THE RESTAURANT.

Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) moved :: That a committee of this House consisting of the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and Mr. Barker foe appointed ito confer with a committee from the Senate on the question of a joint restaurant for the two Houses.


Mr. BERGERON.: I am glad my hon. friend has made this motion because this question has been talked off for a number of years and nothing has ever been done, notwithstanding that the administration of the restaurant has always been very defective. When Mr. Hyman was Minister of Public Works he spoke of using part of the new wing as a restaurant and I should like to know if that is the intention.


William Pugsley: The plans for the new wing have no doubt been prepared with the idea that the large room In the upper portion of the building should be utilized for the restaurant and with the convenience of tiie elevator which is to be installed it would be admirably adapted for that purpose. Those of us who have been giving attention to the matter thought it would be very desirable if the Senate would concur with the House of Commons in arranging for a joint restaurant. This committee will confer with a committee of the Senate with a view of endeavouring to come to an understanding which would be mutually agreeable.


[Stage Direction]
Motior agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 211) to amend an Act of the present session Intituled ' An Act respecting the Dominion Guarantee Company, Limited.'- Mr. Tringle.


Mr. FOWLER asked:: 1.	What is the a.mount of the gross earnings of the Intercolonial Railway for June, 1908, and for the three months, April to June, inclusive.
2.	What are the working expenses for the two months of April and May, 1908, respectively ?
3.	What were the earnings and working expenses, respectively, for April, May and June, 1907?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals).: Stand.


Mr. FOWLER.: You will answer it before the House closes?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


H. A. QUILTY.
Mr. FOWLER asked :: 1.	Has H. A. Quilty passed the examination for train despateher on the Intercolonial Railway? If so, how many times has he passed such examination ?
2.	In promotion in the service, has the said Quality been passed over? If so, for what reason?
3.	What position does Mr. Quilty now occupy in the service, and when was he 'appointed to his present position?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	Yes, Mr. Quilty was up for examination for train despateher, in January, 1902 ; but be did not pass. He passed an examination successfully on April 7, 1907.
2.	No.
3.	Despatchers' operator and relieving despateher at Newcastle appointed April 7, 1907.


INTERCOLONIAL CONFERENCE AT LONDON.
Mr. BERGERON asked:: 1.	What was the amount of money voted by parliament to defray the expenses of Canadian ministers attending the intercolonial conference at London in 1907?
2.	How many ministers from Canada attended that conference officially?
3.	Was the whole amount so voted expended, and how much did each minister receive?
i. Was any other official mission accomplished ? If so, who was the minister, and how much did he or they each receive for such services ?


Mr. FIELDING.: Stand.	'


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How long will it have to stand; the time is getting short?


William Stevens Fielding: I think the question has already been answered and is on ' Hansard.'


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I have not been able to find it.


William Stevens Fielding: I will undertake to see that my hon. friend gets it before the session closes.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Dropped.
TRANSCONTINENTAL COMMISSION-SALARIES, &c.


Mr. FOSTER asked :: 1.	What have been the totals for each year of the expenses of the Transcontinental Commission for salaries, rents, travel, and contingencies, including everything net going into construction ?
2.	Are these expenses charged up to construction account against the Grand Trunk Pacific eastern division?


George Perry Graham: Stand.


Mr. FOSTER.: I am very anxious to get this information.


William Stevens Fielding: I think this is the first time it has been on the Order Paper.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, but the first timr comes very near being the last time.


George Perry Graham: I will see about it to-day; this is the first time I have heard it.


BOUNTIES PAID BY GOVERNMENT.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN asked :: 1.	What is the estimated amount of bounty payable by the government for the year ending March 31, 1909, on the following products rr articles: (a) petroleum, (b) iron, (c) steel, (d) lead, (e) binder twine, (f) other articles upon which bounty is paid ?
2.	What is the actual amount paid on each of the above items for the year ending March 31, 1908?


Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance.) The Minister of Trade and Commerce has given me the following answer :
1.	(a) Petroleum	$ 400,000(b)	Iron	
825,000(c)	Steel	
1,000,000(d)	Lead	
250,000(e)	Manilla fibre, used in the manufacture of bindertwine and cordage	
50,000(f) Wire rods	
350,0002.	(a) Petroleum	$ 391,217 09(b)	Iron	
863,816	75(c)	Steel	
1,092,200	71(d)	Lead	
51,001	00(e)	Manilla	fibre	
41,983	77(f)	Wire rods	
347,134	89



SALE OF ORDNANCE PROPERTY.

Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House do to-morrow go into Committee of the Whole to consider the following proposed resolutions:
1. Resolved, that it is expedient to confirm the following orders in council that is to
say:

(a) An order in council, dated the sixteenth day of May, 1904, authorizing the sale to the corporation of the city of Toronto of certain ordnance property in that city, consisting of the whole of the military property lying between and including the old fort and the exhibition;
>(b) An order dm council, dated the sixth day of December, 1905, authorizing the sale to the city of Montreal of the ordnance property in the St. Lawrence river, opposite to the 'said city, known as St. Helen's island; and
(c) An order in council, dated the twenty-seventh day of July, 1907, authorizing the conveyance to the city of Montreal of a portion of the ordnance property in that city known as Lafontaine park, and to authorize the sale and disposal of the said ordnance property in the manner and subject to the conditions by the said orders in council, respectively, provided and subject to such further and other conditions as may be imposed by His Majesty and accepted by the corporation of the city of Toronto and by the city of Montreal, as the case may be.
2. Resolved, that the purchase moneys received from the corporations of the city of Toronto and the city of Montreal for the said oi dnanoe properties may be used and applied, and are hereby appropriated to and for the purposes, of the purchase of sites and construction of buildings thereon for military schools of instruction in connection with the permanent force in those cities, respectively -Sir Frederick Borden.
He said : I may say that His Excellency the Governor General has been made acquainted with the subject matter of these resolutions and recommends them to the consideration of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

George Eulas Foster: Before the orders of the day are called I would ask the Minister of Railways or the Minister of Finance for information as to whether there is any agreement by which the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway is to take over the Quebec bridge at a rental, or on payment of interest on cost, or anything of that kind?


William Stevens Fielding: No. There is no such agreement concerning the Quebec bridge. It comes up incidentally, to what extent may be debatable, under the general contract.


George Eulas Foster: I would like to ask the Minister of Railways if he has made any progress in finding out how much the Transcontinental Commission know and are willing to give us of what has transpired from March 31, 1907, to March 31, 1908, as the report of the commission does not come down beyond 1907?	'


George Perry Graham: I have given to the House at different times in answer to questions and during the debate the other day, all the information I have received from the com-Mr. FIELDING.
mission covering what took place up to March 31, 1908.


George Eulas Foster: I want to give notice to my hon. friend that when we meet again, if these commissioners do not bring up their information to a later date, we will have to move to strike out their salaries.


George Perry Graham: Their report is up to the end of the fiscal year the same as any other report.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, and that is sixteen months ago.



EMBARGO ON CATTLE.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Before the orders of the day are called I would like to ask the government whether their attention has been directed to a cable despatch setting forth a very important statement by the Prime Minister of Great Britain. It appears that In answer to a deputation which waited upon members of the British government to advocate the removal of the cattle embargo, the Prime Minister expressed himself in a very sympathetic way and stated that if he were convinced that live cattle could be admitted safely he would be in favour of abolishing the embargo. He also stated that if after consulting his colleagues he found any good purpose could be served by holding the inquiry requested he would grant it. Having regard to this very important statement respecting a matter that has often engaged the attention of the House and of the government I would like to know whether it is the intention to open up communications with the British government for the purpose of demonstrating-as I believe we can demonstrate-the absolute safety of the admission into Great Britain of live cattle from Canada. Is it the intention of the administration to open communications with the British government for the purpose of undertaking to demonstrate, as I believe they can, the absolute safety of admission into Great Britain of live cattle from Canada?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I do not believe that anything could be done which has not been done long ago. When Sir Charles Tupper was High Commissioner for Canada, we demonstrated that there was absolutely no danger in admitting Canadian cattle and that our Canadian cattle were absolutely free from infectious disease. We do not admit that there is anything of that character existing in Canadian cattle and simply stand on the ground we have always maintained. So far as I know the difficulty does not lie in that direction ; but if the Prime Minister of England expressed himself in that way, we shall take note of what he said and if anything can be done, it will be.


Robert Laird Borden: If the report in the ' Free Press ' is accurate, his statement

seems to point to a new condition and call for further action.



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT-AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. AYLESWORTH moved the third reading of Bill (No. 115) to amend the Dominion Elections Act.
Mr. DAVID HENDERSON (Halton).: Before the third reading I wish to make a few remarks to remove the impression that seems to have gained currency in connection with the making of the new lists in the province of Ontario. We are told over and over again that these are to be judicial lists, made by judges. To my mind that is absolutely absurd. The judges are not going to make the lists in New Ontario any more than they make them in the older parts of the province. The judges are the final court of appeal and that is practically all that they will be in New Ontario with the exception of the fact that the enumerators, who are to form the lists in the first instance, are to be named by the judges. Beyond the fact that the enumerators are appointed by the judges instead of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the judges themselves have nothing whatever to do with the making up of the lists. I was very much surprised to find the right hon. the First Minister take exception to the making up of these lists by enumerators appointed by the Lieutenant Governor and yet be willing that they should be made by enumerators appointed by judges. Both the Lieutenant Governor and the judges are the appointees of this government. Wherein then lies the difference which makes the one preferable to the other ? Should we not have just as much confidence in the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, the chief magistrate of that province, the highest official in it ? Are you going to say that we have no confidence in that gentleman but we have confidence in the judges ? To my mind the judges occupy a secondary position compared with that of the Lieutenant Governor. My desire is to dissipate the idea that these are to be judicial lists. That is entirely erroneous. The judges practically will have no more to do with the making of the lists than I will, until the lists go to a court of appeal, and possibly only in a few districts will there be an appeal. So that all that the judges will have to do as regards the making of the lists in the new districts of Ontario will be comparatively trifling, and I do not want the idea to go abroad that these lists Will be purely and simply judicial lists made by the judiciary. Of course we are told that the judges are all angels without politics. If they are, I have not discovered any. I generally find that the judges have politics in Ontario as well as other people. I do not say that they exhibit any political feeling offensively,
but no man can get rid of the idea that he was once a Liberal or a Tory, and there can be no doubt that in appointing these enumerators the judges will have to appoint Grits or Tories. Whom they will appoint I do not know. Where they will get their recommendation I can conceive. I do not suppose that the judges know who are the best men to appoint as enumerators, and they must get their information from some source. What that source will be, I can only surmise. No doubt there will lie plenty willing to offer advice, perhaps unsolicited, and the judges will no doubt be aided materially. I do not say that they will be improperly influenced, but the enumerators must be Grits or Tories. They certainly will not be judges who will make up the lists in the first instance. All the judges will have to do will be to decide whether a man should be stricken off the list or added when there is an appeal. Let us get rid of the idea that these will be Heaven-born lists made by angels in the shape of judges and that nothing can be wrong about them. If that be the character of the lists, they will be extraordinary lists-a little more so than those in the older Ontario. I can see nothing in this Bill which will give the people greater confidence than they have in the Ontario law under which the Lieutenant Governor appoints the enumerator.


Mr. A. C. BOYCE (West Algoma).: I do not think any good purpose can be served in my doing more than reiterate my protest against section 1 of this Bill. The attitude of the government is wholly inconsistent with its professions and absolutely irreconcilable with the circumstances in that northern country. I move in amendment:
That this Bill be not now read the third time but be referred back to the Committee of the Whole House for the purpose of amending the said Bill, especially section 1 thereof, so as to provide that the provincial voters' lists in the province of Ontario, whether in organized or unorganized districts, shall be regarded as of equal force and validity for the purpose of the federal election as those of other provinces, and so as to avoid any discrimination against the province of Ontario in that regard.


Mr. A. E. KEMP (East Toronto).: My only object in rising is to place on record what the position of the present administration was in 189S and show clearly where this government stood on the question now before the House and as embodied in the amendment. I desire to read two short extracts from the speech of the Prime Minister in 1898. The first is from ' Hansard,' page 4015 :
But I would not have hesitated to accept the franchise provided by a Conservative legislature in Quebec, because, though there were many things in that franchise, on the whole, to which I would have objected, still as it satisfied the province it would have satisfied me. It is in the same way as regards other

provinces. It is possible that the control of the several provinces may pass into the hands of the Conservative parity; still on a question of this kind I am quite disposed, for my part, to accept the franchise prepared by the legislature, whether Liberal or Conservative.
Then, the right hon. gentleman went a little further than that. Some hon. member, speaking on this question a few days ago- I am not sure that it was not the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson)-said that the position of his party at that time was based upon the fact that the lists were to be municipal lists. But here is what the Prime Minister said in 1898 as reported at page 4312 of ' Hansard ' :
We do not submit such a proposition ; we do not want the lists prepared by our appointees. We are satisfied to have them prepared by either the provincial or the municipal authorities.
Of course, it is in order for the present administration to be inconsistent-they can be inconsistent if they desire. I am not now referring to wliat took place before the Liberal party came into power, but what took place in 1898 when they decided to accppt the provincial lists as the basis of the franchise ; and in this second quotation which I have given, it is clear that the intention was to accept the lists of the provinces whether municipal lists or otherwise. I have risen only to make these quotations and to protest once more against the action of the government in discriminating against the province of Ontario. I repeat what I said : I believe that the province of Ontario is as competent to make voters' lists as any other province in the Dominion. If we are to accept provincial lists for Dominion elections, let us not discriminate against Ontario; if this government, or any other government, wishes to make Dominion lists let it apply the same rule to all the provinces of the Dominion.


Rt.   H@: It would be sufficient to observe to my hon. friend that in this legislation there is not intended to be, nor is there, any discrimination against the province of Ontario. The amendment put is rather insidious. Let it be remembered that the Bill refers only to the unorganized portion of the province of Ontario. I have stated before that there is good and valid reason why this was done. There is no proposal whatever in the Bill which is now before us for its third reading to attempt anything with regard to the Ontario lists prepared for the organized portions of the provinces. But the provisions of the Act now in force in Ontario for the revision of the lists in the unorganized districts lays this parliament altogether at the mercy of the provincial authorities. It is provided, under the law passed in 1907 and now in force, that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may pass orders whenever it suits their Mr. KEMP.
purpose to prevent registration taking place in the unorganized portions of the province. They can prevent the revision of the lists this year, or next year, or the following years. In fact, at the present time, there is a proclamation by the provincial government to prevent the revision of the lists in the unorganized portions of the province. Then, what will take place ? That will take place which has taken place in the past- that is, there will be no revision of the lists for two or three years. In the province of Oninrio, in 1904, no provincial lists were provided except those of four years before. We had to make our own lists, and we had to do it in a hurry, giving no satisfaction to the people at large, as has been shown by the facts brought out in the debate on this Bill. Therefore, it is far preferable that we should have power to make our own lists as the Bill provides. And this is represented as an attempt against the province of Ontario. I was more than surprised when I heard my hon. friend from Centre Toronto (Mr. Bristol) telling me here across the floor that I should be the last man to invade the privileges and rights of Ontario. I cannot see why I should be selected in this way or what was the irsinuation or innuendo of the hon. gentleman in making such a charge against me. There is no such intention. The attempt is made here to create the impression that we are invading the rights of the province of Ontario. My hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) went so far as to say that the changes would be rung on this theme in every town, in every village, in every township in Ontario. I know the province of Ontario, I think, as well as if I had been born in that province. In this matter I know I can rely on the good sense of the province of Ontario against this cry. The people of that province know that when their rights are invaded they can defend those rights ; they are not to be gulled in this way when there is no attempt against them.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid 'Laurier) will find that the people of Ontario are not to be * gulled,' to use his own words, by any such statement as that which he has made. It is idle for the Prime Minister to say that there is no discrimination against Ontario, because this Bill which it is proposed to put on the statute-book shows precisely the reverse. On -what is this discrimination against the province of Ontario based ? Is it based upon the idle statements, unsupported by any evidence, recently made in this House and relating to only two of the six ridings of northern Ontario ? Is it based on that, or is it based on something else ? These hon. gentlemen do not seem to know. I now put the question squarely to them across the floor, and not one of them knows how to answer. And no wonder, for, as a matter of fact, this

legislation is being placed upon tbe statute-book, upon the demand, the imperative demand, of two of their partisans in this House, and for no other reason. The Prime Minister declares there is no discrimination! Are there not lists made in other provinces in Canada by enumerators and revised by judges ? And are not these left as good and valid lists for federal purposes without any interference by this parliament ? On what ground is this legislation affecting the unorganized districts of Ontario based ? Is it based upon the fact that the lists in those portions of Ontario are not municipal lists ? There are lists that are not municipal in British Columbia, in Manitoba, in some parts of Quebec, if I am not mistaken, and in Prince Edward Island. None of these are interfered with. But in the unorganized parts of northern Ontario, where lists of precisely the same character are made up and revised by judges, these are selected by (the government for the purpose of special treatment and discrimination. There is no doubt about it. The pages of the statute-book, when this Act goes into effect, will demonstrate what I say.
The Prime Minister resorted to another argument which is quite as fallacious as tbe one to which I have just alluded. He says that the Ontario government can prevent the lists from being made up, and therefore it is necessary for this parliament to interfere by legislation. He is apparently, when he makes that argument, either ignorant or forgetful of the provision of his own statute, because section 7 of the Dominion Elections Act as it at present exists, makes provision for that very contingency. It is not necessary to read it again, it has been read over and over again. I challenge contradiction by the Prime Minister, or any other gentleman on that side of the House. Section 7 of the Dominion Elections Act makes provision already for that very contingency which the Prime Minister puts forward as the reason for this enactment. Hon. gentlemen opposite will not challenge that assertion because they cannot. Anv challenge of that kind would be followed by the reading of the section which makes that special provision. Therefore, so far as that argument is concerned, it falls to the ground.
There is therefore no other alternative for the people of this country to accept than the one which is set forth in this resolution, namely, that by tbe legislation now before parliament, and which this government by its majority intends to drive through, special discriminatory provision is made in respect of six northern ridings, and that is done without a shadow of pretense o- excuse except the hearsay statement put forward in this House by two hon. gentlemen sitting on the government side. It .'s not necessary to repeat this, it has been made abundantly plain to the people of this 420
country. I venture to think that if no better excuse for that can be put forward than that which has been urged by the Prime Minister, the people of Ontario will not be likely to regard this provision in that kindly light which has been predicted by my right hon. friend.


Mr. E. BRISTOL (Centre Toronto).: The right hon. gentleman says that there is no discrimination in this legislation against the province of Ontario. I venture to think that not only is there discrimination against the province of Ontario in this legislation, because legislation already exists which provides for making the lists by the federal government if the lists are moie than a year old in Ontario and throughout Canada, but discrimination is obvious from the fact that all these alleged reasons which are advanced by every one else than the Prime Minister, came into existence after this legislation had been planned and brought down to the House. That seems to be overlooked by the Prime Minister. In that legislation at first, Ontario and Quebec were coupled so far as the unorganized districts were concerned. 'But now Quebec is left out and Ontario is left in. I want to say to the Prime Minister that he has discriminated against the province of Ontario in another way, a way which is contrary to the courtesy which he has always shown to gentlemen on either side of politics, or anywhere else, and that is in the fact that he was not above communicating with the premier of Manitoba and the Manitoba government in reference to the lists of Manitoba, when a strong protest was put up in this House. But did he communicate with the premier of Ontario, or the Attorney General of Ontario in reference to this legislation or these complaints 1 Not a solitarv communication of any kind. I have been informed by the Department of the Attorney General of Ontario that there were not three persons affected by all .these alleged complaints that have been made in this House. So I wish to reiterate that I think it would have been in accord with decency and harmony if the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice, instead of allowing his supporters on almost the last day of parliament to make these unsupported statements before this House, had courteously communicated this complaint to the Attorney General of Ontario and asked to have new lists framed, as there is power to frame them, if there was anything in these complaints, on or before the 1st of July. But no complaints have been made to the Attorney General of Ontario and the usual proclamation lias been issued stating that it is unnecessary to go to the expense of having another revision two months later in these northern districts, and now special legislation against the province of Ontario is being enacted. It would have been a simple matter to place



these alleged facts before the Department of Justice of that province and have an investigation, and if there was found to be anything wrong, I am sat'sfied that there is not a man in this country who does not believe that the Ontario government would have done justice to the hon. member for Rainy River or any other member.


Robert Laird Borden: In addition to that, the Prime Minister of Ontario and the Attorney General of Ontario offered to have new lists made up under the pi-ovincial laws in any ridings where any serious irregularities were shown. They were prepared to do that, and that was well known.


Edmund James Bristol: So, >Sir, I think the animus of the right hon. gentleman and his government is shown by one passage in his speech where he said that he did not propose to leave this House to the mercy of the provincial government of Ontario. ' I was astonished that he should use language of that character in reference to a matter of this kind, if he was desirous of showing that he was not discriminating against Ontario. I leave it to this House and to the people to say whether the right hon gentleman is not discriminating against Ontario, both as regards this legislation, and as regards the ordinary business treatment and courtesy that one government should show to another.


Mr. JAMES CONMEE (Rainy River).: I have stated on a former occasion, and I repeat it now, that there is no attack whatever upon the government or the province of Ontario with reference to provincial lists. I cannot for the life of me find by what process of reasoning hon. gentlemen opposite can persuade themselves that there is anything in this Bill that reflects upon the province or the government of Ontario. The hon. gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Bristol) stated further that the reason that the proclamation was issued, if I understood him correctly, cutting out the preparation of the new lists, was because no complaint was made against the lists. The hon. gentleman is aware that during the recent provincial election the Liberal press in the ridings were full of complaints, and these complaints led to official proceedings. I read to the House a few days ago the evidence given at a trial that took place in the district of Thunder Bay. and I sent that report to the leader of the opposition. I was surprised to hear that hon. gentleman say to-day that no evidence had been given to this House, nothing but mere assertion, but no positive evidence of a sufficient character that there was anything wrong with the lists.


Mr.  R. L.@: BORDEN The statement which the hon. member submitted to me was merely a report from his own solicitor.


James Conmee: That is correct. My honoured friend believes a lot of things on


Edmund James Bristol: testimony. I suppose he believes that there is such a place as the city of Jerusalem. But did he ever see it ? What evidence has he that there is such a city ? He believes it on testimony. I submit there is ample testimony as to the wrong preparation of these lists, showing that they were of a partisan character. That fraud was committed upon the opposite political party is amply established by testimony. We have not had a committee. We have not had men here to examine them. If my hon. friend wrishes to take advantage of a legal technicality of that kind, well that is a lawver's privilege. It is only a quibble though. 'The fact that there has been testimony cannot be denied, my hon. friend can treat it in any way he pleases, but I make the statement knowing that it is correct that the result of this investigation is that Mr. Cummings' lists have got to go through the procedure that the law requires. Under the ruling made by the judge, before whom the case was heard, Mr. Cummings has been informed that he must post up his entire list, not _ subdivisions of it, that he must give notice in the public press as the statute provides, that the fifteen days must now run and that he must make the affidavit that he has done this before the judge can give a certificate.


Robert Laird Borden: If it is the case that the matter is being dealt with by the judge under the provincial laws, and if the laws are thus being remedied, why should this parliament interfere?


James Conmee: I am very glad that my hon. friend asked me that question, because that is the serious part of the whole situation. I made a statement with regard to Mr. Cummings' list. I am told that the same condition exists with regard to Mr. Hogarth's list. Mr. Hogarth never published any notice, never posted up a completed list, never gave the people notice that it was posted up and never made the affidavit that the law requires him to make in order to obtain the certificate that the statute calls for. My hon. friend says that this shows that you have a legal procedure by which he can deal with these lists. That is only so as to two divisions. What about the twenty or thirty other divisions in which legal proceedings have not been taken in time to bring out these facts? The door is closed.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman why the same proceedings were not taken to invoke the powers of the judge under the law, and if it is to be expected that this parliament will interfere whenever people do not see fit to avail themselves of the remedies which are at their disposal?


James Conmee: Why should it be necessary? Why should the voter be put to the

expense of forcing law suits, and expensive litigation, against tlie province to get his rights ? That would be a sufficient answer, but the answer has already been given. The law was changed, the people did not understand the 'amendment by which the time was cut down to fifteen days. This amendment was passed at the last moment, in the closing hours of the legislature ; it was not an amendment to the Voters' List (Act or to the Election Act, but it was an amendment to the Statutory Land Amendment Act. I couud not get it. I could not find a lawyer in Port Arthur or Fort William who had it, who knew anything about it, or who could give me any advice with regard to it. Under these circumstances, I am surprised indeed that the hon. leader of the opposition or hon. gentlemen opposite do not consider that such legislation as that now before the House is necessary. Is it that they desire to obtain a partisan advantage? What are the conditions which call for this legislation? As to the reason for the legislation, my hon. friend said that the Dominion statute provides machinery for preparing lists even if the province of Ontario did not prepare lists. That is not an answer to the argument that this legislation is necessary, because it is admitted that the machinery has proved defective. Hon. gentlemen opposite complain against it. The hon. gentleman behind him (Mr. Boyce), on several occasions, has declaimed loudly against it. I would like to know now if my hon. friend is prepared to say that he will be satisfied with the existing law.


Mr.   I@: It is perfectly obvious that the proper thing to do in that ease is not to make a discrimination against the province of Ontario, but to amend section 7 in the way my hon. friend suggests.


James Conmee: My hon. friend will see that the province of Ontario is the only province in which the lists were ever prepared under the Dominion law, and under those circumstances where is there a discrimination against Ontario? When the lists were prepared in 1894 nobody ever thought of such actions being a discrimination against Ontario because they were prepared there and nowhere else. The reason is that the conditions existing in Ontario do not exist elsewhere. In the province of Quebec it is not the legislature that prepares the lists, but the counties. In Prince Edward Island, I am told, they have no lists at all, that a man simply gets a ballot and votes. In the Northwest there are different conditions. Ontario presents the only conditions with which we are compelled to deal, and now that we are dealing with them I cannot see that there is any justification for the assertion that we are discriminating against or offending Ontario. Why should the Ontario government be offended?
420}


Mr. LANCASTER.: Because you introduced the Bill before these reasons existed.


James Conmee: Not at all. That is only in the mind of the hon. gentleman. It has been introduced upon sound principles. But hon. gentlemen say that the Ontario government will be offended. I would like to know upon what ground? Has the Ontario government gone into politics to assist gentlemen opposite by preparing stuffed, fraudulent or illegal lists for the purpose of dictating to this House who its members shall be? I do not believe it. I do not think that the Ontario government would hold for a moment that it is their business to interfere with the rights of this parliament. Provincial rights exist, but the question of provincial rights in this House only arises where the undoubted privileges and rights of the legislature are invaded. I would like to know how it is invaded by this Bill. It is within the competency of this parliament to pass this Bill, and there is no question of provincial rights involved in it.


Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice).: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been so largely discussed on the motion for the second reading and in committee that I have very little to say, but I wish to make a few remarks by way of answer to some of the objections that have been urged to this proposed change in the law. I think that an important consideration is to remember what the existing law is, to compare the proposed change with the existing law and to judge by that comparison whether or not there is an improvement in what is now proposed, and whether or not, therefore, what is now proposed ought to be accepted. Under the existing law the lists for the unorganized portion of the province of Ontario will be prepared anew in accordance with the provisions of the existing statute if a Dominion election at any time fail to be held at a period of more than twelve months after the preparation, in this portion of Ontario, of the provincial lists. That law as applied to this unorganized portion of Ontario has been , subjected, in this House, in the e course of the present debate and previously, to very severe criticism as being a provision of the statute which, if not altogether unworkable, it is at all events, impossible to work out satisfactorily. Of necessity, that provision of the law must be worked out after the writ for any Dominion election issues, because, up to the very date of the issue of the writ, no man can tell whether or not there will be a provincial list not too old to be used at that election.
If the provincial list at the date of the issue of the writ is less than 12 months old. it is to be adopted under our present statute and it is only when such provincial list is more than 12 months old, at the

Hate of the issue of the writ that a new list is to be prepared for that portion of the province under the provisions of the Dominion law. Accordingly it is only after the issue of the writ that those steps can be taken under the present provision of the law. That time, it is said, will not be adequate and in any event the men by whom that new list is to be prepared will necessarily be selected by the Dominion government. Those objections have been urged more than once to the present law as applicable to the new or unorganized portions of Ontario, if there should be a necessity for relying upon that law.
In the condition of things which we have to-day as to the unorganized portion of Ontario, it is at least of equal probability that in case the present Bill is not passed the provisions of the existing Dominion law would have to be invoked to obtain a voters' list at the next Dominion elections. The provisions of the present provincial law as to the unorganized territory require the work of the enumerator to be done during June, he has to begin on or after the first day of June in each year unless his work is dispensed with, and he has to conclude on or before the 30th day of June. During June in the present year that work was not done ; it had been done before June or may have been in course of completion during the first week of June just passed. On the 30th of June a proclamation was issued dispensing with the preparation of any lists for the unorganized territory during 1908, no such preparation can now take place under the provisions of the Ontario statute, so that if a Dominion election comes to be held at any time during the present year or at any time in the year 1909 before or during the month of June it would be impossible to have any list for that Dominion election unless you took the list prepared under the existing provincial law to which such serious objection has been raised. If the Dominion elections are held before June next it would be possible of course to adopt, if any one were so minded, the lists which have been prepared during the spring months of the present year by the provincial authorities and which have been discussed here. I do not intend to go into any discussion of these lists beyond pointing out that when objection was made to their character the answer that came was simply ridicule of the statements of members on this side of the House as to the character of those lists and the manner in which they were prepared. The statement was made by the hon, member who has just spoken that these lists have been prepared and published in sections, the enumerators certifying them in parts or in sections, from time to time as new sections or parts were prepared. The statute plainly contemplated only one list, only one certificate when it was completed, and one period Mr. AYLESWORTH.
of 15 days after the whole list was completed within which appeals from that whole list might be taken. It was said when objections were made that they were entirely without foundation, they were absurd, and this list was a right* good list. The hon. member who was making these statements has now demonstrated at the end of judicial proceedings that this list is utterly incorrect, utterly illegal and stands exactly as it left the enumerator, not having been subjected to any judicial revision whatever, and being but an improper, incomplete and entirely imperfect list upon which to run an election. The moment that is demonstrated as the result of a judicial inquiry the whole ground is shifted and you hear the cry : Why do you not go on with your appeals ? In the meantime an election has been carried on on a list of that character, and if the hon. member for Rainy River (Mr. Oonmee) had not gone to the expense of a judicial inquiry by which he has established their utter illegality and impropriety these very lists, in the absence of legislation now in question before this House, would have been forced upon him or any other Dominion candidate for that constituency. That is the kind of inspired, heaven-born list which hon. gentlemen opposite say is immensely superior to a judicially prepared list, for the preparation of which all necessary time will be given and all proper means and facilities afforded for correcting it before the judges of the country.
The issue here is simply whether the existing law is to continue or whether this measure is to be substituted for it. A great deal has been said about an insult to Ontario by the proposition made here. I reply that I have exactly as good a-right as any other member in this House to speak for the province of Ontario. I do not recognize any better right on the part of any hon. gentleman opposite, no matter who he is, to speak for Ontario than I claim for myself. I think further that I am speaking here not merely for myself but for at least 38 other members of this House from Ontario who are here supporting this measure, and if we are insulting anybody it certainly is not the province, or the whole province of Ontario by any means. We constitute more than 45 per cent of the representation of the province of Ontario in this House and speaking for more than 45 per cent of the electors of Ontario I resent the arrogance of hon. gentlemen opposite who talk about an insult to Ontario.
It is said that we ought to have communicated with the provincial government of Ontario before we introduced this Bill. I would like to know what more the provincial government or legislature of Ontario has to do with the means by which we shall regulate the preparation of voters' lists for elections to this House than we in this House have to do with the means whereby the provincial government or legis-

lature of Ontario shall regulate its own franchise. We have just as much right in this House to control our own franchise and our electoral lists as the legislature of Ontario has to control its lists and its franchise, and there was no more reason why we as members of this House should consult the legislature of Ontario before proposing any legislation we saw fit with regard to the preparation of our lists than there was why the government of Ontario should have consulted us before passing their Voters' Lists Act last session. There was no more want of courtesy in the one case than in the other ; the one legislature is as indenendent as the other in the preparation of its lists or in regulating the means whereby the franchise will be determined for elections to its own house. Hon. gentlemen have attempted to work up great indignation and to represent this as a matter in which some insult has been offered to Ontario or some discrimination made against it. If hon. gentlemen opposite think they will receive any benefit at the polls from this stage performance they are perfectly welcome to it. It is a measure which I should be happy to discuss before any assembly of electors, and I am perfectly willing to meet any hon. gentleman on the subject at any time or place and discuss it before any audience in Ontario.
When this measure was first introduced we heard a great deal from hon. gentlemen opposite about its operation as applied to the little province of Manitoba and the plea was made :	You are afraid to take
somebody of your own size. We do not hear that now, there is no whine or cry of imposing on the little province of Ontario but the ground is shifted and now it is said: Here is some intolerable insult that is being flung into the fact of a majestic, a mighty and a great portion of this Dominion. It seems to me the two lines of argument are hardly consistent, and when added to all that the effort is made to show that by reason of some sinister influence within the cabinet or out of it. there has been some effort to discriminate against Ontario in favour of some other portion of the Dominion, surely the ridiculous has come to its fitting conclusion.
Why in Quebec there are no lists whatever in respect to the unorganized territory. Indeed, according to the argument of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) there is no such thing as unorganized territory within the province. At all events no lists have been prepared within that territory and to-day if there are residents there entitled to vote they are not upon any list. It is not then a matter of choosing between provincial lists and Dominion lists so far as that province is concerned, it is a matter simply of considering whether or not this parliament should step in and as to that part of the province of Quebec do what its own local legislature has, up to this time, not seen any necessity for doing. If there is any call or necessity for the preparation of lists in that portion of Quebec which is known as unorganized, and if the provincial legislature applies to that portion of the province a method of preparing the lists different from that which obtains in the remainder of the province, as unworkable or as unlikely to work satisfactorily, as unlikely to produce a fair and impartial list as experience has demonstrated the provisions of the similar law with regard to the province of Ontario are, then it will be time for this House to consider whether or not the lists so prepared for the unorganized portion of Quebec are lists which this House ought to accept as determining its franchise for the purposes of elections to this House. But that time has not yet come and until there are lists prepared in some shape or other and until it is a question whether or not those lists so prepared shall be accepted for that portion of the province of Quebec, there was no occasion for this provision so far as that province was concerned.
When this Bill was originally introduced, it applied to all portions of this Dominion, not already provided for, in regard to which the lists were not prepared in accordance with the system pointed out in our existing election law. That was objected to, the measure was, so far as Manitoba was concerned, modified, as gentlemen know and I need not go over those circumstances again. That modification taking place, the complaint now is that we have retained not the original measure but a measure modified as proposed by the leader of the government six weeks ago, referring this question to judicial determination, and because we have retained that so far as Ontario is concerned, this prolonged objection to the present proposed provision is now made.	_
The hon. member for Halton' (Mr. Henderson) this morning says that this is no real judicial preparation of the voters' lists. I can only refer him to the language of the Bill which, if passed, it will fall to those judges themselves to interpret, and which is certainly worded as plainly as any words I am able to find could make it. This Bill provides that the board of registration shall appoint as many enumerators as are necessary and that the duty of those enumerators shall be to do their work how? Under the supervision and in accordance with the directions of such board of registration. I do not think those words are by any means meaningless. They were inserted for a purpose and I believe that before any body of judicial interpreters they will have full effect. I do not mean to say that the judges themselves or any of them will go from house to house like census enumerators looking personally for the voters or registering them, but I do say

that having appointed some men as their substitutes, or delegates, as their appointees to do that work, the preparation of t|he lists will be done by those men under the actual supervision of and in accordance with the actual directions which may be given from day to day or for that matter from hour to hour, if that is necessary, by the judges themselves. And these judges are therefore under this statute as literally to prepare these lists by themselves as Is the man who builds a house literally doing that building if he stands there day by day and sees the workmen laying the bricks, building the stairways and putting on the roof. It is true they do not do the work with tjheir own hands, but it is being done under their immediate direction and supervision by men appointed by themselves and under their entire control. I maintain that it is in every respect a judicially prepared list as effectively as though the actual work of enumeration was done by a judge's own hand.
5 The bon. member for Halton has gently, but still unmistakably, conveyed to the House and to all who may read his remarks the impression that although a judge has accepted and is in discharge of his high judicial duties, he cannot, be does not, forget the political alliances which may have existed in his case before his appointment to the bench. So be it. If my hon. friend in seriousness means it, if he thinks it, so be it. We have in this territory of New Ontario six constituencies and nine district judges. Three of their number were appointed before the present government came into power. I say nothing more than that with regard to political affiliations, but I do remind my hon. friend from Halton that if out of nine judges in Ontario there are three appointed under such circumstances as I have pointed out, there is, proportionately at least, exactly the same representation that hon. gentlemen have to-day in the political complexion of this House. I say then that we are here talking of this work of the judges of the land as we find them. I know that no more impartial tribunal could possibly be selected for the work that is in hand, and it reduces itself simply to this point, that the objections which have been taken to this proposition in committee and here to-day mean that hon. gentlemen opposite believe all voters' lists perfect so long as they are prepared by political partisans selected by hon. gentlemen themselves or their political associates while if such lists are prepared by political partisans selected from this side of the House, then such lists are utterly objectionable. But even if such lists are prepared by impartial judicial authorities, they are equally to be condemned because nothing will satisfy hon. gentlemen opposite unless they can prepare with their own hands the election lists upon which we appeal to the electorate.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: 


Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: I wish to say a few words in reply to the observations of the Minister of Justice. The hou. gentleman claims that he has as good a right to speak for Ontario as any member in this House. Well, in this connection, I do not think he has as good a right to speak for the province of Ontaiio as the men who were here years ago when the Liberal party put itself on record, time and time again, by declaring that the provincial lists, and no other, were the proper lists to be used. That was the stand taken by the present First Minister, by his colleagues who were then in the House, including the late Hon. David Mills and the Hon. Edward Blake. Men of the greatest prominence and importance in the Liberal party of that day declared over and over again that the provincial lists, and no other, were the lists to be used in the Dominion as well as the provincial election. That was one of the planks of their platform on which they went to the country. But in this Election Bill, the government are deliberately setting aside that principle as regards the province of Ontario. They deliberately refuse its application to the unorganized districts of that province. That would not be so bad if the province of Ontario was the only one which had unorganized districts. But other provinces also have them. The same condition exists in other provinces in that respect as exists in Ontario to-day, yet there is no application of this Bill to them. Is it not an insult to Ontario that she should be thus discriminated against? I say it is a deliberate insult to the province of Ontario that this Dominion government refuses to trust to the honesty and integrity of the Ontario officials or the Ontario administration. In the face of this measure, the Minister of Justice cannot claim to speak for the province of Ontario. What is the reason for this? The right hon. the First Minister says the object is to give a man in the unorganized territory a vote by providing for the making up of a list in that territory where now there is none. But if that be the case in the unorganized districts of Ontario, it is equally the case in the unorganized districts of the province of Quebec. Yet he has made no such provision for that province. There he is willing to leave the matter in the hands of the local government, but Ontario, for which province he claims to speak, he treats differently.


Mr. TALBOT.: Are you the protector of these men in the province of Quebec?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 
James Conmee: Where does the hon. gentleman say that occurred?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In the Algoma district I heard the botfst made by D. A. Macdonald himself.


James Conmee: Under what government?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Mowat government. I am speaking of what is a matter of historical fact to-day. I heard the man who did that boast of it on the Pacific boat coming down the lake in 1892. That was one of these devices on which the hon. member for Rainy River has always depended for election. In fact the Bill now before the
House ought to be called the ' Conmee Bill,' because its main object is to secure the election of that hon. gentleman. It is because of the knowledge of these things that we are to-day resenting the insult offered to the province of Ontario. We all remember the tricks that were resorted to by that hon. gentleman in the past and I am sure his right hand has not since lost its cunning. At one time it was the ' Minnie M,' at another D. A. Macdonald, and at another something equally disreputable.
To-day these bon. gentlemen opposite desire to be in a position to do what their friends boasted they would along the line of the Transcontinental The minister, however, has yielded to the strong arguments against the Bill, but nevertheless now, at the tail end of the discussion, he talks very violently against those who compelled him to amend it. Why did not he address these arguments and reproaches to the House weeks ago ? He dare not, because he knew they would be answered. But to-day, because he knows that time will not permit an answer, he becomes very valient and very important. But the people of Ontario will remember, when the day of retribution comes, and, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth), the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and their friends will be punished by the electorate, when that electorate has an opportunity to pronounce its verdict upon this Bill which is being forced upon the House.


James Conmee: I would like to ask the hon. member a question.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


James Conmee: The election the hon. member speaks of never took place.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The hon. member has a right to ask a question.


James Conmee: I state that the election-
Some hon. MEMEBRS. Oh, oh. Ask your question.


James Conmee: I ask the hon. member where he has any proof that such an election ever took place, when a man named Macdonald ever ran in Algoma?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I did not say Macdonald ever ran. I said that Macdonald was the agent of the Reform party. I heard him boast of having taken the Indians in to vote, then causing them to exchange dress with the squaws and taking the squaws down and voting them.


James Conmee: When was that election?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And I heard him telling that he had himself posted up a notice at a certain mill, where there were a large number of Conservative voters, that the election was to be held two days after the

date really fixed by the proclamation, thus keeping these men at home on election day, with the result that the election was carried against them. It is by such devices as these that the hon. member for Rainy River has so long managed to be a member of some legislature in Canada.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think that the hon. member (Mr. Sproule) goes beyond what is proper in suggesting that an hon. member has managed to be elected by devices of the sort he indicated. I think that should be withdrawn.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Withdraw.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have only this to say, that I have it from the mouth of the man who did it


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The point is that the hon. member (Mr. Sproule) has suggested that another hon. member has always relied upon certain improper devices for election. That is an improper suggestion to make.


An hon. MEMBER.: Did the squaws
vote?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order. Withdraw.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think that statement should be withdrawn.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


An hon. MEMBER.: Withdraw the squaws.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Some hon. members appear to treat this as a matter for levity. It it not a matter for levity, but a question of order and decorum in debate in this House.


Mr. TAYLOR.: They don't know any better


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Withdraw. Order.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Hon. members must preserve order and treat the rules of debate with decency and decorum. The statement that an hon. member has relied upon improper means for election is not a proper statement to go on record in this House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thought I was within the rules, Mr. Speaker, in saying what I did ; but, in obedience to your ruling, I withdraw the statement.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT (East Simcoe).: I think that for the Act about to be passed -because I assume that it is to be passed by a majority in this House-only one man is responsible, and that man is the Prime Minister and leader of this House (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). The province of Ontario, when it comes to fix the responsibility, will hold the Prime Minister responsible for


Thomas Simpson Sproule: this action. Sir, the Prime /Minister has had twelve years of power in this Dominion. He has taken many grave political chances in his time. He is making a political gamble on this legislation-nothing else. He should ask himself if the elections-'Which I hope and trust will come on this fall-are likely to show that this Bill is worth what it will cost him. This Bill is intended to affect only six ridings at the very outset. It cannot possibly_ affect the riding of Muskoka. In the last local election the Liberal party had not a candidate there. The result there will not depend upon any list that can be ma:de, even if any person wished to make unfair lists, the unorganized vote there being so small. Practically the same would apply to West Algoma and East Algoma. So it comes down to two ridings-Nipissing and Rainy River. Now, is it worth the Prime Minister's while to take the risks involved in this Bill for such possible results? Even these two ridings are affected greatly by local lcircumstances, as they were in the last campaign. The hon. member for Rainy River (Mr. Conmee) fought with the determination, vim and go with which he fights every election. Every means was resorted to to win. There were thrown-into the riding of Rainy River the men who have been disgraced in the courts of Ontario for improper and illegal election proceedings. Cap. Sullivan was in the riding, and the hon. member for Rainy River and he were together


James Conmee: The hon. member (Mr. Bennett) is making a statement which has no foundation in fact. I never saw Cap. Sullivan in that riding, either in the last election or any other election.


William Humphrey Bennett: May I ask the hon. member this question?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Order. The hon. member (Mr. Conmee) has denied the statement, and the statement should be withdrawn.


William Humphrey Bennett: I accept the hon. member's statement. Now, I would ask him : Prior to the last local elections, early in the month of May, was he with Cap. Sullivan on the line of the Transcontinental Railway, between Selkirk junction and Port Arthur?


James Conmee: Which election does the hon. member (Mr. Bennett)*refer to?


William Humphrey Bennett: The election of June last.


James Conmee: I never discussed that election with Cap. Sullivan at all.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William Humphrey Bennett: I ask the hon. member, is the statement correct, as made by him, that he never saw Cap. Sullivan within a month before the date of polling on the

Transcontinental line between Selkirk and Port Arthur ?


James Conmee: No, I never did.


William Humphrey Bennett: Then I make this statement on the authority of Dr. Gunn, who lives at ICenora, that he saw the hon. gentleman and Cap. .Sullivan there together.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The hon. member is merely reiterating in effect the statement that has been directed to be withdrawn.


James Conmee: Is that the Dr. Gunn who is a physician on the Transcontinental Railway?


William Humphrey Bennett: The same gentleman.


James Conmee: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) has been misinformed, for I was not west of Port Arthur during the whole period of that election, and never saw Sullivan anywhere in the province about the time of the election.


William Humphrey Bennett: Then the statement of Dr. Gunn is untrue. I say that all means [DOT] were resorted to in that riding in the local election, and it resulted in the election of the Conservative candidate. Now, the Prime Minister is placing legislation on the statute-book that will not enure to his political benefit. I say this, and I am confident that my statement will be proven true, when-I hope within the next few months -the people of the ridings affected have an opportunity to express their opinion.
House divided Boyce.
on amendment of Mr. YEAS:
Messieurs
Alcorn,
Armstrong,
Avery,
Barker,
Barr,
Beattie,
Bennett,
Bergeron,
Blain,
Borden (Carleton), Boyce,
Brabazon,
Bristol,
Broder,
Chisholm (Huron), Christie,
Clare,
Clements,
Crocket,
Elson,
Foster,
Fowler,
Haggart, Henderson, _ Hughes (Victoria), Jackson (Elgin), Kemp,
Lake,
Lalor,
Lancaster,
Lefurgey,
Lennox,
Leonard,
MacLaren,
McCarthy (Calgary), McLean
(Queens, P.E.I.), Marshall,
Martin
(Queens, P.E.I.), Monk,
Morin,
Northrup,
Owen,
Paquet,
Perley,
Porter,
Pringle,
Reid (Grenville), Robitaille,
Roche (Marquette), Sproule,
Stanfield,
Staples,
Taylor,
Tisdale,
Walsh (Huntingdon), Ward,
White,
Wilson (Lennox & Addington), Worthington,
Wright (Muskoka)-60.
NAYS:
Messieurs
Archambault,	Macdonald,
Aylesworth,	Maclean (Lunenburg),
Beauparlant,	Macpherson,
Beland,	McCarthy (Simcoe),
Brodeur,	McColl,
Bureau,	McCool,
Caldwell,	McIntyre (Perth),
Calvert,	McIntyre
Carney,	(Strathcona),
Caron,	McKenzie,
Carrier,	McLean (Huron),
Carvell,	McLean (York, C.),
Cash,	McLennan,
Chisholm	Major,
(Antigonisli),	Marcile (Bagot),
Clarke,	Marcil (Bonaventure)
Conmee,	Martin (Wellington),
Copp,	Michaud,
Delisle,	Miller,
Demers,	Oliver,
Dugas,	Pardee,
Emmerson,	Parmelee,
Fielding,	Paterson,
Finlay,	Parent,
Finlayson,	Pickup,
Fisher,	Power,
Fortier,	Pugsley,
Galliher,	Ratz,
Gauvreau,	Reid (Restigouche),
Gervais,	Roche (Halifax),
Girard,	Ross (Cape Breton),
Graham,	Ross (Rimouski),
Hall,	Ross (Yale-Cariboo),
Harty,	Rousseau,
Hughes	Savoie,
(Kings, P.E.I.),	Schell (Glengarry),
Hunt,	Schell (Oxford),
Jackson (Selkirk),	Sinclair,
Johnston,	Smith (Oxford),
Kennedy,	Stewart,
Lachance,	Talbot,
Lanctot (Laprairie-	Telford,
Napierville),	Templeman,
Lanctot (Richelieu),	Tobin,
Lapointe,	Tolmie,
Laurier (3ir Wilfrid),	Turcotte,
Lavergne,	Turgeon,
LeBlanc,	Turriff,
Lemieux,	Watson,
Logan,	Wright (Renfrew),
Loggie,	Zimmerman.-99.
Lovell,	
PAIRS :	
Messieurs	
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Borden	Wilmot,
(Sir Frederick),	
Dyment,	Maclean (York, S.),
Ethier,	Seagram,
German,	Osier,
Gordon,	Daniel,
Crawford,	Ganong,
Burrows,	Smith (Wentworth),
Boyer,	Forget,
Greenway,	Macdonell,
Guthrie,	Ames,
Knowles,	Herron,
Law,	Lewis,
Sifton,	Thompson,
Sloan.	Schaffner.
Amendment negatived.
At one o'clock, House took recess.

House resumed at three oclock.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not intend to delay the House for more than a moment, I wish to call attention in the first place'to a paragraph which I find in the editorial column of the Toronto ' Globe ' of Saturday, July 4, to which my attention has been directed only recently. The paragraph to which I allude is this :
There need not much he said regarding the Dominion Elections Bill, which has at last reached the committee stage in parliament. But, in the interests of truth, it should he put on record that the concessions which the opposition now declare to be satisfactory were offered early in May last. The time since wasted might far 'better have (been devoted to serious public.business.
I am inclined to agree with the principle enunciated in the last sentence of this extract, but in so far as the statement of alleged fact in the second sentence is concerned, namely, that the concessions alluded to were offered to the opposition early in May, I desire to say in all sincerity, that the statement has no foundation in fact whatever and that it is absolutely devoid of truth. I do not say this by way of Imputing any desire of misleading to this journal but simply to place the matter on its proper basis as far as tbe facts are concerned.
I have already, in Committee of the Whole House, moved a resolution foivthe amendment of the Bill now under discussion by way of providing that the poll in a general election in Canada shall be held in every constituency on the same day except in so far as the Yukon Territory is concerned. By section 80 of the Dominion Elections Act five electoral districts are excluded from the general rule. As to certain of these there may be some question, but as to others I think there is no question. The Kootenay division of British Columbia, at least, according to the statement of Mr. Smith Curtis, the Liberal candidate for the riding should not be included iu this list As far as other British Columbia ridings are concerned, I have the same information. My information with regard to them has been controverted by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. As far as the Kootenay riding is concerned, I am supported not only by the provincial government of British Columbia, not only by the circumstance that the provincial elections are all held on the same day In that province but also by the statement of Mr. Smith Curtis, to whom I have referred. I will not take up further time in discussing the subject, but I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Bristol :
That the Bill he not now read a third time, hut be referred 'back to Committee of the Whole House with instructions to aimend the same by making provision that at every general election in Canada the day for holding the polls shall be the same day throughout Canada except in the Yukon Territory.


William Humphrey Bennett: It may properly be inquired, why, having regard to what I have said just now with respect to the difference of opinion between the two sides of the House, I make the motion in this way. My answer is that my hon. friend from Prince Edward county (Mr. Alcorn), in the amendments which he introduced into this House in this Bill and which were proposed as amendments to the Bill now before the House, pointed out a simple and easy way by which these five constituencies could be brought within the general rule. The difficulty arises, I understand, in all eases with respect to the posting of the proclamation and by adopting the means pointed out by my hon. friend for Prince Edward there should not be the slightest difficulty whatever in fixing one day for the whole of Canada.


Mr. DUNCAN ROSS.: I agree with the hon. member from Prince Edward (Mr. Alcorn) that his estimate that the proclamation should be twenty-three days In the hands of the returning officer before nomination day is a reasonable one. If he gets it twenty-three days before nomination day there will be sufficient time except in Comox-Atlin if the returning officer happens to live in Atlin. But, does not my hon. friend see that if it requires twenty-three day's before the nomination it must necessarily require twenty-three days after tbe nomination so as to distribute tbe ballot boxes and swear in the returning officers? That would make forty-six days from the time that the returning officer receives the proclamation until tlie poll can be held.


Robert Laird Borden: I am obliged to confess, and I trust my hon. friend (Mr. D. Ross) will not blame me for doing so, that I do not see anything of the kind. As a matter of practice in every constituency it is known and will be known perfectly well that the election will not be by acclamation and that a poll will be demanded. It will neither be necessary nor desirable for tbe returning officer to sit down and wait for nomination day for he knows perfectly well that two candidates will be nominated and he can make arrangements accordingly As a matter of fact in my own province of Nova Scotia, long before nomination day the returning officer makes his arrangements with his deputies. In the county of Halifax, which is 140 miles long and where men have to come a distance of 120 miles in some cases, this is always done and it can be done in these ridings in British Columbia just as well. I do not think there would be the slightest difficulty In adopting'the proposal of my hon. friend from Prince Edward.


Duncan Ross: The hon. gentleman must see that in a district such as Yale-Cariboo the ballots must be printed at some central point after the nominations are held, and his suggestion that the returning officer might anticipate what was going to happen on [DOT]nomination day does not apply to British

Columbia. We do not know until nomination day whether a socialist candidate will be nominated. They might make up their mind the day before nomination to place a candidate in the field. Then, the ballots must be printed at, say, Kamloops, the ballot boxes must be distributed from that central point and consequently the work cannot be done in a shorter time than the proclamation can be posted from any settled point.


Mr.   I@: As far as that is concerned my hon. friend from Prince Edward was not fixing twenty-three as the minimum time, but he was fixing a period of twenty-three days as a time which would be absolutely ample in all constituencies.


Duncan Ross: No, I do not think so.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, it is not worth while to bandy contradictions across the floor of the House. I have said all that I have to say on that point. I think there is some difficulty to be encountered, but in so far as the Kootenay district of British Columbia is concerned, there is absolutely no difficulty at all if we are entitled to rely upon the statement of Mr. Smith Curtis who says that there is not only no necessity, but that he does not desire any postponement in that riding.


Duncan Ross: We have been accused of doing this to get a political advantage, but so far as I am personally concerned I do not think there is much dishonour in getting beaten in an honourable way, and I would much rather have the election on the general election day and take chances. I believe if the election is held on the same day as tl.e other elections you will have your organization better in hand. But, the district of Yale-Cariboo is 700 miles in length from the United States boundary to the Alaskan boundary and it contains 175,000 square miles, while the district of Kootenay contains about 29,000 square miles. So far as Kootenay is concerned, if Mr. Curtis Smith wants his election or the same day, I think it can be arranged, but in Yale-Cariboo and Comox-Atlin-X know the districts well-it is a different matter. It is absolutely impossible to hold the election in Yale-Cariboo on the same day unless the proclamations are issued at least 60 days before the day of polling. If His Excellency can dissolve the House and wait 60 days fur an election then I am perfectly satisfied? Notwithstanding the telegram read by the leader of the opposition from Premier McBride, the fact Is that the provincial government found it absolutely necessary to pass an older in council deferring the election in the provincial district of Skeena for two weeks after the general election because it was impossible to get the ballot boxes into that district. I know the leader of the opposition wants to be fair and I tell him it is absolutely impossible to hold an election in Yale-Cariboo unless 60 days elapse between the issue of the proclamation and the polling. There are nine provincial electoral districts in Yale-Cariboo and the provincial elections are . arranged from nine different centres, while in the Dominion election they must be arranged from one centre for that large area. Under the provincial election law the deputy returning officer makes a declaration before any two voters who happen to be there, whereas under the Dominion election law the deputy returning officer must be sworn in before a justice of the peace and :n many instances there is not a justice of the peace within 100 miles of where the poll is held. It is more difficult now than in 1904 to arrange for an election in that constituency because people have gone into Stewart lake and Chapel valley along the line of the Grand Trunk Pacific in northern British Columbia where there are no transportation facilities. It will therefore take you a much longer time than in 1904 to provide that the settlers in that remote area shall have their votes recorded.


Mr. ALCORN.: I assume that the hon. member (Mr. Duncan Ross) knows of the amendment placed upon the Votes and Proceedings of the 29th of June containing the scheme set forth in Bill (No. 80) with regard to this subject. He is perhaps aware that part of that scheme is that in these five at present excepted constituencies the nomination day is advanced one week, and (hat therefore 14 days will elapse between the nomination and the polling.


Duncan Ross: That is not enough.


George Oscar Alcorn: If it were true, which I believe, it is not, that the ballot boxes must necessarily be distributed from one common centre for the whole electoral district, there are 14 days in which to perform that service and surely that would be sufficient. But, I believe that nowhere in the Dominion are there Dominion ballot boxes specially provided. The practice is to use the ballot boxes used in the provincial and municipal elections and therefore there is no distribution to be made except within a very restricted area. The only thing the returning officer would have to do would be to distribute his ballots, and I believe 14 days would be sufficient for that, even in as large a constituency as my hon. friend has.


Duncan Ross: But, under the Act, ibe ballot box which is received by the returning officer must be sealed, must contain a copy of the election law, must contain sufficient ballots for the polling subdivision, and must be opened by the deputy returning officer in the presence of two electors. If that be so the argument of my hon. friend (Mr. Alcorn) falls to the ground.


George Oscar Alcorn: My hon friend is entirely mistaken. The ballot box is only sealed

by the deputy when he returns it to the returning officer.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: The Magdalen islands are attached for federal purposes to the county ol' Gaspe and at certain seasons of the year it is next to impossible to communicate with them. The electoral district of Chicoutimi extends to the Labrador coast and in certain seasons of the year the obstacles to communication in that district are almost insurmountable. I call the attention of the leader of the opposition to the fact that it is certainly impossible to have the elections in these two districts held at the same time as in the other constituencies.


Mr. E. L. BORDEN.: When special conditions arise at certain seasons of the year the elections can be held at a later date under section 91 of the Dominion Elections Act.
Amendment (Mr. R. L. Borden) negatived on the same division as last recorded.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In our judgment there are very serious objections to section 17 of this Bill. However, as there is a desire to hurry the proceedings I shall not refer to the matter further than to move, seconded by Mr. Bergeron :
That the said Bill be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the Committee of the Whole House with instructions to strike out section 17 thereof.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I have discussed this matter as fully as I' wished on the second reading of the Bill but I might point out that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) seems not to have his own political party behind him in the position which he now takes. I suppose no more pronounced exponent of Conservative political views in this country can readily be found than the Ottawa * Morning Citizen,' and I read from the Ottawa ' Morning Citizen ' of the 27th of June last the following brief editorial :
In some of ithe recounts of the votes passed at the recent provincial election, ballots have been thrown out because of mistakes on the part of returning officers. In other cases officials who Should have been 'better instructed have jeopardized votes by irregular markings of the voting papers. That is, to say the least, unfair. The ballot represents the will of the people and that will should rule. No 'mistake of an intermediary should thwart the expression of the peoples' opinion. The sins of the returning officers or those responsible should not be visited upon the voters.
I concur in every word of those sentiments and It was in that view that I framed the amendment which is in question.


