Mr. C. H. PARMELEE (Shefford) moved :: That the fifth report of the Joint Committee on Printing of Parliament be concurred in.
He said : The recommendations of the committee are of such importance that before this motion passes, I think I should call attention to them. The committee have spent a good deal of time in examining into the state of affairs in connection with the translation, printing and distribution of French documents. As everybody understands, this is a dual language parliament, that is to say, a parliament in which both languages are upon the same footing. For years past we have had complaints-and very reasonable complaints-of the vexatious, unreasonable delays in the printing and distribution of French parliamentary returns and reports. The committee deemed the matter of sufficient importance to make some investigation, in order to ascertain whether some reform could not be brought about which would result in the adoption of a system more creditable to this House and more satisfactory to the people.
The committee have made three recommendations. The first is to the effect that the ministers should try and get their reports out as soon as possible after the close

of the fiscal year. The present practice seems to be to delay the preparation of these reports in English until within a very few weeks before the opening of parliament. The manuscript of a very large number of these reports consequently goes to the Printing Bureau almost at the end of the calendar year, and sometimes at the beginning of the next calendar year, or six or seven months after the close of the fiscal year. The result is that the King's Printer puts the whole force of the Bureau on the printing of these documents and returns, and is able to turn them out in time for us to have them at the beginning of the session. But the defect of this system in respect of the translation, printing and distribution of the documents in French is this, that all these returns are then turned over to the translators, so that almost a year's work is put upon the translators at once, and it is utterly impossible for them to have these documents ready in reasonable time. The committee suggests that the ministers should endeavour to hurry up the preparation of their reports so as to have them ready as soon as possible after the close of the fiscal year. In the same connection, the committee have thought that some expedition might be obtained in the larger departments if each of these departments had its own special translator in the department itself, who would be handed the English manuscript copy and go on translating at once. In this way the French and English manuscript could be sent at the same time to the Printing Bureau. If that system were adopted and carried out reasonably well, the great majority of the French reports might be laid on the table at the opening of parliament just as the English reports now are.
This is a matter of principle and right, which warrants us in pressing on the House the necessity of bringing about the reform I have indicated. But I do not wish to dogmatize as to the particular way the reform should be accomplished so long as it is accomplished.
These suggestions would not be complete without some reference to the Printing Bureau. The volume of work has grown immensely within the last two years, and so rapidly that it has outrun the facilities of the bureau and rendered it necessary to provide some additions and greater facilities-


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: And more machinery.


Charles Henry Parmelee: And more machinery should be provided. But with regard to the latter point, the chief trouble is this, that owing to lack of room it is impossible to add any plant. i have visited the Bureau myself several times this session, and while I do not pretend to be more practical than anybody else. I find that the Bureau is too small and crowded in many departments, and is doing its work at great disadvantage.


Charles Henry Parmelee: Take the bindery : a good deal of the delay of which we are complaining arises from the fact that the bindery is largely incapable, owing to want of room, of handling the amount of matter that passes through it. To give an idea of the amount of work done, let me point out that in the month of March the Bureau turned out over $100,000 worth of printing in connection with parliamentary reports.
Another thing which has helped to congest the Printing Bureau is this. They keep the type of all the voters' lists of Canada standing ; and as a result there are 108 tons of type stored away in nooks and corners, which is very difficult indeed to get at when required. But if the Bureau were enlarged and put in proper shape, that would help very much not only in the distribution of the French documents, but in the handling of the copy generally, judiciously and economically. In this way, the small expense that would be incurred in getting the Bureau on a good working basis would in the end save us a great deal of money.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Have you any idea of the cost ?


Charles Henry Parmelee: I am not a practical builder myself, but I fancy that the addition we would require-and we might as well build for twenty or twenty-five years to come-would cost $100,000, but that I do not consider of any great importance if we can get a proper kind of establishment. In 1894 it was felt that the Printing Bureau, was not quite equal to the work it had to do. and the then government had plans prepared for an extension. Of course, w7e can understand why at that time the plan was not gone on with, and since the present government has taken office, no doubt ministers have been so busy that this matter has escaped their attention.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, I have thought of it many times myself.


Charles Henry Parmelee: I hope that as a result of our recommendations, some reasonable endeavour will be made to bring about the reforms I have indicated. As for myself, I do not care so much how these things are done provided they are done, though it has seemed to me, from the cursory investigation I have been able to make during a few weeks of this session, that these recommendations substantially lay the groundwork on which we can carry out the reform desired. I have no doubt that the reform is indeed a most urgent one. It seems to me a shame that in a parliament of this kind documents in French-which our French Canadian compatriots are as much entitled to have on time as -we are to have the English reports-should be all the way from six months to one year, and even two years, behind the publication of the latter.


Mr.   .T. H. LEGRIS@MaskinongS: (Translation.) In corroboration of the remarks just

offered by tlie bon. member for Shefford (Hr. Parmelee) in moving that the report of the Joint Committee on Printing of Parliament be concurred in, I may say that, as a matter of fact, there seems to exist a deplorable state of affairs in connection with the publication of the French reports. Allow me. Sir, in support of the complaint I have just made, to call your attention to a case of delay incident to the publication of a French report, which has occurred during this very session. I speak from experience when I state that, at the opening of the session the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Colonization, brought down last session, had not yet been printed. It seems to me a shame that in a dual language parliament, that is to say, a parliament in which both languages are upon the same footing, documents of this kind which our French-speaking compatriots are as much entitled to have on time as the English speaking ratepayers are to have the English reports, should be one year behind the publication of the latter.
Having made up my mind to trace the evil back to its source, 1 made inquiries and tried my best to find out who was responsible for that state of affairs. With this end in view, I wrote to the King's Printer, inquiring as to the cause of the vexatious and unreasonable delay in the printing and distribution of that French report. The King's Printer replied to my letter on the 7th of March, and in his communication he gives the date of the receipt of the several portions of said report at the Printing Bureau. The last portion of the copy, tnirty pages in all, was received at the Printing Bureau on the 16th of December, 1900. and as there were still left a few pages, the work could not be completed.
Such were the facts which I brought to the notice of the Joint Committee on the Printing of Parliament. Now, the members of that committee took up the matter, and on the 16th of March I received from Mr. Polkinghorne. clerk of the Printing Committee. a letter which reads as follows :-
Ottawa, Ont., March 16, 1901.
J. H. Legris, Esq., M.P.,
Chairman of Committee on Agriculture.
Dear Sir,-I am instructed by the Joint Committee on the Printing of Parliament to notify you that due inquiry was made with reference to your communication regarding the delay in the printing of the French version of the Report on Agriculture, and that owing to the non-receipt of the copy by the translator. Mr. Genand, from Mr. P. M. Draper, of the Printing Bureau, who had said copy in charge, he was unable to proceed with the translation of the last sixteen pages of the index ; the matter has, however, now been remedied and the work completed, the translation and all copy placed in the hands of the King's Printer and will no doubt be soon distributed.	Yours truly,
(Signed) JOHN A. POLKINGHORNE, Clerk of Printing Committee.
As will be seen from the above letter, from the 16th of December, 1900. to the 10th of March, 1901, Mr. P. M. Draper, of the Printing Bureau, who had the copy in charge, did not deliver it to the French translator, and so Mr. Draper seems to be responsible for the delay in the printing of the French version of that report.
Now, Sir, it seems to me that the employees of the Printing Bureau should be under the control of somebody, and when they are remiss in their duty they should be held responsible for such conduct.
In this case the responsibility for the vexatious and unreasonable delay incident to the publication of that French report seems to fall upon the shoulders of Mr. Draper. Why, Sir, it was but a short time ago that the French version of the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Colonization brought down last session, was distributed. This is a report, Sir, which always proves very interesting to our French Canadian fellow-countrymen, and as I said, they are as much entitled to have that report on time as the English-speaking people are to have the English report, and it is simply intolerable that such a report should be six months or a year behind time in being printed in the French language.
For my part, I believe that apart from the recommendations presented by the Joint Committee on the Printing of Parliament, there should be some other way of remedying that state of affairs, and whenever it is shown beyond doubt that any employee of the Printing Bureau neglects his duty, he should be called to order.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: The suggestion of my hon. friend from Shefford (Mr. Parmelee) seems both practical and practicable, and I suppose the House will have no objection to adopting the report.


Mr. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure).: As a member of the Printing Committee, I can corroborate everything that has been said toy the chairman of that committee. At almost every meeting of the committee since the beginning of the session, we have had complaints regarding the delay in the printing of the French reports. As has been said by the hon. member for Maskinonge (Mr. Legris), the report on Agriculture and Colonization was not published until nearly a year after it had been issued in English. As the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Parmelee) has very well said, the French population are entitled to receive these reports as soon as possible after they are published in English. I believe that some progress has already been made, and much more progress could be made if the present recommendations were carried out. I understand that in the past it has been customary to farm out this translation to a number of people, many of whom were quite incompetent to do the work. Translation is a harder work than people generally believe. It takes a man well versed in both languages to be able to make a proper translation. I am informed that the present staff of translators is a com-

petent staff, and that it is in the interest of a good translation that the work should he limited to these men ; no more translation should he given out. It is the rule, so far as I can gather, that no man is employed to translate any parliamentary work until he has undergone an examination and proved himself capable to do the work that is to be assigned to him. The advantage of keeping these translators together, as they are at the present time, under the control of Hr. Cour-solles and the Speaker of this House, lies in the fact that they can help each other. If you separated them and put one into each department, they would work apart, and in many instances would not have the advantage of being able to confer with each other. If the report presented by the committee is adopted, you would have these men scattered all over the different departments. I would suggest that another method be adopted. When a man has translated the report of one department, he has gone to a great deal of trouble to acquire a knowledge of the technical expressions which are used in the various departments. If yon place that report the following year in the hands of another translator, he will have to go over all the same ground and consult a large number of technical dictionaries, and the work will not be as well done probably as it had been done previously by the man who had already acquired the necessary experience. Therefore, I beg leave to move this amendment, which I hope will be acceptable to the members of the Printing Committee, as an amendment to section 3 :
That the report of each department should be as much as possible translated by the same translator, whose duty it should he to translate from the English copy as fast as it is prepared, so that the French and English copies might go to the Printing Bureau concurrently ; and that the report as amended he concurred in.


Mr. R. HOLMES (West Huron).: I have no hostility to that amendment, but I desire to say a few words upon the report generally of the Printing Committee. One of the chief questions that has been before the committee this session has been the delay incident to the publication of the French report. Every one must admit that the use of the dual language calls for the issuing of the reports concurrently, if possible. But, unfortunately, that has not been possible under existing circumstances. I agree entirely with the amendment that is proposed ; but there is a clause in the report to which I think special attention should be called, that is. the necessity of increased accommodation in the Printing Bureau. I do not know how many members of the House have visited the Printing Bureau, but I think it would be in their own interest, and would enlarge their information, if they would visit the Printing Bureau and find out the conditions that exist there. I notice by the report of the King's Printer, year after year, that the present building has been found altogether inadequate for the requirements of Mr. MARCIL.
the work that is called for. In his report for 1898 he says :
The present building was designed to accommodate the business of the government as it existed in 1886. No reserve of space was provided to meet the increasing demands of a growing country. The building was filled immediately after its erection. In the meantime the country has grown. The business of the departments has greatly increased, but the facilities provided at the Printing Bureau remain unchanged in some essential particulars. The space occupied is the same ; the power of output of the press-room is the same.
The question has been asked here several times during this session, in reference to the printing of several reports, and the information has been given to the House that certain reports had to be printed outside the Bureau. The reason for that subsequently given has been that the Bureau is so crowded at the present time that it is impossible to put on any more hands ; consequently, when the reports are required with some speed and in proper time, they have to be given out in order to have them done when required. I notice, also, that the King's Printer, in his report for the current year, calls attention to the same difficulty :
The year past has been one of constant pressure at the Government Printing Bureau. Keeping pace with the rapid growth of the country and the expansion of its interests, the operations of the government are extending over wider areas and in new directions. Of necessity it follows, therefore, that there must be larger requirements upon the Bureau and a continually
increasing strain upon its resources	The
Government Printing Bureau has been for years occupied to its utmost capacity. There is not room for additional hands. More hands would, in fact, produce less work because the men would be in each other's way. There has been no serious suspension of work-people in any branch since the year 1896, and the work is now beginning to overflow into outside offices	 The need of increased accommodation has been continually pointed out from the very first year the Bureau was opened. In 1889, the late Queen's Printer reported ' that every part of the building was occupied.'
I notice in subsequent reports that be expresses the same opinion. Now, my object in rising is to direct the attention of the House and the government to the fact that an addition to the Bureau is absolutely necessary, that if the Bureau is to meet the requirements of the House and the country, an addition should be made thereto. The composing room, the bindery, in particular, are so crowded that it is absolutely impossible for the hands that are employed there to work with that facility they would otherwise do if they had more space. It is not for me to suggest what form the addition should take, but it seems to me that there should toe, in addition to an extension of the present building, another building provided for storing certain stock they have at the Bureau at the present time. They are compelled to use an attic for storing certain formes, known technically to the printers, which I think are placed in an unsafe con-

dition, and should a fire occur, there would he no possibility of saving them. I think, therefore, the House should press upon the attention of the government the necessity of providing as speedily as possible for the demands of increased accommodation in connection with the Bureau, because increased accommodation means that the Bureau will meet the requirements of the public better than it does at the present time.


Mr. E. F. CLARKE (West Toronto).: I believe every member of the committee will unite in the recommendations which have been presented by our chairman this morning. If the government desire to have the work of the different departments printed efficiently, expeditiously and economically, it is absolutely necessary that the recommendations of the committee, so far as the enlargement of the building and increased accommodation are concerned, should be carried out immediately. 1 do not think it is a satisfactory method of doing business to send the reports of the different departments elsewhere, here and there, to be printed, when we have a bureau where it is intended all this work should be done. That the equipment is sadly deficient in some respects, from the lack of space, is evident to a casual observer. I have taken the liberty on previous occasions of directing the attention of the ministry to the disgraceful accommodation given to the employees in the Bureau, and I hope, in view of the recommendations which have been ma.de this morning, and in view of the unanimity which characterized the members of the committee, and of those who have taken an interest in the work of the Bureau, that the government will make provision before the House rises for a sum sufficient to give the additional accommodation that is so urgently required. It is a fact that the accommodation in the bindery in connection with the Bureau is simply disgraceful. There is not room for one-half the operatives who are steadily employed there. I hope it will not be necessary to refer to this matter again, and that when the House meets at the next session, it will be found that the recommendations of the committee have been adopted, and that the facilities and accommodation which are so urgently required at the Bureau have been provided, so that there will be no longer any reasonable excuse for delay in bringing down the reports at the opening of the session.


Mr. T. B. FLINT (Yarmouth).: There is another point regarding the arrangements for carrying on the work of the Printing Bureau that is worthy of consideration. During the session of parliament there is a great congestion of work, and there is a necessity for employing a large number of additional hands, which is attended no doubt with a great deal of inconvenience and loss of time in consequence of the lack of space for that work. And when the congestion has been in a large degree overcome during the session, a number of hands have
to be dismissed, causing no doubt a great deal of inconvenience, perhaps even some distress. By the enlargement of the works and the adoption of some systematic arrangement of the business, the earlier commencement for publication of the various reports and returns, the management of the Printing Bureau can so adjust the operation of the work that there will not be this call for a large number of hands and followed by the necessity for dismissing many of them. Any hon. gentleman can see that if from one hundred to two hundred journeymen printers are suddenly thrown on the world to seek situations elsewhere, the result must be, if not actual suffering, at least great inconvenience and loss. I trust that at a future session the government will ask for such appropriations as will place the Printing Bureau on a proper and businesslike footing.


Mr. N. CLARKE WALLACE (West York).: It appears to me, Mr. Speaker, that the report of the committee presented by tne hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Parmelee) is a direct censure upon the government for its failure to perform its duty. The law requires that these documents shall be printed in both languages. It is a matter of the utmost importance that they should he printed promptly, for the value of many of these reports depends upon the timeliness of presentation to the House and the countiy. Take, for instance, the report of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Trade and Navigation Returns. These reports are valuable only to the extent that they give to the people prompt information as to the trade. The business men, importers and manufacturers who are watching the trade of the country require these reports, and they require them promptly. We are told that some reports are a year, a year and a half, or even two vears behind time in being printed in the French language. But many of them are behind time being printed in English. They should not be behind time in either language. When a page of printing has to be done it does not cost any more to do it promptly


Edward Frederick Clarke: It costs less, as a matter of fact.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) tells us that it costs less, and I can quite uuderstand why that should be so. There is all the greater reason why the government, if it did its duty could present these documents to the House and the public with due promptitude. I am glad the Printing Committee has presen t ed this report, and I hope that the government will not hereafter, as they have done year after year, seek to evade their responsibility for lack of promptness in presenting these reports by making the excuse that the Printing Bureau is not able to do the work. This is no proper or sufficient excuse at all. The Printing Bureau should be sufficiently well equipped to do the work and do it quickly. And, as we are told,

tliis would mean not a greater expense but an actual saving of money, and it would give us these reports at a time when they have the greatest value, instead of at a time when their value has greatly depreciated or been entirely lost.
Amendment agreed amended agreed to.
to, and motion



QUESTIONS.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. SCOTT-by Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure)- ashed :
1.	What is the number of acres of land selected by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and by each other railway company to which land grants have been voted by parliament, respectively, in the North-west Territories and in Manitoba, respectively ?
[DOT]	is the number of miles of railway
in the North-west Territories and in Manitoba respectively, by the construction of which each respective company earned said lands ?
,r"i:i'° MINSTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton). The answer to the hrst part of the bon. gentleman's (Mr Seott'sl question is as follows
Acres
1.	Number of acres selected by the	'
Canadian Pacific Railway in Manitoba 2,276 785-00
Area selected in the North-West	'
1 few ***	11,874,007 * 00
2.	Alberta Railway and Coal Company entirely in the Territories area. 1,114,368-00
3.	Calgary and Edmonton Railway,
all in the Territories	 1,756,231-58
4.	Canadian Northern Railway in
Manitoba	*____ 89 115-59
Canadian Northern Railway in the ' Territories, no selection.
5.	Manitoba South-western Colonization Railway, all in Manitoba ___ 1,000 OOO'OO
b. Souris Branch of the Canadian Pacific Railway in Manitoba, no selection.
Souris Branch of the Canadian Pacific Railway in the Territories no selection.
7. Pipestone Branch of the Canadian Pacific Railway, no selection but land grant is in the Territories.
S. Great North-West Central Railway all in Manitoba. Selected in
Manitoba		g 138*00
Selected in the Territories	 314 862-00
Manitoba and North-western
403.000-	00
183.000-	00
Railway, in Manitoba selected area..
Manitoba and North-western Railway, in the Territories selected area.
10.	Manitoba and South-eastern Railway, ail in Manitoba, no selection.
11.	Qu'Appelie, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railway, all in the Territories. The case is now before the courts.
12.	Red Deer Valley Railway and Company, all in the Territories, no selection.
13.	Saskatchewan and Western Railway, ail in Manitoba ; land grant m the Territories, but not yet fixed ; no selection.
The answer to tbe second part of the question is as follows :
Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Miles.
1.	Mileage of the Canadian Pacific
Railway in Manitoba	 373-00
Mileage of Canadian Pacific Railway in the North-west Territories	 755-00
2.	Mileage of the Alberta Railway and
Coal Company in the Territories .... 174-12
3.	Calgary and Edmonton Railway
Company, mileage in the Territories_ 295-07
4.	Canadian Northern Railway, mileage
in Manitoba	   303-50
Canadian Northern Railway, mileage in the Territories	 22-50
5.	Manitoba South-western Colonization Railway, mileage in Manitoba .... 214-5
6.	Souris Branch of the Canadian Pacific Railway, mileage in Manitoba....	144-00
7.	Souris Branch of Canadian Pacific
Railway in the Territories,	mileage...	76-5
8.	Pipestone Branch of the Canadian
Pacific Railway, mileage in	Manitoba__	31-3
9.	Great North-West Central Railway,
mileage in Manitoba	 50-00
10.	Manitoba and North-western Railway, mileage in Manitoba	
182-0011.	Manitoba and North-western Railway in the Territories	
52-5912.	Manitoba and South-eastern Railway, mileage in Manitoba, approximately. 98-0013.	Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan, mileage in the Territories.. 253-9614.	Red Deer Valley Railway and CoalCompany, mileage in the Territories estimated to be about	
55-0015.	Saskatchewan and Western Railway, mileage in Manitoba	
15-47
WOOD NAPHTHA, &c.


Mr. BARKER asked :: 1.	What was the quantity of wood naphtha purchased by the government for the years 1898, 1899 and 1900, respectively ?
2.	What were the sources of supply of such naphtha and the prices paid ?
3.	What were the quantities of acetic acid, wood alcohol and_ other, if any, distillates (principally) from wood imported and exported from or into Canada in the years above mentioned, the values declared for duty or excise and the amount of duty or inland revenue ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE (Hon. M. E. Bernier) :: 
POSTMASTER AT NAPANEE.
Mr. TAYLOR asked :: 
The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright).: In the absence of the Postmaster General I beg to answer as follows :-
1.	^ihe postmaster is paid by commission.
2.	Commission on revenue, $1,660; commission on postal notes, $11.21 ; commission on money order business, $17.41 ; commission on savings bank business, $55.20 ; commission on box rents, $95.33 ; commission on forward duty, $60. Total, $1,929.15.
3.	No.


WHARF AT BACK BAY, N.B.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. GANONG-by Mr. Ingram-asked :
Has the contract been let to build a wharf at Back Bay, Charlotte County, New Brunswick ?
If so, who is the contractor and what is the amount of his contract ?
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies).: No, but the matter is now before council.


STONEY CREEK MONUMENT.
Mr. SMITH (Wentworth) asked :: 1.	What sum has been voted, if any, towards defraying the expenses of the erection of a monument to commemorate the victory of the British arms at the battle of Stoney Creek?
2.	To whom will the money be paid if already voted, and may they obtain it now ?
3.	Will the government not contribute two gun carriages for the two cannons now on the ground at the battlefield of Stoney Creek?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. F. W. Borden) :: 1.	$2,500.
2.	Money will he paid to the party who does the work.
3.	I am not aware that the stores department has any carriages, but if there be any the government will be very glad to give them.


MONUMENT TO GENERAL MONTGOMERY.
Mr. CLARKE asked :: 1.	Has the attention of the government been called to the fact that an effort is being made by aliens to secure the permission of the municipality of the city of Quebec to erect a monument to the memory of the American General Montgomery who led the American forces in an unsuccessful attempt to capture the city of Quebec V
2.	If so, has the government taken any action in the matter ?
3.	If the permission of the municipality of Quebec has been given for the erection of such monument or memorial, is it the intention of the government to permit its erection or will the government permit its erection ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: A petition has been received by the government from the United Empire Loyalist Association, if I remember right, against the erection of a monument to General Montgomery in the city of Quebec. We have no information yet upon the subject, but if the municipal corporation of Quebec allows the erection of a monument upon its own ground I doubt if the government has power to interfere. I have asked information from the city of Quebec as to what has really been done, but I have not yet received this information. As soon as i get it 1 shall be glad to communicate it to the House. In the meantime, if my private information is correct, the permission which has been sought is not to erect a monument to the memory of General Montgomery, but simply to place a tablet showing the place where he fell. For some thirty years, and perhaps more, there has been' a tablet on the cliff with the inscription :
* Here Montgomery fell.'
As I understand it there is no other intention but to have a similar tablet.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is that to be erected by the municipal authorities of Quebec ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I think it was erected by some friends of Montgomery, and I also understand that it was looked after at one time by the Richelieu and Ontario Navigation Company, but as to that I have no information.


MAILS FROM FOUND'S MILL TO EMERALD JUNCTION.
Mr. HACKETT asked :: 1.	Were tenders invited by public advertisement in 1896, for carrying the mails from Found's Mills to Emerald Junction by way of Graham's Road and Norborough, Prince Edward Island ?
2.	If so, how many tenders were received, the names of the tenderers, and amounts of tenders respectively ?
3.	Was the lowest tender accepted ? If not, why not ?


Mr. BORDEN (King's).: 4.	When the term of contract, entered into in 1896, expired, were tenders again invited by public advertisement for this service ?
5.	Who is the present contractor and what amount does he receive for the work ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) :: In the absence of the Postmaster General, I beg to answer as follows :-
Tenders were not invited in 1896 for this service, but tenders were invited in 1895, due to be opened on the 15th November of that year. The following is the list :-
H.	P. Found, $93 ; B. Paynter, $94.50; G. Colby, $97.75 ; A. Wood, $98 ; A. McLeod, $108 ; J. Harding, $120 ; N. McNeil, $123.
The lowest tender was accepted, and a contract made with him for the amount of his tender, viz., $93 for four years, from the 1st of January, 1896. This contract expired on the 31st December, 1899, and since that time the contractor, Mr. Found, has been carrying on the service temporarily on the terms and conditions of the contract.


DISMISSAL OF HOMESTEAD INSPECTOR THOMPSON.
Mr. CLARE asked :: I.	Was Mr. J. R. Thompson, formerly Homestead Inspector in the North-west Territories, dismissed ?
2.	If so, for what reason ?
3.	Were charges made against him ? If so, by whom ?
4.	Was an investigation held ? If so, what was the result ?
5.	Was a Mr. Burley appointed to investigate certain charges, and did said Burley issue notices asking all parties who had charges against Thompson to come forward and prefer them ?
6.	Is it customary for the Department of the Interior to advertise for parties to come forward and make complaints against the officers of the department ?
7.	Who has or have been appointed in Mr. Thompson's place, and what are his or their qualifications for the position ?
8.	Who recommended Mr. Burley's appointment as investigator into the charges against Mr. Thompson, and was any protest, verbal or written, made against his appointment by any person ?
9.	Did the department pay the witnesses, or any of the legal expenses of the complaint ?
10.	Did the department pay the legal expenses of the said Thompson ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	Political partisanship.
3.	No.
4.	No.
5 and 6. Investigation referred to as having been held by Mr. Burley was not the cause of Mr. Thompson's dismissal, and had no connection with it.
7. W. W. Stuart was appointed homestead inspector for the Calgary district vice Thompson dismissed. The appointee was recommended as being qualified for the

position by persons in wliose judgment tlie j minister liad confidence.	}
With regard to questions 8, 9 and 10, and generally in regard to the investigation referred to, a very full return has been laid upon the Table of the House and the bon. gentleman can get all the information by looking at it.


FISHERY GUARDIAN ELZEAR COLLIN.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MARTINEAU-1by Mr. Talbot-asked :
1.	When did Mr. Elzear Collin, o£ St. Thomas de Montmagny, cease to be fishery guardian for the division called ' Washeecoatai ' ?
2.	Up to what date was his salary in that position paid to him ?
3.	Has Mr. Collin's successor been appointed ?
4.	If not, is it the intention of the government to fill the vacancy ?
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) :: 1.	He was employed for the season of 1898, and his appointment expired on the 20th September, 1898.
2.	He was paid $100 for the season, in accordance with the terms of his appointment.
3.	No.
4.	Not at present.


LONG SERVICE MEDALS.
Edward Frederick Clarke: Who is responsible for the continued delay in issuing forms of application for the long service decoration and medal granted to the Canadian militia ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. F. W. Borden).: The long service decoration medals having been conferred by the Imperial government and as a consequence the regulations must be the subject of correspondence between the Canadian government and the War Office. There has been no unnecessary or unusual delay. The matter is being pressed forward as rapidly as possible.


EXPENDITURE IN YUKON TERRITORY.
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: I promised to give the hon. member for West York (Mr. Wallace) certain information on Monday, but he was not in his seat. I see that the hon. gentleman is not in his seat now, but I will give the information and it will be recorded in ' Hansard ' so that he may have the benefit of it. The postmaster at Daw-sou City at the present time receives a salary of $4,000 per annum without any allowance, and the Post Office Department has under consideration the idea of providing him with quarters as well. Formerly he had a salary of $3,200 and living allowance. In reply to the hon. gentleman's question as to the population of the Yukon
territory, I may say that the enumeration taken by the mounted police in April, 1900, shows a population of 16,107 whites, and including Indians, 16,463. I think that would be correct up to last fall, although, no doubt, there has been an increase during the last few months. The hon. gentleman also asked me to state what the entire amount of the estimated expenditure for the Yukon territory in all departments will be during the next fiscal year 1901-2. The entire expenditure estimated for 1901-2 is $1,390,397.15 on consolidated revenue account, and $311,879.51 on account of capital, making a total of $1,702,276.66.


