. Mr. Prior-asked :
1.	Has John Maclnnis, sub-collector at West Bay, Cape Breton, been dismissed?
2.	If so, for what reason?
3.	Was any inquiry made? If so, of what character, and by whom?
4.	Was Mr. Maclnnis given a hearing before dismissal?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Wm. Paterson) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	For offensive political partisanship.
3.	No formal inquiry or hearing was deemed necessary.
4.	The information before the department being considered sufficient.


POULTRY FATTENING STATIONS.
Mr. HACKETT asked :: 1.	How many stations for poultry fattening had the government in Priace Edward Island last year?
2.	Were the results satisfactory, and is it the intention of the government to continue the experiment ?
3.	Who was the person employed at the chicken fattening station at Alberton, West Prince?


Mr. BARKER.: 4.	WTho recommended him, what qualifications had he for the work, and was it satisfactory ?
5.	How long was he employed, and what was the amount of his wages?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hou. Sydney Fisher) :: 1.	The government had four poultry fattening stations in Prince Edward Island, namely, at Charlottetown, Eldon, Mount Stewart and Alberton.
2.	The results were satisfactory, and it Is the intention of the government to continue such poultry fattening stations.
3.	Mr. H. J. Matthews was the person employed at the chicken fattening station at Alberton.
4.	His work was satisfactory.
5.	He was employed for about two and a half months, and received remuneration amounting to $92.50.


MAIL CONTRACT, GANANOQUE.
Mr. TAYLOR asked :: 1.	Who had the contract for gathering the mail from the street letter-boxes at the town of Gananoque, previous to the 1st April, 1901?
2.	Has a new contract been made? If so, with whom?
3.	Were tenders called for?
4.	What was the price paid for year previous to 1st April, 1901?
5.	What is the present contract price?


Hon. JAMES SUTHERLAND :: 1.	Wm. Gray.
2.	New contract has not been completed. Service performed by D. E. Jackson since 1st April, 1901.
3.	No.
4.	One hundred and fifty dollars.
5.	One hundred and forty-five dollars.



NEW POST OFFICES.

Mr. BRUNEAU asked :: How many new post offices have been established in each of the provinces since 1st August, 1896?	,


Hon. JAMES SUTHERLAND.: 

ST. ANNE'S LOCK SUPERINTENDENT.

Mr. BRUNEAU asked :: 1.	Who is the superintendent of St. Anne's lock?
2.	What is his salary?
3.	'Was the appointment made by an order' in council?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. O. Blair) :: 1.	Mr. S. D. Hamilton is the overseer of St. Anne's lock ; there is no superintendent of this lock.
2.	Fifty dollars per .month.
3.	No.



SOREL POST OFFICE REVENUE.

Mr. BRUNEAU asked :: 1.	What is the total revenue of the Sorel post office for the last fiscal year?
2.	What was the amount in 1896?
3.	What is the present salary of the postmaster?
4.	Is he bound to pay his assistants out of his -salary?
5.	If so, does the department know how much the postmaster of Sorel has to pay them, and what is his net salary?


Hon. JAMES SUTHERLAND :: 1.	Two thousand one hundred and twenty-two dollars and forty-three cents.
2.	Two thousand three hundred and fifty dollars and twenty-seven cents.
3.	Nine hundred and fifty dollars, including $200 for forward duty.
4.	Yes.
5.	No.



EXPERIMENTAL FARM REPORT.

Mr. BRUNEAU asked :: 1.	What are the respective dates on which the English and the French editions of the Experimental Farm Report of December 1, 1899, were printed and distributed ?
2.	Is it true that the French edition of the report was printed and distributed one year and more later than the English edition?
3.	If so, is it the intention of the Department of Agriculture, with a view to the interests of the French-speaking agricultural class in the country to adopt suitable means to ensure the printing and distribution of the French edition of the report of the Experimental Farm simultaneously with the English edition?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: The Department of Agriculture has not full control of the printing and distribution of these reports.



LABOUR ORGANIZATIONS.

Mr. CLARKE asked :: 1.	What labour organizations in the Dominion of Canada was Bill No. 47, now before the parliament of Canada, submitted to by the government?
2.	What labour organizations approve of the Bill as it is now printed?
3.	What labour organizations, if any, opposed the provisions of the Bill?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Bill No. 47 was submitted to the president of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, Mr. Smith, M.P., for Vancouver, and also to Mr. Puttee, M.P., for Winnipeg. Both these gentlemen approve of the Bill as far as It goes, but reserve the right of moving amendments and making suggestions.



THIRD READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 32 to provide for the marking and inspection of packages containing fruit for sale.-The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Sydney Fisher).

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply.
['The time for private Bills having expired, the House will resume in Committee of Supply.']
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: I think that when my estimates were last under consideration we left off at the discussion of the item for increased accommodation at Halifax.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: The hon. minister will remember also that the first item, that relating to steel rails and fastenings, stood over. He was to furnish me the tenders from the different parties who have tendered for the work.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My deputy took a memo, of the matter, and he will bring the information that the hon. gentleman asked for. We mat- go on with the other item, that of increased accommodation at Halifax.


John Graham Haggart: Yes.
Railways and Canals-Chargeable to Capital-Railways-Intercolonial Railway-To increase the accommodation at Halifax, $60,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This amount is being asked for because the traffic at Halifax has been increasing to such an enormous extent that our present accommodation is entirely inadequate. Besides the other work to be done, there is a eribwork retaining wall required at Richmond.


John Graham Haggart: The amount voted last year was $10,200, and this with the amount now asked for will make a total of $76,200. What is to be done for this amount ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The works we have undertaken are in addition to the improvements at North street, and the eribwork that I have

referred to. We have to extend the yard at Richmond. There is a grading and filling at that point that is a very expensive item. It involves, if my memory is correct, a good deal of rock excavation and is estimated to cost not less than $60,000. The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), will probably be able to verify my impressions as to the character of the work to be done there. The improvements altogether will necessitate an expenditure of $120,000 in round figures. We expended, during the year ended 30th June, 1900, $22,000, and, up to the 1st of January last, $3,000. We propose to expend $GO,000 this year.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: There was a report of the Committee on Railways and Transportation adopted by the council of the Halifax Board of Trade on the 10th of December, 1899, which probably dealt with some of the matters that the Minister of Railways and Canals lias brought to the attention of this committee. I would like to read that report in the hearing of the minister in order that he may have an opportunity to explain to what extent the difficult]es and defects that are referred to in it will probably be removed by the expenditure of this money. The first paragraph says :
1. The business in the railway yard, both at Richmond and Deep Water Terminus, has largely increased, and, unfortunately, the capacity for transacting the business has not only not increased in corresponding ratio, but it has actually diminished. Inquiry and experience have satisfied the committee that the present yard-master is unequal to the task which is imposed upon him, and they would respectfully suggest that he be transferred to some other sphere of duty, and some active and thoroughly competent man substituted for him.
So far as that is concerned, I do not l*now the yardmaster, and have no opinion as to his fitness or capacity for the place.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The man referred to has been displaced, and another man, believed to be competent, has been appointed in his stead.


Robert Laird Borden: The second paragraph of the report reads :
The committee are further of opinion that the yard has not the equipment in the way of shunting engines which is needed to deal satisfactorily with the traffic.
I will send this report over to the hon. minister.
3. The committee are satisfied that some rearrangement and enlargement of the track accommodation in the yard is desirable, and that, in order to deal satisfactorily with freight shipped or landed at Deep Water, an additional track connecting that terminus with Richmond cannot well be longer dispensed with. * I
I will presently read the resolution of the council of the city of Halifax pointing out Mr. BLAIR.
the desirability of expropriating certain properties on Upper Water street, which would meet the difficulty suggested by this paragraph.
4.	The committee express their regret that the dredging beside pier No. 4 at deep water was not done during the past season, and would recommend that as the carrying on of the work after this date would seriously interfere with the docking, loading and unloading of transatlantic steamers, it be postponed until after the opening of navigation in the St. Lawrence in the spring of 1901.
So, according to the views of the committee, some work of that kind that remains undone should be performed during this present spring.
5.	The committee are impressed by the evidence which has been submitted to them of the great delay which occurs in the transportation of freight between western points and Halifax, and between Halifax and Sydney, and trust that while the increased delay may be due largely to an increased business of the Intercolonial Railway, means may be found by the Railway Department to improve the present unsatisfactory condition of things.
This report was made more than a year ago, and possibly the! inconvenience in this respect may have been remedied by the department since.
6.	It has been felt for some time by the public, as well as by the officers of the Intercolonial Railway and Dominion Atlantic Railway, that the state of business called for the laying of a second track on the Intercolonial Railway between Halifax and Windsor Junction, and the committee trust that an item for the doing of this work may be placed in the railway estimates for the coming year.
They were referring then to 1900. I do not know whether the hon. gentleman has taken that into consideration. There is a large amount of business over that portion of the line, 14 miles, between Halifax and Windsor Junction, and that has to bear not only all the business of the Intercolonial Railway which comes into Halifax, either from the north or from the east, but it has also to accommodate all the business of the Dominion Atlantic Railway, which is by no means small, and which is increasing from year to year.	i
7.	The committee cannot conclude without an expression of regret that on more than one occasion their communications to the Railway Department have not been acknowledged, and venture to express the hope that similar oversights will not occur in the future.
The eighth paragraph is a recommendation that the attention of the department be drawn to the necessity of a more adequate accommodation for the passenger traffic at North street station.
I observe there is a note at the end of this resolution stating that since then the yard-master has been removed to another sphere of duty and that his successor has been

appointed. Now, in order not to take up the time of the committee unnecessarily, I will submit to the hon. gentleman at the same time a resolution which was passed by the city council with respect to the expropriation of land on Upper Water street. The hon. gentleman, of course, is familiar with the line which connects the main line of the Intercolonial Railway with the deep water terminus ; he knows that part of Upper Water street In the city of Halifax is occupied by that line. It has been there for a great many years, I believe it was originally put there on account of the desire of the city to secure a terminus at deep water. They passed a resolution, as I understand, authorizing the laying of the railway on that portion, or a portion, of the street. The result of placing the railway there has been to narrow the street, of course, to a great extent, rendering it much less useful as a public highway than it was before. But that has not been the only result. A further result has been that the property immediately adjoining that on the west has been almost entirely destroyed for the purpose for which it was formerly used. It has deteriorated in value to an enormous extent.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Is that deterioration of recent occurrence ?


Robert Laird Borden: I think it has been going on ever since the railway has been placed on the street, and the proprietors at one time commenced an action against the government for the purpose of recovering damages. The hon. gentleman knows the difficulty that arises where no portion of the proprietors' land has been taken. No portion of the land of any of these proprietors had been taken, and upon commencing litigation they found that there were great difficulties in1 succeeding, and eventually I think the petitions of right were not successful. Nevertheless, no one can doubt that these people have sustained great damage, and it would seem an equitable thing at least that some compensation should be made to them. Neither the former government nor this government could ever see their way clear to do anything, thinking that as there was no legal liability it was not an occasion that called for interference. Now, what the city council suggests in their resolution, which I will read, is that increased accommodation is required for the Intercolonial Railway at Halifax, both at the deep water terminus at North street, and at Richmond, and that the increased accommodation could be best provided by expropriating land between Water street and Lockman street, as far south as the deep water terminus. I believe the property could be acquired at a very reasonable rate, and I venture to think that the suggestion made by the city council in this resolution is worthy of very careful and earnest consideration on the part of the Minister of Railways and Canals and of the government. The matter arose in the city of Halifax recently in this way : It was proposed to erect a cold storage plant in the northern part of the city, and there was necessity in that connection to obtain a siding or some right of way over that portion of the Intercolonial Railway which runs along this street, and an application was made to the city council. In dealing with that, the city council passed this resolution :
With reference to the granting of permission for the laying of a railway siding on Upper Water street, that such permission could not he granted. Your committee would recommend, however, that immediate steps should be taken by the council to impress upon the Dominion government, not only the great desirability, from a commercial standpoint, but the utter necessity of the taking over of the land by the government in order to furnish anything like adequate facilities for the handling of freight.
That has since been followed up by another resolution of the council in the month of March, which is of the same purport, and I will not trouble the committee by reading it. I think the minister has already had this matter under consideration to some extent. I desire to press its importance upon him, not because it is a matter affecting my own city and my own constituency, but because it is a matter affecting the entire business of the Intercolonial Railway which comes into the city of Halifax. I think we may look for some development of that business, and I believe the minister himself looks for great development of business over the Intercolonial Railway into that city ; but as long as we do not have first-class accommodation and proper facilities for handling freight it would be impossible for that business to develop to any great degree. At the present time those who are more capable of forming an opinion upon this matter than I am, think that the facilities are not adequate to a proper development within a few years ; indeed they say the facilities are not sufficient for the business now. If that be so. it is necessary to provide increased facilities, and I see no better way in which the minister could do it than by taking that portion of land. In saying that, of course, I speak with great diffidence, because I am well aware that I have no practical knowledge of the subject which will entitle my opinion to much respect. But it does seem to me that the land lying immediately beside the track of the Intercolonial Railway, extending from the North street station down to the deep water terminus, is land that could be more useful to the Intercolonial Railway for the purpose referred to than any other land that I am aware of in that vicinity.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Mr. Chairman, having reference, in the first place, to what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) has stated, particularly in regard to taking over the property on Water street, I may say to my hon. friend that that subject has received a good deal of consideration from the department and from myself personally. I have not, however, I am free to confess, up to the present moment, felt that the interest of the railway or the public service was so much involved in the question as the interest of the private land-owners themselves. They naturally have a desire to dispose of this property, property which I agree, has been, to some extent, possibly to a considerable extent, depreciated in value by reason of the railway line running along that street. But, this is not, by any means, a recent grievance, it is one of very long standing. The condition which exists today has prevailed for many years. I do not think that things are much worse at this moment than they were ten, or fifteen, or twenty years ago ; so that, while I think that if we had plenty of money, if things were easy with us, it would be rather an advantage for the railway to own this particular property, we have not thought that, in the pressure under which we were to afford the accommodation to the public, we ought to defer doing what is altogether and entirely necessary in the public interest, doing what is more for a private than a public interest, or which is as much a private as it is a public interest. My hon. friend, when he suggested that this property would be a good property for us to acquire in order to improve our facilities, did not have in his mind the consideration that it is not always best that a railway should acquire property for such a purpose in the heart of the city or necessarily very close to the city. The object of railway policy in that direction at the present time is rather to get out of a city, to go where you can get land as cheaply as possible, and where you can lay down your yards at the least possible expense. We are endeavouring to do that, and that is why we are doing what we are at Richmond and in the neighbourhood of the North street station, rather than in the more settled part nearer the centre of the city. We have endeavoured to meet the urgent demands of the business people of Halifax in our present proposals. I do not say that we have covered all the ground that we would desire to cover, but we are approaching the question with a full appreciation of the necessity of more and improved accommodation being provided for the business of Halifax. It is unquestionably growing, it has grown of late, there is a congestion at the present time, and business men have good reason to complain that they have not the facilities provided for them that they Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
need. We think that what we are now proposing to do will very largely meet the present needs at all events, and meet the needs of the immediate future as well. I think if my hon. friend understands, as I am quite sure he does, what our scheme of improvement is, he will admit that we are responding reasonably, at all events, to the demand which the business men of Halifax have made upon us ; at all events, in an equal degree with any other portion of the country through which the line runs. My hon. friend read in the resolutions that it was the opinion of the Board of Trade and the city council of Halifax that the line should be double tracked between Halifax and Windsor Junction. That question has been looked into. We have not come to a final decision in respect to it. It will be an expensive work when it is undertaken, and my own desire has been rather that we should see whether or not, for the present, and for some few years to come, we might not extend our sidings. We might lay a double track for a few miles of the distance between these two points, laying it down where it could be built less expensively and thereby answer the purposes of the relief to traffic. To double track tlfe whole line between Halifax and Windsor Junction would be an expensive work, because there are points where a good deal of heavy rock cutting would have to be done. I think we can have six or eight miles of track in one continuous line on a portion of the road which would be comparatively inexpensive, and which would afford very great relief and sufficient relief to answer for some time. It is to that point that we are now directing attention. I think I would like, before deciding upon it in my own mind and before dealing with the conflicting views which may obtain upon it, to look over that section of the road myself, which' I think I will be able to do at the close of the session. During this session, at all events, I would not be in a position to ask my colleagues to make any appropriation for the purpose of laying down either all or any portion of the double track between these two points.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Blair) perhaps, misunderstood the ground upon which I was putting forth the suggestion that the property on Upper Water street should be acquired by the government for the purposes of the Intercolonial Railway. My reference to the depreciation of the property of the landowners there, was more with the view of pointing out to the minister that the property could be acquired at a very cheap rate. I did not intend to suggest, that, because these gentlemen had certainly what one might call a moral grievance on account of the depreciation, therefore, we should acquire the property. I was not suggesting

that, but I was pointing out that it could be acquired at a very low figure. The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals says that this is not necessary, and that what is being done at Richmond, will answer the purpose for the present. Of course, he knows a great deal more about the actual working of the railway than I can pretend to know, but I do understand that at deep water itself there is a very great deal of difficulty on account of the lack of room for sending cars there, loading and unloading them, and a lack of facilities for the purpose of handling the business of the Intercolonial Railway. I do not know to what extent that can be remedied by having a yard at Richmond a mile off or more. It did seem to me that this land which is immediately adjoining would improve the accommodation which needs to be improved at deep water, and I have no doubt it would. Of course, the question remains as to whether the necessity is great enough to justify the hon. minister in going to the expense of acquiring the land. The hon. gentleman is responsible for any opinion in regard to it, and of course he is in a better position than 1 am to form an opinion in regard to it. But, I do know that a great many people and the leading business men of Halifax think it is absolutely necessary now, or in the immediate future, to increase the room at the deep water terminus itself, or in its immediate vicinity. I trust, that, although the hon. minister may not see his way clear to take that into consideration now, he will bear it in mind and that if the accommodation is necessary for the proper development of the business of the Intercolonial Railway at Halifax it may not be delayed to a too distant future.


