Mr. MONK.: The House will remember that a motion was put off till to-day regarding the adoption of a report made on the 20th May last, by the committee appointed to supervise the official debates of the House.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I had hoped that the chairman of the committee would be in his seat to-day, but he is not. Cannot the hon. gentleman wait until to-morrow ?



FIRST READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 183) to amend the Canadian Shipping Act-Mr. Brodeur.

Mr. FOSTER.: Before the orders of the day are called, I would like to renew my request of yesterday to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) with reference to the salaries of employees in the Public Works Department.
Hon. WILLIAM PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works.) I have made inquiries, and Mr. OLIVER.
I find that the caretakers and the heating engineers in the public buildings at Hamilton have not received their pay. So the hon. gentleman's information was correct on that point.


George Eulas Foster: When the one-eighth was granted, the minister said that would be sufficient to pay these men for April and May. Is there any special reason why this has been withheld?


Mr. PUGSLEY.: I also made inquiry as to the reason, and I found that with respect to the caretakers and heating engineers the vote of last year was not sufficient to pay them for the entire year, and a portion of the one-eighth was used in paying wages for the month of March. Then with the remainder the accountant began in the eastern provinces and went as far west as he could. So the caretakers and heating engineers, not only in Hamilton but in other parts of Ontario and the west, have not yet been paid.


George Eulas Foster: Has the minister taken the course of the Minister of Railways and Canals, and issued a circular to the public works employees throughout the country as to their working in anticipation? _


William Pugsley: No, because I have great hope, and the accountant felt, that in the course of a few days a vote for these poor men, who must of course get their pay, as every hon. gentleman will admit, would be available. I did not think it was necessary to issue a circular just at present.


Mr. LENNOX.: We are in very good humour now.



ANGLO-AMERICAN TREATIES.

Mr. SPROULE.: When may we expect that the Anglo-American treaties and the correspondence in connection with them, will be laid on the table? We were promised them before now.


Wilfrid Laurier: I will inquire.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood the First Minister to say last week that they would be all ready in a few days.


Wilfrid Laurier: I did not say that. I said I would lay them on the table as soon as they were printed. They were ordered to be printed at once, and they are in the hands of the printers now.



RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT.

Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to ask the government a question in regard to Bill (No. 157) which has been introduced by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Ralph Smith), an Act to amend the Railway Act. Is it the intention of the government to promote the

passage of that legislation during the present session ? The Bill is a very short one. it has only one paragraph, which is in the following terms :
iNo operator, train despatches or other employee who, hy the use of the telegraph, telephone, or other electrical device, despatches, reports, transmits, receives, or delivers orders or messages pertaining to or affecting train movements shall he required or permitted to he on duty for a longer period than eight hours in any twenty-four hour period, except in case of emergency, in which case any such employee may remain on duty for a period not exceeding twelve hours in a twenty-four hour period, and such excess duty shall not he permitted on more than two days in any seven.
In view of the frequency of accidents on our railways during the past few years, I would like to ask the government if it is their intention to have that legislation passed during the present session?


Wilfrid Laurier: This is a public Bill, and must take its rank along with all other legislation of a similar nature. Whether 'this Bill and other public Bills should be treated exceptionally, is a matter as to which I could not give an opinion at this moment.



THE GOVERNMENT STEAMER ' MONTCALM.'

George Eulas Foster: I would like to ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) if he has received the report and evidence taken in the investigation into the sinking of the ' Montcalm.*'


Mr. BRODEUR.: Yes, on Friday I moved :
That an order of the House do issue to the proper officer for a copy of the evidence taken in the ' MiIwaukee-Montcalm ' collision case.
And I presented the return immediately. I take it that that is the return to which my hon. friend has alluded.



DISTRIBUTION OF SEED GRAIN.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Carleton).: I would ask the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver), whether or not there would be any objection to laying on the table a statement respecting the seed grain supplied in the west, setting forth the amount purchased by the government, the sum paid for it, the amount that has been sold to farmers under the terms of the arrangement either by this government or the provincial government and the selling price. I have forgotten the exact details of the arrangement, but the minister will understand what information should be given.


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior).: Of course, the distribution is only just completed. The report is being prepared as quickly as possible to place before the House. It cannot be a complete statement, as the accounts will not be closed by that time. It will be of the nature of an interim report dealing with the subject of purchase and distribution. I hope to place it before the House within a short time but I cannot fix a date for bringing it down:


George Eulas Foster: Would the proposed statement show what disposition the persons to whom the grain was distributed had made of it ? The object of the government in distributing the grain, of course, was to have it sown, and so a complete statement would show how many acres the party had sown. I have heard it said that considerable amounts of this grain had been sold by the parties receiving it.


Frank Oliver: I am afraid the statement I have in process of preparation would not cover that point, but the point will be covered by a subsequent and complete statement. However, I think there is very little danger that any of the grain has been sold, as the price at which we have been compelled to supply it would not be attractive as a basis of transactions.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would it cover the point how much of it had been paid for ?


Frank Oliver: Yes, it will show that

absolutely.



FEES ON PRIVATE BILLS.

Mr. A. JOHNSTON (South Cape Breton).: With the leave of the House, I move :
That Bill (No. 185) respecting the Lake Champlain and St. Lawrence Ship Canal Company be placed on the Order Paper for second reading this day.


Robert Laird Borden: I observe that a great many of the private Bills are going to the Senate in the first instance. I quite approve of that idea. There is no reason in the world why many of the private Bills -and, indeed, public Bills as well-could not be introduced in the Senate. But I would like to call the attention of the government to the circumstance that there is, if I remember the rules correctly, a great discrepancy in the fees required on the introduction of a private Bill in the Senate and those required on the introduction of a private Bill in this House. Besides that, the rules of this House make special provision for additional fees, where Bills are introduced after a certain time in the session. The object of that, as the right hon. leader of the House (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) will remember, is to have Bills brought forward, and the work on them done, in the early part of the session when the business of the House is not conjested. This particu-

Jar Bill, and other Bills as well, come to us pretty late in the session. I would suggest that, as the government have entire control of the framing of the rules of the Senate in this regard, it might be advisable to consult with the leader of the Senate with the view to having the rules of the two Houses made uniform on this point. It seems to me an unnecessary incongruity that a private Bill introduced in this House should pay a particular amount, while the same Bill if introduced in the Senate, would pay a smaller amount, or that there should be any such discrepancy in these fees.
Right Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER fPrime Minister). As my hon. friend (Mr. It. L. Borden) knows, the Senate is the master of its own rules. The rules prevailing there are of the Senate's own framing. Two years ago, when we amended the rules of this House, we provided new fees for private Bills and I think that, on the whole, the new rule is an improvement on the old. The attention of the Senate may not have been called to this matter. But my hon. friend knows that the Senate desires to do more of the work of the session. I shall deem it my duty to call the attention of the leader of the Senate to this matter.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS.

Mr. A. MARTIN (Queens, P.E.I.).: I desire to ask the Minister of Railways about a certain return, ordered by the House some time ago, with regard to the running of two trains a day on the Murray Harbour Railway in my province. I have made some inquiry about it and it has not been brought down. I would also remind the Minister of Marine and Fisheries about a return of licenses for fishing and canning lobster in my province which have not yet been brought down.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I thought the return had been brought down. I will make inquiries about it.



SUPPLY-THE PROVINCIAL ELECTIONS.

['The Minister of Militia will take up his estimates.']
Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.


Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR (Leeds).: I am pleased to see the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) in his place this morning, but am sorry to see that he has ' busted ' his voice-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


George Taylor: What I say is quite correct, for, as the hon. gentleman has attempted to answer a few quest'-s across Mr. R, L. BORDEN.
the floor to-day we have been unable to understand him. He has been out in the country preaching provincial politics, and I would like to inquire why a minister occupying the high and honourable position which the minister occupies would descend so low as to


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


George Taylor: I withdraw that. But I intended to read from the paper what the minister said, and then I will leave it to the House


Mr. SPEAKER.: That statement, I suppose, is withdrawn.


George Taylor: Yes, I withdrew it. I wonder why the minister cannot go into his own province and talk provincial politics without making use of the following language :
Starting on another tack, the Minister of Marine asked : 1 How is it that a man so ferocious for French Canadians and Catholics as Mr. Bourassa is, has allied hinvsef with an Orangeman of Ontario like Geo. Taylor to get Mr. Cousineau elected in Hull? '
And further :
Do you mean to say that an alliance between Mr. Bourassa and an Orangeman like Geo. Taylor is not provincial politics? asked the speaker.
That is the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. I admit that the charge made by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is correct, that George Taylor does belong to the Orange institution. He is proud of the honour of belonging to it and he is also pleased to ally himself with the first to make use of this language in the province of Quebec ; Mr. Bourassa said :
He did not, however, want to raise religious questions, but wanted the two races to remain in peace under the British flag.
Any man who makes use of these sentiments can depend on George Taylor coming to his assistance, because the Orangemen of this country have a duty to perform and they have performed it from time immemorial up to the present. That is to grant free religious institutions all over this country, to maintain and uphold them. We have no objection to our French Canadians because they belong to the Roman Catholic Church and it is our duty to uphold them in their rights. I did go over to Hull to help Mr. Cousineau and I am very glad to say that the French Canadian people of Ottawa county elected Mr. Cousineau to support Mr. Bojirassa, to the great discomfort of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. But, I do think it beneath the dignity of a minister of the Crown to go into his own province and among his own people and try to raise religious and race

cries. I am surprised at the hon. gentleman descending to such tactics in order to try to defeat a gentleman who, I am glad to know, is elected in the two constituencies he ran for and who will carry Quebec when he appeals again, as he did appeal yesterday to his friends there not to pay any attention to what the Minister of Marine and Fisheries might say and who made use of this language :
He did not, however, want to raise religious questions, but wanted the two races to remain in peace under the British flag.
Further :
Hon. Mr. Brodeur

Mr. Bourassa said :
-talking about George Taylor and Orangemen, had forgotten to say that he had voted ten or twelve times with iMr. Geo. Taylor for the abolition of the French language in the Northwest.
The minister did not tell them that. But, when he refers to ' an Orangeman like Geo. Taylor ' I would like to know what his meaning is ; I would like to know what he means by it ? Why did he not refer to the Orangemen sitting behind him ? For instance, why did he not talk about the hon. member for East Feterborough (Mr. Finlay) 1 Does he think that there are no Orangemen amongst the hon. gentlemen who are supporting the government ?


George Eulas Foster: They were not worth mentioning.


George Taylor: No. But, the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, going down into his own province, trying to raise religious feeling and indulging in the language which I have quoted could have mentioned some hon. gentlemen who are supporters of the government at the same time that he picked out ' an Orangeman like Geo. Taylor.'


Haughton Lennox: Are there any more of them there ?


George Taylor: There is quite a number, the hon. member for East Peterborough (Mr. Finlay), the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson), the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Jackson), the hon. member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell) and the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley).


Mr. S. J. JACKSON.: The hon. member (Mr. Taylor) - is astray.


George Taylor: X think that the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, while he occupies the position of a minister, ought to rise above race and religious cries in a local election instead of dragging in the names of men who are just as honest as himself and making references to Orangemen like so-and-so. The Orangemen occupy a high and honourable position in this country, the institution is just as high and honourable as any in this country either in the province of Ontario or of Quebec and we do not like the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to go on the platform and condemn and censure people as if they were not fit to be citizens of this country. They are citizens, they hold high places in this country and they will continue to do so.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: What is my hon. friend reading from ?


George Taylor: I am reading from the Montreal ' Gazette.'


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Oh.


George Taylor: The minister cannot deny it. I would like to ask the minister if he did not make use of this language.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Not in the way it is reported there.


George Taylor: A good deal worse probably in French. Does the government blame the opposition for obstructing when ministers go out and throw out such insults as this ? I ask the minister to say whether he said that Mr. Bourassa had formed an alliance with Orangemen like Geo. Taylor.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: Answer.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Speak now.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) does not deign to reply, I would like to say that such language does not come with very good grace from a minister of the Crown and especially from one who has so frequently referred to the fact that he desires to avoid race and religious cries in this country and that he always aimed at putting them-down and keeping them under. It is not a very good evidence of that desire and, if the hon. gentleman is correctly reported, I frankly confess that 1 do not think it is to his credit or to the credit of any minister of the Crown to make use of such language.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Railways and Canals-collection of revenue -Intercolonial, $9,000,000.
['If the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) does not deign to reply, I would like to say that such language does not come with very good grace from a minister of the Crown and especially from one who has so frequently referred to the fact that he desires to avoid race and religious cries in this country and that he always aimed at putting them-down and keeping them under. It is not a very good evidence of that desire and, if the hon. gentleman is correctly reported, I frankly confess that 1 do not think it is to his credit or to the credit of any minister of the Crown to make use of such language.']
George Eulas Foster: Before the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) goes on with his explanation I would like to read him a telegram which was sent to me, and if the minister could give us any information as to when the orders were given and what they were meant to signify I would be very glad. This telegram was sent from Moncton on June 5, 1908 :


Hon.   G@: Foster,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Following circular No. 190 has been posted in government offices here:
Division Superintendent's Office, June 3.
I have letter from general manager dated 2nd instant which reads as follows: ' I am instructed by department to advise you that the interior partial appropriation votes by parliament for works and staff under control of Department of Railways and Canals will shortly be exhausted, if not already so, and that no further appropriation has been obtained from parliament at the present date, and to instruct you to notify the general members of your staff of the position leaving it to them to decide whether they will continue to work on understanding that no salaries or wages will be paid them until further Supplies have been voted. Please he governed accordingly.'' Similar notices have been sent to employees individually. Is there any warrant for this circular ?
I think the minister owes it to the House to make a statement as to what he really intended to do by that letter. Did he intend to dismantle the Intercolonial Railway force or was this tantamount to a notice of a discontinuance of service ? If it was not meant for that what was the particular purpose the minister had in mind ?


Hon. GEO. F. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals).: The particular purpose the minister had in mind is I think quite clear on the face of the document itself. I do not see how any minister in charge of a department like mine could protect the department and himself under the conditions without doing something of that kind in view of what I will read now. On May 15 the Deputy Minister of the Department of Railways and Canals received the following from the Auditor General which I think will explain the whole situ-action :
Sir,-Let me call your attention to the fact that of a great portion of the estimates for 1909 only one-eighth has been voted by parliament. Please note that we have no authority to exceed this until further supplies have been granted. In view of discussions which have taken place in reference to the overdrawing of appropriations it would be advisable to notify all your officials charged with the expenditure of public money that they must not under any circumstances exceed the appropriation.
_ In view of that, the department did what it always does with contracts when the money has not been voted-it notified those interested that their salaries would be subject to supply being voted by the House. Suppose this had happened : Suppose parliament had dissolved and gone to the country it was well to have it understood that the money not having been voted the men could not be paid and until the money was obtained that they were working under that


George Eulas Foster: understanding. It was simply that and nothing more.


Mr. HAGGART.: Could not the hon. gentleman do as he did before and pay them when there was no appropriation by Governor General's warrant ?


Mr. FIELDING.: My hon. friend forgets that a Governor General's warrant can only issue when parliament is not in session.


John Graham Haggart: I know that.


Robert Laird Borden: Parliament would not he in session under the supposition put by the Minister of Railways, namely, that there would be a dissolution.


William Stevens Fielding: I was speaking of the present conditions under which the circular was issued.


John Graham Haggart: Are not all the receipts of the Intercolonial at the disposal of the department ?


George Perry Graham: No.


John Graham Haggart: When was a change made ?


George Eulas Foster: The money goes to the Receiver General now.


John Graham Haggart: By what Act of parliament was that done? When I was Postmaster General and when I was Minister of Railways the receipts were at the disposal of the departments if they choose to use them. Has the Minister of Railways any information from the Justice Department to the contrary ?


William Stevens Fielding: That has never been the case under the present administration, and I think my hon. friend is mistaken as to his own practice. I have not looked into the law, but I presume the practice has been in conformity with the law and the practice is that all the receipts from the public works of Canada go into the consolidated fund and can only be paid out of tile Dominion treasury when voted by parliament. I think my hon. friend is mistaken when he says it was otherwise in his day.


John Graham Haggart: I am not mistaken at all. When I was Postmaster General and Minister of Railways I got an opinion from the Justice Department that all the receipts were at the disposition of the department of Railways and Canals and of the Post Office Department. Unless that has been changed there is no necessity at all for all this complaint about not paying the Intercolonial Railway employees and the Post Office employees. The Postmaster General has no doubt consulted the law officers of the Crown and he knows whether I am correct or not.


William Stevens Fielding: I still think my hon. friend is mistaken, but if there is a law which would allow any department to make use of the public money without the authority of parliament I think it is an unfortunate law. I am speaking of what has been the practice and I rather think it is in accordance with the law.


Haughton Lennox: The suggestion made by the Minister of Railways was that there would be a dissolution of parliament and if that were so my bon. friend (Mr. Haggart) was correct in saying that a Governor General's warrant might issue. That is what tlie Minister of Railways put forward as an excuse for having issued his circular.


George Perry Graham: Not as an excuse.


Haughton Lennox: I see fit to call it an excuse. The government might be driven to a dissolution of course, but I don't think they are likely to have any dissolution at the present time. The Minister of Railways has put forward a very poor excuse for the issuing of this circular. He gives the letter of the Auditor General as a reason, but the minister must have known the condition of tilings without the Auditor General pointing it out to him. Is the government driven to such a position that they must issue circulars to the employees of the government advising them to go on strike, because that is the effect of the circular. It seems like a political dodge and nothing else, and an attempt to relieve the government from the odium in which they stand before the people for their conduct of public affairs. No existing circumstance could have justified the minister in issuing such a circular. I thought it had been issued in some way without his knowledge, but now that he takes the responsibility for it I am amazed that he should have done such a thing. That circular was simply a bid to the men employed on the Intercolonial to ereat a political situation which is not in the interests of the country.


George Eulas Foster: I do not want to be uncharitable but I incline to the opinion of my . lion, friend (Mr. Lennox) that it smacks very strongly of being a political move in order to make capitai against the opposition. If the minister had been perfectly frank he would have added to that circular that the reason the employees have not been paid is because of the minister's own neglect. The House met in November last and it was not until about twelve o'clock on Friday night, the 5th of June, that the minister deigned to ask the House for one dollar of this vote. If a gentleman who has charge of the Railway Department will sit in his seat for nearly seven months and not ask the House to grant him a vote of what is necesary in order to pay his employees. I think he is estopped from issuing a circular of that kind at this time. He
should have explained to them that by some strange mischance or lapse of memory or something of that kind he had actually forgotten that there was some $8,000,000 or $9,000,000 to be voted for them and that he had not during these six months asked the House for a dollar of that money. Does not the minister think he should have added that as a codicil ?


William Stevens Fielding: The Minister of Railways being known to be a truthful person could not have made that statement in the circular because it would not be the truth.
I am sorry to have again to point out that the Minister of Railways and Canals, through the Minister of finance, months ago approached hon. gentlemen opposite in the customary way and asked that the various public services of the country, including these particular persons in the Railway Department, might be provided for by a vote on account. We asked that a one-fourth vote might be taken, leaving three fourths to be the subject of debate in later days. Hon. gentlemen opposite, when approached in the usual way, did not concur in that suggestion; they accepted it only in a qualified way and agreed to assist us in obtaining a one-eighth vote. That one-eighth was duly obtained. When it was exhausted the Minister of Railways and Canals again, through the Minister of Finance, following the usual course, proposed a further vote on account, and we were informed we could not obtain the assistance of the opposition in passing that further vote through the House.
Mr. 'FOSTER. The Minister of Finance wishes to be given a reputation for extraordinary truthfulness.


William Stevens Fielding: Ordinary.


George Eulas Foster: For never allowing, even by inference, the least idea to get abroad that he is doing a thing not exactly as it ought to be, vide an example not long ago, where the Minister of Finance, when fairly cornered by the member for East Northumberland (Mr. Owen) as to the fact that he had already had voted to him some $6,000,000 or $7,000,000 by this committee stated in effect that he could not be expected to come down for a Supply Bill for every $10 that was voted. That is an extraordinarily truthful way of representing the matter. A Minister of Finance who was cool and truthful and wanted to lay all the facts before the House, who was not unduly excited at the time of speaking, would say : I am very anxious to get the money so that these men can be paid. I have totalled up the items and find I have been voted some $7,000,000 or $8,000,000; here are these poor people waiting for their pay which is in arrears; I think as Minister of Finance I might take my dignity off my shoulders and ask a Supply Bill for $10,000,000 or $12,000,- _

000 and so get the money for these public servants. Did he do that? No. He is the minister who says :	You people in the
opposition have no rights except what we chose to give you. He is the minister who has grown very autocratical-three-fourths of the difficulty in this House is due to his autocratical or aristocratical disposition. Time was, I dare say, when he was a democrat, a democrat down to the hilt, like the right hon. gentleman beside him. Time was when he belonged to the common peo-' pie and stood for the virtues of the common people. To-day he has gone on in an interrupted course of events politically which he does . not seem to have ascribed to anything but his great ability and foresight, whereas, in reality, Providence and favouring gales have been behind him and certainly he would not be in the position he is if Providence and favouring gales had not assisted him. Now he has grown autocratical. He says to these employees: Starve if you like, I have $12,000,000 of your money and I will be hanged if I will ask to have it paid to you until the whole batch of estimates are put through. The minister must take the responsibility for his position in not asking a Supply Bill for nearly $12,000,000. He is not suffering, he draws his salary each month as it is statutory. but these men cannot do that and he holds them up. The minister would have done well if on having $5,000,000 or $6,000,000 voted he had asked for a Supply Bill. He would then have done well for the people who are .in need of the salaries which they have earned and which are due to them.
The minister has made the statement, not once but twice to-day, that the Minister of Railways and Canals has through him asked for a vote on two occasions. Of course the other ministers do not amount to much. The Minister of 'Customs is a small man and the Minister of Railways and Canals is a young man and they are modest and do not like to ask parliament for their votes and so the Minister of Finance says : Through me, the Finance Minister of this great and growing country, a vote is asked for. So when you tax the Minister of Railways and Canals with being too neglectful or having his memory not serve him well in this matter the Minister of Finance hopes to get him out of it by saying: Oh, that does not matter, I as Minister of Finance have asked for a vote on account on two occasions; on one occasion you gave us one-eighth and on the other you refused it. The Minister of Finance would be more truthful, according to his own statement of what he wants to get, if he had given I the attendant circumstances of that second asking. The Finance Minister knows and the Prime Minister knows that negotiations have beem going on, that there are questions in dispute between the opposition and the Mr. FOSTER.
government and that every request which has been made for Supplies in that way has been made on the basis of negotiations which at the time were going on, and that there was a reply which might have been made by the Prime Minister himself which would have lightened the situation but that reply was not given.
The Prime Minister is fond of saying that the ICing's government must go on. Yes, but it is an altogether different assumption that it must go on under the present flag. It is quite possible it might go on just as well under another party. The King's government must go on but that is not the statement that it must go on under the party which at the moment holds the reins of power. There are some things which are public measures and some things are not. This measure which is in dispute between the opposition and the government to-day is a measure which affects the status of members of this House. It is something in which every member is interested. In Great Britain these arrangements of the franchise of the country are matters of consultation and agreement between both sides of the House. You cannot find an instance in the British parliament of a minister undertaking to revise the basis of the franchise and putting it on this ground; I have a right to bring this in. I am going to put it through and you have no right to treat this in any other way than to discuss it and vote upon .it and see which side is the stronger of the two. They do not do things in that way in the British parliament, and never have done them in that way. This measure, therefore, fairly regarded, is not in, the same category as a public Bill, the Civil Service Bill, for instance, the Hudson Bay Railway Bill, or any other measure of that kind. This is a matter for negotiation and compromise, and in the negotiations that have gone on, the granting of Supplies has been a make-weight. The Minister of Finance should have stated that, and should have stated, if he had wanted to be frank about it, that the negotiations are still pending and that the Prime Minister is the man who has been in charge and has not concluded the matter.
Now, I have been frank in this matter, because there is no use in trying to make out before the country that there is not an issue between us, nor is there any use in trying to make out that the issue is different from what it is. Here you have the franchises of the Dominion; here you have a party in power which, during eighteen years of its history in opposition, maintained a certain view with regard to the franchise. They declared for a Franchise Bill on the lines of the provincial franchises. They canvassed the country on that; they asked votes on that; they got into power on it. So they had a mandate from the people on this subject. They came into power and they revised the law accord-

ing to the mandate of the people. Now, the Prime Minister has no mandate from the people to make ducks and drakes of the franchise arrangements of this country. Yet, without any mandate at all, they come before this parliament with a scheme which makes fish of one and flesh of another, which looks upon one province as being of a


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Alexander Johnston: What is the resolution before the chair?