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of Justice has set us an edifying example by reading newspaper articles when we are endeavouring to hurry through the business of the session. I do not know how much progress we shall make if other ministers follow that example. He appears to be of the Mr. ALCORN.
opinion that in voting for this amendment we desire to vote against any fair proposal to ensure that no man's franchise shall be taken away. We do not propose anything of the kind, but we do think that section 17 as it stands, for reasons which have been abundantly pointed out in this House is likely to lead and I have no doubt will lead to results which are not desirable. I do not minimize the difficulties which have been brought to the attention of the country in the Wentworth and three or four other cases but when you can point to only five cases since 1867, a period of forty-one years, surely the grievance is not so great as to justify a remedy to which some exception at least can be taken. However, the matter has been threshed out to a wearisome extent in the House.


Mr. FISHER.: I do not know where the leader of the opposition gets the idea that there have been only five cases of the kind since confederation. I know of three cases in my own county and in the last provincial election in Quebec there were over five cases, most of them proved in court.


William Humphrey Bennett: Your deputy returning officers must be very stupid.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In two of the cases they were Tories, I think in all three.


David Henderson: I still think that this clause should be struck out of the Bill. It may be that errors will occur and that deputy returning officers may make mistakes, and in that way some candidate may be deprived of a seat to which he is properly entitled, but I consider that a very small matter indeed compared with the hundreds of thousands of electors throughout the country who are forced by means of a clause like this into voting against their consciences and therefore I cheerfully support the amendment and hope the House will throw out the clause.


Mr. GALLIHER.: Under the present law cannot the same thing occur as will occur under this? Cannot the deputy returning officer make marks? Then how many instances have been brought to light in which the manner of voting has been discovered by such a mark.


David Henderson: I know of my own knowledge that where the law permitted the manner in which a voter voted to be known as has been the case in Ontario for the last thirty years, voters' lists were taken to Toronto, were marked from the original ballots and were used again in a subsequent election which occurred in the same year and that marked list was used for the purpose of coercing votes. I know as a matter of fact that voters were coerced. One man applied to me on election day and asked if I believed they could discover how he voted. I was obliged to tell him they could, that the law permitted it and I had

no doubt In the world they did know how he voted in the previous election and would in that election. He said this was unfair, as it would compel him to vote as he did not want to. That was no doubt done repeatedly throughout Ontario with working men. I will not support any law that would take away the independence of the electorate and lead to the coercion of voters.


William Alfred Galliher: This same question has been taken up in the United States and it has been held there in reported cases that a state law which would render a vote invalid by reason of any mark or error of a deputy returning officer would be unconstitutional.
Amendment negatived on the same division last accorded.


George Eulas Foster: That the Bill be not now read a third time, but be referred back to Committee of the Whole House for the purpose of amending the said Bill so as to provide punishment by fine or imprisonment for any minister of the Crown or other parson who as an inducement to - any voters or class of voters in any electoral district to vote for any candidate promises to procure or threatens to withhold the expenditure of any public moneys of' Canada or the undertaking of any public works within such electoral district.
He said: This motion explains Itself and the reading of it is a sufficient argument for Its adoption.
Amendment negatived on the same division last recorded.


Mr. WT. ROCHE (Halifax).: I was uot in the House when clause 22 was debated, or I would have had the benefit of the opinion of the legal gentlemen iu the House on it. I would direct attention to line 15 of section 22. From my standpoint this clause adds to all the iniquities of the old one by making out a candidate to be a criminal merely because some agent of his, without his knowledge or concurrence, did something which the candidate would have prevented him from doing had he any knowledge of it. Everybody will concede that the Act, as it is, was sufficiently stringent, and that it contained a number of severe restraints and grievous punishments which perhaps were out of all proportion to the wrong done. I notice that line fifteen provides that the actual personal expense of any candidate, his expenses for actual professional services performed, shall he held to be expenses lawfully incurred. Is there any limitation in the amendment to the Bills which can be rendered by professional gentlemen for services in an election ? Is there any limitation to these services they can perform 1 Perhaps the legal gentlemen handled this question very gingerly. It seems to me that this is handing over the whole representation in the House to the legal fraternity.
No layman would pretend to run an election when he can be made liable to imprisonment and fine because of the actions of an individual of which he has no cognizance. This is intended to put the whole control of the electorate in the hands of solicitors. A solicitor, who acts as agent for a candidate, can do all the things we are trying to. prevent by this Bill. These angels who, we are told, are held in chains under darkness, awaiting the great day of judgment, must, I think, be given an intermission in their nains to laugh over this Bill. We are enabling a candidate to get around the penal provisions of this Act by allowing his solicitor to do everything forbidden in it. In England a candidate does not pretentd to do any of these things. His agents do certain things but his solicitor does the rest and presents a Bill for so much for his work. In England the bill is rendered by the solicitor for professional services. The price is ten pounds for every voter who votes and five pounds for every one who refrains. The angels in the bottomless pit must laugh to find us making Acts, creating offences and at the same time asserting provisions which enable them to be avoided-setting up pains and penalties for certain acts and then devising machinery by which the whole measure can be nullified.


James Conmee: I propose to say a few words


An hon. MEMBER.: The bon. gentleman has spoken already.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Did the hon. gentleman speak on the amendment or on the third reading ?


James Conmee: I spoke on the third reading, but not on the amendment.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Then you cannot speak now.
Bill read the third time, and passed.



EDMONTON, YUKON AND PACIFIC RAILWAY.

Hon. GEO  P.@: GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolutions :
1.	Resolved, That the government of Canada may aid and assist tho construction of a line of railway of the Edmonton, Yukon and Pacific Railway Company, hereinafter called the company,' from a point on the company's line of railway, or on the line of railway of the Edmonton and Slave Lake Railway Comp'any, at or near Edmonton or Strathcona, in the province of Alberta, thence in a generally western direction, to the coal areas, situated at or near the Brazeau river and the headwaters of the McLeod river, for a distance not exceeding one hundred and fifty miles, by guaranteeing the principal and interest of the bonds, debentures, debenture stock or other securities, hereinafter called ' securities/ secured as hereinafter mentioned, of the said company, or of its successors by amalgamation

as hereinafter provided, to the extent of thirteen thousand dollars per mile for the first fifty miles of the line so aided, and for the remainder of the said line, to the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars per mile, not exceeding in all one hundred and fifty miles, the interest upon the said securities to be at the rate of three and one-half per cent per annum, payable half yearly, the principal to be payable in fifty years.
2.	Resolved, That the said securities sd guaranteed shall be secured by a deed or deeds of trust, by way of mortgage or charge, to a trustee or trustees, approved or by the Governor in Council, and such deed or deeds of trust shall respectively grant a first mortgage or charge upon the said line of railway so aided, and the right of way, station grounds, or other real estate and interest therein, buildings and other structures and improvements, rolling stock and equipment, plant, machinery, tools, supplies, materials and other personal properties, present and future, acquired for the purposes of the said line so aided, and in connection with operating, repairing and maintaining it, and the tolls, incomes and revenues of the company arising and to arise from the said line, and the rights, privileges, franchises and powers of the company now or hereafter held with respect to and in connection with the said line and the operation, maintenance and repair thereof.
3.	Resolved, That the deed or deeds of trust shall create a mortgage, or charge, upon all other lines of railway and properties of the company, and upon all the property and franchises, tolls, incomes and revenues connected therewith, to rank thereon next after the bonds, debentures, debenture stocks or other securities theretofore issued by the company, and next after any existing deed or deeds of trust by way of mortgage or charge securing them ; Provided always that with respect to lines of railway or parts thereof now constructed and in operation, for the mileage of which no bonds, debentures, debenture stock or other securities have yet been issued, the company may issue first mortgage securities at a rate not exceeding twenty thousand dollars per mile, and may secure them by deed: or deeds of trust by way of first mortgage or charge, having priority over the mortgage or charge created by the deed or deeds of trust hereinbefore mentioned.
4.	Resolved, That the kind of securities to be guaranteed as aforesaid and the forms thereof, and the form and terms of the deed or deeds of trust securing them, and the times and manner of the issue of securities and the disposition of the moneys to be raised thereon, by sale, pledge or otherwise, pending the expenditure of such moneys for the purposes of the line of railway so aided, and the forms and manner of guarantee, shall be such as the Governor in Council approves of, and such terms, provisions and conditions may be included in such deed or deeds of trust as the Governor in Council deems expedient or necessary.
5.	Resolved, That the said guarantee shall be signed by the Minister of Finance or such officer as is designated by the Governor in Council to sign it; and upon being so signed the government shall become liable as guarantor for the payment of the principal and interest of the securities so guaranteed according to the tenor thereof, and the said payments


George Perry Graham: shall form a charge upon the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
6.	Resolved, That the rates and tolls charged by the company upon any of its lines shall not in any case be higher than the rates or tolls fixed in the contract to be made between the government of Canada and the company.
7.	Resolved, That any moneys paid by the government of Canada under any guarantee herein provided for, shall be held to be paid in discharge of the liability of the government and not in discharge of the liability of the company under the securities so guaranteed, or under any deed of trust securing them, and the moneys so paid shall be held to be still secured by the said securities and deed of trust, and the government shall be subrogated in and to all the rights of the holders of such securities, the interest upon or the principal of which has been paid by the government, and the government shall, with respect to all moneys so paid, be in all respects in the position of security holders with respect to whose securities default has been made in payment to the extent of the moneys paid by the government.
8.	Resolved, That the guarantee of securities as herein provided, for the said line of railway shall not be given until the Edmonton, Yukon and Paeifio Railway Company and the Canadian Northern Railway Company have amalgamated into one company under Ithe name of the Canadian Northern Railway Company, nor until the amalgamated company, as successors by such amalgamation, has become, as maker of the securities, liable for the payment of the principal and interest of the securities so to be guaranteed with respect to such line of railway.
9.	Resolved, That the decision of the Governor in Council as to the length of the mileage of the said line of railway so to be aided, shall, for the purposes hereof, be final.
10.	Resolved. That the books of the company shall at all times be open for inspection for and on behalf of the government by any person named in that behalf by the Governor in Council or the Minister of Finance.-Mr. Graham.


Mr. URIAH WILSON.: I think the minister should outline the policy on wh'Ch he grants these bonuses. He should explain why he grants bonuses to some railways and none to others, why he chooses to guarantee the bonds of certain railways instead of giving bonuses. Personally I am opposed, and have been for years, to these bonuses. It is too late in the session to discuss the matter at any length, but 1 would point out that when hon. gentlemen opposite wei*e in opposition they found great fault, and justly so, with this way of proceeding. These bonuses resolutions should be brought down at such a period that we could have an opportunity to fairly investigate them and make our arguments for and against them as the case may be. I wish to put on record my protest against this way of doing business and against all bonuses to railways.


George Perry Graham: These resolutions do not refer to bonuses. I am not referring at all to what has been the policy of the govern-

ment, but this position I do take. In a new country like Canada, development depends largely on transportation and transportation depends largely on railway construction. In order to develop a new country and enable those who come to it, as well as those who reside in it, to get the best return for their labours, railway facilities are necessary. We have not arrived at the point when we can have all the facilities we desire without government aid. When discussing any railway project, we have to decide whether it is better to give it so much per mile or guarantee its bonds. In the case of a company with considerable resources, my own opinion, especially in the case of trunk lines, is that it is better for the country to guarantee the bonds, because then we are not taking any risks. But in the case of the smaller lines perhaps the better way is to give them some cash aid, and they only get that after the line is constructed, on the report of the engineer. So that, if we get no railway, we pay no money. The only matter to be discussed, to my mind, in connection with this would be whether Canada has arrived at the point when we can do away with aid to railways. My own opinion is that Canada has not arrived at that point. I have endeavoured to deal with every application on the merit of that application, so far as I could get the information necessary.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair I desire to say one or two words on this subject, and, perhaps, for the sake of the economizing time, I may make a few observations also with regard to the resolutions which follow. These resolutions were presented to the House seven months and seventeen days after this session was opened. The House now, within forty-eight hours of prorogation so far as we are able to learn, is invited to consider these resolutions and pass them. There has been a great deal of complaint, especially from the Liberal press of the country, and some from hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, as to the length of this session, and we have been told that the work in which we have been engaged should not have occupied a longer time than five months. Either this government has been holding back for more than two months and a half resolutions which it deemed perfectly proper, or else it is bringing down now certain resolutions which it does not really believe to be in the public interest. There is the alternative. Do hon. gentlemen opposite seriously contend, in the face of this proposal, brought down more than seven months and a half after the opening of the session, and only after repeated requests by the opposition for their early presentation, that they have to blame hon. gentlemen on this side for the delay ; or are they not forced to admit that the delay during this session
has been due to the inability of the government to deal with public business in a businesslike way and to bring their measures before the House in proper time? What is the answer ? Were these subsidies decided upon three or four months ago? Was the government ready then to bring down these subsidies so that we might complete our work within five months after the session had begun ? That is the question they will have to answer for themselves and as to which, I venture to think, they will not be able to answer satisfactorily.
What are the proposals that the government brings down? The first is a proposal to undertake bond obligations to the amount of $11,067,000. The government brings that proposal down to the House on the afternoon of Thursday, and it intends that this House shall be prorogued on Saturday afternoon or evening. That is, forty-eight hours before the time fixed for the conclusion of this session, the government bring down a proposal that the country should incur bond obligations to the extent of eleven millions and upwards. But that is not all. They bring down railway subsidies embracing revotes of subsidies for nearly 1,700 miles of road and new subsidies for nearly 2,300 miles of road-subsidies for a total of nearly 4,000 miles of railways. The combined length of all the lines of railway proposed to be subsidized under these resolutions would extend from the Atlantic to the Pacific across Canada. Therefore, this is a proposal to subsidize railways equal to a transcontinental railway. And the government asks parliament to take up that subject seriously after seven months and a half of the session has passed, and within forty-eight hours of prorogation. It is perfectly obvious that the government are not disposed to have serious discussion or consideration of this proposal-they know it is impossible. If their proposal was ready at the time when this session, according to their own views, should have come to an end, then for what reason is it that they did not present these measures to the House months aeo? Look at the amount of aid involved; 3,935 miles of railway at $3,200 a mile amounts to about $13,000,000, which it is proposed to take from the public treasury and use in subsidizing various lines of railway throughout the country. But the proposal is not limited to $3,200 per mile. For if any of these railways is built at the cost exceeding $15,000 a mile, a greater subsidy is given. Looking over the aid granted to railways throughout the country during the last three years under resolutions similar to these, I find that the average amount of aid is over $5,000 a mile. If you take $20,000 a mile as the average cost of these roads-I do not think that would be an unfair or exaggerated assumption-you will find that instead of $12,592,-

000, the public treasury is pledged by these resolutions to no less than $22,566,300. This with the amount of bond obligations proposed by the resolutions now under discussion make a total of $33,500,000 and upwards, which parliament is invited to seriously consider within forty-eight hours of prorogation. And this we are invited to do without any correspondence having been brought down, without any documents being laid on the table which are of much value. It is true, the Minister of Railways has laid upon the table, or rather, has furnished to myself, and, I believe, to some other members, a memo, with regard to the bond guarantee which we are now invited to vote. But still I venture to say the House is absolutely without any information whatever which would enable it to fairly consider and determine whether these individual subsidies ought to be voted or not. I rise for the purpose of making an earnest protest. I do not think that the action of the government in leaving the introduction of these resolutions to the last moment is fair to parliament or to the country. Furthermore, I would say it is not fair even to themselves. Surely conditions are not such that these subsidies, or at least ninety-nine hundredths of them, were not resolved upon two or three months ago. If so many of them were resolved upon at that time, why were they not brought down in time for reasonable discussion? But the government have left all of these resolutions to be brought down at this time. And I protest that it is absolutely impossible for parliament, at this stage of the session, to give to these proposals the consideration which in all justice to the country and in view of the magnitude of the proposals, should be bestowed upon every one of them.


Mr. LENNOX.: When I saw these resolutions on the Order Paper, although I knew we had very little time before us, I determined that I would not let them pass without criticism. I want particularly to speak in reference to the new subsidies. The other portion of the resolutions is objectionable, but not so objectionable as the new subsidies. In reference to guarantees, I can understand that there may be conditions under which it would be right to guarantee certain sums for railway enterprises. But there is no time now to consider whether such a course is or is not correct in reference to a particular matter. The amount we have already guaranteed for railways is very large. The amount we are now asked to guarantee for these railways, as has been said, is some $11,000,000. By these resolutions we are also taking over the Quebec bridge, the loss in connection with the Quebec bridge and undertaking to provide the money required for the building of a new one. We are by this resolution also revoting a large amount upon enterprises to which we were Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
committed before. 'At a moderate estimate, these revotes will amount to about $10,000,000. The history of railway building in 'Canada I do not think justifies us in assuming that any of these railways to which we are committing ourselves will cost less than $20,000 a mile on the average. There is no justification in subsidizing a railway unless it is one of peculiar difficulty in regard to construction, and I think we can assume from the fact that the Transcontinental Railway costs us more than $00,000 a mile that these railways we are now subsidizing will cost on the average at least to the limit of our liability or $21,400 a mile. On that basis, the revotes will amount to more than $10,880,000. But * I wish particularly to speak of the new subsidies. According to my calculation the lines total 2,267 miles, according to another calculation they amount to 2,235 miles.


Robert Laird Borden: I think I did state 2,235 miles. But the Minister of Finance told me that about 35 additional miles were to be included, and my estimate was made up on the first basis and without taking into consideration the 32 miles which have since been added.


Haughton Lennox: That would make my calculation correct. In paying $3,200 per mile up to $15,000, it amounts to $7,254,400.
I assume that it will cost probably double that amount, it may cost $45,000. We pay $3,200 per mile on an expenditure of $15,000 per mile, and on any expenditure over $15,000 we pay half the cost, not exceeding in all $6,400 per mile.


Mr. J. T. SCHELL.: How does the hon. gentleman make up those figures, when the maximum amount is $6,400 per mile? It does not matter what it costs afterwards.


Haughton Lennox: For a cost of $15,000 per mile we pay $3,200, above $15,000 we pay one half of what it costs, not exceeding $6,400 per mile. Now, if we pay $4,800 per mile we shall pay on these new subsidies $10,881,600, or if the limit is reached, nearly $15,000.


Jacob Thomas Schell: I do not understand the hon. gentleman's method of computing those figures. The subsidies are paid upon the cost of the railway up to $21,400 per mile. If a railway costs $60,000, or $70,000, or $80,000, it makes no difference to the country.


Haughton Lennox: If the hon. gentleman does not understand my figures I understand them, and I think the country will understand them. Up to $15,000 we will pay $3,200 ; above that we will pay half the construction until the cost reaches $6,400. I am assuming, from the history of railway construction in this country, that it will cost at least $18,200 per mile,

and if it does we will pay $4,800 per mile, and the total cost will be $10,881,600. I say that the conduct of the government cannot be justified in bringing down at this stage of the session a proposition committing the country to such an enormous expenditure. Aside from the subsidies we are revoting, we have about 2,270 miles of railway in regard to which we are committing ourselves to a probable expenditure of $6,400 per mile. I submit that it is absolutely unjustifiable. I submit that the time has now come when we should not be paying subsidies for the construction of railways. Having regard to what Canada has already done in railway construction, I say we are not justified in paying one dollar of subsidy to any railway. The proper position for the government to take is this, that the circumstances of this country are such as to lead to the unaided construction of railways wherever they are a national or a commercial necessity. Many years ago in the United States they adopted that principle, and I have no doubt that the good sense of the people of Canada will say that the time is entirely passed when we should be subsidizing railways.


Mr. LALOR.: As a representative of a rural constituency, I desire to enter my protest against the huge amount now being voted for railway subsidies. I believe that the constituency I represent is opposed to these subsidies; and personally I am opposed to them. I believe the time has long gone by when we should advance such enormous sums to subsidize railway companies. If we compute the sums of money that have been granted, both by this parliament and by the legislatures of the various provinces, by way of bonuses and subsidies to railways, they will amount to enough to build those roads almost entirely, and the result is that, although the people of the country have paid for the roads, the railway companies own them. I am opposed to these bonuses. I think It was not wise on the part of the government to bring down an important question like this within forty-eight hours of prorogation, when there is no opportunity to discuss it clearly and intelligently. We are reaching a point in our expenditure when we should call a halt, and when we consider that we are to-day asked to vote about $30,000,000, I think it is more than the people of this country expect us, as their representatives, to support. I wish to express myself as strongly as I possibly can in opposition to these subsidies. I think it is an imposition upon the people, and they will not show themselves to be in favour of it when they are asked to record their votes in the coming election. There must be some reason why this huge sum is asked. It is very apparent why we are asked to vote this money. I think we all know that 421
there is an election coming on, and that that accounts for this large amount of money that is being voted. As the representative of a rural constituency, I wish to oppose this expenditure. When we consider that we are voting, in general estimates, bounties to lead, railway subsidies and other grants, no less a sum than $227,000,000, hon. gentlemen will agree with me that it was time to stop and consider the situation. We are running expenditure mad ; it Is time to call a halt, and I want to express my opinion in opposition to this extravagant and unwise expenditure for railway bonuses. The Minister of Railways and Canals tells us that in a new country like this it is necessary to grant railway subsidies, but why is It necessary in the old sections of the country, especially In Ontario, which are well served with railways, to continue granting subsidies? If the railway companies feel like building roads in competition with lines already built, they should pay for these roads themselves and not ask the government of Canada to subsidize them.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I would like to ask the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Lalor) to be good enough to tell us how many lines of railway he has in his county?


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I think we have the Grand Trunk and Michigan Central.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: You are-doing well.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Certainly, we are doing well.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: In some counties we have none at all and we would like to have some.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Is that any reason why we should grant subsidies where there is plenty of competition?


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Will my hon. friend tell me if the railways in his county have been subsidized?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Order.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Before these resolutions are disposed of, I wish to put myself on record as being unalterably opposed to them. As far as I can judge the sentiment of the people of Canada to-day they are opposed to subsidizing railways. Expressions of opinion have been given by various bodies from time to time in the last few years and especially by the agricultural class indicating that they are opposed to subsidizing railways. It cannot be other than well known to the government that this is the feeling of the farmers to-day. They believe, as I believe, that we have reached a time in the history of the country when, if more railways are needed, we should depend on private enterprise to supply the capital to build these railways and leave those who invest their money in them to depend on the earnings for their returns. We have ample evi-



dence that the railways will be built whether we subsidize them or not, because, in several instances, we have refused to allow capitalists to come in and build roads in Canada and supply the necessary capital themselves. In view of that fact and in view of what I believe the sentiment of the people of Canada to be I am opposed to these resolutions. I am opposed to them as well because of the stage of the session at which they are brought down are submitted to this House. If there is any merit in one or more of them the date is too late and the data which should be available for our purpose is not available to enable us to analyse these propositions and to determine which are meritorious and which are not. They should be weeded out and analysed, but it is entirely too late to do this. It is committing the country to enormous undertakings without a proper analysis or the proper information that we should have before we give our assent to these resolutions. I am opposed to them as well because I fear that they are proposed to-day for one purpose more than any other and that is for the purpose of using them as bribing agencies in view of the approaching elections, enabling hon. gentlemen opposite to dangle them before the people of the country in various districts and to say: You should return the government to power again because of the assistance which they are giving to a railway through your county. Even in gratitude you ought to support the government, but if you do not support the government you are not likely to get as much assistance in the matter of construction of railways as you will if you do support the government candidate. Having regard to our knowledge of how elections have been run in the past by the present government we are justified in coming to the conclusion that these resolutions will be used to their utmost to assist the government in carrying very many constituencies.
I think the government has another object in view as well. This means has been adopted by the government at the present time for the purpose of raising a large campaign fund from these subsidized corporations to enable them to run their elections. Some may not take that seriously and some may, but I say that we have had in the history of Canada cogent examples that justify us in reaching that conclusion today. We believe that we are on the eve of an election, that the government are preparing to bring on the election in the very near future, and the history of the past affords us ample justification for reaching the conclusion that this is one of the means whereby governments raise large sums of money to corrupt the electors and carry their candidates to power when the election comes on. Therefore, I say that, if for no other reason, it is not an opportune time to allow these resolutions to pass. I think the country's attention Should be drawn to these ' Mr. SPROULB.
facts. Why are the government guaranteeing the Canadian Northern Railway as they are doing to-day? Is there any justification for it? Have we any evidence that the people are in favour of their doing it? We have lately passed through a provincial election and the condemnation which was, over and over again, heaped upon the Whitney government by friends of the federal government in opposition to the means adopted for assisting the Canadian Northern Railway, and the fact that on platform after platform they denounced it in the strongest language, this proves one of two things-either that the Reform party were absolute hypocrites when they said that they didl not believe it was justifiable to assist the Canadian Northern or they are hypocrites to-day, because they will go before the people of Canada and justify it to a larger extent than was proposed then. They will do to-day what they condemned a few weeks ago.	Will they
support it to-day? Of course they will, and they will go out and support it in the country notwithstanding the fact that many of them went on the platform and condemned it with regard to the assistance that was proposed to be given to the Canadian Northern Railway by the Whitney government. They are adopting the same means to-day, but they are adopting it to ten times greater extent than was proposed then. It was wrong then it cannot be right to-day. Hon. gentlemen who condemned it then cannot consistently support it now. I am opposed to it andl I believe the people are opposed to it. They have put themselves on record time and time again that they are opposed to the further subsidizing of railways. There may be some justification for continuing grants that may have been given to enterprises that are now under way. But that is no justification for providing large subsidies for a number of ne^v enterprises as set forth in these resolutions. I desire to put myself on record in opposition to this, believing, as I do, that the people of Canada are opposed to further subsidizing railways at the present time.


David Henderson: The criticism which I shall now offer will apply to the resolu-lions generally, as I do not propose speaking at any other stage. The Minister of Railways has told us that the time for aiding railway enterprises has not yet passed, and, that is one of the most justifiable things the hon. gentleman has said in this House. But I disagree with him entirely as [DOT] to the manner of aiding railway enterprises. It has been the practice in by-gone years for a few men to organize a railway company , and then appeal to the federal government, i to the local governments, and to the muni. cipalities for aid so as to secure money . enough to construct the road. As a general

thing those engaged in railway promotion never expect to invest a dollar of their own money. I believe the time is past for municipal bonuses and I also believe the time has passed for federal and provincial bonuses. We want railways in Canada, and if we are going to get them they must be aided, but that aid should be given in the form of a government guarantee. X approve of that principle, and I do not see why the government should not apply it to all these different railroads as well as to the Canadian Northern. In the recent Ontario elections the Whitney government was criticised for guaranteeing the Canadian Northern bonds. I justified that guarantee and I am prepared to justify it to-day, because I believe that the true principle of aiding railway enterprise is for the government to guarantee the bonds. Why should the people of to-day put their hands in their pockets to build a railway that is going to serve the people of fifty years hence ? I think we should leave some responsibility for those who come after us. If we guarantee the bonds and the bonds are unfortunately not redeemed by the company, then our descendants who benefit by these railways will contribute towards the expenditure, and the whole burden will not be thrown upon the shoulders of the already over-burdened people of today. We were told by the Liberals when in opposition that ithe people of Canada were being bled white at a time when the annual expenditure of the country was only $40,000,000, but what are the people of Canada going to say to these enormous expenditures being heaped one on another at a time when our annual outlay is $150,000,000. I protest against these bonuses ; I do not intend to support any of them. I think it is time the government should call a halt.


Mr. BARR.: I feel it my duty, notwithstanding the desire to get through the business of the House, to enter my solemn protest against this bonusing of railways which is condemned by the farmers throughout the length and breadth of Canada. One of the strongest planks in the Liberal platform of former days was that railway bonuses should cease, but the Liberals in power have forgotten that. The ' Farmers Sun,' the most able organ of the farmers of this Dominion, has condemned railway bonusing in the strongest possible manner, and in that opinion of the ' Farmer's Sun ' I cordially concur. And not only that, but it is worse still that in the dying hours of the session with prorogation in sight the government should bring down this enormous expenditure. If the government had submitted their measures months ago instead of waiting until a short time before prorogation the business of the House could have been disposed of long ago. The Ross government for years pursued a policy of delay in a similar way, but the Conservative opposition forced them to bring down their measures in proper time 4211
to allow of proper consideration. Here we are rushing millions and millions of the people's money through without due consideration. I believe, Sir, that the people of Canada will at the first opportunity retire from power the government which imposes such enormous burdens upon the people and which shows such procrastination in submitting measures to parliament.


Mr. J. D. REID.: The Minister of Railways has been most unfair to this parliament in delaying until the last moment the submission of these resolutions. It is now impossible to ascertain the facts and consider the proposals, as they should be considered. It appears ito be the policy of the government to grant bonuses to and to guarantee the bonds of railway companies, and that being their policy the Minister of Railways should have pressed for a grant of aid to the Ottawa and Brockville Railway which is a most important and necess-sary line. The capital of this Dominion has practically no direct railway communication except that which is afforded by the Canadian Pacific Railway, and I believe it would be a great help to the people of the district through which this railway runs as well as to the city of Ottawa if the Grand Trunk Railway Company had direct communication with the capital. The Minister of Railways has neglected the Brockville and Ottawa line, and as to that I would not complain at all were it not that he has subsidized railways in other parts of the province of Ontario which are not go much in need of railway facilities. With that feeling and knowing that it would be of such assistance to the country and to Ottawa as the capital, I think the Minister has not been fair to us in this district in not seeing that aid was given to the railway proposed by this company. If that had been done I am satisfied they would have proceeded with the building of the road at once.