John Graham Haggart: How is the removal of that rock connected with the Intercolonial Railway ?


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is connected with the improvement of the deep water terminus.


John Graham Haggart: To what extent is the elevator at Halifax used by the public ?


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not think the hon. gentleman would expect me to remember all these details. He would oblige me if he would refer to the public statement which is taken from the records and he will find it there.


John Graham Haggart: What is the total expenditure on terminal facilities and accommodation at Halifax ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Up to the end of December last it was $2,168,143.


John Graham Haggart: Is that all ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Oh, I made a mistake. I included an amount which did not belong to it. It is $1,997,553.


John Graham Haggart: If the minister has not the report from his officer recommending this work under his hand now, would he bring it after dinner ?


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman knows the way these matters reach us. They come in the form of estimates from the department at Moncton. This matter has been the subject of representation by the city council of Halifax, and by the board of trade, and I do not know that we would have any departmental recommendation further than that involved in the estimates. If there is any such I shall bring it down.


John Graham Haggart: The minister must have a recommendation from his department for this expenditure.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not think the estimates contain any formal recommendation.


Mr. MACLEAN.: In connection with these appropriations for the Railway Department,
I wish for a moment to again direct the attention of the minister and of the government to the fact that the time has come when the government system of railways* should be administered absolutely independent of politics. If we ever are to have a national system of railways in this country, we must begin by taking our present system out of politics. I trust that before this parliament meets again the Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair) and the Postmaster General (Hon. Mr. Mulock) will be able to announce with the sanction of the government that hereafter the railways and tire post office are to be conducted irrespective of all kinds of political influences; that the administration of the railway will be in the hands of the best officials that can be obtained, that they will be well jraid. and that they can do their work unhampered by political interference. The idea of national railways is growing in Canada, and I want to see it grow. I want to see the Intercolonial Railway extended from ocean to ocean. I am prepared to see the Intercolonial Railway extended to the Georgian Bay to-day if a reasonable proposition for that purpose can be secured. To begin with, let us do as they do in England, and take the administration of our railways outside of politics. No member of parliament should have a word to say in the appointment of postmasters or brakesmen or anything of that kind.


Mr. COWAN.: You used to have a lot to say about it.


William Findlay Maclean: The gentlemen who sit on the other side of the House think this is an absurd doctrine. They like to be dabbling- in this kind of business, and they like to be trafficking- in senatorships. If that kind of traffic has obtained in the past the people of Canada want to see it ended now and for ever.


Mahlon K. Cowan: We like to follow your good example.


William Findlay Maclean: I hope the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cowan,) who represents the cakewalk district of this country will follow a good example when he gets it from a man like me.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


William Findlay Maclean: We have had enough of cake-walk interruptions in this House, and I hope we have heard the last of them. Now-, Mr. Chairman, I do trust that the Minister of Railways and the First Minister will recognize that Canada is proud of her national railway, and that the people of this country wuuid like to see it developed. I believe that the people of Canada would like to see the railways and the telegraph and telephone systems taken over by the government, but to begin with we must take these enterprises outside the domain of politics. I hope the Conservative party will come before the country in a very short time and declare that it is one of the planks in their platform to de-politicalize the railway system and the post office service of this country. If that be done, the people will think more and more of these great public institutions, and will be prepared to invest more of their money in the extension of them.
To pay land damages for subway at Amherst $1,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is to build a subway at Christie's Crossing near Amherst which is a very dangerous point, and we require some additional land in order to do that. We require some additional land, which we have reason to believe will cost us $1,000, and we are asking for a vote with which to purchase that land. We have had an appropriation for the subway, and have expended it.


John Graham Haggart: And this is to pay for the land you take ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is to pay for the land we have been obliged to take, and land damages. The chief engineer reports that this amount, he believes, will be sufficient to cover both. Last year or the year before we had an estimate, speaking from memory,


Mahlon K. Cowan: of between $10,000 or $12,000 for the work, which has been done.


John Graham Haggart: This is a small item, but it is an extraordinary statement the minister makes. There was apparently a level crossing, and for the purpose of protecting the public he builds a subway. How could damages to the extent of $1,000, or any damages, occur ?


Mr. GERMAN.: They certainly occurred in Toronto, when a subway was built there on the streets.


John Graham Haggart: This is a subway on an ordinary road in the country. What land damages could occur two or three miles outside of Amherst, for which $1,000 would be payable ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are not going to pay any more than we are obliged to pay. The names of the claimants are Charles Patterson and the heirs of Moffat. In making this subway, I understand that we have cut into and injured the land of these two people. This roadway goes down a valley, and then rises up and crosses the railway on a level crossing, and we are building a subway under the tracks, and in doing so we are cutting into the valley on the one side or the other beyond our own boundaries.


John Graham Haggart: How far is this place from Amherst ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: About a quarter of a mile.


Mr. WALLACE.: What quantity of ground is taken ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not know how much.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to ask the minister in regard to the accommodation at Sydney. I am requested to ask if he has come to any settled conclusion as to whether he will make any change in regard to the running of trains to North Sydney and Sydney. As I understand, North Sydney is on the main line, while Sydney is on a branch.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman was not here when I made my reply on that subject, but he will find it in ' Hansard,' to the effect that we will be issuing the timetable for the coming season in a short time, and we contemplate making arrangements to remove the dissatisfaction which exists, which has existed for many years, but which is undoubtedly becoming more acute by reason of the increased business at Sydney. WTe hope to provide such accommodation for both places as will satisfy the rea-

sonable demands of the people resident in those places.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: By what means do you hope to accomplish that ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There would be different means of accomplishing it. One would be by having a train run out from North Sydney, and connect with the express when it arrives at Sydney junction-the main express going into Sydney, which would, perhaps, carry the major part of the travel. Another arrangement that might be made would be to increase the number of our express trains from Mulgrave, and arrange to have one train a day leaving North Sydney, and one train a day leaving Sydney, and on the return one train going to North Sydney and the other to Sydney. I do not know that it would be expedient for me at this moment to state to which of these plans my own preference would incline. But, the hon. gentleman can say to those who are inquiring of him, that the subject is not being overlooked, but that it will be dealt with in a manner which I am sure will be reasonably satisfactory to the people.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: My information is, that the first plan would not be satisfactory, for this reason, that it would be making practically a branch of what was originally a main line. It would necessitate a transfer at Sydney Junction, instead of the train going on to North Sydney, which, I am told, is practically on the main line, and connects with the regular boat, which carries a large number of passengers. If the other plan were carried out, of running through trains-one from North Sydney and another from Sydney

I do not suppose that the same objection would prevail. But, the first suggestion will not, so far as I am informed, meet with the approval of the people of North Sydney at all. They have protested against that before, and will likely do so again.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not expect to be able to satisfy the people of both points, and I have some doubts as to whether I shall be able to satisfy them at either of the points. If the last suggestion I made were to be adopted, I am quite sure that the people, at least from one of these localities, would complain that both trains were not serving their particular point. There are objections to the running of through trains unless the .needs of business justify it, and it is not a serious consideration for people to get on board a day car-a comfortable commodious car-and run up five or six miles and then change into another car. That is not at all a serious grievance, and if they can get first-class service, as they will by submitting to a little inconvenience of that kind, I do not think they can make much of a
case on which to appeal to the public against the decision of the department. We have been giving the people of Cape Breton a great deal better service than they have been heretofore receiving. We have put additional trains on, and I think we will be justified in still more improving the service by giving, probably all the year round, a day and night service each way. But for some little time to come, it would not be reasonable to ask us to duplicate that improved service for both towns.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It may not be much trouble for passengers to get on and off a train, but when it is contemplated to make what was heretofore the main line a branch line, and make the other the main line, it seems to me it would be wise first to determine which line carries the largest number of passengers and the greater amount of freight. I understand that North Sydney is the line which connects with the boat line, whereas the other does not connect with any regular boat line.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The proportion of passenger and freight traffic is very much larger to Sydney than North Sydney. I would think two or three times as large. The other has steamboat connection with the Bruce and Newfoundland line, but with all that there is no real analogy between the two cases, so far as the volume of passenger and freight traffic is concerned. When you get to North Sydney you get practically to the terminus of railway connection, except so far as steamers are concerned, but when you get to Sydney you have connection with the Louisburg railway, along which line there are several important mines and large centres of population. The mines of the Dominion Coal Company are located chiefly along that railway, and the connection with Sydney brings you into contact with the population at these mines and at other points on the Louisburg railway.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What would be the respective population of the two places 7


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The population of Sydney is about half as much again as that of North Sydney, and in addition you are serving the population of these mining towns and villages along the Louisburg line.


William Findlay Maclean: Has the hon. minister sufficient terminals at Sydney or is he likely to have to buy terminals at a high price from real estate speculators 7 I hope that the country has something to show for the $2,000,000 invested in terminals at Halifax. The esplanade at Toronto is a very valuable work, which cost a great deal of money and is traversed by miles of track, but I do not think it cost quite $2,000,000.	$2,-
000,000 for terminal facilities in Halifax is

rather a large item, and I would like to know whether the people are getting value for their money. If North Sydney is to develop as we are told it will, I hope that the hon. gentleman will have proper terminal facilities there, and thus avoid the necessity of having to pay two or three years hence, exaggerated prices for real estate in that town.
Original construction, $2,000.


John Graham Haggart: Is that for land damages ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, this is construction, the old item.
Land Damages-Oxford and New Glasgow and Cape Breton division of the Intercolonial Railway, $1,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is an old item. Usually for the last ten or twelve years, $2,000 has been voted, but this year we believe that $1,000 will be sufficient. The only claims now pending relate to the Cape Breton division. They are : Charles E. Leonard. land damage in connection with the right of way [DOT] of the original construction of the Cape Breton line ; Catherine McKenzie, and James and David Dowling, for the diversion of a stream. We believe that the amount here asked for will be sufficient for the claims to be paid during the year.


John Graham Haggart: We might as well take up the first item, which was held oversteel rails and fastenings.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Very well.
Railways and Canals-Chargeable to Capital- Railways-Intercolonial Railway-Steel rails and fastenings, $500,000.


John Graham Haggart: I see by the returns brought down by the minister that he had tenders from seven parties, and as he stated, they were very nearly the same as that at which the contract was given. Did the hon. gentleman make inquiries as to the price of rails in the open market, the price paid by the ordinary railways of the country ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: To what time does the hon. gentleman refer ?


John Graham Haggart: Within the last eight or nine months. The price has not varied for about six months.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think the price to-day is lower. If you are ready to place an order to-day for delivery nine or twelve months hence, you can get quite a reduction upon the price we had to pay last year.


William Findlay Maclean: 


Mr. CLANCY.: What is the price now ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not know, but I think that it is probably $5 or $6 less than it was.


William Findlay Maclean: The price is $24 a ton.


John Graham Haggart: The highest market price at any time during the last five months has been $25 a ton. I have here the contract that the hon. minister has made with Mr. Clergue and his company, and I must say it is the most extraordinary contract that I have ever known to be presented to a House of parliament.	This
agreement was made in October, 1900, one month before the general election. I gathered from what the minister said the other day that he was ashamed of it, because he stated that it was for only 25,000 tons of steel.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, I stated just what it was, did I not ?


John Graham Haggart: This contract is for
125,000	tons of steel. That is to say, here is a contract for about $4,000,000 that the Minister of Railways and Canals has entered into without consulting parliament and without a single dollar voted by parliament. What becomes of the promises made by these hon. gentlemen when in opposition ? What becomes of the principle they promised to carry out if returned to power-that no contract of any importance would be given without being first submitted to the House for its sanction ? Here the hon. minister, off his own bat, a month before the election, enters into a contract with a man who has had not a single forge, who was not in a position to manufacture a single steel rail, for 125,000 tons of rails at a price for the first year of $32.60, the price afterwards to be fixed in a very uncertain manner. Here are the words of the contract:
Whereas, for the purpose of encouraging the erection and equipment in Canada of plant and machinery for the manufacture and production on the most modern principle, of steel rails and plates and bridge material, the aforementioned Minister of Railways and Canals has been authorized to execute a contract guaranteeing to the company the acceptance by Her Majesty, during the five years next following, of 25,000 tons of steel rails at prices fixed as hereinafter specified. It is, therefore, agreed by and between Her Majesty, for herself, her successors and assigns, and the company for itself, its successors and assigns, that Her Majesty will in each year from the year 1901 to the year 1905, both inclusive, purchase from the company and take delivery of 25,000 tons of 2,240 pounds to the ton, of first quality steel rails, eighty pounds to the yard, of section from time totime prescribed and approved by the said minister.
Then, as to the price, it is fixed in this manner :
That, with the exception of the year 1901, for which year the price per ton is hereby fixed at

$32.60, the price for such rails per ton shall be the same as the pries obtainable for the same quality of rails in the open market in Great Britain at the time when the respective orders for such rails are given under the said contract.
Now, if the minister is correct-though I see nothing about it in his contract-there is from 2 to 3 per cent of nickel in the rails. Unless the nickel is mixed in England to get rails of the same quality, it will be impossible to fix the price by the market price of rails in England. The contractor, before he goes into the enterprise, has $3 per ton promised to him in the form of a bounty for every ton of steel manufactured in Canada.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: He gets $3 per ton for pig iron and $3 per ton for steel.


William Findlay Maclean: And something out of the Ontario government.


John Graham Haggart: Yes, he gets $G per ton from this government besides a bounty from the Ontario government. And he has a contract for five years to sell steel rails to a total of 25,000 tons, virtually at the price of $32.60 per ton. What better thing could a man desire with which to go into the market and raise capital for the purpose of fulfilling his contract ? The government have not only made an agreement for the purchase of these rails, but they have virtually furnished the capital to carry out the contract. I protest against this growing habit on the part of the government of letting contracts without tender. It was one of the principles laid down by these hon. gentlemen when they were in opposition that no contract should be let without tender. They also insisted that no contract of importance should be let without being first laid upon the Table of this House for the approval of parliament. I do not know what this country is coming to, when the purchase of locomotives, the purchase of cars, the enormous expenditure on capital account of nearly $2,000,000 for the Intercolonial is left to an individual, when it is left to the government of the country to enter into contracts for such enormous sums without competition. There is something wrong on the face of it. The contract does not bear the date it was entered into, it only says : ' An agreement made this day, 1900.' The party who engrossed and backed it was more honest than the party who copied the agreement, because he says the date of the agreement was in October, 1900.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Look at the agreement, I think you will see the date mentioned.