George Eulas Foster: The resolution is with reference to the granting of Supply. And making ducks and drakes of the basis of the franchise, treating one province in one way and another province in another way-


Mr. DUNCAN ROSS.: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman is wandering away


George Eulas Foster: -is not a proper handling of this great question. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance know that negotiations have been on the basis of this difference between ourselves with regard to this franchise measure. Now, is it not possible that this matter can be arranged and arranged quickly? Is it not possible that the Prime Minister himself can take a position which will get rid of this subject and remove the check that exists be-' tween the King's business and this parliament? That taken out of the road, there will be no difficulty, as my right hon. friend well knows. We should then have the disputed question put to one side and we could get on without the disputed question always continually obtruding itself and getting in front of the real business of the country.


Hon. WM. PATERSON (Minister of Customs).: How would it do for me to say a word or two just now. that my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) may know that I am in the House. I was away for a day or two


George Eulas Foster: What were you doing?


William Paterson: I was talking about the obstructive tactics of the opposition. Now, to diverge for a moment before dealing with the question which I rose to discuss, I may say that the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) might be a little more careful about the speeches he makes in this House. You have heard him, Mr. Chairman, scores and scores of times declare that the Liberals had adopted a platform in 1893, but, getting in power, had not carried out a single plank of it. He says now that we did carry out one at least -we amended the Franchise Bill.


George Eulas Foster: If my hon. friend (Mr. Paterson) will allow me. I have heard members of the opposition make a statement on that point, but every one of them that I have heard has said that every plank of the Liberal platform had been sacrificed except one-that with reference to the Franchise Bill.


William Paterson: The hon. gentleman has repeated-and ' Hansard ' will show- that every principle laid down by us was violated-not one was carried out. Even the leader 'Of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) has so far forgotten the facts as to state that.


Robert Laird Borden: When?


William Paterson: Many a time.


Robert Laird Borden: When? Tell me of one time.


William Paterson: I cannot recall them at the moment. I cannot recount exactly when the hon. gentleman spoke


Robert Laird Borden: I can tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Paterson) that he is entirely mistaken.


William Paterson: Then the hon. gentleman has sat in his place and heard his supporters make statements that were untrue and has not contradicted them. The hon. member does not deny that these statements have been made


Robert Laird Borden: I challenge the minister now-he wants to be very truthful -to put the statement before us :	When
that was made?


William Paterson: I am not playing this game of obstruction, understand. I cannot be drawn out in that way. I am within the judgment of the House whether that statement has or has not been repeated. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. W. J. Roche) alluded to the fact the other night that we had carried out this one plank and he has heard the


Mr. W. J. ROCHE.: And now you want to override it.


William Paterson: I am not going into a discussion of the platform. It is a good platform. There is one plank that has not been carried out-the reform of the Senate. We had the plebiscite. The hon. gentlemau (Mr. Foster) will not deny that that is another plank that we have carried out.


George Eulas Foster: I will not deny that the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) or the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) had a plebiscite.


William Paterson: The people


George Eulas Foster: The people got no show in it.


William Paterson: Yes, the people voted in it. If hon. members cannot recall matters that have been of such great interest to the country it is a pity. Now, the hon.

member to whom I wisli particularly to refer is not present, but some of the others who spoke on the matter with which I wish to deal are here. They spoke of me as haying made a statement that was misleading and almost untrue. If I had done that, and my attention were called to it, I would at once take it back. But I cannot take it back and still tell the truth as I understand it. The member for East Northumberland (Mr. Owen) said :
The Hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) is reported to have said: 'In his department there were 1,800 men who could not get their pay because the Tory obstructionists would not vote supplies.'
And that he calls a misleading statement. But it is an actual fact, aud so I cannot take back my statement. Any one who contradicts that statement is making a misstatement absolutely. The men are not yet paid. I asked, when I came back, if they had been paid, and they said 1 No.'


Robert Laird Borden: And the bon. gentleman (Mr. Paterson) said that he could send the cheques out if he got the vote put through.


William Paterson: If I said that, I said what was inaccurate.


George Eulas Foster: And may be doing the same now.


William Paterson: It would be inaccurate to state that until these resolutions were embodied in a Supply Bill and passed the money could be used.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman gave me the distinct impression, by explicit statement, that if the vote were put through he would pay his men, and the vote was put through with that understanding. It was on Friday, I think, and the hon. gentlemen pointed out that the vote then under discussion would pay the outside service, and said that if he got the otfier on Monday it would be in time enough, and the vote for the inside service was passed on Monday.


William Paterson: I could not get the pay for these men unless that vote passed in committee.


Robert Laird Borden: Does my hon. friend deny that he gave us to understand that if that vote passed, he could pay his men ?


William Paterson: What I gave you to understand was that it would facilitate the paying of the men.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Mr PATERSON.: Let me bring it a little closer home to the leader of the opposition. He knows that they wanted me to leave one item, he knows that when that item was passed they only let it go through the committee on the understanding that it was Mr. PATERSON.
to be debated on concurrence with the same latitude as that given in committee. Therefore so far as my getting the money was concerned, I was not advanced one step, lion, gentlemen opposite will not deny that. It is on ' Hansard.' Why did my hon. friend want the item to stand ? It was because, he said, the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) wanted to discuss it. They found fault with me because I went to Brantford. But where was the hon. member for Brantford himself ? He was away when my estimates came up, and the whip of the other side said to me : Do not go on with your estimates because the member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) is not here. I said I did not care, that I wanted to get the money. But we did not get my estimates through that night. We did not even get them voted through the committee although we sat until four o'clock in the morning. We were met by obstruction pure and simple-nothing else-obstruction undisguised and deliberate. We were told by the hon. gentleman then leading the House (Mr. Taylor) : Withdraw your Election Bill and your estimates will go through in two minutes. That was the statement made. The statement I made at Brantford therefore was absolutely correct. It accurately described the position to-day.


Samuel Hughes: Is the hon. Minister of Customs going to resign ? He made a certain statement at Brantford and has had the verdict of his own county only yesterday.


William Paterson: But that was given four years ago.


Samuel Hughes: There was a verdict yesterday too.


William Paterson: It was given four years ago but repeated with greater emphasis, so I am told, yesterday. I have no intention of resigning, at any rate until I have placed this matter clearly before the people as I did up there. The men are without pay because the Supply is not voted. Hon. gentlemen opposite ask, why not bring down the Supply Bill ? But concurrence must come first. When my items came to be concurred in, what would the leader of the opposition say ? He would say : We cannot concur because the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) has something to say on the question, and it will have to stand. That is on ' Hansard.' To say that I made a misleading statement when I said that the government officials could not be paid because of the obstructive tactics of the opposition, is to make an utterly unfounded charge. Hon. gentlemen opposite did not wait until I was present to attack me. I went to Brantford, but not solely to take part in the provincial elections.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Of course not.

Mr. PAlERiSON. One lion, gentleman mentions the fact that I made no allusion to local politics whatever hut only to Dominion politics. I did take the opportunity of meeting the electors and putting before them the conduct of the opposition in this matter.


George Eulas Foster: You got your verdict.


William Paterson: No, but you will get your verdict when you go before the people themselves. If there is anything in the minds of the people at present on which, when the government ask for a verdict, they will get a favourable verdict by an overwhelming majority, it is this question of obstruction. I can tell you that the rules of this House must be revised in such a, manner that while the amplest time will be given for the discussion of every question and the investigation of every subject, there must be a means devised whereby the bon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and the little clique of men around him will not be able to keep this House sitting indefinitely. That is the issue that will be pronounced upon, and the party which will favour a revision of the rules in order that something within the lines of decency may be maintained and the country's money saved, will be endorsed by the people, and the party which will be entrusted with the carrying out of that reform will be the party that has ever carried out all reforms.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William Paterson: All reforms that have ever been carried out in this country. Does any one suppose that these men could go to the country and ask the people to sustain them on an issue pledging themselves that if they came in they would pass an Act that would limit their own powers of oratory to something like decency ? It is hard on the civil servants and on members of parliament, but every day this obstruction continues, it strengthens the Liberal party. Therefore I can take some consolation out of it whilst being compelled to sit here and listen to the long windy, harangues made for the sole purpose of obstruction on the other side. My reputation for veracity I have fully established, and I will say no more.


Robert Laird Borden: One does not wonder that my hon. friend the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) should have come back in rather bad humour. Of course we must make some allowances for his spleen, and I trust sincerely that hon. gentlemen on' this side will take that into account and not lay too much emphasis upon the display we have had from him just now. The hon. gentleman entered into controversy- and that brings me to my feet-as to whether or not he gave the House to under-1 stand that if these items were put through
the committee, he would be able to pay his men. He refers to the fact that we asked him to hold over an item of $5,000. We did make that request, but then we let it go through because he pressed us to do so in order that he might have the whole item passed and therefore be able to pay his officers. Either he knew that when he was speaking just now, or his memory stands sadly in need of correction. Just look at what he said on May 29. It will be found on page 8738 of unrevised * Hansard ' :
Had you not better let me have this money now? The men need their pay.


Robert Laird Borden: Are you referring to the first item here?


William Paterson: It will be of no use to give us that, as it is only part of the item. The cheques can perhaps be issued if the items are passed, even before the Supply Bill.


William Paterson: I said ' perhaps.'


Robert Laird Borden: I think we will compromise by letting you have the first one, amounting to $1,815,000.


William Paterson: I will take that, of course, if I cannot get more; but I do not know whether the Auditor General will care to give a credit so that we can issue the cheques unless the whole item passes.
And the whole item did pass. It passed because of the representation of the minister that upon obtaining that item, he would be enabled to pay the salaries of his men. He went away the next day to the ridings of Brant and there he told the people that these men were without their pay because of the obstruction of the opposition.


William Paterson: Did you notice that I said ' perhaps ' ? You did not emphasize that. [DOT]


Robert Laird Borden: Do not let my hon. friend get any more uneasy than he is at present. He seems to be extremely uneasy.


William Paterson: Not at all.


Duncan Ross: I am sure the hon. the leader of the opposition does not want to be unfair. Look at the vote. That particular item referred to is only one of a vote of five items, and the whole vote could not be reported unless that particular item were passed.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend need not be afraid, I shall read the whole record. The minister went on to say :
Besides, I want to go away next Tuesday, and it would oblige me if the item were passed.


William Paterson: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend is very censorious of the hon. member for Brantford because he was away in his

constituency during the time of the local election. We did ask the usual courtesy that the minister would hold an item over until the hon. member for Brantford returned, and we were told by the Minister of Customs that he should be in his seat. But the Minister of Customs did not think it unbecoming his status here as minister to leave his position in this House and go to the ridings of North and South Brant for the purpose of taking part in the very same election. If it was wrong for my hon. friend from Brantford to go to his riding, how much more was it absolutely unworthy of the Minister of Customs to leave his public duties here and go to North and South Brant for the same purpose? The only difference between the two is that my hon. friend from Brantford has come back with victories in the two ridings to his credit, and the Minister of Customs has come back in a somewhat censorious and irritable frame of mind which has led him to make the exhibition he has just made. The hon. minister continued:
I am afraid that if we have two days discussion in order to get into Supply, I will have to go without it.
That is to say he placed his interference in this local election before the object of getting Supply to pay the officers of his department. He had to choose between the two, and he preferred to go to that riding to take part in a provincial election rather than remain here for the purpose of getting through with these items. Then he continued :
Will you give me the next item, which is for the salaries and travelling expenses of inspectors, as well as the salaries and expenses of the statistical branch here in Ottawa?
And I replied :
We will see about the others on Monday.


William Paterson: What did the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), say between ?


Robert Laird Borden: I am taking the discussion between the hon. gentleman and myself at present. The minister then said :
Will you let us get into Supply on Monday?
And I answered:
Did you ever know us to fail? A man who is not satisfied with a million and a half a day is very hard to please.
And my hon. friend then said:
It is really making a discrimination between the officers. Those of the outside ports will be able to get their money while those in Ottawa will not.
Could anything be more distinct and explicit? Yet this same hon. gentleman, witli these words still ringing through this chamber, went to the riding of Brant and said Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
that the opposition had prevented him from paying his officers, and he has endeavoured to impress us with his extreme regard for the truth in the face of these facts. I shall leave the record to the House so far as that is concerned. I then said:
They will get their salaries as quickly as the outside officers if you get the other item on Monday.
Showing the sense in which I most distinctly understood the hon. gentleman and the sense in which he wished to be understood. Yet he did not consider it beneath his dignity as a public man to make the misstatement he did make-I shall use no harsher word-in the riding of Brant. Let me refer to what took place on Monday

see page 9860 of the unrevised 'Hansard.' On the item 'expense of maintenance of revenue cruisers and preventive service, $40,000,' I said:
The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cock-shutt) desired to have some item reserved. Perhaps you will let the last item stand?


William Paterson: That would stop the whole item.
What was the advantage of passing the whole item? It was in order that the outside as well as the inside officers might be paid, as the hon. gentleman represented they would be paid if these items passed. The hon. Minister of Finance said:
The several items constitute one resolution, so that there would be nothing to report.
I then asked: Will you have any sup-plementaries? And the Minister of Customs replied
We may have, but I do not like to pledge myself that we shall have. Let the hon. member have the discussion on concurrence.
That was the hon. minister's own suggestion, with which he found fault just now. The hon. gentleman's memory does not seem to be very good. I then asked :
When does the minister expect to be back?
And the minister replied
On Monday next.
I then said


Robert Laird Borden: Suppose the hon. member for Brantford wishes to discuss this on concurrence, I suppose you will not have any objection to his speaking three or four times if it is necessary to answer you?


William Paterson: If it is necessary to explain himself.


Robert Laird Borden: As long as there will be some freedom of discussion.


William Paterson: I cannot promise about the rules of the House, but I do not think there will be any trouble about that. The fact is, he should be here.


Robert Laird Borden: The minister should not go away.

So the whole item went through on the tuti and distinct understanding that the money would be available, not only to pay the outside but the inside service as well.


William Paterson: When?


Robert Laird Borden: At once. Did not the hon. gentleman understand that?


William Paterson: No.


Robert Laird Borden: Need I read it again? Will the minister endeavour to grasp this:	He said
u is really making -a discrimination between, the officers. Those at the outside ports will be able to get their money while those in Ottawa will not.
Anything more distinct and explicit than that, I cannot imagine. AVhether the minister said something he did not intend saying, I do not know; but, his distinct words gave us to understand beyond doubt that if the two items, not only for the inside but the outside service, passed, he would be able to pay his men at once; and because of that representation, we let the item go through, so that there would be no discussion in that committee, even although the hon. member for Brantford had specially come to me and asked that some item should be reserved so that he should be able to discuss these estimates. He had also gone to the chief whip and left the same message with him. But notwithstanding that, I agreed to the hon minister's request in order that there might be no inconvenience, so far as his officers were concerned. We let the item go through because of the minister's representation that if they did those men would get their money at once.


William Paterson: The hon. gentleman has taken a position which is unworthy of him. His position is nothing but a perfect quibble, and he knows it.


Some hon, MEMBERS: Nonsense.


William Paterson: When I asked to have that item agreed to, it was because, as I said, that perhaps if it passed the committee, the Auditor General might give a line of credit for it, but I did not commit myself to that.


Mr. LANCASTER.: Why did you not say that in Brantford?


William Paterson: I said in Brantford the absolute truth, and I stick to it here. The hon. gentleman tries to cloud the issue and make out that I made a mis-statement, but he knows that if these men are without their pay it is due to the obstructive tactics of the opposition.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


William Paterson: Why then have the men not got their money?


George Eulas Foster: You have not asked for it.


William Paterson: Yes, I have. If it were asked for to-day, what would be the statement we would be met with? We would be told that the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) was not in his place. And when the item came up for concurrence, the leader of the opposition would say that there was an understanding that it should not go through its final stage until the hon. member for Brantford was here.


George Eulas Foster: How do you know if he would say that?


William Paterson: He would be bound to say it.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Crawford).: This whole discussion is out of order. I have allowed considerable latitude, but now have to insist on the House taking up Supply.


Robert Laird Borden: I agree that the obstructive tactics of the Minister of Customs should be suppressed.


William Paterson: Will you give concurrence on the customs estimates?
Mr. FOlSTER. Bring down your Supply Bill on your customs estimates and we will pass it right through.


William Stevens Fielding: We would like to have the railway estimates' concurred with it.


George Eulas Foster: May be you had better not wait too long. After all this dignified discussion, has the Minister of Railways anything further to say in defence of the circular he issued?


George Perry Graham: My conduct in that connection needs no defence.


George Eulas Foster: It is defenceless.


George Perry Graham: That there may be no misunderstanding about it, I will read these two letters. This letter was received by the department on May 15, from the Auditor General:
Sir,- 1 have to call your attention to the fact that of a great portion of the estimates for 1908-9 only one-eighth has been voted by parliament. Please note that we have no authority to exceed this until further Supply has been granted.
Now here is the important part:
In view of the discussions which have taken place in parliament in reference to overdrawing the appropriation, it would be advisable to notify all your officials charged with the expenditure of public money, that they must not under any circumstances exceed the appropriation.
That is dated May 15. Then on May 20 this letter was sent by the department to the various officers :

Sir,-I am directed to inform you that the attention of the department has been drawn by the Auditor General to the fact that of a great portion of the estimates of 1908-9, only one-eighth has been voted by parliament, and that until further Supplies have been granted, the expenditure must not under any circumstances exceed the appropriation. Be pleased to see that in dealing with the expenditures for work under your control this limitation is closely adhered to.


George Eulas Foster: What was the date oil which you authorized that circular by Mr. Pottinger ?


George Perry Graham: The authorization of that circular would be the letter I have just read of May 20.


George Eulas Foster: The minister's explanation does not help him out. I did not know that he has such timely notice, that he was told by the Auditor General on the 15th of May that his money had run out. and that he must take measures to replenish it; and it was not until June 5, twelve o'clock at night, that he mustered up courage to ask that this vote be taken into consideration. How does the minister excuse such negligence? Those on the Intercolonial that are doing their work and earning their pay, come up on pay day and find no money; although an intimation is given by the Auditor General on the 15th of May warning the minister that there are breakers ahead, and to look out. The minister lolls away from May 15 to June 5, that is twenty days, before he musters up courage to come down to the House and ask for money to pay his employees. In ail my parliamentary experience I do not know of such a case of lack of provision in a minister. May I ask another question:	Has the minister, been
paying out of advances made to him by the Auditor General, over and above what vote he has had?


George Perry Graham: Of course we had the
supplementary estimates.


George Eulas Foster: I mean out of advances authorized by letter of credit or otherwise, by the Auditor General?


George Perry Graham: Nothing.


George Eulas Foster: I would like to say to the Minister of Finance, in order to make this matter clear, that if the Minister of Customs really wants to pay his men, and he has not got through committee all that he has asked for, and has not up to this moment taken the additional step to make it available, if the Minister of Finance asks this House to make what the committee has granted available, they will do it in as quick a time as it is possible to put anything through this House.


William Stevens Fielding: That, so far as it goes, is very encouraging, and is a departure from the policy laid down by the hon. mem-Mr. GRAHAM.
ber for Leeds (Mr. Taylor), who said that we would not get one copper.


William Paterson: The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) said so, too.


George Eulas Foster: The Minister of Customs has made a statement that I ask him to retract or else make it good.


William Paterson: I think I can make it good.


George Eulas Foster: Then I will accept your denial meanwhile.


William Stevens Fielding: I made no allusion to the hon. member for North Toronto in the matter, I am dealing with the official utterance conveyed to this House by that very responsible officer of the opposition, my esteemed friend from Leeds, who stated most positively and emphatically that it was the determination of the hon. gentleman opposite not to allow one dollar to pass until this devilish Bill-


George Taylor: I want to correct my hon. friend. I said I spoke for myself, only so far as I was concerned. Turn up ' Hansard,' and you will see it.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is too modest. I am assuming that he spoke, at all events, with the authority of his long experience and great knowledge.


George Taylor: You are assuming what is incorrect.


Samuel Hughes: He is only allowing twelve and a half cents on the dollar to go through.


William Stevens Fielding: Then I will take the statement of the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Sam. Hughes) that, although the opposition are pretending that they are not obstructing Supply, all they have allowed, is twelve and a half cents on the dollar.'


Robert Laird Borden: That is all the government are worth.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend from North Toronto says they are willing to let the customs officers be paid. That is such a1 vast improvement upon the conduct of the opposition that I welcome it. Now why does he make a distinction between the customs officer, worthy as he may be, and an officer of the Intercolonial ? Is it fair to say : We are going to let the customs man get his money, but the poor man who labours on the Intercolonial must wait ? I appeal to my hon. friend, if be is so considerate of the other departments as he says he is now, and is willing to pay the customs employees, this vote for the Intercolonial, although it is a large and important vote, is one largely of a routine character ; - then why not pay the railway men as well as. the customs men ?

l.'r. PATERSON. In reference to the remark of the hon. member for North Toronto, I would ask him to look at page 9739 where he will find an interjection made by himself.


Mr.   POSTER@: There is a very easy way for you to get them their salaries.
That is like what the hon. member for Leeds said : Withdraw your Bill, and you will get your money, and not otherwise. I am not, of course, a member of their caucus, but I know the papers stated that the hon. gentlemen opposite solemnly met together and determined that Supply should not go through until that Bill was withdrawn. The papers may have been wrong in that, I do not know.


Mr.   POSTER@: The minister should not reveal what takes place in caucus.


William Paterson: I have verified my statement.
Mr. I!. L. BORDEN. I think if the Minister of Customs makes another record today such as that he has made in Brant, we will be willing to admit him to our caucus.


George Perry Graham: I am anxious to get this vote through, if possible. It is $9,035,000 for the Intercolonial, the Windsor branch and the branch in Prince Edward Island. If we are allowed to put this through, it is really being allowed to use the money that we have in the Receiver General's bauds. Any discussion on the management can be had on capital expenditure.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Finance Minister asked why, if we were willing to let the item go through to pay the customs officers, we should not be equally ready to let this item go through to pay the expenditure incurred on the Intercolonial. There is a very great difference and a very much stronger reason why we should have it. In view of the disclosures which have been brought out by the Public Accounts Committee in regard to the jobbery, connected with the Intercolonial Railway in the last few years in the purchase of land and supplies and other things, we should have full information on each item before it is allowed to pass. With regard to the salaries of customs collectors we know what they are and we expect that they will be paid that money and that there will be no jobbery connected with them.