VICTORIA DAY.
Mr. E. H. HORSEY (North Grey).: Before the Orders of the day are called, I would like to ask the government for a definite statement as to whether or not the approaching 24th of May will be a public holiday under the Bill that has passed this House ? Some doubt appears to exist in certain quarters as to whether or not the day will be observed as a holiday.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: It is the hope of the government that prorogation will take place before the 24tli of May, and if that be the case the Bill will be sanctioned and Victoria Day will be a legal holiday. If unfortunately prorogation does not take place before the 24th of May, it is the intention of the advisers of His Excellency to ask him to come and give his sanction to that Bill so that in any case the 24th of May will be a legal holiday.
VISIT OF THE DUKE OF iORK
IMr. E. HACKETT (West Prince, P.E.I.) I would like to ask the First aiiuister why Quebec has been substituted for Halifax as the landing place of the Duke of York on his arrival in Canada ? It was understood up to quite recently that the Duke of York would land at Halifax, but lately it has been said that he is going to land at Quebec. I have several communications from parties in the maritime provinces asking me for information on this point.


The PRIME MINISTER.: So far as I know, and I am sure I am quite correct, no official programme has yet been arranged as to when and where the Duke of York is expected to land.


YUKON TERRITORY ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider the following resolution
That It is expedient to provide that the salaries of the police magistrate for Dawson and the police magistrate for White Horse shall be $2,400 per annum each, and that they may be
[Stage Direction]
paid, in addition, such living allowances as are fixed by the Governor in Council.-Hon. Mr. Sifton.
Mr. MONK.: Wliat are the living allowances generally ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: $150 a month to the ordinary official. The judges get a little more ; I do not know how much, but I think it is $3,000 a year.
Resolution reported, read the first and the second time, and agreed to.
Bill (No. 118) to .amend the Yukon Territory Act, and to make further provision for the administration of justice in the said territory (Hon. Mr. Sifton) again considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.


MONTREAL HARBOUR LOAN.
[Stage Direction]
Resolutions reported from Committee of the Whole respecting the corporation of the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal (Hon. Mr. Fielding) read the first and the second time and agreed to.
Tlie PRIM E MINISTER moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 142) respecting the corporation of the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 137) to amend the Act respecting the Department of Public Printing and Stationery (Hon. Mr. Fielding), read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
House again*in Committee of Supply.
['I beg to call attention to the fact that the time for private Bills has expired.']
Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: I wish to call the attention of the hon. the Minister of Railways and Canals to his promise to bring down the contract with the Clergue Company.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman will find that among the papers which I handed him two or three days ago.


John Graham Haggart: I think not.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It was ready, and I understood was included in the general bundle, and I think the hon. gentleman will find it there, if he looks for it carefully.


John Graham Haggart: Has there been any other correspondence with any other parties in reference to the steel rail contract or any further correspondence with Mr. Clergue ? Sir WILFRID^AURIER.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, I had no further correspondence.


John Graham Haggart: The correspondence with reference to the expropriation or negotiations with regard to the Point Levis property is not down.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think the hon. gentleman has all the papers. I told my officer to make a careful examination of ' Hansard ' and see what the hon. gentleman asked for and have the papers supplied.
To divert road and build overhead bridge at Drumimondville, $6,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is proposed to divert the highway and in that manner do away with two crossings at rail level and build an overhead bridge. This will cost $6,000.
Towards increased accommodation at Stellarton, $20,500.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is required for several purposes for the construction of a Y between Pictou town branch and the Truro branch. For remodelling and reconstructing the yard, for laying down tanks at the engine-house, for building culvert, coal-house, and sewers and for remodelling stations.
Towards increasing accommodation at Halifax, $60,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is for grading and filling and the carrying out of arrangements in connection with the making of sidings. That will cost $50,000. The cribbing and filling with earth will cost $25,000. We are putting in creosoted southern pine which will cost $3,000. Then there are the rails, $4,200.
Then, posts, spikes, switch gear, ties, works generally for the rails in the yard-make the total up to $90,000.


John Graham Haggart: This vote is $60,000. This, I suppose, is included in the amount that the hon. minister gave as likely to be expended at Halifax during the fiscal year.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, this is included in the total amount, that total amount being $120,000.
Increased accommodation at Pictou, $45,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is to extend the wharf and build upon it. Our business in Pictou is in a very congested condition. I think the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) knows that our accommodation there is very limited. The traffic between Prince Edward Island and Pictou has grown very largely, and we have had very serious trouble there last winter which created great discontent among the people. So we agreed to enlarge the pier

and provide facilities by which the business could be handled.


John Graham Haggart: You have the wharf on the other side, which, I suppose, takes most of the material manufactured at New Glasgow. This, with the other wharf at Pictou, I should think, would be sufficient to accommodate the whole business of Nova Scotia.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) has a very limited idea of the business of Nova Scotia, when he thinks that. Besides, steamers from the island could only land at this pier which we propose to enlarge.
Towards improving ferry service at Strait of Canso, $46,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is a general improvement. We are putting on a new steamer there capable of breaking the ice under any conditions and crossing at all times, and also capable of carrying trains. And, as part of this plan, we have to build on either side the necessary grade approaches.


John Graham Haggart: How much is to be paid for the steamer and how much for the approaches?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: 
John Graham Haggart: Where was the steamer built?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: On the Tyne, by the Whitworth-Armstrong Company, who have had a great deal of experience in building vessels of this kind.
Buildings and appliances for making Pintsch gas, $13,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have adopted the Pintsch gas as the most economical as well as the most convenient method of lighting our cars. And, instead of buying the gas, we propose to make it.


Mr. OSLER.: Are there any patents to be paid for?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am not aware of any.
Steel rails, $160,000.


John Graham Haggart: While we are on that item, I desire to draw the attention of the 161
minister to the fact that I have not the contract amongst the papers that he brought down.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is all ready.


John Graham Haggart: Then, the hon. minister had better send it to me.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Mr. Schreiber informs me that he is certain that it was amongst the papers.


John Graham Haggart: I have looked for it very carefully.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have seen the copies, and Mr. Schreiber says that to his knowledge they were with the papers.


John Graham Haggart: I looked for it when I received the papers. I put them in my desk and locked them up. Since then I have had time to look over them very carefully, and I do not find it here. But it is a short thing. The hon. minister must have a copy of it, and he can show it to me.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Certainly, I shall be very glad to show it to the hon. gentleman.


John Graham Haggart: 
Mr. COCHRANE.: For what year?


John Graham Haggart: Last season's business. Striking this out, there is a loss of 37 per cent in the regular export trade from the interior by the winter boats, and this notwithstanding the fact that during last season the Intercolonial terminal facilities were in operation for the first time, and the government undertook to do an export grain business through St. John. Then, the statement goes on to give details. We shall perhaps have this matter up again. I should like the hon. minister to make a statement as to the government's policy. What was the reason for the failure of the arrangement with the Canadian Pacific Railway-for I suppose that is the cause of the falling off of the trade, that company not having carried the usual amount for export from Montreal to St. John. What is the state of the negotiations at the present time, and is there any prospect of that trade resuming its wonted form as in the past year?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman, I presume, intends to bring this subject up in a more formal way, and I think it would be well to discuss it then in its entirety. I do not



think a disjointed and partial reference to that now would be desirable.


John Graham Haggart: It is only as to the figures and facts, I want to know whether the facts as stated are correct.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have not seen what the hon. gentleman refers to, therefore I could not speak as to the accuracy of the statements. I admit that the amount of export business which was done at St. John last winter wa's much less than in previous years ; but as to the difference in the value of the exports or as to the difference in the quantity in any particular, I am unable to state off-hand. I would, therefore, scarcely undertake to pass upon the correctness of the figures which the hon. gentleman has read, nor do I think at the present time it would be desirable for me to go into the question of the difference which arose between the Intercolonial Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway. The Canadian Pacific Railway made certain demands upon the Intercolonial Railway, to which I did not deem it reasonable nor in the interest of the Intercolonial Railway to accede, and I declined to entertain their proposals. The result was that the season became so far advanced before the Canadian Pacific Railway Company realized that the government had determined to adhere to the attitude they had taken up, that I apprehend a good deal of business which would otherwise have been taken to St. John was diverted el'sewhere. I have heard myself that the traffic was handed over by the Canadian Pacific Railway to the Grand Trunk Railway. I have always been ready, and am now, to entertain any reasonable proposal for an interchange of traffic with the Canadian Pacific Railway, which I believe would not be injurious to the interest of the Intercolonial Railway ; but I have not felt myself, even though interested in the port of St. John, and anxious to see the busines's of that port grow to the greatest possible extent-I have not felt that it is my duty to subordinate what I believe to be the interest of the Intercolonial Railway, and therefore of the country, to the demands of the Canadian Pacific Railway. I am very anxious that the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Intercolonial Railway should proceed harmoniously together, I am anxious to make traffic arrangements with the Canadian Pacific Railway, and I hope to be able to make such arrangements as will be fair and mutually advantageous. But a one-sided agreement I will not enter into with the Canadian Pacific Railway.


John Graham Haggart: The statement was made in the House the other day that the grades on the Grand Trunk Railway to Portland were 'Such that they could take trains


Mr. BLAIR.: of fifty or sixty cars more favourably than to St. John. I understood that the Canadian Pacific Railway were willing to make an arrangement with the government to carry a part of their ocean freight to St. John, and to fix the gradients of their road which are unfavourable in comparison with the Grand Trunk Railway. Have they some kind of an arrangement with the government with reference to that trade ? They complain, of course, that the western-bound traffic on the Intercolonial Railway is being diverted from them to the Grand Trunk Railway, that an unfavourable arrangement to the Canadian Pacific Railway was made with the Grand Trunk Railway. I would like to know when the debate comes up again whether any proposition of that kind has been made to the Canadian Pacific Railway for the purpose of carrying possibly the whole of their ocean-bound traffic to St. John. Then I see also that a large portion of grain, perhaps 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 bushels, has been carried over the Intercolonial Railway to Montreal. If I am rightly informed-and the minister will correct me if I am not-that freight which was taken from the Grand Trunk Railway was carried at the rate of 4 cents a bushel from Montreal to St. John. That was American grain taken by the Grand Trunk Railway from Chicago along its Midland service, and taken to St. John at the rate of 4 cents per bu'shel. I have heard that other parties in Montreal, shippers bringing down Manitoba and North-western grain to Montreal, were anxious to enter into similar arrangements for the carrying of grain from Montreal to St. John, and they found it impossible to make an arrangement with the Intercolonial Railway for less than 10 cents per bushel. Parties have told me that they went to your officers in Montreal and tried to make an arrangement, and found that that was the best they could do. The minister, perhaps, will be able to tell whether my information is correct.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Without having had any conference with the officers of the Intercolonial Railway in respect of these matters of which the hon. gentleman speaks, and not having heard of them myself, I do npt hesitate to inform my hon. friend that he has been absolutely misled. In the first place it i's incorrect to say that we took grain from the Grand Trunk Railway last year to St. John. If we have done so. I was not informed of it. I know that our traffic officials in Montreal communicated with the general manager, who communicated with me, and discussed the question of rates, and it was in every instance in respect of freight that was reaching us by the Canada Atlantic Railway. .


John Graham Haggart: I meant the Canada Atlantic Railway instead of the Grand Trunk Railway.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman said the Grand Trunk Railway. My impression is that the whole of the grain that was exported from St. John last year came over the Canada Atlantic Railway. I think I can say with confidence that no such proposition as the hon. gentleman speaks of avs having been made by western shippers, was made to the Intercolonial Railway and refused. I do not believe that any demand, in fact I know that no such demand, was made by the Intercolonial authorities, I am confident they made no such discrimination, and were not unwilling to make fair and reasonable terms with other shippers if any freight had been offered. As to that statement, I may say that the hon. gentleman has been misled.


John Graham Haggart: I heard you carried it at 4 cents a bushel.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think probably that would not be far astray. The price varied through the season somewhat.


Hon. Mr. ROSS.: I wish to make this assertion. If grain is carried by the Intercolonial as far as Moncton it would be just as easy to ship it at Halifax as to divert it to St. John, and as every one knows the shipping facilities are better at Halifax than at St. John. The Minister of Public Works stated yesterday that the harbour of St. John required certain dredging at the entrance. Well, the harbour at Halifax will never want any dredging.


John Graham Haggart: What about the fogs ?


William Ross: There is double the quantity of fog at and around the Bay of Fundy that there is about the harbour of Halifax at any time.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If any reflections were cast upon the harbour of St. John, I could have answered them very effectively. While I am not going to say a word-perhaps I could not if I wished to-which would reflect in any degree upon the harbour at Halifax as compared with the harbour of St. John, I do not think that anything true can be said in favour of Halifax, as against St. John, or that St. John will not stand a fair comparison with Halifax. My hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Ross) says that when grain is brought from Montreal to Moncton it could as well be taken to Halifax as to St. John, l would just call the attention of my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Ross) to the fact that there would be necessarily some difference. You cannot haul a train-load of grain a hundred miles further, up a very heavy grade, without adding something to the expense. I do not say it would be a large proportion, but there would necessarily be some difference between the two.
164}


John Graham Haggart: Where is that heavy grade ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The heavy grade, as the hon. gentleman will know, is at Folleigh; heavier and longer than on the Intercolonial Railway at any point, I think.


Mr. CLANCY.: Is there any difference between the ocean rates from St. John as compared with the rates from Halifax ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am glad my hon. friend has asked the question, because it affords me an opportunity of replying to it. If the harbour of St. John is not as inviting to steamship companies as any other harbour on that coast, then let the harbour of St. John take the consequence of any inferiority. But, I think it will be found that those engaged in the ocean steamship business will as readily come to the harbour of St. John as to any other harbour upon the coast in British territory. It may be some inducement that they are likely to get at St. John a good deal of business of a kind which does not offer elsewhere. At all events, I think there will be nothing unfavourable said against the harbour of St. John by shipping men.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: So far as I am concerned, coming as I do from the province of Ontario, I have no prejudices in favour of Halifax, St. John, Montreal or Quebec. The question for we farmers is, from which port can we get our grain cheapest to the English market. I do not care whether my grain goes from St. John or Halifax, but I do care which is the cheapest port. If it costs more to haul grain to Halifax, then the question arises : Will the lower ocean freights at Halifax compensate for the more expensive railway haul ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not think there is any difference made by the steamship companies between the ocean rates from St. John and the ocean rates from Halifax. In fact, I believe the same rate prevails from New York as from Boston, from Boston as from Portland, and from Portland as from St. John or Halifax. It is my impression that the same rate prevails at all the Atlantic ports.


William Ross: Just a word. I have had some experience with steamship captains for fourteen years, and if they were asked to-day whether they would prefer calling at St. John or Halifax, you would get a direct and definite answer that they would prefer coming to Halifax. Once you leave Halifax harbour you are on the wide ocean.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: I do not care about that. Is it cheaper from Halifax ?


William Ross: When you come to the Bay of Fundy, you have intricate sailing to

get into the harbour of St. John. I wish to say in justice to the harbour of St. John, that the feeling in the city of Halifax is, that the Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair) is not at all too favourable to the harbour or the city of St. John.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am sorry to hear that I am not favourable to the city and port of St. John. Now, as to what the member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) said with regard to the relations between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Intercolonial Railway. The hon. gentleman stated that west-bound business is all virtually transferred from the Intercolonial Railway to the Grand Trunk Railway by virtue of the arrangement made with them. I do not intend to enter into that in my present statement, but, if that is the case it is not the fault of the Intercolonial Railway. The field is open to the Canadian Pacific Railway if it chooses to occupy it. We have over and over again stated to the officials of the Canadian Pacific Railway that we are prepared to make arrangements with them to transfer westbound freight to them at Ste. Rosalie or Montreal.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Is not that part of your contract with the Grand Trunk Railway in return for the terminal facilities at Montreal ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, it is not. All that is effected by that contract is the unconsigned freight. It is open to the Canadian Pacific Railway to go into our territory and to solicit freights, even if the whole body of the traffic is to be transferred to them at Ste. Rosalie. We are willing to make arrangements with them, and we had arrangements made between them and our official stall', which arrangements were rescinded, not by ourselves but by the Canadian Pacific Railway. They will not accept freight from us at" Ste. Rosalie. They have insisted that we should deliver it to them at St. John. That is to say, that we should allow them to come into our territory and make arrangements with the shippers to send freight on our line to the nearest point of the connection with them instead of at the end of our line. I 'have stated over and over again in this House, and the hon. gentleman must understand what the nature of the difficulty between the Canadian Pacific Railway and ourselves is. He must understand it, and therefore, I cannot understand why he asks me what the nature of the difficulty is. It must be familiar to him. It is simply a question of a fair exchange of traffic and of an equitable and fair arrangement between the two railway companies. We are prepared to agree to what is fair and reasonable. We do not think they are. We rescinded a cer-Mr. ROSS (Victoria).
tain contract which was entered into a great many years ago, and since the rescinding of that contract we have had no arrangement. I have instructed my officers to discuss the matter with the officials of the Canadian Pacific Railway, but owing to the absence of the principal officers of the Canadian Pacific Railway no progress has yet been made. I do not despair that progress will be made. The very instant that they are prepared to offer us fair traffic terms, we are prepared to agree to such fair traffic terms. I have gone so far as to say that I will submit the question as to what under the circumstances would be fair traffic terms to the arbitrament of any disinterested, competent, outside railway man or men, and I am prepared at this moment to do it. I cannot submit to the demand of another railway company upon us, as representing the Intercolonial Railway, and say, that because they make it, therefore, we must concede it. There must be an element of give and take in any kind of contract or bargain. I maintain that I have met everything that has been proposed to us in the spirit of desiring a fair arrangement. I cannot do anything more.


John Graham Haggart: I think the sole difficulty in regard to taking freight to St. John, results from the hon. minister not being able to make an arrangement with the Canadian Pacific Railway. So long as there is an impossibility of carrying out any arrangement with the hon. minister there is no use of sending any ocean-bound freight to St. John. In answer to the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Cochrane), the hen. minister endeavoured to lead the committee to believe that the Canadian Pacific Railway have the right to all the west-bound freight on the Intercolonial Railway at the terminals. He forgets that he made an arrangement that all the unconsigned freight will be turned over-


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: How could I forget it when I stated it a moment ago ?


John Graham Haggart: You did not state it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I beg your pardon. I stated it just before I sat down.


John Graham Haggart: What did you state ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I said that the arrangement with the Grand Trunk Railway only referred to unconsigned freight. There is not an hon. gentleman in the House but heard me say that.


John Graham Haggart: That is what 1 say. That the agreement with the Grand Trunk Railway is only in reference to unconsigned freight, which is ninety-nine one

hundredths of the west-bound freight. The hon. minister knows it; there is no use talking about that. If I am sending material to Chicago I send it directly to the Canadian Pacific Railway. I suppose the Canadian Pacific Railway has its own arrangement by which if its road does not reach Chicago it carries that freight.	Ninety-nine one-hundreths of the freight that is collected by the Intercolonial Railway in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island is unconsigned freight. You are giving, therefore, nearly the whole of the traffic of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island to the Grand Trunk Railway Company, by the agreement which you have made with them in reference to your terminals. Then, the hon. minister expects the Canadian Pacific Railway to make an arrangement to carry all their ocean-bound freight to St. John, when they can get no return freight from St. John to Montreal. That is exactly the position. The hon. minister when he made that arrangement and when he found fault with the monstrous agreement that was made by his predecessors with the Canadian Pacific Railway and thought he was going to do so much better, that he would no longer have any such agreement as that, finds himself in the position that he is in to-day of nearly ruining the port of his native province. He will never be able to get it out of that position until he comes back to the terms of this monstrous agreement which his predecessors had made with the Canadian Pacific Railway. What is the use of talking about that ? The Canadian Pacific Railway have the right to make a canvass from one end of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to the other for the purpose of getting freight. Undoubtedly they have. So has any railway the right to go into any other railway's territory for the purpose of doing that. What the Intercolonial Railway ought to do is to act fairly by the two railways and arrange equally with them for carrying the traffic westward to its destination. But, the hon. minister by the agreement which he made with the Grand Trunk Railway as to the terminals in Montreal, has given an absurd preference to the Grand Trunk Railway by stipulating that the unconsigned freight on the Intercolonial Railway must be delivered at Ste. Rosalie or Montreal to the Grand Trunk Railway.
At one o'clock, committee took recess.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.


John Graham Haggart: There is only one other question-whether you charge the laying down of the rails and the cost of the ties to capital account ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND [DOT]CANALS. No.


John Graham Haggart: Only the rails ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is all. I understand that the hon. gentleman has found that he had the copy of the agreement regarding the steel rails ?


John Graham Haggart: Yes, I have found the copy of the agreement.
Station at Nicolet, $2,500.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is a new station which we find it necessary to erect.


John Graham Haggart: Is it in place of an old one 1


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There was scarcely any station there at all. This is at the terminus of the Drummond County branch.
Station and freight-house at Eel River, $3,000.


John Graham Haggart: What is this V


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The present building is to be converted into a freight shed. The course we have adopted, when we find the buildings inadequate for the business, is to convert the station building into a freight shed, and put up a station building alongside.


John Graham Haggart: Before we pass from the items for the Intercolonial Railway, I wish to have the correspondence in reference to the expropriation of property at Levis.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Since the morning sitting the deputy minister has brought the plans, the correspondence, the orders, and all the papers, which I lay on the Table.


Mr. FOWLER.: According to information which has come to me, this Eel River expenditure is not really required. The place is going down in importance. It was built up by the lumber industry ; but the lumber in that district is now practically all cut. If the expenditure were put upon railway works in other parts of the county of Resti-gouche it would be very much better for the people of that section.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am surprised to hear what the hon. gentleman says, because I have always found tha1* the officers of the department, in making their recommendations on these subjects, are very conservative and very much opposed to the erection of new stations or the enlargement and improvement of stations where it is not absolutely required. This is a matter proceeding from the engineering branch of the department, and has not been stimulated, so far as I know, by any political influence. I cannot think that the conditions are as the hon. gentleman states ; I think he must be misinformed. I do not suppose that he professes to speak from personal knowledge. I

have no complaint to make of liis calling my attention to the matter, however, and before the work is authorized I will make further inquiry.


George William Fowler: My information is that this Eel River is simply a village of about 200 population, and that the only industry there is a lumber and shingle factory, carried on by Wm. Currie & Company. X do not know anything about it personally ; but I am informed that the gentleman who represents the county of Restigouche (Mr. Reid) is interested in that industry, and people would naturally think that would account for this expenditure. I am also informed that the lumber is practically all cut in this section, and therefore, whatever need there may have been in the past for increased railway facilities, that need has gone by ; that there is a very good station and freight-house there at the present time ; and that the expenditure is not necessary, and would be much better devoted, for instance, to improving the facilities at Campbellton.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The station at Campbellton is being well looked after : I do not think there is cause for complaint. But Eel River is, I think, considered to have as good an outlook for increased business as any station of that class on the line. It is an outlet for a very large agricultural population and is a settlement of 300 families-so I am informed by the hon. member for Restigouche.


George William Fowler: My information is that the population is less than 200.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Then I shall have to leave that matter between my hon. friend and the representative of the county.


George William Fowler: Is the hon. member for Restigouche not financially interested in the firm of Wm. Currie & Company ?


Mr. REID (Restigouche).: I am not connected in any way with the firm of Wm. Currie & Co.


George William Fowler: No financial interest ?


James Reid: No.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: 
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: 
Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: 
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: 
John Graham Haggart: I notice, on looking over the proposed agreement submitted to Mr. Clergue to sign, that it is entirely different from that for which the order in council of the 9th October last provides. This agreement is only for 25,000 tons of rails. Has the minister had communication, verbally or otherwise, with Mr. Clergue.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Verbally, I have had.


John Graham Haggart: Is Mr. Clergue agreeable to the change of agreement ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I can hardly 'say that he is, because there is not any change in the proposal. The agreement is exactly what was contemplated and authorized by the order in council.


John Graham Haggart: When the matter was fully discussed in the House on a previous occasion, we found that the agreement which was then submitted to us, and which was based on the order in council, wa's for 125,000 tons of rails, and is entirely different in that respect from the agreement now before us. The former agreement was for the delivery of 25,000 tons within the year and a subsequent yearly delivery of 25,000 tons during four years, making 125.000 tons in all. In the agreement then submitted to us, the hon.-minister said there was an error, and that It had not been approved by him as head of the department, although it wa's strictly in accord with the order in council.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I did not admit that.


John Graham Haggart: The present agreement is only for 25,000 tons of rails. Surely Mr. Clergue, who got subscriptions to this company and started the steel industry at Sault Ste. Marie on the faith of a contract for 125,000 tons, must have had some negotiations with the hon. minister before he consented to this change. I wish to know whether any communications, oral or otherwise, were had with Mr. Clergue, as the result of which Mr. Clergue consented to a modification of the contract.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I see that I shall have to repeat all that I have already said in the House, because my previous 'statement has not dvv^elt on the recollection of the hon. gentleman, and he is even now not paying any attention to my reply.


John Graham Haggart: Yes, I am.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I stated then as clearly as I

could, that we had made an explicit arrangement with Mr. Clergue, or the Lake Superior Power Company, to give them a contract for one year for 25,000 tons, and we had an understanding with them that that contract would be continued four succeeding years at the rate of 25,000 tons per year, making in all 125,000 tons. That statement was criticised, but I could not gather whether hon. gentlemen opposite objected to the agreement, or whether they objected that I had not stated the agreement correctly. The order in council was then put in the hands of hon gentlemen opposite, and that entirely bore out my statement as to what our arrangements with the Lake Superior Power Company were.


James Clancy: The order in council seemed to say that it was for 150,000 tons.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I hope the hon. gentleman is large enough to get out of the little technical question that might arise from a typewritten error.


James Clancy: Surely the hon. gentleman will say that it is something more than technical, and that unless it was a clerical error, it meant a good deal.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It has been shown that the copy of the recommendation of the order in council contained a clerical error, because in two places it states four year's, and in one place five years. Unless we do not care to discuss the question on its merits, let us not embarrass it by any reference to clerical mistakes. It was clearly the intention and purpose of the government to make an explicit contract with the Lake Superior Power Company for one year, and that there was an understanding that each subsequent year during four years, we were to make a new agreement for 25,000 tons of rails. The agreement which has been put into the hands of the hon. member for Lanark is entirely in accord with the terms of the order in council and the explanations I have repeatedly given to this House. The preamble read's as follows
Whereas, by an order in council, dated the 9th day ol October, 1900, authority was given, on the recommendation of the sail minister, for the execution of a contract for the purchase from the company, during the year 1901, of 25,000 tons of first quality steel r :ils, of eighty pounds to the yard, manufaccured in Canada, and of such section as might fro n time lo time be approved by the minister, for the sum of $32.60 per ton, delivered (o.i.f.) either at Levis or Montreal, as the minister might specify; and authority was by such order also given the making of a contract with the company. during the four years next succeeding for the purchase of 25,000 tons per annum of steel rails of the same weight of quality, manufactured in Canada, at prices to be governed by the prices in open market in Great Britain, to be settled in each year fcr the year next succeeding.
That Is the nature of this contract, and it is precisely the contract which, I have stated and explained to the House, the government proposed to make. I myself read to Mr. Clergue this very proposed contract, and asked him if be bad any fault to find with it. He bad not a single criticism ; he could not have, because it was expressly agreed with Mr. Clergue long ago, away back in August, that we could only make the contract with him for a year, hut we would give a promise, we would have an understanding, and he was thoroughly satisfied to take our assurance upon the subject. He has been satisfied to take that assurance, and is satisfied now to do so. We have made no contract, but we are under moral obligations, undoubtedly, to the Lake Superior Power Company to make a contract with them year after year ; and we will do it, provided everything is satisfactory. I cannot understand wherein the hon. gentleman discovers any dissimilarity between the contract which we propose to enter into with Mr. Clergue and the order in council. I would like him to show it if he can.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals lias said just what I expected him to say. He admits that the order in council hinds the government in a contract for five years ; that this is the first instalment of it for the delivery of
25,000	tons ; and under the order in council, he feels himself not only morally, hut legally, bound to the conditions of the first-


Mr. McCREARY.: He did not say that; I followed him very closely.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, no ; I said it was only a moral obligation.


John Graham Haggart: Let me understand the hon. minister ; I will state what I understood him to say, and if I am misiaken, I will withdraw it. I understood him to say that when the first part of the contract for 25,000 tons is performed, be feels himself and the government feel themselves morally hound to enter into an agreement, and he will do it, for the succeeding four years for the delivery of 25,000 tons a year-


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Not for four years, hut for year after year.


John Graham Haggart: When Mr. Clergue performs this part of the contract the Minister of Railways feels himself morally bound to carry out the rest of the order in council. Or, in other words, he carries out what he would be compelled legally to do


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, no.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No, no.

Hon. ill'. HAGGART. Tlie government are bound by their


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, they are not.


John Graham Haggart: This is a contract with an individual, and the Individual has signed that contract.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No.