John Graham Haggart: Oh, yes, 9th of October, 1900.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Was that the date the writs were issued for the elections ?


John Graham Haggart: Very near it.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND * CANALS. It is difficult to follow the hon. gentleman in his statements, they are so wild, so misleading, so entirely inaccurate, so unfair. I confess I feel some difficulty in dealing with the statements as they merit. I am willing that a comparison should be made between the methods of this government and the methods of the government with which the hon. gentleman was connected. I am willing that the bona fides of the transaction should be sifted, and examined, and investigated, and turned over in every shape and form. And after you have done that, what will you find ? You will find simply that the government has endeavoured to pursue a course which, without a loss of a dollar to the public exchequer, would guarantee, if it were possible to do so, the establishment of an industry which will be of an enormous advantage to this country. I would not have expected that an hon. gentleman who belongs to a party that professes to absorb almost all interest in the industrial enterprises of Canada, should have been the first to complain of an arrangement of this kind, so well calculated to confer immense benefits upon the country, by the encouragement of an industry which could not possibly hope to succeed unless it received aid and encouragement in a proper and legitimate way from the government of the country. Now, Sir, away back in the month of June last, as I told the House yesterday, this subject was a matter of discussion. Before the close of the last session of parliament, I find, as early as the month of June, a formal proposal was made to the government by Mr. Clergue. If that proposal was one which was proper and commended itself to the approbation of the government, do I understand from the hon. gentleman that it ought to be rejected because an election might possibly occur in the near future ? Do I understand the hon. gentleman to tell this House calmly and seriously that that is the course which he and his party pursued when they were in power, that they abstained from entering into a proper, necessary and legitimate contract because somebody would suspect and charge them with having done so in view of an impending election ? I say it is childish and absurd ; and however much the hon. gentleman may have succeeded in warming himself up on this question, he will find it difficult to impress that view upon any reasonable electorate in any constituency in Canada. In the month of June, I say, we received a formal proposal from Mr. Clergue pointing out that they were anxious, in connectiou with their enterprises at the Soo, having large mineral interests, having an enormously valuable deposit of iron ore of a character which would make a superior steel, to establish an industry for making



rails in Canada. Well, will anybody say that is not a desirable thing to encourage ?


William Findlay Maclean: The Liberal party have said it from time to time.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not care what the Liberal party said. I do not think the Liberal party ever proclaimed any such policy. I think the hon. gentleman will find it difficult to quote even individual members of the Liberal party-and individual members are not competent to speak for the party-who declared themselves against any such proposition. As long as there is no wrong done to the country, as long as there is not a dollar of burden placed upon the exchequer beyond what is necessary and reasonable, as long as yon are not taking money out of the pockets of one person in order to put it into the pockets of another, I say it would be a laudable and legitimate policy and one which it is the bounden duty of any government to adopt and carry into operation, if they could do so under the circumstances which existed in this case. Mr. Clergue made this proposition, made it in good faith. It was considered in good faith, and it was finally determined upon by the government, not in the form of an order in council, hut some time before the order in council was passed, some time before the date of the contract. It was determined upon by the government, and the conditions upon which such contract would be made were settled by the government.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: When did the minister say the order in council was passed ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If my memory serves me, it was in the month of September, not long before the date of the contract which has been read by the bon. gentleman.


Robert Laird Borden: The contract itself stares that the order in council was dated the 9th of October.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That may be the date on which the order was passed, but the recommendation to council, I am quite sure, went in in September, because I was not here on the 9th of October, and could not have been present at that time. ' On a memorandum dated the 26th of September.' Then the order goes on to say it was in September that the report went to council, and the order passed on the 9th October. Well, now, what are the terms of that contract ? If that is open to criticism, then let the hon. gentleman criticise it, as it is his right to do. Do the terms state that we are to pay to this Lake Superior Power Company any price they may ask ? Are we to pay a price higher than the market price? No, we are not to pay a price higher than the market price.


Mr. BLAIR.: 


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: You are paying it this year.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are not paying a price higher than the market price. If, six months, or nine months, or a year, after a contract has been made, the price has declined, it is not fair to any government, it is not fair to any individual, to say that he was paying an exorbitant price, and attempt to prove it by the fact that the price has since declined. That is no evidence. At the time this contract was made the price of rails, from what information I could gather, was as high in the English market as the price we paid.


James Clancy: Was it necessary for the hon. gentleman to enter into such a contract at the time be did, and pay the exorbitant price that he now admits be paid for these rails ? Did he require the rails then ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I want the hon. gentleman to understand that he is not quoting my observations correctly in the remotest degree when he says that I admitted paying an exorbitant price.


James Clancy: Why, the hon. gentleman said a moment ago that the rails could be bought probably $6 a ton cheaper now than then.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: But what does that prove? Does it prove that when the contract was made the price was higher than the market price which existed at the time ? It proves nothing of the kind. I tell the hon. gentleman that you could not go into the market in the months of October, September, August, or July last, and make a contract for the delivery of rails at the time specified in this contract at any less price than the price we made it for. And you cannot go into the market to-day, if my information is correct, and make a contract for the delivery of rails within six, nine or twelve months-


Mr. OSLER.: The hon. gentleman is quite wrong in that statement.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Osier) know ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: Yes.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Then I will have to yield to his superior knowledge. I am speaking from my information. I do know that when we made this contract for these rails we were not agreeing to pay an exorbitant price. I do know that the enormous demands that were being made at that time upon the rail manufacturers made it impossible to get

an early delivery at a less cost than that *which is named here. Now, so much for this year. We are not bound as to what the price will be next year. When we come to settle up for the next year's supply of rails, if the contract which has been entered into is carried out and the rails are delivered, we will have to ascertain what the market price is in England and the market price in England is a safe guide. If you go by that you are not paying an exorbitant figure, and we have this company under obligation to accept from us the price which rules in the English market. If they do not agree to furnish us with rails at the price which rules in the English market, we stipulated in making our contract that we were not under any obligation whatever to take the rails from them; that if they have not fulfilled their contract we are under no obligation to fulfil ours. That is a perfectly safe arrangement. I do not know how it would be possible to hit upon any terms which are to have reference at all to the future which would secure or guarantee the exchequer of this country against any loss, against any imposition in price, other than the terms in which that contract has been framed, and when it stipulates that we shall go to the open market in England to find bow much it would be just and fair to pay them for rails we make a stipulation which I do not think anybody can say is not an ample protection to the exchequer of this country.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There are two features of it that attract our attention at the present time. The first is the unwisdom of entering into such a large contract without parliament being consulted. All this is wrong and hon. members on the other side of the House for years and years invariably declared that it was wrong and condemned the previous government for doing that kind of thing to an extent which they thought was not justifiable. Now, the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) says that there is nothing wrong in it. It seems to me to be practically another Yukon job-a worse job, some say than the Yukon job. It is, at all events, on a par with it. The same principle is involved. It is dealing with the money belonging to the country in a high handed way which is not, in my opinion, justifiable. The next feature of it is that the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals did not treat the House with perfect frankness or fairness when he made the statement he did yesterday. What was that statement ? We have entered into a contract with Mr. Clergue for 25,000 tons of rails at $32.50 a ton.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS..: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) pardon me for an interruption because it may avoid the necessity of his stating what he is proceeding to do. If he will look at ' Hansard ' he will see just 861
what I said on the subject. I said that we had no explicit contract for the full five years, that we had only fixed the rate for one year, and that subsequently, if they were prepared to sell us 25,000 tons of rails per year at the price which ruled in the English market, we understood we had an arrangement with them to take that quantity. These are the very words. Is not that really what we have done ?


Robert Laird Borden: No, I should say not.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is what 1 certainly would say we had done. I will read what I did say :
When we had assured ourselves with reference to what would be a reasonable price to pay, we made a contract with this company to deliver 25,000 tons of the quality and standard which we have been placing upon the road, a rail eighty pounds in weight, and we were to pay them $32.50 per ton, the delivery to commence in the first week in August, and to continue at such a rate that we would be able to lay them before the snow fell. They were to be delivered to us in Montreal-that is in the present year. We have no permanent and explicit contract with them for the future, although in their proposal they asked us to give them a contract for a term of five years, and to give them an order for 50,000 tons with which to commence their industry. We finally concluded to give them an order for 25,000 tons, and while we have no explicit contract with them for any term beyond the year in which we are now entering, we have an understanding with them under which, if they furnish us, as they engage to do, with rails of the quality and standard we require, and at the current price in the English market, we are prepared to continue to take our rails from them.


William Findlay Maclean: That is a contract.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is a contract, is it not 1


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, certainly. That is a contract to buy for five years.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Well, I say that we had no explicit arrangement because the price is entirely indefinite.


William Findlay Maclean: No, you have a five years contract with them.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is just as I stated, is it not 1


William Findlay Maclean: You said it was for one year, and now you say that it is for five years.


Edmund Boyd Osler: You have a contract for five years.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have an understanding that we are to purchase rails from them providing they are willing and ready and prepared to sell them to us at the market price in England.
[DOT]2727


Mr. TAYLOR.: Yon are obliged to take them by your contract.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are not obliged unless they agree to give them to us at the prevailing price in England.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Does the hon. minister say that the contract is ail on one side ? The government have bound themselves to take
25.000	tons a year, but it is not a contract unless the manufacturers like to give them these rails each year. It is a contract on the minister's side, but it is not a contract on Mr. Clergue's side.


William Manley German: Do hon. gentlemen object to taking Canadian rails if the government can get them as cheaply as they can be got in other quarters ?


An hon. MEMBER.: You will have to vote for it anyway.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I respectfully submit that my statement was absolutely correct that the minister did not treat this House with frankness and fairness. He left the impression on the House that the contract was only for 25,000 tons, whereas it is for
125.000	tons. He has read from ' Hansard ' and his words have supported the statement that I made. He had a signed and sealed contract between the Minister of Railways as representing the government, and Messrs Clergue as representing the contractors. If this is not a binding contract, I do not know what it is. The condition of the contract is that they shall supply 25,000 tons of rails every year after the first year at the current market value. It is a contract all the same. I say it is not treating the House with frankness that the minister should mislead the House into the belief that there was no contract except for 25,000 tons to be delivered the present season. The other feature to which I wish to refer is the time at which the contract was entered into. When was it ? In October at the very time that the writs had been issued and when the elections were on. I do not know what the date of the contract was.


An hon. MEMBER.: The 9th of October.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The elections took place on the 7th of November. The contract was entered into at the very time that the writs had been issued and when the elections were on. About the same time he entered into a contract for nineteen locomotives at Kingston, when he telegraphed to his friend there regarding it, so that it might do the greatest amount of good to the party in power at that time. This has explained to me what would seem inexplicable before. I found that the Messrs. Clergue were very active agents in the interests of the present government during the election.


Andrew George Blair: ,


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: In your county.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They were making themselves very active in our part of the country. They were writing most diplomatic letters that had a political purpose, and when I wrote to them inquiring if there was truth in the report that this was done for election purposes, they did not deign to answer until about five weeks ago, because they did not dare to do it without having to confess. Now we have the explanation of the whole thing. They were playing into the hands of the Hon. Wm. Mulock, who was directing the campaign in that part of the country. Now we see the nigger in the fence. This contract comes out. A day ago, the minister (Hon. Mr. Blair) told us that the contract was for
25,000	tons of rails, but he admits to-day that it is for 125,000 tons, and he merits the condemnation and censure of this House for not treating us with fairness. The minister (Hon. Mr. Blair) bought these rails in the face of a falling market. It must have been known to him that the price of steel was going down at the time he made this contract.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Not at that time.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, it was going down at that time. And to-day, only a few months after he made this contract, he is forced to admit that the price is $6 a ton less than this contract price. The whole thing looks like a scaly transaction, and the public of Canada will condemn it and condemn the minister. It is a contract that should receive the condemnation of this House and of the country.


William Findlay Maclean: There is an old saying about teaching your grandmother how to suck eggs, and here we have the Liberal government professing to teach the Conservative party to set up an industry in this country. In fact the Minister of Railways has delivered us a lecture on the subject. Well, We do want an iron industry in Canada, and the government should encourage it, but they should go the right way about encouraging it. In this case they have gone back on all their record In the past; they have started out to build up an iron industry now, a thing which they told us in the past was an impossibility in this country. Why did they not invite capitalists to confer with them and discover from whom they could receive the best terms. That was not their policy at all. But just when an election is at hand they make a secret contract about which the public know nothing until four months after the elections are over. The whole transaction has not a good look about it; and especially so when we remember that these very men have heretofore been opposed to

the encouragement of an iron industry in Canada. They told us it was a hot-house industry, and that you could only encourage it by bounties and prohibitive duties, but now they go back on all their professions In this respect. What does the hon. member for South Oxford (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) say now about encouraging this hot-house industry ? In speech after speech, year after year, he has declaimed against encouraging any iron industry in Canada. What has he got to say now ? What has he to say to his colleagues in the government professing to teach the people of Canada to-day how a steel industry is to be encouraged here ? They make a secret contract and that in itself is opposed to all their declarations in the past. They should have intimated to the rail-makers of the United States and of Great Britain and of Europe that they were disposed to encourage the production of steel rails in Canada, and that they were prepared to make a contract with the company that would establish that industry on the best terms. But they make a secret arrangement which they are ashamed of now, and which the people of the country from one end to the other will repudiate. What becomes of their old idea of having public competition for all these things ? Why, Sir, with the bounties and one thing and another the people of Canada will have to pay $40 a ton for these rails.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: What has the bounty got to do with it ?


William Findlay Maclean: The people have to pay the bounty.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: You will have to pay the bounty anyway.


William Findlay Maclean: The hon. gentleman is begging the question. The people of the country will pay in round figures $40 a ton for these rails, and as to the price of rails In the market to-day I read the following extract from the New York World of yesterday :
Mr. Charles Thullin, a Pennsylvania contractor, recently secured a contract to supply rails for Russia's great Siberian Railway. He asked the leading steel trust companies here for bids. They all asked him about $35 per ton, with freight to be added.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: How does that strike you ?


William Findlay Maclean: Wait a minute.
Mr. Thullin went over to England, sub-let his contract to an English firm, and one of the same companies that had asked him $35 plus freight here, sold the rails at $24 a ton, delivered in England to the English sub-contractors.
That is the ruling price to-day : $24 a ton for these rails, rolled in America and delivered in England.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is the ruling price, is it ?