George Perry Graham: These items are really salaries. We will have a large appropriation for capital expenditure on which these matters can be discussed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was referring to the observation of the Minister of Finance.


Robert Laird Borden: As a matter of fact, as I understand, the receipts of the Inter-322
colonial Railway go to the credit of the Receiver General.


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: And you are not able to utilize the moneys received for the purpose of meeting the expenses of the road ?


George Perry Graham: That is the position.


Mr. J. D. REID.: How many men are employed on the Intercolonial Railway ?


John Graham Haggart: Will the minister tell us why he wants $1,400,000 more and also give us a statement as to what the receipts and expenditures are at the present time and whether they are falling off or increasing ?


George Perry Graham: The number of employees on the Intercolonial Railway is approximately 9,000

something under 9,000.


Mr. KEMP.: I would like to ask the minister if every one of the 9,000 employees of the Intercolonial Railway got the circulars which have been under consideration.


George Perry Graham: I have no idea. We sent the letter to the general manager.


Albert Edward Kemp: The minister does not know how many circulars were issued ?


George Perry Graham: I do not.


Albert Edward Kemp: Is it fair to suppose that each one got this circular ?
ilr. GRAHAM. Probably the heads of the departments got it.


Albert Edward Kemp: You only want to get rid of the heads of the departments ?


George Perry Graham: We do not want to get rid of anybody.


George Eulas Foster: My telegram said that ' similar notices were sent to employees individually ' and from other information we find that the circular was posted up in public places as well.


George Perry Graham: I cannot imagine that they would get 9,000 copies of this notice printed and send them to all the employees. I think that must be a mistake. The custom, whenever any change of rule is made, is that the notice is posted up so that the employees can see it. In reply to my hon. friend from South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) instead of this being in excess of last year's vote by $1,400,000 it is really the same amount we expended last year, because, in the Supplemental Estimates, we had to ask for $1,400,000. The receipts are falling off as the receipts of other railways are failing off.


John Graham Haggart: To what extent ?


George Perry Graham: The receipts fell off as compared with last year, lip to the 31st May, by about $180,000-for two months.


Albert Edward Kemp: Is the Intercolonial Railway reducing its staff under these circumstances the same as the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway ?


George Perry Graham: We have not been doing it to the same extent. In order to find out the position of the railway with regard to its employees, salaries and wages I have asked for a complete list of the employees, the salaries obtained and the date of employment. I might further add that several of the brotherhoods have already asked for increases in what they call the schedule . and these matters will have to come up for consideration a little later on.


John Graham Haggart: Would the minister give us a statement of the receipts and expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1908 ?


George Perry Graham: I will give the statement to my hon. friend after lunch.


Mr. CROCKET.: I would like to call the attention of the Minister of Railways and Canals to an article which recently appeared in the ' Daily Times ' of Moncton in which it is alleged that there has been a great deterioration in the Intercolonial Railway service aDd I would like to hear what explanation the minister has to make in reference to the allegations contained in this article. The article appeared on the 11th May and is as follows :
Mechanical department of the Intercolonial Railway in a deplorable state.
If the numerous reports being circulated by the railway men are correct, the mechanical department of the Intercolonial Railway is in a deplorable condition. The locomotives and cars are said to be in the worst state of repair known in the history of the road.
For months the Maritime Express trains have almost always been late. This results, railway men declare, more from inefficient locomotives than from bad coal, as recently reported; and as proof of this within a couple of weeks a new batch of locomotives, recently arrived from Kingston, have been running these trains with the result that a marked improvement is noticeable in the time.
These new locomotives, we presume, are like all others purchased for some years, paid for out of capital account. Indeed, it is declared by railway men who know a good deal of the working of the mechanical department, that if it had'not been for the additions to the rolling stock supplied the past year at the expense of capital the road would have been completely tied up before this. The policy for the past year has been to skimp everything not chargeable to capital so that Mr. Butler or Mr. Graham may he able to show as large a surplus as possible for the benefit of the electorate in the coming elections. The earnings for February are said to have been Mr. HAGGART.
very disappointing to the deputy minister and every expedient imaginable was enforced to keep the expenses down to March 31, the end of the financial year. As a result the shops here, and in fact at all repair shops, have not had force enough employed to keep pace with the work. We are informed there are no less than thirty locomotives lying in the Moncton yard awaiting repairs, and probably as many more at River du Loup, Halifax and other repair points. The hulk of these locomotives are said to he of the modern class and fit to do good work if they were only given the necessary repairs. Here in round figures is three-quarters of a million dollars worth of locomotives lying idle for want of repairs, and the minister reporting to parliament that the great development of traffic over the road necessitates the purchase of more locomotives and cars to provide for this increased traffic.
From the information we have there has been for some time sufficient locomotives and cars on the Intercolonial to meet all the requirements 'of legitimate traffic, if such locomotives and cars were kept in an efficient state of repair. According to the last report of the Minister of Railways, 23 locomotives were purchased between July, 1906, and March 31, 1907, and since that about as many more have, we understand, been acquired on the same account and more expected to be provided for in the pending estimates.
What we have said in regard to locomotives applies with equal force to the oars. Hundreds, if not thousands, of comparatively good cars are lying in sidings along the road awaiting repairs. Some of them have been idle for years and exposed to the weather are deteriorating very rapidly, and more are being purchased every year out of capital to keep the traffic moving. If only a royal commission of independent experts could he had to deal with the mechanical department of the railway, in onr opinion a state of affairs would he revealed that would shock the country. A scandal involving the loss of $50,000 or $100,000 to the taxpayers is the subject of comment all over the country. In this case there is a public investment of from twelve to fifteen millions in rolling stock. If a large percentage of this stock is allowed through mismanagement and wire-pulling to lie idle and deteriorate, is it not practically as had for the taxpayer as grafting on a large scale?
Only yesterday in Montreal I was informed by a very prominent citizen of New Brunswick that there were numerous complaints of deterioration on the Intercolonial railway, both as regards the operation of the trains and the road b^d. It was stated that ballasting was neglected, that in many places where ties were absolutely necessary they were not put in notwithstanding that last year the department bought .$100,000 worth of ties. It is also stated that several accidents which have recently occurred on the line resulted from deterioration of the road bed. Only a few days ago it was reported in the press that a train had two runs off between Montreal and Moncton. I would like to know what the Minister of Railways and Canals lias to say in reference to the allegations which are contained in

this paper which is published at the headquarters of the railway in Moncton and contains information which no doubt could he verified by the newspaper writer on the ground.


George Perry Graham: I cannot agree with the hon. gentleman when he .says these statements can he verified.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I said they are in a position to verify them because they are on the ground.


George Perry Graham: That is a reason why they should not make such statements because they are in a position to know better. That article complains we have not a sufficient staff and the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Kemp) suggested we should decrease the staff. Owing to the great increase of traffic all railways on this continent are endeavouring to reduce their expenses and the number of men employed, and some of them have shut up their shops for a considerable time. This article says we have not a sufficient number of men employed.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I did not so read the article. The article complains that repairs to rolling stock were being neglected, that new cars and locomotives were being bought on capital account while the railway lias locomotives which could do the work if they were put in proper repair, and, that this has not been done because it is the policy of the railway to scimp everything except what was chargeable to capital account so that a surplus might appear on working expenses.


George Perry Graham: Let me point out the absolute fallacy of the statement that last year every effort was made not to spend much money out of revenue but to take it out of capital so that at the end of the year we could show a surplus. Now here are the figures:	During the 9 months of 1907 we
expended on locomotives and repairs to same, $476,210.12; and during the year ending 1908 we expended on locomotives and repairs to same, $476,210.12; and during the year ending 1908 we expended $783,200.72 on locomotives out of the revenue, which is the largest amount that was ever expended out of revenue for this purpose. This shows that that part of the statement in the newspaper is not correct.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Does that sum you have mentioned not include the purchase of loco-mitives?


George Perry Graham: On repairs to locomotives we spent more money during the year just closed than ever before has been spent out of revenue account.


John Graham Haggart: How, much did you spend on repairs to locomotives?


George Perry Graham: $783,200. including the purchase of 4 new locomotives.
322J


John Graham Haggart: Oh, that is a mistake.


Mr. FOWLER.: How many locomotives did you repair for this immense sum?


John Graham Haggart: There is some mistake somewhere there.


George Perry Graham: Let me conclude the
statement.


George William Fowler: Surely you know how many locomotives you repaired.


George Perry Graham: I have not that information here.


George William Fowler: That would purchase about 40 locomotives.	.


George Perry Graham: I will get the information as to that afterwards but the point is that all this money came out of revenue and we expended more out of revenue for this purpose than ever before. On cars and repairs to passenger cars in 1907 we spent $166,813.88 and in 1908 we expended $310,21415. Now I am speaking of revenue alone, and take the freight car department-[DOT] during the nine months of 1907 we spent $327,050.24, and during the year 1908 we spent $604,984.64. This shows we _ have taken more out of revenue for the maintenance of the road in these threejlepartments than ever before so far as I can find the figures. The statement is therefore not well-founded that we are skimping that department. The excess of revenue over expenditure for the year ending March 31, 1908 was $16,000.


John Graham Haggart: What was the expenditure on capital account for the year ending March 31, 1908.


Robert Laird Borden: Immediately after luncheon hour the minister should give us a statement with regard to the fiscal year just ended for which we have not yet seen the figures. It would greatly advance the items before the House.


George Perry Graham: The difficulty is in furnishing all the data up to March 31, 1908, We have not yet received that information, it has not come from the manager. We have a few items from the accountant which I have given to the House, but the general manager has not made any report and we have not all the information up to the end of the year just closed. I can give the information for the previous year but not for the year closing March 31, 1908.


Robert Laird Borden: The minister might give what he has. That would, I suppose, include a statement of the receipts and expenditures and a statement of the expenditures on capital account.


George Perry Graham: We will give all the information possible.


George William Fowler: I asked the minister a question regarding one James A. Stewart. Tile parties advising the minister I think know perfectly well the James A. Stewart to whom I refer. But the man described to me was a brakeman of whom I was not asking at all. The James A. Stewart of whom I was asking is a gentleman who goes around on the different trains, jumping on at little way stations, checking up the conductors. In vulgar parlance he is known as a railway pimp.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend was wrong in supposing that we knew the man referred to. There is a James A. Stewart on the road and there is a James Stewart. He asked for information about James A Stewart and we gave it. Now we will try James.
At one o'clock, committee took recess.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.


George William Fowler: Perhaps the hon. minister will be able now to give some details about Mr. James Stewart who is a spotter on the Intercolonial Railway.


George Perry Graham: Of course my hon. friend will take back that expression ' spotter.' Mr. Stewart is a very useful officer, such as they have on all railways. He is a travelling auditor who checks up any place, either on the train or at the stations, he thinks necessary. Like all inspectors or auditors he does not notify people when he is going to make his inspection. I think he has been a very useful officer.


George William Fowler: My information is quite different. I think that the term ' spotter ' is the one usually applied, but if it be not a proper term, I shall call him travelling auditor. My information is that this man makes himself objectionable indeed, not only to conductors on the road, but very often to others. I do not think you will find on any railway in this country, or in connection with any other work, any better class of men than the conductors on the Intercolonial Railway. That is the univei'-sal opinion held of these men. Mr. Stewart is not only objectionable to them, but also to the travelling public. It is said, for instance, that he will go into a pullman car, when people are in bed, draw the curtains and rouse them up, which certainly he has no right to do and which is exceedingly objectionable and improper, particularly in the case of ladies. It does not seem to me that this gentleman is a desirable person for the occupation given him, and I trust that the minister will look into this matter and see if he cannot replace this man with another -if it be necessary to have such a man, and I do not think it is with the class employed on the Intercolonial Railway-who can do his business without making himself objectionable to the employees of the road or the travelling public.


George Perry Graham: 


Mr. EMMERSON.: I can certainly second the remarks of the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Fowler) with respect to the character and the class of men who are engaged as conductors on the Intercolonial Railway. It has been my privilege and pleasure to give this testimony on may occasions heretofore. We also have a very high class of men engaged as station agents in charge of the stations along the line. Those agents have to submit to a regular audit. It is not an audit which takes place by prior arrangement, but very suddenly and at times unexpectedly. Those men do not complain of this. Men who are properly discharging their duty in any capacity have no right to complain of any audit, and I am sure that the conductors, so far as I have knowledge of those gentlemen on the Intercolonial Railway-and I know pretty nearly all of them personally-do not complain of the audit. I have had occasion to call the attention of the minister and his deputy to the auditor who has been named. Rightly or wrongly complaints are made of the manner in whicli he performs his duties, and I think that an inquiry has been made. If these allegations be true, he is certainly not a fit person to continue in the government employ, and I apprehend that the department are inquiring into that matter, if they are not, it will be their duty to. make an inquiry. Some time ago I called the attention especially of the deputy minister to allegations that were being made, and being made by those who would probably be in a position to know whereof they speak.


George Perry Graham: My information is that if thei'e were certain allegations they have never been substantiated. However, there is no necessity to discuss the matter. It is not necessary that any officer of the Intercolonial Railway should inconvenience the travelling public in the performance of his duty, and we shall not allow that. I shall have inquiries made to see how this man is performing his duty.


Samuel Hughes: If the assertion be true that he opens berths at night, he should not be retained twenty-five minutes.


George William Fowler: I have no personal knowledge, but I have been informed that such in the case. I am informed by most credible authority that that has occurred more than once. I do not want to do any injustice to Mr. Stewart, and I am not speaking from personal knowledge, but I am informed that he is not always in a fit condition to attend to his duty. That is very serious. The ex-minister (Mr. Emmerson) has pointed out that he has also heard allegations against this man aDd has properly drawn attention to the delicate position he occupies. It is quite different from that of an auditor auditing the accounts of a railway station. This man goes on

trains and is supposed to act somewhat in the position of a spy, and I do not use that term with all the meaning attached to it. I do not intend it in that way entirely, but he is there to see that each conductor gives a proper return of the fares paid in to him. Before there is any necessity for that sort of thing there must be a certain amount of suspicion in the minds of those who employ the conductors and set this man as a check on them, and I do not think that the result has shown any defalcation on their part. I should judge from the testimony which the ex-minister (Mr. Emmerson) has given of the conductors, that there would not be very great necessity for that kind of thing, and that it is not likely anything would result derogatory to the men from the inspection by this travelling auditor, as he is called. But it does not seem, from the information at hand, that any effort has yet been made to find out whether these allegations are true, no investigation has been held. It seems to me that the matter has been brought to the attention of the department by a person who naturally would have some influence in the department and whose word ought to be accepted, I mean the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) the ex-Minister of Railways. The ex-minister having made a complaint to the department, and having severed his connection with the department over which he had been for some years the responsible head, his complaint should have received a little more attention than apparently it has received from the present responsible officers. I judge from what the minister has said that no investigation of any kind has taken place, although these complaints are being constantly made and have been made for the last year or more with regard to the conduct of this man. It is said that he is not always in a proper condition to perform his duties. I do not know if that is so, but if it is, surely it is a matter that deserves very careful consideration, because it is one affecting not only the conductor who is doing his work in an unobjectionable way, but it weakens the loyalty of those men towards the department. Then again you are interfering with the comfort of the travelling public, which is another matter for consideration. For these reasons I think the minister should have taken some better measures than he has to ascertain whether these complaints are well founded.


Samuel Hughes: Will the minister be good enough to explain what the duties of this man are ? Is he authorized to go along with the passenger train as a detective upon the conduct of the conductors and of the passengers ? It is hardly the proper way to treat a lot of conductors, who are supposed to be honourable men, to engage a spotter of this kind to go along with them.


Henry Robert Emmerson: 1 have to leave in a few minutes, and I would lilce to say a word. It is but fair to state that I only called the attention of the deputy minister to this matter within the last few weeks, as it only came to my notice about then. Previous to that I had heard no complaints, either from Moncton or elsewhere along the line. When I did call his attention to it he told me that an inquiry would be made at once, and I have since understood from him that he had taken steps to have the matter inquired into, and if the complaints were confirmed he would feel obliged to call this gentleman to account.


George Perry Graham: In answer to the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburtou (Mr. Sam. Hughes), it is the custom of all great railway lines to employ men of this class to accompany the trains. The Canadian Pacific Railway, the Grand Trunk, as every person knows who is familiar with railway work, have these men. I admit their duties are delicate, and ought to be performed with a great deal of care so as to give no offence, or as little as possible. They can stop at the stations and take a check of the tickets sold, and see that everything is carried on right. They can travel on the trains and check the conductors' tickets and passengers.


Samuel Hughes: Why should he intrude upon passengers ?


George Perry Graham: He should not intrude upon the passengers in the way the hon. gentleman complained of. If he has done that, it is quite wrong, it would not be defensible.	.


Mr. DANIEL.: The minister has spoken about the likelihood of an application being made from the employees on the Intercolonial or some of them, for an increase in their rate of pay. I think the minister might give to parliament a list of the various classes of employees and the rate of pay which is attached to each, so that we may be able to form an idea as to whether the rates paid are sufficient. I presume the minister has a list of the rates of pay of the different classes of officials, and he might take parliament into his confidence and let us know what the rate is.


George Perry Graham: I can get a list of that kind, but if I were to start reading it to the House it would be very tedious. I can get a list prepared and present it on any item of capital expenditure we may discuss later.


George William Fowler: I am not quite satisfied with the answer of the minister with regard to this man Stewart. I would like to know what steps have been taken to investigate these complaints that have been

already made to the department, and what steps the minister proposes to take. It is a matter of great importance, both to the men on that road, and the people who travel upon it.


George Perry Graham: I understand that some such complaint as this was made publicly against this man in a newspaper some time ago, and on his issuing a writ to sue the newspaper, it apologized. I believe the complaint was made against two officials, and the newspaper apologized. I understand some complaint was made against them for misconduct on a pullman car. The only reply I can give is that this complaint has been shown to be untrue. However, I will make inquiry. We cannot permit that kind of conduct on the train. I cannot think that the newspaper report is true. No official would go through a pullman car and look into the different berths.


George William Fowler: He might look into a berth to see whether it was occupied by one or two people, in order to make his check correct, to see 'whether the return the conductor was making was correct. X think the minister ought to agree to hold an investigation. You investigate matters of a much more trivial nature than this. It need not be a costly investigation. You have your road superintendents there, and you might charge one of them with holding a court of inquiry. You could very easily investigate by letting the conductors know that, if there were complaints against Mr. Stewart, they should prefer them at such a time. Or, you might do it by giving public notice. Any passenger who wishes to complain of having been misused by this gentleman in the alleged discharge of his duty, would be glad to know that he could go before your investigator and give evidence with respect to the matter. I cannot think it possible that the railway management desires to have one of its employees perform his duties in an objectionable manner. There is no reason why there should not be a travelling auditor, no reason why the trains should not be checked up. I find no fault with that, but I find fault with the manner in which this man is alleged to have performed that very delicate duty. I think the minister -ought to tell us that he will hold such an investigation. If he will do so, I shall be quite satisfied-and that should be a consideration with him, I think.


George Perry Graham: It is not customary to advertise for complaints. We might do a large business in them if we took that means. If any person will make a specific complaint of wrong-doing by this officer, giving some idea of time, I will be happy to investigate it thoroughly.


George William Fowler: The minister knows the difficulty there is in getting anv one to Mr. FOWLER.
make a specific complaint. People will put up with a great deal when they are travelling;-they will grumble about it and will avoid the road if they can find any other way to go; but when it comes to making a complaint and making a court matter of it, that is entirely different. The knowledge of this fact probably encourages this man to go in his improper course. And so with the conductors-they do not like to make a complaint, for fear there will be a black mark against them so far as the management is concerned. But this matter can be investigated by the proper officials.. It is not necessary to advertise for complaints ; but if it were known that such an investigation were to be held, I am sure such complaints would be entered. At the present time, no doubt, the travelling public think that this kind of treatment is part of the policy of the road. It injures the government, of course ; and, from that point of view, it would be better for me to have it go on; but I am speaking from the standpoint of the road and the public.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I notice that on May IS, the minister stated, in answer to my hon. friend from Grenville (Mr. J. D. Reid), that there were twenty-one locomotives belonging to the Intercolonial lying idle at Moncton awaiting repairs, two at Riviere du Loup and one at Campbellton. That would appear to bear out, to a considerable extent, the article I read before we rose at one o'clock, so far as locomotives are concerned. How many new locomotives were purchased by the Railway Department last year?


George Perry Graham: Does the hon. gentleman mean the last fiscal year-the year ending March 31st last?


Oswald Smith Crocket: Yes.


George Perry Graham: The report for that year has not been made-yet. We have been discussing the previous year. But I will get the information for the hon. gentleman if I can.


George William Fowler: While the minister is looking that up, I would like to ask with regard to this amount of $783,000 which the minister snys he spent last year for repairing engines. He claims to have two hundred engines


George Taylor: There are 370 engines.


George William Fowler: Well, $783,000 would represent between $5,000 and $6,000 each for 150 engines. Surely, there would not be repairs to more than 150 out of 370. There must be some mistake.


George Perry Graham: The hon. gentleman will see that the point we were discussing was how much we have spent out of revenue. I understand that there are four new locomotives in that amount.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman sail it was for repairs.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Would not the four locomotives be charged to capital?


George Perry Graham: 
Alexander Martin: I would like to ask the minister if he has received any complaints of the condition of the road between Painsee Junction and Pointe du Chene?


George Perry Graham: We have had some complaint that the cars were not as good as they thought they ought to have for that section of the road.


Alexander Martin: Is the minister prepared to do anything to remedy this state of affairs? Perhaps he does not realize the importance of affording good accommodation on that part of the road. Passengers to and from Prince Edward Island pass over this portion of the road. It must be remembered that there is a large and growing tourist travel to Prince Edward Island. It is well known that the province is becoming, perhaps the best summer resort in Canada. It was first taken advantage of by the Americans, but now also by people from all parts of Canada. I have here a letter written by the late premier of the province in regard to this matter. This will show that I am not talking about this in any merely captious manner-the late Arthur Peters, premier of the province, thought it worth while to write to the Minister of Railways and Canals on this subject. The Steam Navigation Company, of Prince Edward Island, which is subsidized by this government, put on the route some of the best boats in Canada-some of the best boats in America indeed, affording accommodation second to no passenger boats in the Dominion. Had this government fulfilled their share of the contract as well as the Steam Navigation Company has fulfilled its share, there would be no complaint. But, on this part of the road between Painsee Junction and Pointe du Chene, there is very inferior accommodation. When a man has travelled by palace car from New York, Boston, Toronto, Ottawa or Montreal, he is not likely to be pleased if compelled to ride in a car in which all classes of people ride together. I will read what the late premier of Prince Edward Island said, and I hope the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham will take this matter more seriously.
Minister of Railways and Canals, Ottawa.
Sir,-The attention of the government of Prnce Edward Island has been called to the very unsatisfactory conditions of the Intercolonial Railway connection between Painsee
Junction and Pointe Du Chene, over which most of the passengers, tourists, &c., from New Brunswick, the United -States and western Canada have to travel when coming to this province. Prom information furnished to the government and which is known to be reliable, it appears that only one passenger car is provided between these two points to carry all classes of passengers and all kinds and conditions are huddled together-first class passengers (including ladies) being compelled -to travel with Indians, Italians and filthy persons of all kinds, the car itself being frequently in a dirty state and utterly unfit for a passenger paying a first class fare to enter and to travel by.
This was addressed to the Minister of Railways and Canals two years ago, and I think it presents a condition that the minister must take into account. This is a state of affairs which interferes with the travelling public in coming to tbe province in tbe summer time, and I liope it is not going to continue. I would like the minister to say wbat he proposes, now that the tourist traffic is beginning for the season, to do to remedy this grievance. This letter is addressed to him by tbe premier of the province.