John Graham Haggart: However, it matters not. The contract is for 125,000 tons with the Clergue Company, a specific contract for the delivery of 125,000 tons at a certain price, and upon the performance of that, the company to have the right, morally anyway, according to the minister, to the rest of their contract being performed. And the hon. minister says himself that they will do it. Mr. Clergue never raised a company on the strength of having a contract with the government for a contract of 125,000 tons of steel rails, and put the prospectus before his company and declared that he had this contract, only to come back afterwards and say : I am sorry that I was mistaken. No ; he is going to get his pound of flesh ; he is going to have his contract carried out. Now, the hon. minister last year, as I understood him, told us that he was treating with two steel companies for the purpose of furnishing the rails, that he had negotiations, not only with the Clergue Company, but with the steel company in Nova Scotia. Does the hon. minister say that he did not make that statement last year ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not know precisely to what the hon. gentleman refers, but according to my recollection all I could have said was what I stated when the question of the railway subsidies was up. I pointed out to the committee that we included in the subsidy resolutions a clause to the effect that we would require that the rails to be put on these new railways should be of Canadian manufacture, if they could be obtained on fair and reasonable terms. If my memory serves me well, some hon. member asked the question, what probability there was of that, and I stated that not only one, but possibly two companies, or even more, might be prepared to fulfil a contract at that time ; that if the rails could be had in Canada, the clause would do good, and if the rails could not be procured in Canada, it would do no harm.


John Graham Haggart: I can verify my recollection of the hon. minister's statement, because I read the report of it but a few days ago. My recollection is, that he said that he was negotiating with a couple of steel companies who were competing, and who, no doubt, would satisfactorily furnish the government with steel rails.


Sir LOUIS DAVIES.: 


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think I must ask the hon. gentleman to refer to what I said, for his recollection does not agree with mine.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not know what the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) refers to, but I remember that at the time when the negotiations were going on there was no company in Nova Scotia prepared to make proposals wdth regard to steel rails. We hoped that they would be in such a position shortly.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: The Clergue Company is not making them.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They were proposing and offering to make steel rails, but there was no company in Nova Scotia proposing to and offering to make steel rails at the time of these transactions.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. Minister of Finance may be perfectly correct, but I am afraid I must draw his attention to the ipsissima verba of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, who assured the House that he was negotiating with a couple of steel companies for the furnishing of these supplies.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: At the time the railway resolutions came before the House, there were people who proposed the establishment of a plant, I think at Midland, to make steel rails. Just who the people were I do not recollect, but I think they hoped to be able to induce the Cramps of the United States to take up the business in Canada. But, it never materialized. I do not think that the hon. gentleman will find that I said that we were negotiating with a company.


John Graham Haggart: However, that is my remembrance of it. I have sent for the ' Hansard,' and I will be able to verify my statement, if it is correct. But I hunted it Up a couple of days ago, and I think my memory of it was confirmed. I do not intend to discuss the question at present, but my memory of it, I am sure, is correct.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: You may be.


John Graham Haggart: I am sometimes wrong, but my memory is surely correct in reference to this, that the Minister of Railways and Canals, in his statement to the House, said that he was negotiating with a couple of companies, and he had no doubt he would be able to make contracts for steel rails as cheap in Canada as anywhere else. I was going to ask the minister to produce the correspondence with the different companies with reference to this Clergue affair.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have no such correspondence.


John Graham Haggart: It is unfortunate *when ministers make statements in the House on the strength of verbal communications with companies or individuals. Any statement of that kind should be founded upon written correspondence. If there is no written correspondence of that kind, there should be no reference to it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In order that there may be no misunderstanding, I do not hesitate to say, for I felt a deep interest in this matter, that at the time of this arrangement with Mr. Clergue there was no company in Nova Scotia making steel rails, or professing to make steel rails. Within a recent period a movement has been started by the Dominion Iron and Steel Company towards making steel rails, and I hope to find it will be successful. But so far as this relates to the Clergue transaction, I have no hesitation in stating that at that time there was no company making rails, professing to make rails, or offering to make rails. Whatever may have occurred subsequently with regard to future transactions, is another matter.


John Graham Haggart: The Minister of Finance surely does not accuse me of making a statement that there were any parties making, proposing or offering to make steel rails in Nova Scotia. I did not say anything -of the kind.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: He said something very much like it.


John Graham Haggart: I was referring to the remarks of the Minister of Railways and Canals, in which he stated that he was negotiating with a couple of firms for the purpose of furnishing steel rails, in Canada. I did not say a word about Nova Scotia. I may have incidentally drawn the conclusion that the offer may have come from Nova Scotia.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman referred to Nova Scotia only three minutes ago.


John Graham Haggart: The Minister of Finance may be perfectly right, I may have drawn the inference that the offer was from Nova Scotia. But I did not accuse the Minister of Railways and Canals of saying anything of the kind: I will accept the explanation of the minister that perhaps it was from Midland, or somewhere else ; but the conclusion I drew at the time was that manufacturers in Nova Scotia were in competition with Mr. Clergue. All the information I have on the subject is the statement of the minister that he was negotiating with a couple of firms for the purpose of furnishing rails.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman has said that he is very certain that his recollection is correct of what I said.


John Graham Haggart: I will get the ' Hansard.'


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is the better way to settle it, because I have a recollection of exactly what I stated. I could not have stated to this House that we were negotiating with any one to furnish the government with rails except the Clergue Company, or the Lake Superior Company. The Lake Superior Company had sent us in a communication by that time, a copy of which has been placed in the hands of hon. gentlemen opposite.


Mr. BELL (Pictou).: Possibly the minister is now in a position to inform the House of the probability of the Clergue Company furnishing any rails in the course of the present year. Is he in a position to state whether the Clergue Company is likely to furnish any rails in the course of this year 1 And, furthermore, if in the end it should appear that the Clergue Company will not be able to furnish rails, what arrangements has he in view for supplying the steel rails for the Intercolonial Railway the present year ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My statement to the House the other day is strengthened and confirmed by what Mr. Clergue himself has said during his recent visit here ; he says he is undoubtedly going to be able to deliver us these rails under this contract.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: Manufactured where ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Manufactured in Canada.


Samuel Hughes: At Sault Ste. Marie ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Manufactured in Canada. That is what he says. If perchance we should not get the rails from him, I have not considered yet in what direction we may look for rails. I will say this, however, and I say it with confidence, and it will be some comment upon the criticism which hon. gentlemen opposite have made, that we cannot go into the market to-day and make a contract for rails for delivery during this present season, at any less price than that stipulated in this contract. That is a fact which the committee can accept from me. I know it for several reasons. I know that the Grand Trunk Railway have been endeavouring to make a contract for
50,000	tons of rails in the United States, and an offer was made to them ten or fifteen *days ago at $28 per ton, at the works at Pittsburg, or whatever place the rails were made. They have got to pay between $5 and $6 a ton to get these rails brought from Pittsburg to Montreal. Therefore, you have got to pay between $32 and $33 a ton for rails to-day, and let any gentleman who wants

to make a contract apply to any manufacturer in the United States, and he will find that he cannot make any better bargain than we have made, for present delivery.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Andrew George Blair: 


Edmund Boyd Osler: Two days before I made the statement in this House I had seen a contract made by the Canadian Pacific Railway at $25 a ton for steel rails delivered in Montreal this year.


Mr. BROCK.: I have listened to the debates in connection with these steel rails, and I have listened with a great deal of pain to the debates in connection with the Intercolonial Railway, which is under the charge of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals. The impression left upon my mind and, I think, upon the minds of the people of this country, is that this is a department which requires a great deal more looking after than it gets from other members of the government. I take the liberty of saying in the face of the country that the way in which that contract was made, the way in which that contract was presented to the House was most unbusinesslike and that the enormous amount of explanation that was required to be made by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals is something that would not be tolerated in a business house. If the manager of a department in any large business, in connection! with the management of his department, made the statement that the hon. minister has made about this contract, about the way in which it was received by Mr. Clergue and the way in which it was understood by him, he would be discharged. It has required an amount of explanation which leaves the matter still unexplained. The hon. gentleman made a statement just now regarding the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Osier). The statement which the hon. member for Centre Toronto made I have clearly in my recollection. That hon. gentleman stated that a day or two before he made that statement the railway company that he is connected with had made a large contract at $25 a ton. It is no use for the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals to come down to this House and say that at this particular moment he could not do a particular thing. We are not discussing that matter at the present time. We are discussing the arrangement he made some months ago, an arrangement which was misstated to this House. The statement that the hon. minister made was that he had made an absolute contract for 25,000 tons and no more, but. that there was a kind of understanding, an indefinite understanding that an additional 100,000 tons of rails were to be taken at a different price. I contend that any contractor such as Mr. Clergue is, who would be willing to take a contract of that kind, would be a worse business man than I imagine Mr. Clergue to be. He had to take the order in council to lay before capitalists, and it was no use taking an indefinite contract before such business men in order to interest them in this work. He had to take a definite positive contract founded upon the order in (council, and to say that this is merely a

moral obligation is to go very wide of the facts. In connection with business matters every day people make verbal arrangements which are more than moral contracts. They are contracts that must be carried out. It is an absolute contract that he made with the government of this country and he says he is going to carry it out. Under these circumstances I do not think it is very dignified for a minister of the Crown to be twisting and turning these matters in the way in which he has done. I think if he had come forward when first challenged on this matter and said :	Yes, I made a contract for
the sake of starting a new industry in this country which you hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House dare not challenge, because this is your own policy. If the hon. gentleman had done that he would have been able to get out of his present position with a great deal less difficulty than it takes him now to get out of it. To charge hon. members on this side of the House with making misstatements, I think, comes with very bad grace from him because the statement he made in connection with the first contract for steel rails was an absolute misstatement of the case, a misstatement of the case according to Mr. Clergue's own understanding of it, who, being the party of the second part, might be expected to have some kind of an understanding of the character of the contract he was taking down to Philadelphia or elsewhere to procure funds to get these works in operation. This House, I contend, should be a business House. To this House the people of the country have a right to look for a business example, an example as to what a real contract, or a moral contract, or a legal contract is. I contend that when once the government have pledged themselves by an order in council they are bound in honour to carry it out. Therefore, much harm will be done in the country if this debate should go on in the way in which it has been conducted, and I call upon the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals to look into this whole matter carefully and make such a statement as he need not be ashamed of, and such as the country may not be ashamed of. He has received a large amount of assistance from other hon. members of the government. The hon. Minister of Finance has been most active in endeavouring to get the hon. gentleman out of the disagreeable hole in which he has placed himself, and I congratulate the hon. Minister of Finance on the way in which he has endeavoured to help his colleague, but I think a little discipline from the other members of the government might assist the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals to conduct the affairs of his department in a more businesslike way.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Mr. Chairman, I confess that I am somewhat at a loss to understand exactly the position
which the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) takes upon this question, and I am still at a loss to understand what is the position of hon. gentlemen opposite.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: You had better find out where you are at yourself.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I generally have no difficulty upon that score, and if I fail the hon. gentleman is always ready to point it out. It is not worth our while to return again to the argument as to whether this is or is not a legal contract. We were all over that ground before, and it will not be profitable at this advanced stage of the session to go over it again. But suppose we admit for the purposes of argument that it is a legal and binding contract for five years, will the hon. member for Centre Toronto tell me what is wrong about it ? Where is the wrong in saying to a Canadiaii enterprise that if you will fulfil your part of the contract and make us good rails we will for five years buy from you rather than in a foreign market, always provided that you sell to us at a fair and reasonable price ? Is that not the state of the case ? I appeal to the hon. member for Centre Toronto :	Is not that the proposition before the committee, according to his own contention ?


William Rees Brock: That should be.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: He says it should be. Is not that the statement of the case ?


William Rees Brock: Not as stated by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals states and truthfully states that this is not a legal and binding contract, but we need not quibble over that. Admitting, for the sake of argument, that it is a legal and binding contract, what is that contract ? It is a declaration that for the purpose of encouraging a new industry in Canada, for the purpose of starting a business which has not hitherto existed, we will do something to help that industry, an industry in the province of the hon. gentleman which he ought to take an interest in and which he ought to be proud of. We are not going to encourage that industry by paying its promoters an extravagant price, but we simply say that if you are willing to make good rails and sell them to us at the English standard market price, we will for five years buy these rails from you rather than go abroad for them. Who should object to a thing like that ? I No mam on this side of the House wants to object, hut above all others why should hon. gentlemen opposite object who claim to be the defenders of the native industry of the country ?


William Rees Brock: What objection have I taken ? Would the hon. gentleman point out wherein I have objected ?


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: If my hon. friend has not been objecting for the last ten minutes, what was the purport of his speech ?


William Rees Brock: I think the purport of my speech was pretty plain.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think so too.


William Rees Brock: The purport of my speech was that the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, to begin with, had misstated the case. He had led the country to believe that there was no contract when there was a contract. He misled the House as to the terms of the contract; he misled the country a's to the understanding he had about the order in council, and after being convicted out of his own mouth he has not the manliness to come before us in a straightforward way and say that he made a mistake in stating that the contract was for 25,000 tons, when it really was for
125,000	tons. We on this side of the Hou'se are anxious that industries of every kind should be established in this country, but we blame the government for endeavouring to crush out one industry in order to establish another.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: And so it appeals that the question is not whether this bargain was a good bargain or a bad bargain, but whether or not the Minister of Railways is a manly man. I have the greatest respect for my hon. friend from Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock), but I do not think that the Minister of Railways is called on to receive any lectures on manliness from him. We are not going to waste time over questions of that kind. The only thing the people of Canada are concerned about is whether this is a good bargain for this country or not. It does not matter as to whether my hon. friend (Mr. Brock) wants to deliver a lecture to my hon. colleague (Mr. Blair), but it does matter that this government has adopted the wise and prudent policy of helping a Canadian in-'dustry by buying in the home market things which the home market can supply at a's fair a price as foreigners. My hon. friend (Mr. Brock) coming from the great province of Ontario, apparently is not anxious that this industry shall be established in that province. One would think that he should come here praising the Minister of Railways for helping to build up that native industry, instead of delivering a lecture to that hon. gentleman, in order, if possible, to induce him to abandon kite contract with Canadians and to buy his rails in a foreign market. The attitude of the hon. gentlemen opposite throughout this whole question has been an attitude of hostility to the development of Canadian industries.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Rees Brock: [DOT]


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Let me tell them that there is a real encouragement of native industries and a bogu's encouragement of native industries. This government has been encouraging native industries in a legitimate way. It was a good policy to encourage the building of locomotives at Kingston as a native Canadian indutetry, but we have found nothing but nagging from hon. gentlemen opposite on that question. It is a good policy to encourage the making of steel rails in Ontario, but the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brock) and his colleagues instead of helping us have been nagging, and nagging, and nagging, in tiie hope that we would abandon that policy.
Hon. Mr. jlAGGART. The Minister of Finance is wandering from the question when he talks about the encouragement of native industries. What we say is that the Minister of Railways told us last year that there were others who were willing to furnish the government with steel rails, but perhaps they wiere not so accommodating to the hon. gentleman and the ministry immediately before the elections, and they did not get the chance of competing for the supply of these steel rails. The Minister of Railways told us last year that there were two companies who wanted to furnish steel rails, but one poor company was not consulted at all. A private bargain was made with the other company and the Minister of Finance, who I believe originated the steel works in his own province, must condemn in his heart the private bargain made with the Clergue Company which left the Nova Scotia company in the lurch. He must, in his heart, condemn the Minister of Railways, who gave to his friends five or six dollars per ton more than these steel rails could be furnished for by others. He must condemn the bargain which left out the Nova Scotia company which 'is located on the very line of the Intercolonial Railway. And, the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Brock) is blamed by these gentlemen because he disapproves of their conduct, when forsooth, as they say, they are acting on the broad, and manly, and national ground of encouraging home industries. What becomes of the native industry in Nova Scotia, and how does it happen that the government are buying rails for the Intercolonial from the further end of Ontario in order that a steel industry might be established there. The member for Toronto was told that he must [DOT] move from the narrow groove he is moving in at present and forsake the principles of his life in order that he may adopt a broad national platform and endorse this Liberal government in their policy of protection. The hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Brock) is told that he must take a broad survey

of tlie whole situation, and discover at Sault Ste. Marie a place where steel rails can be manufactured at a lower price than they can in the province of Nova Scotia. What nonsense that is. I had always thought that the province of Nova Scotia was particularly well situated for that industry ; that the iron mines were within a few miles of the works ; that coal was ready at hand ; and that they were not only to supply Canada with steel and iron, but that they were going to compete with our American friends for the supply of the European market. I am inclined to think that the people of Nova Scotia have some provincial instincts, and that the Minister of Finance will find it hard to get them to look at this question from the broad national view that he talks about. What I rose particularly to point out was that the Minister of Railway's told us last year that he had a communication from two steel companies.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman said that I stated that the government had been negotiating with two different steel companies on the subject.


John Graham Haggart: That is what I did say.
The MINISTER OF RxVILWAYS AND CANALS. I do not think the hon. gentleman can read that.


John Graham Haggart: I will read from ' Hansard' what was said on that occasion:


John Graham Haggart: The government may make any conditions they like in a contract before granting the subsidy. What an absurd clause this is, providing that the railway company will only be obliged to take the rails if they can get them as cheap as elsewhere. The railway companies will do that in any event.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is hardly as absurd as the hon. gentleman thinks, otherwise persons contemplating establishing rolling mills for the rolling of steel rails would not attach importance to it. We have been asked by two different companies that contemplate establishing works for this purpose, to make it a condition that companies receiving subsidies from the government shall get their rails in Canada if they can get them on as favourable terms, and unless we adopt this clause it might not be possible to have manufactures of this kind started in Canada. The clause is not objectionable, and will have the effect of stimulating the manufacture of steel rails in this country.
Then, why did the hon. gentleman not give this other company a chance ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Did they make an offer ?


John Graham Haggart: Who knew that the hon. gentleman wanted to purchase steel rails ? Did he advertise for tenders ? Had any one an opportunity of making an offer ? No. That was not in the'interest of the Minister of Customs and several more of hon.
gentlemen opposite in the province of Ontario at that particular time. What we object to is not the policy of having the steel; rails manufactured in the country; but what we say is that every free man and every corporation in the country has a right to compete for this service; that the contract should not be given to any one without tender or competition, and given at a very suspicious moment-a few days before an election. That is what we object to. We are proud because we are the founders of the national prosperity. What manufacturing this country has it owes to the party on this side of the House, and what is detrimental to manufactures it owes to hon. gentlemen opposite ; and if it were not that these gentlemen are obliged to follow the policy of the whole civilized world and adopt ours, swallowing their own professions, there would be a sad state of affairs in the country. What we ask for every free man in this country is the right to supply the government with the materials they require, if he can do so on as good terms as others. According to the statement of the Minister of Railways last year, there were firms in this country, two at any rate, who told him that they were prepared to manufacture steel rails. I may have been mistaken when I said that possibly one of these firms was a firm belonging to the hon. gentleman's province. He may be perfectly correct in saying that that firm never made a proposal and was not in a position to perform the work until lately. The hon. Minister of Finance said in April last that they were not in a position to do so until December. A month afterwards they were in a position to perform the work.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They are not in a position yet to perform it.


John Graham Haggart: According to the statement of the Minister of Finance made in this House in April last, they were not in a position to perform it until December.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No. An hon. member referred to a document or a prospectus issued in December, in which they proposed to raise capital for the purpose of going into the steel rail business. I did not mention the word ' December' at all. It came from an hon. gentleman on the other side.


John Graham Haggart: Turn up revised ' Hansard,' page 3575. The note I have says : ' Mr. Fielding reiterates the statement that it was not until December the Dominion Iron and Steel Company mentioned their intention to make rails.'


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I was quoting what another hon. gentleman said, and I stated that even according to that statement it was not until December that they contemplated making rails.


John Graham Haggart: It may be as the hon. minister states.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Cape Breton).: Will the hon. gentleman, while discussing this matter, inform the House what progress has been made in Sydney in the direction of manufacturing steel rails ?


John Graham Haggart: I have not the slightest idea whether they intend to make steel rails or not. My argument is based on the statement of the Minister of Railways and what may he my garbled statement of the Minister of Finance.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Oh, no ; It is not garbled.


John Graham Haggart: But I understood from his statement, as contained in 'Hansard,' that he admitted that they were not In a position to make an offer or to come to any decision with regard to making steel rails until December.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They have never made a proposal down to this minute.


John Graham Haggart: There can be no question about the language of the hon. Minister of Railways ; and our contention on this side of the House is that it was an improvident bargain, made without competition, which is contrary to one of the doctrines of the Reform party, contrary to the law of the land, contrary to the order in council ; that all such contracts should be open to competition ; and that, even if it was made, one of the conditions of a contract involving $4,000,000 should be that before it took effect it should be approved by parliament. These are doctrines which have been again and again laid down by all the leaders of the Liberal party when in opposition and these gentlemen when in power, coolly throw over board all the professions made by the Liberal party when on this side of the House in reference to contracts, in reference to promises, in reference to economy, in reference to everything else, and have the boldness to stand up and jus-ify their conduct, and attack a friend of mine from the city of Toronto, who, in a modest and intelligent manner, states his views honestly before this House. I say that this transaction is one of the darkest. The idea of entering into a $4,000,000 contract at a fixed price of $32.60 per ton for the first 25,000 tons, and at a price for the balance according to the ruling price in England ! They know that the market is being undersold by American manufacturers. The report of the Carnegie Company, published the other day, shows that the price of rails in the United States is $6 or $7 a ton more than the price in foreign markets. In foreign markets they sell rails at a great deal less than at home. No person can justify the government in making a secret bargain with an American firm, at the particular time when this bargain was made, for the supply of steel rails for the Intercolonial for the next five years when, if the matter had Mr. HAGGART.
been open to free competition, establishments might have been created by our own people in this country capable of doing the work. Such a transaction, on the part of men who formerly expressed opinions in an entirely contrary direction when on this side of the House, cannot be justified.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman commenced his attack on this item since luncheon by pointing out that this agreement was not in conformity with the order in council, and it was a very serious matter of complaint on his part that the order in council had not been more closely pursued. I gather now that the hon. gentleman feels constrained to acknowledge that that complaint is without foundation, and he has drifted on to another element of complaint, that is, that this government ought to have submitted this offer to competition, so that people disposed to start an industry for the manufacture of steel rails could enter on that work ; and he says that during the last session I stated in my place in the House that the government were negotiating then with two companies in Canada for the manufacture of steel rails for the Intercolonial Railway. I did not recollect having made any such statement. I did not believe that I could have made it, and certainly I could not have made it without knowing that that was not the fact. But the hon. gentleman was confident that on turning up ' Hansard' he could verify the correctness of his allegation, and he did turn up ' Hansard.' What followed ? It appeared by ' Hansard' that what was said on that occasion was exactly what my memory enabled me to state to the committee. When we had an explicit resolution under the consideration of parliament, I said that I did recollect that there were two people at least who had said to us that they had in contemplation the entering into the business of manufacturing steel rails.


John Graham Haggart: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: One of these was Mr. Clergue, representing the steel works, and the other was a gentleman who said that the Cramp people were coming into Canada and were going to establish works, and that they would take up the manufacture of steel rails. Is not the statement which the hon. gentleman has read from ' Hansard ' in absolute conformity with my recollection of it, and entirely contrary to what the hon. gentleman declared it was ?


John Graham Haggart: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There was not one word about the government having negotiations with any-i body for the purchase of rails. What I said , was, that we had been asked by two gentlemen representing parties who were con, templating establishing works for this pur-

pose, to make it a condition that railway companies receiving subsidies from the government should buy their rails in Canada, if they could get them on equally favourable terms as elsewhere.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: That is just what the hon. member for Lanark said.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Let the hon. member for Northumberland be calm. There is no occasion for intense excitement, even though he does feel a little uncomfortable under the circumstances.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: It is enough to make any honest man feel uncomfortable to have a minister of the Crown trying to crawl out of a statement he made to this House.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think my hon. friend could be more dignified than he is.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: And you could be more honest, but you will not.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman is not doing himself justice. He is naturally a good-natured man, and is trying to create the impression that he is anything but that. Because we represented to parliament that we should incorporate a clause in our railway subsidies Act, requiring that rails, if made in Canada, should be purchased by these companies-which representation was made on a suggestion made to us-the hon. gentleman says it was our duty to have offered to the public the proposition which we ultimately agreed on with Mr. Clergue. I do not assent to anything of the kind. I do not think that such a proceeding would have been at all businesslike. My hon. friend talks about making such an agreement as this with Mr. Clergue without having invited competition. Why, the biggest contract ever made in Canada was made without any attempt to get competition, and that contract would be justified by every hon. gentleman opposite. What was our object ? Our object was to encourage an enterprise which was about to be started. The company had shown its ability to take up an enterprise of this kind and carry it out to success. Is there anybody who has done as much in the way of establishing new industries as Mr. Clergue, and who would be able to carry out the contract within the time specified ? There is nobody. Why, the gentleman who approached me in Ottawa during last session and suggested that we should put this clause in our railway subsidies Act has not been able to put on its feet yet the company which he contemplated organizing. It is not organized yet ; it is not as yet thinking of starting the manufacture of steel rails in Canada.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: Which company?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The company which this gentleman who saw me expected to form, and who was one of the two gentlemen who suggested we should put this clause in our subsidy grants.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Name.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I can name the gentleman if it would be any advantage to the House to know it, but, if my memory serves me right, he was connected in some way with gentlemen who mentioned the name of Mr. Cramp. The scheme never went any further.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It was the company which was to start at Welland.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It was proposed to start at Welland, but, it has not been started yet. We could not make a contract with persons who have not yet organized, and were not prepared to undertake any contract. But, here was Mr. Clergue, whose enterprise was on its feet, successful and prosperous, and commanding unlimited capital.


James Clancy: Would it not have been possible for the parties with whom the hon. gentleman refers, to put their company on its feet within the next four years and make steel rails ? But, he has cut them out entirely during that period.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Any company that would get the contract would require to have it for a term of years. But, we could not give any contract to a company which was not yet formed. These people, who were going to establish the industry at Welland, knew that we had inserted this clause in the railway subsidies, and if they had come, after this clause had been inserted, and said to us : Now, we have the capital and are prepared to go on and manufacture steel rails in Canada, if you will give us some encouragement, it would have been a fair proposition for us to consider whether we should not do something to help them, and whether we should not divide our contract between the two. But, we had only one company which was prepared to make us a business offer, and which we believed would be able to carry out any undertaking on which it would enter.
But that is not what my hon. friend from Lanark is seriously complaining of. He knows that the arrangement made is a good one. He knows that we will be getting good value in the rails themselves, and additional value in the fact that we will have enabled this new industry to be established. My hon. friend knows that it would not have been a business proceeding to have asked for tenders from gentlemen who had not even formed a company.


John Graham Haggart: My contention was, that the hon. gentleman should not speak one thing and think another.


Mr. KENDALL.: I would like to inform hon. gentlemen opposite that there is no occasion for them to shed tears over the iron situation in the county of Cape Breton. When the company operating in Cape Breton was established, the promoters considered that they would have to seek foreign markets for nearly every ton of iron they produced. They did not count on sending a single ton of that iron into the Canadian market, but based all their anticipations on foreign markets. I may add that if the company in Sydney got a contract for a fraction of
25.000	tons per year, that would be a mere bagatelle in the business they propose doing. If they go into the manufacture of steel rails, they will not look to a market of
5.000	or 10,000 tons in Canada, but to South America and North and Soutn Africa and the European markets, where they hope to place scores of thousands of tons. So that the statement that the Cape Breton company was seemingly ignored really has no weight whatever.
I would also like to inform my hon. friend that if he is particularly anxious to help that industry down there, there is a project to which he can lend his powerful aid, and which will, in all probability, if carried out, conduce largely to the establishment of a large steel rail business at Sydney. I refer to the Ottawa and Georgian Bay canal, for the ore in the Lake Superior district is suitable for the manufacture of steel rails. I do not think that the hon. member for South Lanark can show that we are quite sure that the ore on which we mostly depend is by itself of the necessary quality for the manufacture of steel rails.