William Findlay Maclean: That is the price quoted in the New York World of yesterday for these rails for the Siberian Railway delivered in England, and it is $24 a ton. As my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) has pointed out, this contract was made with Mr. Clergue in the face of a falling market. A man in the position of the Minister of Railways must have prevision, and the government must have prevision and they must have known that the market for steel was declining. Every one knows that the price of iron had got to the highest point about a year ago, and that there was bound to be a decline, tout in the face of that the government made this contract. I say that the contract is a bad one, because it was made in view of a falling market. I say that the contract is a bad one even on the ground of encouraging a native industry, because the government did not go the right way about it by putting it up to competition. I say that the contract is a bad one, because it was made in secret, and I say that a grievous wrong has been perpetrated on the country by the government in entering into such a contract. We have heard something about there being nickel in these rails. Is nickel an essential part of the rail, or will Mr. Clergue say hereafter : I am willing to abide by the price in England; but what is the price in England for rails containing two or three per cent of nickel ? That price may be $30 or $40 a ton in England, because they cannot make nickel rails in England, and thus we may have to pay an exorbitant price under this contract. Surely the minister (Hon. Mr. Blair) cannot justify this. The minister (Hon. Mr. Blair) tried to make the House believe that this was not a five years contract, but from what we have heard to-day the period of five years is one of the essences of the contract. True the price may be reduced a year after, but if that idea of nickel being in the rails has any meaning, it undoubtedly may interfere with any reduction in the price. The result of the whole transaction is that this country is committed to a five years contract for rails with Mr. Clergue, and at a price which Mr. Clergue may fix and not the government. That is how it looks to me. What can the people think of this government professing to encourage the steel industry in this country ? Why, they are going back on their record as free traders. Did not we hear the Prime Minister state the other day that he was still a free trader, and did not believe in the encouragement of hothouse industries in Canada. What has he got to say to this transaction 1 The two things do not go together. There is in them what is in nearly every one of their propositions, a great deal of hypocrisy. They are hypocrites in regard to taxation,

in regard to expenditures for public works, in regard to the encouragement of native industries ; and it will be as political hypo crites that they will be tried by the people of this country. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) smiles ; what does he think of this transaction ? We all remember the steel rail scandal in the time of the Mackenzie government ; but, it was as nothing compared with this. Steel rail scandals run in the blood of hon. gentlemen opposite ; this one comes out in the second generation. This great steel combine in the United States may collapse ; it may not be able to overtake English, Belgian and German competition ; and steel rails may before long rule at $20 a ton. True, they may go up ; but, no minister can justify what the hon. gentleman has tried to justify to-day-the making of that contract for five years in view of a falling market. No. he made it in view of an election on the 7th of November last.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is difficult to satisfy hon. gentlemen opposite. To-day it suits their purpose to complain that the government lias not gone to the United States when it desires to procure additional rails. If it were a case of cars and locomotives, such as have recently been purchased by the government for the Intercolonial Railway, and the hon. gentleman were to repeat what he has stated in this House, and what other gentlemen beside him have stated year after year, he would say that it was a crying wrong for this government to have gone to the United States and asked American manufacturers to tender. It was used as an election cry from one end of Canada to the other by hon. gentlemen opposite and their newspaper jiress, that we did not get our locomotives in Canada, but had got most of them in the United States. I would like to know what we can possibly do to satisfy these hon. gentlemen. We felt that every interest called upon us to encourage the building of locomotives in Canada. We took hold of the matter, knowing that gentlemen of capital were willing to revive the Kingston industry, gave them a contract, and encouraged them to put their money into the enterprise of constructing locomotives in Canada. We have done the same with regard to rails.


Mr. CLARKE.: Are you supplying the money ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: So far as the purchase price of the article made for us is concerned, yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Are you supplying the money for the locomotives made in Kingston in advance of delivery ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are furnishing the manufacturers of the locomotives at Kingston with Mr. MACLEAN.
payments on account as the work progresses.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Certainly we are ; we are not ashamed of it; we glory in it, if you want to know, because it is giving employment to 500 or 600 men in the city of Kingston.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Let the heathen rage-we stand on our record ; and we put the rail question on the same footing as we put the engine question. They stand together, and they will be both defensible, in the good opinion and the judgment of this country.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Would the minister allow me to ask him a question in regard to that ? Why did he not do that before, instead of sending orders for twenty locomotives to the United States ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I thank the hon. gentleman for asking me the question. We did it the moment an appeal was made to us to do it. We did not do it before, because we had given to the Kingston works, while they were in operation, orders for the building of every locomotive they would undertake to build ; and we did not go to the United States for an engine until they failed us. They had contracts for the manufacture of engines for the Intercolonial Railway unfinished when they closed their doors. Yet, hon. gentlemen opposite, from one end of Canada to the other, denounced the conduct of the Minister of Railways and the government because we did, when necessity compelled us, go outside of Canada and get locomotives from the neighbouring country. But, Sir, men came to us who, we were satisfied, had an interest in the country, and who desired to re-establish those works, from a public point of view as well as from a business point of view ; and they said, we will get the capital, put it in, and give employment to 500 or 600 people at least to commence with, if you will give us an order so that we can get the undertaking on its feet. As soon as they agreed to do that, we ceased to give orders for locomotives to the United States. We hope we shall be in a position, when these works are under way at Sault Ste. Marie, to do the same thing with regard to the production of rails.' The establishment of a steel rail industry means a great deal for Canada. The amount of money going out of Canada for rails would be greatly augmented with the increased construction of railways in the future. A very large drain is made on the resources of Canada; and when Mr. Clergue came to us and made such a proposition as he did in June last, knowing him to be an enterprising man, knowing the character of the work he had achieved, and



[Stage Direction]
the immense number of people to whom he was giving employment, we felt that he was entitled to a hearing- -
William Findlay Maclean: And a contract.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: And we gave him a hearing on business grounds ; and I want to say to my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maeleau) that we did not contract to buy upon a falling market. We ascertained what the price of rails was then. There were some people who thought that after a lapse of time, possibly before many months, the price of rails might fall ; but, there was then no evidence of it, and there was a great body of opinion to the effect that the price of rails would continue to rise.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Wa s not the price of
steel going down all the time last year ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, Sir, I say it was not ; and 1 defy the hon. gentleman to prove that it was. I can bring the names of persons who bought rails after we made this contract, and who agreed to pay a higher price than we agreed to pay.


George Taylor: Who purchased at a higher price ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think I can give the hon. gentleman the statement ; I am going to ascertain. We did not buy in a falling market. The hon. gentleman takes out his New York paper, and absolutely ignoring the very language and pith of the statement he reads, says it shows that rails can be bought in the open market at $24 per ton. But, what he did read shows that the price which the makers of rails asked is $35 per ton.


James Clancy: The combine price.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


James Clancy: And the hon. gentleman bought at the combine price.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I did not, unless all the rail producers throughout the world are selling at combine prices. I bought at a price which I was satisfied was the market price ruling in England. Is that a combine market ?


James Clancy: Yes.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If the whole world is in a combine, and you have to buy rails at all, then you have to buy them from'a combine market. If what the hon. gentleman says is true, I do not see how you can avoid buying in a combine market. The hon. gentleman says that $35 is the price that was asked, and that since rails have gone down, and we can buy them at $24. We find from this
statement read by the hon. gentleman that $35 was the price asked by tne rail manufacturers when called upon to name the figures they wanted; but later on, when they found that these rails were going to England, they agreed to lower the price in order to be able to supply the English market. Is the hon. gentleman not aware that that is a common practice among manufacturers and not confined to manufacturers of the United States alone ? There may be manufacturers in this country who do the same thing, and it is a practice which is very common among manufacturers in the United States.


James Clancy: Why did the hon. gentleman not avail himself of this practice and get the rails at reduced prices ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Why then does the hon. gentleman denounce the Minister of Railways and Canals for doing with respect to locomotives what he has the temerity to call on him to do with respect to rails ? If he can condemn us in the one case for doing a certain thing, how can he condemn us in the other case for not doing it ? The hon. gentleman is riding a pair of horses, each of which is going in a totally different direction from the other. You could not establish the industry in Canada if you went to the manufacturers of rails in the United States and said to them : We want to get quotations from you for rails to be shipped to Canada in competition with rails that may be purchased from other sources. How quickly would they not, in that case, drop [DOT] their prices from the figures they would ask if we simply went to them and asked their quotations. The hon. gentleman is denouncing us for not having done the very thing which, under their national policy, they have always contended against our doing. Prior to the adoption of the national policy, they were continually asserting that the manufacturers of the United States were being permitted to make a slaughter market of Canada, and yet to-day because we have adopted a course with respect to the manufacturers of rails, which is calculated to establish the industry in Canada, and prevent the making of this country a slaughter market, they say that we are doing wrong. The present attitude of these hon. gentlemen is entirely inconsistent with the platform on which for years they have been standing. I leave my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) to reconcile, if he can, the statement he himself read with the inference he drew from it. It will be absolutely impossible-


William Findlay Maclean: My statement which I read shows that the Russian government are getting rails for their railway at $24 and we are paying $32, plus the bonus, or about $40 per ton. I cannot reconcile the hon. gentleman's course with the facts.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If he cannot, I am not going to undertake to do it for him. We have agreed to take these rails for the current year at this price.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And for the succeeding four years.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have not agreed for more than one year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is not the contract signed ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It does not fix the price at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No, hut it does the number of tons you must take yearly.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Certainly, we will take for the other four years 25,000 tons yearly, but have not fixed the price. We will take the rails at the current market rate in England.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Is there any period fixed during the year for naming the price ? The manufacturer will no doubt tender each year his supply of 25,000 tons of rails at that particular period of the year when the prices are highest. It seems to me that the government are bound to take the rails at the price ruling at that particular period of the year which is most favourable to the seller.
gentleman tells us about market prices during the past year. If his statement about market prices is not more correct than was his statement yesterday about this contract, I do not think the House would be inclined to place much reliance on it. Here is what the hon. gentleman said about this contract yesterday.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I said at the same time that I would bring the contract down, and if the contract is any more explicit than was my statement, made from recollection, the contract is here and speaks for itself.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman comes down here with estimates and undertakes to give the House certain information. The House is entitled to rely on that information. If he cannot trust to his recollection, he should have the contract in his hands ; he should not make statements that are not justified by the contract when brought down. He has persisted in stating that his remarks with regard to the contract were correct


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: In effect correct.


Robert Laird Borden: They are not in effect the same.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is the hon. gentleman's view.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: At whatever date we require these rails to be delivered we will expect to have them, and will have to allow the company reasonable time in which to manufacture them. The price will be that which will rule in England at that time. We will determine upon what is a reasonable and proper time, under the circumstances, to allow for the manufacture of the rails, and then can insist that the price shall be fixed. If the other party is not prepared to agree to the price at that time and make a regular contract with us, then he is not prepared to carry out his agreement.


Edmund Boyd Osler: There is nothing in the contract to cover what the hon, minister has just stated, namely, that he can fix the price himself.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It must be implied that the price is to be fixed in advance and according to the market rates.


Robert Laird Borden: I am sure we are glad that one use at least has been found by hon. gentlemen opposite for the national policy, and that is to justify a contract for five years for 125,000 tons of steel rails, not submitted to parliament, and which contract, when it is mentioned in parliament by the hon. gentleman, is not stated very accurately, to put it very mildly. The hon.


Robert Laird Borden: And I think I can persuade the hon. minister, if he is capable of persuasion, that that should be his view also. This is what he said :
We have no permanent and explicit contract with them for the future, although in their proposal they asked us to give them a contract for a term of five years, anti to give them an order for 50,000 tons with which to commence their industry.
That is pretty explicit. But the hon. gentleman was not satisfied with that. He went on :
We finally concluded to give them an order for 25,000 tons, and while we have no explicit contract with them for any term beyond the year in which we are now entering, we have an understanding with them under which, if they furnish us, as they engage to do, with rails of the quality and standard we require, and at the current price in the English market, we are prepared to continue to take our rails frcm them.
No one would suppose, having regard to what the hon. gentleman stated, that there was an actual contract under which the government Is bound to take 25,000 tons a year for five years from this very company. But the hon. minister will not dispute that now. He does not dispute it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If they furnish tuem we are bound to take them.


William Findlay Maclean: 


Robert Laird Borden: Then, is that not a contract ? The only difference between the contract for the present year and that for the ensuing four years is that in one case the price is fixed at $32.60 a ton, and that in the other place the price depends on a question of fact which is capable of being ascertained. The contract is, therefore, just as certain a contract, just as valid and just as binding with respect to the other four years as with respect to the first.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Not as explicit.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know what the hon. gentleman means by ' explicit.' He said he had no permanent contract with them. But he has brought down a contract covering a term of five years which is just as much a contract for the whole five years as it is for the first year, notwithstanding the difference as to fixing the price to which I have referred. That I may not be accused of speaking without the book, I will read the first paragraph :
'That Her Majesty will In each year during the years 1901 and 1905, both inclusive, purchase from the company and take delivery of 25,000 tons of 2,240 pounds to the ton of first quality steel rails, eighty pounds to the yard, of section from time to time described and approved by the said minister.
There is a distinct engagement.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the date of that contract ?


Robert Laird Borden: The date does not appear here, but it purports to have been made under an order in council of Oth October, 1000. The other part, as to the engagement of the company to furnish the rails, is found in the last paragraph :
That the company will execute all such contracts as may, during the period of said five years, be drawn in accordance herewith or presented by the minister for execution, and will manufacture and deliver the said rails for the said prices, and in all respects will comply with the provisions of the said contracts or any of them.
Surely, the hon. gentleman should not have come to this House and told us, as he did yesterday, that there was no contract for a term of five years, but a contract for one year with an understanding-an indefinite understanding apparently-as to the remaining four years. But I would like to know why the hon. gentleman found it necessary at that particular time to enter into a contract for a term of five years. He talks about encouraging the industries of Canada. Well, we are all very glad indeed to see that the hon. gentleman Is converted to the view that the industries of Canada should be protected and encouraged, that he has become a believer in the national policy which some of his colleagues, in days gone by, have denounced in such scathing terms.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The time referred to by the hon. gentleman is the time when he himself entertained different views.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know that the hon. gentleman need have very much to say about that. Perhaps he will inquire of his colleague (Hon. Mr. Fielding) who sits beside him if he holds the same view with regard to secession that he held in 1886.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The House knows all about that. It has heard about it before.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not desire to refer to that, and would not have done so had not the hon. gentleman's colleague brought it forward. But I am ready to discuss the matter with the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals or the hon. Minister of Finance at any time and under any circumstances.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have no objection.


Robert Laird Borden: But the Minister of Railways and Canals is not doing his colleague any credit when he introduces that subject in the House.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Don't mind me.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not mind the hon. gentleman. I desire to spare his feelings, but his colleague would not permit me to do so. Now, what was the particular necessity for making a contract for five years with this particular company ? Does not the Minister of Railways and Canals know that there are other companies in Canada that propose to develop the steel and iron business ? Does he not know that there is a company in my own province which proposes to engage in the


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Never heard of it until long after this.


Robert Laird Borden: Indeed ? Then the hon. gentleman is very much behind the times apparently. Because I think it was understood last autumn that that company was about to engage in this business. At all events, the hon. gentleman knew that they were engaging very extensively in the iron and steel business, that their works in that respect are much beyond the works of Mr. Clergue now, that at the present time they are manufacturing iron and sending it to England, and that they are in a better position, probably, to-day to advance the business of manufacturing steel rails than is Mr. Clergue. I do not wish to say a word against that gentleman. I admire his enterprise and hope his undertakings will succeed. I am not criticising Mr. Clergue but the Minister of Railways and Canals

when I say that it might have been preferable for the minister not to make a contract for more than one or two years at the outside and to look to the future to develop industries of this kind not only in this section but in other sections of the country, industries that will have an equal right to consideration at the hands of the government. My hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) said that this was something like the Yukon contract. But he was hardly just to the Yukon contract. The minister in charge of that had the grace to . insert in that contract the provision that it should not come into effect until confirmed by parliament. But the Minister of Railways and Canals has no scruples of that kind. He comes to parliament with the contract ready made, telling us that parliament has nothing to say about it, binding the country for five years. And the administration of which he is a member has cancelled contracts for the supply of cloth on the ground that the late administration had no right to make a contract beyond the year for which the vote of parliament had been passed. I know of one case in my own province, and there are many other cases I believe in which that was the policy of the administration with respect to such matters. Having cancelled contracts on that ground, a member of this same administration comes to this parliament with a contract for five years, and [ does not even tell parliament correctly what the terms of it are. And we should never have known what the terms were, had it I not been for my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Haggart) who asked that the contract should be laid on the Table before this rote was proceeded with. I do think the Minister of Railways and Canals has not shown very much pro- i vidence or very much judgment in entering into this contract. He tells us that the price of steel rails was not falling during the past year. But, as a business man, he had every reason to believe that the price would probably fall this year. As a matter of fact, according to his own statement, this country is losing not less than from $150,000 to $200,000 a year on this very contract; 25,000 tons of these steel rails are to be provided during the present year, and on these rails, taking the statement of the Minister of Railways and Canals himself, we will lose no less a sum than $150,000. Now, we may or may not lose to a corresponding amount in future years ; possibly with regard to those, the price is fixed on a better basis, although it may be as the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals has pointed out, that you cannot get a basis on the English market which will do justice to this contract, because, although it is not stated in the contract, nevertheless it is stated in the speech of the minister, that these rails are to contain nickel, and the minister has left it open Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
in the second clause of this contract to make a provision that these rails shall contain nickel. In order that I may not be accused of misrepresenting the hon. gentleman, the second clause of the contract is as follows
That the minister shall, on behalf of Her Majesty, each year during the said five years, enter into a contract with the company, specifying, in greater detail than herein set forth, the time and place of the delivery of such rails, the section approved, the price and mode of payment, with other incidental particulars and provisions, at the discretion of the minister.
Now, that leaves a very wide door open for the minister to deal with this matter during the next five years. I think the contract is for that reason open to the criticism which has been made upon it by my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Haggart).