Mr. PRINGLE.: We have recently come through a provincial campaign in Ontario. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) spoke on the platform with the leader of the opposition in the legislature, Mr. A. G. McKay, and the whole complaint was that last awful week in Toronto. What was that last awful week ? The Hon. J. P. Whitney enunciated in his platform of 1904 the principle that not one dollar of bonus should be given to any railway in the province of Ontario. He adhered to that policy rigidly ; the only complaint wras that he undertook to guarantee certain bonds of the James Bay Railway to the extent of some $2,000,000. The Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) now asks this House not in the last week of the session, but in the last 48 hours to pass bonuses for millions of dollars and a guarantee of bonds for millions more. Personally I am not opposed to the guarantee of

bonds under proper conditions and proper circumstances. I believe it is the best way of assisting railways in opening and developing new territories and that history will show this country will not be called upon to pay one dollar of principal or of interest where the bonds are for a reasonable amount, and precaution is taken to see that the railway is built through a country that will likely be a good producing country. What I do complain of is the absolute hypocrisy of the party which went through Ontario condemning the Conservative party because the Conservative party guaranteed bonds to a small amount, and then asks us to-day, with 48 hours ahead of us, to grant bonuses to an extent of about $20,000,000. I have not had time nor has any hon. member to thoroughly investigate the bonuses to the different railways but I have run through some of them. In Ontario the Ross administration in its dying days granted a subsidy of $2,000 a mile to one railway which is now getting a subsidy of $6,200 a mile. The Ross government granted a land subsidy of millions of acres to another railway which is now getting a subsidy from these hon. gentlemen of $6,400 a mile. Under certain conditions it might be reasonable to grant certain bonuses. The province of Ontario in the past has done it, the Ross government left for the Conservative government a debt of five or six millions incurred in subsidies to railways. But since the advent of the Hon. J. P. Whitney to power in 1905 not one dollar has been granted in subsidies to any railway and yet the Liberals in Ontario raised the cry of that last awful week, simply because there was a guarantee of bonds which I believe was justified. I do not think it is possible for us in 48 hours to thoroughly consider these resolutions. We know we have to prorogue on Saturday and X with others feel that these resolutions should have been brought down weeks ago instead of being left to the last days of the session.


Mr. NORTHRUP.: When, only a little over a month ago, hon. gentlemen opposite and their political friends throughout^ Ontario were making the welkin ring with their denunciations of that last awful week, to a certain extent I agreed with them. On the public platform in Ontario I said that while personally I agreed with the settlement of the mining suit and the guarantee of bonds under the circumstances and conditions under which the Whitney government had guaranteed them, I joined with hon. gentlemen of the opposite shade of politics in denouncing the Whitney government for passing such legislation in the dying days of the session. I feel that I am consistent to-day in protesting not merely as a Canadian ratepayer but as a member of this House, against the studied in-Mr. PRINGLE.
suit that is paid to members of this House by bringing down such important legislation in the dying days of the session. Not only is it impossible for us to give the proper consideration to these matters, but a blow is struck at the dignity of parliament itself. I venture to say there is not an hon. gentleman opposite any more than on this side who does not know that in the eyes of the great public of Canada the dignity of parliament is lowered and our influence is decreased by the fact that fourteen or fifteen hon. gentlemen who happen to occupy seats on the treasury benches can bring down such an immense grant at a time -when it is impossible for private members to vote intelligently, knowing that there is a sufficient number in the House who will be ready to vote blindly for whatever they may bring down. I appeal to supporters of the government to consider their own dignity, the respect we owe to ourselves as well as to our constituents and to protest against such enormous grants beioig brought down when the country knows we cannot understand what we are voting for. If they protest the Prime Minister must heed them.


Mr. R. N. WALSH.: Mr. Speaker, I wish to place myself on record as opposed to this resolution and I believe that in doing so I am voicing the strong feeling of the constituency which X represent.


Mr. BLAIN.: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with other members in condemnation of the government for their extravagance in voting such amounts of money for aid to railways in Canada. I notice the resol- . utions cover some ten pages of the Votes and Proceedings of to-day and if we do not protest against the action of the government we will have some member of it, possibly the Minister of Customs, in a few days saying that the opposition members allowed millions to pass without protest. That is the kind of government we have to deal with so it is necessary, even if we take a little time, to enter our protest against these extraordinary expenditures.
In my own county, during the last year and a half, we have had an example of a large railway corporation constructing an important railway without the aid of a dollar from the public treasury, Dominion or local; that is the new Canadian Pacific Railway branch from Toronto to Sudbury, which is looked upon as one of the best roads in Ontario. The roadbed is perfect and it is a credit to the company. If the Canadian Pacific Railway are able to construct a line from Toronto to Sudbury without public aid, surely the other railways of Canada can construct some of these branches without money from the public treasury. Therefore without having had an opportunity to look into

these resolutions and refresh my mind as to the geography in order to ascertain where the lines are to be constructed, and not knowing the local considerations, I wish in a word or two to express my disapproval of the large vote the government is asking this afternoon.
Mr. ALEXANDER MARTIN (Queens, P.E.I.) I raise my voice, Mr. Speaker, against these railway resolutions, especially against the bonuses. Considering the heavy obligations to which the right hon. the First Minister has committed this country-the Transcontinental which is to cost between $200,000,000 and $250,000,000 ; the Georgian Bay canal, $100,000,000 ; the Hudson Bay Railway, $30,000,000 to $50,000,000 ; the Welland canal, something like $30,000,000-considering all these I think it is high time he should cry halt. The late Sir John Macdonald gave this country the Canadian Pacific Railway, and his memory is green and will remain green in the minds of the people for what he has done. What he did then was very costly, but the Canadian Pacific Railway has come to be one of the greatest and most successful undertakings that Canada ever ventured into. But the First Minister is coming now to the last straw which is going to break the camel's back. With the credit of this country in the markets of the old world diminished, he goes on favouring certain parts of Canada for political purposes. It is all very well to say we are building up a great country, but are we not travelling too fast? Here are estimates amounting to something like $180,000,000, yet ten years ago, when our estimates only amounted to $42,000,000, the right hon. gentleman considered them entirely too much. In 1890 he condemned railway subsidies in toto. The time had come, he said, when they should cease. Is he going to do for Canada what the late Mr. Mercier did for Quebec ? I am afraid he is. When we consider the niggardliness with which he treats some provinces-my own for instance-and the lavish expenditure he proposes to make in others, I am at a loss to understand how the hon. gentleman expects this country to bear the burden. He is incurring expenditures which are staggering the country, which he cannot justify, and now he comes down at this hour of the session and asks us to swallow a host of railway subsidies without giving them at all any consideration.


Mr. EMMERSON.: Could I be permitted to add a word to the testimony of hon. gentlemen opposite, though not in the same direction ? I do not think that to-day in Canada the people as a rule are playing the part of Rip Van Winkle. They have had their eyes open for some time, and they realize that the conditions to-day are vastly -different from what they were some years ago. There is one thing of which they are certain, and that is that the status
of Canada at present is far better than it ever was during any previous year in our history. There have been two or three objections raised to these resolutions. The main one is with respect to the lateness of their introduction. Well, I have to commend the government for what it is doing. In this the government are in harmony with the ideas of the people. They are in harmony with the popular sentiment when they realize existing conditions and our future possibility. They have at last, in the interval between all these cries of scandal and motions and resolutions, which we have had from week to week, designed some say for the purpose of obstructing the business of parliament, been able to bring down, in the form of a resolution, certain propositions, which, to my mind, crystallize the best hopes and aspirations of our people. My hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) took one other exception, and it was that this was only one other means of bribing the people of Canada


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Hear, hear.


Henry Robert Emmerson: But he said the right hon. leader of this House would realize that the people of Canada were opposed to anything of the kind. Sir, if that be true, how is it possible that these railway resolutions ean be offered as acts of bribery ? I think that my right hon. friend is too astute a statesman to propose to the people something which will not be acceptable to them. Reading these resolutions in detail, I find that the views of the west are being recognized, I realize that the views and hopes and aims of the people of central Canada are being realized. I further realize that those propositions, whether they relate to the east or the west or the centre, are acceptable to the people of Canada. Why ? Because Canadian citizenship to-day realizes that we are on the threshold of great possibilities.
They realize that responsibilities rest upon them, and they want a government in power that can understand the conditions and provide for them. I have been for many years allied with the Liberal party. I was an opponent of the party of the hon. gentleman opposite when it was led by that great statesman, Sir John A. Macdonald. I want to say this in tribute to his memory- though he needs no such tribute-that he grasped the situation and provided for its possibilities and requirements. And I congratulate the right hon. leader of this government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) that now, when conditions are changed, when we have made rapid strides, when we have attained a higher plane and. enjoy a wider view of the possibilities of our country, he makes provision for these great interests. For that, I believe he will receive, as he merits, the approval of the citizenship of Canada. I do not wish to join hon. gentlemen opposite in holding a post mortem on the past.

But I would call the attention of the leader of the government to the fact that in the past we have aided railways, particularly In the eastern section of Canada and have spent large sums on the government system of railways. My hon. friend from Queens, P.E.I., (Mr. A. Martin), a few moments ago, condemned the incurring of liabilities in the settlement of the transportation problem. And yet, in the next breath, he complained of the disregard of the requirements of his own province in the same direction. The hon. gentleman, I am sure, realizes that Prince Edward Island has received attention, and so have the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec in connection with the government system of railways. As subsidiary to the government system, this parliament has, from time to time, given aid toward the construction of railways which should be branches and feeders of that government system, and these contributions toward railway construction have benefited materially the government system. These expenditures in aid of branches of the government system were made for the purpose not only of increasing the traffic of the Intercolonial but of aiding the communities which these branch railways serve. Now, Sir, the government, having met the requirements of central Canada, as it is doing by these resolution*, should turn its eye to the conditions prevailing in eastern Canada. I shall not repeat the arguments I addressed to the House on a recent occasion, but I ask consideration of this: Is it not in the interests of the Intercolonial from a business standpoint, that the government should acquire the lines connecting with the government system, to make those lines do more perfectly their work as feeders and so increase and extend the traffic of the government system and to benefit further the communities served by these branches? Now that we have under consideration these propositions in the interests of the transportation problem of Canada, I would ask if the government has considered the desirability of acquiring these lines as feeders, thereby perfecting the government system and fulfilling the hopes of the communities served by these branch lines ? I do not wish the government to confine itself to one province, but to consider every province. In Nova Scotia, there are branch lines which are recognized as peculiarly coal branches that it would be desirable that the government should acquire, as their usefulness as feeders of the government system justifies that acquirement. And, while this policy would measurably solve the transportation problems of the east, it would enable the people of the west to secure the full benefit and advantage of a government system of railways. For it is not only to the east but to the west as well that the Intercolonial is doing good-


Henry Robert Emmerson: 


Mr. LEFURGEY.: What are you going to do with Prince Edward Island?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The government is dealing generously with Prince Edward Island. Only the other night we approved a resolution authorizing the governmnet to construct a branch line there. I am sure that my hon. friend (Mr. Lefurgey) approves of that; and. if it is good policy for Prince Edward Island, it is good policy for the mainland as well.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: But what about youi connecting link ? How are you going to make these Prince Edward Island roads feeders of the Intercolonial?


Henry Robert Emmerson: One thing at a time. If the hon. member will have a little patience he will find a tunnel built and a railway running under the straits. He wants everything in a moment. But he waited for generations-at least his political party did-without taking any step in that direction. The present administration are taking steps in that direction. And they are enlarging the railway system of Canada in every way. I invite the attention of the right hon. the First Minister to the subject I have mentioned, and would respectfully ask him, on behalf of the people of the ea3t particularly, whether the government have taken into consideration the acquirement of tlie branch lines connecting with the Intercolonial as feeders of the government railway system?


Wilfrid Laurier: If there be those in this House who honestly believe that the time has come when public assistance to railway construction can be done away with, I do not share that opinion. On the contrary, our experience proves that the time, I am afraid, is very far distant in the future when we can in this country do as the United States has done, dispense with assisting by money grants the extension of our railway system to all parts of the country in which settlement has already gone. I have heard to-day voices from the province of Ontario and voices from the province of Quebec, protesting against any new subsidies towards railway construction. I venture *to say that if these voices had come from those parts of Canada in the condition they were forty years ago, they would have been the first to ask for railway subsidies. But I can conceive that some people in the province of Ontario and some portions of Quebec, where you have the country grid-ironed with railways, may think there is no necessity for a further advance in that direction. I would like hon. gentlemen who represent those, parts of Canada to remember that in the new provinces, In some parts of Ontario, in some parts of Quebec, and some other parts of the country, the conditions to-day are just as they were

forty years ago In Ontario, and if it were left to private enterprise to provide those sections with the blessings of railway transportation,, its is .probable that they would have to suffer a deprivation for many years to come. This policy was inaugurated many years ago, and so far as I can judge, and I think it is admitted by everybody, it has been a wise policy. It has done wonders for the country, and if the country is to-day as prosperous as it undoubtedly is, the fact is due to two causes, increased transportation and added immigration. As long therefore as immigration continues to flow in at the rate it is doing now, as long as the country settles up as rapidly as it is now being settled, I am afraid that no encouragement can be given to those who think that we can dispense with public assistance to railway transportation. We have done a good deal for the west, we are doing a good deal for the west in these resolutions. I confess that the west lias been usually well taken care of. My hon. friend for Westmoreland (Mr. Em-rnerson) asks if we are not going to do anything for the east. He has told us, not only this session but in preceding sessions, that the east is not as well provided for as it should be ; that at the present time there is.an anomalous condition of things prevailing, that is to say, that in all parts of the country where there are feeders to trunk lines these feeders are generally taken care of and put under the management of the trunk lines ; whereas in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick the feeders are not connected with the trunk lines. I believe that in this matter, and I think every body will agree with me, if the Intercolonial were under private management, all these feeders which are now merely branch lines would have been acquired by the company and would be part of the system at this moment.- But we must recognize that government management of a railway has not the elasticity which would as readily suggest of the adoption of such a policy. As long as there lacks such a union between the trunk lines and the feeders there must be an unsatisfactory condition of things to the people of the maritime provinces. On the other hand, we must recognize the fact that while the Idea is a good one, it involves very serious complications and requires serious consideration. I may say to my hon. friend, since he has put the question directly to me, that we have given very serious consideration to the condition of things which he has laid before us. While this condition of things is not a novel one, and we have given to it a good deal of consideration, we have not yet been able to make up our minds that it is a policy which we should adopt. Whilst we are not prepared to say to my hon. friend that we shall adopt this policy, we realize that it is one which requires consideration, and makes it incumbent upon the government to make the fullest inquiry in order that we may be in a position to discuss the matter adequately at another session.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee on the resolutions.
Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Before this was drafted was there any arrangement made With these companies mentioned in this
section'


George Perry Graham: Just two companies to ibe known as the Canadian Northern. When ithey amalgamate, this guarantee of the bonds of this company takes effect, but we get a second mortgage on the entire system of the Canadian Northern Railway, including this part, which is to be part of the Canadian Northern Railway, and upon which we have a first mortgage. It is so worded as to guard that point by providing that the guarantee only becomes effective when this company and the Canadian Northern Railway are amalgamated into one-'new company, to be known as the Canadian Northern, each company carrying its own bonding powers into the new company.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: If that new company is called the Canadian Northern, will there be any danger of mistakes being made? .


George Perry Graham: No, it will be the Canadian Northern Company.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: But it will not be the Canadian Northern Company that exists
[DOT]to-day?


George Perry Graham: The Canadian Northern that exists to-day will be merged into this.


Mr. HAGGART.: Do I understand the Minister of Railways and Canals to say that on the new part to be constructed you take a first mortgage, and that on the part lof the railway already ^constructed the Canadian Northern have the right of issuing securities to the amount of $20,000 a mile, which will be prior to the claim of the government, and that the government, for the sum of money which it advances on these new lines to be constructed, not only takes ,a first mortgage on the part to be constructed, but a second mortgage on the part constructed, and also gets the undertaking of the company for the repayment of the money?


George Perry Graham: Yes, they become the makers of the securities of the Canadian Northern Company.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In regard to the company that it is proposed to guarantee, all the obligations resting against them now will remain the same as heretofore, and the government's mortgage will be a second mortgage?


George Perry Graham: The government will have a first mortgage on all the lines not now constructed, but it will have a second mortgage over the entire Canadian Northern system on the lines already constructed.


Robert Laird Borden: Is not the Canadian Northern system subject to a second mortgage already?


George Perry Graham: I think not.
Mr. HAGGtART. I would like to know from my hon. friend what security we are going to get from the Canadian Northern, and what the pending liabilities are on this road on which we are taking a second mortgage.


George Perry Graham: If there be a second mortgage on the Canadian Northern, I must say it must be on a very small portion of it. My understanding of it was that our mortgage was over the entire system. I will get all the particulars when we rise at six. The main point is that this becomes part of the Canadian Northern system and carries with it all its properties and bonding privileges. The bonding privileges of the Edmonton, Yukon and Pacific Railway Company were changed not long ago. On the Mountain portion of the road, by the recent Act, they have bonding power to the extent of $3o,000 a mile and on the other portions of the road to the extent of $25,000 a mile.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is this Edmonton, Yukon and Pacific Railway Company already chartered?
Mr. GR-AIIAM. Yes.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Who are the gentlemen composing the Edmonton, Yukon and Pacific Railway Company?
Mx-. GRAHAM. It is really the same interest as the Canadian Northern. That is why we are providing that the company must become the Canadian Northern.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Who are the gentlemen forming the company?


William Pugsley: Mackenzie & Mann.


John Barr: Have they the charter in their own name?


William Pugsley: Yes. I happen to know that, as a positive fact, the shareholders and directors are Mackenzie & Mann and the gentlemen connected with them in the Canadian Northern system. They have built some fifty miles from Edmonton westward already.


Robert Laird Borden: If the minister puts forward what he calls a second mortgage as the ground upon wrhich the government have entered into this guarantee, it would seem only right that he should give us some information as to wrhat that security


Thomas Simpson Sproule: will be. My recollection is that in the province of Manitoba and, I think, extending as far east as Port Arthur, the Manitoba government guaranteed the bonds, of that road, and they took as security a second mortgage upon all the system between those points that I have mentioned. So far as that is concerned, it is obvious that he cannot have a second mortgage. All I desire to know is what the particulars are.


George Perry Graham: I will get that information after six o'clock.


Uriah Wilson: We should know what we are getting in the way of security. Second or third mortgages are not considered very safe, and the minister ought to be able to tell us what claims against the road are privileged before ours ?
- Mr. HENDERSON. Is this the road of which the Hon. William Pugsley was the promoter when the original charter was obtained ?


George Perry Graham: I have never heard that before.


William Alfred Galliher: The original promoters of this road were all Edmonton men except one man in Toronto.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. Is this the line that goes from Stratheona to Edmonton ?
Mr. PUGSLEY'. Yes. This company was incorporated originally at the instance of the city of Edmonton and had power to build in the district surrounding Edmonton, extending from Stratheona across to Edmonton and thrence westerly 50 miles or more. It was first called the Edmonton District Railway, but subsequently parliament gave power to change the name to the Edmonton Yukon and Pacific Railway and enabled it to build through to the Pacific ocean by the Yellow Head pass, or the Pine River pass, or the Peace River pass. Some years ago the charter jvas acquired by Mackenzie and Mann and last session it was renewed and the bonding powers increased. Under that charter they have built a bridge across the Saskatchewan river at Edmonton and they have also graded, if not completely constructed some 50 miles. The Railway Act provides that with the approval of the Governor in Council one or more railways may become amalgamated, and if they do the new company takes over all the property of the united companies and becomes liable for all their obligations, and by clause 8 of this resolution it is provided that these bonds are not to be guaranteed until that amalgamation takes place so that the Canadian Northern will become invested with all the property and become subject to all the liabilities of the Edmonton, Yukon and Pacific Railway.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is the hon. gentleman speaking of the bridge already constructed over the Saskatchewan ?


William Pugsley: Yes.

Mr. HA6GART. Has this railway received any bonuses in any shape from the government ?


George Perry Graham: Thirty-eight miles has been subsidized by the government but that 38 miles is not included in this guarantee.


John Graham Haggart: There is no provision of that kind in your resolution.


George Perry Graham: That will be carefully guarded.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The English version of the resolution says that the guarantee is $25,000 per mile for 100 miles, and the French version says that the guarantee is not to exceed in all $150,000.


George Perry Graham: The French version is incorrect.


Robert Laird Borden: If the. resolution passes its present form I do not see how the Minister of Railways can avoid guar-anteeng of the 38 miles. The hon. member for Lanark points out that 38 miles of this railroad has already been subsidized, and the Minister of Railways admits that, and not one of the descriptions in paragraph 1 of the resolution includes the-38 miles. Do I understand that to be correct ?


George Perry Graham: That point has been considered. There are three routes by which the railway may be constructed and it is more than probable it will not take the route starting at the end of the 38 miles. The solicitor informs me that when we say : From a point at or near Edmonton or Strathcona it covers it amply ; making it clear that they can start at the end of the 38 mile section or at the end of another railway 21 miles north from Strathcona on the other side of the river.


John Graham Haggart: The minister gives his assurance that the railway company will receive no endorsation of bonds for that part of it which has already been subsidized, either the bridge or the line of road.


George Perry Graham: Absolutely. We have no idea of including a foot of the thirty-eight miles built. Section 9 of the Bill says :
The decision of the Governor in Council as to the length of the mileage of the said railway shall, for the purpose of this Act, be final.
It gives us absolute power to control the mileage.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: Is the minister certain that the thirty-eight miles constructed west of Edmonton was constructed under this charter ?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Can the minister state definitely what amount will be spent by this resolution ? It does not state any specified amount, can he say it will not be more than so much ?


George Perry Graham: We guarantee bonds at a certain rate, $13,000 per mile for fifty miles and $25,000 per mile for 100 miles. No money is to be expended but the government guarantees bonds at a certain rate for a certain mileage.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What is the obligation ?


George Perry Graham: The obligation is to guarantee 50 miles at $13,000 per mile, and 100 miles at $25,000 per mile. I do not think we will ever be called upon to pay a cent.


Samuel Hughes: Were bonds of the railway west of Edmonton guaranteed by the government ?


George Perry Graham: I think it had a subsidy of $3,200 a mile.


Samuel Hughes: The minister is certain it was built under this charter ?


George Perry Graham: It was built under the Edmonton, Yukon and Pacific charter.
Resolution reported, read the first and second time and agreed to.
Mr. GRAHAM moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 213) respecting aid for the extension of the Edmonton, Yukon and Pacific Railway.


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

[Stage Direction]
House in committee to consider the following proposed resolution :
1.	Resolved, That the government of Canada may aid and assist the construction of the lines of railway, set out below, of the Canadian Northern Railway Company, hereinafter called ' the company,' by guaranteeing the principal and interest of the bonds, debentures, debenture stock or other securities, hereinafter called ' securities,,' of the said company, to the extent of thirteen thousand dollars per mile of the said lines of railway so aided, respectively, interest on the said securities to be at the rate of three and one-half per cent per annum, payable half-yearly, and the principal to be payable in fifty years.
2.	Resolved, That the said securities so guaranteed shall be secured by one or more deeds of trust, by way of mortgage or charge, to a trustee or trustees, approved of by the Governor in Council, and such deed or deeds of trust shall respectively grant a first mortgage or charge upon the line or lines of railway included therein, and the rights of way, station grounds and other real estate and interests therein, buildings and other structures and improvements, rolling stock and equipment, plant, machinery, tools, supplies, materials and other personal properties present and future, acquired for the purpose of the said lines so aided, and in connection with operating, repairing and maintaining them, and the tolls, incomes and revenues of the company arising and to rise from the said lines and
[Stage Direction]
the rights, privileges, franchises and powers of the company now or hereafter held with respect to and in connection with the said lines, and the operation, maintenance and repair thereof.
3.	Resolved, That the said deed or deeds of trust shall also create a mortgage or charge, next after the charges existing thereon, upon all the lines and branch lines of railway of the company now in operation and upon all the property and franchises connected therewith, and upon all the tolls, incomes and revenues derived therefrom by the company, and also next after any 'bonds, debentures, debenture stock or other securities heretofore issued or hereafter to be issued by the company to raise the moneys required from time to time to meet the expenditures heretofore made or hereafter to be made for and in connection with the company's -yard and freight terminals in Winnipeg, and the expenditures under the agreement respecting Winnipeg terminals, set out in chapter 52 of the statutes of Canada of 1907, made between the company, tho Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and His Majesty the King, and after the deeds of trust, mortgages, pledges and charges heretofore given or hereafter to be given to secure them: provided always that, with respect to lines or parts thereof now constructed and in operation, for the mileage of which no bonds, debentures, debenture stock or other securities have yet been issued, the company may issue first mortgage securities at a rate not exceeding fifteen thousand dollars per mile, and may seoure them by deed or deeds of trust by way of first mortgage or charge, having priority over the mortgage or charge to be created by the deed or deeds of trust hereinbefore mentioned.
4.	Resolved, That the kind of securities to be guaranteed as herein provided and the forms thereof, and the form and terms of the deed or deeds of trust securing them, and the times and manner of the issue of securities and the disposition of the moneys to be raised thereon, by sale, pledge or otherwise, pending the expenditure of such moneys for the purposes of the lines of railway respectively so aided, and the forms and manner of guarantee, shall be such as the Governor in Council approves of, and such terms, provisions and conditions may he included in such deed or deeds of trust as the Governor iin Council deems expedient or necessary.
5.	Resolved, That the said guarantee shall be signed by the Minister of Finance or such officer as is designated by the Governor in Council to sign it, and upon being so signed the government shall become liable as guarantor for the payment of the principal and interest of the securities so guaranteed according to the teuor thereof, and the said payment shall form a charge upon the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
6.	Resolved, That the rates and tolls charged by the company upon any of its lines shall not in any case be higher than the rates or tolls fixed in the contract to be made between the government of Canada and the company.
7.	Resolved, That any money paid by the government of Canada, under any guarantee herein provided for shall be held to be paid in discharge of the liability of the government and not in discharge erf the liability of the
Mr. GRAHAM
company under the securities guaranteed or under any deed of trust securing them, and the moneys so paid shall be held to be still secured by the said securities and deed of trust and the government shall be subrogated in and to all the rights of the holders of such securities, the interest upon or the principal of which has been paid by the government, and ithe government shall with respect to all moneys so paid be in all respects in the position of security holders with respeot to whose securities default has been made in payment to the extent of the moneys paid by the government.
8.	Resolved, That the decision of the Governor in Council as to the length of the mileage of any of the said lines of railway shall, for the purposes hereof, be final.
9.	Resolved, that the books of the company shall at all times he open to inspection for and on behalf of the government by any person named in that behalf by the Governor in Council or the Minister of Finance.
10.	Resolved, that the lines of railway above referred to are the following :
1.	A line of railway from or from near Regina, in the province of Saskatchewan, to the westerly 'boundary of Manitoba, -there connecting with the company's line to Brandon, not exceeding one hundred and fifty-two miles.
2.	A line of railway from or from near Saskatoon, in the province of Saskatchewan, thence running in a southerly and western direction towards Calgary, not exceeding one hundred and seventy-five miles.
3.	A line of railway from or from near Prince Albert, in the province of Saskatchewan, by way of North Battleford and Baittle-ford junction, to or near to Battleford, excluding, however, the mileage between North Battleford and Battleford junction, the distance, exclusive of the last-mentioned mileage not exceeding one hundred and thirty-two miles.
4.	A line of railway from the Thunder Hill line of the company's railway at or near the westery boundary of the province of Manitoba, running in a generally western direction towards Rosfhom, a distance not exceeding one hundred miles.
5.	An extension of the Rosthcrn line from the western boundary of the province of Manitoba, in a northwesterly direction, a distance not exceeding fifty miies.-Mr. Graham.
Mr.' GRAHAM. Hon. gentlemen will see that I have laid on their desks certain information concerning the various lines to be guaranteed. I think something like 509 miles at $13,000 per mile. The various portions of the line which are part of the Canadian Northern system are outlined In the resolution. In general terms aid to these railways has been urged very strongly in all these sections ; in some places by the municipalities, in others by prominent citizens and in others by deputations. The question of whether the railway shall be built or not, is a very live question. We who have many great railway facilities of course do not appreciate the position in which men are placed who are many miles from a railway. Believing this to be a proper course to pursue we selected those most strongly nrged

ancl most important and these are the results.
John Graham Haggart: Does the minister know on how many miles of this road bonds and debentures or securities have been issued and to what extent on any portion of the road?


George Perry Graham: I will have a statement of that after dinner.


John Graham Haggart: Have you any prepared agreement or any form of agreement in which you intend to enter with the company with reference to passenger tolls and freight rates? You make provision for special i-ates.


George Perry Graham: We put that in because we wanted to be sure. Under the general Act the toils will come under the Railway Commission. As a layman I did not see the necessity of putting it in the Act as we do not intend to make special rates. . It was put in by the solicitor.
Resolutions read the second time and agreed to.
Mr. GRAHAM moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 214) respecting certain aid for the extension of the Canadian Northern Railway.


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

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider certain resolutions respecting the granting of subsidies in aid of the construction of the lines of railways therein mentioned.
George Perry Graham: The first twenty-six of these resolutions are simply revotes. I have laid on the table a map on which is marked every line guaranteed and every line intended to be subsidized, both revotes and others. I have also laid on the table copies of the applications. These charters are all alive.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has the minister satisfied himself that all these undertakings are feasible? The situation may have materially changed in the case of some of these roads sinee the original subsidies were voted. There may be many companies that are not going on with their lines.