Robert Laird Borden: As to the statement of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals that the largest contract ever made in Canada was made without competition, I have always understood that it was made subject to the approval of parliament. In this important respect it is a very different contract from that which the hon. gentleman has laid on the Table. I suppose that in a moment of inadvertence the hon. gentleman forgot that. As to assisting Canadian industries, I do not think there is any question about the wisdom of that, and no one on this side has suggested that they should not be encouraged. But you can encourage Canadian industries and at the same time carry on public business as it should be carried on. The hon. gentleman said that the other company which he did undoubtedly refer to, was not the Dominion Iron and Steel Company. I had supposed that it was. but I accept his statement. But, whether it was that company or not, he knew that that company was going into the manufacture of iron on a large scale at Sydney, and he might have considered that Mr. BLAIR. .
they might extend their operations ; and, in view of that possibility, it would have been reasonable for him to take the contract for a year only and not to make one for five years, covering the entire amount required during that period by the Intercolonial Railway. This would have left him free to make such contracts as would give any encouragement thought desirable to industries in different parts of the country. The hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Kendall) said that this company did not require encouragement of that kind. He may be able to speak for that company, which I am not. But I should imagine that a contract for a portion of this quantity of rails would not be unacceptable to that company. I believe that the company was as far ahead with its preparations at the time the contract was made as was the company organized by Mr. Clergue.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: Is the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) in a position to say whether the company have iron ore suitable for the manufacture of steel rails ?


Robert Laird Borden: I am not an expert in iron ore. But I have it on good am thority that this company decided in September last to engage in the manufacture of steel rails, that about the first of the year they put their plans in the hands of an architect, and that they expect their works to be completed about the end of the year.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: I hope we shall see it.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kendall) information different from that ?


Arthur Samuel Kendall: I am not in a position to give the House the information I possess.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: But I will give it later on.


Robert Laird Borden: 
Hon. Mr. TISDALE.: It is quite evident that the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) was not in this House when hon. gentlemen on the other side were in opposition, or he would have known that they objected to everything, good, bad or indifferent.


Mr. WADE.: No, no.


David Tisdale: I was here, and I speak by the book. The hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Kendall) says that the ore used by the Sydney plant is not suitable for the manufacture of steel rails. I think that the gentlemen who are engaged in that industry will not thank him for the advertisement he has given. Even if what he says is true it does not follow that they cannot make steel rails. But few plants have the ore in their beds from which steel rails can be made, but they supplement their own supply with importations of a more suitable quality. I am surprised that an hon. gentleman coming from the portion of the country in which these great works are situated, works of which we are all proud, should speak as he does. I can tell the hon. gentleman that while in Pittsburg I was told that the only competition that the great iron works there feared was that in Cape Breton. I hope that that is true. I hope also that at least one of these companies will not allow itself for any money to be taken over by the great steel combination, for an independent company there would be one of our great safeguards. Without desiring to dwell upon this point-though I take great pride * in it as a Canadian-I may say that the reason why this competition was feared by the Pittsburg manufacturers was that the Cape Breton works are at the seaboard and also that they have their fuel at their door-. There is nothing in what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kendall) says to convince us that they cannot compete with any manufacturers in the world in the production of steel rails. For this reason, it is to be regretted that the Minister of Railways did not give this company a chance. I have it on what I consider reliable authority that as long ago as last September or October this company set aside $1,000,000 for the purpose of going into the steel industry.
They are going at it in the best way ; they are employing the best architects and are studying the best plant and methods, not making that haste which may mean less speed. Therefore, I think the minister is-fairly open to the criticism expressed by the hon. member for South Lanark, which was a fair, just and proper criticism. And it was criticism on broad and not on narrow lines. If the minister was ready to enter into a contract of this kind, he should have ascertained whether more than one steel company was ready to enter into negotiations or likely to be.
I was glad last year when I heard it mentioned, I was glad to hear he had put it into the subsidy agreements. I think he made a great mistake when he did not inquire from that company before he gave himself away-using that term in a business sense-to the Clergue syndicate. If he had done so he surely would have told us. The hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart) made a fair criticism when he spoke of a want of proper notice being given. But the matter was worse than that. This was done on the eve of an election. I do not think the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) needs to regret that they did not give him a chance to crow over it during the election. I am charitable enough to attribute another reason to the Minister of Railways and Canals for keeping it concealed. We of the opposition would have been glad to hear of it about election time, and to have been able to point out that the minister had made a $4,000,000 contract on the eve of an election for rails not then to be delivered. Now, I want to go back to the contract. The Minister of Finance got up and, in rather a warm tone for him, in a stentorian voice, attacked the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) for making what I think was a perfectly fair criticism. It is complained tojday because we criticise this contract. When we first heard about these steel rails there was no contract, there was no order in council mentioned, there was a verbal understanding.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am sure the hon. gentleman does not intend to misstate the facts. He will find on referring to the statement I made when the subject was first introduced, that desiring to put the whole facts before the House, I stated that there was a contract with Mr. Clergue, or with the Lake Superior and Power Company, for one year, and there was an understanding that if we liked we would take rails from them, a similar supply, year after year for the following four years.


David Tisdale: I quite agree with that. But I think the minister gave us to understand at first that it was ,only for the one year.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I stated just what I have said now.
Hou. Mr.. TISDALE. We understood it was only Verbal. He will remember that is what he said the first time, whatever may have been drawn out of him subsequently. The same day that was first mentioned, the hon. member for Lanark asked him if there was a written contract, and then the minister said lie thought there was one.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is not correct. After I had made my statement, and while I was on my feet, the hon. member asked me if that contract would be produced, and I said yes. I certainly thought the contract was executed, and I said it would be produced. and directed the deputy minister to have it brought over.


David Tisdale: I am not blaming the minister for that.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman seems to desire to make out that I wilfully made a mistake.


David Tisdale: No, I am not charging the minister with any desire to deceive. But in the first jilace we understood that he had bought 25,000 tons of rails for this year, and there had been an understanding about a further purchase. Then it transpired afterwards there was a written contract.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, I stated that in the very first discussion that there was a contract.


David Tisdale: Was there a statement made to my hon. friend from Lanark about a written contract ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


David Tisdale: Let it be so, that does not affect my argument, the point I want to make. I say it first transpired that
25,000	tons had been bought, and there was an understanding about a further purchase. Then the next statement was that the understanding was in writing.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I stated that at first.


David Tisdale: Then the hon. member for Lanark asked to have that produced, and the minister said he would produce it. On the next occasion we had a discussion of the question whether the contract was for four years or only for one year, and different positions were taken by members of the cabinet. The Minister of Finance said there was only a moral obligation ; the Prime Minister said that the order in council settled the matter, and that it was binding ; the Minister of Railways and Canals said there was an agree-Mr. TISDALE.
ment for 25,000 tons this year, and 25,000 tons for four successive years afterwards, at prices to be fixed by the English market. The Minister of Railways and Canals said, as he says to-day, that he proposes to carry that agreement out in good faith. I am not finding any fault with him, so far as to question his always saying he would carry out the 5-year contract. I am simply giving the order of the discussion. On the second day of the discussion it transpired that the contract had been sent out, but that it bad not been executed. It had been recalled after the first discussion, and was returned unexecuted. That was the state of affairs. Now, what have we got to-day ? As the member for Centre Toronto says, today we have a new contract, a different contract, one that does not cover all the ground of the order in council, simply a contract for one year at a fixed price, with a recital from the order iu council, showing that there was some intention, at all events, of making a five years' contract. That makes all the difference in the world. What does the government mean to do ? I am surprised that they do not bring down the contract now. or the order in council confirmed by parliament, if this is to be a binding arrangement. But there seems to be a difference of opinion, even between members of the government, as to the effect of an order in council, though we have not seen any member of the government stand up and sav that he believed the country was bound 'by that order in council. Technically they may say it is not a legal obligation. The Minister of Railways and Canals has never taken that position. He says he is going to carry that out. But the Ministei of Finance, notwithstanding his warm attack upon my hon. friend, gave us to understand, by saying, no, no, when the Minister of Railways and Canals was speaking today in regard to it, that he did not consider that the government are bound to carry out this contract with the Clergue syndicate.	.
It was not made clear, though I admit that the omission was not intentional, that the rails were to be manufactured in Canada. but the inference was that they were to be. I had supposed that the government would bring down the contract* for all these years and ask parliament to ratify it. The hon. Minister of Finance rather ridiculed us for having contended that the contract was binding, although be boasted that they had made a Contract to encourage a steel rail industry in this country. Yet, what is to be the result ? How will the country understand it ? I confess that I do not understand the intention of the government. Whatever objection there may have been to their passing this order in council I think they are bound by it. and. while I object to the way in which they have done it. still I think it "should become law and be carried out in good faith. If there is any doubt

about it, and the doubts come from the colleagues of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, I had expected that we would be asked to ratify it, and that before we passed upon this item filially, we would know whether the government were to be bound by this arrangement or not. To use strong words about the criticism of my hon. friend, according to my idea, leaves confusion worse confounded. Is this a contract ? It is surely a contract for one year. The recital in it means something or it should not be put in, and yet the hon. gentleman's colleagues stand up and say that they are not bound. Do they intend to leave the matter in that shape ? I say it is not fair to them, it is not fair to the country and it is not good business. Now, suppose that the hon. gentleman went out of power.


An hon. MEMBER.: Oh.


David Tisdale: Hon. gentlemen may think that will not happen. I am inclined to think it will not happen this year, but suppose it did; are their successors bound to carry out this arrangement ? AVhere the government pass an order in council without the authority of the parliament, pledging the credit of the country to it; we on this side of the House, I think, very fairly have a right to object to that. I think it is a most improper thing. I think it would be improper in any government in a matter of this kind to make a contract without competition. But, granted that they are correct, that this is not a binding contract, is it good faith to the parties, or to the country, to refuse to say that we are going to make that binding whether it is binding or not ? The government seem to be divided in their own opinion about it. I dare say that hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House would be divided about the binding character of the agreement in a strictly legal sense for the next four years unless parliament ratified it. When the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, at the close of the discussion, very properly and very courteously produced the contract, I confess that I was surprised when I saw that it was a. contract for one year. In view of this, it would look to me very doubtful whether there is any contract or not constituted by the order in council. The only recognition of the order in council is the recital of this agreement. I submit this point with the desire of having the matter considered; I do not submit it in a partisan spirit. I would go just as far, as any other hon. minister in the public interest to secure the recognition of a substantial industry of this kind in any province of the Dominion, and the government, having taken the responsibility of pledging the credit of the country thus far, they should, in my opinion, take the responsibility of asking this House to confirm or reject that part of the pro-1654
position that-they are still leaving in doubt, if there is any doubt about it at all. I appeal to them now to put the order in council in that shape and leave it there for the future. It is the proper course for any party or any set of ministers when they take the responsibility of a certain policy to put it in proper parliamentary form, or remove it at the earliest opportunity. I think that what I suggest is in the interest of good government, and I make the suggestion without any desire at all that there should be any further criticism than has already taken place, the question as to price having been pretty fully discussed by the two sides of the House. The only criticism that I think might be fairly made to-day in regard to the price, is that you might have stipulated for using the quotations, both in the United States and England, for the purpose of fixing the price so that you would have a larger latitude, but, still, taking the English price as it is, I would be prepared to support a proposition of that sort for the purpose of encouraging a new industry in this country. This is a great benefit, because, in addition to the price they have a protection on iron and steel rails amounting altogether to $7 a ton in addition to the price. I would not quarrel about that so much, but do not let us have this proposition go out of this House or through this House in the undecided condition in which it is. It is in the interest of the people who are going to deal with the government that we should take the course which I propose. It will not reflect credit on the country if this matter is allowed to remain in the position in which it now is, and, under these circumstances, the strongest point and the only one I care to raise is this, because the other matters have been fully discussed, that the government would do well to reconsider the matter and adopt a different course of proceeding.


James Clancy: The hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Kendall) seems to find solace in the fact that the steel rail industry established in Cape Breton at Sydney does not need a contract of this kind, because the export trade is open to it and it would be of such immense advantage, receiving the present bounties, that it could rely entirely on that advantage.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: I did not put it just in that way.


James Clancy: I would not care to misrepresent the hon. gentleman, because he would then have to settle it with the hon. minister, but, perhaps I had better let the hon. gentleman into a little secret, namely, that the government of the day proposed that the bounty should be confined entire-i ly to iron and steel produced for home consumption in Canada, and the hon. Minister of Finance, the spokesman of the government. when introducing his resolutions declared in unequivocal terms that boun-

ties were always considered a form of commercial hostility by foreign countries, and that, therefore, the government did not propose that these bounties should apply to any iron for export. But, after a good deal of strong criticism on this side of the House, the hon. Minister of Finance felt hound to yield, and if the manufacturers of iron and steel in Canada have any benefit, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kendall) can thank this side of the House for the advantage to which he referred a moment ago. I was rather astounded at the Minister of Railways taking shelter behind the declaration that no person could make an arrangement for steel rails to be delivered during the present year at prices lower than those contained in the contract. The minister knows that is an idle challenge. He knows that he gave more than a year for the delivery of those rails under the contract. Will the minister say that he would not pay less for rails to be delivered a year hence ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not think we could get them for less.


James Clancy: The minister only gives his thought on that. It may be that you cannot get them at a less price for the present year.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am positive about that.


James Clancy: But the minister knows that that argument is idle when applied to steel rails to be delivered a year hence. I have no hesitation in saying, and I believe the country will take the same view, that the Minister of Railways has made an improvident bargain-not improvident because it encourages Canadian industries ; but improvident because it is unfair to Canada. Canada lias given large 'bounties for the purpose of establishing this industry and the minister knows very well that parliament never intended that this bounty should be backed up by high-priced contracts in order to enable one company to swallow all the benefit. The idea of giving bounties was to encourage the steel industry generally throughout Canada, and he knows very well that this four million contract will defeat that idea.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Suppose the rails should fall in price from $36 a ton to say $20 a ton, would the hon. gentleman still say that it was a four million dollar contract ?


James Clancy: I would not.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Then why say it ?


James Clancy: Because it is possible that the rails would advance in price and then it will be more than a four million dollar contract. Canada fulfilled its whole duty when It gave this bounty, and the intention when Mr. CLANCY.
the bounty was given was that other companies; would have an opportunity of earning it. Why did not the minister state in his contract that the governing price of the rails would be the price in Canada-because by that time we might have some other steel rail industries in Canada-or why did not the hon. gentleman include the United States ? There is no use of discussing whether this is a legal bargain or not. The minister has bound the country for one year, and he has bound the country in honour to continue that contract for a further period of years. I say here, speaking for myself, that it is our bounden duty in the interest of the people, to purchase our rails wherever we can get them at the cheapest possible price. These bounties are the most liberal that have ever been given in any country in the world for encouraging an industry of that kind, and when we gave those bounties it was the duty of the government to give others a fair chance to compete year after year so that we might buy our steel rails at the cheapest price. The constituents of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kendall) will not be thankful to him for saying that they have not iron in Nova Scotia suitable for making steel rails. If he goes to the town of Sydney and makes a statement of that kind I rather think his reception will not be very enthusiastic.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: I am in the habit of making the same statement in one place as in another, and every statement I have made here to-day I have made in Sydney, a little stronger. I will explain that to the hon. gentleman later on.


James Clancy: Then I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kendall) has more courage than judgment. With the great advantages they have at Sydney, there will probably be a steel rail industry established there within a year. They will have to depend on their export trade to make a profit, just as the Lake Superior Power Company wiU have to depend on the export trade after this contract has expired. However that may be, every industry in Canada should have an equal opportunity of competing for the supply of the Canadian market. The people of the country will regard this as an extremely improvident 'bargain, and the sentiments given utterance to by my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Brock) are entirely in consonance with the public opinion of the country. I challenge the Minister of Railways to say that he cannot make a bargain to-day to have steel rails delivered fourteen months hence and at an infinitely better price than the price mentioned in this contract.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Of course I cannot say that without making inquiries, but I think it would not be possible to make a contract to-day for delivery next week at any less price than the contract we made last August. I believe "that, although I will not assert it with

the same confidence as I make the other statement which is the result of information given me by reliable parties. I believe that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) is taking an attitude in which his friends on that side of the House will not assume the responsibility of supporting him. He says that such a proposition as this which has been made to Mr. Clergue's company, made with the object of, encouraging the establishment of a new industry, ought to be made subject to conditions which would throw that company open to competition with the rail manufacturers of the United States. I ask my hon. friend to put his view on that question in the form of a motion before this House, and find how many supporters ho will get on his own side.


James Clancy: Will the hon. gentleman allow me ? I am prepared to speak for myself, and I do not think I run counter to the opinions of hon. members on either side of the House, nor -speak at variance - with good sense, when I say that the people of Canada are entitled to buy from Great Britain, from Canada, or from the United States, at the best price possible, and save the public purse.


The MINISTF.: lt OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS. The hon. gentleman has not qualified in the slightest degree the language which I attributed to him. I repeat the suggestion I made a moment ago. True, the hon. gentleman says these are his own words ; but has he enough confidence that his view on this question will find any sort of 'support to put a motion before the House embodying that view, and challenge an expression of opinion upon it ? I make this prediction, that if the hon. gentleman deos so, he will not have a corporal's guard to support him, and why ? Because any one who has any knowledge of the actions of the manufacturers of the United States knows that they will cut prices on goods which are to be exported to Canada below the price's at which they are selling to home consumers. I know that from my little experience with them in the purchase of steel rails on behalf of the government. I made a bargain with ia manufacturer in the United States for rails at $32.00 a ton when there was not a purchaser of rails in the United States who could get them for less than $35. They were willing to cut $2.40 to our advantage, because the rails were coming into Canada. And does my hon. friend suppose that any persons whose bona fide object was to establish an industry for manufacturing rails in Canada could fairly be asked at the outset to meet in competition the cut prices of the manufacturers of the United States ? If such a '[DOT]suggestion were made to them, what would be the answer ? It would be: Gentlemen, we will not undertake the business. And so, when we had our negotiations with the Lake Superior Power Company, they said: ' We cannot go into this business if you make it. a condition that we shall be subject to competition with the LTnited States. Make it the open market in England, and we will do it.' Could anything be fairer or juster than that ? I again ask my hon. friend, if lie is willing to take the responsibility of standing up to the view he has expressed ns to what the government should have done in this contract to table a resolution embodying that view, and invite the support of parliament for it.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Oh, rubbish.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It Is no more rubbish than the opinion expressed, and I am not going to say that that is rubbish ; but I want the hon. gentleman, if he is prepared to take the responsibility of attacking the action of the government, to find out just what parliament thinks of his view. My hon. friend has another ground of complaint. He said it was improper for the government to give a contract in this form and for this purpose to a company which, in manufacturing its iron and steel, would already be in receipt of a large bounty from the government. I understood my hon. friend to speak of the bounty as an outrageous or excessive bounty.


James Clancy: Surely the hon. gentleman will not make that statement. I said the bounty was a very proper one, that I was in favour of it: but I said that it gave the iron industry of Canada immense advantages, all the advantages that we were bound to give in purchasing our steel rails, and that any further advantages would be at the expense of the public purse.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I shall be very ready to acknowledge the fact if I have misquoted or misrepresented the language of the hon. gentleman. I thought he said that we were giving this company an extremely liberal contract. What was in the hon. gentleman's mind when he emphasized that ? That they got all they had a right to expect under any circumstances. Whether he meant it or not, the hon. gentleman's language would convey the impression to any one who heard him that the granting of the bounty did not meet with his very hearty approval. But my hon. friend does not want to convey that idea. My hon. friend is in favour of giving to steel and iron companies the most liberal treatment by bounty. Well, what does he propose to do ? When we have established an industry for the manufacture of iron and steel in a crude shape, would he be disposed to sit down and say: ' There is no policy which I am prepared to adopt even to the

extent of giving to these people a preference over foreign manufacturers at the same price ; there is no aid which I am prepared to offer to any of these companies to induce them to go into any allied or connected industries, no matter how valuable they tmay be, for the reason that they have already received a bounty on their iron and steel.' But if they venture to come to us and say :
' We are turning out the steel in the raw form, and we would like to manufacture it into structural iron and rails ; we would like to put the labour of Canada upon this ; we would like to put up large industries which would employ large numbers of people and circulate large amounts of money ; but we cannot do it, because unfortunately we shall have to compete again'st the products of the United States without any duty, unless you as a government, in your purchases of materials, are willing to give us some advantage over outside producers. What should we say, in the opinion of the hon. gentleman? 1 No, we will not have your allied industry ; we will not have your steel rails ; we will not have these additional men employed in Canada: because you have already received a bounty on your iron and steel in the crude form ; but with regard to anything else, do not come*to us with the suggestion that we should give you more than equal terms with outside manufacturers.' I ask my hon. friend to put that view of his in writing, and challenge the judgment of parliament upou it ; then we will see how far my hon. friend is justified in criticising the action of the government, and how far his view is sustained by those who usually act with him.
My hon. friend has suggested that we have handed over the whole steel rail business to the Clergue Company. He would lead us to suppose that the supply of 25,000 tons of rails a year for five years is a quantity so vast that it is going to overwhelm everybody, and cut a large figure in the rail supply of the world. He is allowing his feelings to run away with his judgment, and exaggerating altogether the magnitude of this proposal. What kind of a rail mill do you suppose you would be able to establish, if the extent of its business were to be limited to 25,000 tons a year ? Why, that quantity would not be a feather weight in the business of an ordinary manufacturing establishment, and a project simply for the purpose of establishing a company to manufacture steel rails to that extent would not be worth discussing for a moment. When that company is fairly established, it will turn out nearer 200.000 tons of steel rails per year than 20,000 tons. For this quantity, it has to find a market, and the government are not the only purchasers of rails in Canada. The Grand Trunk Kailway Company wants 50.000 tons at once, and the Canadian Pacific Railway is buying all the time. Numerous railways are, I am happy


Andrew George Blair: to say, being built all over Canada, and all these must be supplied with steel rails, and outside of Canada there are reasonable expectations that markets will be found which will absorb a large quantity, and I have no doubt that these expectations will, to some extent at all events, be realized. But, the certainty of an outlet for 25,000 tons per year for five years is sufficient to give a sufficient impetus to start the company, which would not otherwise have been started, and it is being started without cost to the people of Canada. And besides, we are getting the rails we require on as favourable terms as we could get them in London, where all competitors meet.
My hon. friend from South Norfolk (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) does not agree with many hon. gentlemen on his own side. He is entirely in favour of this proposition. He is not criticising it on the ground taken by some of his friends who have spoken. He wants us to make the contract stronger. He has no fault to find with our encouraging this industry. On the contrary, that is entirely in accord with his judgment. He shakes himself clear of his colleagues in that particular, but, what he wants is to have this contract made stiff and hard for five years. He wants it nominated in the bond, that it shall be for five years, at the rate of 25,000 tons each year. I can well understand why the hon. gentleman should take that view, but there are reasons against it which we deem more cogent. I would have liked to have had the contract as my hon. friend suggests, but we had to weigh the question in all its bearings, and we did not feel justified in making any proposal to the Lake Superior Power Company extending over so long a period. We-felt that we would be justified in making the contract for one year, and in giving the assurance that this government, if it should live to carry it out, would see the company through to the extent of an order for five years for 25.000 tons more per year. And when that proposition was made to Mr. Clergue he accepted it. He did not ask for any more, and he is getting all that we stipulated to give him. When I tell my hon. friend that Mr. Clergue is well content with this, that he has no fault to find with either the terms of the order in council or the contract as it is now drawn, and has declared the intention of his company to execute it. I would ask my hon. friend whether, under the circumstances, he would not feel like withdrawing any opposition he might have to the contract on the ground that it does not go further than Mr. Clergue asked us to go ? My hon. friend will not be stronger in his desire, I am sure, that Mr. Clergue's interests should be protected than is Mr. Clergue himself.
There is a difficulty which would always arise if we were to make the contract for a term of five years, and that is, as to the fixing of the price from year to year. Mr. MAY 15, 1901
Clergue might very well complain that what we held was the market price of England, unless we had the price specified in writing from year to year, was not a fair statement of the market price. So that, I consider that, under all the circumstances, there can be no reasonable exception taken to the clauses as drawn ; and inasmuch as the person most interested is perfectly content,
I do not see why my hon. friends opposite should feel any more concern on the subject.


James Clancy: I am sure that the House, which has a pretty good memory, will be astounded at the statement of the hon. gentleman. Why, he declared that the life of that industry depended upon this contract.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I said the starting of it.


James Clancy: He declared that two things were absolutely necessary. One was that they should have a contract for the five years, and the other was, that the company should have no foreign competition. Yet, he tells us that it is a mere bagatelle, what they are going to supply Canada with.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Supply the government.


James Clancy: How is he going to reconcile that statement with the other one, that the life of the industry, the fact whether it should start or not, depends upon its having a contract covering five years ? Then, he declared this afternoon that the company should be free from the competition of the United States. The hon. gentleman has a most extraordinary faculty of blowing hot and cold that I ever knew anybody to possess. Let me tell the hon. gentleman further, that he has forgotten wliat was stated in this House by the Minister of Finance, namely, that the large bounties-to which I have no objection-given are intended as compensation for having lowered the protective duties on iron. Does tne hon. gentleman mean to blow hot and cold in this case as well as the other ? Does he challenge the statement of the Minister of Finance, who declared that the increase in the bounty was to compensate for the lowering of the customs duties ? He said that we must give these people some compensation for the protection they are loosing by the reduction in duties.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Not on rails. The hon. gentleman knows that there is no duty on rails, and, therefore, we could not withdraw the protection from it.


James Clancy: The hon. Minister of Railways said a moment ago, that because there was no duty on steel rails, foreign rails could come into competition with Canadian rails and kill the whole home industry. Let me ask him to refer to the hon. gentleman who sits beside him-a gentleman of
high standing and great ability in this country-who, for years, has declared that there should not be any duty to protect any industry, but that the workingmen should be left to take care of themselves. Let them, he said, eat less and work longer. Now we have his colleague rising and telling us how important it is that our workingmen should have employment.
For eighteen years these hon. gentlemen fought for the views which formerly they expressed, but they were overcome, they were subdued. And now they are like a certain kind of birds, of the hawk tribe, I believe, who do not build nests of their own, but, when other birds built nests, come and take possession of them. The hon. gentleman cannot accuse us of being untrue to the principle of protection, of not showing our anxiety that employment should he provided for the workingmen. We have fought that battle and won it. But, so far as I am concerned-and I am willing to take the responsibility of my utterance-I think that we have amply done our duty by the bounties that have been given for the manufacture of iron and steel, and that by these bounties we have offered every encourage-meut for the establishment of industries that would give employment to labour. And what is our next duty ? Our next duty is to protect the taxpayers of this country. I am but an humble member of this House, and I do not assume to believe that my views are generally shared, but I have as much faith in them as though I had a majority with me. I say we have done our duty in the encouragement of this industry, and row the hon. gentleman who is in the position of the custodian of the public purse should see to it that the rights of those who contribute to the public revenues are protected. If any arrangement such as this that we are discussing had been made tdn years ago when hon. gentlemen opposite were not in power, what would they have said ? They would have pointed out that our manufacturers were given an advantage of six or seven dollars a ton, and why should they not compete against the American manufacturers ? I can Imagine with what eloquence they would have appealed to popular sentiment on that ground. I am sure the hon. minister has not improved his position by the statement that he has made, and that the public will not share his views.


David Tisdale: I desire to speak only a word in explanation. Either I was unfortunate in my expressions or the hon. minister did not understand what I said. My point was that if the government has made an order in council that was intended to be binding, they should ask the House to confirm it, making it into an agreement, or reject it. But I started by saying that fault had been found with the criticism passed upon the minister. I declared that some of the criticisms of the hon. member

for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) were to be endorsed, and I said that if the hon. minister had made the price in future years the price in a competitive market and not the market of London alone, it would have improved the order. But I said, and I say again, that I am reartily in accord with making an arrangement on some such lines as this. But if the government is pledging the good faith of the country, let us understand it, let us understand whether this is a contract which ends in a year, or whether it extends beyond that time.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I suppose it is hardly necessary to point out toj hon. gentlemen opposite that the criticisms are not all on the same line. If I understand the hon. member for South Norfolk (Hon. Mr. Tisdale), he his satisfied with the contract, but thinks it should be made stronger. But the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) takes the ground that, having given a bounty on the manufacture of iron and steel, our duty ceases, and that it is improper for us to enter into a contract with Mr. Clergue's company or any other Canadian company without submitting them to the competition of the United States as well as of Great Britain. I think, as the hon. Minister of Railways said, the hon. member for Bothwell is probably very much alone in that opinion. But I would point out to the hon. member for South Norfolk and the hon. member for South Lanark, that for many years it has been a question in this country whether it was advisable to put a duty on steel rails or not. Hon. gentlemen opposite claimed that they brought many industries into existence in this country by means of a protective tariff. But when it was suggested in years gone by that a duty should be placed on steel rails, as they will remember, the argument on their own side a s' well as on ours, was that steel rails were not produced in the country, but the country needed railroads, and that it was important that these railroads should be constructed at a price that would enable them to carry freight and passengers at moderate rates. It was argued that a duty on rails would enhance the cost of constructing railways, and that it would be impolitic to encourage the manufacture of steel rails in this country by the imposition of heavy duty. Had hon. gentlemen opposite followed, in the case of this industry, the same course as they did in others, they would have placed a duty of 30 per cent, say, on steel rails, thus increasing the price of steel rails, according to the import price, by from $8 to $10 per ton. This would have been) a constant burden upon the railway interest, upon the thousands and thousands of miles of railway in this country needing renewal.