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I want to reply to the emphatic contradiction the Minister of Railways and Canals made to my statement that the contract was made in the face of a falling market. He said : I deny that it is a fact, and I challenge him to prove it. I have the proof in my hand. I take the Monthly Summary of the Commerce and Finances of the United States for January, 1901. Remember that the recommendation was made to council regarding this transaction on the 2Gth of September, and on the 9th of October it was passed. Now, what was the market price then? On the 26th of September steel rails were quoted at $35 a ton.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is $2.40 more than the contract price.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: On the 3rd of September they were quoted at $35 a ton ; on the 10th of September they were quoted at $30 a ton, having fallen $5 ; on the 30th of September they were quoted at $30, and on the I 3rd of October they were quoted at $26. Therefore, I was right in my statement that the contract was made in the face of a falling market, as the price fell from $35 on the 3rd of September down to $26 about the time he entered into the contract. Does that not look like a shady transaction of a political character ? This is the official record of the markets during the whole year. Now, when the Minister of Railways and Canals gets up and emphatically contradicts a statement as he did, I would like some better authority to stand by than his own words.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: With regard to the alleged readiness of the works in Cape Breton to supply these rails, I think I am correct in saying that the promoters of that enterprise have never made any proposal to the government for making rails, and I think I am also correct in stating that they have not been in a position to offer any rails up to the present time. I think they are

now contemplating an enlargement of tlieir operations with a view to making rails ; but it is correct to say that up to the present time the promoters of that enterprise have not been ready to make rails, they have made no proposal to make rails, and therefore the two companies have not come into competition. I hope to learn that by the enlargement of their operations they will be able to make rails, and if they do, I have no doubt that we shall find a chance to give them an order on fair and reasonable terms.


Robert Laird Borden: I think from what I saw in the public press that the additional bonds placed upon the market by that company in December last were, among other things, intended for the purpose of enlarging their plant so that they could make steel rails. Of course, the hon. gentleman is better informed than I am with regard to that, and I will accept his word ; but that is my recollection of what I saw.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The only point, perhaps, in which I am better informed than my hon. friend is in the fact that they have made no proposal to this government to supply rails.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not suppose they had.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: But the hon. gentleman mentioned the two enterprises as coming into conflict. I think the Cape Breton people are now contemplating the manufacture of rails, but the hon. gentleman referred to them as if they were to be considered in any contract for rails. My recollection is that the additional bonds, to which the hon. gentleman referred, were issued only a few days ago.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Before the House' takes recess, I want to say one word in reply to the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Sproule). I tlmnk him for the extreme courtesy with which he has referred to my statement on the subject. But I desire to state to this committee now that nothing, in my opinion, could be more unfair, nothing could be more unjust than the hon. gentleman's statement, and the hon. gentleman's method of giving support to that statement. The hon. gentleman knows that the whole basis of this arrangement between the government and the Sault Ste. Marie Company was the state of the open market in England. Why was the open market in England chosen ? It was chosen because no sane man would make any agreement to bind himself to the momentary fluctuations of the rail market in the United States, which is up to-day and down to-morrow, at the arbitrary wink and demand of the combine which controls the output. It is unfair for the hon. gentleman to challenge the correctness of my statement when I said that we did not buy upon a falling market, or, in other words, that
there was no fall below the price we had fixed, by showing that the iron proprietors in the United States had lowered the price of rails from $35 down to $26 within a certain period. Let the hon. gentleman search the records and he will find that the price goes up and down, up and down again ; it is pulled up and dropped down to suit the fancy of these people, and is not the result of fair business operations. Upon the open market in England no such condition of things, he will find, obtains. I would like the hon. gentleman to pursue his inquiries further, and to see whether the quotations were as variable in the English market as they were in the United States market, according to what he has read. I made inquiries from some friends in Montreal, I will not say on the 9th of October, but on the 26th of September, and thereabouts, a few days before, when we were coming to a conclusion upon this matter. I inquired from friends in Montreal what the English prices were, and I found they were maintaining about the same standard as the price at which rails were offered to us some months previously. Therefore, I felt justified, and the government felt justified, in deciding that we would give to Mr. Clergue's company the same price that we were then paying for rails. Now, I ask the hon. gentleman to turn up the English quotations. While I did not have the English quotations before me, I did have statements from people that I believed knew, who were reliable, as to what the price of rails was. Now let me make one further remark. The hon. gentleman says we bought on a falling market. Supposing we had bought on a market that fell-and no doubt the market has fallen in a sense-can you avoid that? Can. any prescience foresee a falling market so as to provide against it ? No. The hon. gentleman nods his head. I say no. You have to make your bargain for some time ahead. What time do you choose ? When you want to ensure the earliest possible delivery. ' We had to make our arrangement with them in order to ensure delivery during this present season. We could not tell; the price might go up. You have to take them when you can get them. You must take the price as it exists when you make your contract unless there is some good reason for believing that a lower price may prevail. The year before that we wanted to buy 10,000 tons of rails. We went into the market. We had to give some months' time for delivery-I cannot say how many months elapsed before these rails were delivered-previously when we made our contract. But, we made our contract at the best price we could obtain. We made it for $20 a ton and before half the time had elapsed for delivery we could have sold those rails for from $34 to $35 a ton, $14 or $15 advance on the price that we had paid. No human foresight can always pro-

vide against falls or rises in the price. Make the best arrangement you can bona fide and in the exercise of reasonable judgment and let the consequences follow. That is^ what we are doing to-day in this case. We made a good many thousands of dollars by buying the year before. It may be that if we had the foresight to enable us to know that there would be a fall in the price, if we had had reason to suppose that rails could be got for summer delivery at a lower price, we might have possibly saved a few dollars in the present transaction. These are the circumstances under which the arrangement was made. It was made fairly, squarely and bona fide. It was made, Ij have no hesitation in saying, with the desire to encourage the establishment of an enterprise which we had no expectation would be established otherwise. It was made at the price then governing and at a price which is fair to the public.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Eecess.
House resumed at 8 o'clock.


CANADA NATIONAL RAILWAY AND TRANSPORT COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
On the order :
For resuming the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Cowan: 'That Bill No. 13, to incorporate the Canada National Railway and Transport Company, be now read the third time.'
Edward Frederick Clarke: Mr. Speaker, I desire to move an amendment to the motion which is in your hands, an amendment of which notice was given some time ago. The subject-matter of the amendment has been discussed at considerable length both in the Railway Committee and before the Committee of the Whole House, and I do not intend to take up the time of the House, but merely to ask for a division on the motion. I move, seconded by Mr. Maclean :
That Bill No. 13 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the committee for the purpose of amending it by adding the following section :-
' His Majesty shall have the right at any time to take over the undertaking, property rights and franchises of the company, and for that purpose the provisions of the Expropriation Act shall apply.
From any valuation placed upon such property so taken there shall be deducted, on payment, the amount of any bonus or subsidy paid by the government of Canada to the company towards the construction of such line of railway or any part thereof.'
ill'. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax). Mr. Speaker, before the question is put, I would like to say a few words. This amendment has already been discussed to some extent Mr. BLAIR.
when the Bill was in committee. With the first part of it I am heartily in accord, but with the second part I am not in accord for reasons that I have already stated in the committee. It does not seem to me that it would be an equitable thing in all cases to deduct the whole amount of the subsidy. 1 would suggest to the hon. mover of the amendment (Mr. Clarke) that it would be fairer to the company if the latter part of the resolution read in this way :
From any valuation placed upon such property so taken there shall be deducted, on payment, a reasonable amount in respect of any bonus or subsidy

And so forth. Instead of deducting the whole amount of the bonus or subsidy, which might not be equitable in some cases where the value of the property was very much less than the amount it had cost, you should take a reasonable amount of such bonus or subsidy, leaving it to the tribunal which fixes the value to determine what such reasonable amount should be.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say, in support of the amendment moved by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke), that it appears to be quite acceptable to those who are asking for railway subsidies in the local House, because I noticed by yesterday's liaper that in the subsidies to be granted this year and which are not finally disposed of by the House, such a condition as that proposed by the hon. member for West Toronto is included in every grant that is made. That is, that, in the future, in the event of the government taking over these railways, the subsidy which is given to them shall be deducted from the price, so that it appears to be not so objectionable to railway men, or corporations, as some persons seem to imagine it is.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If it is in order to accept the "suggestion made by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Borden), I will be very glad to do it. I am induced to do that because the suggestion is made by the hon. gentleman, and because of the further fact that I notice in to-day's papers that in bringing down a Bill governing the granting of bonuses to aid railways, the minister in charge of the Department of Public Works in Ontario has made a provision somewhat similar to this proposal.


Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.: Does that apply to all railways ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: It applies to the railways that are affected by regulations made in the Bill introduced in the Ontario legislature a few days ago. Particulars can be seen in the papers, the Citizen of this morning and the Toronto papers that came this afternoon. I do not wish to take up time, but I will accept the amendment of the hon. member for Halifax, and ask for an expression of the House upon it.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Before the motion is put, I would like to call the attention of the House to the fact that the proposal in the motion goes further than I think it should. For instance, the resolution says that if the government desires to obtain control of this national railway from the Georgian Bay to Lake Ontario :
-they shall have the right to take over the undertakings, property rights and franchises of the company, and for that purpose the provisions of the Expropriation Act shall apply.
Now, this company have its terminals and warehouse at Fort William or Duluth or Milwaukee, or Chicago, and they may have warehouses in all of these places.	IVhat
right would the government of Canada have to take over such properties ? What business would the government of Canada have to take over these four steamers that they propose in their minds to have on the upper lakes, and the half dozen steamers they talk about on Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence ? Would Canada undertake to run a steamboat business ?


William Manley German: No.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Certainly not. We do not desire to do it, and we will not do it. They insist that if we take over the railway we would also have to take over these other properties, and it simply means that if they do not have complete control over the railway they do not want the steamboats at all. If the government acquires the railway it will be so much capital of the company liberated, and the money for the railway will be handed back to the company, less the amount of bonuses they received. That means that the actual amount of money they have expended on the railway will be paid back to them. The plain English of the contention of this company is, that if they have the steamers they must have the railway, and it is because the ownership of the railway would give their steamers an advantage over all other steamers carrying freight on the upper lakes and across this railway, and down the St. Lawrence to the sea, that they want the railway. The railway does not disappear if they retain the steamers. A railway owned by the government would be as eligible to carry the products from these steamers on the upper lakes on to the sea as would this private railway, and indeed it would be more advantageous for them, because past experience tells us that a government railway will carry products cheaper than any private railway. They would, therefore, be in a better position with these steamers on the upper and lower lakes than they would be to-day if they owned both the steamers and the railway. I contend that we should not take power-which, I suppose, means that it would be binding on us-to take over the railway and the steamers and the warehouses in the United States and in Canada. Let them go on with their steamer business, and the government of Canada will give them all the facilities they give any other carrier. Our experience on the Intercolonial Railway is, that goods are carried at about cost, and no doubt if the government owned this road the same thing would occur in this case. I am in favour of the principle of this resolution, but I would like to see that part of it which I object to eliminated. Of course, I would vote for the resolution sooner than not have the principle incorporated in the Bill at all, but, I would infinitely prefer to have that part of the resolution left out. This road is ostensibly a portion of the through traffic route of the country, just as the Welland canal is a link in the system of communication from the great North-west to the sea. It would, of course, be disastrous if the control of the Welland canal passed into the hands of a private corporation, who could charge what tolls they pleased, and who could put onerous restrictions on commerce. Our experience is, that the government never interfere in a case of that kind, and I cannot help stating that if this road is a necessity, the parliament of Canada, and the people of Canada, should be the owners of it. It looks to me, on the face of it, that this charter is a kind of speculation. There are a number of lines now connecting the Georgian Bay with Lake Ontario. There is the Northern Railway from Collingwood through Meaford to Toronto ; the Canadian Pacific Railway from Owen Sound to Toronto ; the Grand Trunk Railway, from Wiarton down through the country to Hamilton, and other points on Lake Ontario, and from Owen Sound as well. There is the Midland system from Midland to Belleville or Port Hope, or any of these ports on the lake, so that, in view of all the existing lines, this is, to my mind, a railway which should not get a government subsidy. The Minister of Railways has declared already his opinion that there should be no subsidy granted by the parliament of Canada for this road, and I am pleased to hear that, because it agrees with my own opinion. If this line is a necessity for the commerce of the country, then the government should make it a link in the canal system direct, instead of going at it in the roundabout way that this resolution proposes. However, parliament has disposed of that. Last session the House of Commons declared In favour of granting this charter, but the Senate, in its wisdom, declared that the people of the country had the most interest in it, and that the charter which was then asked for by the city of Toronto, the board of trade, and the commercial men of the country, should also receive consideration. I do not think there should be put into this Bill a provision that the government will be obliged to purchase those steamers, warehouses, elevators and terminals at

places in the states or in Canada ; because the governemut of Canada would have no use for them, but this company would have the same use for them, and a better use, with more opportunity of doing business, if they desired to do it fairly if the government owned that connecting link than they would have if it were owned by a private company. If it is owned by a private company and the steamers are owned by a private company, they will be able to control the traffic of the road to the detriment of common carriers, and I do not think you could make an enactment of this parliament that would prevent them having the advantages of that control. I think it would be disastrous to this country if that were permitted ; and as this resolution goes in the right direction, though it goes a little further than I would approve of, I will give it my support.


William Manley German: I am rather amused to hear the hon. member for West York (Mr. Wallace) talk absolutely against the amendment of the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke), and then say he intends to support it. There has been for some time, I believe, a sort of antagonism between those two hon. gentlemen in regard to the management of an institution in the province of Ontario which they work in the Conservative interest; but I never saw it exemplified so plainly


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: If I may be allowed to set the hon. gentleman at rest in that matter, 1 will say that there is absolutely no truth in it.


William Manley German: No antagonism ? I am ready to accept the hon. gentleman's statement. The newspapers have always said so, however, and the indications point in that direction. The amendment of the hon, member for West Toronto is to my mind in the nature of an absurdity. The hon. member for West York has very truly outlined the situation, as to what would happen in the event of this amendment carrying-that the government would be bound to take over all the boats, all the terminals, all the plant which this company may see fit to institute in the carrying out of its scheme.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: That is the proposal of the Minister of Railways.