George Perry Graham: What date?
Sir A MARTIN (Queens, P.E.I.) Dated the 3rd November, 1906. I would like tbe minister to say what be is going to do with regard to it.


George Perry Graham: I think, if my bon. friend had read all of that return, he would have discovered that steps have been taken and that we have given instructions to remedy, in so far as possible, tbe train service, because it is very important and it carries a large tourist trade to, perhaps, tbe most beautiful summer resorts in the Dominion of Canada. We appreciate very highly tbe line from Painsee Junction to Pointe du Chene and we have given instructions to remedy the conditions there, and we will see that they are carried out.


Sir.   A.@: S1ARTIN (Queens, P.E.I.) That is very unsatisfactory to me. The minister says that the return which I have in my hand contains what tlie government is going to do. It is not what tbe return shows it is going to do, but wbat is it going to do? How many cars is tbe minister going to place upon that line? Is he going to place a sleeper on that section of road? It is all very well for tbe government _ to put me off by saying that they are going to do something; let tbe minister tell us what they are going to do.


George Perry Graham: Sly hon. friend does not pretend that there has been nothing done for the improvement of that service. If he does be is wrong about that.


Sir.   A.@: SIARTIN (Queens, P.E.I.) What has been done?


George Perry Graham: Better ears have been put on, and that is really the gist of the trouble. I think it would be unwise to say that we would put a chair car or a sleeping ear on that branch of 14 miles. A first class car has been provided, and that is about all the accommodation that could be expected for that short distance.


Sir.   A.@: MARTIN (Queens, P.E.I.) Is there a first class car and a second class car?


George Perry Graham: The Boston train runs through without any break to the port, and I am not sure how many cars are on the other train. There are some times four and some times five and, I think, always more than one.


Sir.   A.@: MARTIN (Queens, P.E.I.) The Minister of Railways and Canals, some time ago, in this House, told us that they were providing some motor cars to run oil short lines, and I would like to know what progress has been made in regard to them?


George Perry Graham: We have purchased four of these cars. I may say there is a difference of opinion and that negotiations are now proceeding between the brotherhoods and the management as to the manning of these cars, &e. Personally, I have been on one of these cars and i am inclined to think they will be very practical, but up to the present time we have run them in but two places-St. John and Halifax. We hope in a short time to have them in service.


Sir.   A.@: MARTIN (Queens, P.E.I.) When the question was discussed in this House the idea was that two of them would be operated on two short lines in my province.


George Perry Graham: I think that will be the ultimate destiny of two motor cars.


Sir.   A.@: MARTIN (Queens, P.E.I.) when will the ultimate destiny come ?


George Perry Graham: When we can conclude certain negotiations now going on about the running of these cars. When we get those negotiations settled I think my hon. friend can rest assured that the proposition to put two motor cars on the island will be fullv considered.


Sir.   A.@: MARTIN (Queens, P.E.I.) What did these motor cars cost?


George Perry Graham: About $17,000 each.


Sir.   A.@: MARTIN (Queens, P.E.I.) What is the difference in the cost of operation as between a motor car and a train operated by steam power?


George Perry Graham: That is one of the questions under discussion. It ought to decrease the running expenses.


Mr.   POSTER@: When the minister talks about trouble as to the manning of these Mr. MARTIN (Queens, P.E.I.)
cars he seems to be very mysterious about it. What is the trouble? I think the House would like to know. The minister has had these cars for nearly two years. Sufficient experiments ought to have been made in two years' time to have enabled the government to come to a pretty satisfactory conclusion, to know how they are to be run and to judge as to whether they can be run as economically as cars operated by steam power. They have been running between St. John, Rothesay and Hampton. What has been the experience of them? I have seen them puffing around there and everybody staring at them, but nobody particularly riding on them and the general impression I got from train men was that they were a costly and not very useful luxury. We ought to have some conclusion that we could tie to.


George Perry Graham: I think that experience has shown that they will be more economical when we have them operating properly.


Mr.   POSTER@: Why do you not have them operating properly?


George Perry Graham: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Poster) used the word 'trouble.' I prefer not to call it that, but to call it a difference of opinion. We have been running a car at St. John and I think every person will agree that it has been a success there.


George William Fowler: For how long a time did you run it?


George Perry Graham: I think for the whole of last summer. I know that they were running them when I was there last fall. The brotherhoods are inclined to think that they ought to be manned with a larger number of men than we think are necessary. That may look to be a small matter, but it is quite far-reaching. We want to start them on a proper basis, if possible. I think they will be a success eventually.


Mr. GANONG.: How does the number of men you employed correspond with the number of men employed on American roads that are using a similar car?


George Perry Graham: I am told that the American companies man their cars with one less man than our men think we ought to have on them. Of course, you can under- . stand that there is a little prejudice against an innovation of this kind, and it is not so easy to have it running as smoothly as it might.


George William Fowler: Is there any additional expense entailed by reason of having an engine always ready to haul them into port? They seem to be like the old automobiles ; it was generally necessary to get a farmer with a yoke of oxen to haul them into town. The minister told my hon. friend from Prince Edward Island (Mr. Martin) that it

was the intention to unload two of them on to a branch road on Prince Edward Island. There would be no serious objection by the people living along the Intercolonial Railway to having two of them or perhaps the whole four put on the island. You might use one of them between Painsec and Shediac.


George Perry Graham: They have petitioned for one there.


George William Fowler: Better let them have it. To come from the ridiculous to the sublime ; how many official cars have you ?


George Perry Graham: Does my hon. friend mean in connection with the road altogether ?


George William Fowler: Yes.


George Perry Graham: We will call them government official cars, there are six altogether.


George William Fowler: By whom are they used ?
'Mr. GRAHAM. One by the general manager, one by the traffic manager, No. 109 by the Minister of Railways, No. 28 is used occasionally.


George William Fowler: By whom ?


George Perry Graham: By the ministers and other people.


George William Fowler: What do you mean by other people ?


George Perry Graham: Wait until I get through with the list-No. 139 is used by the deputy minister and by the Prime Minister occasionally when lie requires it. The Ottawa is used by Mr. Schreiber consulting engineer when he makes official trips.


Mr. FOWLER  .@: Do you keep that car fully equipped with a porter and all that sort of thing just to be used by Mr. Schreiber when he makes an official trip which is not very often ?


George Perry Graham: That car is used by Mr. Schreiber and occasionally by ministers when they require it. It is not kept specially for Mr. Schreiber although he does use it when he goes on Ills trips.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Has the minister looked any further into the question of charging tolls for passengers across the Fredericton and St. Marys Railway bridge ? I brought the matter to his notice some time ago.


George Perry Graham: We did take that matter up at the request of my hon. friend, but they are pretty slow in giving us a reply and I will jog their memory again.


Alexander Martin: The former Minister of Railways said he would test the motor car service on two sections of the road in my province ; one,
the section between Lake Verde and Port Vernon and the other the section from Montague bridge to Cardigan. The present Minister of Railways has not carried out that promise. He is testing these cars somewhere in Nova Scotia and if they are a success we won't get them, but if they are not a success he will send them over to the island. If you had a motor car on the short spur between Port Vernon and Lake Verde you would save an hour in time. The minister apparently does not appreciate how slow his trains are on the island. From Murray Harbour to Charlottetown is 50 miles and it takes four or five hours to do that 50 miles. One of the reasons for the delay is this loop line. I hope the minister will devise some means to overcome that delay.


George William Fowler: To return to the official car question-these six cars are exclusive of the Governor General's car and the Railway Commission car ?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


George William Fowler: Are there porters attached to them all the time ?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


George William Fowler: Supposing there is a tour of inspection by the Minister of Railways with spme of his officials, who pays the" cost of the up-keep of the car during the time it is running ? Who pays for the eatables and drinkables ? Of course water Is cheap and we will confine the question to the eatables, presuming that there would not be anything on board but water. Who pays for the supplies ?


George Perry Graham: The ordinary travelling expenses are paid by the department. The minister himself pays anything above that.


George William Fowler: What do you mean by the ordinary travelling expenses ?


George Perry Graham: The ordinary expenses on the car. After the official work is done I pay my own board.


George William Fowler: Suppose the minister was to start from Ottawa to make a trip over the Intercolonial Railway accompanied by some of his officials, does the government pay the expenses connected with the food supply on that car ?


George Perry Graham: The department would pay the expenses of the minister and any of' his staff when making an official visit, but if he had any guests with him the minister would pay their expenses himself.


George William Fowler: The minister would pay the guests' expenses?


George Perry Graham: I should think he would? I know I would.


George William Fowler: The minister then has had no experience of that kind as yet so he is speaking theoretically.


George Perry Graham: The minister has never taken any guests with him on one of these official trips except his own wife, outside of his staff, except from one station to another where perhaps some of the members might travel or perhaps I would ask persons with whom I was doing business to come from one station to another.


George William Fowler: That would apply to the other officials too?


George Perry Graham: I do not know.


George William Fowler: The minister ought to know whether the department in ail cases pays the expenses incurred, that is all the expenses in connection with the upkeep of the car during the time the tour lasts, all supplies, &c., for the use of the official car are paid.


George Perry Graham: The railway pays when the official is on official business, or any person is using the car on official business. Then the country pays and it ought to pay, but if it is being used on any other kind of business the users ought to pay it themselves and do, so far as I know. I have no intimation that they do not.


George William Fowler: The minister or some of his officials ought to know. Suppose for instance the Minister of Agriculture should go on a junketing tour, would he pay the cost of the car?
Mi1. GRAHAM. He would absolutely pay the cost of the car, every cent of it.


George William Fowler: I know the Minister of Agriculture would want to.


Mr. FISHER.: And does.


Gilbert White Ganong: The minister stated that there would be a surplus of $16,000 this year. It will surprise the country to learn that after the immense capital expenditure they have simply been able to squeeze out a $16,000 surplus. I am not living on the Intercolonial Railway, in fact I have only been on it once in two years. The state ments I have heard in regard to the road are from people who travel it regularly, and if these statements are correct the article read by the member for York this morning was none too strong. It is not a question of $16,000 surplus or $160,000 surplus; it is a question of efficiency and safety'. If what I hear is correct there is neither efficiency nor safety to-day on the Intercolonial Railway. I have perhaps been in a position to hear more of it than usual during the last six months as my home has been closed and when I have been there I have been staying at the hotels and have come in contact with the travellers, the men who do the great business of this country. You can scarcely talk to a traveller who will not admit that he is afraid to travel on the Intercolonial Railway. I asked one young man about Mr. FOWLER.
three weeks ago and he shrugged his shoulder and said:	Off again, on again, yours
again Flannigan. He expressed his opinion of the road as he found it. I have found others who said they made it a rule, if at all possible, to return to Montreal and the west by the Canadian Pacific Railway. If these are facts it is time the country understood it. If the roadbed and equipment are in such shape that it is not safe to travel, the people should know it even if the government cannot force out more than a $16,000 surplus. We know it has been very difficult for the Intercolonial Railway in the'last few months to keep up to time. The trains have been behind time almost every day and it is stated the reason is that the roadbed and equipment are not fit to run. It is also stated that the engineers and drivers have direct orders not to run over thirty-five miles an hour. I have heard these things from more than one source, I cannot vouch for the truth of the statements but I am giving the minister an opportunity to deny these reports if they are not well-founded.


George Perry Graham: I have to say that the Intercolonial Railway will compare with any railway in the Dominion of Canada as to its accidents per mile. Its roadbed is equal to any other roadbed on the continent. I know as many commercial travellers possibly as any man in this House; I am very intimate with many of them for many reasons, and four out of five of the commercial men from this end of the country speak in the highest terms of the Intercolonial Railway.


Gilbert White Ganong: The gentlemen with whom I talked were principally from points west of the maritime provinces.


George Perry Graham: They must be east by west. If there is one class who speak highly of the Intercolonial Railway, it is the commercial travellers. As to rolling stock I think the Grand Trunk Railway has an average of 13 per cent of its motive power lying to one side for repairs. Ten per cent of motive power is a small percentage to' be in for repairs. The Intercolonial Railway at the present time has between 8 per cent and 9 per cent of its motive power off duty for repairs. The management and the people are not afraid to compare the Intercolonial Railway with any other road. I know, of course, that there is a prejudice against a government-run road whatever party may be in power and the question of whether company management with larger rates and a different system of control is not the most satifactory is always a matter for debate, but at the present moment, so far as the rolling stock, roadbed and number of accidents are concerned, I am willing to have the Intercolonial Railway compared with any road on the continent.


Gilbert White Ganong: Have orders been issued] not to run beyond thirty-five miles an hour?


George Perry Graham: It is a customary order on most well-run railways in this hard climate to restrict the rate of speed at the time of the year when the frost is coming from the ground.
'Mr. LOGAN. I do not know that any member on either side of the House who travels on the Intercolonial Railway entertains the same opinion of that road as the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Ganong).


Gilbert White Ganong: I have not expressed any opinion of my own.


Mr. LOGAN.: My hon. friend has given some opinions which he has heard, although he himself has only been upon the road once in two years. If my hon. friend, who is a fair man, were to travel on the Intercolonial Railway as we do who live on it, he would not entertain such an erroneous opinion with reference to the road, not only as to rolling stock but as to roadbed. The roadbed of the Intercolonial Railway should be the pride of the people of Canada. Anybody who travels over other railways will realize that the roadbed is a level and sound roadbed, that it is kept up in good condition, and that it is a smoother road to ride on than other railroads, in Eastern Canada at any rate. As far as the service is concerned-* the courtesy of the officers, the maintenance of the road and the general condition of the roads-it will compare favourably with any railway on the whole continent. I do not deny that there is a shortage of power, not for express trains, but for freight traffic, and there is some considerable necessity for increasing the rolling stock. As far as the express service of the road is concerned-and I can speak as one who uses the road very frequently- I would rather take the Intercolonial from Nova Scotia to Montreal than the Canadian Pacific Railway, even if it took two days to go by the Intercolonial to one day by the Canadian Pacific Railway. So superior is the one service over the other that if the people, in my part of the country at any rate, had to choose between the two, they would not hesitate to give the preference to the Intercolonial. If my hon. friend travelled on the road as much as I do, he would entertain an entirely different opinion and not believe all the stories he hears.


Gilbert White Ganong: I am simply giving the minister an opportunity to contradict these stories and have his contradictions put in print. I have no grievance against the Intercolonial Railway. I have simply stated facts which I could prove if necessary. I have asked the minister if he can controvert them and he has not seen fit to do so. Has he given an order that the trains shall only run thirty-five miles an hour ?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend needs a reply again. I have told him once before that orders are given on all roads, at certain times of the year, in this very severe climate, to restrict the speed of the trains.
If my hon. friend travels very much he will find that he frequently travels at a lesser speed than thirty-five miles ah hour rather than faster.


Gilbert White Ganong: Possibly the order, like the letter which was read, was given by some official of the road.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Will the hon. minister state what amount was expended last year on repairs to the roadbed ?


George Perry Graham: On maintenance of way and structures there was expended $1,636,950. That would include buildings.


Oswald Smith Crocket: How much this year?


Mr GRAHAM.: For the nine months of last year, $1,112,038, a little larger in proportion.


George William Fowler: In making up your account do you take into consideration the depreciation of your rolling stock? What is the average life of a locomotive?


George Perry Graham: About twenty to twenty-five years.


George William Fowler: And a passenger car?


George Perry Graham: Perhaps a little less.


George William Fowler: In making up your account, by which you show a surplus of $18,000, do you take into consideration the depreciation of your rolling stock?


George Perry Graham: Railway accounts are not kept that way. We are supposed to spend a certain amount each year in keeping up our rolling stock. We make up in that way what we lose by depreciation. No railway company takes any cognizance of depreciation in the value of its rolling stock because that is offset by the expenditure on maintenance and repairs.


George William Fowler: If the life of a locomotive is twenty-five years, that would be 4 per cent on the cost which you would have to expend.


George Perry Graham: This includes four new locomotives.


George William Fowler: If you have 370 locomotives, and the life of each is twenty-five years, you would need to buy nine new ones in addition to the amount spent on repairs, to offset your yearly depreciation. Last year you only got four new ones and you have used up nine. That would mean five locomotives short, and if a locomotive is worth $12,000, that would be a shortage of $60 000. Where then is your surplus?


George Perry Graham: My hou. friend is altogether too intricate. If this $700,000 repairs

or an amount approximating, is spent yearly, a locomotive will last more than twenty five years. Some of these repairs practically amount to rebuilding the locomotive, and you cannot apply to such a locomotive the twenty-five years limitation. Three-fourths of our repaired locomotives are practically new.


George William Fowler: The minister then misled me when he said that the life of a locomotive was twenty-five years. Surely he does not mean that a locomotive will last twenty-five years straight away without any repairs. What he must mean is that twenty-five years is the average life, when kept in repair. A farmer, who keeps his farm wagon in repair, would he able to run it for twenty-five years, but at the end of that term it is probably no good. If he did not keep it in repair, he could not run it that long. So it must be with a locomotive. Has the minister made a fair allowance for depreciation having regard to the fact that the life of a locomotive is twenty-five years, and that consequently he requires to have nine new locomotives every year?
The minister said it was a matter of bookkeeping. It certainly is. And this whole surplus is entirely a matter of bookkeeping. What is true of the locomotives is true of the passenger and freight car: and the only way by which you can reasonably figure out a surplus is by making an allowance, the same as every other road does, for depreciation of your rolling stock. But the minister buys locomotives and charges them up to capital. I venture to say that the amount charged to capital on the Intercolonial is at least three times what the rolling stock is worth. And that goes on accumulating, because no proper allowance has been made for depreciation of rolling stock in years past.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The minister has not yet stated the number of new locomotives purchased for the year ending March 31, 1908.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. member for Kings and Albert (Mr. Fowler) is perfectly correct in the explanation he has given of what ought to be charged to capital and what to revenue. There are on the Intercolonial, I understand, 370 locomotives. Now, the life of a locomotive is twenty years-that is the time allowed by railways generally. In other words, five per cent of the locomotives need to be replaced each year. In the easg of the Intercolonial, there ought to be eighteen new locomotives bought. But, in order to make a good showing, almost all the locomotives are charged to capital account. There are only four locomotives on the Intercolonial charged to revenue, where there ought to be eighteen. The life of a locomotive, the life of a rail, the life of a car-all these things are per-


George Perry Graham: fectly well known, and, unless you make the requisite charge to revenue for depreciation, you do not know really where you stand. As a result of the government's method of book-keeping, you have a surplus this year of some hundreds-[DOT]-


George Perry Graham: 



John Graham Haggart: Yes, $16,000. And this is after the bright promises that were made by the minister's predecessor, and of the charge of $4,380,000 to capital account.


George Perry Graham: Does not the hon. member (Mr. Haggart) think we had better get rid of the road ?


John Graham Haggart: Better manage it properly.


Mr. GERMAN.: How did you manage it ?


John Graham Haggart: I did manage it properly. I had no such charges to capital account as you see to-day. I would like to know the receipts and expenditures of the last two months. The minister tells us that there is a loss of $180,000 on receipts. How do these receipts and expenditures compare with those of the same two months last year ?


George Perry Graham: We have not the statement of expenditure for the last two months. As ex-minister the hon. gentleman knows that, in the regular routine, we do not get these figures so soon. I have a statement merely that the receipts have fallen off.


John Graham Haggart: You have the figures for April and May ?


George Perry Graham: The receipts, but not the expenditure. That is, I gave an approximate statement of the receipts, but we have not the detailed statement.


John Graham Haggart: Why, within five days after the end of the month, the minister ought to have the receipts and expenditures. And, more than that, he ought to have from his officials an estimate of the receipts and expenditure of the next month. The officials ought to keep the minister informed on that subject. The minister asks us for the same amount as last year. Surely, lie does not intend to keep up the same expenditure if the falling off in business is to be $800,000 ? He must reduce his estimate of expenditure. IVhat is the estimate of expenditure for the year coming ?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend will see that it is impossible to make an estimate of the receipts from the present conditions. AVe hope they will improve, and are rather disappointed that there has been a falling off in the revenue for the last couple of months. As I have said, the difficulty of
/

this discussion is that we are dealing with more than one year. There is the year ending March 31, 1907, the report for which is before the House, then, there is the year ending 31st of March, 1908, the report of which is not before the House, and now my hon. friend wants me to discuss the current year. I cannot give him details which 1 have not myself.


John Graham Haggart: But the minister is before the committee asking for $9,000,000 to carry on the Intercolonial for the current year.


George Eulas Foster: And asking for the same amount as last year.


John Graham Haggart: Yes. And he ought to have the receipts and expenditures for the last two months, and also an estimate of the present month. And be ought to have an estimate for the year for which he is asking this $9,000,000.


George Perry Graham: The only way by which we can judge the business of this year is by the business of last year. Either the hon. gentleman or I, or any body else, can guess at what the business will be, but that is the only way we have of getting at it.


John Graham Haggart: And yet we had the delightful promises of the minister's predecessor concerning the year just closed. On the basis of the information he had, he estimated a constantly increasing revenue, and a surplus of $700,000, $800,000 or $1,000,000. But I suppose all this work of imagination is finished and is not to go on under the present practical management. Still, the minister ought to be able to give us an estimate whether the revenue is likely to continue as it is or to improve. If there is to be an improvement he ought to tell us about when it may be expected to be-, gin and how it is likely the road will stand at the end of the year.


George William Fowler: In view of what has occurred in the minister's constituency, he must naturally feel depressed and not in a condition of mind to give the sort of statement the ex-Minister of Railways (Mr. Hag-gart) desires. If conditions had been different in Brockville and throughout Ontario, perhaps the minister would have told us that he would have a surplus of a million and a half next year. Now, I would like to ask the minister the number of first-class cars he has on the Intercolonial, the number of second-class cars and also freight cars, baggage cars, coal cars and flats.


George Perry Graham: This return is up to the 3.1st of March, 1907, the latest we have. Locomotives, 370 ; first-class sleepers, 40 ; second-class sleepers, 38; parlour cars, 9 ; dining cars, 8; first-class passenger, 137; second-class passenger, 97 ; postal and smoking cars, 36 ; express and baggage cars, 60; box cars, 5,596; refrigerator cars, 909; platform cars, 2,780 ; pulp wood cars, 50; oil tank cars, 25; hopper cars, 1,114; coal cars, 471; stock cars, 123; auxiliary and tool cars, 21; convertible dump cars, 130; vans, 119.


George William Fowler: Now. will the minister give me the average life of each of these classes of cars ?


George Perry Graham: I could not give that information definitely. The average life, I imagine, taking all the cars together, would be 20 or 25 years. I am told there are some cars in the service that have lasted 40 years.


George William Fowler: Estimating the average life of a passenger car at 25 years, you have 137 first-class cars, that would be about six cars a year. How many first-class passenger cars did you charge to maintenance?


George Perry Graham: While the deputy is getting the figures, I may say that we spent $310,214 out of revenue.


George William Fowler: That was for repairs.