James Clancy: Did the present government make steel rails free ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Steel, rails were free. But this government have Mr. TISDALE.
taken action which they thought would be sanctioned by the House, and which they still believe will be so sanctioned, by which, without increasing the cost of the article to the consumer, they will be able, as they believe, to bring this industry into existence. This object will be satisfactory to men of all shades of politics. As I say, it has been done without cost to the country, without burdening the thousands of miles of track of the Canadian Pacific, the Grand Trunk and other railroads also, and without burdening the treasury of the country, except so far as they have bound themselves not to go to the United States at particular times and buy steel rails for Canada at slaughter prices. But do hon. gentlemen say that it was right and proper that we should not enter into a contract to secure the desirable object that we have secured without stipulating that these people must submit themselves to competition at slaughter prices ? The member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) alone, so far as I have seen, has taken that view. Well, then, if it is not to be a slaughter price, if it is to be a fair price, if it is to be this year $32, and if next year the price in England is $25, and if during the whole term the price conies down to $20, then does the hon. gentleman say we are to be blamed because we have brought this important industry into existence in the way we have done ?
He alludes to what the Minister of Railways and Canals has said, and thinks he sees a contradiction in it. The minister says that this agreement made between the government and Mr. Clergue was the means of starting this enterprise, and he professes to find a distinction between that and the statement made later by the minister that this quantity was a mere bagatelle as compared with the consumption of rails in the whole world as well as in Canada. There is nothing inconsistent in the two statements. The hon. gentleman knows that 25,000 tons of steel rails are a very insignificant amount compared with the total quantity used on the railway mileage in Canada. I suppose they would rail about 200 miles of railway. But the Minister of Finance says we have 17,000 miles of railway in existence in Canada !ilone. Parliament in its wisdom has voted bonuses for hundreds upon hundreds of miles, much of which is in course of construction, and it is stipulated in these contracts-and this was a departure last year from the principles laid down by gentlemen opposite-that the companies receiving these bonuses should buy their rails of Canadian make, provided they could buy them on as fair terms in Canada as elsewhere. Now the Clergue company has been brought into existence by this government agreeing to take 25,000 tons of steel rails from them this year at a price that hon. gentlemen opposite have to admit was fair, the English price, which the Minister of Railways and Canals says is the American price to-day, if we add

the freight. We are to take 25,000 tons next year, and 25,000 the year after, the prices to be determined by the price in the open London market. That contract has brought this enterprise into existence. It needed that encouragement, that little stimulus. And I think, whatever the hon. gentleman's view may be, that the people of Canada will sanction the arrangement as an excellent one. As far as the government is concerned, they are only glad this discussion has taken place in the House, and they will be happy to have it renewed in the country. They will be happy to have the member for Bothwell go on the public platform and say that he did not think this industry should be established unless the government had obliged Mr. Clergue to submit to slaughter prices in the United States. I think I hear some of his own people saying to him : Have not you and your party been continually attacking the government because they were letting goods come into Canada from the United States at slaughter prices ? Did you not demand that the Tory party should raise the duty 15 or 20 per cent higher for that very purpose ? And yet you hold to-day that Mr. Clergue should be subjected to that competition. I fancy the people will say : When you have fixed the competitive price, when you have put Mr. Clergue in competition with the whole world for the price of steel rails, yau have done all that the interests of the country require. Mark you, Mr. Chairman, the government, in fixing the London price, does put Mr. Clergue in competition with the whole world, whatever the price may be year after year, just as the Minister of Railways and Canals and railway companies make English contracts year after year, stipulating the rails shall be at the fair market price each year. Will he say that this bargain should not have been made, that because we have given a bounty upon iron and steel, therefore we should not have secured what we have secured ? But this parliament has done more. The railways that are being built will be customers in the market. Hon. gentlemen have talked about the Sydney company. They have changed their basis to-day, the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals says that we have shut out other Canadian firms. Why, no other Canadian firm has made any proposition, nobody has been injured. Is the Sydney company complaining to-day ? Has anybody complained to the hon. gentlemen ? Nobody whose money is invested in steel rail enterprises has complained.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Yes.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Who are they ?


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The government knows better than we do.


John Graham Haggart: The Sydney company, for one.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Where is the evidence ?


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: In the pocket of the Minister of Finance.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not know whether the hon. gentleman is as well acquainted with my pocket as he thinks he is, but if he knows of any evidence that the Sydney company has objected, I would like to have it. If this Sydney company is complaining I would be glad to have the evidence.


John Graham Haggart: Does the hon. gentleman deny that after the contract was published the Sydney company wished to share in the contract ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I cannot deny it, because I never heard a word of it to this minute.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I can deny it, I can produce the evidence that the Sydney company communicated on the subject, and said that we ought to make sure that the rails were made in Canada. But they had no fault to find at all with the contract, and did not want it. All they wanted was that we should make sure to give the Canadian manufacturers a fair chance, to make sure that the rails were not imported from the United States.


John Graham Haggart: Does the minister deny that a proposition was made to Mr. Clergue's company to share his contract with the Sydney company ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not deny it, because I do not know it, I never heard of it before, directly or indirectly. I venture to say, however, that the Sydney company never made any such proposition, and are not in a position to make any such proposition.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: We are not in a position, at least I am not, to know what information hon. gentlemen opposite may have. If they have information that was not before the government when they made this agreement, of course they cannot blame the government for having been ignorant of it. But you have heard What the Minister of Railways and Canals has said in that regard. But suppose we admit the Sydney company are about to manufacture steel rails, we are told that they have made uo preparation in that direction yet But we hope they will make steel rails, we would be glad if other companies can be promoted who will do that. Will these hon. gentlemen say to us that when, nearly a year ago, a proposition was made by which we saw that we could establish this industry in this country, we should not have taken any action then ? Does he say that we should not have taken any steps, that we should have waited until this year before taking any step, when there has not been an effort

made even yet towards the erection of a mill anywhere else Does he say that we should have waited, waited and waited until three or four mills should be established '! Why we could not have accomplished our object in that way We saw an opportunity, without costing anything to the people of Canada, without injury to any Canadian industry, so far as we can see, of bringing into existence a steel rail industry But admitting that the Sydney company are entering upon the manufacture of steel rails, that other companies are entering upon the manufacture of steel rails, as the Minister of Railways and Canals has said, would they refrain from entering upon it just because they have not secured a contract for 25,000 tons of rails when the whole world will be their market as well as Canada ? It seems to me it is idle to talk in that way. We know that hon. gentlemen opposite did talk about the great things they were going to accomplish in that direction, but they never accomplished anything. They talked about the development of the iron industry, and it all amounted to comparatively nothing, but when this government changed the terms of the bounty the whole industry sprang into existence, and it is now being carried on under this government.


William Rees Brock: The hon. Minister of Customs says that we have got this industry without cost to the country. Let me ask him. who pays the $150,000 bonus that you give to the manufacturer by way of bounty on the steel rails ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Not a copper.


William Rees Brock: There is a bounty on pig iron of $5 a ton.


John Graham Haggart: Six dollars a ton.


William Rees Brock: Six dollars a ton on 25,000 tons would make $150,000 a year.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: There is a bounty on pig iron and steel billets, but does an hon. gentleman of the business experience and capacity of the hon. member from Centre Toronto say that it would be iniquitous for us to make this bargain with any othe? company or two companies ?


William Rees Brock: I am merely finding fault with the hon. gentleman's statement, that you have established this industry in the country without any cost to the country.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Yes, that is what I say.


William Rees Brock: I take issue with you there.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: They get a bounty on pig iron and steel billets.


William Rees Brock: Who pays it ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They can ship the billets away without making steel rails at all.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Yes, they can ship the steel billets if they like.


William Rees Brock: The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals told us another story.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: There is no doubt that there is a bounty paid for the manufacture of steel billets.


William Rees Brock: By whom ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: By the people of Canada.


William Rees Brock: That is my only contention.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The hon. gentleman is making the contention that it is an additional charge on the people because we have bought 25,000 tons of steel rails.


William Rees Brock: You are speaking of having started a new industry in this country without any cost to the country.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Yes.


William Rees Brock: Steel rails, I suppose, cannot be made without pig iron ; therefore, you give $6 a ton to establish that industry.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I need not point out to the hon. gentleman that we can pay a bounty on pig iron and steel billets without paying it on steel rails.


William Rees Brock: You cannot pay it without taking it out of the pockets of the people of this country.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Well, it is not worth while arguing that point. We have to pay bounties on pig iron and steel billets ; we know that.


William Rees Brock: You could not say that we do not.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The hon. gentleman's argument, if it means anything, means that instead of Canada making these steel rails there should not be one pound of steel rails made in this country.


William Rees Brock: No, Sir.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: That is his argument. Well, now we differ with him. We say that we have done well in having brought this industry into existence. But. I would say right here, that the steel rail industry at Sydney, or any other industry that may be started, will not be debarred by the fact that the contract for
25,000	tons' of rails has been given to Mr. Clergue. They have the market of Canada, and they will go into it if they see that it is a business enterprise. They are not debarred in any way at all. The government believe if they had not made this agreement with Mr. Clergue, we would not have had the steel rail industry advanced to the stage it has reached at Sault Ste. Marie. We might have gone on for years without


Mr. PATERSON.: securing the establishment of this great industry. We have not done this in a way to impose a burden on the railways of the country. We are leaving rails on the free list. We are buying steel rails at the usual market price in London, England, as cheaply as anybody can get them, and we have secured a new industry. The government are not on their defence. The government are aggressive. We claim credit for having done what we have done, and we know
that the country will sustain us. We are >
in this country, giving employment to a
paying a bounty on iron. We have secured the establishment of these industries and the money paid for their construction. We have done more. While $4 a ton duty was paid on pig iron, we have reduced it to 52.50 a ton. While there was at one time $13 a ton on steel products, afterwards reduced to $10 a ton, we further reduced the duty in the interest of the consumers of this country, and the workers in iron and steel to $7 a ton. So that, while paying a bounty on iron and steel, we have relieved the consumers and the workers of this country on the other hand by reducing the tariff. And as these industries go on and develop, we will be able to reduce the burdens on the people to a greater degree than they are at the present time. This is on the record, and there is no use of arguing it any further. Hon. gentlemen opposite have admitted that the price of the rails, with the freight added, will be precisely the same as if they had been bought in the English market.


John Graham Haggart: Who admitted that ?
will be a lower price. This government believe that, having brought this industry into existence, that the iron industry having been developed to the extent it has been, and whether it would be so or not was doubtful, that this industry having been established with the promise of other industries coming into existence, as hon. gentlemen opposite have admitted, by virtue of the iron industry prospering as it is doing to-day, having brought new life into an immense locomotive works
large number of people, and accomplishing this while getting goods at a fair price, as far as steel rails are concerned, in the open markets of the world-I say, that the government, having done this, feel that they have done something which will meet with the approval of the country. I am glad that this discussion has taken place, and that this' criticism has been offered, because the people of the country will see how very far the critics vary from one another in their criticism, and how their criticism has been finally disposed of by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals. They will also see the great benefit that has been secured for Canada, virtually without cost to the people of this country.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals stated it, and I think it has not been denied.


John Graham Haggart: Oh.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Then, the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) will perhaps deny it. I am proceeding on the statement of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, who, I think, would know whereof he is speaking.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. minister said that hon. gentlemen opposite had admitted it. Who is the hon. gentleman who admitted it ?
On the order :
House In committee on Bill (No. 89) An Act respecting the Grand Falls Water Power and Boom Company.-Mr. Costig-an.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Stand.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. I do not see why this Bill should stand so long. It has been on the Order paper for a long time. It was discussed by the Private Bills Committee, referred back to the committee, and now we have the report of the committe. Why should not the Bill proceed ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Will the hon. gentleman move it then ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Well, I shall have to qualify that a little, if hon. gentlemen deny it instead of admitting it. I take it for granted, as this was a subject under sharp discussion, that If it had been denied it would have been denied in a most emphatic way, and I take the absence of denial as a consent to the statement. While the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals said that I stand corrected. But, the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) has not even now denied it. He has only said that he did not admit it. Whether that be true or not, the price in England is a fair price this year, while the price under next year's contract
Mr. LaRIVIERE. I have no objection.
Bill considered in committee ; reported read the third time, and passed.


ORDER OF PRIVATE BILLS.
Mr. BRITTON.: There are a couple of Bills on which there i's to be a discussion, and I would, therefore, suggest that the House take those Bills which are unopposed, as it is so very late in the session.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The consent of the House mu'st be unanimous.


SOUTH SHORE RAILWAY COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 106) respecting the South Shore Railway Company.-Mr. Geoffrion.
Mr. BALL.: I wish to draw the attention of the House to two clauses of this Bill, sections (c) and (d), particularly. To enable me to discuss the matter I have to go back to 1893 to find the origin of the South Shore Railway Company. In that year the Taillon government of Quebec granted a subsidy of $100,000 to the Tour-ville syndicate, which "was composed of the Hon. Mr. Tourville, Mr. Beauchemin and others. In 1894 that syndicate applied to the Quebec legislature for a charter to build a railway to be called the South Shore Railway, from a point near St. Lambert to L<ivis. As there was then a charter for a railway in the same direction, called the Great Eastern Railway, and work was done at Yamaska and Nicolet, I opposed that Bill. We came together; Mr. Tourville and Mr. Beauchemin representing the syndicate, Mr. Beemer and I representing the creditors of the Great Eastern Company, the members for Nicolet, the Hon. Mr.- Beaubien, then Minister of Agriculture, and the Hon. Mr. Nantel, Minister of Railways and Public Works. It was understood then that we should allow the syndicate to obtain the charter, and in consideration they were to purchase the South Eastern, at a cost of $70,000. The syndicate did not see its way to pay over $60,000, and therefore the government took $10,000 out of the $100,000 voted to pay the debts. Another condition was that Mr. Beemer and myself should become directors of that road. We see in the preamble of the Act ineori pointing the South Shore Railway Company the names of the Hon. Louis Tourville, Joel Leduc, .1. M. Fortier and J. R. Wilson, of Montreal, H. J. Beemer, contractor, of Montreal. H. Beauchemin, of Sorel, and George Ball, of Nicolet. At that time the Montreal and Sorel Railway, now the South Shore Railway, belonged to Messrs. Tourville and Leduc, but they had not the title of sale. They contrived to seize the road and have it sold so as to obtain a title to it. So, when the bargain to which I have referred took place, we decided to have the Montreal and Sorel sold by auction, as well as the Great Eastern Railway. Mr. Armstrong was to purchase the Great Eastern for the costs of the court, and Mr. Tourville was to get the Montreal and Sorel for the costs of the court. The time came for the Montreal and Sorel road to be sold. I was present, and Mr. Tourville bought it for $1,500, exactly the costs of the court. A few days afterwards, the time came for the sale of the Great Eastern; but instead of it being sold, as the Montreal and Sorel was. Mr. Beauchemin engaged a bidder, and the price went up to $20,000. Mr. Armstrong got the Mr. SPEAKER.
road for that price. But he could not pay the $20,000; so everything has remained in statu quo ever since, and neither the Great Eastern nor the South Shore have succeeded in having a subsidy from the government. I remember that once a large delegation came here to see the Prime Minister, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. He was not Sir Wilfrid then, but he was as great as he is to-day. We had a special train, something like what we had the other day to go down to Quebec. dVe came before the government, and the speakers, instead of arguing the advantage that there would be in having a railroad passing alongside of the St. Lawrence and crossing over the bridge at Longueuil, only argued against Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Armstrong was this, and Mr. Armstrong was that, the Great Eastern could not be built, and this, and that, and no more. I recollect very well the answer of the Prime Minister. This is in substance what he said :	' Well, gentlemen, there are three
charters for railways from Quebec to Montreal: there is the Drummond County, the South Shore, and the Great Eastern. The late government have put us in a bad fix by granting two charters to go in the same direction, and now we do not know what to do. I tell you that the best thing to do is to depend on the wisdom of the government.' Coming out I met Mr. Beauchemin, and said to him: 'Well, Mr. Beauchemin, what do you think about the delegation ? ' ' Oh,' he said, ' it went very well it looked favourable; you and Mr. Armstrong will get each a nutshell and the Drummond County will get the kernel.' In 1899, Mr. Raymond Prefontaine was one of the directors of the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway Company. As he had a great deal of influence with the government, we asked him on the part of the creditors of the Great Eastern Railway to get subsidies for the South Shore and also for the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway, and to sell to Mr. Beauchemin that part of the road that we could not succeed in selling in 1894. He was authorized to sell it for $70,000. the price that was stipulated before. This $70,000 was to be divided as follows :	Mr. Prdfontaine, in consideration of the great influence he had, was to receive $42,000. and pay liabilities which he had towards the bank by endoring notes for the Atlantic and Lake Superior.	The balance was to
go to other parties.	Mr. Beemer was to
have got $7,000. Mr. George Ball was to have got $3,500 out of the debt of $20,000 which he had against that road. Mr. Archibald Campbell was to have received $1,500, and the balance was to have gone to the labouring men and the engineers.
I said a while ago that this road was to have been sold by auction so as to give a good title to the South Shore Railway Company. Mr. Prefontaine had a judgment against it, and he it was who had it sold in 1894. And as Mr. Armstrong, who bought

it in, never paid the price, Mr. Prefontaine had it said again by folle enchere. He paid $510 for it, and no one made any opposition.
Now let us see what the creditors have received from Mr. Prefontaine. For my part, I received nothing. Mr. Beemer says he received nothing. Mr. Campbell says the same thing. But there is something more serious. Mr. Prefontaine did not even pay the notes which have his name on their backs and which he was to pay out of the proceeds. Here is one of these notes.


Mr. DAVIS.: Bead it.


Georges Ball: It reads thus :
$4,000.	Montreal, Feb. 3, 1899.
One month after date, we promise to pay to the order of C. N. Armstrong four thousand dollars at the office here.


HON. ROSAIRE THIBAUDEAU,
[Stage Direction]
President.

[Stage Direction]
Secretary.
On the back of the note are a number of names, nearly all dead-heads. They are : C. N. Armstrong, A. C. Wurtele, attorney ; G. R. Thibaudeau, R. Prefontaine, George Ball, James Baxter.
I paid that note, and asked Mr. Prefontaine to pay at least his share as endorser, and he refused. It has been in the hands of my lawyers since the spring, and the matter has remained in abeyance ever since in the hope that Mr. Prefontaine would come to terms.
There are other notes to the same effect. They are for $42,000 and are similar to the one I have read, only with different names on them, but they also carry Mr. Prefon-taine's name. Mr. Prefontaine wanted by that sale to get clear of all these notes. He got the money, and he got others to pay the notes.
The hon. gentleman was a director of the Atlantic and Lake Superior Company, but as soon as this transaction was put through, he resigned his position as director. He could not live any longer where Mr. Armstrong was. And it is since that date that Mr. Armstrong is, in his opinion, such a rogue.
Hon. gentlemen have noticed that Mr. Prefontaine attended the meetings of the committee when the Atlantic and Lake Superior Act was before that committee for amendment, in the interests of the trustees. You know how Mr. Prefontaine opposed the Bill. Why ? Because he wanted the Baie des Chaleurs road to be sold. Of course he knew that in that event there was an opportunity for great profit. But in spite of all his opposition, the Bill, amended if you like, passed the committee.
As soon as he resigned his directorship, he got some others to make an application for a charter for a road from Paspebiac to GaspS Basin, and he obtained a subsidy for
the South Shore Railway from Sorel down to Lotbini&re at the rate of $3,200 per mile, He succeeded in getting $35,000 for the bridge at Sorel ; $50,000 for the bridge at Yamaska; $50,000 for the bridge at St. Francois, and $15,000 for the Nicolet bridge. The piers on the Nicolet bridge were built, which cost about $35,000. and that is why its subsidy was smaller than those given the other bridges.
He also obtained a subsidy for the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway. He was to have obtained it from Paspebiac to Gaspe Basin, but after resigning the position of director, he changed his mind and he obtained the subsidy from Oaplan to Paspebiac. He obtained from Paspebiac to Gaspfi Basin a subsidy for a road the name of which was not given. Here is Bill No. 70 of last session to incorporate the Gaspe Short Line Railway Company. This is a charter which he wanted to get, but he did not succeed. There is a clause in it authorizing him to buy the Baie des Chaleurs and the Atlantic and Lake Superior. Now, Mr. Chairman, I have said all I wanted to say. I do not wish to obstruct the passage of this Bill. The House may conform to the deeds on the part of Mr. Beauchemin if they like. He has done his duty in paying what he agreed, and I think it would not be fair to deprive him of his rights. I leave the matter in the hands of the House, after explaining the matter. I wish I had a better command of English, and I would have explained it in a way that would have caused the House to understand it better. But I have done the best I could, and I leave the matter in the hands of the House.
Mr. GEOFFRION.: I do not think I should take up the time of this House in discussing this Bill. We have only an hour for private Bills and my hon. triend from Nicolet (Mr. Ball) has made a long speech. The Bill was fully discussed in the Railway Committee, and that committee is so numerous that everybody is familiar with the question. From what I could gather of the speech of my hon. friend from Nicolet, he is objecting ,to the ratification of one of the deed's. In the Bill, we ask the ratification of three deeds of purchase by the present company of portions of roads for which they have paid, and for which they hold authentic deeds. The only deed to which the hon. gentleman objected, as far as I understand, was the purchase of the Great Eastern. Well, as he said, Mr. Armstrong had that part of the raod 'sold by the sheriff and bought it in ; but he could not pay the price, and the road was resold and Mr. Prefontaine bought it. It was a perfect and open sale. Mr. Armstrong was there as were all the interested parties, and they had a. right to bid. The contract was given by the sheriff to Mr. Prefontaine. The most perfect deeds that can be got are those given by the sheriff, as everybody

knows. We are in possession of those deeds. They were filed in committee, they have been discussed, everybody knows what they are. My hon. friend (Mr. Ball) says that there seems to have been a different agreement made by Mr. Prefontaine when he bought that part of the road. Mr. Prefontaine denie's that. But even if it were so that has nothing to do with the contract he has from the sheriff. They say there was a verbal agreement. If they have any rights, let them enforce them in the courts and not come to this House, which cannot learn the facts. There is nothing to prevent this House ratifying the deeds which are held from the sheriff, and that is all we ask with regard to that matter. We ask also for a few years more to complete the road. We have shown in committee that we had a right to that, and the committee recognized the fact.


Mr. SPROTJLE.: In the Railway Committee this Bill attracted our attention owing to the variety of purchases and sales and bargains, and the number of jobs that seem to be connected with it. It is one of the Bills that have a history that would be interesting if one had time to study it, and get the information to enable him to understand it. But the gravamen of the case seems to be that we are asked by this Bill to ratify certain sales. Here are four sales we are asked to ratify, not one bargain of which was before us nor any information concerning it. In the committee we could get no information that would enable one to pass upon the measure intelligently. Yet, we are asked to ratify these sales, to declare that they are proper, to make them binding no matter who is cut out of his honest rights or what rascally transaction they may represent. This is one of the kind of Bills 'that, in my judgment, parliament should never pass. An effort was made to prevent it passing in the committee, but the Bill was voted through ; and now it is sent to this House and we are asked to approve it. I am sure that if one-third of the members had any intelligent knowledge of the transactions connected with this Bill, and what they are asked to make valid, the Bill would be thrown out of the House as soon as we could vote upon it.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I also desire to enter my protest against passing legislation of this kind in this House. I am sure it would take a Superior Court judge and half a dozen lawyers three weeks or a month to unravel the difficulties in connection with the title of this property. But, notwithstanding that, and notwithstanding all the controversy about it, we are asked, on a few words of explanation given in the Railway Committee, to ratify an agreement and deeds, the merits of which we really do not know. I think this is most dangerous
legislation. We may be legislating away valuable rights of some persons without having any knowledge of what we are doing. We certainly do not know the inside of it. I think one of the strong reasons why this House should hesitate to-night ill passing this Bill is that members of the government who were present at the meeting of the Railway Committee entered their strong protest against it and voted to refer the Bill to a sub-committee to examine the deeds. I think that if to-night this House votes this Bill through, it votes condemnation of the government. For, the government has a policy on this Bill, and that policy is that it should not be passed.
I leave that idea in the minds of the supporters of the government, as to whether they are going to condemn the government for having a policy upon a private Bill, which I think it is their duty to have in every instance, because I hold that a government should always have a policy on any legislation passing through this House. They have their law officers, they have their departmental advisers to inform them whether the legislation is proper. No doubt the Department of Railways and Canals had advised the Minister of Railways and Canals in this matter, because he was strongly of the opinion that the Bill should not pass. The hon. member for West Quebec (Hon. Mr. Dobell) took the same stand and opposed the Bill. I believe that these hon. gentlemen knew what they were doing, I believe that they took that ground for good reasons ; and, as I said before, I have no doubt that it is the sentiment of the entire government. I think that the members of this House sitting behind the Treasury benches ought to pause before they pronounce condemnation against the government by supporting a Bill of which they do not know the merits.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I received, and I suppose other gentlemen did also, a printed circular a few days ago, in which the writer protests against the passage of this South Shore Company's Bill. This printed document is signed by J. H. Wood, of 101 Bleury street, Montreal. I do not know who the gentleman is, but he says :
Dear Sir,-On behalf of a number of workingmen, whose claims would be wiped out by the passing of the Act respecting the South Shore Railway Company, now before the House of Commons, I humbly request you to assist us in getting a proper hearing before the Railway Committee of that House.
The company is asking parliament to ratify titles to property which are in dispute in the courts, which ratification would deprive us and a large number of creditors of their rights.
The South Shore Company is the one which figures in the last report of the Auditor General in connection with the Sorel bridge, and its conduct in that transaction certainly; justifies us in asking that its present demands be closely inquired into.	Yours truly,
J.	H. WOOD.
Mr. GEOFFRION

I did not have an opportunity of being present when the Bill was before the committee, or I would have read the letter. I do not know what it is worth, I read it that the members of the House may be placed in possession of the statements made in it.


The PRIME MINISTER.: No doubt there is something in the objection which has been taken, that the document or deed of sale which it is sought to have ratified by this Bill is not incorporated in the Bill, as is the general rule followed by the Railway Committee. This objection was taken, I understand, before the Railway Committee, but was overruled. I think it is proper on this occasion again to support the ruling of the Railway Committee. I do not share the view of the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) that if the House passes this Bill it will be voting censure on the government, because it so happens that two members of the government would prefer to follow the rule generally observed in the procedure of the Railway Committee. I may observe to. my hon. friend, however, that the objection which he raises has not the same validity as it would have in a Bill originating in any other province. By the laws of the province of Quebec, deeds of the character of the one which it is sought to have ratified, are called authentic deeds. There is nothing of the *kind, so far as I know, in any of the English provinces which are subjected to the common law. This deed of sale, or what we call an authentic deed, is deposited with the officer who is the custodian of it. A deed of sale is never delivered to the buyer or purchaser, it invariably remains with the proper officer, whether it be the sheriff, or a notary public, or auy other officer of the law, it remains there on record and he can only give copies of it. If a deed of sale is passed in any of the provinces which enjoy the common law, it may be handed over to another party, and you may be able to get it if you know where it is. But if a deed of sale is passed in the province of Quebec, a deed by the sheriff, or merely a warrantee deed, or simply an ordinary deed of sale passed before a notary public, it remains of record in the hands of the officials who received it. The man who has an interest in seeing the deed cannot get the original of it, he can only buy a copy. Therefore, when you say in this Bill, or a similar Bill, that the deed was of such a date, under such and such a number, deposited on record at such an office, you have the description of that deed, and know exactly what you want, especially if the deed is filed at the time, as it was before the Railway Committee. I understand that matter came before the Railway Committee, all the deeds were produced for examination.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I saw none of the deeds.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I understand they were deposited for inspection of the members who wanted to see them, and certainly it would have been extraordinary if they had not been. But they were there, though they were not incorporated in the Bill. But before they could be incorporated in a Bill you w'ould have to satisfy yourselves as to what they are. Anybody can do it simply by applying to the custodian of that deed, the sheriff of the city of Montreal in this case; and therefore tpy hon. friend will see that his objection has not the same weight it would have in reference to a Bill coming from a province subjected to the common law. Therefore, though the deed is not incorporated in that Bill, still it is plain we know exactly what it was. The object of the deed is to ratify a certain number of sheriff's sales which had transferred this railway from what was at one time the Atlantic and Lake Superior and South Shore Railway Company. This railway has had a sad history. It has been in the hands of certain parties who have never operated it, but it has at last found its way into the hands of a very respectable company who, at the present time, is running it and giving satisfaction to everybody. It would be most unfortunate if this Bill were not passed. As to the claims of certain workingmen, this circular has been issued, as I know, but the present company, the South .Shore Railway Company, has nothing at all to do with the claims of these men, it is uot in any way responsible for the claims of these men. If there are any, of which I am not aware, they have been incurred by the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway Company, they must have been incurred at least twelve years ago. No steps have been taken, so far as I know, to recover them since that time. The railway has been sold under the sheriff's authority, and therefore the workingmen, if they have any claim, have not the shadow of a title aga'inst the present ownership. I repeat it would be a calamity if this Bill were not to go through, and if the present proprietors of the road could not have an opportunity of operating it successfully.