George Perry Graham: Unless a company makes a new application every year it is not considered. It has to give certain reasons for its application. It is possible that there are a large number not applying, but these will not be considered at all although the revotes are there ; they all have to make new applications. On looking them over I think there is reason in every case why we should revote the subsidy, particularly as recently the time has not been very good for financing any railway or any other scheme.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How long ago were these voted? Some of them seem pretty old.


George Perry Graham: I can turn up any case my hon. friend mentions and give the date when the application was made and the subsidy was granted.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Has the hon. minister any reason to believe that they will build within the time of this renewed subsidy?


George Perry Graham: I can only give the information that was obtained in the application of each company. It is something in their favour that these subsidies were grant-el them before.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In many cases, these subsidies were asked for by companies that intended to build lines that would compete with existing lines. But, in the meantime, the charters may have been acquired by the very roads with which it was intended to compete. Can we be sure that we are not granting a renewal subsidy that will defeat the very object for which the subsidy was granted in the first place?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend's question is very pertinent. It is not easy to learn all these details in the information we receive. We have a regular form for them to fill up, and, as for the rest, we can only use our best judgment. The point is one which would come up rather on the granting of a charter, though, of course, the charter might be granted to one person and afterwards acquired by another. So far as possible, we guarded the point the hon. gentleman has referred to, but, in some cases, it will happen in spite of any information that we have.


Duncan Ross: On one point, I do not find anything in these resolutions, but to be certain, I would like to ask if, in the Bill covering these resolutions, it is intended to repeal any of the subsidies not mentioned here as revotes. Some subsidies were revoted last year and do not expire for another year. They are not revoted by these resolutions, hut I take it that they are not repealed?	*


George Perry Graham: It is not the intention to repeal any that now exist. You might allow a subsidy to lapse, but you could not very well repeal it, because it might have been financed in good faith.


Uriah Wilson: Will the minister tell us, as we come to each case, when the charter was granted, and what reason he has for renewing the subsidy?


George Perry Graham: That would take all night. If the hon. gentleman will tell me what information he wants I will gladly give it.


Uriah Wilson: The hon. minister must have some ground for revoting the sub-

sidy, and that he ought to state to the committee. The reason against this course is that it will take all night. This is another condemnation of the government for bringing these resolutions before the House at this late date. These resolutions should have been before the House three or four weeks ago at least, and then we could have read up the information and been ready to discuss the matter intelligently. Gentlemen about me here suggest that they should have been down months ago. Certainly, we cannot intelligently discuss them within the time allowed us.


George Perry Graham: Some of these charters have been granted by the provincial legislatures and it is difficult to get all the information.


Uriah Wilson: I do not see that that makes any difference. No matter who gave the charter, the minister ought to be able to tell us why he is renewing the subsidy.
To the Kettle River Valley Railway Company, for a line of railway from a point at or near Grand Forks to a point fifty miles up the North Fork, and East or West Fork, of the North Fork Kettle river, in lieu of the subsidy granted by chapter 43 of 1906, section 1, item 39; not exceeding 50 miles.


George Perry Graham: This road was discussed a great deal in the House several years ago.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Has the road been commenced?


George Perry Graham: I understand that a portion twenty miles long is under construction. My British Columbia friends Inform me that this road will be a great advantage to the province.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How is it that they never asked for their subsidy?


George Perry Graham: This is a revote. They could start the work, but you must revote the subsidy to keep it in force.


Uriah Wilson: How long is the road ?


George Perry Graham: In all, possibly two hundred miles.


Uriah Wilson: And chartered in 1901, and only twenty miles commenced.


George Perry Graham: They are asking a subsidy for only fifty miles.


Mr. CROCKET.: Does this carry the double subsidy?


George Perry Graham: It will undoubtedly earn the double subsidy.
For a line of railway from Owen Sound in the province of Ontario to Meaford, in lieu of the subsidy granted by chapter 43 of 1906, section 1, item 18; not exceeding 30 miles.


George Perry Graham: Any person who has been in that part of the country understands the Mr. U. WILSON.
necessity of having better communication with Owen Sound. This line was chartered in 1904.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: It says 'for a line of railway.' What company?


George Perry Graham: The Owen Sound and Meaford.


Uriah Wilson: How much has been built?


George Perry Graham: I do not know.
For a line of railway from Sharbot lake or Bathurst Station, in the province of Ontario, or between these points, via Lanark village, to Carleton Place, in lieu of the subsidy granted by chapter 43 of 1906, section 1, item 7; not exceeding 41 miles.


George Perry Graham: This charter was given to the Kingston and Pembroke, which now is controlled by the Canadian Pacific Railway. It was chartered many years ago and the subsidy was renewed in 1906.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it owned by the Canadian Pacific Railway?


Mr. HARTY.: They have a controlling interest.
To the Nipigon Railway Company, for the following lines of railway:-	,
(a)	from a point at or near Nipigon Station on the line of the Canadian Pacific Railway to Nipigon lake; not exceeding 30 miles.
(b)	from a point on Nipigon bay of Lake
Superior to a point on the west of Lake Helen on the line of the Nipigon Railway; not exceeding 3i miles.	_
(c)	from a point on the line of the Nipigon Railway at or near the crossing of the Fraser river to a point on Lake Jesse, by way of Cameron's Falls; not exceeding li miles;
(d)	from a point on the north shore of Lake Nipigon northerly; not exceeding 45 miles; the said subsidies to the said lines being granted in lieu of the subsidies granted by chapter 43 of 1906, section 1, item 10; not exceeding in all 80 miles.


George Perry Graham: This is a line chartered I think, by the provincial government some years ago.


Uriah Wilson: How long Is it ?


George Perry Graham: Eighty miles.


Uriah Wilson: How much of it is built?


George Perry Graham: I think none of It is built.


Uriah Wilson: When was the charter granted?


George Perry Graham: It was a provincial charter, and I have not a memorandum of the date. It was some years ago.


Uriah Wilson: The minister might give the reason why it is not built.


George Perry Graham: This Is a very desirable road. I have always thought so. I discussed this charter in the provincial arena.

It will open up a good portion of the province, and we should not cut off the subsidy but renew it, to see if we can get some one to undertake a railway to open up that country.


John Graham Haggart: The main object of the charter was to facilitate the building of the Transcontinental and to aid in getting supplies into that portion of the country.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: When we subsidize provincial railways do they become federal railways or do they remain provincial railways ?


George Perry Graham: I have fairly strong views in reference to provincial charters. 1 am inclined to think, like the ex-leader of the Conservative party, that any steam road of any dimensions ought to come under Dominion jurisdiction. But it. does not come under our jurisdiction because we give it aid.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: If wa grant it subsidies we should have something to say in its control.


George Perry Graham: There is a Dominion charter for this road as well as a provincial. This is not owned by the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the object of building a railway back up there ? Years ago it was for the object of taking in supplies to build the Transcontinental, and was supposed to be useful in developing some mines and fishing. But I see that some members of the government control the fishing leases in Nipigon lake.


George Perry Graham: That is one of the arguments. In fact, every road that has been chartered running north and south for a good many years, is said to be chartered to help the Grand Trunk Pacific Company. It runs through a pretty good piece of agricultural and timbered area, and I hope my hon. friend will not insist on cutting that out.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Who owns these charters now ?


George Perry Graham: I am told the Canadian Northern have control of it now.
To the Manitoulin and North Shore Railway Company (or to the Canada Central Railway Company with -the consent of the Manitoulin and North Shore Railway Company, and sub-jeot to the approval of the Governor in Council), for the following lines of railway :
(a)	from a point on the said line of railway, between Little Current and Sudbury, westerly towards the Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway; not exceeding 100 miles;
(b)	from Little Current thence crossing the Canadian Pacific Railway, at or near Stanley, and thence to Sudbury; not exceeding 61 miles;
(c)	from a point at or near Sudbury, northerly; not exceeding 30 miles;
the said subsidies being granted in lieu of the subsidies granted by chapter 43 of 1906, section 1, item 1; not exceeding in all 194 miles.


George Perry Graham: This rums through the districts of Manitoulin, Algoma and Nipis-sing, In the counties of Grey and Bruce. What we call the Soo Interests own this. It runs through a part of Ontario where a road is needed, and where everything ought to be done to get it constructed.


Uriah Wilson: How much of It Is built ?


George Perry Graham: There are 16i miles built and In operation between Sudbury and Little Current. It has a Dominion charter. The Ontario charter has lapsed, and a new charter was given by the Dominion In 1900.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This subsidy covers the distance from Manitoulin island towards Sudbury. The people iu that country were anxious to get some assistance to build a railway down the Island. Is any provision made whereby any portion of this subsidy will go for that purpose ?


George Perry Graham: The charter covers Manitoulin island. There were some deputations down here concerning that, I do not know what arrangement was come to. Originally the idea was to give railway facilities on the island as well as northward. This is a revote of what the company had before. They have not done much construction.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
For a line of railway from a point on the Intercolonial Railway at or near Dartmouth, in the county of Halifax, to a point at or near Deans Settlement, in the county of Halifax, in lieu in part of the subsidy granted by chapter 43 of 1906, section 1, item 5; not exceeding 80 miles.


Uriah Wilson: I thought the
Minister of Railways and Canals was going to give some information as to the liabilities against these railways.


George Perry Graham: The liabilities I was trying to get was not against these railways, but against the Canadian Northern.


Uriah Wilson: The two roads.


George Perry Graham: I will be able to give it when we come to the Bill.
To the Quebec and New Brunswick Railway Company, foT a line of railway from Chau-diere junction to a point at or near the international boundary, in lieu of the subsidies granted by ohapter 7 of 1901, section 2, item 25, for 18 miles; not exceeding 80 miles.


Mr. MORIN.: I know the country through which this road is to go, and I am not able to understand what this vote means. This road starts from the ChaudiOre junction,

or Chaudigre curve, and will the minister say where it is going? It says ' to a point at or near the international boundary.'


George Perry Graham: The point is not designated in the application. The route had to be changed. As a matter of fact, the Grand Trunk Pacific took a part of this company's line. The mileage is reduced by some 18 miles as compared with the old grant. This is a revote, and it was put in simply to a point on tlie international boundary. They do not seem to have given me the point. In discussing that with them they said that they wanted to go in as direct a line as they could, but they did not want to be tied up to a particular point. That is the explanation.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Well, it is a pretty poor explanation. They can strike the boundary line at Lake Pohenegamook or they can strike it westward about 200 miles. To what place do they intend to go? The minister does not know the country as well as I do. West of Lake Pohenegamook the whole country is wooded. There is no town, village or settlement. Why should they run the road to the boundary line?


Jacob Thomas Schell: The idea is to make as*direct.a line as possible to St. John to get to an ocean port.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: That is a reply but not an answer. Mr. Costigan who got this charter knows all about the direction of the road and he wants this road to connect with a road at Connors. That road comes up the St. John river, then up the St. Francis river, then to Lake Pohenegamook and thence westward. The government has a road at Lake Pohenegamook in the Transcontinental, and what is the use of building another road from the lake to Quebec? The Quebec Central is building a road there also.


George Perry Graham: This is not a new vote; the only difference is that we are reducing the mileage.


John Dowsley Reid: When was this subsidy granted ?


George Perry Graham: In 1901 I think.


John Dowsley Reid: The charter has been hanging round for seven years with a subsidy and yet nothing has been done, while in the meantime the Transcontinental and the Quebec Central are going through the city. If the minister would change this subsidy and give it to the line between Broekville and Ottawa he would be acting more in the interests of the country.


William Pugsley: This compaany was promoted by the Hon. Mr. Costigan and the charter was from Quebec down into the St. John valley, New Brunswick. The road was subsidized by the province of Quebec Mr. MORIN
and also by the province of New Brunswick and through the efforts of Mr. Costigan a company spent a considerable sum of money grading the road in the province of New Brunswick from Connors up to the Quebec boundary. The route authorized in the charter was' taken up by the Transcontinental and Mr. Costigan while he felt aggrieved did not make any kick about it. During the present session the charter has been changed so as to allow this road to take a more southerly route and get away from the Transcontinental. This is a revote of the subsidy for the line in the province of Quebec, leaving the subsidy in New Brunswick as it was voted last session.


John Graham Haggart: It was originally intended that the road promoted by Mr. Costigan should be built up by the little St. Francis river, but the Transcontinental adopted that route and this vote is for the purpose of subsidizing a new road towards the state of Maine. What my hon. friend (Mr. Morin) objects to is that you make the objective point at the Chaudifire Junction and that there are 200 miles along the boundary of the State of Maine that they can make the objective point at the other end of the line. He wants to know definitely what point the line will go to in the state of Maine and why it is to go there.


John Dowsley Reid: This is simply a charter to be hawked around with the idea of making money for Mr. Costigan. He had a subsidy grant some years ago when he was not able to do anything about it. Mr, Costigan has no intention of building the road at all but simply to see if he can make money out of it by selling the charter. I do not object if it is for the purpose of opening up new territory where the people must have railway communication, but to charter this railway to run to any point they wish in the state of Maine is just simply to give them a chance to speculate. The Minister of Railways is not doing the country any service by granting such a subsidy as this.


William Pugsley: Those who know the Hon. Mr. Costigan will not say that he is a man who gets railway charters for the purpose of speculating in them. Mr. Costigan has devoted a great deal of time and energy to the development of the northern part of New Brunswick and for a number of years he worked unselfishly in connection with this road. He succeeded in getting people to commence the construction of it and they have spent a good deal of money. If Mr. Costigan did not succeed in having matters go through as he had reason to believe they would, he would be in this position-so he tells me and I have no doubt at all it is true-that this * company would lose a good many thous-

and dollars which they have put into the construction of the road. All Mr. Costigan wants, so he informs me, and all he would get would be to have the meu who have done the work honestly in the building of the road so far as it has been constructed, paid for the work they have done.


John Dowsley Reid: The minister states there is nothing done.


William Pugsley: In New Brunswick they have built some of It. It is all one undertaking, the part in New Brunswick and the part in Quebec. Construction work has been commenced on the New Brunswick portion. For that the subsidy was renewed at the last session. The subsidy for the remainder has lapsed, and Mr. Costigan is seeking to have it renewed for the part that is in Quebec.
tended to stop 60 miles from that point, and how far is the red line on the map north or south of the Transcontinental Railway ?


Jean-Baptiste Morin: The location of this road is clearly wrong. It would be quite right to build a road from Lac Pohenegamook down to Connor's but there is no sense in building a road from ChaudiCre where you have the Grand Trunk Pacific, the Intercolonial and the Quebec Central. It is proposed to run from Chaudiere to the state of Maine but no point is mentioned. I do not wish to object to the road being built in the least but some explanation should be given.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not think it right to give a subsidy for a line 200 miles along the frontier. Let them have their line surveyed and then ask for this.


John Dowsley Reid: I understand that the line as laid by the company has been taken by the Grand Trunk Pacific.


William Pugsley: That has diverted it a little to the south.


John Dowsley Reid: This gives another line.


William Pugsley: It is quite a long distance away.


John Dowsley Reid: How much is built and in operation in New Brunswick ?


William Pugsley: It is not in operation. Mr. Costigan informed me that several miles have been graded, a good many thousand dollars spent on it; work has been done by a firm of contractors in Montreal.


John Dowsley Reid: I have seen cases where they simply do two or three miles of grading and that holds the subsidy.


William Pugsley: This is several miles.


George Perry Graham: That argument would have been all right in the committee where this was all threshed out. It was explained that the road when it got to the International boundary intended to make a connection if possible with some other road, but they did not want to name absolutely the point because they could not say where the American road would meet them.


John Dowsley Reid: That argument was absurd. When we give a charter in the Railway Committee it does not mean that we are granting a subsidy.


George Perry Graham: No.


John Dowsley Reid: That is your argument. If the minister had told us he was granting a subsidy we would have taken care to know where the line was to run. It will be only three or four months until the next session and when they have located their line they might come to us.


John Dowsley Reid: It is a queer method to bring in a subsidy for a line which they cannot locate within 200 miles. It is absurd and ridiculous to ask for a subsidy with such an explanation as the minister has given and I am sure the people of this country do not wish to have money spent in this way.	.


Mr. BARKER.: Is the proposition to grant a subsidy for about 80 miles easterly from ChaudiSre to Kamouraska ?


George Perry Graham: It has been reduced to 62 miles.


Samuel Barker: Is the line shown on the map the 62 or the 80 miles ?


George Perry Graham: That map was possibly arranged with the 80 miles. I cannot say positively.


Samuel Barker: It was stated that 45 miles had already been granted, as I understand the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Morin) the line does not appear to run anywhere near Lac Pohenegamook. Is it in-


Samuel Barker: Looking at the map produced, it would appear that the Transcontinental cannot be more than a mile from this road, and it is an absurdity after building the Transcontinental to subsidize a private road from Chaudiere to Kamouraska, almost alongside of it.


William Pugsley: It seems to me that those of us who are more especially interested in the development that will be brought about by this road if it is built, may be supposed to know what the result of the construction of the road will be. My hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Daniel) knows that for very many years, in fact ever since railway construction began in Canada, the people along the valley of the St. John have been pleading for the construction of a line of railway through (that valley. We have extending along the St. John river from away up above Grand Falls right down to the city of St. John, one of the most fertile and best sections of country to be found in the Dominion. Years ago, when the Intercolonial Railway was projected, many thought that

that line would follow the valley of the St. John; but for reasons I need not go Into, the line was carried along the north shore of New Brunswick and the people of the St. John valley were left without a railway. Later on came up the question of the Transcontinental, and the people again had their hopes aroused. They thought that road might be built along their fertile valley, but after the surveys were made the road was located back from the river, so that after you leave Grand Palls it does not touch the St. John at any point but goes through the centre of the province. So eager are the people of the valley for the construction of this line that during the last session of the provincial legislature, the members upon both sides united in supporting the government proposal to guarantee the bonds of any railway company, which might become a part of a trunk line system, to the extent of $15,000 per mile. That idea was supported by all the members of the legislature on both sides and received general support among the people. As I understand the proposition of the gentlemen who, with Mr. Costigan, are promoting this charter and asking for this subsidy, is that they will carry their line from the Chaudiere Junction near Quebec, cross the international boundary and go through the state of Maine at its northern part, where it is comparatively narrow, instead of going up around the angle of the St. Francis river in the province of New Brunswick. It will cross the northern part of the state of Maine and connect there with a road down the St. John valley and make this road a part of the St. John valley system. I do not know whether that can be carried out; but I would say that if the line, as these gentlemen are proposing to have it constructed, is constructed to a point on the St. John in the vicinity of Grand Falls, it will give a great impetus to the construction of a line down the St. John valley. If it does not form part of such a through scheme, it will never be built because capitalists will not put their money into a local line. If built as a through scheme, it will be of enormous advantage to a country 290' miles in extent and one of the most fertile portions of Canada and which is to-day without the railway facilities enjoyed by most of the older sections of the Dominion.


Samuel Barker: I have listened patiently to the hon. minister. He has not said one word relating to the subsidy. He has given us a description of the country down about St. John at the other end of this line, but he might as well have told us how you would run the Transcontinental through British Columbia by describing a section of it in New Brunswick. This 62 miles is to run not from St. John to this point, but from the Chaudi6re at Quebec easterly.


William Pugsley: Towards the St. John river.


William Pugsley: 


Samuel Barker: But only as far as Kamour-aska. We are speaking only of 62 miles and not of all the way to St. John river. Your line may be an admirable way to reach the St. John valley, but there is no necessity for the Dominion bonusing 62 miles of road from the Chaudiere to the international boundary. Any gentleman who looks at the map will see that this line must run within two or three miles at the most from the Transcontinental, and it is not absurd to say that after building the Transcontinental, which could join with the line down to the St. John that my hon. friend speaks of, we should subsidize another line from the Chaudiere running alongside the Transcontinental for 62 miles.


John Graham Haggart: The difficulty could be got over in this way. Suppose you give a subsidy to a line from the Chaudiere Junction to the state of Maine to connect with a road which connects with the St. Francis road running to Grand Falls down the St. Francis river, and then we will know the direction of this road. Instead of going around on the line of the Transcontinental, the parties evidently want to go to the state of Maine and make a short cut over to the line which they are at present constructing on the River St. Francis towards the Dominion.
For a line of railway from Tusket Wedge to a point on the Halifax Southwestern Railway at or near Riverdale station; not exceeding 8 miles.


George Perry Graham: This is a branch of the main line to Sussex village owned by the Halifax and Southwestern Railway Company.
To the Halifax and Southwestern Railway Company, for a line of railway from Lunenburg <to Bridgewater, via Upper Lahave; not exceeding 12 miles.


George Perry Graham: This is to connect Lunenburg with Bridgewater.
To the Erie, London and Tilsonburg Railway
Company, for a line of railway from _ Port Burwell to London, not exceeding 35 miles.


Mr. BEATTIE.: Knowing that district as well as I do, I would like to give the minister a little information. There is a railway already built from Port Burwell to Tilsonburg. ' Is it proposed to extend this into London ? Do they propose a new line from Port Burwell to London ? Port Burwell is sixteen miles from Port Stanley and there is a road from Port Stanley to London. Should there be a line between Port Burwell and London, these two lines will not be more than eight miles apart. That district is well supplied already with railway facilities by the Grand Trunk Railway, the Canada Southern and the Wabash line. The city of London and the county of Middlesex built a railway at their own expense many years ago, and I think it is hardly fair to

grant a bonus to a line which will be an opposition line to the London and Port Stanley Railway. If a company want to build a line to parallel that, they should be compelled to do it at their own expense. It is hardly fair to the city of London and the county of Middlesex, to have that line paralleled by another line bonused by this country. I hope the minister will look into the matter. The line from Port Burwell already built has been running for years into Ingersoll. The company were not able to run it, their cars were a disgrace, and they had to turn it over to the Canadian Pacific Railway to run it for them. To make an extension from Tilsonburg into London will simply parallel the London and Port Stanley Railway.


Henry Robert Emmerson: What distance from Tilsonburg to London ?


Thomas Beattie: Some twenty-five miles. They are not going to build a line from Port Burwell to Tilsonburg when they have one built and one which they could not maintain and had to turn over to the Canadian Pacific Railway who are now running it. I do not want to move, but I call the attention of the minister and would like him to look into this matter before granting a bonus. ,


George Perry Graham: In raising the objection that this will give competition, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Beattie) does not agree with the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) who said that the main object of giving a subsidy was to bring competition.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. minister is misrepresenting me. I said that the reason assigned in many instances for these subsidies was that they would be the means of building railways that would give competition, but sometimes these subsidized roads transferred their interests, perhaps to the very same railways w-itli which they were supposed to be competitors.


Thomas Beattie: If there was any necessity for this road I would not say a word. Competition is well enough, but I do not see why the Dominion should help them to build another railway to compete with one built by the people of the locality with their own money.


John Dowsley Reid: On what ground is this subsidy granted?


George Perry Graham: The representations were as follows : The charter is from Port Burwell to London, with a branch to Tilsou-burg.


Thomas Beattie: The line is already built from Port Burwell to Tilsonburg.


George Perry Graham: From Port Burwell to London, and London to Tilsonburg. But the proposed subsidy is from Port Burwell to London.


Thomas Beattie: Tilsonburg comes in between.


George Perry Graham: That is not on the line.


Thomas Beattie: Then you are going to run three lines eight miles apart.


George Perry Graham: The representation made to me by prominent men not connected with the road at all were that at present facilities are not afforded them to get in their coal supply which comes across the lake at that point. It is represented strongly, and the figures show, that if there was another road from Port Burwell to London with facilities for bringing coal across the lake that part of Western Ontario would save a large amount on the price of coal that must now come around by the bridge.


Thomas Beattie: I am sorry that these prominent gentlemen have been deceiving the minister so badly. At Port Stanley we have had a car ferry that brings coal from Conneaut, and it has been running for years, long before they thought of having a car ferry at Port Burwell. The Grand Trunk, the Pere Marquette and other railways get their coal supplies in that way. The coal supply for London and district does not come by the bridge. As to building a branch railway from Port Burwell to London, the thing is a farce. Perhaps they might run a branch from Tilsonburg to London, but they are not going to build a railway to Port Burwell, a place with 25 inhabitants and no trade.


Jacob Thomas Schell: I am surprised to hear the manner in which the hon. member for London (Mr. Beattie) speaks of running a railway from Port Burwell to London by way of Tilsonburg. This railroad is intended to run from Port Burwell through the township of Malahide, through the town of Aylmer and Belmont into London. The charter was held for an electric railroad by a party living in Aylmer. Some years ago he asked for tenders for the construction of the road. I have been over the route. The holder of the charter was not able to finance the scheme. Since I became a member of the House another corporation have come to the House and got a charter for this road and propose to build the railway. Instead of being in opposition to the Port Stanley road, it will bring more trade into London. Port Stanley and Port Burwell are eighteen miles apart on the lake shore. From London to Port Stanley is twenty miles, from Port Stanley to Port Burwell eighteen miles and-


Thomas Beattie: Sixteen miles, if you please.


Jacob Thomas Schell: And completing the triangle from Port Burwell to Aylmer is thirteen miles and from Aylmer to London through Belmont would make up the distance, 35 miles. It cannot be a competing road with the other, but would make a lot



of traffic tributary to London, besides giving the people of Port Burwell another outlet. If people wish to put money into a thing of this kind, if they come from the United States or England and put their money in and develop business, surely we should not object to that. It is enterprise such as this that has built London and all the other towns of this country.


Thomas Beattie: I do not wish to take up the time of the committee, but I wish to say that the hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. J. T. Schell) does not know what he jg talking about. Aylmer is twelve miles from St. Thomas. The existing road, with which this one, I contend, would compete, was built with the money of the city of London and Middlesex county, and the debt is about $2,000,000. These people propose to build a railway in opposition to that, when the road they have built to Tilson-burg could not be run-it was a disgrace to the country, running with a baggage car and an engine. It was handed over to the Canadian Pacific Railway who took it in order to get in their coal that way. But coal in cars has been brought across Lake Erie from Conneaut to Port Stanley long before a car ferry at Port Burwell was thought of. If the minister will look into the matter I shall be satisfied. I have no objection to the road being built, but I do not think the Dominion should give it a bonus.
For a line of railway from a point on the Canadian Pacific Railway at or near Plaster rock to Riley brook; not exceeding 28 miles.


John Graham Haggart: Does this line to Plaster Rock run cars?


William Pugsley: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: Once a week, I suppose?


William Pugsley: Daily. The Canadian Pacific Railway are operating it and doing it very successfully.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Making money.
To the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Company, for a line of railway from a point near French creek to the village of Sandwich, not exceeding 11 miles; and for a line of railway from the village of Sandwich to Campbell river, not exceeding 38 miles; not exceeding in all 79 miles.


John Graham Haggart: Does the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway ask for this?


George Perry Graham: Yes, they are giving a subsidy.
For a line of railway from a point at or near Cowley, in Alberta, to a point oin High-wood river; not exceeding 50 miles.


George Perry Graham: I move to insert at the beginning of the item : ' To the Southern Central Pacific Railway.'


Jacob Thomas Schell: 


Mr. HERRON.: I wish to say to the minister that I believe there are two charters over the same ground. The charter which is in existence is almost ready to expire, it has been in existence for a number of years, and there has been no work done. Another company has made application, but it has received no charter. It is ready to begin operations just as soon as they can get assistance ; perhaps they will without assistance. I think it is fair to say that if the new company is willing to build that road, it should get the same assistance, provided the old company is not going on.


George Perry Graham: This being the company that had the original charter, and the other company not having a charter, we thought the proper thing to do was to give the subsidy to the company having the old charter. If they do not make progress, we wfil be in a position to do something when it comes up again.


John Herron: I believe the charter Is just about expiring ; provided it is, I hope the minister will give full consideration to this new company, because a road is very badly needed in that particular part of the country.
To the Quebec and Lake St. John Railway Company, for the following lines of railway:
(a)	from Valoartier station to St. Catherine; not exceeding 3-8 miles ;
(b)	from Valoartier station towards Gos-fard; not exceeding 5} miles.
(c)	from the end of the 35th mile of the branch to LaTuque, on the River St. Maurice, to LaTuque falls; not exceeding 5 miles;
(d)	from LaTuque falls to the mouth of the River Croche; not exceeding 5 miles;
(e)	from point on LaTuque branch to the steamboat landing near LaTuque; not exceeding I '6 miles ; not exceeding in all 20 -9 miles.


John Graham Haggart: Is any portion of this road already built?


George Perry Graham: These are all small branches. I am told none of them are built.


Jacob Thomas Schell: None of these are built, but the main branch from Lake St. John road to La Tuque is built, some 25 miles, finished this spring. The main line is building these short branches. From the terminus of that line down to La Tuque none of them are built.
For a line of railway from Montreal to a point on the National Transcontinental Railway ; not exceeding 200 miles.


John Graham Haggart: How is it that you give a subsidy for the purpose of connecting the National Transcontinental Railway with tho Northern Railway at Montreal when there is no subsidy to the Ontario people, who are building their own road? Why are they not as much entitled to it as the Quebec people?


George Perry Graham: There la a subsidy given to a company road to be built from Port

Arthur and Fort William to Sault Ste. Marie, about the same distance as this, and this is given to a company in Montreal. It has been the policy of the government not to give aid to the Ontario government railway.


Albert Edward Kemp: That is what my hon. friend from Lanark refers to. He refers to the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway, the Ontario government road running north to North Bay. Is there anything in the subsidies for that road ? I understand that the Ontario government applied for a subsidy for that road.


George Perry Graham: I said it was not the policy of the Dominion government to aid the line of the Ontario government.


Albert Edward Kemp: Why not?