William Manley German: It is the proposal of the hon. member for West Toronto. The proposal of the Minister of Railwavs, as I understood it, was to expropriate the railway and nothing more. The hon. member for West Toronto, in the Railway Committee, stated that his resolution ' was to take over everything that this company might inaugurate in carrying out its scheme. The proposition to expropriate the property less the bonus is not, I think, a proper suggestion. If this scheme is carried out to Mr. WALLACE.
its legitimate conclusion, it means the expenditure of a very large amount of money. It means the expenditure of a large amount of money in order to get business. Suppose this company goes on for some years and loses money-loses more money in endeavouring to work up a business than the amount of the bonus would be, if it ever gets a bonus; and it is not yet asking for a bonus. Why should we endeavour to cross the bridge before we reach it ? This company has not yet asked for a bonus. When it does, it is time enough then to make propositions as to what shall be embodied in the Bill granting the bonus. But when you lay down a hard and fast proposition that any mercantile venture shall be expropriated by the government less the bonus that is given to it, I say you are laying down a proposition which is absolutely bad in principle. The gentlemen who are investing their money in the scheme may spend perhaps thousands of dollars more than the bonus amounts to, and when it has come to be a paying business, the government might say :	We will take this over now, after
you have spent the bonus we have given to you, and also spent money out of your own pockets. The hon. leader of the opposition has a view in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. He sees the dawning of the day, he knows what is the proper legislation, but he has not the courage of his opinion; he is a little afraid of his supporters behind him. It the leader of the opposition would do as he believes, I think he would say that this amendment should be voted down. His own suggestion points in that direction-that you cannot fairly take from the value of an article the bonus which has been given to it by the government of Canada, if it is given a bonus at all. If it is not a legitimate transaction, do not give it a bonus; but if it is entitled to a bonus, give it one, and then when you take it over, do not say : You men have made a property which is valuable to the Dominion of Canada, but we will expropriate the property and take away from you the bonus that we have given you, though you have spent perhaps thousands of dollars beyond the bonus in order to make the property valuable.
House divided on amendment to amendment (Mr. Borden, Halifax) :
YEAS : Messieurs
Alcorn,
Ball,
Bell (Addington), Bennett,
Birkett,
Blain,
Borden (Halifax), Brock,
Broder,
Calvin,
Cargili,
Clancy,
Ingram,
Kidd,
Lancaster,
Lennox,
Maclean,
McGowan,
Osier,
Pringle,
Prior,
Puttee,
Richardson (Grey), Robinson (Elgin),


APKIL 10. 1901
[Stage Direction]
Clare.	Roche (Marquette),
Clarke,	Simmons,
Cochrane,	Smith (Vancouver),
Culbert,	Sproule,
Earle,	Taylor,
Fowler,	Tolton,
Ganong,	Vrooman,
Gilmour,	Wallace,
Hackett,	Wilmot,
Halliday, Henderson,	Wilson.-45.
 NAYS : Messieurs
Bazinet,	Laurier (L'Assomptioij),
Bickerdike,	Lavergne,
Borden (King's, N.S.), LeBlanc,	
Bureau,	Legris,
Calvert,	Lovell,
Cowan.	Loy,
Davies (Sir Louis),	Mackie,
Davis,	Maclaren (Huntingdon),
D&chene,	McColl,
Delisle,	McCcol,
Demers (Levis).	McCreary,
Demers (St. John),	Mclsaac, McKinrcn,
Dobell,	
Dyment,	Marcil (Bagot),
Erb,	Meigs,
Fielding,	Mignault,
Flint,	Monet,
Fortin,	Oliver,
Fraser,	Parmelee,
Gauvreau,	Proulx,
Geoffrion.	Rcss (Ontario),
German,	Schell,
Gibson,	Scott,
Gould,	Sifton,
Guthrie,	Stephens,
Harwood,	Sutherland (Oxford),
Heyd,	Thompson,
Holmes,	Tobin,
Hyman,	Turcot,
Johnston (Lambton), Turgeon, .	
Lang,	Wright.-62. PAIRS :
Against.	For.
Talbot,	Hughes (Victoria),
Emmerson,	Rosamond,
Amendment to the amendment negatived.
Amendment negatived.
Bill read the third time.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Shall the Bill now pass, and its title toe as on the Order paper ?


William Findlay Maclean: When this Bill was discussed in Committee of the Whole, objection was raised to the use of the word ' national ' in connection with a private railway. The Minister of Railways said he would like to see the word ' national' dispensed with, because that ought to toe reserved for the national railway of this country, and I think the promoters ought to accept that suggestion, although I believe they intend to trade on the name ' national ' in order to promote their enterprise. I beg to move in amendment:
That the title of the Bill be the Toronto and Georgian Bay Railway and Transport Company.
Amendment negatived. Bill passed.


OTTAWA AND HULL POWER AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 25) to incorporate the Hull Power and Manufacturing Company, Limited.-Mr. Champagne.
On section 15,
William Findlay Maclean: This is a vicious principle, giving municipalities the right to make exemptions of this kind. This was fought out in the Ontario legislature the other day. I do not think that such a principle should be embodied in a private Bill.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: How can this parliament give a municipality the right to exempt ?


William Findlay Maclean: I do not know. If it cannot do so, why should the Minister of Marine and Fisheries agree to have It put into this Bill.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: 1 have not been asked to consent. I take the Bill as it has been passed in the committee.


William Findlay Maclean: But the minister who represents the government is responsible for the legislation going through this House. The attention of the country has been called to this matter in a very pointed way. It has been made clear within the last two or three days that the government, and especially the legal department of the government is responsible for private legislation dealing with public questions. I do not know how this parliament can authorize a municipal corporation to give exemptions


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) will permit me-the power here conferred is a power conferred upon the company to receive exemption from a municipality, if that municipality has power to grant it and chooses to do so.


William Findlay Maclean: Why should the company have that power ? This is a vicious principle, yet it is justified by a minister of the Crown. And the gentleman asking to have this vicious principle conceded is the gentleman! who lectured us in the Railway Committee the other day telling us how Canada was to be preserved, how our condition was to be improved and everything to be made heavenly. This is not good legislation, it is vicious in principle, and should not be dealt with by the Federal legislature, and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, who is leading the House, should not consent to it.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I am surprised that my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean), who so often strongly advocates what he supposes to be the rights of the people, should advocate our going back to the dark ages and denying municipalities

the exercise of the right to grant a privi lege, should ithey choose to do so, to a corporation such as this. In my humble opinion the legislation is not required for the purpose of the company, 'hut I did not think that any person in this age would deny the company the right to receive any favour that a municipality in its wisdom might decide to grant them.


Mr. PUTTEE.: Would the company have the right to receive it, whether this Bill was passed or not ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Yes.


William Findlay Maclean: Then why put it in ? The parliament of the Dominion of Canada should not he employed in discussing things of this! kind. You might as well put it in that the managing director of the company is hereby authorized to get his washing done in Hull instead of getting it done in Ottawa.


Mr. EDWARDS.: Move it.


William Findlay Maclean: Why not strike this out; We have something else to do than conferring unnecessary powers upon a private company. It is an insult to the federal idea to take up our time in dealing with little matters of, municipal taxation. If they want anything of this kind, let them go to the provincial legislature and get it there.


James Clancy: A similar clause to this was struck out in the Bill relating to the Canadian Lloyds the other day in the committee.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: No.


James Clancy: It had precisely the effect of the grant that we are now discussing. This is said to he an innocent clause because the people are not forced to make this concession to the company. But the vice is in permitting them to receive such privilege. Some may say that this clause has no effect, but it puts municipalities in the position to do wrong. We cannot give the municipality the right to grant, but if we give the company the power to receive, the opportunity for abuse is offered. If it was thought proper, after mature consideration, to strike out a similar clause in the Lloyds Bill on the ground that it was not a proper thing for the company to receive lands with the power to alienate those lands for other purposes, it is proper to refuse the privilege hero asked for. I hope the hon. gentleman will agree to this being struck out.


William Findlay Maclean: An example of how powers granted by this House without sufficient consideration are apt to he used is to be seen in the case of the exemption of the Canadian Pacific Railway lands which was before the House the other day. If more care had been exercised in that case, we should not have had the gigantic grievance that we have to-day.


James Sutherland: 


William Manley German: Why do you support a party that would do that ?


William Findlay Maclean: Why do yon support a party that will notl cure the grievance ? I wish to tell the promoters of the Bill that if they care to get this through to-night, they can do so by accepting a reasonable proposition. Tbis clause is of no use to them and it introduces a bad principle. I move that the objectionable words be struck out.


Mr. DAVID HENDERSON (Halton).: As otte who favoured striking out a similar clause in a Bill before the Railway Committee the other day, I am opposed to this clause being left in the Bill. It is an invitation to this company, to go to the government of the Dominion or the government of the province of Quebec or of Ontario and ask for a grant-say a grant of public lands, or of pulp wood, which we find is so rapidiy passing out of the hands of those who ought to care for it in the interest of the people. 1 think this is dangerous legislation. Without this clause the company may he able to accept a grant of this kind ; but we have reason to believe, according to the opinion of legal gentlemen in this House, that if they do acquire it under those circumstances they will be unable to alienate it and so it will be of little value to them. To my mind, a great many charters are secured merely in order to get something to sell to others and to speculate in. This kind of speculative legislation should be cried down in this House.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The time for private Bills having expired, the House will resume in Committee of Supply.



[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply.
[',\nMy hon. friend is familiar with the negotia- [ Motion agreed to, tions we had few years ago with the | 11 p.m.', '\n\nThursday, April 11, 1901.']
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The attention of the committee is called to the estimates of the Indian Department, page 06.


Robert Laird Borden: I think it would be advisable to have some more orderly system of taking up the estimates. There is a point in relation to the subject we were discussing at six o'clock to which I would like to have referred, and I would like to have known at six o'clock that we were to take up some other branch of the estimates. But generally I think that the suggestion made early in the session] and accepted by the government should be carried out, that is to take the estimates as far as possible in some definite order so that hon. gentlemen on this side should know what business is conning up on a particular day. If the government's course is occasioned by the indisposition of the Minister of Railways, of course I have not a word of criticism to offer.


The .MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think it is desirable, when possible, to take the estimates in order. But it is not always possible to do that. I agree, however, that hon. gentlemen opposite are entitled to a reasonable notice. I may say that immediately after six o'clock, the Minister of Railways and Canals having informed me that, not feeling very well, he was afraid he would not be here this evening, I crossed the floor and spoke to one or two hon. gentlemen opposite, stating that in case of the absence of the Minister of Railways and Canals, we would take up the estimates of the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Agriculture, if time permitted. I think the hon. leader of the opposition had left his seat, but the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) was in his seat, and I mentioned the matter to him, assuming I was taking the best means afforded of communicating the matter to hon. gentlemen opposite.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I was here, and 1 heard nothing of it.


William Findlay Maclean: I heard it.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The same statement was made on the adjournment of yesterday's sitting.
Department of Indian Affairs-Relief, medical attendance and medicine, Ontario, $1,100.


Mr. BENNETT.: Who is the physician for the band of Indians on the Rama reservation, in the riding of North Ontario ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Dr. Macdonald has been the physician in charge.


William Humphrey Bennett: Out of the moneys of the band, have other physicians been paid for services performed by them, and at the same time has the physician in charge been paid his salary ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Except in one instance, the only money that has been paid out for attendance has been paid to Dr. Macdonald during his term.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is Dr. Macdonald to be kept there ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: There has been some complaint and dissatisfaction amongst the Indians regarding Dr. Macdonald. An investigation was held by an officer of the department sent there for the purpose. I have examined the report which has been made, but I have not had time yet to come to any definite conclusion with regard to it. -
Blankets and clothing, Ontario and Quebec, $500.


William Findlay Maclean: Where are these blankets bought ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: They are ail bought by public tender. The quantities required are advertised for.


William Findlay Maclean: Are they of Canadian make, the same as the steel rails must now be ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: We advertise to buy them in open market by public tender. I do not think there is any specification where they are to be made.


William Findlay Maclean: But, the government have started out in the policy of encouraging home industry. We are to have nothing but Canadian-made steel rails. We have a lot of woollen mills in Canada that can make blankets.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The blankets that have been purchased are Canadian blankets.


David Henderson: What price was paid per pound for them ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: 341 cents.
Salaries of chiefs, Cape Croker and Gibson, and agent at St. Regis, $150.


Mr. FOWLER.: I would like to ask the minister if any investigation has taken place into the complaint made by Chief Marcil of the Micmac tribe, situated at Ste. Anne de Restigouche, in the province of Quebec, a notice of which complaint was laid by the chief before the members of this House at the first assembling of parliament.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I intend to send an inspector down to make a thorough investigation into the complaint. My attention has been called to it by correspondence, and I found that a complaint had been made, and had been dealt with by officers of the department. I decided to give the matter my attention, and I will make an investigation of the facts of the case.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the hon. minister tell us why he did not bring down the correspondence ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The correspondence was laid on the Table some time ago.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I made inquiry once or twice, and I was informed that it was not down.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: It was brought down a considerable time ago.
Removal, Lake of Two Mountains Indians from Oka to Gibson, $200.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How long will this $200 appear in the estimates for the removal of these Indians. I have seen it here almost every year since I first came into parliament, and it appears to be something like the case of Jarndyce vs. Jarndyce, the lawsuit which was likely to last for ever.
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR, This item is one of the institutions of par-



liament. It is explained in this way : There was an agreement some years ago to provide for the removal of some of the Indians from the Oka reserve to the township of Gibson in the province of Ontario. The government undertook to pay the expenses ' of any of these Indians who desired to remove. We have taken a small vote each year in case that any of the Indians remaining should demand that we should fulfil our agreement. I do not think any money has been paid out since I took charge of the department.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: How many are down at their old home, and how many are up in the township of Gibson ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: There are 123 at Gibson, and 447 at Oka.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Could the bon. gentleman tell us at the rate of progress they are making in the removal of these Indians, how long it will take to place the whole of them at Gibson?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: If they keep on going at the rate at which they have been going for the last four years it will take a great while.
Survey of Indian reserves, $500.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Is that survey for the purpose of selling the timber ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Sometimes it is for that purpose, but our surveys in the North-west Territories have been necessary in selling the land that lias been surrendered.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: This is in Ontario.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Yes, my hon. friend is right. Last year we spent $47.45 for the purpose of defining the boundaries on account of settlers taking up land in the neighbourhood of reserves. It may be necessary to survey timber limits.
To provide for the Indian Land Management Fund, $14,000.
Mr. CLANCY? Perhaps this is just as good a stage as any in which to call the attention of the hon. Minister of the Interior to a matter of very great importance to the Indians on Walpole Island. The hon. gentleman will have it in his mind yet, because it is not very long since he dismissed the physician who was attending the Indians and who was paid out of the fund belonging to the Indians. Since that time there has been an enormous death rate among the Indians, and it is ascribed entirely to the indisposition on their part to employ, or to have anything to do with the new appointee. Now, I have nothing to say against the gentieman whom he appointed at all, but the hon. minister himself knows the Indian character sufficiently well to know that they are suspicious and that Mr. SIFTON.
they have very strange notions in regard to their attending physician. I believe some communication has been had with the department. I believe there is a Methodist minister, who has a charge on the island, who has communicated with the hon. gentleman's department, setting forth the facts of the large death rate that has existed there and ascribing it to the cause I have just stated. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if he has taken notice of the correspondence, and if he has taken any steps to remedy what is an admitted evil. It would be scarcely an answer to say that the Indians have a physician and that they may employ him. The fact remains in spite of that that the Indians would die rather than employ a man whom they, in a sense, mistrusted, so far as they consider that he would rather endanger their lives than relieve them of their burdens. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if he has had such a communication from the minister there. I think his name is Rev. Mr. Pickard; however, it is not important. The hon. gentleman will know his name, and I would like to know if he has taken any steps to meet the wishes of these Indians.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I have not had any such communication brought to my attention, and I am informed that he is not able to say from recollection that any such letter has been received in the department. His impression is that it has not been received, but it will be impossible for him to say positively that it has not. All I can say is that it has not been brought to my attention. In view of the hon. gentleman's remarks, I will undertake to have it looked into and endeavour to meet the necessities of the case.