George Perry Graham: The deputy will get more definite information. On repairs to freight cars, $310,214. This plan has been adopted by the management and the department. Of course the question of capital and revenue is one that we might discuss for weeks and weeks. You may discuss it with any railway on this continent and you will find the same adverse opinion. When railways do a good business there is more to expend out of revenue. We are trying to arrive at a basis by which we would get rid of this yearly discussion as to what should be charged to capital and what to revenue account. A year ago last April we adopted the method of charging each month up to betterment the sum of $25,000; to maintenance and equipment each month, $3,000. We hope in time this will adjust itself so that we may not have the same kind of discussion as to capital and revenue.
Two locomotives-switching.
The following cars were rebuilt in the shops at Moncton: 9 box, 11 platform, 1 oil tank, 2 coal-20 tons.	*
50 platform cars were fitted with racks for carrying pulpwood.
211 60,000-pound box cars were fitted with end doors for loading rails, making 579 cars in all fitted in the shops to the end of March.


George William Fowler: That is just putting doors in.


George Perry Graham: The following cars were practically rebuilt:
9 box, 11 platform, 1 oil tank, 2 coal-20 tons.


Duncan Ross: Carried.


George William Fowler: No it is not; we have not got the information. What new passenger cars were bought?


George Perry Graham: I gave my hon. friend all the information 1 find in the report for 1907.


George William Fowler: Then that means that for the year 1907 there were no new first class cars. There were 137 passenger cars in use and from the statement which th';e minister has just given us as to the life of a passenger car there should have been added six new cars. None was added. What is the value of a passenger car? We are looking at this elusive surplus and trying to locate it.


George Perry Graham: About $18,000 or $19,-
000.


George William Fowler: We should have had six new ones and, taking it at the lowest figure, $108,000 more of this surplus is gone. There was only $16,000 to start with, and if we take ten locomotives out of it at $12,000 apiece, that is $120,000, and six new passenger cars at $18,000 make $108,000, so that there are $228,000 gone out of your $16,000. Were there any new second class cars added?	. '


George Perry Graham: No.


George William Fowler: How many second class ears were there?


George Perry Graham: I think there were 97.


George William Fowler: Would a second class car last as long as a first class car

scarcely?


George Perry Graham: Scarcely.


George William Fowler: We will say 20 years for that. That would be 5 per cent each year and that would represent five new cars. What is the value of a second class passenger car?


George Perry Graham: Between $14,000 and $15,000.


George William Fowler: There is $70,000 more; that is, in round numbers, $300,000 gone out of your $16,000. What is the life of a box car?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend is getting into the intricacies of car building. It is somewhere between 15 and 20 years.


George William Fowler: How many of these box cars were there again?
Mr.. GRAHAM. I have given the hon. gentleman the statement from the report. If he will refer to page 103 he will find the figures.


George William Fowler: Thirty-six postal smoking cars. What is the average life of a postal smoking car?


George Perry Graham: I imagine they will average the same as the rest.


George William Fowler: Say 25 years. Putting the cost at $15,000, that is $315,000. Ex-Mr. FOWLER.
press and baggage ears, 60; what would be the average life of this car-20 years?


George Perry Graham: I have told my hon. friend several times, but for his purpose he can take 20 years for them all.


George William Fowler: If we take 20 years that would be three new cars, and what would be the value of an express baggage car?


George Perry Graham: About $7,000.


George William Fowler: That would be $21,000. That is $336,000 gone out of.your surplus already. Box cars; what is the average life of a boxcar? Call it 20years and there are in round numbers 6,000 of them. That would be 300 box cars to be added each year. How many did you add out of revenue?	.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend will find the whole statement at page 102.


George William Fowler: There were nine added. These were not new ears, they were rebuilt cars. That would not be really worth the full amount of a new car.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend will have to look out or he will get tangled in his logic about locomotives if he does not take these as practically new cars.


George William Fowler: Not at all, it will be the minister who will get tangled as to the life of a locomotive.


George Perry Graham: Not at all; it depends upon the point of view.


George William Fowler: Not at all. As a matter of fact these rebuilt cars are not the same as new cars, but we will take them as being the same as new cars, and you have your 291 of a depreciation. What is the value of a box car?


George Perry Graham: 


George William Fowler: Call it $1,000 on 290 ; that would be $290,000 more. That will be $336,000 plus $290,000 out of your surplus. Taking 20 years as the average life of a refrigerator car you have added five of them at a cost of about $8,000. Your large platform cars would cost an average of about $850 each, you have 2,780 of these cars and you rebuilt 11 which we will be generous and say are equal to 10 new cars, and therefore your depreciation on these platform cars would amount to about $126,000. Take that out of your $16,000 surplus and what is left. Then you have 1,114 hopper cars with an average life of 20 years and you did not add on any, and hence we will call that 55 hopper cars at $550 a car which would make about $27,000. The minister will notice how fair I am in giving him the benefit of every doubt in these calculations.


George Perry Graham: The figures are fair but the argument is all wrong.


George William Fowler: I don't think it is.


George Perry Graham: You could not .apply it to any railway in the world.


George William Fowler: Oh, yes, you can, you will find an article in the last ' Harpers' Magazine ' which shows how this matter is regarded by other railways, and which will prove that it is the practice of other railways. There are 17 Gondola coal cars and 171 other coal cars at an average of about $500 each which would give you a basis of 24 cars to figure on, which would be worth $12,000, and that you take almost the whole surplus for the depreciation of coal cars alone. Then there are 900 stock cars worth about $500 each, and you have auxiliary and tool ears and convertible dump cars which would be worth about $500 each. But taking the whole thing the depreciation of rolling stock would total up about $808,000 on your road for one year.


John Graham Haggart: What is the cost of the new steel coal cars ?


George Perry Graham: About $1,600 for a 50 ton car.


George William Fowler: If an honest and business like account had been kept showing the profit, and the real depreciation on the rolling stock, a depreciation which should be met every year out of your revenue, instead of having a surplus of $16,000 you would have had a deficit of nearly $800,000. That is the real condition of affairs. In order to put that road at the end of 1907 in the condition it was at the end of 1906 in the matter of rolling stock; in order to make up for the depreciation of your rolling stock between the 31st March, 1906, and the 31st March, 1907, you should have expended absolutely out of revenue $800,000 more than you did, to say nothing of the new rolling stock which must be required on account ot the extension of new business and which might fairly enough be charged to capital. I repeat, and I emphasize it that you should have expended in the year 1907 about $800,000 more out of revenue than you did to keep your rolling stock in the same condition as it was in 1906, and in the calculation I have given you the benefit of the doubt in every case and have calculated most generously in favour of the management of the railway. Therefore the Intercolonial instead of having a surplus of $16,000 at the end of the year has a deficit of $792,000 and I challenge the Minister of Railways or any gentleman sitting behind him to controvert these figures. X say that what I have pointed out is the business experience of all railways. The result is that to-day we have charged up to capital account rolling stock to an amount more than double, I believe three times, the actual value of the rolling stock upon the Intercolonial Railway. That
is the condition of affairs and I do not see why the minister is not ready to meet it fairly, instead of saying my argument is not in accord with the facts in regard to other railways. Railways are run as business propositions and that is the only business way of looking at it.


George Perry Graham: Railways are run as
business propositions but not according to the proposition of my hon. friend. No railway makes up its accounts as he says. They may approximate it but he cannot find any" railway on the continent that does it year after year, magazine articles, notwithstanding. In a good year railways expend liberally out of revenue but when the year is not so good they expend more liberally out of capital. Sometimes they raise money by issuing bonds, &c. If the member inquires he will find that is true. As I said, we did start on the 1st of April last year laying aside $25,000 a month in order to equalize, as far as possible, the expenditure between revenue and capital. Let me point out what has been done. We have spent more than $25,000 a month out of revenue in 1907-1908.


George William Fowler: If I am wrong why should you ?


George Perry Graham: The hon. member is
wrong because he is extreme.


George William Fowler: Well you are doing
something along that line.


George Perry Graham: Not to that extent and no railway on the continent does.


George William Fowler: If we did it at all we should pay all possible out of revenue.


George Perry Graham: In 1907-1908 we have purchased 166 60,000-pounds box cars at $990 each, $156,400 ; 130 hopper cars, $73,060 ; five refrigerator cars, $7,950 ; 100 flats, $87,000 ; 9 stock cars, $81,000 ; 8 conductors' vans $13,120 ; one dining car from the Pullman Company, $27,150 ; one sleeper, $19,500 ; two express cars, $14,000 ; two postal cars, $17,350 four locomotives, ten wheel standard passenger locomotives, and on these we have paid $23,600. Thus in 1907-1908 we have paid out of revenue for the things I have read $443,467.50.


George Eulas Foster: That may be but was that enough ?


George Perry Graham: I think it was plenty.


George William Fowler: The minister has admitted the whole case.


George Perry Graham: Not at all.


George William Fowler: Yes, because you have admitted the principle.


George Perry Graham: You can carry a principle to an extreme. The hon. member

takes a certain set of figures and argues from tliem. I can argue him out of doors, I can turn any man in Canada into a bankrupt in fifteen minutes, if 1 am allowed to lay down my own figures.


George William Fowler: I was practically allowing the minister to make the figures. I was only making the additions and multiplications.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend cannot apply his argument to any railway as he seeks to apply it to the Intercolonial Railway.


George William Fowler: I say that is the way every other railway is conducted as a matter of fact. Would the stock of any railway be worth anything on the market if it was necessary for the railway, in order to keep up the rolling stock, to borrow from capital?


George Perry Graham: The Grand Trunk last year paid for 455 box cars and 55 furniture cars out of capital account.


George William Fowler: Because they were increasing their mileage.


George Perry Graham: Where has the Grand Trunk increased its mileage in order to get the cars ?


George William Fowler: So far as that is concerned, I say that no railway could possibly buy that out of capital account and keep up its rolling stock.


George Perry Graham: They did it last year.


George William Fowler: The thing is absurd on the face of it.


George Perry Graham: But they did it.


George William Fowler: Does the Canadian Pacific Railway ?


George Perry Graham: You said any railway and I gave the Grand Trunk.


George William Fowler: I started with the statement that it might be necessary to take money from capital account to build rolling stock if there was an increased traffic on the road which required additional rolling stock and that is what occurred with the Grand Trunk Railway. But I defy the minister to show where the Grand Trunk Railway paid from capital account to keep up the ordinary rolling stock.


George Perry Graham: Nor have we. We had an increase in traffic and we bought more rolling stock.


George William Fowler: According to your report you did not require additional power last year. If you had shown that your traffic had increased and consequently it was necessary to get additional rolling stock over and above what the road was supplied with, you would have an answer, but you have not shown anything of the kind, because in 1907 you did not buy any additional cars. You did not buy a single passenger-car. You repaired some box and freights and that is all you did.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend is wrong.


George William Fowler: I am taking the report here.


George Perry Graham: I read from revenue and that is wlmt the report says. You take the other line of argument and say if the Grand Trunk wants new rolling stock or new business they can buy it from capital. That is what we did. We increased our rolling stock in 1906-1907 not out of revenue but out of capital as the Grand Trunk Railway did.


George William Fowler: You bought 20 new locomotives charged to capital account, increased equipment. If that were necessary on account of increased traffic on the road it would be all right. I did not discuss that point, I was taking the stock you had and showing what you had done in the way of keeping it up from revenue.


George Perry Graham: That has nothing to do with the argument.


George William Fowler: It has. I put exactly on the same plane as the 200 or 400 additional box cars that the Grand Trunk bought by reason of increased traffic, 20 locomotives, 3 locomotives for switching and 115 hopper-cars. On account of your increased traffic you bought these but what did you charge to revenue ? Nine box ears, 11 platform cars, one oil tank and 2 coal cars. The others were repairs, fitting flat cars with racks for pulpwood, &c. Where you had increased traffic and by reason of that required more rolling stock, you would have a right to charge that to capital account and I find no fault with that. I laid down that principle when I was making my argument, but when it came to replace the cars you had in the beginning of 1906, at the beginning of 1907-1908 I claim that you did not make the replacement and that your stock was depreciated by nearly $800,000. Those are facts the minister cannot get away from.


George William Fowler: But you have gone back in your traffic.


George Perry Graham: That is only in the last few months, and so has the Grand Trunk Railway.


George Perry Graham: 


Oswald Smith Crocket: The Minister of Railways, when he made his annual statement to the House, spoke of the claims department, and said it was the intention of the department, as I understood him, to reorganize that department of the service.

Is there any further statement to be made on that subject?


George Perry Graham: The reason I made that statement as to the claims department is that an amendment was moved to the law applied to the government railway, bringing accidents occurring on that road more into line with those on ordinary railways, so far as claims are concerned. But I have heen so busy since the session opened that I have not been able to do what I intended in regard to the matter. Sly bon. friend (Sir. Crocket) will see that it opens up a new avenue as to suits to be taken against the government, for the evidence needed under the old Act was considerably different from that under the new. Sly lion, friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), I think it was, brought in an amendment that has gone through the Senate, and, in face of that, I thought we would have to reorganize the claims department. I intend to pay some attention to the matter later on.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN.: Something certainly ought to be done, because if a person has a claim It is apt to be referred to the claims department at Moncton, and it is months before one seems to be able to get an answer from that office. I think the minister ought to put men in there who know their business. The men who are in there may know their business, but if so they are very dilatory.


Oswald Smith Crocket: At the time to which I refer the minister also stated that he expected to be able to make an announcement to the House with respect to a number of claims standing against the department at the time. I understood that there were many claims concerning which there was no liability under the law as it stood before the amendwent to which the minister referred, but which he proposes to open in view of the change of the law, and that he expected before the end of the season to submit a proposal to parliament for their settlement.


George Perry Graham: I do not know that I would quite call it an * announcement.' I have been looking into these claims for accidents along the line, cattle killed and that kind of thing.


George William Fowler: People injured?


George Eulas Foster: Baggage lost?


George Perry Graham: The baggage lost comes under another department and we are trying to reorganize that. Since I made my brief statement in the House, I have received innumerable claims. I am having these compiled. All of them, possibly, will not be good, but some of them may. Looking at it from a financial standpoint, my personal view is in favour of not standing upon the technicalities of the law in these matters. If some person has suffered loss, and it is the government's fault, the gov-323
eminent ought not to shield itself behind the technicality. That is the way I feel about it. When 1 have these claims compiled and am able to size up the list, I shall be in a better position to make a statement.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Who is in charge of the claims department?


George Perry Graham: Freight claims-Mr. Cameron.


Oswald Smith Crocket: But there is an officer called, I think, ' chief claims agent ' ; has there been an appointment made to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Mr. Allan?'


George Perry Graham: Mr. Layton is doing the work temporarily; there lias been no permanent appointment.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is Mr. Layton a lawyer? Or what qualifications does he possess for the performance of these duties?


George Perry Graham: I hope my hon. friend will not think I am trying to be facetious about lawyers. I understand that the gentleman is not a lawyer. I may be wrong, but I think that in the settlement of claims such as these, in nine times out of ten, a little practical, hard-headed sense is better as a means of settlement that expert legal knowledge-though the two together would be good.


John Graham Haggart: They do not generally go together.


George Perry Graham: I would hardly go so far as that. But I have perhaps a peculiar idea as to the settlement of these things.
I think that a shrewd business man who is in touch with the conditions would be as competent as a legal man to settle these claims.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is it not a fact that the department requires legal advice for the proper settlement of all claims.


George Perry Graham: In case of a question of legal liability, we have a law branch of our department, and that is referred to as a general thing.


Oswald Smith Crocket: When was Mr. Layton appointed?	.


George Perry Graham: A couple or three months ago, I think.


Oswald Smith Crocket: At what salary?


George Perry Graham: I have not the figure before me. I think it is a little less than that of the former occupant of the office. 1 will give the information to-morrow.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is this the same gentleman who was business manager of the St. .Tohn 'Sun ?'


George Perry Graham: I am sure I do not know.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Where did he reside ?- what county was he taken from?


George Perry Graham: I understand he lived in Woodstock.


Mr. MORIN.: I would like to ask the minister once more in regard to a point about which I have been inquiring for six months-the connection of the Intercolonial with the Quebec Central at Levis. I do not want to annoy the minister about this, but I think he should take the subject into consideration as well as any other. I have been waiting six months and I think I ought to have a reply and that some action ought to be taken in the matter.


George Perry Graham: 
George Perry Graham: Has that occurred lately ?


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Probably in January.


George Perry Graham: We took the matter up then, and I am informed that the superintendent issued orders that when the Quebec Central Railway was ahead of the mari-tice express it should run into Lfivis and not be detained at Harlaka Junction. That does away with his complaint.


Mr. STANFIELD.: Of course with the curtailment of business on the railway, a large number of men have had to be laid off on the Intercolonial, as on other roads. -conductors, engineers, brakesmen and others. Conductors who have been on the road for years are put back to braking, brakesmen are put back on specials, and special men are laid off. We all admit that when business is poor, we have to curtail, but I do not think it fair that this curtailment should be confined to these men. If my memory serves me right, some years ago when the business of the railway increased considerably, a large number of officials were added, and I think that if this rule is to work for the one class, it should be made to work for the both. If you have to lay off the working men, you should lay off some of the petty officials whom you put on when business is good. All i" ask is a square deal for the man who draws a small salary and that you should lay off some of the officials who are still drawing full pay

and travelling about at the country's expense.


Hance James Logan: What officials should be laid off?


John Stanfield: I can take the book and tell you some.


Oswald Smith Crocket: How many officials are there in the claims branch ?


George Perry Graham: I do not seem to have the information here.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Can he say what proportion of this sum he is asking for to-day is for wages?


George Perry Graham: I gave a while ago the amount of the working expenses for 1907, as something over $4,000,000. We have not got the details. I have not got a complete list of the employees. When you come to working expenses, it is like an office staff running a business. You have a certain staff, and if the work declines, perhaps you could do it for a little less, but you have to keep your organization intact.


John Stanfield: Who is the inspector of coal and what are his duties?


George Perry Graham: I cannot tell who he is.


John Stanfield: The one I have in mind was a barber. Why can he not be laid off and some engineer appointed who knows more about coal than a barber does?


George Perry Graham: Engineers are a highly paid class of men, and I imagine they would not care to take a position of that kind.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is the department putting on the Ocean Limited this summer, between Halifax and Montreal?


George Perry Graham: The Ocean Limited is not altogether encouraging so far as traffic is concerned, but we expect to put in on about July 5.


George William Fowler: Have you an inspector of stationery now?


George Perry Graham: I think there is no person bearing that title.


George William Fowler: I think there was one. I itliink it was necessary to get rid of the gentleman who was purchasing agent, and a new position was created called the inspector of stationery, and this gentleman was appointed thereto. The position carried with it I think $2,000 a year.


George Perry Graham: That office is abolished, and the occupant is enjoying the benefits of the provident fund organized by the men.


George William Fowler: Why was that important office created, and why was it abolished?


George Perry Graham: That is a matter of ancient history, and I cannot tell. It was created and abolished some time before I came on the scene. I suppose it was 3234
abolished because the office was no longer required.


George William Fowler: Would that mean that all the stationery that was going to be required the next ten years was bought under this gentleman's regime? I cannot understand why the situation was created, just what an inspector of stationery had to do. An hon. gentleman here suggests that there was an inspector of window washing. There are inspectors of all sorts of things, particularly about election times. The minister must not shelter himself behind the fact that he has only recently joined the 'department.


George Perry Graham: I want to place that straight. I have never done that and never will. The hon. gentleman should not make that insinuation.


George William Fowler: I was not saying it in any harsh way, I was saying in a very good natured way, because one could scarcely be ill natured with the minister, he is the very soul of good nature himself. Now it does seem to me that we ought to have a little more information with respect to the need for the creation of this office. When we have a list of these different officials, I think we will find others quite as remarkable as that of inspector of stationery and inspector of window washing. I hope the minister will not fail to bring down a list, with the full titles of the different officers.


George Eulas Foster: The minister told us this afternoon, in reply to a question with respect to keeping accounts, that it was impossible for him to give the latest monthly receipts and expenditures. He could give the receipts, but it was impossible to give the expenditures for the month of April and the month of May, implying that it took a long period of time to get in the returns. Now I suppose the system of the Intercolonial is kept on the modern railway basis. I understood that the Intercolonial to-day claims that it has just as good form of accounts, just as up to date a system, as the great railways in the United States and Canada. Take the Canadian Pacific railway for instance. The minister knows that the weekly earnings and expenses of the Canadian Pacific railway are given out, and we find them in the financial and trade papers. I do not think it is more than ten days after the expiry of the week when you find a statement of the Canadian Pacific Railway expenditures and income for the week. I suppose that probably about ten days elapse after the end of the week before the statement is published. Now what is there to prevent the minister of the Intercolonial from giving these statements not longer than ten days after expiration of the week? And especially, what is to prevent him from giving us the April statement now. on the 9th June, or the May statement, on the 9th of June? Under a new minister

and under a practically new deputy we had got the idea that we were going to get the Intercolonial run on the very best basis possibly in the matter of accounting and the strictness with which the accounts are kept. What is the difficulty that the minister finds in not being able to give us weekly statements if we ask for them ten days from the end of the week?


George Perry Graham: We can give you weekly statements of the earnings of the road.


George Eulas Foster: And of your expenditure?


George Perry Graham: I am not sure that my hon. friend is right as to a weekly statement of the expenditure. But we can give the weekly earnings. The routine is this : The pay-rolls are not all returned from the different places to the head office at Moncton until after the 15th of the month. We lay down the rule that we must have the returns of the last month on the 25th of the following month. I can give the hon. gentleman the statement for April, and I can give him the statement for May on the 25th June.


George Eulas Foster: It takes twenty-five days after the end of the month before you receive the exact statement of the expenditures here at the office?


George Perry Graham: This is the head office in a way, and it is not the head office.


George Eulas Foster: Well, at the minister's office ?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: And it is impossible under your regulations to get this statement sooner unless you urge your officials outside to accelerate their operations by a number of days which would bring it so many dayis sooner to the minister. It seems to me that with your continuous system twenty-five days is a long 'while to wait to get in your returns of the expenditures.


George Perry Graham: It might possibly be done in la1 shorter time by hiring a larger staff, but I am told that the Grand Trunk system is the same.


George William Fowler: What is your pay-day?


George Perry Graham: The fifteenth.


George Eulas Foster: What has the department been doing, within the last two years, in relation to the reorganization of its system of accounting so as to put the Intercolonial Railway on exactly the same basis as the great railways of the United States?


George Perry Graham: I am informed that our system of accounting is now the same as that of the great railways of the United States.