George Perry Graham: That will open up a large question of policy.


John Graham Haggart: The Quebec government may do this. This is for a line of railway, not to any particular company. They may make arrangements with the Quebec government to build it. You give it to the Quebec government, and you refuse the application of the Ontario government.


George Perry Graham: The Ontario government have not made any application.


John Graham Haggart: You cannot give it to the Quebec government under this vote.


William Stevens Fielding: This application was made some years ago by the late Quebec government, and it was not thought to be a wise policy at that time to assist local governments, if they wanted to build railroads, to come to the federal government for subsidies. The conclusion was reached several years ago when the application w7as made by the former government of Ontario.


William Pugsley: I might call my hon. friend's attention to section 5 by which he will see that this subsidy must be given to a company.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The government are prepared to give substantial subsidies to connect cities in Quebec with the Transcontinental Railway, but when we reach Ontario they are not prepared to give a dollar.


William Pugsley: Port Arthur is in Ontario.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is not a city. The city of Toronto should be connected with the Transcontinental Railway in the same way as Montreal and Quebec are to be. Here is a subsidy given to one province for two hundred miles of railway to connect a great city with the Transcontinental Railway, but when you come into the province of Ontario it can get no subsidy. There is a discrimination in favour of one province as against the other.


Mr. MACPHERSON.: Look at section 62.
422J


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am dealing with 49. It is enough at one time. That is the situation and that is something that will appeal to the people of Ontario as being unfair, because an application was made for a subsidy to assist in connecting the southern portion of Ontario and the city of Toronto with the Transcontinental Railway, and as far as we know, it was refused. At any rate, there was no assistance given, but in this case we give assistance towards the construction of two hundred miles of railway in the province of Quebec.


John Graham Haggart: The Minister of Public Works drew my attention to clause 5. Does that provide that you cannot give a subsidy to a government?


William Pugsley: It must be to a company or companies. The Governor in Council could not give a subsidy under this Act to any other than a company.


Mr. GERVAIS.: I would like to know from the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) the name of the company that is to get this subsidy for building two hundred miles of railway between Montreal and the Transcontinental Railway.


George Perry Graham: The name is not given here. As in a great many votes, the company is not named. My hon. friend will remember that a very large deputation from Montreal, perhaps as large a deputation, with the exception of that on the Georgian Bay canal, as any of those which have waited upon us this year, waited on the government some few weeks ago urging what, to my mind, was a very reasonable request, that there should be some provision made for connecting Montreal with the main line of the Transcontinental Railway. It was taken into consideration. Unless it be the Grand Trunk Pacific branch lines company I do not know what company would undertake this work. We do not name the company, but we will give the bonus to the company that will build this two hundred miles.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: No individual without the authorization of the central legislative power can build a railway in this country under the present state of legislation. The company must be organized with power given to it by this parliament or a provincial legislature to build a railway and I would like to know if it is the intention of the government to grant that subsidy to the first company which is ready to build the branch line from Montreal to the Grand Trunk Pacific. Montreal has been waiting for four years for the building of such a railroad, that is already too much. In Montreal, we have been prevented from having anything to do with the building of the Transcontinental Railway though Montreal will pay more that any other city for such construction. I am quite ready to support this vote for the building of a branch^ line
13304

between Montreal and the Transcontinental Railway, but I would like to know if this subsidy is to be paid to any individual who is ready to organize a company to build the branch line or if it is to be paid to a company already organized. I would like to know if the Canada Central Railway Company or some other company I heard something about is to get this subsidy. Is it the policy of the government to pay over the subsidy to any individual or company who will first undertake and operate the construction of this branch line?


George Perry Graham: The policy of the government is to give the bonus to the first company that will show us that it is ready and aide to build a line connecting Montreal with the Transcontinental Railway.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: Have conditions been laid down under which the subsidy can be earned?


George Perry Graham: There are the usual conditions. They have to make a contract with the Department of Railways and Canals which is approved by order in council. They will have to show their willingness, and, in our best judgment, their ability and we will make a contract with them to give them the subsidy for the building of that line.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: Then the government is not already obliged to pay the subsidy except to a company which is ready to build and operate this railway according to law?


George Perry Graham: We are not committed to any person.


John Graham Haggart: If I remember rightly the Ontario government are building their line of railway under the name of the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway Company.


William Pugsley: No, not company; they are building it under the commissioners.


Edmund James Bristol: No. it is a company.


William Pugsley: Not a company; it is a government owned road.
To the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, for branch lines of railway from the line of the National Transcontinental Railway to Port Arthur and Fort William; not exceeding 220 miles.


Robert George Macpherson: This is the province of Ontario.


John Graham Haggart: Have you an agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway to build this without any subsidy?
For a line of railway from Papineauvdlle on the Canadian Pacific Railway towards Nomin-ingue; not exceeding 30 miles.


Mr. MAJOR.: This subsidy should read : To the Little Nation River Railway Company.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Major) points out that there Is Mr. GERYAIS.
a company organized hut that the minister did not get the application when the subsidy was decided on.


Samuel Hughes: Has it .a charter ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.


David Henderson: Is it a Dominion or provincial charter ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: A provincial charter.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thought it was not the policy of the government to subsidize provincial railways.


William Pugsley: Tbat's a new idea.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That has been done for tlie last twenty years.
Resolution as amended agreed to.


Robert Laird Borden: Of the lines subsidized from No. 27 to No. 72 both Included, how many have already been constructed or partially constructed ?


George Perry Graham: I cannot tell without going through all these papers again.


Robert Laird Borden: On the second reading of the Bill and before committee, I will expect the hon. gentleman to give definite information on that point. I would like him to lay on the table also the applications from those several railway companies or corporations for the assistance now given.


George Perry Graham: I laid those on the table this morning.


Robert Laird Borden: They should be on the table for at least a week or ten days so that they may be examined by any one who desires. To put them on the table half an hour before the subsidies are taken up is not sufficient.


George Perry Graham: The mileage in operation and the mileage under construction will be found on the application forms.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like it stated on the second reading because it is a matter the minister should furnish to the committee without a suggestion by any member.


George Perry Graham: I did suggest it, in every application.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the use of talking of an application which was placed on the table of the House only to-day when every one was busy with the work of the
House, what is the use of speaking of that as information ?


George Perry Graham: I will look through the applications and secure the information.


Robert Laird Borden: Is not the proposed line from Quebec to Ottawa, that is the portion from Hawkesbury to Ottawa, almost constructed ?


George Perry Graham: A portion of that line is graded, there are no rails on it, no part of it is completed.


Robert Laird Borden: Was it commenced under any engagement from the government that it would be subsidized ?


George Perry Graham: None whatever, so far as I know.


John Graham Haggart: In reference to the power of the government to give a subsidy to the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway Commission, let me quote from the Act constituting that body. It says :
The said board of commissioners shall be a body corporate under the name of the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Commission-
They have all the powers of a railway company, to work the road and everything else. It is provided here that the Governor in Council ' may grant subsidies to such companies as establish to the satisfaction of the Governor General.' This :s a body corporate and would come under this definition.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Is it not the property of the Crown ?


John Graham Haggart: It is a body corporate and it does not matter to whom it belongs. You could change the wording to ' body corporate' if you chcse.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister might give us at a convenient time a statement showing how much of these subsidies and which of them will go to each of the three large railways in Canada.


George Perry Graham: I shall try tc do that, it is not sometimes easy as they are sometimes lor a large company although under another name.
To the Canadian Pacific Railway Company (lessees of the Calgary and Edmonton Railway Company), towards the construction and completion of a bridge over the Saskatchewan river connecting Sfcrathcoma and Edmonton, 15 per cent upon the amount expended thereon; not exceeding $100,000.


Samuel Hughes: Has the minister taken any steps to make this a combination wagon and railway bridge which it readily conceded to be advisable to do with such bridges ?
Mi'. GRAHAM. The government has not
taken any steps in that direction, but I understand some arrangement has been made between the provincial authorities and the company to provide for traffic on this bridge.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I see there is provision for that in one of the Quebec bridges and it would seem to be equally good policy iu Alberta.


Samuel Hughes: Of course in the Northwest this government has charge of
the land and the provinces have not land to sell as in the east to raise money to build bridges. At Port Saskatchewan the government required the Canadian Northern Northern Railway to have a traffic bridge and it is a perfect boon to the place.
To the Quebec, Montreal and Southern Railway Company, towards the construction and completion of -the following railway bridges:
(a)	bridge across the Gentilly river, $15,000.
(b)	bridge across the Beoamcourt river, $30,000.
(c)	bridge across the Richelieu river, $30,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What are these bridges supposed to cost ? We are giving lump sums for small bridges and it seems doubtful policy.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The bridges are in the county of Nico'et which I represented at the beginning of this parliament. These are large rivers and this represents about 15 per cent of the cost of the bridges. The railway is the Quebec, Montreal and Southern, but although it is operated under that name I think the company has transferred its interest to the Delaware and Hudson which will run now from the boundary line to Quebec on the south shore, the railway nearest to the St. Lawrence. It has practically built from Montreal to Ste Philom&ne iu the county of Lotbiniere and is going on with the construction from Ste. Philo-niene to LGvis It is a first-class road doing its work extremely well, and as I said this represents about 15 per cent of the cost.


John Graham Haggart: That bridge across the Richelieu is an old friend of ours.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend is referring to the Yamaska river. This bridge is
on the Richelieu.
To the Atlantic, Quebec and Western Railway Company, towards the construction and completion of the twenty-six railway bridges on its line of railway from P&spebiac to Gaspe, payable upon the completion of the said line of railway between the said points, $250,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: This' is in my constituency. It Is a very exceptional case. For many years past the peninsula of Gasp6 has been clamouring for the construction of a railway to Gaspe from New Carlisle, the terminus of the Atlantic and Lake Superior. One hundred miles is built between Meta-pedia and New Carlisle. In 1903 I secured a charter for this railway from New Carlisle to Gaspg Baffin, about 102 miles. The new company has built 20 miles which are in operation and 20 miles further will be in operation the 1st November next. It is a very rugged section of country. They were obliged to follow the shore and cross twenty-five rivers from PasJJebiac to Gaspe Basin. They obtained the ordinary subsidy, but with these twenty-six bridges they were entitled to a special subsidy. This will insure the construction of the line in about

twelve months from now. There is a tunnel also of 230 feet which they have to build.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is a strange way of subsidizing bridges. We take a whole line of railway, we do not know what the bridges are going to cost, some of them may not be very costly, they may be only small bridges crossing small streams, there may be others larger, but we count up all the bridges on a line of railway 200 miles long and we give the company $250,000. We subsidize in one breath twenty-six bridges without knowing whether they are expensive or inexpensive to build. In other cases when applications are made for subsidies to build bridges, each bridge is considered on its individual merits but not so in this matter. How do we know how many of these bridges come within the principle we have laid down which justifies our subsidizing bridges at all?


Rodolphe Lemieux: There are twenty-six bridges. One was built since the line was started.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was that subsidized ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Not specially, only the ordinary subsidy. If we followed the ordinary principle of allowing 15 per cent on the cost of construction, four bridges alone would take the amount mentioned in the resolution, $250,000-the bridges across the St. John river, the Grand river, the Pabos and Little river. If you take the cost of construction of those four bridges alone, the 15 per cent on that would amount to the $250,000 now granted.
On those four large bridges the Quebec government also promised a subsidy, provided they would be made suitable for vehicles to cross. That condition is attached by the Quebec government to the special subsidy they are giving. This is a section of country where railway construction is badly needed and where the company have shown good reason why the government should help them, because with the ordinary subsidy they have gone to work and built an excellent line some twenty miles long and twenty more will be built by the 1st November next, and by the 1st November the year following the whole line will be in operation.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I suppose this line of railway is subsidized.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The ordinary subsidy.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We are establishing a dangerous precedent. Every one of these railway companies will consider itself warranted in coming back to the government and saying: Treat us as you have done the Atlantic, Quebec and Western Railway Company. You have subsidized our railway line first, and now you should subsidize our bridges. Give us proportionately the same assistance for the erection of these bridges 1 Mr. LEMIEUX.
that you gave the other railway company. The government are establishing a bad precedent which will give trouble in the future.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Let me show my hon. friend what the company is accomplishing which entitles it to a special subsidy. This company was subsidized to build a railway from Paspebiac to Gaspe basin and thence a railway through the interior, from Gaspe basin to Causapscal in the county of Bona-venture. In order to obtain this special subsidy for bridges, it has abandoned the subsidies allowed for that line from GaspS basin to Causapscal because the government could not grant a subsidy on that interior line plus the $250,000 for bridges. As the settled parts of the country have to be served before the wilderness, the company have abandoned the construction of the line through the interior for the time being, although their charter still holds good.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That does not touch the point I raised. You first subsidize the railway and then you take all the bridges in a group and subsidize them to the tune of a quarter of a million dollars. This will establish a very bad precedent. Other railway companies with equal propriety, can come and ask that the same thing be done for them.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I can assure my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) that in the whole list of railways that are subsidized especially for bridges, there is no case identical with this. There are twenty-six bridges of which at least four are very large bridges and going to cost more than a million on a line of about a hundred miles. There is not a similar case in the whole railway construction of Canada.


Samuel Barker: When we grant a round sum per mile for a railway, does not that include the bridges ? If you pay $15,000 a mile, that is for the whole railway, bridges and everything else.
To the Interprovincial Railway Bridge Company of New Brunswick, towards the construction and completion of a railway bridge over the Restngouche river from Campbellton to Mission point, $160,000.


John Graham Haggart: What is that bridge to cost ?


William Pugsley: Between $050,000 and $750,000. The Deputy Minister of Railways reports something over $650,000.
To the Vancouver, Westminster and Yukon Railway Company, .towards the construction and completion of a railway bridge across Burrard inlet, $200,000.


John Graham Haggart: What will be the cost of this bridge ?


George Perry Graham: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: This partially answers the Question asked of the hon.^ member for East Hamilton (Mr. Barker)-if you subsidize the railway does not that include the bridges ? This says :
Unless the context otherwise requires, the expression ' oost ' me tuns the actual, necessary and reasonable cost, and shall include the amount expended upon any .bridge up to .and not exceeding $25,000.
So, you first subsidize the railway at $3,200 a mile, or more if the expense of construction calls for it, this subsidy including the bridges, and then you subsidize the bridges again.


George Perry Graham: No doubt, special cases are made by the government to meet special conditions. Some years ago the policy seems to have been adopted of paying 15 per cent on a bridge, and that seems to be about the usual percentage paid on these large bridges. But special cases are made out year after year.


John Graham Haggart: These other sections are without change ?


George Perry Graham: They are taken word for word from the existing statute.


Mr. LAKE.: What is meant by the completion of a subsidized railway ? Does it mean that the railway is absolutely com-nleted and ready for the running of trains ?


George Perry Graham: 1 believe that sometimes subsidies are given on 10-mile sections. The road must be completed up to a certain standard and examined by the engineer of the department. He gives his certificate that the road Is so constructed and we pay on that.


Richard Stuart Lake: I have been asking with regard to a portion of the Canadian Northern between Erwood and the Pas Mission on which a subsidy of land Is given. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) promised to give me the report of the engineer who visited the line. He gave me one this morning, but it is not the one I referred to. This was made in February when the railway was under a foot of snow. I would ask the minister if he cannot bring down the report of the engineer sent to inspect the line last fall.


George Perry Graham: The report I gave the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lake) is the only one I know of.


Richard Stuart Lake: Another Inspection was made. The engineer told me he had been over the line and gave me a graphic description of it. I think that was in October. No doubt he made a report, and that is what 1 wanted.


George Perry Graham: I will look into it and see if there is another report. When I came across this one X thought it was the one the hon. gentleman wished to see.


Mr. LEONARD.: (Translation.) I propose :
That paragraph 4 he amended by adding after subsection (d) the following additional subsection as subsection (e):
Henceforth, ho such subsidy shall be paid for any railway to any railway company, unless such company or companies provide for a proper and gratuitous roadway for vehicles as well as for foot-passengers on those bridges, the plans and specifications for such construction to be submitted to the Governor in Council, for approbation.
Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to speak at any length, ,1 think the time has come when the government should Inaugurate a new railway policy. This evening, we have voted over five hundred thousand dollars in aid to the construction of railway bridges. Why not provide that railway companies shall build those bridges in such a way as to afford a roadway for foot passengers and for vehicles? Have not those companies received large enough subsidies from the public exchequer, and consequently are we not entitled to stipulate in return those advantages in favour of the public? I do not wish to add anything further on the question, but it seems to me that it is sufficient to call the attention of the government to the matter to induce them to make the change asked for. I have no doubt that my proposal will meet with a favourable reception at the hands of the government.


George Perry Graham: There are two difficulties. First, my hon. friend moves an amendment that no subsidy shall be paid for these railway bridges unless they place a gratuitous passage way for vehicles as well as foot passengers. Does not my bon. friend see that four out of five of these bridges will be where there are no roads, and possibly no foot passengers ? You would not want a roadway for vehicles where there is no roadway.


Joseph-Édouard-Émile Léonard: As soon as the bridge is built the road would be constructed to the bridge. If the company are obliged to build a passage way for vehicles, they can build it cheaper when they are building the bridge in the first place, than if they add the passage way afterwards. It will cost them twice as much to add the passageway as it would to build it with the bridge 'in the beginning.


George Perry Graham: I am not forgetting that engineering point. What my hon. friend says about cheapness will not always work out. I bad the engineers on that problem the other day, and I found that a bridge could be built with a roadway much cheaper than a roadway could be added to a railway bridge. But that difficulty does exist in some places. No doubt a roadway over a bridge would be very convenient and altogether desirable. But I make the

statement again, that in at least seventy-five per cent of the railway bridges of Canada, there would he no need for a roadway for foot passengers, because the bridges are away from a road altogether. Then there is the other objection. It is a fair and reasonable objection that the Dominiou government cannot well undertake to start in providing roadways. That is purely a municipal or a provincial affair. While I would be delighted to see them on every bridge, still it is a matter with which the province alone ought to deal with the corporation.


Mr. MONK.: I think my hon. friend from Laval (Mr. Leonard) has made a most important suggestion, and I had hoped that the government would adopt it. We are paying-I am speaking now principally for the province of Quebec-large subsidies for bridges for companies which, in the majority of cases, are well able to build those bridges themselves without any government assistance at all. Speaking specially of grants in the province of Quebec, I doubt very much if the percentage exists mentioned by the Postmaster General. I think the amount we are granting to villages, particularly on the south shore of the St. Lawrence, is a much larger percentage of the cost of these bridges. There is here an opportunity for the government to render a great service to people along the line of these railways. What are the objections ? They are futile. The Minister of Railways says there are no roads where most of these bridges are built. The answer of my hon. friend from Laval is that as soon as that condition is performed there will be no road to these bridges. Just as soon as roadways were built on the Victoria bridge in Montreal, when that bridge was changed, a magnificent roadway was built up to it. The other objection of the minister is that we have no jurisdiction oven roads in municipalities and over bridges in the provinces. That seems to me to be an objection equally futile, because whether we have jurisdiction or not, we are not assuming to exercise jurisdiction. We are imposing a condition on a grant of money, and we can impose any condition we like. There is no question of jurisdiction. A case has been pointed out to me by my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) of a subsidy granted for a bridge over the river Jacques Cartier in the province of Quebec, conditional on the company constructing a bridge for vehicular traffic. In most cases the municipalities are not in a position to build suitable bridges, in most cases the provinces are not in a position financially to come to the assistance of the municipality. These subsidies are extremely generous, and I think the government ought to accept this condition. There is another point. This afternoon, in Mr. GRAHAM.
the space of four hours, we have been granting nearly $20,000,000 of money without giving those grants the consideration they require. It seems to me to be most absurd, to pass these grants with the little consideration we are giving them, it is perfectly ridiculous. I think the time has arrived when we should adopt for our own preservation some rule by which resolutions of this kind must be brought before the House at least one month before prorogation.


William Stevens Fielding: The suggestion of the hon. gentleman is important and in a sense it would be valuable, but much more valuable if it were addressed to provincial and municipal authority. It is simply a proposal to unload on the Dominion treasury the obligations of the provincial government and the municipal authorities. There may be exceptional instances in which .while constructing a bridge, we might be able at the same time to construct a highway. But if we are to lay down a principle that this government must provide highway bridges of that kind, I certainly think my hon. friend is mistaken in putting such a project before the House. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) says that the municipalities are not usually able. Well, I question whether he is justified in making that statement, I think most municipalities are able. He says that the provincial governments are not able to do this. I must dissent entirely. Our provincial governments are not so poor that they are not able to provide highways for the people of their respective provinces. They have certainly received large additions to their subsidies, and I think they are well able to perform the duties which under the circumstances, are assigned to them.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We are not in Quebec.


William Stevens Fielding: Well, while I would not undertake to make any analysis of the financial affairs of the province of Quebec, I understand that they are regarded as being in a satisfactory condition. But I am dealing now with the principle. In the case of a municipal or a provincial work it is proposed to say that this work shall be constructed at the expense of the Dominion government.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Why was that condition imposed when a subsidy was given to the Victoria bridge ?


William Stevens Fielding: I cannot recall the circumstances. There may be exceptional circumstances in all these matters. But the effect of the motion of my hon. friend is to unload upon the Dominion treasury obligations which really belong to the municipal and provincial authorities. We may have done it in some cases, and i.t may be

open to objection, bnt that is no justification for laying down the principle that we are going to do it all the time.


Mr.   I@: It does not seem to me that this is unloading anything on the Dominion treasury. It is unloading something upon these companies. It may be, as the Minister of Railways has said, that it would not be practicable, in all cases. Certainly it is practicable in a great many other cases, as it has been carried out in the case of the Intel-provincial bridge at Ottawa, Victoria bridge at Montreal and many others.


William Stevens Fielding: I think the province contributed, but I am not sure.


Robert Laird Borden: It may be so. I am not aware that the province contributed to the cost of the Victoria bridge at Montreal, but I think my hon. friend is quite right in saying that either one or both of the provinces contributed to the cost of the Interprovincial bridge at Ottawa. The Dominion government gave a subsidy to this bridge, but the provincial government gave a subsidy also, and a footway may have been a condition of the subsidy of one or either of the provincial governments. That is not true of the Victoria bridge, and I think it is not true in some other cases. The proposition of my hon. friend from Laval (Mr. Leonard) does not in the slightest degree impose any further demand on the Dominion treasury.


George Perry Graham: Does not my hon. friend see that if you make it a provision that they must have a roadway on all these bridges the applicants will ask for more subsidy? If the Dominion gives a subsidy without making any provision for a roadway, and then imposes that condition, the company receiving the subsidy will ask for more. If you give $?5,000, and afterwards put in a condition that will make the work cost $10,000 more, they will need $35,000 to enable them to construct the bridge. You will have municipal councils coming here whenever they want a bridge to be built, and you will have provincial governments also asking aid towards the construction of bridges. My hon. friend points out conditions that may arise, but there is nothing to prevent us from aiding the construction of a bridge, but to say that the Dominion government must provide a roadway on every bridge that is constructed is to suggest something that any railway man who is building bridges will tell you is not practicable.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: These bridges that tire going to be built in Quebec-I suppose the conditions are the same everywhere

were intended to be built whether there was a subsidy or not. My hon. friend the Postmaster General knows perfectly well that this railway, which goes from St. Lambert to Levis, is being built by a well known
American company, it is partly built now, it is under process of construction, one of the finest roads on the continent, and they intended building those bridges anyway without any doubt. They are able to do it. We come to their assistance and give them quite considerable subsidies in aid of the bridges over the rivers which the line crosses between St. Lambert and Lfivis. It is a perfectly suitable condition to impose that the bridges should be built according to certain plans and to say that they must have our approval. Impose this additional condition while the bridge is being built. It scarcely adds to the cost of the bridge, and will be an immense boon to the whole population. I hope the government will see fit to adopt the amendment of my hon. friend from Laval.


William Stevens Fielding: May I illustrate what I think is the correct principle by a reference to what was done in the case of an important bridge in Prince Edward Island? The government built a bridge in Prince Edward Island as a portion of the Prince Edward Island Railway, known as the Hillsborough bridge. In that case the provincial government wanted a highway, but this government obliged the provincial authorities to pay their fair share towards that highway, and we deduct every year from the subsidy to Prince Edward Island a certain sum of money ; I think it is $12,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: How much did it cost?


William Stevens Fielding: A large sum of money.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: A very large sum of money?


William Stevens Fielding: A very large sum of money. We said to the provincial government : We will build a bridge for railway purposes, because that is the proper function of the Dominion government, but we will not build a bridge for highway purposes. That is your proper function. Prince Edward Island is not as rich as Ontario or Quebec. Prince Edward Island is not too flourishing, but so fair and reasonable was that proposal that the Prince Edward Island government accepted the responsibility, and every year there is a sum deducted from their subsidy to pay the provincial obligation for providing a provincial highway. This proposal is that while we do that with Prince Edward Island we are going to oblige the Dominion government, out of its treasury, to provide highways in some other provinces.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The case of the Hillsborough bridge was quite exceptional. It was a matter of negotiation for a long time between the provincial and Dominion governments. It is questionable whether we should have gone into that expense, but, at any rate, the circumstances are altogether exceptional.


William Stevens Fielding: I will venture to say that if we should adopt my hon. friend's principle you would have the Prince Edward Island government here speedily asking for a refund of the money.
Amendment (Mr. Leonard) negatived.
Resolutions reported.
Mr. GRAHAM moved that the resolutions be read a second time and agreed to.


Robert Laird Borden: Before that motion is put, I would like the Minister of Railways and Canals to be prepared to furnish information when we are in Committee of the Whole on the Bill as to how many of these roads would be constructed in any case if these subsidies were not allowed by parliament.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Robert Laird Borden: It is perfectly obvious that as far as some of them are concerned this condition holds good, because they are now under construction and they have been initiated by companies which are perfectly well able to take care of them. There are others that are being constructed by railway companies, the chief officers of which have announced over and over again that the day for railway subsidies in, Canada has passed, and that no further railway subsidies ought to be granted; and, in other cases, they are being carried out as part of a project, such as the Transcontinental Railway, of which they are an absolutely necessary part, and, therefore, they would and must be built without any subsidy from the government. I want my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals to be prepared to state, on the occasion to which I have referred, how many of these railway undertakings are within the category to which I have allued.


George Perry Graham: I must say frankly to my hon. friend that he is asking me a question that no human being could answer. I could not now and never could answer the question how many of these roads would be built anyway, wit|h or without the subsidy. I do not know how many of them will be built with the subsidy. Nobody knows how many will be built without tlie subsidy. I want to give all the information I can, but this is asking more than any person has any knowledge of.


Robert Laird Borden: All I have to say in reply to my hon. friend is that if no human being can give that information, no human being ought to propose these subsidies.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and agreed to.
Mr GRAHAM moved for leave to introduce Bill (No 215) to authorize the grant-Mr. MONK.
ing of subsidies in aid of the construction of the lines of railway therein mentioned.


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

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill (No. 120) to authorize the issue of government annuities for old age.
William Stevens Fielding: The first amendment provides that nothing in the Act shall be construed as preventing corporations or employers of labour from entering into an arrangement for procuring annuities to be paid to members or persons employed by them. That seems to follow the amendment introduced in this House by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Ralph Smith) which provided' that fraternal organizations may enter contracts for proviatng annuities for their members. I think there will be no objection to this amendment.


Mr. THOMAS CHISHOLM.: Would that
interfere with the Foresters ?


William Stevens Fielding: It speaks of corporations or employers of labour.


Thomas Chisholm: They are employers of labour.


William Stevens Fielding: They are fraternal organizations and would be able to enter into such contracts under other provisions of the Bill. There is a clause in the Bill as it left the House which provides that in the event of an annuity being procured under conditions which defrauded a creditor the creditor might take proceedings to cancel the annuity. The iSenate have added . ' Provided always that no action shall be brought for the cancellation of an annuity granted under this Act after the lapse of two years from the time at which the pay ment complained of has been made.' That seems to be a reasonable clause. These are the more important amendments made by the Senate.
Amendments read the second time and concurred in.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENTS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 212) to amend the Criminal Code and to repeal section 415 of the Railway Act -Mr. Aylesworth-read a second time and House went into committee thereon.
On section 2,
2.	The French version of section 10 is amended by substituting ' dix-septieme ' for ' septieme ' in the second line, and by substituting ' sept ' for ' knit ' in the same line.
Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The criminal law of England as it stood on the 17th of September, 1792, is applicable in Ontario. By some mishap the date appears in the French

version as the 7th of September, 1892, a ml this clause is to correct the mistake.
On section 3,
3. The French version of paragraph (c) of section 259 is amended by inserting after ' hiaut' in the third line the words ' 11 a l'in-tention de porter a line personne das coups ou blessures qu'il sait etre de nature a causer la mart/ and by substituting ' erreur' for ' maladresse ' an the same line.
This section of the Criminal Code is a very important one, and the French version has omitted the words referred to in the amendment which appear in the English version. The word ' mistake ' in the English version has been translated 1 maladresse ' and I am told the word * erreur ' would better signify the meaning of the English word.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it not a rather strange anomaly to see us amending the French version because of defective translation or proof reading ?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: It is very important. The French version is absolutely as much law as the English, and if a man is being tried for his life in the province of Quebec it might depend upon the exact meaning of the word which is used in the French version so that if a wrong word is used it might have serious consequences.