Mr. PREFONTAINE.: In answer to the objection which has been made that the title has not been copied or transcribed entirely in the Bill, I may say this matter was left entirely in the hands of the committee. Here is a letter that was addressed to me, because I was taking an interest in the matter :
Re South Shore Railway Bill. Raymond Prefontaine, K.C., M.P.
Dear Mr. Prefontaine,-I inclose herewith copy of your Bill, as I am printing it. I have agreed upon this form with the Law Clerk of the Senate so as to obviate the necessity for printing the agreements, which is both unnecessarily expensive and cumbrous, but the necessary par-1 ticulars in the deeds are, I think, set out, except the date of registration of the conveyance

from Beauchemiu to the South Shore Railway Company (section 2, paragraph 'b '). This date does not appear on the document, if you have it please send it to me by returning mail, if you have it not, it will probably make little difference. I have taken some considerable trouble in getting the Bill into this shape, and I think you will consider that it is satisfactory.
Faithfully yours,


A. H. O'BRIEN.
[Stage Direction]
The deeds were in the hands of the clerk of the Railway Committee, they are still in his hands, and he is the custodian of them, so that, if the deeds are not transcribed entirely, there is, I think, sufficient description given in the Bill to satisfy anybody who may be interested in knowing what they contain. The South Shore Railway Company are not responsible in any way. Besides that, the deeds being in the hands of the Railway Committee, there is nothing to be hidden. They are public documents, registered at the registry offices in the different counties in which this property is situated.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: When this Bill was being considered in the Railway Committee, and various questions were being asked regarding it, why were the deeds not produced, if they were there ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I stated that the deeds were in the hands of the clerk of the committee. They were on the table, and I saw them myself.


Mr. GEOFFRIOX.: Certainly, and we referred to them.


Samuel Hughes: I asked the hon. gentleman for the order of sale from the sheriff, and he said it was there. There were two deeds of sale from the sheriff, and I understood that the authority for the sale would be forthcoming. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if he has the authority for the second sale ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There was no authority given to me for the second sale. The authority was given to the sheriff from .the court. The sheriff acted according to the order of the court, which appears by the documents themselves. It was denied by a certain party, by a party who can deny anything at all, even that the sun Is shining that there was an order of the court. There is not only one order of sale, but two orders of sale, one In September, 1895, and one in July, 1899, so that this cannot be denied in any way. and it has nothing to do with the deeds. This all appears from the deeds of the sheriff.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman why it is. if the deeds were in the possession of the clerk of the Railway Committee, that they are not set out as a schedule to this Bill ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have just explained it. I have nothing to do with that


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: except as regards the letter I got from the law clerk of the Railway Committee, who told me, on the 30th of March, that he had agreed with the law clerk of the Senate about adopting this mode of entering the deeds in the Bill. That is the reason, and the deeds, being in the hands of the clerk of the committee, nobody asked to have them incorporated in the Bill.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax) I do not agree that it is not necessary to have them incorporated in the Bill.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Anyway, we cannot be held responsible for the error or fault that may have been committed by an
employee of this House.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not finding fault with the hon. gentleman. I merely desire to express the opinion that when we are confirming a deed in this House we ought to have that deed set out in full as a schedule to the Bill.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: These are purely and simply deeds of the sheriff, and the transactions that followed the execution of these deeds.


David Tisdale: Only one of them is named as the sheriff's deed.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No, there are two.


David Tisdale: So far as appears from the Bill. The other deeds mentioned applied to sales from individuals to the railway companies, or from the railway companies to individuals. The third only is mentioned as being a sheriff's sale.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The sale of the Montreal and Sorel road took place, and the road was acquired by Messrs. Beauchemin, Tourville, Fortier and Leduc, and it was transferred to the South Shore Railway Company. The South Shore Railway Company have asked that this deed shall be ratified. That Is all that they require. The only sale about which there seeims to be a good deal of talk is the last sale of the Great Eastern Railway, which was made by the sheriff of the district of Richelieu. That sale was regularly made. I affirm it, and it was not contested within the six months that it could be contested under the laws of our province, excepting by a party named McNally, who withdrew his aetion, so that the deed is good. I will answer the question of the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) about the wages of the labourers. That circular that was sent out pretended to be signed by a man named Wood. I know where it originates. It originates with the same party who sold the railway in 1894, and pocketed $92,000. the same party who has been mentioned in connection with all these transactions. His name is well known all over. Every enterprise with which he has been connected has proved disastrous and a loss to everybody.

In order to create trouble and to prevent tbe South Shore Railway Company, which is a responsible company, from using their property as they have a right to use it, he seeks to put obstacles in their way. At the present time they have sixty miles of railway, with two expensive bridges, and they are constructing another one. They have not mortgaged the road for a single cent yet, but they are on the point of mortgaging it to raise money to continue construction, and it is in order to put the title into such a shape that they may borrow money on this railway that they have been obliged to come before parliament for an extension of the time for the construction of the road. They have asked also that the titles be confirmed so (that there can be no doubt raised by the parties who may be called upon to advance money upon the bonds. Now, as regards the creditors of the Great Eastern Railway Company, or the Atlantic and Montreal, this legislation does not affect their rights in any way at all. They have the Atlantic and Lake Superior, which is at present about 100 miles in length down in the Bay des Chaleurs district. These parties have claimed against the railway company, but they have no right to claim against the South Shore Railway Company, because the South Shore Railway Company acquired these deeds regularly through the sheriff's sales, and in those sales creditors were not defrauded of their rights in any way. These sales were public sales, held publicly, and I was very much surprised to hear the hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. Ball) saying that there was anything wrong with the sales. The last sale took place in August, 1899. He was present at the sale, and he bid himself on the property. He did not think it was worth more than $500, because he did not bid more. At the previous sale in 1894, when the purchase price was not paid, the hon. member for Nicolet was present, when there was a bid of $20,000 made, and nobody bid over it. The hon. member for Nicolet did not advance a cent of it in order to help them with the sale in 1894. I advanced myself $1,200 that I have not been recouped for yet. The purchase price of $20,000 was never paid by Mr. Armstrong, so that the property had to be resold on the fo'lle enckere of Mr. Armstrong, and it brought only $500, because the property was not worth more. Nobody would buy it. Nobody would take the property from which the rails had been taken away in former years and employed on another railway, but it was not the South Shore Railway Company which did that. The South Shore Railway Company come here and ask simply for a ratification of certain deeds, which were given openly and in a regular manner, and which are now before the House.


Victor Geoffrion: We ask simply the ratification of the deeds. That has been 166
done several times, and it has been lone this session for the Grand Trunk Railway.
Mr. BORDEN Halifax). The ratification of a deed made under judicial sale ?


Victor Geoffrion: I am not aware that it is necessary, but it cannot do any harm to have parliament ratify a deed which is considered perfect. We know it is a perfect sale and that a judicial deed is the best that can be got. I do not see any harm for parliament to ratify it.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not say that there is any harm. I do not know anything about the merits of the Bill, but if we are dealing by way of confirmation with conveyances of this kind we should at least save the rights of persons who may have claims.


Victor Geoffrion: If there are any rights they must be recited in the deed.


Robert Laird Borden: The deed is not before us.


Victor Geoffrion: The deed was produced in the committee for any one to study it if he chose. The law clerk informed me that it was now customary that these long deeds should not be put in a Bill, but merely the dates and the name of the officer before whom they were made.


David Henderson: I do not deny but that these deeds may have been produced, but we certainly did not scan them closely because a certain number of us did not understand them, as these deeds are in the French language.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Some of them are in English.


David Henderson: I am informed that they were in French. Had they been inserted in the Bill they would have been translated and we could have understood them. It is establishing a very bad custom to allow legislation of this kind to go through the House in this manner.


David Tisdale: Was any objection raised in the committee ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes.


The PRIME MINISTER.: If these deeds were in French it would certainly have been more regular if they had been translated. I do not know why they were not, but I suppose the members of the committee were satisfied with the explanations that were given. The Bill seeks the ratification of one judicial sale and two voluntary sales. It would have been more regular if the deed had been inserted in the Bill, but the force of that objection is very much weakened by the explanations given. The first is a deed of sale from the Montreal and Atlantic Railway to Mr. Beauchemin, passed before



Mr. Stewart, N.P., of Richelieu. If this deed had been passed in the province of Ontario It would have been signed by the parties in the presence of a notary public and witnessed, and handed to them. The originals might be destroyed) and we afterwards wanted to incorporate them in this Bill we might not be able to obtain them ; but in the province of (Quebec Mr. Stewart is bound by law to keep a copy in his safe.


David Henderson: We have our registry office in Ontario.


The PRIME MINISTER.: And in addition to that the deed is also registered in Sorel. That deed is perfectly authentic, and in a trial in court you are not bound to bring witnesses to prove it as the signature of the notary is sufficient. You see the difference between the British system of procedure and ours. Though it would be more regular to have the deeds in the Bill it does not seem to be a fatal objection. If the Railway Committee was satisfied that the deed was all right, we should take the opinion of the Railway Committee.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The committee was not satisfied.
Hon. Mr. I-IAGGART. I cannot see where any franchise is conveyed to this company, and I would like to know if it is possible under sheriff's sale to transfer the franchise.


The PRIME MINISTER. .: I think it is possible because a sheriff's sale conveys everything that belongs to the person who is divested from his property.. I would not, however, give an opinion at this moment as to whether under such a deed the franchise is transferred.


Mr. SPROULE  .@: We are now told that the deeds were before the Railway Committee, but personally I knew nothing about it. I raised the objection that the deed was not in the schedule of the Bill. Several gentlemen gave a history of these transactions, some of which were undoubtedly collusive and others fraudulent. The charter of the road passed from one set of men to another, and the former were cut out from their just and legal rights. Mr. Hogg told the committee that if parliament passed this Bill if would deliberately deprive his clients out of their rights and they had no redress. There is no doubt in the world that some of the transactions in connection with this road were fraudulent. The road was sold in one case for $500, and it was admitted afterwards to be a collusive sale.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I deny that. It has never been attacked before the courts.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It was admitted there was no value given to the road. It was understood that this sale would allow the road to pass in the hands of men who could handle it, but no one will say that the road was not worth more than $500. A motion Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
was made in the committee that this Bill be sent to a sub-committee to inquire into the deeds and into the whole transaction. That motion was made by the Minister of Railways and supported by another minister, but it was voted down and the Bill was forced through, contrary to all precedent in that committee. We are told that the clerk of the committee decided with the clerk of the Senate that these deeds should not be inserted in this Bill. What has the clerk of the committee to do with it ?


An hon. MEMBER.: The law clerk.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Or the law clerk either. We should follow the principle we have always followed, so that we may deal with the matter intelligently. It was because we could not deal with it intelligently that we asked to have it sent to a sub-committee to report upon it. But that was refused, i nd it was put through in the face of the fact that Mr. Hogg declared that if this legislation went through it would legislate out of existence the rights of his clients.


The PRIME MINISTER.: What was the name of his client ?


Victor Geoffrion: It was Mr. Charles Armstrong. Mr. Hogg does not make the law, and it tras not the ease simply because he said so.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I forget the name of thP gentleman Mr. Hogg appeared for. It was not Mr. Armstrong. He did not mention Mr. Armstrong's name ; but he said, ' My clients have claims which are being legislated away if this Bill is allowed to pass.'


Georges Ball: I want to make a short answer to the statement which the Prime Minister has made. The labour men I refer to are not the men who worked several years ago, but men who have been working on account of the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway on the Nicolet section and the Yamaska section. Two years ago they repaired the road from St. Gregoire to Nicolet, so as to allow the trains to pass through, and they made .foundations at St. Francis, Yamaska and Nicolet.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: That wffs during the by-election in 1897.


Georges Ball: I know you were there, but you did not see any of the men working. With regard to the hon. member for Mais-soneuve and Terrebonne (Mr. Prefontaine), I would say that I was at the sale when he bought the road for $510. As I said before, it was understood that he could buv it for the costs of the court, and resell it for $70,000.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No.


Georges Ball: He was to get $60,000 from Mr. Beauchemin. and $10,000 from the Quebec government, and he drew both the

$00,000 and the $10,000. Now, I want to say that I have no objection to this Bill
passing. Far from that, 1 want it to pass.


David Henderson: X just wish to make this point, that if these deeds are all regular and the titla of this company is indisputable, why should they come to this parliament to get legislation to declare that they are so ? I do not think there is any need to ask us to say that something is right which these gentlemen say is right, when we know nothing about it. It is asking too much of this House ; and I am quite sure that if the Minister of Railways is consulted, he will tell us that it is a very dlangerous precedent to establish.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I beg to call attention to the fact that the time for private Bills has expired.



[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply.
Steel rails, $160,000.
["Air. Speaker, before the House adjourns, I would like to call the attention of the right hon. Prime Alinister to a letter I received from Halifax this morning, in regard to the visit of their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall. It is as follows :\n\nR.\tL. Borden, Esq., M.P.,\nOttawa.\nMayor's Office,\nHalifax, N.S., May 11, 1901.\nDear Sir,-There is a rumour here that the government might require their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York, when visiting Canada, to make their landing at some port other than Halifax.\nThe city council have, by resolution, requested me to write to you and explain that any change from the published programme of landing at Halifax when visiting Canada would not meet with the approval of the citizens of Halifax, as we have made an appropriation and are making arrangements for the reception; and hope to have the presence and assistance of representatives of both Dominion and local governments.\nYours truly,"]
William Rees Brock: Mr. Chairman, by the courtesy of the member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart), who had the floor when the House rose for dinner, I desire to make a few remarks in reply to the hon. Minister of Customs in reference to this steel rail deal. But first I desire to reply to the hon. Finance Minister, who took me very severely to task for my audacity in daring to do what he calls lecturing a minister of the Crown. I take it, Sir, that a representative of the people has a perfect right, so long as he keeps within the rules of this House, to express his opinion even of a minister of the Crown and his conduct of public business. I hope I know how to draw the line between speaking of a minister of the Crown in his public capacity and making any allusions to his private character or conduct. I speak with the greatest def erence, being a new member. Now, the hon. Minister of Customs, a gentleman for whom I have great respect as Minister of Cu'stoms, made some very misleading statements on this question, and he must have known them to be misleading. He stated that the starting of this steel rail industry was secured without any cost to this country. I make the statement that the cost to this country is an absolute cost which we can easily gauge. It is a cost of $3 a ton on the pig iron, and $3 a ton on the steel rails, making in all a bounty of $6 a ton, which on 25,000 tons a year amounts to $150,000 a year, which must be paid out of the revenues of this country, which revenues come out of the people of this country. Therefore, when the Minister of Customs states that this industry Is established without any cost to this country, he makes a statement which he cannot substantiate, and which he must have known to be incorrect. The hon. Minister 166}
of Railways stated that the government were protecting this poor company, who are doing so much to supply us with steel rails, to the extent of $6 a ton, which he agreed to pay them over the market price at the time he made the contract, because he wished to protect them against the slaughter prices in the United States. I contend that if the bounty which this company is getting was not sufficient, the government should have made it sufficient, so that they would have been able to compete with any steel rail producers on the face of the earth. I maintain that it is fair competition they would receive from the steel rail producers of the United States.
They say that this industry should not be subjected to competition against slaughter prices. Well, I would like them to be consistent. Not only' would I like the gentlemen on the Treasury benches to be consistent, but also those sitting behind them, who are prepared, as free traders, to shout for free trade, but who, as supporters of the government, vote for protection whenever the government bold up their hands. If they have any regard at all for consistency', there is an industry which was established and has grown up under protection, and from whom a portion of that protection they have taken away; and if they have any' regard for consistency, they ought to restore that industry to its former position. Have they ever inquired whether the great woollen industry has not to tight against slaughter prices ? I contend that there has been an exceptional slaughter of prices in England this year, such as never has taken place before; yet in face of that, they have given British goods a preference in this market without obtaining for us a corresponding return. The woollen manufacturers of Yorkshire have turned out more shoddy goods-many the production of Germany and other countries-then ever before, and have brought them in here to be sacrificed at slaughter prices, and those gentlemen, who want to protect this steel rail company against slaughter prices in steel rails, should have some little consideration for the thousands of woollen manufactures in this country and the millions of dollars invested in that industry. There is not a woollen mill in this country to-day paying expenses. I am connected with several, and I handed the hon. Finance Minister to-day a statement, which I am prepared to stand by, which shows that the statement he made that these mills were all making money was not correct.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Who made that statement ?


William Rees Brock: The statement was made, when the woollen manufacturers went before the hon. gentleman, that they should not make any fuss about this preference for they were all making money.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Is the hon. gentleman referring to something I said ?


William Rees Brock: I understood that the hon. gentleman said so.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I did not make any such statement. I have no means of knowing whether they make money or not.


William Rees Brock: The hon. gentleman has means of knowing. He was here and heard the statement made across the floor-which I do not remember his having taken notice of-by an hon. member that the woollen mills in Peterborough were making money. I say that that is not the case in any one of the woollen mills of this country. The hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. Ross)- a gentleman for whom 1 have the greatest respect and who no doubt said what he believed to be the case-replied to me the other day contradicting my statement. No doubt he spoke from information he got, but that information was incorrect, if he were to apply for information again, he would get a different answer. When the 121 per cent preference was given to the British goods, those of us who were largely engaged in the woollen manufacture, and who are perfectly loyal to Great Britain and the idea of British connection, did not take exception to that preference, because we did not then know the full extent of it. But we at once set to work to get all the contracts we could before the Yorkshire manufacturers would have a chance to move in the matter. We filled our mills with orders, and the momentum kept them going nearly two years, but gradually the preference began to tell, and this last year I repeat the woollen mills of this country are absolutely ruined. I say that with a full knowledge of what I am talking about. I handed the hon. the Finance Minister to-day a statement of the affairs of six mills of which I have the honour to he president, showing that four of them have lost heavily and that two are only paying one and a quarter per cent on the capital invested. That is the result of the preferential tariff. And when we find these gentlemen showing such anxiety to protect our steel rail industry against slaughter prices-and that is about the only case in which we have ever heard of their doing anything in the shape of protection-we naturally contrast their policy in this respect with that which they have followed in connection with the woollen industry. They are bringing this thing forward now with as much glee as if it were a new toy, and some wonderful invention which they have just discovered. But they are doing more harm by destroying the investments of millions of dollars iD the woollen mills, than they can ever hope to , offset by this new industry which they are seeking to establish and protect. I felt my-


William Rees Brock: self impelled in the interest of this woollen industry, in which many gentlemen in this House are interested, in which thousands of workingmen are employed-many of whom are now being compelled to leave this country-to protest against its being subjected to competition and slaughter prices from abroad, which must result in their complete ruin. Many of these workingmen have their own houses, which they have been paying for during many years, and which they will have to sacrifice in order to get money to leave the country and find employment elsewhere. And at the head of this woollen industry are many gentlemen who have stood by the party opposite during the eighteen years they were in opposition, relying on the pledge of the party that if returned to power they would give us the entry into a market of 70,000,000 people south of the line. Now, when they find that they cannot succeed in doing that, the least they could do would be to give to this industry, which was built up under the national policy, that these hon. gentlemen now pose as being great supporters of, the same consideration as they are showing the steel works. With regard to the statement which I made a short time ago as to what the hon. Finance Minister said, I was not present at the meeting, but the gentlemen, Mr. Russell and others, who waited on the Finance Minister, told me that they gave him to understand exactly what position the mills were in, and I hope that these hon. gentlemen, In their new found zeal for the policy of protection, will give a little of their consideration to the woollen factories scattered throughout this land; and if they find that I am not exaggerating in any way, I hope they will recognize the great necessity that exists for their doing something to prevent the ruin of this industry and revising their mistaken policy.


Samuel Hughes: If I understood the rigli t hon. gentleman rightly he spoke of a member of this House posing as a minister of the Crown. I do not think that such a statement should be allowed to go unnoticed. There is no man here in any capacity except as an ordinary member of parliament.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I hope the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) will take notice and govern himself accordingly. When I entered the House a moment ago, my hon. friend was referring, not to what somebody else had said, but to what I had said. His statement was that I had said that the woollen mills were making money. I never made any statement as to whether the mills were making money or not. I have no desire, on the question before the House, to be drawn into a general discussion on the woollen tariff. Lest, however, the tears my hon. friend has shed may mislead anybody,

it may be well to mention that the woollen maustry has still 23A per cent protection and free wool. If we are going to weep let us understand what we are weeping about. It would hardly be appropriate to weep over the ruin of an industry because of want of protection, when it enjoys a very liberal protection-when the wooi it imports is free, and it has 234 per cent protection against Great Britain and 35 per cent against the rest of the world.


William Rees Brock: I have stated that a large quantity of the goods come in from Germany to England where 25 per cent of labour is done on them, and they are then brought into this country, under the preferential tariff, although to the extent of 75 per cent they are German manufacture.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon gentleman thinks that that is an argument in his favour. I happen to have in my hand an extract from the London correspondent of the Montreal Gazette. That is pretty good authority. That the correspondent says referring to some opinions expressed in this House :
The idea that foreign goods are finding their way to Canada via England and thus evading the tariff on foreign imports is not generally entertained by traders here. Even if merchants' firms would lend themselves to a fraud which must greatly prejudice the interests of British trade, it is not supposed it is done to any appreciable extent, for the simple reason that the Canadian importer as a rule buys, not from the merchant or the commission agent, on whom suspicion now rests, but direct from the British manufacturer. The commission merchant houses here which trade with the Cape and Australia and India, are mostly all of enormous wealth and of high reputation, and their own interests Closely allied to the interests of the British manufacturers, that they are above suspicion of any unfair trading, and if they are now doing a little business with Canada, It may be safely assumed they have no interest or wish to cheat the government which has alone in our colonies given us a preferential tariff. It is confidently believed here by business men that no proof of frauds to any extent will be forthcoming.


William Rees Brock: Wait until fraud is charged. They come in under the law. They have 25 per cent of the work done in England, but the goods are 75 per cent German goods, and they still come in legally.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend will not be strictly accurate. Seventy-per cent may not be German goods, for the wool may have come from Australia, which Is a British colony.


William Rees Brock: Does it come free into Germany ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I could hardly answer my hon. friend off-hand, but I should think not, for Germany is a protective country. But that makes no difference.


William Rees Brock: It makes a great difference. You are making a great to-do about wool coming in here free. But if the Germans can import the wool and pay duty, manufacture the goods and send them to England, they are doing better.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not wish to pose as one giving judgment on the woollen industry question. But I think that an industry that has its wool free and has a protection of 234 per cent against Great Britain, and 35 per cent against the rest of the world, cannot be suffering as severely as some hon. gentlemen think.


William Rees Brock: But the facts speak louder than the hon. gentleman's theory.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend was good enough to send me some papers which I have not had time to read, but which I shall read, and for which I am obliged to him. I regret that he made the statement that the woollen mills in Canada have been ruined. I regret it, because they are not all so fortunate as to have gentlemen at their backs like the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock); and the statement from him that every woollen mill is in a ruinous condition may help to ruin some of the smaller ones.


William Rees Brock: You need never be afraid of the truth. I am not afraid of it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My observation of my hon. friend leads me to believe that he does not deal in it more largely than his neighbours. He is subject to all the weaknesses of the other members of the House, and may occasionally make some mistake, mistakes which ungenerous people might say were not wholly excusable. For instance I heard him say that the Minister of Customs iHon. Mr. Paterson) had made statements which he must have known that were not true.


William Rees Brock: Certainly.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is
a very ungenerous thing.


William Rees Brock: As Minister of Customs.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not know any standard of truth which would justify a man in saying one thing as a member of the House and another thing as Minister of Customs. My hon. friend may make that distinction ; but we on this side, in our simplicity, do not draw such distinctions. An untruth is an untruth whether it is told by a member of parliament or by the Minister of Customs. My hon. friend refers to a statement made by the Minister of Customs that these rails were being purchased and this industry was being established in Canada without any cost to the country other than paying a

fair price for the rails. My hon. friend took exception to that. He said they are paying a bounty. X suppose he was surprised to discover that there was no bounty on rails at all. Now, he says


William Rees Brock: I am astonished that the hon. gentleman would attempt to beg off in such a way as that, by saying that steel rails have no bounty. You cannot make steel rails without iron, and iron that has been converted into steel billets, on both of which there is a bounty. The Minister of Finance might as well not attempt anything of that kind.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: But if I were to say that the wool and the cloth that is made'from it are the same my hon. friend would insist that there is a difference. He says that the steel rail and the iron are allee samee anyhow, but when you come to woollens and woollen clothing, they are not allee samee anyhow. There is no bounty on steel rails. It does not follow that because a man makes steel rails he gets a bounty on the iron or on the steel. He may buy the pig iron and convert it into steel, or he may go further and buy the steel ingots and convert them into steel rails, and may not get a copper of bounty.


Mr. INGRAM.: But Mr. Clergue in his speech said differently. He acknowledged that they were receiving a bounty of $7 a ton.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If Mr. Clergue makes pig iron, he will get a bounty: if he makes steel ingots he will get a bounty, but if he makes steel rails he will get no further bounty. My hon. friend from Centre Toronto would not take a position against the encouragement of home industry ; he would not take a position against the bounty, but says that if the bounties are not enough we should give more. Now, if Mr. Clergue will take ore and make it into pig iron he will get a bounty, and my hon. friend says that is all right. If Mr. Clergue or anybody else will make steel and ship it to any point in the wide world he will get a bounty, and that is all right. But if he takes the steel into a factory and makes steel rails thus employing Canadian labour, then the hon. member for Centre Toronto would say that is all wrong. He would stand by the making of the iron, and he would stand by the making of the steel, and would raise no question of the cost; but the moment you go a step further and propose the manufacture of steel rails, he objects on the ground that it will involve large cost to the country. As I have pointed out. the making of steel rails has nothing to do with the bounty at all. This steel rail question must stand upon its own merits ; there is no reason why it should be confused with any other question. It is quite feasible to divide the in-Mr. FIELDING.
dustry-one man may make the iron and steel, and another man may make the steel rails.


James Clancy: Will the hon. minister allow me to ask him a question ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Certainly.


James Clancy: If by reason of an immense export trade in steel rails the consumption of steel were increased one-half, would not the hon. gentleman say that there was a tax upon Canada by reason of the steel rails ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do
not quite see the point.


James Clancy: Perhaps I have not made myself quite clear. The hon. minister is drawing a fine distinction between the steel and the rails, and says that the bounty on the steel has nothing to do with the rails. Does he go that far ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: For the
purpose of this discussion that has nothing to do with it.


James Clancy: But I am speaking for the purposes of fact. As a fact, if we increase our export trade to a large extent and thus consume all the iron and steel made in Canada in the production of steel rails, could it be said that steel rails have nothing to do with increasing the taxes?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not see why the hon. gentleman should draw the line at steel rails. It would be the same if the manufacture were carried further, and the material were made into watch springs.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Let me ask my hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) a question. What is the object of the bounty given to the manufacture of iron and steel ? Is it not for the purpose of stimulating and enlarging the industries of Canada connected with the production or these articles, to the fullest extent ? But my hon. friend, who is heartily in sympathy with the idea of a bounty upon iron and steel, holds up both hands and says he is prepared to treat such industries in the most liberal manner.


James Clancy: Quite so.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Is the hon. gentleman prepared to put a limit upon the extent to whicn that industry ought to go, and to say, if you enlarge it beyond a certain point it is going to be an injury to Canada ?