George Eulas Foster: I took the trouble a few months ago to get all the reports of the commission in the United States, and I read over the interesting bulletins published as Mr. FOSTER.
to how they have gradually gone about the work of getting a proper system of accounting in order that every species of expense might be definitely set out, each under its owm heading, and I may say it was most interesting though it was a laborious process. They have co-operated with the railway companies themselves. They have not gone on the assumption that they had all the wisdom that enabled them to adopt a form of accounting and have it absolute from the first. They blocked out their system, got into communication with the railway association of the United States and between the two of them they have passed this series of suggestions and propositions, both working loyally together, the commission stating that the railways have co-operated with them splendidly and with the utmost loyalty. But, wThen you come up to the end of it, what they propose to get at is that the wayfaring shareholder may know, from the reports of a railway company, just whether it is acting loyally in the way of allocating its expenses; first, to get what is to be charged to maintenance out of revenue, what, if anything, is to be charged to maintenance out of capital, what new work may properly be charged to revenue and what new work may and must be charged to capital. With reference to the exact percentage of depreciation they have not arrived at the present time, at a scientific method of calculating the amount but that is what they are all working up to, as I understand it. A government railway has this constant temptation; there is a bag always near by into which the minister may dip his hand and consequently there is not the same carefulness in keeping the proper proportion of the charges for the maintenance of the road out of revenue, and there is a constant temptation to make a good showing to parliament by endeavouring to take expenditures of this kind out of one category and put them into another. I am glad to hear the minister say this afternoon that they were trying gradually to get this matter into such a position on the Intercolonial Railway that they may eliminate any doubt as to the plan of accounts, and so that we can all know whether an expenditure for maintenance is charged properly to revenue and that expenditures are only charged to capital when they should be charged to capital. I hope that the minister will persevere in that until we get to the time when the two men on the opposite sides of the House can go to the railway accounts and satisfy themselves that the thing is actually being done on a business basis and that, there is no attempt to charge expenditures to capital which should be charged to revenue. Am T right in saying that the great railways of the United States lay down practically this rule? The building of this road is charged to capital, the interest on construction while it is being built, is charged

to capital, the equipment is charged to capital; the road is not running, there is nothing coming in and there is nothing else to charge it to but to capital. Now, the road is finished on a certain date. You have paid for the road, your station houses, your terminals, your side-tracking and your rolling stock out o*f capital. From that time on every breakage in the rolling stock, the wear and tear of the road must be made good out of the revenue of the road. Am I right in that or not ? If I am wrong then the fundamental position needs to be revised . but that is what J have got from my reading and I believe it to be at the present time the rule of all the great roads. Will the minister tell me if I am right in that ?


George Perry Graham: I have been reading up this subject myself as my hon. friend will understand and I have learned something about It. The companies do not pretend to try to maintain any number of cars, but they are aiming at maintaining the tonnage of their rolling stock.


George Eulas Foster: In efficiency?


George Perry Graham: In efficiency, practically. My hon. friend was talking about the number of cars, but you cannot discuss it from the point of view of the number of cars, because the cars that may be built are very much larger than Ithe cars they displace. The idea is to keep up the efficiency and tonnage.


George Eulas Foster: Very well, we will consider the matter according to that. Therefore the road has to have a percentage of the different classes of rolling stock put on each year out of revenue sufficient to keep up the efficiency. The minister is right in that. You might have three box cars one year and you might have next year a box car which has double the capacity. You may double the efficiency by increasing the power of your locomotives but all depreciation must be met out of the revenue of the road, so as to keep it up to its standard efficiency. If you require rolling stock for additional mileage of road that goes to capital unless you have abundant revenue and you wish to take it out of revenue. If there is great increase of traffic the extra rolling stock to accommodate it is taken out of capital, but out of revenue must be taken what is necessary to maintain its efficiency after you procure it. That is the proper principle and the minister has failed to show that he conducts his road on that scientific basis. The minister has also failed to show the House that he took sufficient out of the revenues of the road to maintain its efficiency by providing for loss and depreciation. It would be the best thing that could happen the railway if the policy I have set out were rigorously adhered to, and that no matter what the deficit should be that the minister could show what the
railroad actually costs us. That has not been done in the past. The minister would have the support of the country if he put his railway on that basis even if he faced a deficit which he would explain to the country so that the country might come to a conclusion as to what wa j Dest to do.


George Taylor: In the Auditor General's Report page W-37 there is an expenditure of $5,406.90, for Mr. Schreiber and engineers in connection with the National Transcontinental Railway western division, and amongst other items there is $261 for supplies for the private car of Mr. Schreiber. What has the government got to do with paying expenses on the National Transcontinental Railway western division ?


George Perry Graham: The government guarantees the bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific for the western division and we have an inspecting engineer with his staff to see that the road is constructed up the standard, and on his report the securities are released by the government to the company. This is for the pay of Mr. Schreiber and his staff.


George Taylor: Does the Transcontinental Railway reimburse the government for this outlay ?


George Perry Graham: We have to undertake this work for our own defense to see that the contract is properly carried out.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Can the minister now tell me how many locomotives were purchased in the year ending 31st March, 1908?


George Perry Graham: I do not remember that any were purchased but I know some were delivered. I will get the information later.


Samuel Hughes: Is the minister reducing the grades on the Intercolonial Railway to a modern standard ?


George Perry Graham: All we have recently done is where we are double tracking from Moncton to Painsec junction. Of course the question of reducing the grades is a very important one.


Samuel Hughes: It is absolutely necessary.


George Perry Graham: We have some large grades but it is a big question and one which concerns the solution of the transpollution problem.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I see by the Auditor General's Report that $3,751,094 were expended in purchasing supplies for the Intercolonial Railway during the year, and in looking over the names of those who supply these goods I can find none who are not politically the friends of the present government. It may be considered fair bv the government to buy exclusively from their political friends, but I think it may be looked upon that it is not entirely a just method
101S7

of conducting business in connection 'with a railway which belongs to the people of Canada as a whole and not to the people of one political party. Among those expenditures I find quite a large amount for advertising, but the advertisements appear to be published only in papers supporting the present government. Even if it was considered that the Intercolonial Railway was a fair pasture for the supporters of the government to feed in, what sort of business sense is there in confining the advertising of excursions and the time tables of the intercolonial Railway, which are for the purpose of inducing as many people as possible to travel by that road, in papers going to only one-half of the people ? If these excursions, for instance, have not been as largely patronized as might be desired, I think it is partly the fault of those in charge of the railway owing to this method of advertising. If there is any reason for this I would like the minister to explain it, but if not, I would be glad to see him make a change from a system which I think is inexcusable from every point of view.


George Perry Graham: I would be glad to have this item passed before six o'clock, but I might say I have been for some time thinking over the question of advertising which is larger than it looks. In connection with the Intercolonial Railway it is more important to my mind than some other things, although I may be nartial in that respect. I intend before very long to look into the question of advertising; I have not had time to do it yet.


George William Fowler: Who is the purchasing agent of the Intercolonial Railway?


George Perry Graham: Mr. Taylor.


George William Fowler: What is his salary?


George Perry Graham: $135 per month.


George William Fowler: I would suppose that it would be his duty to purchase direct from the factories or the wholesalers and not the middlemen, but I find quite the contrary to be the case.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock. ,


John Waterhouse Daniel: Before six o'clock the minister commenced to give some explanation *of his policy with regard to expenditure on the Intercolonial, especially in connection with the advertising. I took the opportunity to bring to his notice that even in the matter of time tables, excursions and things of that kind, the public were not properly notified, and consequently the Intercolonial lost a good deal of patronage. I was in hopes that when a man from Ontario was made a minister, the Intercolo-Mr. DANIEL.
nial would be carried on more as a business proposition and not be so entirely a part of the political machine as it had been. I looked for a considerable change in many respects, more especially in the manner of giving contracts and making expenditures. Take this small matter of advertising, there is absolutely no excuse why these advertisements should not be made general. Surely the minister does not want us to think that the Intercolonial management does not really want the money of Conservatives to help to cut down the deficit. The mode in which these things are carried on-advertising in such a way as to only reach one half of the people-would lead one to conclude that the management do not want the other half to travel on the railway or have any connection with it. The minister ought to let us know whether we can really hope that there will be a change in the future and that the Intercolonial will be run more on a business basis. I am not saying that this government is alone to blame in this connection, but there must be a change somewhere sometime if that railway is to be managed as it ought to be. I shall be glad to have a statement from the minister of the policy he intends following.


George Perry Graham: I did not have the floor when the House rose, but as regards supplies, they are purchased by tenders at present. The policy is to accept the lowest tender, but there is a great deal of myth about this newspaper advertising for tenders and giving the contract to the lowest. If I were a business man, running the Intercolonial or the Canadian Pacific Railway or Grand Trunk, I would not feel myself bound to accept the lowest tender in every case, but in many cases I would go out in the open market, and in nine times out of ten make a better bargain. If I had a building to put up I would do, as other railway managers do, get it put up by a contractor, who had given me proof of his competence and thoroughness, and not necessarily advertise for the lowest tender. It is necessary however for the government to advertise in the case of these large works. That is the system we have adopted and to which we adhere, but a great deal can be said against the acceptance of the lowest tender being an absolute safeguard.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is an easy matter in this day for any man to know, when tenders are submitted, whether they are reasonably low or not. It must be apparent to any one, who has to do with public works, that those who tender frequently act in collusion and put up the prices very high. Just look at our contracts for

dredging. It must be apparent to any one who knows anything of the cost of dredging, that many of the contracts are entirely too high. Any intelligent engineer knows whether these tenders are too high or not, and the government is not bound to accept any, even the lowest tender, if it is not a reasonable one. Provided however the government exercise proper diligence, the acceptance of the lower tender is the best policy. Accepting the lowest tender is not always a guarantee that good value is had. The tenderers may be in collusion to raise prices, or, for that matter, there may be only one tender. You avoid the difficulty by employing an agent, but, if you pay a commission, as you have done in the case of some land purchases of from forty to sixty per cent, or if you purchase through such an agent as Merwin, who bought goods at a profit to himself of fifty to seventy-five per cent, of course, you are not getting good value for the money. The minister would be much safer if he sent out an intelligent man to buy in the open market at the best value he could get-he could buy better and cheaper than the government can. But, unfortunately, the government relies upon the plea of having accepted the lowest tender, which, often, is only an excuse for great extravagance. Whether the government can or cannot lay down a hard and fast rule that they will buy by tender only, at least they can give a better example of the way business should be done than many of the instances we have had in the last few years in the purchase of supplies for the Intercolonial.


Gilbert White Ganong: Are the accounts kept in such a way that the minister can tell us the expenditure on coal month by month? For instance, what value of coal 'has been used for the months of January, February, March, April and May of this" year?


George Perry Graham: You might as well put in June.


Gilbert White Ganong: I am not asking as to the particular date, but whether the books are so kept that the expenditure month by month can be shown?


George Perry Graham: Yes. Take, for instance, the month of March, say


Gilbert White Ganong: February and March say.


George Perry Graham: I have the figures for March only. The amount spent for coal for passenger engines was $32,068.87 and for coal for freight engines $114,332.92.


Gilbert White Ganong: Can the minister tell me what was the expenditure for March of last year?


George Perry Graham: It was : Coal for freight engines, $81,054.18, and coal for passenger engines, $29,418.15.


Gilbert White Ganong: There seems to be an increase of about $36,000 or $37,000 for this year. But I understood there was less traffic this year than last.


George Perry Graham: The hon. gentleman is mistaken; we had a slight increase in March -an oasis in the desert.


Gilbert White Ganong: I think it would be interesting if the minister would bring down a statement showing the amount of coal used each month from January last up to the end of May, giving comparisons with the same months last year and with figures also showing the comparison of the tonnage of freight hauled. I am advised that the coal bill of this year has been very much in excess of that of last year and that this is largely accounted for-of course, I cannot say that I know this, for I am not a railroad man-by the fact that the road bed is not kept in first-class condition and that the engines have not been in shane to steam. That is, I am told the money of the country is wasted because the railway has not been kept in shape.


John Waterhouse Daniel: On pages W-143 and 144 of the Auditor General's Report, I find charges for legal services by several gentlemen amounting in the aggregate to quite a large sum, having reference to the arbitration with the Grand Trunk Railway with regard to the amounts which may be due to the Intercolonial from the Grand Trunk. So far as my memory goes, we have never had a statement of the results of that arbitration. If so, I think it is only right that the minister should give us the facts and state what amount has been received.


George Perry Graham: This matter is still before the arbitrators, of course. It involves the question of the adjustment of freight, maintenance, &c. There were several cases before the board of arbitration when Judge Ivillam died. We had expected that the two arbitrators would select a third arbitrator in place of Judge Killam, but they have not done so yet. Speaking roughly, and on information, I may say that the board of arbitrators has laid down certain principles on which further readjustments have been made. Several decisions have been given, and I think on the whole the government has benefited by the awards in its favour to the extent of a balance of between $30,000 and $40,000.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Have the Grand Trunk Railway paid anything over?


George Perry Graham: They have paid some of these items. There are .other items before the board for adjustment, but they cannot be adjusted until another arbitrator is selected in the place ot the late Judge Killam.


John Waterhouse Daniel: On page 142 there seems to have been a large amount of money paid to the Grand Trunk Railway by the Inter-

colonial, especially at Montreal. Has tlie Intercolonial no employees in Montreal? Do the Grand Trunk employees do all the cleaning of the cars and things of that kind? It would appear so, from the charges that are placed here: Cleaning trucks, cleaning sleepers, parlour cars and ordinary cars, and things of that kind. I also see quite a large amount paid to the Graud Trunk Railway for Grand Trunk cars, I suppose, that have been smashed or damaged on the Intercolonial; but I do not see any contra account of a payment made by the Grand Trunk and other railways for cars belonging to the Intercolonial that have been similarly damaged. Take into consideration the large number of Intercolonial cars that are scattered all over the country on other railways, I should think there ought to he some revenue from that source, as well as an expenditure by the Intercolonial for that purpose.


George Perry Graham: We pay $140,000 a year to the Grand Trunk for running rights over their line from Ste Rosalie to Montreal, paying in proportion to the expense for maintenance. They supply the men. If any of our cars are broken by other lines, we collect from them, as they collect from us.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is the Railway Department buying any coal from_the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company this year?


George Perry Graham: I think some coal is being taken from that company.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I see last year you bought 356 tons from that company. Where is the bulk of the coal bought for the operation of the railway?


George Perry Graham: We buy from several coal companies, from the Cumberland, Springhill, Maritime, Inverness, Dominion, Nova Scotia, and several companies in New Brunswick. The price is a little higher than it was last year.


Mr. BLAIN.: I see an item of $16,000 for advertising. I understand that it came out in an investigation before the committee that the papers in which the government advertised are all of one shade of politics. May I ask the minister if he proposes to continue that policy, or does he propose to broaden it a little?


George Perry Graham: We discussed the question of advertising before six o'clock. The whole question is one which I intend to take up, hut I am not prepared to say what I shall do until I see what the conditions are.


George William Fowler: Does the minister still pursue the same line of advertising the railroad by means of pictures and displays at different exhibitions throughout the country, showing the beautiful scenery along the route of the Intercolonial; and is there an Mr. DANIEL.
officer employed for that purpose by the railway ?


George Perry Graham: We have done something of that kind. We had a very good display at the automobile show, both in Toronto and in Montreal. I think the Creighton Advertising Department is in charge of that.


George William Fowler: Have you an advertising department?


George Perry Graham: We have a traffic manager, under whom Mr. Creighton attends largely to the advertising.


Richard Blain: The minister says he proposes to take this matter up for consideration, and if he is going to I.eave the impression upon the public that there is no politics iir the management of the Intercolonial we shall expect that some of these advertisements will appear in Conservative newspapers. I have before me a long list of newspapers with a very small circulation, but containing advertisements of the government, while papers with three times the circulation in the same city and town, are omitted. I would like to remind the minister that it would be rather difficult for him to make the Canadian people believe that there are no politics in the management of the Intercolonial Railway, when, in putting an advertisement into a newspaper, he selects the one having a small circulation and allows the one having a large circulation to go without any advertisement whatever. I hope the minister will investigate this matter, keeping this point before him and that next year, when we see this large list of newspapers receiving pretty large amounts of money, we will find that advertisements have been published in the newspapers having a large circulation. Perhaps the minister might indicate what he proposes to do on that point. I do not think that it requires very much investigation.


George Perry Graham: I have made a statement, three times, twice in reply to the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and once in reply to the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Daniel) concerning that.


Richard Blain: It is all very well for the hon. gentleman to say that he proposes to look into this matter in the days to come. Surely the hon. gentleman would not require very much time to indicate to the House what he proposes to do on a question of this kind. The minister has not much faith In his own policy with respect to asking for public tenders. He suggests that if he would apply his own mind to the subject he would not ask for tenders in many cases at all. Yet, my hon. friend knows that the people believe that tenders should be asked for. The policy that my hon. friend adopts in putting a number of reformers on the list and handing them a slip asking for ten-

ders is a policy that does not involve the principle of inviting public tenders at all. It is a political policy adopted by the minister for the [DOT]purpose of distributing public patronage among his political friends. My bon. friend understands that. He has had a wide experience in Ontario and, having brought that experience with him. and, I suppose, having profited by the result, I was very much surprised that he should adopt the same policy in the new office he has been selected to occupy. I do not think it will appeal to the minister's good judgment to say that after being several months in the department he would come forward and, on these two points, put himself in opposition to the Canadian people, by saying, with respect to the question of pffblic advertisement, that, if his own opinion were to prevail he would not ask for tenders at all simply going to his own friends and allowing them to put up a building costing $25,000 or $30,000 because they happened to be in the business. He would not give a Conservative in. any part of Canada any opportunity whatever to tender for the construction of any public work. These are matters that it would not take my bon. friend a very long time to decide. The only answer is that he must be careful of the interests of his party before he comes to a decision. My hon. friend, who wants to lead in the expenditure of money is not willing to adopt the policies which are adopted by smaller institutions and organizations throughout the country because he says he would not, if he had his own way, ask for tenders at all.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: May I ask the minister whether he accepts the lowest tender in purchasing concrete pipes ?


George Perry Graham: The department accepts the lowest tender in every case unless some reason can be shown why It should not do so.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Would the minister be good enough to give us some reason why he did not accept the lowest tender in connection with concrete piping. I asked a question on the 13th April and I had the answer of the minister forwarded to parties who tendered. I will just quote a few words from a letter I received in reply :
If you compare the prices our is much more favourable, without any discount, but when you deduct 15 per cent I certainly should have had the contract.
This is a most reliable firm. They sent in their tender and their tender was not only lower than the figures which the contract was let for but in addition to that they were willing to take off 15 per cent and they did not receive the contract.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend will remember that he is warned every day, with respect to the sale of patent medicines, not
to take anything that he is told is just as good. The pipe tendered for in this instance was not the kind that the specification called for. Our engineer of maintenance of ways reported that the other pipe was the pipe we wanted. That Is why we did not take it.


Gilbert White Ganong: Was it because you wanted Wallberg to supply it ?
Mr, GRAHAM. My hon. friend, with his usual wisdom, does not know that it was not Mr. Wallberg at all who is interested in this contract.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I do not think that is a satisfactory answer. I am well aware that these people put in a tender in the same way as the others were put in and that they were ready and willing to manufacture these goods under any specification that was proposed to them. There is nooccasion for the minister to make the statement he has made in that regard.


George Perry Graham: I assure my hon. friend that the goods are purchased always from the lowest tenderers unless there is some good reason given to the contrary. I am not so wedded to the tender system, as my hon. friend seems to be, and which he regards as a panacea for everything, as to say that I will take something that I do not want, but I will get the full particulars for my hon. friend and I think he will find that there is no reason for complaint on behalf of his friends.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: How can the minister state that the lowest tenders are always accepted when here we have a most reliable company which is not only the lowest tenderer, but which offered 15 per cent off the tender price in addition, and yet it did not get the contract ? I notice from the reply given by the minister in ' Hansard ' that this Kemptville Company has been supplying a large quantity of concrete piping for two years. How can he condemn the concrete piping of the other companies when he has made no endeavour to compare one with the other.


George Perry Graham: I am not condemning the quality of the piping of any other firm. We wanted a flat bottom piping and they offered us round piping.	.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I do not believe that is a sufficient excuse for the minister to throw away the people's money as he has done. This firm if it were given a chance could have supplied the department with flat bottom piping at a great deal less cost than he paid to the other firm.


George Perry Graham: As to the tiling, the hon. gentleman is no doubt speaking from a letter he has in his possession. He evidently knows something of the tile business but not enough to form a correct judgment in reference to it. We wanted flat bottomed piping which is the more expensive of

the two and this firm offered us round piping.


George Taylor: Were tenders called for flat bottom piping?


George Perry Graham: I imagine they were. The engineer recommended flat bottom tiling and we took it from the Kemptville people on tender and there Is nothing extraordinary1 about it.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I am informed that this company to which I refer sent in their application in accordance with the tender.


Mr. SCHELL.: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Armstrong) know whether this company tendered for round or for flat bottomed pipe ?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: As I understand it they tendered for the pipe called for by the department. '


Jacob Thomas Schell: I put in several thousand tons of this piping last year and I am very familiar with the business. I know that flat bottom concrete pipe for railway culverts will cost from 10 to 20 per cent more according to the size than the round pipe costs. All the railway engineers and the municipal engineers for sewage pipe insist on flat bottom pipe for sizes between 24 and 30 inches in diameter because it will stand a greater strain than the round pipe. It is absurd to say one kind of pipe is the same as the other. The Canadian Pacific Railway, the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Northern all use flat bottom pipe. If the hon. gentleman can tell me the size and what they were bidding on I can show the absurdity of his position if he claims that round pipe is the same as flat bottomed pipe.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: This firm has several branches in Canada and in the United States and they are a responsible firm and are in the habit of furnishing the material for railway and municipal work. I know these men and I am satisfied they would not tender for round pipe if the tender called for flat bottomed pipe and they say they complied with the tender.


Oswald Smith Crocket: According to the Auditor General's Report, T. McAvity & Sons, of St. John, N.B., were paid $27,896.40 last year for supplies for the Intercolonial Railway. Were tenders asked for the supply of this hardware?


George Perry Graham: Oh, yes, in every case.


Oswald Smith Crocket: By public advertisement or by circulars to those on the patronage list ?


George Perry Graham: I am informed by circular to a very large number of people.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What other firms were invited to tender for this hardware ?


George Perry Graham: 


George Perry Graham: I am told there are somew'here in the vicinity of 75 names on the list altogether.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Were 75 other firms invited to tender for that hardware ?


George Perry Graham: I imagine they would be, all the hardware firms we had the names of.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Was any other firm at St. John invited to tender ?


George Perry Graham: I could not say.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Would the McAvity firm be the only one in New Brunswick that would be invited to tender ?
Mr. fillAITAM. I think not, but I cannot say as I am not conversant with the location of the different firms.


Richard Blain: What is it necessary for a man to do in order to get on the patronage list ? My hon. friend from Toronto says a good subscription to the election fund.


George Perry Graham: He knows.


William Stevens Fielding: He is thinking of the old days.


Richard Blain: He will not be better informed than the minister himself because he has had experience in these matters. The minister says there is public advertisement, but when we come to the point we find there is a list of friends and when goods are required those on that list are notified and they are asked to give prices to the department.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend has said that I said there was public advertisement. I was perfectly frank with my friend from Fredericton, and said they were asked by circular.


Richard Blain: I said that my hon. friend was trying to leave the impression that these goods were purchased after public advertisement, and then he tried to qualify it.


George Perry Graham: I did not try to qualify it, I made no qualification. My hon. friend should not repeat that when he knows I did not say it.


Richard Blain: It is no use trying to suggest to the House that my hon. friend is purchasing goods after public advertisement by tender. What qualification must a man have to get on the list ?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend is not nearly so childlike and bland as he pretends. He is one of the strongest partisans in the Dominion of Canada ; he bends every energy to that point and I do not blame him, and yet he wants the House to

believe be is so innocent that he does not know anything about government patronage and never heard of such a thing in his life. He knows that so long as governments are in power in this or any other country and are run on the party system, so long will there be a slight tendency for the government in power, whether Liberal, Conservative or Independent, to have, to use an old phrase, a slight cant so far as their friends are concerned. That is the case with all the provincial governments and every government wWre the party system is in force. What the country first demands and is interested in is that we get value for our money, not that goods be bought from my hon. friend's friends. When we ask a dozen or more good firms to compete and they do compete and we buy at the lowest price, I think it can be taken that we have received good value.