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of Justice misapprehends the remark of my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule). For the very reason that it is important he pointed out that such mistakes as these in the French version should not occur. It is undoubtedly of the highest importance that the French version should be correct, and for that reason my hon. friend pointed out that greater care should be taken.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 1 would agree with the leader of the opposition if we were discussing the translation of a literary work, but the whole inspiration of our criminal Code comes from the English law and when you come to translate the English law into French you meet with serious difficulties. I studied the criminal law at Laval under Mr. Justice Delorimier and in many instances he had to use the English text to give the exact meaning of the law. It is a most difficult thing and it is not surprising that here and there in the Criminal Code we should meet some expressions which do not convey the exact meaning of the original English text. We come immediately after this clause upon the word ' robbery ' in English. You have the word ' robbery ' and the word * theft.' In French we have only the word ' vol.' There is in each of these English words a nuance, as we say in French, which is very difficult to express; we have to use several words to express the English meaning. It i3 very difficult to translate the English criminal law into French exactly.


Robert Laird Borden: Which makes it all the more apparent that we should have had the French version prepared and passed through parliament at the same time as the English, instead of leaving it to be prepared months afterwards against the remonstrance of gentlemen on both sides of the House. The present difficulty seems to arise largely from the course which was then adopted. Hon. gentlemen protested that the two versions should be concurrent, that they are of equal validity throughout the country and therefore that we should not have one presented and the other handed in at a later stage. However, there is no doubt about the importance of the amendment.
On section 3,
3. The French version of paragraph (c) of section 259 is amended by inserting after
haul ' in the third line the words ' i i a l'in-tention de porter a une personne des coups ou blessures qu'il sait etre de nature a causer la mort/ and by substituting ' erreur ' for ' mal-adresse ' in the same line.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The word ' vol ' in this instance does not convey the meaning of 'robbery* in the English text and I would therefore move that it should read ' vol ii main armee.'


Robert Laird Borden: It Is remarkable that we should have the amendment of the section presented in an entirely defective form according to the view of the Postmaster General, after it has been prepared by the Justice Department.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have discussed it with the Minister of Justice.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems strange that not only the original statute but the amendment should be wrong. Are we quite sure we have it now?


Rodolphe Lemieux: ' Vol 9. main armee,' yes.


Robert Laird Borden: I hope so.


Haughton Lennox: It strikes me it is all done very carelessly. Already there has been an enormous number of amendments to the revised statutes. These amendments should not have been required and this is but another Illustration of the exceedingly careless way in which this work was performed.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: There Is nothing extraordinary about what has taken place, if hon. gentlemen will reflect what the circumstances are. We are putting into the French language English terms of art with reference to the criminal law. There are fine shades of meaning in the words which are used in describing offences in the English law. The word in question is 'robbery.' Every lawyer who practises the English law understands the difference between robbery and theft or stealing or simple larceny. That is not so easy a difference to define in the French language. The

omission of these words has been by some accident and was called to my attention by Mr. Justice Cross who noticed in trying a case that in this very Important section these four words had somehow been omitted. I do not know whose fault it was, it might have occurred through a printer's error or in the preparation of the manuscript, but it being necessary to supply the words which have been dropped the question arises what word are you to use as the French equivalent for robbery. The natural word is the word used, ' vol,' but that means theft, larceny, a trifling stealing. A man may be guilty of murder constructively, so to speak, by killing another while engaged in burglary or robbery, although he did not intend to kill. But if a man is engaged in some little theft, stealing a chicken, for instance, it would not involve such serious consequences. For that reason after discussing the matter with the Postmaster General, I suggested that an amendment should be made.


Haughton Lennox: The minister sayS there is nothing extraordinary about this and there is not, having regard to our experience. We have already had numerous amendments to these revised statutes, which must be cut and hacked and slashed now to an extraordinary extent. Putting through the English version without the French is probably one of the causes for this difficulty.
On section 5,
5. Subsection 2 of section 335 is repealed, and the following is substituted therefor:
2. Ain offer, printed or marked by the manu-faoturer upon any wrapper, box or receptacle, in whiioh goods are sold, of a premium cur reward for 'the return of such wrapper, box or receptacle, or a recognizable part thereof, to the manufacturer, is not a trading stamp within the meaning of this part.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: This clause I think was harmless, but an amendment has been asked by some retail merchants. Under the section which prohibits the use of trading stamps there is a subsection 2 in the existing law, providing that an offer by a manufacturer is not to be a trading stamp if it is simply an offer, printed or marked on the receptacle of the goods, of a premium or reward for the return of such receptacle. The change proposed by this amendment is to introduce the words ' or a recognizable part thereof.' There was no reason why a manufacturer should not offer a reward or premium to any one who would send back a recognizable part of an empty box without having to return the whole box, which might be rather inconvenient on account of its bulk. X have been spoken to, however, by some hon. gentlemen in the XIouse and by representatives of the Retail Merchants' Association who think it would be better not to interfere' with the existing law. I do not wish to introduce anything controversial and move that the Mr. AYLESWORTH.
words ' or recognizable part thereof ' be struck out.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 15,
Section 415 of the Railway Act is repealed.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: This is a section which imposes what is called double liability upon workmen employed on a railway in respect of disobedience to the rules of the company. It has been a good deal discussed incidentally at different times during the session, and it seems to be the general feeling that there is no reason for imposing that additional liability on workingmen employed by the railway companies.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



THE CANADIAN PATRIOTIC FUNDS ASSOCIATION.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 216) respecting the Canadian Patriotic Funds Association read the first and second time, and House went into committee thereon.
Frederick William Borden: The Bill is simply for the purpose of enabling the members of a patriotic company living at a distance to vote by letter. The immediate object is to vote a certain sum of money out of the funds to assist Trooper Mulloy to complete bis education in Oxford. Trooper Mulloy, as every one knows, lost bis sight through a bullet wound received during the war in South' Agrica. He returned home and partially completed his education by taking a degree at one of our universities. He wished to continue his education in order to enable him to practice a profession, and wished to go to Oxford. He was offered assistance from private sources which lie refused to accept, believing that this patriotic fund might more properly be devoted to the purpose. In order to get a vote from all the members of the association who find it impossible to come to Ottawa, this Bill is being passed. It was introduced in tlie Senate, was passed and is now before this House.


Samuel Hughes: I desire to point out in extension of the principle of the patriotic fund that the soldier from Canada who first won the Victoria Cross in South Africa, Private Richardson, who greatly distinguished himself in the war, has been ill for a long time, is unable to support his family as he would wish to do, and is in distress. I would take this opportunity of impressing upon the trustee of this patriotic fund the necessity of looking into the case of Richardson to see if something cannot be done for him. His pi-esent address is North Battleford.


Frederick William Borden: If this Bill I becomes law, it will be open to the mem-

bers of this fund to consider every case on its merits.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Public Works, chargeable to capital-^Marine Department-to provide for a gratuity to the mother of the late Jos. Carbouneau, in his lifetime second mate on board the Canadian goverment steamer ' Lady Grey/ who was killed while on duty, $500.
['After routine business a motion will be made for Supply. I understand that the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) wishes to draw attention to a matter.']
William Humphrey Bennett: Is any compensation to be allowed the relatives of Captain Arthur Clark, who was killed by the explosion of a gas buoy at Parry Sound ?


Mr. BRODEUR.: I do not remember with certainty, but I think that Captain Clark's heirs have made application for a petition of right. We maintain that the accident was due entirely to the negligence of Captain Clark and that, under the circumstances, we would not be liable.


William Humphrey Bennett: He left a widowed mother who had been dependent upon him for support. I understand there is a claim before the department, and I had hoped that the minister would have done something for her.	*


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: If I remember the circumstances, the accident was due to his own negligence. He left the buoys in the ice instead of putting them in a dry place, and iwhen he went there in the spring to lay them up the accident occurred.


William Humphrey Bennett: Still, he was in the employ of the government, and I see that other allowances are made-for instance, there is a compassionate allowance to the heirs of a ma.n who was killed.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: He was not in the employ of the government but was under contract.
AD1. BENNETT. But the buoys were supplied by the department, and if there was anything defective in them, allowance should be made. Allowance was made for the explosion at Kingston, I believe.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The explosion at Parry Sound was not due to a defect in the buoy. Captain Clark left it in the water, and it was as a result of that that the explosion occurred.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will the minister grant a petition of right ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Oh. yes. I will not offer any obiection so long as the Alinister of Justice is agreeable.


Albert Edward Kemp: I think with my hon. friend from Simeoe that most accidents occur through the negligence of the men themselves, still I do not think that ought to be set up as a reason why the government should not consider a claim. I am speaking in a general way. I do not think that because an accident happens to a man while he is in the employ of the government or any one else, and it happens in consequence of his own carelessness, that that should be a reason altogether why his family should be deprived of a gratuity.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There may be some difference due to the fact that he was not in the employ of the government, but he was performing a contract with the government in placing these buoys. In the fall of the year he went up there to collect these buoys, and instead of putting them in a dry place left them in the water. When he went up there to float them the accident occurred.
All-. BENN'ETT. I hope the minister will reconsider the case and do something in the matter.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It was stated by the hon. gentleman's predecessor that there was something to be known which would account for these explosions, which they did not know. But several of them have occurred within a few years, and no reasonable explanation was given the House why they happened. I take it that this is on a par with the others.


George Taylor: These young men may not have known that the buoys were dangerous if left out in a damp place, and that may not have been explained to them. If that was the case here, I think the government should reconsider.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I did not like to take the resjionsibility of paying the money. The claim was a very large one, and I thought it would be better to refer the matter to the courts.


William Humphrey Bennett: Alake them an offer of some kind and see if they will accept it.


Albert Edward Kemp: Is it in the courts now ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: They were told that we would grant a petition of right, and my impression is that they have made application for a petition of right. If they have, it has been granted.


Albert Edward Kemp: Perhaps they cannot afford to pay the costs.


Air. CLEAIENTS.: I do not think that sufficient precaution was taken to inform these men, who are not accustomed to these buoys, that they were dangerous to handle. A serious accident nearly happened with a gas buoy in my district and it was only by a miracle that two or three were not killed. A man who is a thoroughly competent engineer nearly lost his arm and his eyesight. I think the minister

ought to see that men who handle these gas buoys are cautioned as to their danger.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The new gas buoys that we are adopting do not offer any danger at all. In the accident that happened at Kingston, and th*f which happened to Captain Clark, the buoys were high pressure gas buoys. The gas was made on shore and transferred by a tender to the gas buoys, which were charged with it. It was a dangerous thing. These gas buoys had a pressure of, I think, in some cases, 150 atmospheres. But with the new system of gas buoys, what we call the Willson gas buoys, there is very little danger, because they are worked under an automatic system, that is to say, we simply take the carbide and put it in the buoy and gas is produced automatically. They have only a pressure of five atmospheres. So there is much less danger.
Lighthouse and coast service-further amount required for salaries of light-keepers, $30,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have not granted any Increase of salaries to lightkeepers for a couple of years, and I thought that this amount should be voted.
Further amount required to pay for the charter of steamers keeping the channel clear at Lime Kiln crossing, Detroit river, $10,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: Whose vessels are being employed, how many are employed, how much are they paid per day, and how long will they be employed ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I could not say offhand whose vessels are employed. I think one is Captain Hackett's. I do not know how much he is paid. This whole sum will be expended during the coming season.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: I think Captain Hack-ett has not been employed within the last year, his contract was cancelled, and some other gentleman has the contract. I remember asking a question about it in the House.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I may be mistaken.


Richard Blain: I want to direct the minister's attention to a complaint that I have received from the town of Southampton in respect to the life saving station. My correspondent complains that the boat used in the life saving service there is in the hands of a sea captain who is away from Southampton nearly all the time. I would like the minister to investigate this matter, and see whether my information is correct.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


Mr. DANIEL.: I call the attention of the minister to the fact that in the harbour of St. John the city pays for the life boat there. I think that is the only place in Mr. CLEMENTS.
the whole Dominion where the life boat business is not paid for by the Department of Marine and I think that the department ought to take over the boat and pay for the up-keep of it.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I think we have a station at St. John.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Not in St. John that I know of. I know that the city pays for the lifeboat.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I will look into the matter.
Amount required to pay pensions of $300 to each of the following parties: Louis Edmond Morin, Laurent Godbout, Jean Baptiste Tremblay, Hubert Raymond, Charles Brown, Pierre Gobedl, Edmond Larochelle, Adelme Pouliot, Elzear Desrosiers, Napoldon Rioux, L. O. B. Gautron dit Larochelle and Charles -Hermie Bernier, $3,600.


George Taylor: Will the minister kindly explain this?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This item is for the purpose of paying pensions to pilots below Quebec who are retired. Many years ago they got a charter from this parliament granting them certain rights.


George Taylor: Is this to be made an annual payment?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


George Taylor: $300 for the rest of their lives?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, but they retire at sixty-five.	.


William Humphrey Bennett: And each one of these men is to get $300 as long as he lives?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


George William Fowler: Are they in the service yet?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, they have been retired.


George William Fowler: On account of old age?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: On account of old age or defective eyesight.


Haughton Lennox: Is there a statute providing for this?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There is no statute providing for this. When the pilots below Quebec, who, as I have just explained, had very extensive rights from this parliament were taken over by the department one of the conditions they put in was that they should be paid a pension when they were retired. There was a great deal of complaint on the part of the shipping federation that very old pilots were still being employed and it was against the interests of shipping that these men should be kept on. So, in order to redeem the privileges they had under this old statute we had to make this arrangement with them.


Mr. BRODER.: Can you give any idea of the income they had from their service as pilots ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I suppose it would be from $700 to $1,000 a year.
For the purpose of establishing and m vi n-taining a lightship at Point Pelee, Lake Erie. $30,000.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is there a light ship now?
Mr.BRODEUR, The American government are maintaining a lightship at that point now and we think it is advisable that this light should be maintained by the Canadian government.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Who is going to provide the lightship ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We are going to provide it.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Will this amount do that?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We expect so.
Mr. ICEMiP. Will the government withdraw their lightship ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes. This matter has been the subject of negotiation with the United States government for a number of years and we have decided to maintain the lightship there.
Amount required fo,r the completion of Clark's harbour, dog fish reduction works (revote) $10,000.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Has the minister taken into consideration the necessity for establishing a dog fish reduction works on the Bay of Fundy? I do not know that we have had any debate on the dogfish question this year but we had last year and I brought to the attention of the House some facts showing that it is necessary to deal with ilhis matter on the Bay of Fundy as weil as at other places where reduction works exist. It is too late to go into the matter now but it is just as important on the Bay of Fundy as it is on any other part of the coast. The numbers of dogfish there are tremendous. Last year I spoke of a man having his trawls out and obtaining a catch of 1,700 dogfish. The remainder of his catch was all eaten witii the exception of the heads.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: What we have done so far has been mostly of an experimental character. We have been making some experiments on the north shore of New Brunswick and on the western coast of Nova Scotia. This one is to be carried on at Cape 'Sable, not very far from the Bay of Fundy. This matter has already been brought to the attention of the government and if it becomes necessary to establish a reduction works on the Bay of Fundy I would be very glad to consider it favourably.
Fisheries protection service-further amount required for repairs to the cruiser ' Princess.' $20,000.


John Waterhouse Daniel: How much have these repairs cost altogether ? The * Princess ' is not a large vessel.
Mr. BRODEUR, The amount is required for placing new boilers on board the 'Princess.'


John Waterhouse Daniel: How much was expended on the ' Princess ' before this ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The drafting of this item is not absolutely correct. It should have been ' Dominion steamers ; further amount required.' The amount which is going to be spent on the ' Princess ' will be $20,000 for boilers.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: When may we expect the final report of the Fishery Commission?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It should be down now,-because it was sent to the printer some time ago.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is the Georgian Bay Fishery Commission at work ?-


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


William Humphrey Bennett: When will it finish ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is making some investigations now on Lake Erie.
Harbours and rivers-transportation facilities-Georgian bay to Montreal-survey for waterway via French and Ottawa rivers, including payments authorized notwithstanding anything an the Civil Service Aot, additional amount, $20,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What will be the total cost of this survey ?


William Pugsley: I am inclined to think that this will about cover it.


William Humphrey Bennett: What will be the total?


William Pugsley: In the vicinity of $600,-
000.
Lunenburg public building-improvements,


Richard Blain: What will be the total cost of the concrete sidewalk and was it let by contract or done by day labour?


William Pugsley: The total cost will be $1,262.50. The price was $2.50 per square yard.


Richard Blain: I have information that that work was not properly done.


William Pugsley: I have had no complaints about it.


Richard Blain: Does the minister know that when there is a rainstorm the cellar fills up with water?


William Pugsley: I have no information about that.


Richard Blain: I want the minister to inquire about that and ascertain if my information is correct. Who was the inspector of the cement sidewalk which cost so much money?


William Pugsley: I cannot answer tonight.
Barrsborougih public building, $8,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What will be the cost of this?	.


William Pugsley: Probably about $30,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: Does that include the site?


William Pugsley: No.


David Henderson: As this is the first vote for this building, if the Minister of Public Works is here next session I do not want him to hold that we are bound by this vote as having authorized the government to erect this structure. We have no information and no particulars about it and cannot get them. What I say as to this building applies to all votes of a like character in these estimates for new buildings. Whece-ever there is a new vote I want it to be distinctly understood that parliament is not bound for the completion or erection of the structure simply because we have allowed the initial vote to pass through in a hurried moment at the last hour of the session.


William Pugsley: I will not hold my hon. friend responsible for the amount of the expenditure, but under the authority of parliament I shall feel it my duty to proceed as rapidly as possible with the construction of the building.


David Henderson: I will not let the vote through on that understanding.


William Pugsley: Parrsborough is a growing town with a population of 3,000 and I intend to secure a suitable building for post office, savings bank, and customs house for about $30,000.	.


David Henderson: I know nothing about this building but I wish my remarks to apply generally. I do not believe parliament would have approved of any of these votes in the past if it knew that by voting a small sum we were supposed to assent to the work being carried through at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars. This building may not be started before parliament meets again, and I do not want the minister to say to parliament that because of these preliminary votes we have authorized him to spend ten or twenty times the amount of the vote. For my part I will not be held responsible.
Wolfville public building, $5,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What will be the total cost?


William Pugsley: $20,000 or $25,000.


William Pugsley: 


William Humphrey Bennett: Exclusive of site?


William Pugsley: I should think $25,000 would include the site.
Fairville public building, $5,000.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Would the minister give some information about this vote?


William Pugsley: As my hon. friend knows Fairville is a very important and thriving town where there are mills which employ about 2,000 working people.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I know all that. What will be the cost of the building?


William Pugsley: Probably it would run to $15,000.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Will it be brick or stone? Mr. PUGSLEY. We have no plan made yet.


George William Fowler: I may say for the information of the committee that Fairville is where the Minister of Public Works made that famous speech which he neglected to repeat in the House.


William Pugsley: What did my hon. friend say?


George William Fowler: Read it in ' Hansard ' tomorrow.
Fredericton military buildings-new cook house and men's dining room in connection with barracks, $4,000.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Will that amount complete?


William Pugsley: I think so.
Grand Falls public building, $5,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What will this cost?


William Pugsley: Probably $15,000 or $20,000.
Hillsborough public building, $5,000.


George William Fowler: What do you intend to spend here?


William Pugsley: About $15,000.


George William Fowler: What about the site ?


William Pugsley: The site is to be given free by tbe Albert Manufacturing Company.
Moncton armoury, $7,000.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Wbat will this cost?


William Pugsley: My information is that it ought not to exceed $15,000 or $20,000. If it is used for a drill hall it will cost considerably more, but if it is simply an armoury I should think $20,000 would be sufli-cieut.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Have tbe plans been prepared?


William Pugsley: No, It may go considerably more than that.

St. John drill hall, $50,000.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Where is this drill hall tc be built and what will it cost?


William Pugsley: It is intended to erect a drill hall which will be suitable for a city of the importance of St. John.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Can you not give us some idea of the size?


William Pugsley: I am not prepared as yet because the site has not been selected and the description of building would depend to some extent on the site chosen. There are three sites which I have in mind, ore is the Shamrock ground in the north end of the city, another is a well situated lot opposite the custom house and the third is the utilization of the barracks square, now owned by the Dominion government. I am not saying anything in favour of either location. Some of those closely connected with the militia have a preference for one site and some for another.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Will the Militia or Public Works Department secure the site ?


William Pugsley: Public Works.
Public works-income-Quebec. Arthabaska-ville-public building, $5,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What will be the total cost?


William Pugsley: $20,000 or $25,000.
Grand Mere public building, $5,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What will this cost ?


William Pugsley: Probably about $25,000.
Juliette armoury, $6,000.
Mr.	BENNETT.	What Will this	cost	?Mr.	PUGSLEY.	About $15,000.Knowlton public	building, $15,000.Mr.	BENNETT.	What will this	cost	?Mr.	PUGSLEY.	About $20,000.
Lachute public building, $8,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What will be the total cost ?


William Pugsley: About $27,500.


Richard Blain: In what county is Knowlton ?


William Pugsley: In Brorne.
Levis drill hall, $20,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What will the total cost
of this be ?


William Pugsley: This is a very large and important military centre; it will probably run to $75,000.
Magog public building, $10,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What will this cost ?


William Pugsley: 

Megantic public building, $7,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the cost of
Megantic ?


William Pugsley: Probably $20,000.
Montreal, Point St. Charles-new postal station, $10,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What will this cost ?


William Pugsley: We have not prepared plans but it will run to- $75,000, I think.
Plessisviile public building, $10,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is that ?


William Pugsley: About $30,000, I think ; it is in Megantic.
Roberval -public building, $5,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What will this cost ?


William Pugsley: It is supposed about $25,000.
Shawenegan public building, $8,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What will this cost ?


William Pugsley: About $20,000.
Sherbrooke public building-improvements, &c., $1,800.


Richard Blain: I suDpose we are to understand from the minister that all these buildings are constructed after public tender ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Richard Blain: Are outside architects to be employed ?


William Pugsley: Our policy is to have as much of this done by our own staff as possible, but in order to get as many necessary works as possible started and to have some progress made by the winter we may have to employ some outside help.


Richard Blain: Will practical men be employed as inspectors ?


William Pugsley: Yes.
St. Therese public building, $5,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What will tills cost ?


William Pugsley: That will be a modest building costing not more than $15,000.
Three Rivers-new public building to replace buildings destroyed by fire, $50,000.


Richard Blain: How does the hon. gentleman propose to get all the money to pay for these public buildings? I notice the revenue is falling off at the rate of $1,000,000 a month.


William Pugsley: My information is that we need not have any fear on that score. But if by any accident the money is not available the work will not go on.


Haughton Lennox: What is the total for Three Rivers ?


William Pugsley: About $75,000 or $100,000.
Westmoun-t public buildings, $15,000.


William Pugsley: We propose to spend . there $60,000 to $75,000.
Glencoe public building-additional amount,


William Pugsley: This will cost from $25,000 to $28,000.
Guelph armoury-additional amount, $64,000.


Haughton Lennox: How much Is this going to cost?


William Pugsley: It is under contract. The cost is increased by providing for a drill hall over the gun shed. I cannot give the figures just now.
Harniston public building, $5,000.


William Pugsley: That will cost about

Leamington public building - additional amount, $5,000.


William Pugsley: The total cost will be $25,000.
Listowel public building, $5,000.


William Pugsley: It will probably cost $25,000.
Mount Forest public building, $5,000.


William Pugsley: This will cost about the same as the Harriston building.
Markham public building - additional amount, $8,000.


Richard Blain: What is the total cost?


William Pugsley: About $16,000.


Richard Blain: Who prepared the plans?


William Pugsley: The department.


Richard Blain: This was a factor in the recent Centre York election. I want' to draw attention to the fact that the plans of the building were one of the exhibits in the election. One of the senators from that section took the plans around and showed them to the electors in Markham village as an evidence of what the government was doing for the electors of Centre York. Does the minister propose to have a Liberal supply of plans of all these buildings so that candidates will have an opportunity of pointing out to the electors what is being done?


William Pugsley: If' my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) would like to see the plans, I will have copies of the blue prints sent to him.


Richard Blain: I think it was a blue print that was used in the Centre York election. I hope the minister will be careful not to allow Senators to have plans to use with the electors.


Haughton Lennox: Will this $8,000 finish the Markham public building?


William Pugsley: No ; we expect it will cost $16,000.


William Pugsley: 


Haughton Lennox: This is an 'additional amount.' How much was voted before?


William Pugsley: In the main estimates, $4,000.
Mitchell public building, $5,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What will this cost?


William Pugsley: We hope not more than

Niagara Falls armoury, $10,000.


George William Fowler: How much for that?


William Pugsley: Probably $35,000.
North Bay public buildings-to complete,


William Humphrey Bennett: What will that cost?


William Pugsley: I gave that in detail on the main estimates. The hon. gentleman will find it in * Hansard.'
Peterborough armoury-additional amount, $75,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the cost of the Peterborough armoury?


William Pugsley: It is $162,136.
Port Arthur armoury, $10,000


William Humphrey Bennett: What will this cost?


William Pugsley: It will depend a good deal on the plans we decide upon. The military men of both cities, Port Arthur and Fort William, are joining together to have the armoury in a place that will suit the people of both cities. I do not know exactly what it will cost, but we must give them a handsome building.


George William Fowler: Are you going to put the building on the flat between the two cities?


William Pugsley: In the part of Port Arthur nearest to Fort William.
Bark Hill public building - additional amount, $7,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What will this cost?


William Pugsley: About $15,000 or $20,000. We are getting the site free from the Grand Trunk.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What is there for this
in the main estimates?


William Pugsley: Four thousand dollars.
Seafortk public building, $5,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What will this cost?


William Pugsley: It will run about $20,000 or $25,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: I understand that in all these estimates of cost the hon. minister does not include fittings and heating?


William Pugsley: Not as a rule. I like to leave myself a little margin.
Sarnia armoury, $6,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What will this cost?


William Pugsley: Between $30,000 and $50,000.
Sudbury public building, $15,000.
With respect to all these items, I have gone over them carefully, but I cannot state within $500 or $1,000 what they are going to cost. The plans have not been prepared, and I have not asked for tenders.


William Humphrey Bennett: What will this cost?


William Pugsley: About $25,000 or $30,000. Sudbury is a very important place.
Simcoe public building-additional amount, . $15,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What will be the total cost for Simcoe?


William Pugsley: About $40,000. Tilsonburg public building, $5,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What will this cost?


William Pugsley: Probably not more than $25,000. It is a nice town and requires a nice building.
Uxbridge public building, $8,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: 


William Pugsley: over $25,000.
Mr. BENNETT, is that?


William Pugsley: What is that to cost?
It ought not to cost
What kind of a town
A nice town.


William Humphrey Bennett: The minister will not think so after the election.
Waterloo public building, $8,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the cost of that?


William Pugsley: Waterloo is an important town. The cost of the building will probably run about $30,000.
Walkerville public building, $8,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What will be the cost of that building?


William Pugsley: Walkerville is an important town. It will be about $25,000 or $30,000. There is a large revenue both from Waterloo and from Walkerville.


Haughton Lennox: I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the minister's estimate in the majority of these cases is a mere guess, that he has not proceeded in a businesslike way to ascertain the cost before he puts the amount in the estimates. That is the impression his answers give me-' It is a a nice town, the building will cost so and so.' 'It is an important town,' and so on. Are these mere guesses, or have estimates been made?


William Pugsley: Does not the hon. member see that the expense one would be justified in going to depends a good deal upon the size of the town, the business, the accommodation required. For instance, Walkerville; much depends upon whether we combine the inland revenue, the customhouse and post office in one building.
423J	,


Haughton Lennox: We do not wish to confine him within $500, but we do think that before we are asked to vote money the minister should have considered the question with his officials, and be able to say about how much money he js going to spend. If he says $25,000, and he wants us to understand that he means it as an estimate of $25,000, not as a mere haphazard guess, that is all right.


Richard Blain: This closes the items for the province of Ontario with respect to public buildings. I want to renew my request that, when the minister advertises for tenders he will not confine the advertisements to newspapers supporting his own party. Are we .to understand that when he advertises in newspapers asking for tenders, he will confine the advertisements to newspapers supporting his own party ?


William Pugsley: I can say this to my hon. friend, that when I come to consider the question I will give his suggestion all the weight which is due to a gentleman who manifests a disposition so non-partisan as the hon. gentleman.


Richard Blain: I am delighted with the promise. But when he comes to a town where the newspaper is Conservative, having treble the circulation of the Reform newspaper, will he be so partisan as to put the advertisement in the Reform newspaper alone ?


William Pugsley: I should not be surprised.


Richard Blain: I should not be surprised either. There is a small post office at St. Mary's to which I referred the other night, costing $30,000, and the minister spent $600 advertising in thirty-three newspapers in that section, calling for tenders, and I think that no one dollar was given to a Conservative newspaper, although the leading newspapers in that section were Conservative.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: I regret that the minister has passed over the town of Tilbury, where I requested a public building for a post office and custom house combined. I certainly understood him to say that he would do something for Tilbury, but I regret to find that he has not put a vote in the estimates for that building.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman is mistaken if he understood that I promised that a public building for Tilbury would be covered in the estimates this year. What I said was that I was impressed with his request. We have a pretty large amount for Ontario, $776,300. I had to leave out a

number of public buildings, very much to my regret.


Mr. WM. WRIGHT.: Some time ago I drew the minister's attention to the necessity of public buildings for some important towns in my riding, and the minister promised to take them into serious consideration and give fair-play in the matter. I find inthesupplementariesthat he has made large grants for public buildings in little towns one-half or one-quarter the size of the towns in my riding that are without public buildings. He does not seem to have any system in the allotment of grants for public works, but is merely guided by partisanship. I enter my protest against this method of doing public business.


William Pugsley: It was with a good deal of regret that I had to leave out some of the towns in the hon. gentleman's constituency. But he will see that I am giving a good deal for harbour and river improvements in that constituency, for instance, the dock at Gravenhurst.