James Clancy: No.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is the result of ihe hon. gentleman's argument, and I Will show him

why, if he will open his mind to reason. If the hon. gentleman admits that the production of steel rails is going to cause a greater production of steel and iron in Canada, and therefore to increase the amount the people will he called upon to pay in bounty, if that occurs, then an injury is going to be done to the Canadian people. That is the argument the hon. gentleman is making. In other words, if he is to be consistent in his advocacy of a bounty given for the purpose of increasing to the utmost extent the production of steel and iron in Canada, he would hail with satisfaction the production of any allied industry which would increase the production of iron and steel in the country. Instead of that he says, No. He is crying out against steel rails being made in Canada, because, as he says, we are going to increase the bounty. Ami why are we going to increase the bounty ? Because we are going to increase the amount of iron and steel which is going to be produced and required for manufacturing purposes in Canada.
Now, the argument has been made by the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Hr. Brock), and I think it has been made by other gentlemen in this House, that we are paying $7 more for these steel rails than we would pay if the bounty were not given, because we are entitled to add to the cost of the rails the amount of the bounty. Now, I would ask my hon. friend to reconcile such a statement as that with the argument that hon. gentlemen opposite have been making since the commencement of this discussion. Their contention has been that you must make your contracts with the Sault Ste. Marie company so rigid as to insist upon the manufacture and production of these steel rails altogether in Canada. That is the argument. You must not have these steel rails partially made in Canada, you must not ask the neighbouring country to send into Canada material for simply rolling the rails, you must have them all made in Canada. What is the result of making them all in Canada ? The result is that you have to pay bounty upon the product, you have to pay bounty upon your iron and steel that enter into the finished rails. My hon. friend complains in one breath that you have not made your contract rigid enough, and that all you want is a guarantee that these things are going to be done in Canada from beginning to end ; and in the next breath he says you ought not to do this, because you are going to add the price of the bounty to the rails. That is the argument he has made. He is on the horns of a dilemma and he cannot get out of it. I think it is the funniest position I ever heard taken by a business man in any deliberative assembly, is this position taken by the member fov Centre Toronto, that you are entitled to add the amount of the bounty to the price of the steel rails.
Now where is the justification of the argument that there is a shadow of protection
in the policy of this government ? Where do you find it? Examine this transaction as closely as you may, and you will not find the shadow of a shade of protection in it. Do we put a tariff upon rails imported by this arrangement and in pursuance of this policy ? No. How then are you going to say there is a shadow of protection in the transaction unless you are going to put a tariff upon the importation of steel rails into Canada ? Or, if you like to extend the idea -and it is hardly open to such an extension -unless you put the bounty upon steel rails. But it is neither. There is no tariff against the importation of rails into Canada, and there is no bounty upon the production of steel rails, not one farthing. Where then do you find the protection ? You will search in vain to find the shadow of protection in this transaction. Look at it fairly, look at it as men whose minds are open to reason, and you will not find the idea of protection. We do not say to Mr. Clergue, or the Lake Superior Power Company that we will give them any advantage, that we will give them any preference further than this, that we engage to buy from them 25,000 tons of rails a year at the price that governs in the open market in Great Britain. Now if the hon. gentlemen opposite did not have any more protection in their policy from the moment that the great national policy was established down to the present time, they would not have much to boast of in the 'way of protection, and we would not have much to condemn. This is a fair, open transaction, giving to our own people simply the preference to which I think they are reasonably entitled, saying to them : Make rails for us at the prices of the open market in London, we won't go across the water, we won't go across the line, we won't go outside our own country, we will, go to you and give you the same money we would give to anybody else. Yet, hon. gentlemen opposite [DOT].pretend to discover in that transaction a big mountain of protection.


James Clancy: I do not know whether the hon. gentleman is reading a lecture now to the Minister of Finance when he declares that this is no protection. Is he falsifying the words of the Minister of Finance who declared that this was a measure of protection to compensate the manufacturers of iron for protection by way of customs duties taken away ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Are you talking of this contract ?


James Clancy: No, but what is infinitely of greater importance, the broad principle upon which bounties were paid. Now I want to say to the hon. gentleman that when these bounties were increased it was with the assent of both sides of this House. It is a measure of protection. I will put the two sides of the question : We are giving a large amount of protection by way of ad-

vantage, because protection after all is the advantage the manufacturer has in Canada over the manufacturer of a foreign country. I will put the one case of bounties paid upon the products of the Canadian manufacturer as a protection, and I will put the other case of high import duties as a protection. Now what do they mean ? In the one case it would mean that the foreign manufacturer would have to pay duties to get in here. But in the other case it would mean that the people of Canada, under a system of bounties, paid the compensation to the manufacturer here who had the advantage. If he gave a high measure of protection by customs duty would he exclude competition ? Would he say we were bound first to protect the manufacturer V Under a customs duty we are bound to shut out competition. I have no hesitation in declaring that on general principles bounties are unsound and indefensible. Bounties are not paid by the foreign competitors, as they may be under customs duties.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman is in favour of it.


James Clancy: I do favour it. I say that the general proposition is indefensible ; but, I say that in this particular case it would be justifiable : yet, the hon. gentleman reiterates the. statement that we are opposed to bounties. No, we favour bounties, but we do not favour bounties, and at the same time exclude the persons who receive these bounties from the measure of competition that they are entitled to in this country. It would make no difference whether it was customs duties that gave the manufacturer the advantage or whether it was a bounty paid out of the pockets of the people of the country. AYhat we are complaining of. is that you have shut out competition besides. Now, the hon. gentleman is endeavouring to make a distinction between iron and steel rails. There is absolutely no distinction. If you can turn all the iron into steel rails that is made in Canada, first into pig and then into steel billets and in this way turn it all into steel rails, will the hon. gentleman pretend to say that that would not be a tax on the people of a direct class ? I say it is a tax of a most unmistakable character upon the people. I say at the same time that it is a tax that is to be justified. I do not wish the hon. gentleman to torture it into the shape that he is attempting to do. I concluded from the poverty of his argument that he was forced to make the statement that we were opposed to it or that our arguments were susceptible of such a construction. It is clear that we still favour it. We think it is the duty of the government to carry out the contract that was made by reason of an Act passed in this House, which constitutes an act of good faith. The government would not be justified in refusing to do this. They must carry that out, but our Mr. CLANCY.
complaint is that this bounty is a tax upon the people, as the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) has stated, and that the manufacturer should not be freed from competition in addition to that. There is no doubt about that. It is never paid by the foreigner, even by accident, tt is paid out of the public purse. I say that it can only be justified on special grounds. I believe I think it is a justifiable measure of protection, or advantage, or whatever you may call it, to the manufacturers. The hon. Minister of Finance says that it is to compensate the manufacturers for the protection we are taking away. It is on the iron from which the steel rails are made and it does not make any difference. If the steel rails had to be made before the pig iron was made. I could understand the hon. gentleman's argument, but unfortunately for the pursuit of an argument of that kind, the material out of which the steel rails are to be made has to receive the bounty in a direct way. I do not think it is worth while pursuing the argument a single moment. It is a direct tax upon the people. I say it is a justifiable tax under the circumstances. I think the hon. gentlemen are not strengthening their case by taking that position, but the difficulty is that while we want to deal fairly with the manufacturers of the country, as we ought to do, the hon. gentlemen are now dealing unfairly with the taxpayer of the country, who has to pay that tax, and I repeat, a justifiable tax, but it is not justifiable, if you ask him to pay without the advantage of competition. The hon. gentlemen are giving this company an advantage in Canada, but they are preventing healthy competition in our own country, that friendly, thrifty strife, that always gives tone to business. Competition is withered by the course that the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals has pursued. The hon. gentleman need not imagine that by his clever system of dust-throwing he can deceive the people of the country.


John Graham Haggart: Mr. Chairman, there have been new doctrines of political economy laid down this evening that I have never heard before. I heard the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) make the solemn statement in his strident tones that the new system of paying bounties is not one of protection. I have always understood from the authorities on political economy that it is the most offensive system of protection, the most aggressive system of protection. The Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) made a statement, the most extraordinary I have ever heard, in which he said that the government had established this industry without it costing the counti'y a cent. If I understood the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals rightly, he said that there were fine mines of ore on the north shore, containing a small portion of nickel and that he was going to get a superior kind

of rail out of that ore, that he was going to establish, not only the mining of ores on the north shore of Lake Superior, hut that he was going to establish an industry at Sault Ste. Marie for the purpose of converting the ore into blooms of steel and then into steel rails. I thought perhaps that he had made provision in his contract for all that, but, when I came to read the contract,
I found, strange to say, that these rails may be manufactured out of ore that is mined in any part of the world. The hon. minister led the committee to believe that we were going to establish not only the mining industry on the north shore of Lake Superior, but that we were going to establish a pig iron industry where blooms of steel were to be manufactured, but it turns out that under the conditions that Mr. Cler-gue has made in the contract he does not need to have the ore mined in Canada. All he has to do is to make the blooms of steel from which the rails are manufactured in Canada. So that, we are not to have a smelting industry after all, to be established at Sault Ste. Marie, but we are only going to have manufactured in this country the blooms of steel and the rails. What becomes of that part of the argument which the bon. Minister of Railways and Canals made in reference to the mining ores and the establishing of pig iron furnaces in the country ? Why does he not answer that, after saying that by the contract which he has made with Mr. Clergue he is going to establish this industry and thereby going to confer a great benefit upon the country ? There is not a word of it in the contract ? In the contract there is a stipulation that the blooms of steel shall be manufactured in the country from which the steel rails are made. Then, the iron ores may come from any part of Lake Superior, or they may come from the American side, the pig iron may be taken from any part of the United States if it is found cheaper, and there is no industry of that kind dependent upon the contract made between the lion. Minister of Railways and Canals and this gentleman who is to furnish steel rails. Then, I would ask the hon. minister if he would point out to us what is to become of the magnificent ore beds they have on the north shore of Lake Superior, from the ore of which would be manufactured a superior kind of pig iron, from which the blooms of steel are manufactured, and which, after being manufactured, will contain 2 or it per cent of nickel, when we are only to have rolling mills at Sault Ste. Marie and make blooms of steel manufactured from material which may be obtained in any part of the world ?


Teh MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That being the case, the hon. gentleman will be in a position to reassure those alarmed associates of his, as to the cost of the rails, and the bounty which will be paid.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Not only will there be no bounty, but we will get $2.50 a ton duty on the pig iron.


John Graham Haggart: These hon. gentlemen opposite all along left the House under the impression that the bounty would be paid to the manufacturers of these rails, but we find now that that is not the case. The House has been misled. Every person believed that this contract was for the purpose of establishing a steel rail industry in Canada, the ore to be mined here, the blooms to be made here, and all this was to be fostered by that contract for 125,000 tons of rails. But now we find the contract is so varied from the statement of the hon. minister (Mr. Blair) that one-half of the work may be done in a foreign country, that we are" to have no mines worked, no smelting furnaces worked, and nothing but a rolling mill after all. Why did not the Minister of Railways tell the House that, and take us into his confidence as he should have done ? Did the Minister of Finance know that this pig iron would be manufactured in a foreign country ? I doubt it.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE!' I did. I was wondering where we were going to pay the bounty on that.


John Graham Haggart: And you were talking all the time about $6 a ton bounty ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: 1 was comforting myself with the thought that on every ton of that pig iron we would get $2.50 duty, instead of paying a bounty, so that whatever side you look at it we stood to win.


John Graham Haggart: Then, the starting of this industry under this paternal government has vanished into the misty air. Let the House know that all we are going to have under this contract is a rolling mill at the ' Soo.' There is not a single man in this
the processes to the finished product of Canadian steel rails. Would the minister now explain why it was he purchased a large quantity of coal for the Intercolonial Railway, and how much he paid for it ? Our railway runs quite close to the mines in Cape Breton, and there must have been some reason for purchasing large quantities of coal in the United States. I have heard no explanation of it yet.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND
CANALS. The reason why my hon. friend has had no explanation of it is. because he never mentioned the matter until now. It is quite true that some time ago it was found necessary to purchase coal in the United States. I suppose that no one imagines for a moment that we would voluntarily go

for coal to a foreign country instead of purchasing it along the line of our own railway, but the facts are these. The employees in the mines of Nova Scotia were organizing for a strike, and had about completed their arrangements to do so. The general manager of the Intercolonial Railway telegraphed me that the conditions were very critical, and that on account of the extreme prdsperity of the coal business, and the enormous demands for coal, the Intercolonial Railway had not been able to get from the Canadian collieries as large a supply as they desired. When that strike was threatened, there were important points on the road at which we had only one day's supply of coal, and there was no place from one end of the line to the other where we had more than two or three days' supply. Every one will admit that under such circumstances the government could only acquit itself of its responsibility by securing a supply of coal wherever it could be obtained. in view of the possibility of our supply being cut off from the Canadian collieries. Acting upon the advice, the very urgent advice, of the officers who have charge of this department, I authorized them to procure enough coal to answer for present needs, getting no more than would be absolutely required, until we knew the result of the threatened proceedings ; and some
55,000	tons were obtained. Our consumption is 400,000 tons for the year, so that lion, gentlemen can see that 55,000 tons would not furnish us with a very large store to cover any lengthened period of strike ; and it was above all things the bounden duty of those who were charged with the responsibility to see that the railway was supplied with sufficient coal to keep the railway in operation during the threatened strike.


Andrew B. Ingram: What price was paid ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I cannot say the exact price, but it was about the same as the coal costs us from the collieries of our own country. There may be 10 cents or 15 cents difference one way or the other ; but. we got it from various parties in competition as well as we could, and at the best market prices. I do not know from whom the coal was obtained.
I think $3.30 was the price we paid the home collieries for coal delivered on our own line.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Where was the American coal delivered ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We got the coal in the United States at very much less than that-$2.50, $2.60. or $2.75, paying the freight, which would bring it up to. perhaps, $3.50.


Andrew B. Ingram: Can the hon. gentleman say from what company he got the coal, and at what period ?


Andrew George Blair: 


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I cannot say. We got it in small quantities from different people, and had it brought to different points.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: At what period was it the minister made the discovery about this strike being imminent ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I cannot name the day. I think it was a matter of public observation. It was reported in the newspapers.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Can he tell the month ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think it would be before Christmas, but I am not sure. My deputy tells me it was before Christmas.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the minister tell the committee whether he communicated with the managers of the different mines as to their ability to supply the coal ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I communicated with nobody but the general superintendent. I took his advice and acted upon it. I authorized him to act upon his judgment if the occasion was critical and a strike appeared to be imminent.


Robert Laird Borden: The managers of the mines would be in a better position to give information as to the probability of a strike than any one else. The hon. gentleman justifies the purchase in the United States on the ground of the imminence of a strike. It seems to me that he was derelict in his duty in not communicating with the managers of the mines in Nova Scotia, and ascertaining what they had to say on the subject. I have information which I may state to the hon. gentleman, that if he had communicated with the managers of some of those mines, he would have found that there was no great probability of a strike being allowed to prevail. as the men would have been arranged with or their demands conceded rather than that a strike should be permitted to go on.
I may tell him that there is a good deal of dissatisfaction on the part of his own friends in the province of Nova Scotia in regard to this matter.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I cannot help that.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not say that the hon. gentleman can help it, but I give him that information for his soul's health, so that he may avoid making a similar mistake in the future.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I would do exactly the same thing again.


Robert Laird Borden: Here is an article from the Mining Record, which is edited by a very prominent Liberal in the

province of Nova Scotia-if I am not mistaken-tlie Hon. Robert Drummond, a member of tbe legislative council of Nova Scotia. This is what he says about it :
We have disquieting news as to the condition of the coal trade. The boom, if our information is correct, is to be of shorter duration than most people expected. It is asserted chat the folly of the Minister of Railways in ordering coal from the United States is partly responsible for this. The coal companies cannot get cars, and the consequence is that coal is coming into Montreal from the United States. Coal from the United States, and even from Scotland, is selling at about $4 per ton. The Drummond colliery will go on half-time this week, as cars cannot be obtained to keep the pit going. This is certainly a rather serious and startling state of affairs.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: What is the date of that ?


Robert Laird Borden: The 3rd day of April, 1901. I do think it would have been only ordinary prudence on the part of the hon. gentleman to have communicated with the managers of those mines, because it is perfectly clear that they would _ know a great deal more about the probability of a strike being allowed to proceed than could the hon. gentleman or any of his officers.


Alexander Johnston: I desire to say just one or two words in reply to what the hon. leader of the opposition says in regard to the threatened strike in the province of Nova Scotia. I have no knowledge whatever of what the situation was m the mines of Nova Scotia proper, in the counties of Cumberland and Rictnu ; but,
I do know, from personal knowledge, that the managers of the Dominion Coal Company expected a strike. The men served the managers with notices that on a certain day they would strike, and it was within a few days of the expiration of the time that a settlement was reached and a strike averted, the companies consenting to arbitrate the difficulties between them and the miners. I am perfectly certain that if the Minister of Railways had consulted the manager of the Domnion Coal Company within two days of the settlement, his reply would have been that he expected a strike. I consulted 'several of the men at the head of affairs in the county of Cape Breton, and I know, as a matter of fact, that they expected a strike.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I, of course, anticipated and expected criticism for the course I have taken: but, I would very much prefer to bear all the criticism that may be incident to my having authorized my officers to exercise their judgment and procure the coal, than to lay myself open to the charge of having, in the face of a threatened strike, failed to take the necessary steps in order that the Intercolonial Railway should not be closed down.


Robert Laird Borden: I adhere exactly to what I said before, that I think it was the duty of the hon. gentleman to communicate with the mining managers before adopting this course. They are the people who would know whether or not they would make concessions which would prevent a strike from taking place. It may be true that my hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. Johnston) had some special knowledge about this. But, he was not the Minister of Railways and Canals. If the Minister of Railways had made himself acquainted with tlie facts, which the hon. member for Cape Breton, brings to the attention of the House, the criticism I have offered to-night *would not have been made. The point I am making is, that the Minister of Railways should have consulted these mme managers and taken the best possible means of information before taking the extreme step of going to the United States to buy coal.


Mr. FRASER.: No doubt I would rather see all the coal required for the Intercolonial, as well as for all the people of Canada, bought in Canada. But I submit that the leader of the opposition has missed the point he was trying to make. Does he not think that Mr. Pottinger did make these inquiries ?


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of Railways says he did not.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: No, he says that he himself did not. I know that there was continual communication going on. I know that two days before the strike, a large mine owner told Mr. Pottinger that it was impossible the strike could be averted, because the owners would not yield to the miner's demands.


Robert Laird Borden: I asked the hon. minister if he had communicated with these mine managers and he said not.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Not personally.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not expect that the minister would write every letter with his own hand and communicate with the mine managers himself personally. He cannot do everything, but I supposed he understood me to mean by himself or his officers.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman asked me if I had communicated with the mine managers and I said I had not. I was satisfied that we could not do otherwise than we did. In the first communication which I received from the general superin tendent, he assured me that a strike was imminent and advised me, in the strongest possible terms, to make arrangements as speedily as possible to secure a supply of ccal. I could not, iu the face of tlie warning, refuse to make such arrangements. If

I had, the hon. gentleman, instead of corn-plaining now about my getting the coal in the united States, would have said : Were you not advised by your superintendent, who was on the ground, and who knew what was happening, to get your coal elsewhere ? Why did you not do so ? I very much prefer being criticised from the other point of view under the circumstances.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Does the hon. the leader of the opposition think that the manager of a coal mine would tell the minister directly or even the superintendent of the IntercoV onial, whether there was to be a strike or not :	That might come to the ears of the
men, and if the men knew that the manager said there was to be a strike, they would say he is expecting it, and would go' on with it. And if they knew that he said there was not going to be a strike, they would conclude that they were going to get what they wanted. 1 do not know that after all the strike was an uninixed evil. I think it taught a lesson botli to the mine-owners and the men, which will make them more particular about a strike then they were before. Once they know that the' best cusr tomer they have, the Intercolonial Railway, is not going to lie caught napping, and that it will get its coal elsewhere, they will be a little more particular than they are sometimes, although i am bound to say that the men are not more unreasonable than those who employ them. But the fullest information we had from conversations with the men and others, and that is the only way you could get information. You could never get directly from the managers as to whether or not there would be a strike, and the information directly from the workingmen themselves would not be very reliable No man of sense would, under the circumstances have done otherwise than bring in coal from the outside, because if the Intercolonial Railway were to stop running only one day that would be a most serious matter, far worse than the obtaining of our coal elsewhere and not losing anything by the transaction.


Mr. BENNETT.: 
Andrew George Blair: and give them the advance in wages they asked. It will be refreshing to the labouring classes in Nova Scotia to learn that the hon. member for Guysborough was not the champion of the workingmen, but was afraid that they would succeed in getting their advance, and therefore he folded his arms and stood idly by so that they might be defeated in their object. Whether the men were right or not in their demands, I do not know, but I know that in the hon. gentleman they had no friend.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Whether the men were right or wrong, the hon. gentleman thinks we should have stood by them, and says that by not giving this contract we prevented their getting tlieir advance. But there was no contract pending then between the government and the coal company. These contracts are made at the beginning of the season; and if there had been a strike and the company had not come to a settlement with the men, the Intercolonial Railway would have been without supplies. The minister, therefore, had the best possible reason for getting his supply elsewhere. There was no contract pending, and if the company had paid higher wages^ that would not have affected the price paid by the government, because the government had a contract for the season.


William Humphrey Bennett: Then the position is this. If the Intercolonial Railway or the government had entered into a contract with the mine-owners, the mine-owners would have been obliged to carry out the contract to the letter. If they did not, they would render themselves amenable to damages.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: If there was a strike, you could not compel the company to deliver the coal.


William Humphrey Bennett: Does the hon. gentleman ask the House to believe that every contract made includes a clause that if a strike happened the contract is off ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: The hon. gentleman should understand that if a strike is on, the company cannot deliver the coal, and the government could not run the railway without it.


William Humphrey Bennett: If they did not deliver the coal, they would subject themselves to damages, and they would therefore see the necessity of guarding against a claim for damages by acceding to the wishes of the men.
Mi'. FRASER. Not necessarily.


William Humphrey Bennett: Why not.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: It might be that the company would consider it better to pay the damages than increase the wages, because the government could get nothing except the difference between what they would have to pay elsewhere for coal and their contract price with the mine-owners.


William Humphrey Bennett: The government then would he In this position, that they could recover the penalty and get their coal elsewhere. The hon. member for Guysborough has rather been touched on the raw, posing, as he always does, as a friend of labour. From this out he will be regarded as the very opposite.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: If the hon. gentleman thinks that his opinion has weight with this committee or the people he is very much mistaken. If he thinks that to descend to small personal criticism in conducting a debate is going to benefit himself or injure anybody, he is mistaken. This House is beyond that. What this government did is what would have been done by any competent administrator. I did not say the men were right in their strike. It was not the question whether they were right or wrong. But I say the managers are as often wrong as the workmen. The workmen are not always wrong. I have never said and I will not say now, that if the workmen are wrong we must stand by them as against the managers. The hon. gentleman is welcome to any little gain he can make from his attempt at humour.


Mr. LOGAN.: I do not think that all the facts in this case have been brought out. As a matter of fact there was a strike on in the mines of the Acadia Coal Company and the Drummond mine, in Pictou County.


John Graham Haggart: When was that ?


Hance James Logan: At the time the contract was made.


Mr WALLACE.: But at what time ?


Hance James Logan: I do not remember the exact date, but I remember the circumstances. Now, I do not agree with all that has been said on this side, but I rather agree with the remarks of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax). Before making this American contract, they should have consulted with the managers. I do not blame the minister, for he was depending on a report from his officers in Moncton, I believe. But the officers became hysterical and advised him wrongly. I do not believe the strike was as imminent as they thought it was. They took their information from the statement given out in Montreal. The mine managers met in Montreal to consider the demands of the men, and the statement was given out to the press-they deny that it was given out officially-that the managers had concluded unanimously to resist the men's demands. On that statement, the officials of the Intercolonial Railway advised the minister that a strike was imminent, and this large quantity of coal was ordered.
I do not think that we could quarrel with the Department of Railways, if, under these circumstances they had ordered 15,000 or
20,000	tons to tide them over a week or two. But I do say-and I regret to say it as
a supporter of the government-that the officials of the Intercolonial Railway made a mistake in ordering such a large quantity of coal from American collieries to be brought into Canada. It should be our first policy to give work to the men of Canada. The same principle applies here as in the Clergue contract. Every inquiry should be made before the government make the contract with a foreign corporation in competition with the coal miners of Nova Scotia. So far as the colliery at Spring Hill was concerned, there was no strike, there was a threatened strike. The manager was in Montreal with the others. The statement was made in the newspapers that the management would resist the demands of the men and it was said that a strike would follow. But when a strike threatened, before the government go so far as to order) coal from the United States collieries, they ought to make themselves sure to a certainty that there is going to be a strike and that coal cannot be got from Canadian coal mines.


Andrew B. Ingram: I would ask the Minister of Finance what is the beginning of the season of which he speaks when he says that at that time these contracts were made?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I would rather that the Minister of Railways were here to answer that question. But my recollection is that, in the early summer, they make contracts covering the whole period.
I think that, usually, during the session of parliament the matter is discussed with the coal companies and that after the end of the session is about the time for making the contracts.


Andrew B. Ingram: As I understood the minister he anticipated bitter criticism of this purchase of coal from the United States. 5Tet he finds fault because we ask how many tons were bought, what the prices were, from whom the coal was purchased and other perfectly fair questions on that line. Anticipating keen criticism he should have charged his memory with all the facts regarding this matter. We are justified in offering the criticism we have, because the minister has declined to furnish us with reasonable information. No one would attempt to say that $180,000 worth of coal brought into this country is not of sufficient importance to arouse inquiry. We find hon. gentlemen on the other side differing somewhat upon the subject of the strike. We find one hon. gentleman saying that the officials were in a hysterical state of mind


Hance James Logan: The railway officials.


Andrew B. Ingram: I understand. We find the Minister of Railways admitting that there was only two days' supply of coal. If that is the case, it strikes me that the officials were very much to blame-to have only two days' supply of coal in the face of a threatened strike. I think the minister ought to be prepared with reasonable information so

that we may understand exactly the state of the case.	*


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think the hon. gentleman's questions with regard to the price of coal, from whom purchased and the quantity, were quite proper, and if the hon. Minister of Railways had been here I am sure he would he glad to say that the information would be brought down. The minister had to leave and our purpose was to turn to another branch of the estimates. But if it is desired to continue this discussion, we have no wish to stop it.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I wish to say a word before this subject is dropped. Before the Minister of Railways went away, we tried to get from him this information which the Minister of Finance admits it is quite proper that we should have. As the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) pointed out, the hon. minister said that he expected the severest criticism of his acts. If he did, he should have come down to the House with exact and positive information so as to be able to defend the course of his department. Now, we have tried to ascertain the day of this purchase. The hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) was unable to give it. Perhaps the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Kendall) could tell us.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: I could not give the exact date.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Well, within a week or two.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: 1 think it was in the month of December, but I am not sure


Hance James Logan: I cannot give 'the day of the month, but I think it was about the next day after the statement made in Montreal newspapers that the managers intended to stand against the demands of the men.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: That is not very definite.


An hon. MEMBER.: Was it before or after the election ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: After.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: In reply to the hon. member, I might point out that the hon. minister said that the reason why he had not this information was that he has not been asked. If notice had been given he would have had the information.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Another extraordinary thing about it is that the hon. minister told us that the case was so very urgent that he was in communication with the general manager and that he at once authorized him to secure the coal in the United States without-as has been very properly pointed out by the leader of the opposition and the hon. member from Cumberland-without finding out, as he should have done, whether the strike was likely to occur, and, if it did occur, what amount of coal could be furnished by the colliery companies.


Andrew B. Ingram: Surely, they can supply a certain quantity. The minister told us to-night that in important places there was only one day's supply of coal, and at many other important points there were only twp or three days' supply of coal. Can you imagine, Mr. Chairman, a business concern, run on business principles, by great business men, as they claim to be, coming to the House with such a declaration as that ? Why, they only have an average of two days' supply of coal for the running of the Intercolonial Railway. I venture to say that if they go to the Grand Trunk coal piles, if they go to the Canadian Pacific coal heaps, they will find that weeks' and months' supply is always kept on hand, 1 venture to say that you cannot go to Toronto Junction any day in the twelve months, when you will not find tens of thousands of tons in one big heap, for the supply of the Canadian Pacific Railway, or a small section of their line, because these dumps are in all parts of the system. But here is a railway being run with two days' supply of coal. I never heard of such magnificent management of a railway before. And they spend $192,000 of Canadian money to buy coal in the United States, when that coal could be promptly supplied in Canada. The minister was not able to tell us in the first place whether there was likely to be a strike, and in the second place, whether he had asked the companies how much coal they could supply right away. The minister does not tell us that he made such inquiries at all. The member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) says that the general manager was hysterical, was panic-stricken. Well, I presume the /Minister of Railways and Canals was equally panic-stricken, he lost his head in the same way, because his own course was so thoroughly unjustifiable, so unbusinesslike and so unpatriotic, in sending to the States and paying larger prices. He said the price was a little larger, but he would not tell us what the price was exactly. What did this coal cost us ? He tells us that the coal cost $3.30 from the coal mines in Nova Scotia, and that the coal from the /States cost us somewhat more, but he won't give us the figures. He was bound to come here with detailed information when, as he tells us himself, he expected the most severe criticism.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman, in comparing the Intercolonial Railway as respects coal supply writh the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway, has failed to take account of the wide difference in the geographical situation. The Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway do not, at all events in this part of the Dominion, have the good fortune to have coal supplies on their railway lines. The Intercolonial Railway is in a favourable position, in that its line runs through coal fields in Nova Scotia and in Cape Breton ; so they can furnish

supplies from day to day, whereas in the case of the Grand Trunk Kailway and the Canadian Pacific Kailway it would be necessary to have a larger stock on hand. 1 do not say that as a reason why we should only have a two days' supply.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: That would rather be a reason why you should have a supply on hand.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, there is a good reason on the other hand why we should not stock up with coal. Coal deteriorates if it is piled up and exposed for a long time. But you get fresh coal from the Intercolonial Railway supplied frequently, instead of having a large quantity stored up. I quite agree that if you are going to have only one or two days' supply, it is running things too close ; but the experience last year was that, owing to various causes that my modesty prevents me from mentioning, the coal business was so active in Nova Scotia that every mine was pushed so that they could not keep up with orders for either government or private contracts. There was never a period in our history when the demand for coal was so great. And every private company found the same difficulty in having its contracts filled.