George William Fowler: In this case I question whether more than one firm were asked to tender, for if more firms in New Brunswick were asked to tender. I do not believe that McAvity & Sons would succeed in every case in getting the order. What other firms in New Brunswick were invited?


George Perry Graham: I can bring the list tomorrow, but I am sorry to say I cannot give the names as I am not familiar with the locations.


George William Fowler: I am speaking of the firms in New Brunswick. T. McAvity & Sons and McLean, Holt & Company are practically the same firm.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I see that L. S. Macoun, of Ottawa, who last year sold $74,000 worth of goods to the Militia Department, is now working into the Railway Department. He has been selling wooden water buckets, varnish brushes, fire-clay and lead pipe and managed to get from the Railway Department on stores account last year, $182.31. He, I understand, is very closely connected with a member of the government, and I had his own statement the other day that he did not keep a shop olfactory and had no supplies of his own to sell. I take it therefore that this is another case of the Intercolonial Railway buying from a middleman. It occurred to me that Wallberg had better be looking after himself when I found Macoun figuring in the Railway Department on stores account as well as in the Militia Department. I would like to ask the minister if tenders were asked for these goods supplied by Mr. Macoun.


George Perry Graham: Tenders no doubt were asked for and the lowest accepted.


George William Fowler: Is Mr. Macoun on the list?


George Perry Graham: He seems to be on that list. This confirms what nine out of ten business men will agree to, and that is that calling for tenders is not a panacea for everything. It is the only thing parliament will allow a minister to do, but it is not always the best way. Speaking of middlemen, ask for tenders for some item, and you will find the manufacturer giving you a tender higher than that made by a middleman, who is his agent, tendering for the same goods. You ask how that is. They give the agent a commission and he divides his commission. It is cheap.er for the government, by the tender system, to buy from the agent' often than from the manufacturer himself.


George William Fowler: That has not been shown in the Public Accounts Committee.


George Perry Graham: I can show cases time and again in my department in which the original manufacturer has tendered at a higher price than his agent for the same goods.


George William Fowler: You forget about Mer-win.


George Perry Graham: I was speaking generally. It may seem heresy to say that the tender system is not-always the best, but that is the experience of business men on many occasions.


George William Fowler: Did the company advance Mr. Macoun the money before the goods were delivered as was done in the case of the copper purchase?


George Perry Graham: I do not know to what my hon. friend refers when he speaks of the copper purchase. No money is advanced by this department.


George William Fowler: It is singular that the minister does not know about the copper purchase, but he has been so taken up with the little matter in Brockville that he has not had time to keep himself posted on what is going on in the committees. This copper transaction

	[DOT]


Duncan Ross: Order.


George William Fowler: I forgot-there is our censor again. But surely, Mr. Chairman, you will not refuse me the opportunity of giving the Minister of Railways much needed information. I would be most happy to inform him what I meant by the transaction in copper, but I must bow to the decision of my hon. friend from Yale and Cariboo (Mr. Ross) as expressed through you, Mr. Chairman.


Duncan Ross: That is the first sensible thing you have done to-day.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I see another firm here which has been supplying blankets and towels and things of that kind called the Peter McSweeney Company of Moncton. Is that the senator of that name?


George Perry Graham: I do not know whether it is or not.
Mr. DANIEL,, it is a good deal like his name anyway.


Mr. STAPLES.: I also notice an account of Macfarlane & Thompson. The Minister of Railways seems to be buying from that firm. That is the firm of which Senator Thompson is a member.


George William Fowler: This is dangerously close to a violation of the Independence of Parliament Act. I think the party has done well enough by these senators by giving them a seat for life with a salary of $2,500 a year. Still you continue to load them with benefits by putting them on the patronage list. That is rather unfair to the rest of your supporters. There are other firms which have Liberal leanings as well as the firms of Peter McSweeney and Macfarlane & Thompson. I think that for the services rendered his country Mr. Mc-Sweene.v was too well paid by putting him in the Senate and I can say the same of Senator Thompson. You put these gentlemen in the Senate, a position to which one would rather be surprised that they would even aspire to, and yet you are not satisfied with that but you put them on the patronage list and give them a large amount of patronage, thus enabling them to make, in addition to their large salaries which they draw as senators, large profits on the merchandise they sell the various departments of the government. On behalf of the other firms which do give you loyal and honest support, I protest against the minister doing this. He should strike these men off the patronage list. I have no personal conceim in the matter, but am actuated merely by a love of fair play and a square deal.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Was the iron purchased by public tender or private sale?


George Perry Graham: All the stores are purchased in the same way.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Am I to understand that the large amount of iron purchased, $76,000, page 126-W, and $34,000, page 127-W


George Perry Graham: From whom ?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: From the Nova Scotia Coal and Steel Company and the Portland Rolling Mills.


George Perry Graham: We buy these supplies from the lowest tenderer, and I am very glad to purchase goods from the Nova Scotia Steel Company or any other Canadian company which is developing our resources. We give them no advantage.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: If others are not on the list, as I understand it, then they cau-not possibly tender. Is it possible that contracts for' these large amounts are simply


John Waterhouse Daniel: given to those who are on the patronage list? That is a most outrageous piece of business management.


Alexander Johnston: Carried.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: My bon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. Johnston) would say ' carried ' to anything this government could propose. Just as long as you can get your hand into the public chest and pull out money, it is all right.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Order.
%


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Hand it out to party friends and everything is lovely. Here is a contract of about $125,000 handed over to party friends. Does the minister think that is fair and reasonable? Does he say that these large contracts should be open to tender only by parties who are on the patronage list?


George Perry Graham: The hon. gentleman will not speak of the capital invested in the Nova Scotia Steel Company as Liberal capital?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I am not referring to it as being Liberal capital. But what excuse has the minister for not advertising such contracts as this? Surely, they should be advertised very widely, instead of being open only to a few party friends of the minister.


George Perry Graham: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Armstrong) allows himself to be led away. He should not feel any sorer than I do. I have been told that I am sore over the result in Brockville, but he should not allow himself to be bad-natured over the result in East Lambton. These things happen to the best of men.
Mr, BLAIN. Not many happened like East Lambton.


George Perry Graham: But it did happen in East Lambton. We cannot help these calamities. As to this contract being given to a friend of this government, I think the hon. gentleman would hardly venture to call the president of the Nova Scotia Steel Company a friend of this government. If he were to do so, he would get into trouble. It is a good substantial firm, with a good substantial Conservative as its president. But, it being the lowest tenderer, we bought the goods from this company.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: But the point is that only those on the list are given the privilege of tendering. As to East Lambton, the hon. gentleman knows that that is one of the ridings in w'hich there is a very considerable overlapping, and the town and township in which I live happened to send something over 400 to add to the majority.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Hon. gentlemen opposite are very much afraid that we may begin to talk about what happened yester-

day. Certainly, they can take very little satisfaction out of it. But does not the minister think it unreasonable and unbusinesslike for him, in making an expenditure of over $100,000 for such commodities ns iron and steel, that he should not invite tenders widely? Or does he expect to continue to ask tenders from a few political friends?


Alexander Johnston: On this question of


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Mr. Chairman I was asking a question of the minister and I think


Alexander Johnston: 1 am not going to obstruct; I will give you lots of opportunity to do that. I was about to say: On this question of purchasing supplies, I would like to say a word or two to the minister. But, before doing that, let me address an observation to my hon. friend from East Lambton. He need not get fussy about the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company or any of the large companies doing business in the eastern part of this country ; he will find that they are doing business in a legitimate way and are neither receiving nor asking favours from this government. When the hon. gentleman says that I am content to have this money go into the pockets of party friends, I want to say that the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company is not a party friend of mine. Its warmest friends have never charged it with being a friend of the Liberal government. Its history for twenty years in Nova Scotia has been exactly the reverse. The president of the company is the bell-wether of the Conservative party in Nova Scotia. The leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) knows that very well. It ill-beeomes any member on that side to charge the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company with receiving undue advantage from any government. There are some of us who might have reasons to complain, but certainly not hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. But, though they are no party friends of mine, or of the government I support, they should receive their legitimate share of the business of the government. I would go so far as to say to the minister that, in a matter of this kind the purchase of bar iron, &c., if there are any preferences to be given, they should go to the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company; and I will tell you why: If my hon. friend (Mr. Armstrong) will take the trouble to inquire, he will find that this company is one of the best customers the Intercolonial has. I am not aware that they have ever asked for any preference, but I say that if the time ever comes when they do, then, in the interests of the road and of the country as well as of the company, he would be very well justified in giving them the preference.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I do not wish to have words put in my mouth that I did not
use. I did not object to the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company, as such, receiving this contract. But, as I understand it, when these supplies are needed, tenders are asked for only from a certain number of firms. There is no reason why the minister should not be able to estimate in advance, more or less accurately, how much of these supplies he is going to need in the course of a year. It seems to me that it is not reasonable that so large a contract for such supplies as these should merely be peddled round, as it were, amongst the minister's party friends.


John Graham Haggart: Was there any competition with the Nova Scotia 'Steel Company with this order? I understood from the minister that there were seventy-five persons on the patronage list who furnish supplies to the Intercolonial. I suppose that out of that seventy-five there was only the Nova Scotia Steel Company who were able to supply the coal. Is the minister certain that there was competition with the Nova Scotia Company for that coal ?


George Perry Graham: There is no doubt of the competition. As a .matter of fact, we have all the leading firms on the list.


John Graham Haggart: Who awards the contracts?


George Perry Graham: The contracts are awarded by the minister and his deputy.


John Graham Haggart: There has been a change since I was minister. At that time, unless there was some objection to the material the contracts were awarded by the manager of the Intercolonial, Mr, Pottinger. In case there was a tie, or the material was not up to the standard, the decision was left to the scientific branch of McGill University. In the case of oii, for instance, as to which was the best lubricant, the question was left to the scientists of McGill, who always made a report to the department, and on their report the contract was made. But it never came before the minister unless there was a tie, or some question which the head of the department could alone decide.


George Perry Graham: I have followed the system adopted by my predecessors, which I think is a right one. It is better to have the tenders sent to the head office for decision. Being myself responsible to the House and to the country, I feel like seeing how the awards are given every time. I can assure my hon. friend that unless there is some good reason for it the contract is always given to the lowest tenderer.


George William Fowler: I see you bought a quantity of blankets. What need have you for blankets?


George Perry Graham: For the sleeping cars.


George William Fowler: I see an item here for the Peter McSweeney Company, of which

the chief is Senator McSweeney, He is in fact the whole company, and he has profited to a large extent in the way of supplying blankets, towelling, cotton and flannelettes. What do you do with flannelettes ? Do you make night gowns for the porters, or was it just because there was a desire on the part of the department to give a little patronage to the senator, who is not receiving quite enough in his sessional indemnity? There was a considerable amount of this flannelette, 576$ yards. I think the senator might have thrown in that half yard. It does seem to me that a man occupying so distinguished a position as senator of Canada, should not have charged this government for that half yard. Perhaps the minister will explain what that flannelette was used for.


George Perry Graham: I imagine it was used in the sleeping cars. It also might possibly be used as cushions for the dining tables.


George William Fowler: How about the oil you are buying from the New Brunswick Petroleum Company? Did you buy that oil from the wells, or did you buy it through middlemen?


George Perry Graham: My information is that it was bought from the producers.


George William Fowler: Do you buy your oil in the same way that you buy the flannelette ?


George Perry Graham: Not by the yard, no.


George William Fowler: I mean, do you ask for tenders from certain persons who are upon the list or do you buy in the open market? On page W-147 I see you pay a large sum of money for oil to the Galena Signal Oil Company. Then there is the Imperial Oil Company of St. John, I think that is managed by a good Liberal, the present mayor of the city, Mr. Bullock, who figures largely on this list, some $25,000. Then there is the Keenleyside Oil Company. I presume some of this must be lubricating oil, and some of it crude oil. What do you use the crude oil for?


Mr. FOWLER  .@: For forging work, heating rivets. Our lubricating oil is purchased by tender on a guarantee that a certain quantity will serve for a thousand engine miles. The Galena Signal Oil Company has the contract at the present time. I think we got one or two other tenders. One of the things that we are trying to get down to a practical basis is the cost of lubrication per mile. We buy oil on the guarantee of a certain cost, reckoned on the mileage of the locomotive.


George William Fowler: Did you buy this lubricating oil on tender open to all the world ?


George Perry Graham: I think that at one time we had tenders from all the oil companies practically.


George William Fowler: 


George William Fowler: Do you ask for tenders
every year ?


George Perry Graham: There are not a great many oil companies. The Imperial Oil Company of Canada is really a branch of the Standard Oil Company. We made a contract with it for a term of years.


George William Fowler: Where is the Galena Oil Company operating ?


George Perry Graham: It is an American company. I am told that it is practically an offshoot of the Standard Oil Company. It has a branch, I understand, in Toronto.


George William Fowler: There are Canadian oil companies. There is the Canadian Oil Company arid the Queen City Oil Company. Why have these not had an opportunity of tendering?


George Perry Graham: They did have an opportunity. This is the only company that gives the required guarantee. We are reducing the cost of lubrication and we are carrying on a test. These people make a specialty of it and I imagine they are supplying the lubrication for 75 or 90 per cent, of the railways of the continent.


George William Fowler: The government should give the preference to the home companies. We have the Queen City, the Canadian Company, and I am told there are other Canadian companies. I do not think you should make a contract for three or four years. Suppose these people were not able, in this particular year, to compete with the American company, perhaps next year they would be able to compete and I think .a contract should be made from year to year so as to give our home companies an opportunity.


George Perry Graham: There is a peculiar situation. We have to give the contract for a term of years to get a proper price. My hon. friend will see the importance of it both with respect to the rolling stock and the cost of the lubrication itself. This company make a specialty of it and they send a man around on the locomotives and cars to see that the consumption is kept within proper bounds because they have to guarantee the amount of oil we use per mile at a certain price. Canadian companies should have an opportunity to compete and when our contract runs out I would be very glad to give them that opportunity. Everything being equal, I would prefer the Canadian companies under all circumstances.


George William Fowler: This is a three or five years contract and unfortunately the minister will not have an opportunity of giving the contract to a Canadian company. It will be in other hands.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend may.


George William Fowler: But I do not see how any company could possibly send a man on every engine to see that you did not use too much oil.


George Perry Graham: Not on every engine. They keep a man there a great deal of the time. He is not on every engine but he practically instructs them in the use of oil and keeps his eye on the consumption.


George Eulas Foster: There is a large purchase of iron in the city of St. John from Me-Avity and the McLean Holt Company amounting to $51,213. Do I understand the minister that in buying that iron and ironwork from these two firms, which ax-e practically as I understand it, one firm, every one of the other 74 had an opportunity to put in their price for these goods ?


George Perry Graham: I think my hon. friend will find, as a matter of fact, that there were quite a number of tenders. My hon. friend speaks of the other 74 ; 1 did not mean to say that there were 74 iron or hardware men, but of the large number that are on the list all that are engaged in that business were, I have no doubt, given an opportunity to tender. We never invite tenders but the Montreal and Toronto men are keen competitors in iron and steel goods. It is not at all likely that these goods were all bought in one purchase. It would be throughout the year and the total would be made up by portions of the different stores purchased.


George Eulas Foster: Is it confined to two firms in St. John ?


George Perry Graham: All these purchases which are spread over the year are the subject of competition. They would form part of a large amount of stores that were purchased during the year.


George Eulas Foster: These were all the purchases that were made from McAvity ?


George Perry Graham: I think they would not be bought at one time but on several different occasions.


George Eulas Foster: As I understand it they would be bought in small quantities as they were needed ?


George Perry Graham: I think so.


George Eulas Foster: What I was trying to make sure of was whether there was any competition or not.


George Perry Graham: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: For these parcels of goods bought throughout the year Montreal and Toronto iron firms had a chance to compete ?


George Perry Graham: I think my hon. friend will find that is absolutely true.


George Eulas Foster: Of course, I understand this is confined to persons who are on the patronage list.


George Perry Graham: Yes.


George William Fowler: I notice you have been buying some railway ties from Pearson, B. F., of Halifax. That, I take it, is Mr. B. F. Pearson, sometimes known as the Eastern Supply Company, sometimes as B. F. Pearson, sometimes as Matthew Lodge, sometimes as Henderson, sometimes as the St. John Suu Publishing Company, Limited, sometimes as the Morning ' Chronicle,' Halifax, sometimes as the Glace Bay ' Times,' and sometimes as the Halifax ' Echo.' He has a variety of names ; he appears in a variety of characters. He is in point of fact a lawyer of the city of Halifax and he sells ties-railway ties

not neck ties-but railway ties to the government. I could understand that it might be reasonable for a Senator to sell flannelette if he happened to be in the dry goods business, but why a gentleman of the legal profession would be around peddling hemlock ties to the government is something I canuot understand. This man does not get out these ties, he is not a lumberman, he has no mills, but he is simply in the same position as regards the Intercolonial Railway as Mr. Macoun is in as regards the Department of Militia and Defence and the Intercolonial Railway. Neither of these gentlemen is a producer of anything, neither of them keeps a shop. In fact, as I understand it, one of them was very indignant when he was asked if he kept a shop. He was horror stricken that it would be put up to him for a moment that he would be engaged in such a business as shop-keeper and I suppose that Mr. Pearson would be quite indignant if it were intimated to him he was a shop-keeper or that he kept a retail lumber yard. For the year ending 31st March, 1906, Mr. Pearson sold over $100,000 ties to the government. Under what circumstances were these ties bought from Mr. Pearson of Halifax, lawyer, proprietor of the St. John ' Sun,' Morning ' Chronicle,' the Glace Bay ' Times,' the Halifax ' Echo,' chief push of the Eastern Supply Company, member of the Nova Scotia legislature, and local government; a man of a variety of titles and a variety of occupations and a many sided man, taking him altogether ?


George Perry Graham: We use nearly 1,000,000 ties a year, and I do not know under what circumstances these particular ties were got. The price has increased materially during the past few years, and one of the greatest difficulties of all railways is to get ties at all. Even if my hon. friend (Mr. Fowler) were to offer ties to us I would be prepared to accept them so long as we had not to pay more than the fair market price. We fix the price we will pay for ties and make

all the contracts we can. We care not whether we buy from a professional man or any one else so long as we get them at a fair price. We have refused to purchase ties because too high a price was asked for them. The fact that Mr. Pearson may be called a middleman by my hon. friend (Mr. Fowler) would not make any difference to me in the purchase of ties if I got them at a proper value.


George William Fowler: Does the minister think one would be straining 'his imagination if he were to suggest that the person who owned these ties thought it necessary in order to sell them to the department to interest Mr. Pearson who seems to have the [DOT]ear of the government ? I fancy that the man who produced these ties has found it necessary to interest Mr. Pearson by the promise of a commission before he was able to make a sale to the government, and I know that the gentleman who did produce them has political views which are not in accord with the administration. I believe that is actually what occurred. The minister has told us that the patronage of the government naturally goes to its political friends. Mr. Pearson is a political friend of the government, but I believe the government has been more of a friend to Mr. Pearson than Mr. Pearson has been to the government, for X do not believe he has returned dollar for dollar that they have him. He certainly did not in the Halifax land case where he made a profit of $28,000 which he divided with his friends, Mr. Pearson's share alone being $14,000. I have no doubt he got a very handsome commission in connection with the sale of these ties, because I know as a matter of fact that the ties were produced by a man who was not in political accord with the government, and he was only able to sell the ties to the government by reason of the fact that he employed Mr. Pearson as a middle man. That is one of the evils of the system -which the Minister *of Railways defends. No man along the line of the Intercolonial Railway who is not a political supporter of the government can sell any material to the railway in any large *quantities.
Mi1. GRAHAM. What about the Nova Scotia Steel Company?


George William Fowler: The Nova Scotia Steel Company stands in a peculiar position because they are the largest patrons of the Intercolonial Railway in the matter of freight and the department would make an exception * in their favour, but outside of that and some small things the officers of the department are not allowed to buy from others than political supporters. Here is Mr. S. S. Ryan, who runs a small farm across from Moncton in the county of Albert, who was formerly local member for the county, but he was defeated list Mr. GRAHAM.
election; he sells thousands and thousands of dollars worth of lumber to the Intercolonial which the Intercolonial could buy cheaper from the various mills, but these mill owners being enterprising men they are Conservatives, and therefore they have to sell to the Intercolonial Railway through Mr. Ryan or some other friend of the government. In that way, through political exigencies, the Department of Railways, pays a great more money for all its supplies than it is necessary to pay. That is one reason why the road has to [DOT] be run at a loss. This new minister coming from the province of Ontario he was not governed by local considerations as a minister from New Brunswick would be, and we did hope on the principle that a new broom sweeps clean, that the political management of the road would end and that it would be run as a business proposition, but our hopes have been disappointed. There is no reason in the world why the Intercolonial Railway should not pay as well as any other trunk line in Canada. Along its route are thriving and prosperous towns and productive farms. There is no better country under the sun than that through which the greater portion of the Intercolonial Railway runs. The minister knows that it runs through a splendid country and that throughout the length of the line there is local traffic. The Canadian Pacific Railway, that great trunk road, for 700 or 800 miles has no possibility of any local traffic of any amount being created, and yet the Canadian Pacific Railway is able to make in some years as high as 15 per cent on its capital stock, which was originally, to some extent, watered. The Intercolonial Railway, on the other hand, running through a better average country than the Canadian Pacific Railway, has a deficit as I proved this afternoon, logically, if not to the satisfaction of the minister, of aboht $800,000 on the year's working of the road for 19067. The minister must see that in order to bring about a change in the results he must effect a change in the manner of conducting the road. I advise the minister if he wants to go down in history as one of the best ministers the Intercolonial has had, to make these changes, to apply the pruning knife, to abolish th'e patronage system, to cut out the politics and run the road as a business proposition. If the minister adopts that policy and method, the road, instead of being an annual loss to the exchequer of this country, will pay a handsome dividend upon the capital employed. The minister is young and full of vitality and some brains


George Perry Graham: In a modified form.


George William Fowler: He may not have a long period of office before him but in view of the circumstances of the last few days we will have no election this year so he is at

least sure of another year in office, and if he is industrious and earnest and attempts to accomplish these reforms he will make for himself a reputation such as no other Minister of Railways has made, at least since 1S96.
Mr. jOSLER. I was sorry to hear the minister so strongly defend the patronage system. I thought it. was something which while more or less recognized was still something to be ashamed of. I do not think there is a more corrupting influence in public life than the patronage system as carried on in Canada either by the Dominion or any local government. There is practically no direct purchase, every thing has to go through a middleman, unless the man is on the patronage list. If he quarrels with the government he is at once stricken off the list without question and If he has goods which the government must have they can only be sold to the government through a middleman. You cannot get a contract to carry the troops from Toronto to Niagara except it goes through a middleman. I say what I know. There is no more paralyzing system in the world than the system of the patronage committee and the middleman. I am sure that the minister is himself anxious to do what is absolutely right for the country and his department and I commend to him Lord Cromer's book on ' Modern Egypt,' just published, which is one of the most interesting books that can be read. I sent to the library but it was not there. I regret' that as I would have liked to read to the minister a paragraph from that book. In summing up the reasons why Egypt has been changed from one of the most corrupt countries in the world to one where everything is honestly administered, Lord Cromer says in the chapter headed, ' Corruption,' that one of the chief influences in overcoming corruption was that when the government came under the control of the English a policy was adopted of letting public works and buying supplies by public tender. That one order did more to bring about a reign of honesty in Egypt than all other reforms put together. If this government will only adopt that principle, they will find that the Intercolonial Railway as many other departments, will run smoothly and at once a different tone will be brought into our public life. You cannot have honesty when you have a system of patronage committees and patronage firms from whom you buy ; it is an Impossibility. There must be more or less corruption under such circumstances, and I am sorry to hear the minister so strongly defend the patronage system. I know that this has been more or less the condition under all our governments, local and Dom-324
inion, but I appeal to the minister to see whether he could not change that as far as his department is concerned. If he does so he will deserve the thanks of the whole people, and I ask him to seriously consider the suggestion.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I am sure we all appreciate the remarks of the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Osier) and I hope the minister will take them to heart. What number of commission agents has the hon. gentleman in the United States gathering trade for the railroad ?