William Wright: Does he think that he is going to put up a wharf in the town of Gravenhurst with a grant of $4,000 ?


William Pugsley: That will make a good start.


William Wright: How much do you intend to spend there ?


William Pugsley: All that is necessary, perhaps $8,000 or $10,000.
Public Works-Manitoba Elmwood public building, $10,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the population?


William Pugsley: About 15,000.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN.: According to my information the minister is not correct. A few minutes ago when the population of Westmount was in question, he stated that it was between 50,000 and 75,000. I know Westmount as well as I know Ottawa, and I know that the minister has misrepresented the population. According to the census of 1901 it had a population of 8,856, and to-day it is not more than 12,000.


Mr.   BRODETJR@: I think if there is any place that is deserving of public buildings it is Westmount. Westmount is one of the best administered cities in Canada, and the population is increasing rapidly.


George William Fowler: How much ?


Mr.   BRODETJR@: I suppose about 20,000.
Emerson public building-additional amount,


An hon. MEMBER.: How much will this building cost ?


William Pugsley: $30,000 or $40,000.
Neepawa public building-additional revote, $1,500, $10,000.


William Pugsley: 


William Humphrey Bennett: What will that building
cost ?


William Pugsley: That is under contract. The site cost $3,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What should the building cost ?


William Pugsley: 

Portage la Prairie public building, $8,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What will this cost ?


William Pugsley: Probably about $40,000.


George William Fowler: From whom did you get the land ?


William Pugsley: We have not secured the land yet.	.
Souris public building, $5,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What will this cost ?


William Pugsley: I should think not mors than $20,000.
Winnipeg military buildings-quarters for married non-commissioned officers and men, guard room, &c., Fort Osborne barracks- additional amount, $33,000.


George William Fowler: What will these quarters cost ?


William Pugsley: I fhink the probable cost will be $88,000.


George William Fowler: How many will the building accommodate ?


William Pugsley: I gave that in the main estimates. I have not the memo, here tonight.
Saskatchewan and Alberta-Edmonton public building-additional amount to complete, $78,000.


William Pugsley: This is the public building under construction.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How much will it cost?


William Pugsley: 

Estevan public building-additional amount.


William Humphrey Bennett: What will this cost ?


William Pugsley: Probably about $20,000.
Lethbridge armoury, $10,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What will the armoury cost ?


William Pugsley: I do not think we will have to expend more than $25,000 there.
Moose Jaw public building-enlargement of. $25,000.


William Pugsley: This is to purchase land and it will leave a small amount to begin the building.


William Humphrey Bennett: What will the building
cost ?
JULY lfi, 1908


William Pugsley: 
William Pugsley: That is about the kind of building I intend to have erected.


William Humphrey Bennett: What will the site cost at Moose Jaw ?	[DOT]


William Pugsley: Between $20,000 and $25,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: And the building $28,-
000.


William Pugsley: This is an addition to the building ; I do not know exactly what it will cost.	.


George William Fowler: How large is this site ?


William Pugsley: I have not a statement as to that.
_ Mr. BERGERON. Has it been bought ?


William Pugsley: We have an option upon it.
Moose Jaw armoury, $10,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What will It 'cost ?


William Pugsley: About $25,000.
Maple Creek public building-additional amount, $5,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: [DOT] What will this cost ?


William Pugsley: This is under contract and will cost about $32,000.
Prince Albert public building-vault, $5,000.


George William Fowler: What will be the total cost of that vault ?


William Pugsley: About $5,000.
Prince Albert-Saskatchewan penitentiary- additional land, inclusive of buildings, $40,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What will be the total
cost ?


William Pugsley: The penitentiary has not been erected yet. We are buying the property.


George William Fowler: Who are you buying land from ?


William Pugsley: Quite a number of different people. When we had the main estimates up I gave a statement as to the land and everybody said that we were getting the land very cheaply.
Saskatoon public building-additional (re-voe, $5,000) $30,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What will be the total cost ?


William Pugsley: About $90,000.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How much did the site cost ? .


William Pugsley: 

Strathcona drill hall and armoury, $10,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What will this cost ?


William Pugsley: We hope to get it built for about $25,000.
Strathcona public building, $5,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What will the public building cost ?


William Pugsley: About $20 000.
Strathcona immigration building-improvements, $2,000.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Why should you have an immigration building there and one in Edmonton too ? You can go across the river in five minutes.


William Pugsley: No, they are about five miles apart the way the road goes.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I do not know why there should be one in Strathcona and oue in Edmonton.


William Pugsley: It is the desire of the Department of the Interior.
Wetaskiwin public building, $5,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What will this cast ?


William Pugsley: Wetaskiwin is a growing town-about $25,000.
British Columbia-Cranbrook public building-additional amount, $10,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What will be the total
cost ?


William Pugsley: I have no memo, as to that.


George William Fowler: Have you bought the site yet ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


George William Fowler: What did you pay for it?


William Pugsley: 

Chilliwack public building, $5,000.
Duncan public building, $5,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What will these cost ?


William Pugsley: They will not exceed

Grand Forks public building, $5,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What will this cost ?


William Pugsley: 

Greenwood public building, $5,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What will this cost ?


William Pugsley: About the same.
Ladysmith public building - additional amount, $20,000.


George William Fowler: How much will this cost ?	-


William Pugsley: 


George William Fowler: What did you pay for
the site ?


William Pugsley: 

Revelstoke public building, $10,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is this to cost ?


William Pugsley: I am afraid it will run up to about $40,000.
Vancouver examining warehouse, $80,000.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is that a new building ?


William Pugsley: This is for a new examining warehouse.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is it to be in the new post office building or is it a separate building ?


William Pugsley: This is to be a separate building. This vote is to buy a site which will cost about $75,000. It is a splendid site, well adapted to the purpose.


Haughton Lennox: How much is the building to cost ?


William Pugsley: It will be an expensive building. Vancouver is a rapidly growing city.


Haughton Lennox: I am not complaining about the amount; I only want to know what it is ?


William Pugsley: We have not prepared the plans. I should suppose an examining warehouse suitable for Vancouver, of brick; and stone, and fireproof, would cost from $300,000 to $400,000.
Vernon public building, $12,500.


William Humphrey Bennett: What will this cost ?


William Pugsley: Total probable cost $37,500.	1


William Humphrey Bennett: Has the minister considered the advisability of putting over each one of these buildings a stone inscribed : ' Pugsley's Princely Present ' ?


William Pugsley: I have not thought of that yet.
_ Dawson post office building-vault, Dominion lands registry, $2,500.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I understand the population of Dawson is decreasing.


William Pugsley: I believe it is going to be a permanent settlement.
Experimental farms, $15,000.-


Mr. A. MARTIN (Queens).: Will an experimental farm be established in Prince Edward Island ?


William Pugsley: That matter rests with the Minister of Agriculture.


Alexander Martin: For two or three sessions there has been dangled before the people of Prince Edward Island in the estimates a vote for an experimental station. What progress has been made 7 Mr. FOWLER.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Good farming land is so expensive in Prince Edward Island that we have not yet been able to obtain a satisfactory site.


Alexander Martin: Is land more expensive in Prince Edward Island than in Moncton ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, a great deal more.


Alexander Martin: It speaks well for my province that land is so expensive there that the government cannot establish an experimental station. Every acre of land in my province is valuable. However that is a poor excuse and I would like to know what investigation has been made and what effort has been made to acquire a site ? They have experimental stations in almost every province except Prince Edward Island and I want to know why one is not established in Prince Edward Island. It is a good advertisement for my province to say that land is very valuable there and I would like to have that advertised all over Canada. But if the minister tries he can get good land at a reasonable price.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Dr. Saunders has made two visits to the island and examined a number of farms which seemed to be suitable, but the prices were so high that 1 could not see my way to buy them.
Ottawa public buildings, beating, &c., $8,000.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The ventilation of this building is very bad. I understand that a large amount, about $100,000 has been spent on an improved system of ventilation by which the air is brought from above, but as the windows are opened the two currents of air meet and the fresh air does not reach us on the floor of the House. Surely something should be done to improve the ventilation. There are two hundred men in this chamber, probably the best in Canada, their health is very precious, and the ventilation is intolerable. I understand that a Quebec inventor offered to provide good ventilation for a certain amount and if it was not satisfactory to restore the building to its original condition, but that as he would not disclose his method his offer was not accepted.


William Pugsley: The matter is very important. When it was brought up before I directed the chief architect to look into it carefully and I have now asked the deputy minister to make a note of it. Of course my hon. friend will understand that it would not do for me to go to a large expense unless the chief architect recommends it would improve matters.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: We have spent about $100,000 and it is no better than it was twenty years ago.


William Pugsley: 1 think it is very good, take to-night, it is very good.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: You could wear an overcoat to-night.
Harbours and rivers-Nova Scotia, $448,610.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will most of these small works he by day labour ?


William Pugsley: Where the amount is over $5,000 it will be by contract and sometimes where it is less than that amount. I cannot give the particulars in some cases as I could not proceed with the works until votes were obtained.


Mr.   BRAIN@: Is there any dredge at Lunenburg?


George William Fowler: On behalf of the hon. member for that county (Mr. Hughes)?


William Pugsley: On behalf of the company, of which I understand he is a member.


George William Fowler: What was the result of that application?


William Pugsley: It is in the Marine Department for consideration.


George William Fowler: Who has the final say ?


William Pugsley: In this case the Marine Department.


George William Fowler: What decision did the minister himself come to? Did he recommend it?


William Pugsley: Yes, the ' King Edward ' is working there.


Richard Blain: Has there been any complaint of the dredge interfering with private property?


William Pugsley: No.


Richard Blain: Has there been any complaint that in dredging out the harbour, the clay, stone and sand were thrown on private property?


William Pugsley: I have heard of no complaint.


William Pugsley: My deputy says it was reported favourably by the resident engineer, but it has not yet come before me for actual consideration.


George William Fowler: I understand an application was made by the firm, of which the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Hughes) is a member, for water rights. That application was favourably recommended by the resident engineer. It came then before the Department of Public Works, and that department favourably recommended it to the Department of Marine and Fisheries.


Richard Blain: Will the minister inquire into this?


William Pugsley: My deputy tells me there was some complaint from a firm of the name of Smith.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN.: There is no reason for any complaint by W. C. Smith & Company. The dredge had made a cut past one of their wharfs and naturally some earth was thrown in towards the wharf but that can be removed.


William Pugsley: This dredging will be for the benefit of the wharf. They should be content to wait for the second cut when the clay will be taken away.


William Pugsley: No, when the engineer of my department reports favourably upon it, it goes to the Marine Department. If it is recommended by the Marine Department, it comes back to me for my signature. All my department has to do is to look into the matter from the standpoint of navigation.


George William Fowler: Your department, I suppose, did look into this thing from the standpoint of navigation. What was the report?


William Pugsley: It was favourable.


George William Fowler: Now it is before the Department of Marine and Fisheries for final adjudication.


Richard Blain: If the earth is thrown on private property, the minister promises it will be removed.


William Pugsley: This work is done by contract and the engineer will allow nothing to be done to injure private property.
Prince Edward Island-Souris, Knight's point-^strengthening breakwater, &c., additional amount, $5,000.


William Pugsley: This is for improving the breakwater-rip-rapping work.


George William Fowler: Does the minister know anything about an application for water rights in the Souris harbour?


William Pugsley: I do not. It would be made to the Marine Department and might come to my department later. My deputy tells me there has been an application.


William Pugsley: Yes.


George William Fowler: Does the minister know what became of the application ? Has it been considered or not?


William Pugsley: No.


George William Fowler: Is the minister aware that in this harbour of Souris there has been built by the hon. member for Kings (Mr. J. J. Hughes) what is called a ' block ' a sort of wharf which he had connected with the railway government and on which he has erected a warehouse ?


William Pugsley: No.


George William Fowler: And that might or might not be an obstruction to navigation?


William Pugsley: There is no wharf there I to impede navigation.


George William Fowler: This wharf being built just where these gentlemen applied for the water rights, it is just possible that it might be an obstruction to navigation. Was not authority asked from the Department of Public Works by the member for the erection of a wharf ?


William Pugsley: My chief engineer says an application was made.


George William Fowler: What became of it-was it favourably recommended?


William Pugsley: Favourably recommended.


George William Fowler: And the result was that the member was allowed to erect his wharf and build his warehouse and attach it to the government wharf.


William Pugsley: Yes, I understand it could not interfere with navigation.


George William Fowler: Oh, of course. The department is doing some dredging there?


William Pugsley: We have been.


George William Fowler: Up towards the Wharf of the member? The dredge is working there now, is it not?


William Pugsley: At Souris 'The Montague.'


George William Fowler: Has it reached the wharf of tlie member? -


William Pugsley: The railway wharf.


George William Fowler: To which this other is attached.


William Pugsley: I understand that it is inshore.


George William Fowler: Yes, but will the minister say that the dredge is not working towards the shore ?


William Pugsley: I do not know.


George William Fowler: Will he say that it is not working towards the member's wharf?


William Pugsley: I could not say.


George William Fowler: There is a boat house there, is there not?


William Pugsley: I do not know.


George William Fowler: Is it built on the property of the member ?


William Pugsley: Not knowing whether there is a boathouse there or not, I could not say.


George William Fowler: Very well.
Suimtnerside harbour breakwater-additional revote, $19,000, $25,000.
Mr. FOWLER, How much are you going to spend there?


William Pugsley: About $133,000, that is the contract.


William Pugsley: New Brunswick-Beaver harbour wharf. $5,000.


George William Fowler: This is new?


William Pugsley: Yes.


George William Fowler: Is it under contract?


William Pugsley: It will be. Plans are not prepared.
Gampbellton deep water wharf-extension repairs, &c., additional amount, $10,000.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Will that complete the work?


William Pugsley: I think so. It is under contract.
Dorchester wharf-addition to, additional amount, $7,000.


George William Fowler: What are you doing there?


William Pugsley: Building an addition to the wharf, making It suitable for large steamers. Quite a large lumber business is done there.	[DOT]
Harvey bank wharf, $5,000.


George William Fowler: What is to be built there?


William Pugsley: There are two sites offered, one where the wharf will cost $12,000 and one where it can be built for $6,600. I think the one at $6,600 will be sufficient.


George William Fowler: You have not .yet purchased the site?	[DOT]


William Pugsley: No.
Larneville breakwater wharf, $8,000.


George William Fowler: Is that under contract ?


William Pugsley: It will he.
Leonards vi lie, Deer island-reconstruction and extension of wharf, $4,500.


George William Fowler: What Is to be the total cost ?


William Pugsley: About $4,500.
Miadawaska river-extension of dyke on east side of river at Edimundiston and repairs to a portion of dyke damaged by fire in September, 1907-(additional amount, $3,000.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Will this complete the work ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What will be the total ?


William Pugsley: About $13,000.
Misoou-extension of wharf, $4,000.


George William Fowler: That is in Gloucester too?.


William Pugsley: Yes.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Will this $4,000 cover the cost ?


William Pugsley: The chief engineer thinks so.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What is the need of that extension ?


William Pugsley: To get a greater depth of water to accommodate larger vessels. The tendency is for larger vessels to use this wharf.


Mr. TURGEON.: Large steamers come to this point from Halifax, and this is to enable them to reach the wharf.
New Mills wharf, $5,000.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is that quite new ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Will this be the total cost ?


William Pugsley: No.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What is the estimate?


William Pugsley: Probably $15,000. The
contract is not let yet.
St. John river and tributaries-construction of wharfs in tidail waters, $15,000.


William Pugsley: I propose out of this to commence the construction of several wharfs which are urgently required. Among others, one at Oromocto, a high water wharf, costing about $6,000 ; one at Burton, estimated at $3,000 ; one at Sheffield, estimated at $1,500 ; one at Mauger-ville. One is required at Barker's, one at Scotch Town, one at Newcastle, one at Lower Gage Town, one or two on the Ken-nebecasis, including Rothesay. Then there are one or two urgently required in the parish of Westfield. My idea was that by the time the engineer gets the plans and specifications ready and tenders are called for, probably the amount I am asking for will enable me to begin the construction of these various wharfs the present year.


George William Fowler: I would like to put in a word for a high water wharf at Brown's Flats, which is very much required.


William Pugsley: That is under consideration. In addition to the $15,000, I have an amount in the main estimates to pay one-half the cost of construction of certain other works, with tile idea that the provincial government will pay one-half.


George William Fowler: I notice that the minister has put in a great deal of this money for works in the upper part of the St. John.


William Pugsley: There are a good many wharfs already built in the lower part. They are kept in pretty good repair by the provincial government.


George William Fowler: That high water wharf at Brown's Flats is more urgently required than any you have mentioned.
St. John river-to ma ke survey 1m'tween Fredericton and Woodstock with a view of improving navigation, $5,000.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What does the minister propose to do with reference to this survey?


William Pugsley: When the estimate is passed I shall ask the chief engineer to organize an engineering party to engage at once in the work of making a survey.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is it proposed to spend $5,000 for the purpose of surveying the river channel between Fredericton and Woodstock in order to ascertain where dredging is required?


William Pugsley: It is proposed to expend that if it is necessary.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I want to say that I regard this appropriation as a most ridiculous one. It is absolutely unnecessary for the purpose. There are six or seven places on the St. John river between Fredericton and Woodstock where dredging is necessary. These points are just as well known to men who are familiar with the river as the villages and post offices along the river. What the people of Fredericton and York county who are interested in navigation want is not $5,000 frittered away in an unnecessary and useless survey of this kind, but they want the channel cleared and dredged. They want some work done this season. If the minister, instead of asking for $5,000, had asked for double that amount and sent a dredge up to do the work, he would have acted more in accordance with the requirements of the situation. This matter had been standing for two or three years, neglected by this government, so that the result was that the people of the St. John valley have now lost the only means of communication they had between Woodstock and Fredericton. To propose now a survey of the river between these points and organize a surveying party for the purpose is the height of absurdity. Last year I called the attention of the acting Minister of Public Works to this matter. I had ascertained myself, from well known river men, at what points dredging w.as necessary, and I sent a memorandum to the Department of Public Works. If the minister will write to the resident engineer of St. John, I will venture ito say that he will find out by means of a letter or two just where dredging is necessary, and if he had the interests of the people of the River St. John at heart he would consider it his duty to start that work without delay instead of wasting money in such a survey as he proposes. I will give the minister a pointer, that if he wants to get any votes at all for his candidate along the St. John river in the coming election, he had better not start any ' more surveys in that district. The people of the St. John river have had enough of election surveys. They had a survey prior to the last election which cost thousands and thousands of dollars, which was abso-

lutely a fake survey conducted for no other purpose than deceiving the people on the eve of the election. I could quote the words of the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell), that this was a survey which could not be depended upon. He denounced it in the Liberal convention in St. John as a survey which was no survey at all, of which there was not even profiles. If the minister wishes his friend Mr. Whitehead to get any votes at all along the St. John river, he had better not try the survey business on the people there again.


William Pugsley: If I thought I knew as much about this matter as the hon. gentleman thinks he knows, but about which he does not know anything perhaps, I would be prepared to express my opinion on the question of engineering as to what is necessary to improve navigation on the St. John river. The problem is not such an easy one as the hon. gentleman seems to think. It is a problem which requires considerable engineering skill and I would not have thought that I would have been justified in asking for an appropriation from this parliament to engage upon the work of improving the navigation of the River St. John between Fredericton and Woodstock before first having had a proper survey made to determine the cost of the work and to find out what the result would be. The hon. gentleman says you have just to go and do some dredging. There is an engineer's report in my department which says that there is one place alone at Bear island where it will he necessary to construct a wing dam which will probably cost from $20,000 to. $25,000 and there are probably other places along the St. John river where the same thing would be necessary.


Oswald Smith Crocket: How long has that report been on file in the department in regard to Bear island ?


William Pugsley: For some little time; I do not know how long it has been there. It is a report which has been made by a competent engineer.	-


Oswald Smith Crocket: By Mr. Shewen ?


William Pugsley: I think by Mr. Shewen, who is a very competent engineer indeed.


Oswald Smith Crocket: And jou want a survey to verify the report ?


William Pugsley: I want a survey of the whole river between Fredericton and Woodstock for the purpose of ascertaining what the work is going to cost and whether, when the work has been done it will result in the improvement of the navigation of the river. I am not going to be rushed into an expenditure even in my own province until I am satisfied by the opinion of engineers that the expenditure will be profitable and will result in the improvement of navigation.


Oswald Smith Crocket: 


Oswald Smith Crocket: How long does the minister expect this survey to continue ?	.


William Pugsley: As long as is necessary.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Will it be completed during the present season of navigation ?


William Pugsley: Just as quickly as is reasonably possible.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Does the minister expect it will be completed during the present
season ?


William Pugsley: I hope it will.


Mr. CARYELL.: It is a great satisfaction to know as much as the hon. member for York (Mr. Crocket) does but, unfortunately, there are a few people in Canada who are not in that happy condition. This survey is the result of a joint meeting of a number of people in his own constituency, in Carle-ton and the board of trade of Woodstock, who are interested in the question of having steamer navigation on the River St. John. The meeting was held in Woodstock in May. I received a resolution passed at that meeting and I presume my hon. friend did the same. [DOT]


Oswald Smith Crocket: I brought this matter up two years ago. I pointed out to the hon. member for Carleton himself that Woodstock was as much interested in this as the people of York, and asked him, to support me in my demand, and not till then was the hon. gentleman heard from in the matter.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I admit that. I am only pointing out to my hon. friend who makes so light of the fact of a survey being undertaken why I am asking for it and I admit that I have asked the minister to make this survey. It is because a number of people interested in it passed a resolution at a formal meeting attended by a hundred people in Woodstock asking that this survey be made. These gentlemen intend to put money into a steamer if something is done to make the project feasible, they do not know all about it and they have asked for this survey. I transmitted this memorial to the Minister of Public Works and I asked that he put an amount in the supplementary estimates in order that this survey might be made. This survey will be made. I am not perhaps as optimistic as to the results of dredging this river as the hon. member for York is, but I hope that they will be such as will justify the expenditure of some money and that the work will result in the improvement of navigation.


Oswald Smith Crocket: With regard to what my hon. friend from Carleton has said, the answer, I think, will be found in a speech which "he made in this House the other night in which he said that there were six

or seven points between Fredericton and Woodstock where dredging was required. That is the same statement that was forwarded to the department by myself last year. He said that with the exception of these points the channel would be clear and that dredging would be required only at these .places. He asked that the dredging be done this season, and suggested that if that couid not be done a survey might be made. That did not look as if at that time he felt very strongly that any survey was necessary.
Tracadie-works for protection of channel and lighthouse, $2,500.


George William Fowler: Is that not in Gloucester county ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


George William Fowler: What do you want done there ?


William Pugsley: It is for the protection of the channel and lighthouse.


Onésiphore Turgeon: At Tracadie there is an exportation of lumber to the amount of from 16,000,000 to 18,000,000 feet every year. The Snowball Company themselves cut about 8,000,000 feet.
Mr. FOWLER, This is for the Snowballs?


Onésiphore Turgeon: The Tracadie Lumber Company do a large business and the Arsenaults and Fergusons ship from there and many others also.


George William Fowler: What will be the cost and what will be the result of this work?


William Pugsley: The cost is estimated at $2,500.


Henry Robert Emmerson: 
George William Fowler: What is this for?


William Pugsley: The harbour commissioners have urged us to build a wharf for the increasing business. I hesitated somewhat about it though I was impressed with the necessity for it and when the fire'occurred I thought it would be better to build it this year.


George William Fowler: Is it for a private coal dealer?


William Pugsley: No, public business.
Goderich harbour - breakwater-additional amount, $228,000.


George William Fowler: What did that breakwater cost altogether?


William Pugsley: 

Goderich harbour-to pay claims of Smeeth & McGillicuddy in connection with construction of wharf, $4,205.93.


George William Fowler: Was that settled by arbitration?


William Pugsley: The work was done under the direction of Mr. Gray who is now deceased. Mr. Gray's assistant while recognizing that the work was done in the public interest did not feel he could certify because there was no wrtten order. From the notes of the late Mr. Gray it appears that the work was done in the public interest and while there was no written order it ought to be paid to the contractors. It is on his recommendation as appearing in his notes that this amount is asked for.
Juniper island wharf, $1,500. [DOT]


George William Fowler: What is this for?


William Pugsley: There is a very great deal of traffic upon these waters and Juniper island is a distributing point. A deputation waited on me urging this work and I am informed there is a very large commercial business done there.


George William Fowler: You have as much right to put a wharf there as you have to put a wharf on any little island in a small lake.
Lakefield-reconstruction of wharf, &c., $4,050.


William Humphrey Bennett: Was that a government wharf before ?


William Pugsley: Yes.
Little Current-improvement of northern channel in Georgian bay, $50,000.


William Pugsley: This is under contract, it is improving the channel.
Miagnetawan river-improvement of navigation above Kearny, $3,000.


William Pugsley: There is quite a considerable stretch of navigation here.
Michipiooten, Lake Superior-wharf on Michipicoten river, $3,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: On whose property will this be erected ?


William Pugsley: On government property, we have not acquired the site yet.
Montreal river-wharf on Lake Temiska-ming, $3,000.	[DOT]


William Pugsley: This is to pay land damages from floods which will be caused by the construction of a dam at Latchford to improve navigation.

Tiffin harbour-improvements, $50,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: How much will be spent altogether at Tiffin ?


William Pugsley: We think $50,000 will be all we can do this year.


William Humphrey Bennett: There is $75,000 in the main estimates, so there will be $125,000.


William Pugsley: Yes, this year.
Tobermory harbour-glance booms, $3,600.


William Pugsley: This a harbour of refuge, and this is to prevent the boats running on the rocks as they come in.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is the work at Slatcha-dash to be done out of the general vote of $300,000 for dredging in Ontario and Quebec ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


William Humphrey Bennett: Does the minister propose to dredge also in the Coldwater river ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Richard Blain: Has there been any investigation of the Port Credit harbour in ithe last few weeks.


William Pugsley: Yes, I gave instructions to have an investigation made.


Richard Blain: I want to impress the necessity of having dredging done there this summer if possible.


William Pugsley: I had that in mind about the dredging. The great trouble Is that the government of Ontario 50 years ago created a company as was apparently the practice at that time and gave over the foreshore, the harbour and everything. The company owning the wharf has allowed it to fall into decay.
Lesser Slave river

to complete urgent provisional improvements, $5,000.


George William Fowler: What are you doing here ?


William Pugsley: Improving the navigation ; there is a steamer running and a considerable amount of traffic.
Spiillumoheen river-repairs -to bank protection works a-t Enderby, $2,500.


William Pugsley: This is the ordinary bank protection work, protecting the river channel. .
Dredging-Quebec and Ontario, $300,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: How will this be divided as between Quebec and Ontario ?
Mr. PUGSLEY'. On the close of the session I intend to take the matter up with the chief engineer and the deputy, apportioning it to the different works according to our best judgment.
Thompson river improvements, $10,000.
Mr. FOWLER, What is that ?


William Pugsley: 


William Pugsley: This is on the North Thompson river.


George William Fowler: There are no boats there except a small boat that may go up two or three times a year with supplies for the lumber company. This is simply for the benefit of an American lumber company having a mill at Kamloops.


William Pugsley: It is to improve navigation.


George William Fowler: It is to help them in driving logs. It is nothing but a private enterprise and has nothing to do with the public at all.


William Pugsley: It is difficult in a new country always to draw the line.


George William Fowler: I know all about the North Thompson river, and I know that the $10,000 is simply for the benefit of that private enterprise.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is the minister getting new dredge plants?


William Pugsley: We have not matured our plans yet. We are thinking that instead of buying one or more dredges, we may build two or three. We are taking the vote with the view of getting dredging plant either the one way or the other. We want additional dredges in the lower provinces and in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will tenders be called for the construction?


William Pugsley: Yes.


William Humphrey Bennett: There is a shipbuilding plant at Collingwood. They should be given a chance to build the dredges.


George William Fowler: What is this item of $3,000 for clearing waterway of obstructions of Upper Lilloet river?


William Pugsley: It is to he applied in removing from the river at its outlet the remains of an old dam, one or two piers, gravel and some boulders, with the view of facilitating the discharge from the lake, so as to mitigate the overflow of the adjoining lands and improve navigation.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Does the government intend erecting the monuments to the memory of the late D'Arcy McGee and George Brown?


William Pugsley: Nothing has been done yet, hut we propose to place this work under the charge of the advisory art council who have to do with the erection of a monument in memory of Lafontaine and Baldwin.


Richard Blain: Have the changes been made in the item in which my hon. friend from Brantford was interested?


William Stevens Fielding: It is noted for .amendment on concurrence. The memorandum is in the hands of the clerk of the House, and our attention will be called to it when the item is reached.


Alexander Martin: I see an item of $4,000 additional for steam communication between Prince Edward Island, Cape Breton and Newfoundland. What ports will these boats touch ?


William Stevens Fielding: The wording of the item would admit the service being made to any port in Prince Edward Island. I am not aware of any special arrangements.
. Mr. A. MARTIN (Queens). I would like to know whether New London and Rustico are included in this service. I wish to impress on the minister the fact that both those sections, being on the north side and without railway communication, are the mosit neglected parts of Prince Edward Island as regards communication.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


David Henderson: Will the Minister of Finance tell us if there are to be any further supplementary estimates?


William Stevens Fielding: To the best of my knowledge and belief, no.


David Henderson: Not this session?


William Stevens Fielding: No.


David Henderson: What business will be taken up in the morning?


William Stevens Fielding: After routine business a motion will be made for Supply. I understand that the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) wishes to draw attention to a matter.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 1.47 a.m., Friday.

[Stage Direction]
Fbiday, July 17, 1908.