James Clancy: The acting Minister of the Interior last session stated in the House, upon a similar question being asked, that such correspondence was in his possession, that he knew of it, and therefore I am able to state in advance to the hon. gentleman that there is such correspondence in his department.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I was not aware of it, and I will have it looked up at once.
To provide for the erection of a look-up at St. R6gis, $500.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What was the result of the settlement of the disagreeable trouble that took place over the St. Regis lock-up, and what became of those Indians that were arrested ?	*


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Tlie difficulty at the St. Regis reserve to which the hon. gentleman refers is of long standing. The officers of the department, when I first had it called to my attention, informed me that there had been a difficulty for some years owing to the fact that the

American Indians whose reserve adjoins the Canadian reserve were constantly fomenting disaffection amongst our Indians and endeavouring to persuade them that they should not submit to our Indian administration. These Indians made a practice of coming every little while to Ottawa by deputations and demanding changes in the administration which the department did not see its way clear to grant. They had some peculiar idea about the sanctity of their reserve and they had refused to allow provincial constables to go on their reserve to execute writs. Matters were getting into such a state that I made up my mind it was absolutely necessary to make them understand, as gently as possible of course, that the law had to be observed. The matter was brought to a head by a determination that we would appoint a constable to see that the law was enforced, and to make a long story short, we sent down the Dominion chief of police to prevent the constable being obstructed. The Dominion chief of police with some assistants went upon the reserve for the purpose of arresting one of the ringleaders in the riot and two or three of the Indians forced their way into the Indian office, assaulted the chief of police, threatened his life and he finally shot one of the Indians in self-defence. A number of the Indians were brought before the court and after a great deal of negotiation on both sides we finally came to an arrangement whereby the case went by default, and the Indians were let go upon agreement that they would appear for trial when called upon. This is the most difficult case connected with the management of the Indians I have had anything to do with, and it is necessary to use firmness with a good deal of consideration in order to bring about a peaceful result. It is necessary that we should follow up what we have done by having on the reserve a place of such a character that in case of disturbance we can take care of offenders. It is for that purpose we have asked for this vote.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has the superintendent general of Indian Affairs abandoned the effort on his part to see that the Indians observe the law in the event of trouble. As I understand, the case against the Indians went by default and they were released. It appears to me that the Indians will feel that they are masters of the situation, and if so I do not see what great benefit you' will derive from a lock-up when you cannot enforce the law.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Every step was taken after consultation with those who were best acquainted with the facts of the case. The Solicitor General gave the prosecution his best attention and we allowed the prosecution to go because we were satisfied that the Indians having 871
been taught a sufficient lesson would be amenable to reason and that any further prosecution would result in exasperating them. Those in the neighbourhood strongly pressed me not to take any steps at all because they thought it would exasperate the Indians. Every one who is acquainted with the facts is satisfied we did what was best. I am not going to say that there will be no further trouble. Any one who knows anything about Indian character knows that it is impossible to predict that. But I am satisfied we have done the best that could be done, and that with judicious management we will be able to get along without further trouble.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You are going to build up a lock-up as a kind of object lesson to terrorize them.
Indians, N.S.-Salaries, $1,150.


Robert Laird Borden: What services are rendered for these salaries ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: For the small salary paid, the agent is supposed to have a general oversight over the condition of the Indians, to report from time to time to the department whether any relief is necessary, and to supervise the distribution of seed grain. Of course the salaries are vefj small, and we endeavour to keep the expenses down as much as possible.
Indians, N.S.-Seed grain, $2,000.


Mr. WILSON.: Is this paid out of the Indian fund or how is it paid ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: It is not paid out of the Indian fund; it is paid out of consolidated revenue.


Mr. GOURLEY.: Can you tell me the amount paid to the agent in Colchester ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The agent is Mr. T. B. Smith, and he gets $50 a year.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Well you ought to give him more.


Robert Laird Borden: There is an Indian reserve at Ship Harbour Lake in the county of Halifax. I have information from a responsible person in my constituency that a certain lumberman, whose name I will not mention, has been cutting timber on that land.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: On the Indian land ?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes. I think it would be advisable for the hon. gentleman to cause inquiries to be made with regard to it. I may say that the gentleman who gave me the information states that he was endeavouring to purchase this par-

ticular lot some years ago, and the department after leaving the matter in doubt for some time eventually told him they were not in a position to sell. Since .then the land has been very much damaged by other persons cutting logs on it.
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR'. The complaint we generally have from Nova Scotia is that the Indians are cutting timber on other people's land. However, we will have this complaint attended to at once.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: They have a common law right to do that.
Mr. IvAULBACH. I desire to inform my hon. friend that there are two Indian reserves in the county which I have the honour to represent, occupied by Indians. Has my hon. friend established a rule that all medical attendants or physicians shall be employed in the district in which the reserves are, or does he go outside of the district to employ others ? If it is an established rule that physicians in the district shall be employed, then the rule on principle has been broken in the case of reserves in Lunenburg, because physicians living miles outside of the district have been employed, and in consequence of which the bills are very greatly increased. If the government desire economy, we have lots qf first-class physicians in the district, and I think they should be employed instead of those who reside at a distance. I would ask the hon. minister to give the matter his attention.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: In the case to which my hon. friend refers, we have two doctors who attend the Indians, at a salary of $75 a year each ; Dr. Marsh, who resides at Bridgewater and Dr. Kelly, at Chester. I doubt if any economy would result from employing others and paying them fees. We have a constant struggle to keep down the cost of medical attendance in the maritime provinces, because the Indians themselves desire a doctor very often when there is nothing the matter with them, and if we gave them the least encouragement, the medical bill would run up to a high figure. Therefore, we endeavour to employ men whose judgment can be relied on not to attend the Indians except in cases of necessity.


Mr. KAULBACH.: The medical calls are so infrequent that I think it would be economical to employ physicians only when they were required. I do not think the cost would reach $75 a year by a very great deal; and I would urge that physicians residing in the district be employed instead of parties residing outside.
Indians, N.B.-Salaries, $1,184.


George William Fowler: Why has a reduction of $100 been made ?


Robert Laird Borden: 


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: One of the missionaries who was on the list last year died, and we do not take a vote for him this year.


George William Fowler: Do you intend to appoint another missionary in his place ? To what religious denomination did he belong ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The Roman Catholic-Rev. William O'Leary, of York county.
Indians, N.B.-Relief and seed grain, $2,300.


George William Fowler: On what reserves is this seed grain given ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Generally.


George William Fowler: In my own county no Indians are given seed grain.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The rule is that it is generally given as a matter of relief. Wherever it is reported by the agent that there is a necessity for it, the smallest amount they can get along with is sent.


George William Fowler: Was the whole amount spent last year ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The amount spent last year was $1,872.17, the year before $2,005.80, and the year before that $2,213.10.
Indians, N.B.-Medical attendance and medicines, $1,740.


George William Fowler: Who is the medical attendant for King's county, or is there more than one ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The medical attendance for King's county is now paid by salary. The amount paid last year aggregated $360.48. made up as follows : L. R. Murray, $90.30 ; F. P. Patterson, $74.65 ; J. N. Smith, $171.28 ; W. H. White, $24.25.


George William Fowler: Is that for the year 1900 ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: For the year ending 30th June, 1900.


George William Fowler: Are these gentlemen still employed ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Dr. D. H. McAllister now attends to these "Indians.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I intended to ask the same question with regard to Nova Scotia. Will the hon. gentleman tell me who are the medical attendants in the county of Colchester ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The expenditure for medical attendance for the year ending 30tli June, 1900, for the


Robert Laird Borden: Why is it that the amount for relief and medical attendance and medicine are so different in the two provinces. In Nova Scotia there is $2,000 for relief and $3,000 for medical attendance. In New Brunswick, relief $2,300. and medical attendance $1,740.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I cannot give any explanation except the endeavour to keep expenses down.
Manitoba and North-west Territories, General vote, $804,073.70.


James Clancy: Is the hon. gentleman able to give the population of the Indians on the reserve in Manitoba, where there are 47 agencies ? Could he give approximately the population and the cost of maintaining each head of the population for all the purposes mentioned in these items.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I could not possibly answer that question off-hand. That would require me to separate the Indians of Manitoba from those of the North-west Territories, and in the votes the two are combined. Of course, we could go through the estimates of the Indian Commissioner and separate the items of Manitoba from those of the North-west Territories, but that would take some time.


James Clancy: Could not the hon. gentleman furnish that information on the sup-plementaries ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Certainly, I shall do that.


Robert Laird Borden: Would the hon. gentleman explain the number of increases V


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The first increase is in the item of annuities. That is caused by the fact that in 1899 we made a treaty, Treaty No. 8, by which we have secured the surrender of a large portion of territory north of Edmonton, and have added to the list of Indians to whom must be paid annuities. The increase in agricultural implements could not be avoided on account of the fact that the Indians are not in so good a position to pay for these implements as they were last year, owing to failure of the crops. We are trying to advance the Indians into a condition of self-support, and considerable progress has been made. Where the Indians show a disposition to provide for themselves, we endeavour to assist them as much as possible by getting them to engage in agricultural pursuits. While we ask for an amount in bulk, it must not be supposed that the commissioner does not give each item in detail.


Robert Laird Borden: By the annuity, I presume you mean a certain amount paid yearly to each member of the band.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The amount is paid to the Indians under treaty. In the North-west and Ontario, the Indian title to the land was recognized by the Crown, and before the Crown assumes to deal with the land the Indian title has to be extinguished. That is done by sending commissioners to negotiate a treaty. In the west it has been customary to give the ! Indians a certain cash amount per head by way of gratuity as an inducement to surrender, and an annuity of $5 per head.


Robert Laird Borden: How many Indians are engaged in tilling the land in the North-west ?
The MINISTER OF THE LYrna .wR. It would be difficult for me to give accurate information on that point, because in the different reserves there are a few here and there engaged in agriculture. But I can understand the hon. gentleman's desire for definite information on the subject, and I will undertake to furnish that informatiou at the earliest possible time.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Is that money paid for the lifetime of the children ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Only during the lifetime.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is an increase in the amount for agricultural implements, seed grain and live stock. That would appear to indicate that a larger number were availing themselves year by year of the opportunity to engage in the pursuit of agriculture. What success has attended the efforts of the government of late in that line ? And what quantity of grain and other supplies have the Indians raised for themselves ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Generally, the results of the work during the last three years have been very encouraging. The Indians are rapidly becoming more self-supporting. They have been particularly successful in stock-raising. Where the country is adapted to that pursuit, the Indians manifest a desire to take it up, and, where we have been able to secure an Indian agent who understands the Indian nature, there has been a marked improvement. The amount of grain and other crops raised my hon. friend will find fully set forth in the report of the Department of Indian Affairs. Generally speaking that statement shows that the value of farm products, including hay raised last year on the Indian reserves in the North-west Territories -that does not include Manitoba-was $162,639.07. Upon one of the reserves which I had the pleasure of visiting last summer we have an agent who has been extremely sue-

cessful. The Indians there raised over 10,000 bushels of first-class wheat. They have become extremely prosperous. The agent has been so successful that I have placed him in charge of three reserves, in the hope that he will bring about a similar state of affairs in the other two. The House may rely upon it that great progress has been made. In the organized portion of the country there is no Indian population that may be considered dangerous so far as the peace of the country is concerned. The Indians are becoming rapidly a peaceful population and self-sustaining. The expenditure we are making is very large, but it is made in pur' suance of a policy favoured by parliament for many years based upon a belief that it is better-aside from the justice of the question-to bring the Indians into a state of civilization or comparative civilization, so that they may not be a menace to the country, than to take any chances of their becoming a disturbing factor in the community. Generally the results have been satisfactory. The Indians of Manitoba are differently situated. They are generally what we call wood Indians as distinguished from ' plain Indians, and they follow occupations of a more varied kind. They work in the lumber woods and engage in other occupations, and, from the beginning have been a rather better class of Indians to deal with. They are in a fairly satisfactory state and are making good progress.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is the bon. gentleman able to prevent them killing their cattle when they get hungry ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: It is very rare for a thing of that kind to happen without the permission of the agent.


Mr. ROBINSON (West Elgin).: Is any money spent for the education of the Indian children ?


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: My hon. friend will find at page 67 of the estimates an amount of $288,182 for the education of the Indian children in Manitoba and the North-west Territories aloue. I think he will agreei that that is a fairly large sum. I may say that one of the difficulties I have is to keep it from growing too large.


Jabel Robinson: I suppose that all the Indian settlements have schools where the Indian children are taught ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I think I may say without danger of departing from strict accuracy that there are schools in all the Indian settlements that may be called accessible.


Jabel Robinson: Are they taught the English language ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Always.


Mr. SIFTON.: 


Seymour Eugene Gourley: There may have been some misunderstanding as to the hon. geu-tleman's answer given a moment ago as to-the annuity given to the Treaty Indians. Does the annuity cease with the death of the Indian, or is it paid to his heirs ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: No, it is, strictly speaking, an annuity, and dies with the person to whom it is payable. When the agent or commissioner goes to make the payments, if a certain person does not appear and satisfactory evidence is produced of his death, his name is struck off the list.


James Clancy: The minister may not have the information at hand at the moment, but if he has, will he please state the amount paid by way of salaries for the outside service in the North-west Territories ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The salaries amount to about $40,000. The amount paid for salaries in the commissioner's office in Winnipeg is $11,340. Then, we have two surveyors who are paid, one $1,800. and the other, $1,400. Then. Inspector McColl is paid $2,400, and Inspector Leveque, $1,800. Then, connected with the Portage la Prairie agency, there is Inspector Marlatt, who has a salary of $1,800 ; the agent, $1,200 ; interpreter, $360 ; farmer in charge. $300 ; business manager, $200 ; issue of medicine, $20. There are ten teachers who are paid for dispensing medicines to the different districts, $50 each.
Couchiching agency : agent, $1,000.
Beren's River agency : agent, $1,000 ; interpreter, $300.
Pas agency : agent, $1,000 ; allowance for interpreting, $100.
In the North-west Territories : Calgary inspectorate, the inspector, $2,200 ; Qu'Appelle inspector, $2,200; Battleford inspector, $1,800 ; interpreter, $360.
Pelly agency : agent, $1,000; clerk and farmer, $480 ; interpreter, $300.
Birtle agency : agent, $1,000 ; clerk, $720; interpreter and teamster, $300.
Moose Mountain agency : farmer in charge, $900 ; another farmer, $480 ; labourer, six months, $90.
Crooked Lake agency :	agent, $1,000;
clerk, $600; interpreter, $300 ; miller and blacksmith, $600 ; two farmers, $480 each.
Assiniboine agency : farmer in charge, $800 ; interpreter, $300 ; extra assistance, six months, $30.
File Hills agency ; agent, $1,000 ; farmer, $360 ; stockman, $360 ; interpreter and mail carrier, $120.
Muscowpetung's agency : agent, $1,200 ; clerk and farmer, $000 ; interpreter, $300 ; farmer and blacksmith. $600 ; another farmer, $480 ; stock man, $480 ; Indian labour, $125.
Duck Lake agency : agent, $1,000 ; clerk and farmer. $480 ; interpreter, $360 ; three farmers, $480 each.

Carlton agency : agent, $1,000 ; clerk, $000; interpreter, $300 ; miller, $600 ; two farmers, $480 each ; three overseers, $180 each.
Battleford agency : agent, $1,000 ; clerk, $600 ; interpreter, $360 ; four farmers, $480 each ; stockman, $360 ; engineer, $300.
Touchwood Hills agency : agent, $1,000 ; clerk, $600 ; interpreter, $300 ; two farmers, $480 each ; one farmer, $360 ; overseer, $180.
Onion Lake agency : agent,, $900 ; clerk, farmer and miller, $600 ; interpreter, $240 ; stockman, $420.
Saddle Lake agency : agent, $1,000 ; clerk, $180 ; interpreter, $300 ; two farmers, $480 each ; miller, $600.
Edmonton agency : agent, $1,000 ; clerk, $660 ; interpreter, $360 ; two farmers, $480 each.
Hobbema agency : agent, $1,000 ; clerk, $600 ; interpreter, $360 ; two farmers, $480 each ; blacksmith and sawyer, $480 ; miller, $120.
Stony agency : farmer in charge, $720 ; clerk, $480 ; labourer, $240.
Sarcee agency : agent, $1,000 ; farmer and issuer, $480 ; assistant issuer, $60; scout, $120.
Blackfoot agency : agent, $1,400 ; clerk, $600 ; interpreter and teamster, $420 ; farmer and engineer, $500 ; two farmers, $480 each.
Blood agency : agent, $1,100 ; clerk, $600 ; interpreter, $420 ; three farmers, $480 each ; issuer, $540 ; two scouts, $240.
Peigan agency : agent, $1,000 ; clerk and issuer, $600 ; interpreter and assistant issuer, $300 ; stockman, $430 ; scout and mail carrier, $120.


James Clancy: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that, in round numbers, $40,000 covers all the salaries ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: No, I was in error. I think they will amount to about $80,000.


James Clancy: What are the salaries of the teachers, outside of that ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: There is no way in which, with the information at my disposal, I could give this evening the actual amount we paid for salaries out of the educational vote. Let me understand what it is that the hon. gentleman wants. The hon. gentleman will see that the educational vote amounts to $290,171. I understand that what the hon. gentleman wants is to know how much of that $290,171 is paid for salaries of teachers.