Andrew B. Ingram: How did the strike come out ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think in the case of the Dominion Coal Company in Cape Breton they agreed to refer the matter to arbitration. The arbitration was recently completed, and I think the judgment was to the effect that owing to various circumstances that I need not enter Into, the wages were fair and reasonable, and so far as I know, the men did accept the judgment in good faith, and the work is now running smoothly.


Hance James Logan: I may mention that both in Cumberland and Pictou the demands of the men were granted.


Andrew B. Ingram: I should say so, if the mines were pushed as the hon. gentleman says they were.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: But the men had received considerable advantages, the men certainly received advantages in the general advance of trade.
Now, let me say to the hon. member for Lanark that we have reserved at his request, one general item which brings up the subject of the Intercolonial Railway, on which he desires to have a further discussion.
Department of the Secretary of State-Further amount required for clerical assistance, $400.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The Secretary of State has sent me a memorandum saying that this additional vote is necessary In consequence of $1,400 being accidentally
deducted from the total vote for contingencies in this department in the closing hours of last session, and in the rearrangement made necessary the department was $400 short.
Board of Civil Service Examiners-Further amount required, $250.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is called for in consequence of an extra examination In the month of August, and by a large attendance for entrance in New Brunswick.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the Minister of Finance tell me why it is that items of this kind are so frequently found in the estimates ? Why are not things of this kind provided for in the main estimates? Why is it that there have to be so many items in the supplementary estimates every year ? It prevents us from getting a proper idea of the cost of each department. You have that divided up into three estimates. First you have the main estimate voted last year, then you have further supplementary estimates brought down near the end of the past session, then this session you have a third estimate, and sometimes a fourth and fifth. Now, could not some way be devised by which we can have the whole or a larger proportion of these in one main estimate?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think it would be difficult. The hon. gentleman will find that this class of items in our supplementary estimates is not enlarged. In this class of estimates before us we are not dealing so much with things that are prospective, as with realities that have come before us. Take, for example, this little item. The information furnished is that it is owing to something that occurred in August, a special examination which had not been anticipated. The items in this respect are not unusual.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not saying they are.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think the object of the hon. gentleman's question is quite right, and I agree with it.
Franchise Act-To cover over-expenditure upon printing the voters' lists tor last election, and to provide for printing any which may be required up to June 30, 1901, $10,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is for printing. The printing of the voters' list last year cost $5.00(1 odd more than the vote, and the printing of the lists for byelections is estimated to cost $2,000, making the $7,000 which is required.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Will not the hon. minister give us what the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) has asked for, the figure of the total expenditure ? We are asked for $10,000. Why can not the hon. gentleman scurry round and hunt up the other figures ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The figures that I can give the hon. gentleman will only make $7,000, so that the item has to be reduced. The printing of the voters' lists last year cost .$5,000 odd more than the vote, and the printing of the list for byelections is estimated to cost $2,000, so that it is desired to provide $2,000 additional.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: What was the vote in the first place ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I cannot give the hon. gentleman that, I shall have to let the item stand and give the hon. gentleman that information later on.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: We do not ask to have the item stand.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I will take note of the hon. gentleman's question.
To pay expenses in connection with the Chineses and Japanese Commission, $4,000.


The PRIME MINISTER.: This commission is now sitting and taking evidence. I have no hope that we can have the report for this session, but before many weeks are over the work of the commission will be completed.


Andrew B. Ingram: The commission is sitting in British Columbia ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Who are the commissioners ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Mr. Clute, Mr. Munn and Mr. Foley. Mr. Smith was a member of the commission.


Robert Laird Borden: Into what subject are they inquiring ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Into the subject of Asiatic immigration, and the effect of it in British Columbia.


Robert Laird Borden: And Japanese immigration ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes.
To recoup the North-west Mounted Police for relief to destitute half-breeds in the Northwest Territories, $500.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This Is the usual grant.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: If it Is the usual grant, why not put it into the main estimates ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: The mounted police for years past, have been authorized to afford relief to destitute Indians and half-breeds. This Is a small amount. Each year it amounts to perhaps $400 or $500.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not finding fault with the item. The only reason I have mentioned it is because it is a case Mr. WALLACE.
such as I have already spoken of to the hon. Minister of Finance. It seems to me that these items instead of being placed in the supplementary estimates should be in the main estimates.


The PRIME MINISTER.: No, we could not put this in the main estimates, because we did not know the amount. We received the yearly account after the main estimates were prepared, and we did not know what was required.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the hon. gentleman said it was the usual vote.


The PRIME MINISTER.: So it is.


Robert Laird Borden: Then, why do
you not put it in the main estimates ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Because it may vary from year to year. It is sometimes more and sometimes less.
To pay J. Beatty amount of gratuity (revote), $187.33.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is a little gratuity in the Customs Department which was voted last year, but owing to the fact that the amount lapsed, proceedings not having been taken to claim it, it has to be revoted.
Interest on amounts contributed to the superannuation fund by J. B. Ryan from December 31, 1896, to November 9, 1897, $8.17; and E. Kelly, from December 31, 1896, to November 9, 1897, $5.77, the date at which the contributions were repaid, $13.94.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is an item to pay the balance of interest supposed to be due to some gentlemen in connection with superannuation money. I am advised it is an error and that the claim has already been discharged. Having given notice of the .fact, I presume they are satisfied as I have heard nothing to the contrary, and I am therefore, prepared to strike out the item. That disposes of this volume of estimates entirely.


Robert Laird Borden: Does that dispose of the supplementary estimates for the year 1900-1 ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It clears up that particular volume, and it leaves in the main estimates one item in relation to the Intercolonial Railway which was allowed to stand in order that it might be made the basis of what is described as a full dress debate.
Mr. BORDEN ^Halifax). Then everything in the main estimates is disposed of with that exception ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes; everything in the main estimates and in the first supplementaries for the current year. The supplementary estimtes for the coming year remain for consideration, and if the hon.

gentleman will turn to the militia estimates for the coming year, we will take these.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to have one item reserved in the militia estimates on account of the absence of one of my hon. friend's.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. F. W. Borden).: Yes, all right.
Militia-Defences of Esquimau-Further sum required, $5,500.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: 
The FINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: This was found to be necessary.
* The money has been expended by the Dominion Rifle Association in connection with putting in telephone communication with the grounds and other improvements. I have satisfied myself that the expenditure is right, and this amount of money is necessary to make it good.


Robert Laird Borden: Has this been found necessary since the main estimates were brought down ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes.
Military Properties-Further amount required, $29,700.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: This is also the result of a supple-plementary report from the engineer of my department, Mr. Weatherbee. This money is for some works that are in hand. I have the list of them here : New concrete floor, London, $250 ; repairs to drill hall, Port Hope, $2,500. Toronto, new Lot water system, Stanley barracks, $2,000 ; new floors, $250; porches and winter sashes, cavalry and infantry barracks, for saving fuel, $150; new range, cavalry barracks, $300. Montreal, fitting central room for 85tli Regiment in drill hall, $500 ; repairs Papineau road cemetery, $1,000 ; general repairs to Chambly fort, $1,000. Ottawa, new roof to drill shed, $3,500 ; changes in drill hall for four extra companies, bearer and engineer companies, additional accommodation, $2,000. Storm 167
porch, &c., for drill hall, Quebec, $350 ; additional accommodation in the Quebec cartridge factory, $1,200. Fredericton, repairs and alterations to plumbing, &e., $1,000. Annapolis, repairs to buildings at the old fort, $200. Winnipeg, new water supply, cavalry barracks, $500. New Westminster, installation of hot water system, $1,200.
To pay tor lauds expropriated for Work Point barracks, Esquimalt, $7,200.
The MINISTER OF MILITIA ANI) DEFENCE. This is in connection with the arrangement between the Canadian government and the British government, by which we undertook to expropriate certain lands for their use. The value of these lands was fixed by the courts.


Robert Laird Borden: We pay for them in the first instance, and then we are reimbursed, I suppose.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes.
Monuments for Battlefields-Monument at Eccles' Hill, $400.
Mr. BRITTON, Is it the intention of the government to place tablets in the Royal Military College to the memory of the graduates who have been killed in battle, or lost their lives in the service of the empire ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: That has been mentioned by hon. gentlemen opposite, and I believe we will do it, but it can be taken out of contingencies and does not require a special vote.
Arms, ammunition, &c., $100,000.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: 
Robert Laird Borden: I was going to suggest that.
Halifax provisional garrison, $338,000.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: The committee understands why this expenditure is necessary. Over a year



ago the Canadian government, *with the approval of parliament, offered to release the battalion of infantry which was stationed at Halifax, until the war in South Africa is over. We have no information yet from the Imperial authorities as to when that battalion will return.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I saw it stated in the papers that it is the intention of the Imperial authorities to send a battalion of regulars to Halifax.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I think not. We have no official knowledge of it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: This is for the year ending the 30th June of next year ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Is this in addition to what is in the main estimates ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: There is nothing in the main estimates with regard to this. We did not include it in them because we did not know what news would be received about this, and we put it off until the last moment.
Geological Survey-To provide for additional plotting and compiling of surveys, plans, maps, and utilizing field notes, &c., $4,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Why was this not included in the main estimates V


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Because my attention was not called to it by the acting director.


Robert Laird Borden: I think it is very desirable that the acting director should call the attention of the minister to it in time, so that it could be put in the main estimates. I have been suggesting to the Minister of Finance that it is desirable, as far as possible, to have all these items provided for in the main estimates, so that when we look at them we may see what a particular department requires.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I think the hon. gentleman's suggestion is a good one ; but, unfortunately, departmental officers have a very bad habit of making a general calculation for the main estimates very early in the year, and then having to provide for a few hundred dollars at the latter end of the year. I think the Indian Department is a special offender in that respect. My attention was called to the matter this session, and I think I shall be able to remedy it for the future.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I have been asked several times by correspondents to send them certain reports or information respecting the Geological Survey. I would like to ask the minister if the members of the House are supplied with the same number of copies of reports of the Geological Department as Mr. BORDEN (King's).
of the other departments of the government? Some small charges are made for copies of the reports. Is there a different rule applied to these reports than with regard to the reports of other departments, and if so, what is the reason ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Yes, there is an order in council which has been in force for several years, providing that a certain scale of fees shall be paid for reports of the Geological Department. Whether it be a sound policy or not, I have not myself considered. I think, perhaps, the reason that policy was adopted in the first instance was that geological reports are of such a character that people who do not intend to make any special use of them are inclined to call for them. The result was that large numbers of these reports were constantly being called for through members of the House and members of the Senate, and were not being put to any real scientific use ; and it was thought that a small charge made to everybody would probably prevent that practice, and would avoid the expense of having to print a very large number.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What has been the effect of putting on that small charge ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The effect has been that the reports are not required to be printed in very large numbers, and only those actually wanted for real use are called for.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Has the minister any idea of what revenue is derived from the sale of these reports ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I have not. It is very small.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It appears to me that if the revenue is a mere bagatelle, it might be well to supply the members of the House with a number of copies of these reports. It seems to me that the dissemination among the people of the country of the information they contain would justify that course and the withdrawal of the fee. It is only a small matter, but it is vexatious. I would suggest that the minister should look into that.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I will consider it.


Mr. WILSON.: I wished to get a small report of the Geological Survey on the Nipis-sing district, and I had to pay 50 cents for it. It was a very small report, and its scarcity was given to me as the reason why I had to pay so much.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: There is an order in council which specifies the prices of the reports.


Uriah Wilson: I may say that this was one of the reports published before the plan was adopted of putting the price on the ' cover. I think the report was for 1869.


Andrew B. Ingram: I would like to ask if the department supplies any publishing bouse with these reports ?
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
No.


Andrew B. Ingram: Some years ago I applied to the department for one of these reports, and was referred to a publishing house in Toronto, and I had to pay 82 for it.
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
Will the hon. gentleman say how long ago that was ?


Andrew B. Ingram: Five or six years ago, perhaps a little more.
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
The minister then in charge of the department would probably be able to give the reason. I cannot see any reason, because all these reports are printed in the Printing Bureau, and are held by the librarian of the Survey, and are disposed of by him.


Uriah Wilson: Does the hon. minister say that these reports cannot be bought at bookstores ? If I am not mistaken, I was referred there myself.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I do not say that at all, because it is quite competent for a man who keeps a bookstore to buy them and keep them for customers, and sell them either at cost or at a small advance. It may have been a report of which there was a small stock, and the librarian may have referred to some publishing house who he knew had it. They are not furnished to the publishing houses unless they pay for them.


Andrew B. Ingram: Or to any book-store ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: No.


Uriah Wilson: There is a misunderstanding about this.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I was speaking to the best of my knowledge.


Uriah Wilson: I think the department furnishes these to the book-stores at a price, and the stores retail them to people who want them.


David Henderson: I find a very much greater demand for those publications now than there was eight or ten years ago. We are becoming a mining people. Young men are attending schools where the subjects dealt with in these reports are taken up, and I am quite sure that the hon. minister will find that if these reports were put on the market at a very moderate price-sufficient perhaps to cover the cost of paper and binding-there would be a very considerable sale for them. It would be wise to have a larger number printed. I fail to see why the government should not distribute publications of this kind to young people who 167}
are devoting their time to studying the subjects dealt with in these reports, and distribute them perhaps without any charge. I think it would be good policy to give each member eight or ten copies of a good many of these publications. I know that I could find a profitable distribution of them very readily to men who have taken up the subjects treated. Our usual plan, when parties write me for those publications, is to say that there is a certain charge for them and that they can be only procured from the department. If we want to distribute knowledge and assist young men to take up subjects of that kind, the free distribution would be a good thing. I would recommend the hon. minister to have a larger number printed because in years to come a very large number will be called for.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The remarks of the hon. gentleman are pretty much the same as those I made th# late director of the Survey some time ago. I think it would be very desirable that accurate information should be widely diffused with regard to our mining resources. While the Geological Survey has done very good work, the time has come when some little reorganization of the department is required. I have given some attention to the subject, and I hope to be able to suggest changes which will improve that branch of the service in the direction indicated. My idea is that the time has now arrived when some practical method should be adopted in carrying out the idea of the founder of the Survey, namely, to make M; the practical means of developing the country. I do not know that forcing the circulation of the reports would attain the end the hon. gentleman has in view. I think that a different kind of publication, devoted particularly to giving economic information with regard to the resources of the country, which could be brought within a very much smaller compass than the reports of the Geological Survey, would be more useful. The reports comprise detailed information with regard to every movement of every technical office in the field, but a very much smaller publication devoted to a practical statement of the economical results of the year's work, would be of very great value if properly circulated. The publication of such a statement, even considerably oftener than annually, would be most desirable. The hon. gentleman is aware that many men who are practical miners and prospectors, and who simply want a suggestion as to the places they should operate in, are men who cannot understand the reports of the Survey because they are not acquainted with the scientific terms and the technical manner of describing formations. Give that information in language which any ordinary person would readily understand, and you would have a very valuable publication.


Uriah Wilson: Can these reports he had at the book-store? ?
The MINISTER OB1 THE INTERIOR. I think so.
To provide an additional amount for repairs to Caughnawaga mission-house, $1,700.


James Clancy: Has the hon. minister had any complaints from the Six Nation Indians on the Grand River reserve in the county of Brant, with regard to an alleged outbreak of smallpox and which, it is claimed, is nothing more than an allegation. Perhaps the hon. Minister of Customs has some knowledge of this. My attention has been called to the fact that no smallpox existed, but that the physician in charge, Dr. Secord, made the statement that the disease did exist. That was some time ago, and there is no proof of it. But, while smallpox does not exist on the reserve, by way of quarantine and other expenses the money of the Indians is being used up and they are protesting against this unnecessary and unwarranted expenditure. Has this matter been brought to the attention of the hon. minister and has he taken any action ?
The MINISTER OB'1 THE INTERIOR. It has not been brought to my attention. I did not hear of it until the hon. gentleman spoke. I know Dr. Secord. He is supposed to be a very competent medical officer, and I would have a good deal of confidence in anything he said. I will look up the case and see if there is any correspondence in the department in connection with it. Did the occurrence take place lately 9


James Clancy: The time is not stated, but I have a petition here signed by the Indians by way of protest against this expenditure and asking Mr. Macrae to examine and report to the department. The Indians say that there is no foundation for the statement that smallpox exists there. I will not take the responsibility of saying there is foundation for anything stated in this petition.


David Henderson: Will the hon. gentleman read the statement ?


James Clancy: I prefer not to.


David Henderson: The hon. gentleman might read some parts of it.


James Clancy: It would, perhaps, be unfair to Dr. Secord, if it were not true.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Is it signed by the chiefs ?


James Clancy: No, but one of the allegations is that a few of the chiefs, I believe eleven out of sixty, were brought together under some influences that were not stated, and took upon themselves to vote money as at an Indian council, which was illegal. I have handed the petition over to the Minister of the Interior, and I will ask him, before the House rises, to look into and give Mr. SIFTON.
us some information on the matter. I would not like to make any statement on the matter without being in possession of the facts. But if there is foundation for it, the statement in the petition should be inquired into.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The reserve is close to Brantford, and I have noticed in the Brantford papers statements that there was smallpox on the reserve and that a pretty strict quarantine had been established against it, I think, at Caledonia, Hamilton and Brantford. I believe that lately they have narrowed the circle, the people within which are not allowed to visit these places. I Should be much surprised if there were no cases there. Dr. Secord is well up in his profession, and he is not alone, for I believe there is an associate doctor there. I think also that he has been in consultation with Caledonia doctors. However, I do not wish to say anything about it until we have the facts. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) having this communication from the Indians, is quite right in bringing it up. I cannot see what object the medical officer could have had if there are no cases. Of course, he might be deceived. But he could hardly have any object in misrepresenting the case, because the statement that there was smallpox on the reserve would make necessary greater attention and the expenditure of more time on his part.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Of course, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) knows that in these smallpox cases there are strong differences of opinion as to whether the disease is really smallpox or not. We had experience of that in Edmonton two or three weeks ago. The local doctor said the disease which had broken out was not smallpox and refused to carry out the quarantine regulation. The result was that the smallpox spread, and we had to send more experienced men to enforce the quarantine. In so serious a matter as smallpox, the medical attendant on the reserve would not be justified in taking chances. I see that the petition is dated the 9th of the month. This is the first I have seen of it, but I will look into it.
Department of Indian Affairs-Ontario and Quebec-To provide an amount for legal expenses, $2,000.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Strike that out. That is inserted by mistake.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Had it been voted before ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: It was inserted by mistake by the Finance Department. It is not in my estimates properly.
Department of Indian Affairs-Manitoba and North-west Territories-To provide an amount for the purchase of live stock, Indian reserves, $13,000.


Mr. BOYD.: Are these cattle for breeding purposes ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Yes, we have been providing cattle in this way for some years.


Nathaniel Boyd: What class are they, just ordinary cattle ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The plant was sold to Mr. Garrison, of Vir-den. I cannot remember the exact figure at present, I think it was something like $300. It was sold under the direction of the late Indian commissioner, and the records do not show that the money has ever been paid. I have given directions to my deputy to give instructions to have the money collected, if


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The practice is to provide pure-bred sires- pedigreed animals. The heifers are generally grade.
it could be done.


Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).: Was it sold by the late Indian commissioner, Mr. Forget ?


Nathaniel Boyd: There was a discussion some time ago about placing on the reserves Highland cattle or Galloways, or Polled Angus, to enable the Indians to make use of the knowledge they have in tanning the hides. I mention it to the minister so that he can think about it and, perhaps, at some time, give the Indians cattle that would enable them to develop a useful industry.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: With a view of carrying out that idea I gave directions this year that a few Polled Angus should be put on where the breeding cattle were of the same. Of course, it is desirable not to cross them. The majority of the cattle there are Shorthorns, for that breed have proved the best.


Nathaniel Boyd: What breed are they-just ordinary cattle ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: To some extent. We intend out of this vote to buy a couple of stallions. But it is an expensive matter to do much in the way of horse-breeding, and we have not so much confidence in it as a profitable industry for the Indians as we have in cattle-breeding. Cattle-breeding on the Indian reserves has been a pronounced success. Skilled buyers say that they get as good cattle from the Indian reserves as from anywhere else. This is due almost entirely to the practice inaugurated some years ago of sending pure-bred sires to the reserve. I think something can be done in the breeding of horses, but it must be gone into at first in a moderate way. The best way to proceed is by introducing a better class of sires, but we cannot go into that very largely on account of the expense involved in buying them and because they must be very carefully looked after.
Department of Indian Affairs-To provide an additional amount for day, boarding and industrial schools, Manitoba and the North-west Territories, $6,800.


William James Roche: In connection with this item, perhaps the hon. minister is in a position to-night to give us the explanation he promised with reference to the printing plant for the industrial school at Elkhorn. He stated he was not in possession of the full facts of the case, but he would bring it up on the supplementary estimates.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Yes.


William James Roche: The information I have is a little different from what I have been getting in reply to questions during the last two years. I brought this matter up three or four times, two years ago, and in the session of 1S99. I had heard all about this question, and I put four questions on the Order paper. I will give the committee the history of this case. At the time the late government decided to teach trades in the industrial school, the trade of printing was taken up, and a plant was established in the year 1S93, and a gentleman named Thompson was engaged as instructor. He also edited a weekly paper in that school. It was a non-political paper, it acquired a nice circulation, and was well patronized by the advertising community. It was conducted until 189S, when it was decided by this government to cease the teaching of these trades. Mr. Thompson having entered into these arrangements with the business people, having received subscriptions in advance, was desirous of continuing the publication of the paper. He visited the city of Winnipeg and met the Indian commissioner, Mr. Forget. As a result of that visit, he leased the plant from the Indian commissioner, on a stipulation that if either party were desirous of annulling the contract he could do so by giving six months' notice. But Mr. Thompson was assured by Mr. Forget that no doubt the plant would be left with him until such time as the government might again take up the teaching of printing. He was. therefore, greatly surprised to find that, inside of two months after he had leased it, a six months' notice was served upon him. He could not understand it. He asked for an explanation from the Indian commissioner, who stated that he could not give any information other than that it was done upon the authority of the Minister of the Interior. Mr. Thompson heard that it was being handed over to Mr. Garrison, the gentleman named by the Minister of the Interior, who was the editor of a Liberal paper in the town of Virden, and seeing it was the intention to crowd it out of that town, he decided, before the six months was up, to purchase a plant of his own, and to continue the publication of a paper, which he did, setting aside the government plant. Mr. Gar-

rison took tlie plant into Ills possession. Now, as I was aware of these facts, two years ago I asked the Minister of the Interior what had become of this plant, if it had been leased or sold. The reply was that it had not been leased, it had not been sold, but it was in possesion of Mr. Garrison, and that negotiations for its sale were then pending. Well, I allowed one year to pass by, and last session I repeated the question, asking in addition if the government was aware that this plant was being utilized for the publication of a Liberal paper in the constituency of Brandon, represented by the Minister of the Interior, a paper called the Griswold Ledger. The reply to that was given by the acting minister, that the government had not leased it, even then, last year. That was long after the Indian commissioner had stepped out. They had not sold it, and they were not aware it was utilized for publication by another paper. I brought this fact to his attention, and I told him that this plant had been sold to Mr. Wildman, who was publishing the Griswold Ledger. I made so strong a case that the acting minister promised to have an investigation. I repeated my question here when the main estimates were up, and the Minister of the Interior told me that it had been sold to Mr. Garrison. He tells me to-night that it has been sold under the Indian commissioner, Mr. Forget, and that he has not received the money, though Mr. Garrison has sold it and obtained the money himself for it. It seems very strange that a plant that the late government, I understand, paid about $800 for, and placed in this school for teaching the trade of printing to the pupils and for the printing of a weekly paper, should be handed over to a political friend and not a single dollar obtained for the same, allowing that political friend to dispose of it to another political friend who has paid for the plant. Now, I am informed that Mr. Wildman, who is now the editor of the paper published on this plant, had heard that Mr. Garrison had no right to sell the plant, and some time ago communicated writh the department, and the Information he received from Ottawa was that it was all right, that Mr. Garrison had authority to dispose of the plant. At any rate, by the minister's own words to-night, the government sold the plant to Mr. Garrison. though it looks to me as if it had been a gift to him. Certainly, he has not paid a dollar for it, though Mr. Garrison himself has disposed of the plant and has been paid for it by Mr. AVildman, and it has been used these last two years for publishing a Liberal paper in the town of Griswold ; and still the department, one year ago, knew nothing about it. I think this case demands further investigation by the minister, in order to harmonize these different views of the acting minister and himself. The Indian commissioner certainly placed the whole responsibility upon the Minister of the Interior, Mr. ROCHE.
for he stated that it was upon the authority of the Minister of the Interior that this lease was cancelled. Now, if the government wished to dispose of the plant they could have done so to Mr. Thompson, who would have purchased it and paid for it. It seems, however, that Mr. Thompson would not publish a political paper, supporting the government, on that plant, and, therefore, it was taken out of his possession. I do not think that is the way in which the property of the country should be disposed of, and some further explanation is required.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I have had from the start no actual knowledge with regard to the transaction, and was not aware of what was done until after it was done. AVhen the hon. gentleman asked the question two years ago, the answer was given from the records of the department, so far as they show. AVhen the hon. gentleman raised this question some time ago, I communicated with the officers of my department, asking for a reply, and this is the answer :
This plant was leased to Mr. Thompson, formerly printing instructor at the school, free of charge in consideration of the continuation of the printing shop connected with the school, determinable upon six months' notice, which was given and the plant transferred to Mr. Garrison, of Virden. There is nothing on file to show the ultimate disposal of the plant, and our books do not eontaiu any entry of moneys received for the sale. If any further transfer took place It must have been arranged by the Indian Commissioner, who was instructed that the plant might be sold to Mr. Garrison at a valuation to be made by a competent valuator, If he considered It necessary.
The only point in connection with this is that Air. Garrison has not paid for the plant.
Some resolutions reported.


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: It is now near midnight, and as to-morrow is a religions holiday, we do not want to work after twelve o'clock. I move, therefore, that the committee rise and report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir AArilfrid Laurier) moved the adjournment of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: Air. Speaker, before the House adjourns, I would like to call the attention of the right hon. Prime Alinister to a letter I received from Halifax this morning, in regard to the visit of their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall. It is as follows :

R.	L. Borden, Esq., M.P.,
Ottawa.
Mayor's Office,
Halifax, N.S., May 11, 1901.
Dear Sir,-There is a rumour here that the government might require their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York, when visiting Canada, to make their landing at some port other than Halifax.
The city council have, by resolution, requested me to write to you and explain that any change from the published programme of landing at Halifax when visiting Canada would not meet with the approval of the citizens of Halifax, as we have made an appropriation and are making arrangements for the reception; and hope to have the presence and assistance of representatives of both Dominion and local governments.
Yours truly,


J. T. HAMILTON,
[Stage Direction]
Mayor.
I understand that the right hon. gentleman gave an answer in regard to this same question to an hon. gentleman this morning, hut as the letter has come since, and the matter is more or less urgent, I take the opportunity of bringing it to the attention of the government, in order that they may have before them the views of the mayor and corporation of the city of Halifax. I know it will be a very great disappointment to the people of Halifax generally if the arrangement which they thought was provided for should not be carried out.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.
S.	Fielding). I may say that I have also had communications of the same nature, but a moment's reflection will show my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) that the arrangements of this kind, especially at the beginning, must of necessity be more under the control of the Imperial authorities than under the control of the Canadian government. We may have something to do with the arrangements later on. but in the initiation of the arrangements, we must rely very largely on the judgment of the authorities at home.
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12 o'clock-midnight.
[Stage Direction]
Feiday, May 17, 1901.