James Clancy: What I want from the hon.* gentleman is the amount of the total salaries paid in the North-west and Manitoba for the outside service, of course, respectively for other purposes and for the salaries of teachers.	[DOT]


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I have given the hon. gentleman all the
salaries paid to other officers of the department. Now, what I understand the hon. gentleman wants is the salaries of the teachers.


James Clancy: Yes ; that, of course, includes all the salaries of the outside service.
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR I have given the hon. gentleman the salaries of the outside service. I cannot give him the salaries of the teachers now without taking time to go over them.


Mr. McGOWAN.: Will the hon. minister tell us how it is that there is such a difference in the salaries paid to different officers ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I think if the hon. gentleman will follow it he will find that the lowest salary of an agent is $900, and that these salaries run as high as $1,400. Some agents have much more important positions than others. The Blackfoot agency is perhaps the most difficult agency we have. A man goes into the service at $900 or $1,000, and if he is satisfactory he gets a small increase. The gentleman who gets the highest salary has been a long time in the service, and has been an efficient officer. He gets a salary of $1,400. A man coming into the service is assigned to a small and comparatively unimportant agency, and he may get a salary of $900. The same thing is true in regard to the farmers. The salary paid to a farmer is about $480. There are only one or two variations from that, and they are owing to local circumstances. Take the case of an interpreter ; we generally pay an interpreter $300.


Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).: Before leaving this item, I would ask the hon. Minister of the Interior if he is in a position to give any further explanation in reference to the disposal of the printing plant that was purchased by the old government in 1893, and established in the industrial school at Elk-horn. When the teaching of the trades was stopped in the spring of 1898, this plant was handed over by the government to some one else. The hon. minister will remember that two years ago I asked him what disposition had been made of that plant, and he told me that it had not been sold, but that negotiations were in progress with Mr. Garrison, of Virden. Last session, during his absence, I put a similar question on the paper, and the acting Minister of the Interior replied that it had not^been disposed of either by lease or sale. Knowing that Mr. Garrison had sold the plant himself, I could not realize that that statement was accurate, and I made out such a prima facie case that the acting Minister of the Interior promised to have a full investigation and to give an explanation to the House. Can the hon. minister say if such an investigation has been held or what

explanation can be given as to the disposal of that plant ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I do not remember what was said in the House last year. That was not called to my attention, but, I remember, on account of seeing something in one of the newspapers about it, that I made inquiry and ascertained that the late Indian Commissioner, now the Lieutenant-Governor of the North-west Territories, Mr. Forget, had sold the plant to Mr. Garrison, I think it was, of Virden, and that the department had made a demand on him for payment, but the amount had never been paid. I do not know whether any steps have been taken in connection with it or not. That was the position of the matter when I inquired.


William James Roche: How much was the plant sold for to Mr. Garrison ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Something between $200 and $300.


William James Roche: The plant cost about $800, did it not ?
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
No, I do not think so.
Mr.	ROCHE (Marquette). Mr. Garrison
has disposed of the plant to Mr. Wildman for $350.
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
I will give the hon. gentleman a statement to-morrow about that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Could the hon. gentleman tell us how many of these schools he is keeping up and the number of scholars that are annually taught in the schools ?
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
The total number of children upon the roll at the various day, boarding and industrial schools in Manitoba is 1,811, and in the North-west Territories 2,159. The average attendance in Manitoba, as against a total on the roll of 1,811, is 1,132, and the average attendance in the North-west Territories, as against 2,159 on the roll, is 1,706. Outside of Manitoba and the North-west Territories, outside of the treaty limits, there are altogether 302 children upon the roll, and there is an average attendance in these schools of 180.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Upon what principle does the hon. minister have the monev distributed towards the support of "these schools ? There are three classes of schools -day, hoarding and industrial schools. How does he distribute the money ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: In the case of boarding schools there is a fixed amount per capita for each pupil which the school shows to have in attendance. The same thing is true in regard to the industrial schools, only we pay a larger amount for an industrial school than for a boarding Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).
school. In the case of a day school the plan is not invariably followed, but in most cases we pay the salaries of the teachers and maintain the schools ourselves. In some cases we simply contribute the salaries of the teachers and the churches take care of the schools. In Manitoba and the Northwest Territories Indian education is almost entirely carried on through the different churches. The Roman Catholic Church, the Episcopalian Church, the Presbyterian Church and the Methodist Church, are the four churches which take the largest part in the work and the educational institutions are, almost in every case, affiliated with some one of these different churches.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: As time goes on and as settlement takes place, and they are taking more and more, year by year, to agriculture, is there any decrease in the expense of keeping up these schools ?	[DOT]


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I am bound to say that I cannot observe any decrease. I find continually a disposition to increase these expenses, because there is a continual demand made upon us for more schools and educational operations are extended. I am constantly in the position of having to resist demands for more schools.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We were told some years ago that after a time these schools would be practically self-supporting. Can the minister tell us how much per capita these schools cost V


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: In the case of boarding schools we pay a uniform rate of $72 per head. The church authorities say they want to establish a boarding school on a reserve, and we say: very good we will allow you $72 each for so many pupils, and they have to show that that number at least attend the school. In many cases'a considerably larger number attend, but they only get a grant for the number agreed upon. For the industrial schools we pay as follows : Rupert's Land school, near Winnipeg, $125 per head, for 120 pupils. St. Boniface school $110 per head for 100 pupils. Brandon school $120 per head for 100 pupils. Qu'Appelle school $125 a head for 225 pupils. Regina school $130 for 125 pupils; Battleford school $150 per head for 120 pupils; Red Deer school $140 per head for 80 pupils. Calgary school $130 per head for fifty pupils; St. Joseph's school $140 per head for 120 pupils.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What success has attended the education of the Indians in these schools ? Are they making progress ?[DOT]


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: That is a matter in connection with which there is a very great difference of opinion.
I have given a good deal of personal attention to the question and my own conclusion, reached about a year ago after con-

suiting with men of experience, is :	That
the money we spend for boarding schools is the most effective, and that we are-getting better results from it than the money we spend for industrial schools. It is the general conclusion of all familiar with Indian education that the ordinary day school is very ineffective, and that wherever a boarding school can be substituted for a day school it is desirable to do so. It is a little more expensive but the work is far more effective. The reason is that when the Indian child comes from the wigwam to school the influences centered upon the child at school are generally effaced by the home associations of the child. The boarding school is 1 think the best. It is not any more effective in regard to each pupil than is the industrial school, but the latter is much more expensive and in my judgment we get better value for our money than in the case of the former. When I took charge I found that the principals of the industrial schools kept the pupils for a length of time which seemed to me to be unreasonable, and I had to issue an order which resulted in a considerable number of pupils being discharged; they having been kept there as long as the state could be expected to keep them. The principals of the schools feared what would happen to the pupils if they left the schools, and of course that was some reflection upon the operation of the system. If a pupil spent five or six years in an industrial school at a cost to the state of $2,000 or $3,000, it was a poor commentary on the system if the pupil had to be kept in school after that for protection. One of the difficulties we have to face is to determine what shall be done with the pupils after they leave the industrial schools. They have then become so far removed from the ordinary Indian that they ought to be in a position to get along as well as an ordinary white man. But experience shows that in very few cases is the Indian boy or girl capable of taking care of himself or herself in contact with the white race. My own view is that the same amount of money spent on a boy or girl in a boarding school would result in training a very much larger number, and would have a better general effect in elevating the whole Indian race. I dealt with this matter at some length in the House a few years ago, and there was considerable discussion on the subject. I said then that while I was inclined to form that opinion I was not sufficiently clear on the subject to condemn an institution which had been founded before I took office, and I had not arrived at the conclusion that they were not doing sufficiently satisfactory work to warrant a radical change in the whole organization. With one exception there has been no industrial institution founded within the last four years. That exception is in British Columbia, where a church society offered to put up the building and incur all the preliminary expenses.
Mr. SPItOULE. That corroborates the information I have had, namely, that the industrial schools are comparatively a failure, and that the money spent in that direction is almost thrown away, because unless the Indians are kept under control after they leave the school they relapse into a condition little better than before they went to school. If these schools are not giving moderately good results the question arises as to what we should do. We have had them long enough on trial to enable us to determine whether they are a success or a failure, and it is important that the Indian Department should consider as to whether it would not be better to change the system.
Mr.	CLANCY.	Have	the	supplies forthe Indian Department	been	bought by
tender ?
The	MINISTEli	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
Yes, altogether.


James Clancy: Would the minister lay on the Table the tenders for some very large supplies of groceries and clothing which are mentioned in the Auditor General's Report ?
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
When I said 'altogether'; all the supplies that can be scheduled before the beginning of the year are printed in a list. We advertised for tenders extensively, and we award to the lowest tenderer in each case. The only goods not purchased in that way are small articles for which there arises a demand during the year. Where it is possible to be done, the great bulk of the supplies are purchased by tender. Did the hon. gentleman call my attention to a particular case ?


James Clancy: Groceries bought in the city of Ottawa. The hon. gentleman will find them in the Auditor General's Report all the way from J-IS to the conclusion of surveys for the North-west Territories and Manitoba.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The supplies to which my hon. friend refers on page 54 are small supplies for which a demand arises in the year, and for which we cannot advertise for tenders in the beginning of the year. Take, for instance, blankets, flour, and agricultural implements. These are purchased in accordance with an estimate sent to us by the Indian commissioner, and for these we ask for tenders. But articles required during the year, for which no definite estimate has been sent by the commissioner are purchased in the places where they are required.


James Clancy: Will the hon. gentleman lay the tenders on the Table ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Yes, certainly.

Indians-Manitoba and North-west Territories -Grist and saw-mills, $1,113.


James Clancy: On page J-54 the liou. gentleman will find this item : Amount of deficits to March 31, 1900, $7,942.92.	I
would like the hon. gentleman to explain what that means.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: That was the shortage in the management of the Elkhorn industrial school, which was paid by the department. The school had been established on the basis of ipllO per pupil per annum being granted, but it was found to be absolutely incapable of being managed on that basis, and the department paid the deficit, and has had to take the school over, and it is now managed as a government school.
Indians-Manitoba and North-west Territories -General expenses, $142,320.


James Clancy: As the minister has promised to give my hon. friend from Marquette some explanation in regard to the sale or lease of that printing press, and in view of the acting minister last session having stated that no lease or other disposition had been made of the press, I think it would be well to reserve this item or some other for the purpose of getting the information which the hon. gentleman promised us.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I will give it on the supplementary estimates.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many grist-mills is the department keeping up ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Six altogether.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Have any of them been disposed of during recent years ?	1
understood that it was the intention of the department as early as possible to dispose of these to private individuals, as they were somewhat expensive and did not yield a very great return.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I do not think it would be advisable to follow that policy. Where we can get the Indians to take an interest in them," I think it is desirable to retain them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What special interest can the Indians take in them ? If the mill is there to do their grinding is it not as valuable to the Indians in the hands of a private individual as it is in the hands of the department ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: A private individual would run the mill for the purpose of making money, and would not be under the control of the department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I imagine that the department could make such regulations as Mr. SIFTON.
would ensure the use of these mills to the Indians on a certain basis that would give them all the advantages of the mills and yet enable the department to save something in the running of them. [DOT]
Indians-British	Columbia-Industrial and
boarding schools, $68,750.


James Clancy: Does the same rule apply in British Columbia with regard to those articles which can be purchased by tender, as in Manitoba and the North-west Territories ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: There are very few supplies required for British Columbia, and they are purchased locally. My hon. friend will see that the conditions are not at all the same as in Manitoba and the North-west Territories, where we buy in very large quantities.


Hon. Mr. PRIOR.: How are the medicines purchased-by local tender or contract ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The Indian superintendent has a schedule of prices, and whatever is bought is paid for according to the schedule.


Edward Gawler Prior: The superintendent has instructions only to go to certain men.
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
That is quite right.


Edward Gawler Prior: How about the medical officers ? Looking through the Auditor General's Report, I see different names for amounts paid for attendance on Indians. I suppose the hon. gentleman has changed his medical adviser in a good many cases ?
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
There*are no salaried medical officers there. They are paid so much a visit.


Edward Gawler Prior: Was anything paid to Dr. Sanson for the Williams Lake Indians or the Kamloops Indians ?
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
The amount paid last year to Dr. L. Sanson was $224.50.


Edward Gawler Prior: What other doctor in the Yale district was paid ?
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
Just one other doctor, Mr. Wilson Herald, $473.


James Clancy: 
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Yes.


Edward Gawler Prior: What is the increase of $9,700 in industrial and boarding schools for ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: That is made up by a provision for a boarding school at Squamish, fifty pupils at $00 per head; also, one at Albernie, at $00 per head, twenty-five pupils, and one at Lytton, an industrial school, $130 per head, forty pupils. This last grant is one I have been strongly pressed to give for a couple of years. The New England Company, a very ancient society organized to do missionary and educational work among the Indians, whose headquarters are in London, England, agree to put up all the buildings and pay preliminary expenses, if we will give a per capita grant.


Edward Gawler Prior: Can the hon. gentleman recollect whether any application was made by Bishop Christie or any of his priests with regard to the increase for the Clayquot industrial school, on the west coast of Vancouver island.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: , It would be difficult to say that no application had been made for an increase, because, generally speaking, there is one in every case, but * my attention has not been called to it, and I do not think that one was made.


Edward Gawler Prior: Bishop Christie's school at Clayquot really needs assistance, and I strongly urge upon the hon. gentleman to do something for him.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: They are getting the same grant as the other schools in British Columbia, $60 per head for fifty pupils. The increase in travelling expenses of $600 is for the travelling expenses of the agent of the north-west coast. The agent there, Mr. Todd, had a small steamer, but it has got so old that it is not safe to use >it any longer, and it has been disposed of. We are asking $600 to cover all travelling expenses.
Office and miscellaneous, including hospitals, irrigation, dyking and suppression of the liquor traffic, $10,920.


Edward Gawler Prior: Can the hon. gentleman give us any information with regard to the Songhees Indian reserve ? I see by the papers brought down in the local House that our local premier had an interview with the hon. gentleman, and declared what the province wished in regard to that reserve. This matter has been under negotiation for many years, and surely it can be brought to a termination soon. It is one of great importance to the city of Victoria.
provincial government. I made a reasonably favourable offer at that time to the provincial government. But, provincial politics became somewhat disturbed shortly after, and it was difficult to bring questions of that kind to the attention of the provincial government. The offer I made was substantially declined by the British Columbia government, on grounds I explained to the hon. gentleman about that time, or shortly afterwards.
A little while ago, when the Hon. Mr. Dunsmuir and Attorney General Eberts were here, I discussed the question with them at some length. I quite realize the importance to the city of Victoria of having the Indians removed from the present reserve. I discussed the matter with Attorney General Eberts, and I think we arrived at a conclusion that was mutually satisfactory. The government of British Columbia has now made a proposal ; and I have submitted it to Mr. Vowell, the superintendent at Victoria, in order that he may consider it, and in order that I may be sure that I do not misunderstand the facts. I have a general recollection of the conformation of the reserve, but some of the references were such that I was not sure as to the portion of the reserve they referred to. At the same time, by letter, I intimated to Premier Dunsmuir in a general way that I was prepared to meet his views. I have no doubt that as soon as I get the report from Mr. Vowell, we can close the matter up and place the Indians on a reserve at a distance from the city.


Edward Gawler Prior: I am very glad to hear it.
Department of Indian Affairs-General, $4,200.


James Clancy: Who is inspector of timber referred to in this article ?
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
Mr. Cliitty. He has been in the department for many years. There is also the inspector of agencies and reserves, Mr. Macrae, whom I found there when I came into office.
Some resolutions reported.
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR moved the adjournment	of the	House.


Robert Laird Borden: What business will be taken up to-morrow ?
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
I have not had an opportunity of speaking to the premier, but I think the Minister of Railways expects to go on with his estimates. My hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Fitzpatrick) tells me he expects to goon in the afternoon with the franchise or election Bills. They will probably be the first order of business, and the estimates of the Minister of Railways next.
and House adjourned at


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: ,
My hon. friend is familiar with the negotia- [ Motion agreed to, tions we had few years ago with the | 11 p.m.



Thursday, April 11, 1901.