George Perry Graham: We have no agents in the United States. It is a mistake to say that we do not advertise for tenders. Nothing is purchased without tender. The great majority of our goods are bought after advertising in the newspapers. My hon. friend (Mr. Osier)) shakes his head. That is absolutely true so far as the Railway Department is concerned. The stores are purchased in the way I have said. The other materials are purchased after advertising in the newspapers for tenders. I can show my hon. friend the tenders.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I cannot quite understand the minister's statement when he says he has not any one receiving commissions. On W-131 I see that we paid John A. Boak a commission of 10 per cent on securing business, $2,982.


George Perry Graham: I was in error; we have an agent in Chicago.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Ticket sellers as well have received in the neighbourhood of $2,000 commission on selling tickets. How many of these agents has the minister got?


George Perry Graham: People who sell tickets always get a commission on them. We have one man in Chicago and I think the other is in Boston. All railroads pay a commission on tickets sold.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I see on page 137 that $2,288 were paid under the heading of association fees. There are the American Railway Association of New York; the Association of American Railway Accounting officers, Chicago ; the Canadian Car Service Bureau, Montreal; the Canadian Freight Association, Toronto; the Master Car Builders Association, Chicago ; the Railway Car Association, Buffalo, the Railway Equipment and Publication Company, New York. Board of trade fees:	Halifax, Moncton, Montreal,
Quebec and Toronto, and sundry association fees. I notice one very serious omission. The Board of Trade at St. John is not mentioned at all and no fees are paid it although it is, I presume, about as important as the majority of the others mentioned. What is the object of these payments and what is gained by them?


George Perry Graham: Like all railways, we join these associations for the mutual bene-



fit to be derived, such as information interchangeable among members of the association. All railways join these associations. It is necessary for the Intercolonial to join them if it is to keep up with the other railways. We get the standards of cars and equipment and all that kind of thing.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Do they issue publications yearly ?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I notice a payment of $1,312 to the Canadian Freight Association of Toronto, being proportion of expenses for nine months. What expenses would those be?


George Perry Graham: There is some sharing of expenses in connection with that association among the different roads. As to the boards of trade, it seems to be necessary, for the benefit of the railway itself, to encourage the boards of trade in these different places. I do not see why St. John was left out.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I hope the minister will correct that omission, if there is anything to be gained by correcting it at all.
. Mr. FOSTER. I would like to have an explanation of W-161, reconstruction of accounting system, paid to Kenneth Falconer, $26,252.21.


George Perry Graham: There is a return giving all the information with regard to that. This firm reorganized our system of accounting, not only at the head office but the different smaller places, and I am informed that their work has paid the railway already. For example, take the fixing of cost, although we thought we had a fairly good system, we were unable before to fix anything as definite regarding the cost of mileage and that kind of thing. We had in addition an expert, who was the controller of the Chicago and Rock Island Railway, who gave us some very practical views. I feel confident that we got full value by that reorganization.


George Eulas Foster: How much money was spent on that?


George Perry Graham: I gave it in the House not long since and it is in ' Hansard.' I think it was in the vicinity of $40,000.


George Eulas Foster: Out of what appropriation was that paid?


George Perry Graham: Out of working expenses.


George Eulas Foster: Does the minister think that belonged to the working expenses of the railway?


George Perry Graham: We are charging the account to the working expenses.


George Eulas Foster: Certainly. It is the accounting of your men who are under regular salary for that purpose who are doing Mr. GRAHAM.
it. Here was a special work undertaken by the Intercolonial and you had to pay some $50,000 for it. The country knew nothing about it until the contracts were made and the larger part of the work was done. That illustrates the trouble of having a bulk item of $9,000,000 such as this. It is perfectly possible for the railway department to spend $8,900,000 on one item-advertising, say-and the Auditor General would have no chance to criticise it. This illustration reduces it to an absurdity, but it is only to show what an absolutely blind appropriation this is. On a new arrangement, one not coming up in the ordinary run of the business, the minister committed the country to an expenditure of $50,000, without an order in council or any authority except simply the action of the department itself. And the country knew nothing about it until it came out in the course of the investigation of another department. Has the minister any report from the Falconer firm ?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Would he have any objection to bringing it down?


George Perry Graham: I think it has been down for some time. Or, perhaps I am wrong about; it may be before the Public Accounts Committee.


George Eulas Foster: But not before the House. Well, as we are called upon to pay the bill, the least we can expect is to have the report. What in brief, were the changes made by this firm in the system of bookkeeping?


George Perry Graham: I am not sufficiently expert to give the House a technical explanation. As a matter of fact, I do not know. And no person, unless he were an expert bookkeeper, would know even if he were told. I am assured by the management that the results are very satisfactory. I will be ready to bring down the report. It is a long report and it will take some time to copy. Maybe the copy before the Public Accounts Committee will be available.


George Eulas Foster: Does not the minister think his statement rather odd? It may be his misfortune, but it certainly is not our fault that, when asked what has resulted from an expenditure of $50,000 he is compelled to say:	I cannot tell you and I do
not know that you would understand if I did tell you.


George Perry Graham: Well, it is true, isn't it ?


George Eulas Foster: You must give the questioner the benefit of the doubt. Certainly, the question is perfectly germane to the subject. We can hardly allow $9,000 000 to go into the hands of the minister to be spent for something that he does not know and cannot tell. I think the minister ought to be able, in consultation with his deputy, to give the main points of the beneficial change

if there was a change, in the system of bookkeeping, in the first place, was the former system of bookkeeping on the Intercolonial a double-entry system?


George Perry Graham: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will find fault with me for not answering his question directly-but I am informed that the weakness of the old system was that we had not the detailed results that are required in modern railway work.


Mr.   POSTER@: In what respect?


George Perry Graham: As to the cost of the service-cost per mile, and so on. Modern railways must keep these in great'detail, in order to report to the commission and governments and to apportion costs. While our system of bookkeeping may have given honest results so far as the country is concerned, it did not give us the exact results necessary in the management of our business and so we had to have the system modernised. I admit that I am not competent to discuss the details. But if I were buying a new style of locomotives-I submit this case to my hon. friend-I would decide on the basis of the reports of my engineers and other officials whom I have there for that purpose. And if it were demonstrated to me, that the engine could go at greater speed, or draw heavier trains I think that would be sufficient for me as head of the department, even though 1 could not explain the details of the working of that engine. So, in this case, I am not competent to go into detail of this accounting system. But the result of it is that our system is greatly improved. On the sheet that I now have before me, there are ninety items specified, giving expenses on a basis of monthly comparison. Under the old system we had only four or five heads altogether. For instance, with the old system, I could not have given the comparisons I gave this afternoon.


George Eulas Foster: Well, the minister was not very full in his explanations this afternoon. If he gave us information which he would not have been able to give under the old system I do not know what he could have told us had he not had this new system. I should think he would have been confined simply to nodding his head. Could he not, with that sheet before him give the committee an idea of the difference between the information before and that which is given now? That would illustrate the change of system, I. should think.


George Perry Graham: This sheet shows the disbursements for the month under different headings. Under the old system we had four headings, not divided into subdivisions as in this statement. Under this system we have some ninety headings for March, 1908, March, 1907, the nine months ending at a certain date, and the twelve months ending a certain date. Then we have a sum-324i
mary at the end, showing at the end of every month, in each department, the expenses as compared with the corresponding month of the previous year.


George Eulas Foster: That is a good illustration of what seems to have been done by that firm. For instance, instead of having these expenses divided into three or four large heads, you now run them down into the details. So you not only have a comparison between the whole expenditure, but you run that down into every branch, and find the comparative cost for each one. It is a differentiation of the whole system into a large number of details. But what I wanted to know was if that was done by other railway systems. There was not so much difficulty in adopting it here as to make it necessary to get a firm and pay them 9550,000 to help you introduce it. It seems to me that all that would have been necessary was to get the system of this differentiation from one of the great railroads that had adopted it, and get a practical man who had worked it out upon that railway, to indoctrinate your own men with it.


George Perry Graham: The most difficult thing is what the hon. gentleman calls the indoctrination. Men are wedded to an old system, and they often think it is better than a new system that you ask them to adopt. We had to work the system in gradually. The department had practically to keep a number of these men until they did the actual work of installing this new system, and doing it right beside our own men and teaching them as the work went along. In addition to that, we had to send them to different stations. These men were kept for quite a time doing the work with our men.


George Eulas Foster: I am not disposed to say that the change in the system has not been a good one. But it seems to me it has been effected at a very large expense. Whether it was necessary to spend $50,000 for that teaching is a matter that puzzled me. It seems to me that you could have got three or four experts from a railway that had adopted this system, and these could have taught your own men. Is the system working satisfactorily ?


George Perry Graham: It is giving entire satisfaction.


George Eulas Foster: Is there any clash between the Auditor General's Department and the system that was introduced by these gentlemen ?


George Perry Graham: There is no clash with the Auditor General's Department.


Mr. OSLER.: The audit system has been adopted by most of the large railways of

late years, both in Canada and the States. They have one man reporting upon their system of bookkeeping. I have seen two or three reports of railways about the size of the Intercolonial, and it would not require very much change to adapt the system to the Intercolonial. One of the most valuable features of the report of the auditors is the very strict line that is drawn between what shall be charged to capital account and what shall be charged to expenditure.


George Perry Graham: I think the report deals with that very matter.


George Eulas Foster: If these experts have outlined carefully the different kinds of expenditures, what should go to capital and what should go to revenue, has the department that feature of the report and are you carrying it out ?


George Perry Graham: We have the report, and I may say that we are approximating to the principle laid down in that report. As I explained this afternoon we expect, by the new method we have adopted, to shortly be in a position to absolutely follow the lines of the report.	*


George Eulas Foster: Then the minister is being indoctrinated?


George Perry Graham: Perhaps indoctrinated with the theory, but the practice is rapidly approximating to the point of indoctrination.


George Eulas Foster: The minister will have to get a hustle on because some of the sentiments he gave expression to to-night do not appear to be in strict line with these principles.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Will the general report as to the system of bookkeeping and capital account be issued and distributed? I think it would be very useful if it were distributed to members.


George Perry Graham: We have it printed in the instruction book which contains what my hon. friend suggests as to the capital account, revenue and expenditure. I will be glad to send it to my hon. friend.


George Eulas Foster: Will the minister bring down the report?


George Perry Graham: It will take some time to copy.


George Eulas Foster: There is one in the Public Accounts Committee.


George Perry Graham: In that case I will bring it down.


George Eulas Foster: Coming down to the item proposed, I would like to ask the minister if he w'ould be kind enough to give us the distribution of the $9,000,000. He has spent $50,000 in getting the indoctrination Mr. OSLER.
which brings out in detail what is absolutely necessary in order to come at a proper understanding of the working of the department. Now let us apply this doctrine of differentiation to the $9,000,000. The minister is asking for $9,000,000 and I would like him to divide this into the chief items and give the committee some little guide as to the points within which they should keep for each.


George Perry Graham: That has never been done in the history of the railway. I do not think it has ever been done in the history of any railway. The vote has never been asked in that way. I have not the figures divided in that way and they could not possibly be so divided.


George Eulas Foster: Does the minister mean to say that he has had no estimate put before him of the amount that is to be devoted to advertising, salaries and wages and the different amounts that are to make up the large lines of expenditure? Surely no estimate can be made up to give $9,000,000 unless it is just simply to say:	We
will ask for what we asked for last year. Surely no estimate is made up unless it is made up in detail and by getting the bulk sum by adding the detailed estimates. The deputy minister must have the detailed estimates.


George Perry Graham: If my hon. friend will turn to pages S2, 83, 84 of the report of the Department of Railways and Canals he will find a detailed statement as to where these amounts went.
Maintenance of way and structures, $1,111,888.68.
Maintenance of equipment, $1,180,521.16.
The different heads of expenditure are given there. As a matter of fact, we can only take these items, and I imagine that the only way we can make an estimate upon these is to assume that the equipment will be increased as our business is increased. The only way we can do is to base the business of this year on last year's business, believing and hoping that the amount of business will be up to last year's at least. Last year we spent $9,000,000. We asked for an estimate of something like $7,000,000 and in the Supply estimates we had to ask for $1,400,000 more. Our estimate for next year is absolutely based upon the expenditure of last year.


George Eulas Foster: Then the minister bears out what I have said, that in making up the estimates for the year he sat down and looked at the report of last year and found it totalled up so much. He came to the conclusion he would want as much this year and put it down. Does the minister mean to say that his officers do not provide him with an estimate, for instance, of the maintenance of way, or liow much will be spent for advertising, how much for ties

and other things of that kind, which are matters of absolute calculation? I do not ask for the details of everything. It would be impossible to get down to absolute truth in reference to all the details, but I cannot think that it is not possible to make a definite division of an estimate of the moneys voted by parliament.


George Perry Graham: This is one of the difficulties:	We have to ask on capital account,
more money than we spend every year because we have to provide enough for a certain work. Perhaps we have too much for a certain work. If you divide this up under special headings and tie us to these votes we cannot run the railway. You cannot run the railway in that particular way. We would have to ask for a larger vote than $9,000,000. We give a plain statement of what was done with the money last year, and we propose to do the same this year. If we had to specialize this it would make it impossible for a minister to accept the vote and run the road unless he asked for more money than he needed.


George Eulas Foster: It means that you do not sit down and carefully calculate what you require for the road, thus setting yourself a limit, and endeavouring to work your road economically so as to keep within your appropriation, if it is possible to do so. The minister may ask a little more than he will probably expend but he decides as nearly as possible what he may require and he may add to it so as to be sure that he does not crimp himself.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend must see the impracticability of applying his logic to the operation of a railway. This railway is hampered as no other railway is in having to come to parliament for supplies. If we had so much for maintenance of way for instance, and some unforeseen occurrence arose we could only use the money voted for maintenance of way and could not take from any other vote. We would therefore be in an awkward position. The only practical way is to hold the management responsible for the way in which the money is expended and allow the lump sum voted to be distributed as the interests of the road for the year may demand. There has got to be elasticity and flexibility in a vote for the operation of a railway or else you simply cannot carry it on.


George Eulas Foster: There may be something in what the minister says, but so far as his argument goes about requiring money because of an accident or some unforeseen occurrence the minister has always power to get money, and his argument on that ground falls. Does not the minister think that it puts a check on extravagance and tends to good and economic administration that you should have your vote divided into different sections rather than to have it in a
lump sum. Of course it is very convenient to take a lump vote and apply it just as you please but the other system is in my opinion the better one. Suppose you take a vote for maintenance of way now and it is found to be insufficient, you can get a supplementary vote when parliament meets next November. Parliament is practically always within reach to give a supplementary vote if it be necessary.


George Perry Graham: I am firmly convinced that if my hon. friend thinks it out he will find it would be unworkable to divide this vote into details so much for each branch. While it sounds all right theoretically it would be impracticable in the working out.
I know my hon. friend does not want to hamper the railway.


George Eulas Foster: No, but I would like to hamper the minister a little in some of his extravagant expenditures.


George Perry Graham: This minister does not need hampering as much as some hon. gentlemen opposite required to be hampered during their administration.


George Eulas Foster: I am not so sure of that.


George Perry Graham: It is not reasonable to vote money for the working of a railway in detail unless you vote several millions of dollars more than you would vote under the present system, and if you did that it would be an incentive to extravagance rather than to economy in every department. We make as full a statement of our expenditure as any railroad company in the world ; there is no railway in the world so criticised by its stockholders as is the management of the Intercolonial Railway in this House ; there is no concealment, and with all that before the country it is unnecessary and impracticable to divide this vote up into sections.	[DOT]


Samuel Hughes: Does not the minister have his officers prepare a general statement on which he bases his total estimate for the coming year ?


George Perry Graham: In making up the estimates they go into the different branches and take into consideration the expenditure of the previous year and the probable increased business of the coming year.


Samuel Hughes: Are there no special changes ?


George Perry Graham: There are no special changes to come out of revenue. It is practically the same as last year. It may vary one way or the other. It cost $9,000,000 practically last year and will not cost much more next year.


Samuel Hughes: Are you cutting the wages 1


George Perry Graham: We have not cut the wages at all; in fact all the men are asking for more.


Samuel Hughes: Are you cutting any men out?


George Perry Graham: Some members, as the bon. member for Colchester tbis afternoon, complains that several men had been what we call set back for a time in order to relieve the condition. That is they are doing other work.


Samuel Hughes: Are they not doing that on all railways in the country?


George Perry Graham: All roads are reducing expenditure. It is more difficult for a government road to reduce expenditure than an ordinary road, although we hope to keep the expenditure low.


Samuel Hughes: What is the policy of the -department in this respect, to discharge some men and keep others employed full time or to keep all the men employed' on reduced time so as to keep their families in more or less comfort and when conditions improve and there is demand for more men, have the complete staff available? It has come to be recognized that in order to produce stability in service, as well as for the benefit of the homes of these people, it is better to keep the whole staff employed hut to run them on shorter hours.


George Perry Graham: The unions all over America govern that, the various brotherhoods of railway workers. As far as I recollect their rules are that a certain standard of salary must be maintained, that the men must earn a certain amount. I think under the rules we would have to drop the men rather than take the position suggested by my hon. friend, although in many cases I believe it to be preferable.


Samuel Hughes: I do not think in any case the minister should be run by the union. The employment of these men should be made as regular as possible even if they only get one trip or one job where formerly they would have two or three. I do not think that the other method is -the proper way to treat the labouring men in this country. There should be some system, and I do not think any road could establish it better than the government road.


John Waterhouse Daniel: In St. John the Intercolonial Railway is widening two bridges over the railway track at Wall street and Stanley street. These are traversed by the electric railway and vehicles and also foot passengers. Complaints are publicly made of danger to foot passangers on both these bridges as there is no division between the portion of the bridge for vehicles, traffic and the portion for foot passengers, so that skittish horses which are apt to be frightened by the trains passing below the bridges, may run among the foot passengers and injure them.


George Perry Graham: As I understood the bridges were built according to plans ap-Mr. GRAHAM.
proved by the city engineer of St. John and by the engineers of the Intercolonial Railway.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The bridges are all right, it is the question of the safety of foot passengers. There is plenty of room to rail off the foot bridge from the other part.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: At page W-123, it appears the Montreal Cotton Company have received some $25,500 for cotton waste. I notice that the prices range from 6J cents to about 60 cents a pound. Was this by public tender or by private tender?


George Perry Graham: If my hon. friend will explain what he means by private tender?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: As I understand your private tender it can be nothing more than a letter to those on the patronage list.


George Perry Graham: These are by tender, by circular I think. I give my friend the benefit of the doubt and say it is by circular.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: This is a large item for material that is available in many parts of the country, and I would ask bow many of those circulars were sent out.


George Perry Graham: There would be quite a number, but I could not tell without having them here.


George Eulas Foster: The minister will certainly have to get Falconer and his firm on again when the minister is asking $9,000,000 which he will not divide or give any particulars of. Then when the hon. gentleman is asked what was expended last year and how, he does not seem disposed to give the information.


George Perry Graham: What information ?


George Eulas Foster: This very thing we have been talking of.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend is mistaken about that as about the other. I tell him there was competition. If I had to give all the information he wants, it would necessitate my bringing over the particulars of every tender for the last year. I can get that Information if necessary, but it is impracticable to carry a list of the names of all the tenders and pile them up in the House. If he is anxious, I will get the list and let him have it in the morning.


Samuel Hughes: Where is this Cotton Company situated ?


George Perry Graham: In Montreal.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Practically all the supplies, the minister purchased by the month. If the minister is compelled to purchase $2,000 worth of this material and $150,000 worth of iron and steel, there is no excuse for his not advertising throughout the country and getting the benefit of competition. If, on the other hand, he is

purchasing by the month from these stores, he must expect to pay the highest prices.


George Eulas Foster: There is an item here for car repairs by other railways $41,000. What check has the Intercolonial on that ?


George Perry Graham: These repairs are paid under the standard rules of the Master Car Builders Association. All railways pay the same tariff.


George Eulas Foster: Who is the judge of the necessity for repairs ? Suppose one of your cars employed on some other road, possibly in the United States, has to be repaired, who is to be the judge of the repairs required ?


George Perry Graham: The representative of the Master Car Builders Association on that; railroad is the judge.


George Eulas Foster: And the Intercolonial, in repairing the cars of other roads, acts on the same principle ?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: What is the proportion of idle cars on the Intercolonial as compared with last year ?


Mr GRAHAM.: , Last year we were something over 2,500 cars short of the regular supply. This year we are very near to what ought to be our normal supply.


George Eulas Foster: The difference is measured* by the difference between your shortage last year and your having the normal number at present ?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Does the minister see any improvement on what seemed to be a great abuse as to the number of Intercolonial cars that were outside the jurisdiction of the Intercolonial and in use on other roads?


George Perry Graham: That is remedied this year from the fact that the other roads do not want our cars and are glad to get rid of them and not have to pay the expense. Another idea we have been adopting is netting our pulp wood cars made in such a way that the roads on the other side of the line will not be able to use them for other traffic.


George Eulas Foster: When they do use them, they pay a certain rate per day ?


George Perry Graham: All we get now is 25 cents a day. It used to be 50 cents.


George Eulas Foster: Does that pay for the wear and tear ? There is a chance for great imposition by the bigger roads on the smaller in that respect.


George Perry Graham: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Have they not some regulations in the United States lately, compelling these railways to pay for the detention of cars ?


George Perry Graham: The roads are all members of the same association and the fee is the same. A couple of roads refused to remain in the association if the fees were not reduced and it was reduced to 25 cents. They were probably the chief offenders.


Robert Laird Borden: When your cars get over to the United States, do they keep them long before they send them back, if they want them ?


George Perry Graham: That often happens. We send an ordinary box car with pulp wood, and if the other road is short of rolling stock, they will send it on from one road to another and each railroad will keep it awhile. We will find a car sometimes out at the Rockies months before getting it back. We charge for the amount of time it is used, and the charge hardly pays for the wear and tear.


Robert Laird Borden: Who keeps the account ?


George Perry Graham: We have a regular car account.


Mr.  R. L.@: BORDEN'. How do you know how long one road keeps it and then how long another road keeps it ?


George Perry Graham: Each road is supposed to report every day. We get information from the various lines where our car Is.


George Eulas Foster: While they have that car and are running it around from road to road and repairing it when necessary, do they charge you for repairs ? If so how do you make up this item of $41,000 for car repairs ?


George Perry Graham: There are certain divisions as to repairs on different roads. They are under the rules of the Master Oar Builders' Association. We are all under the same rules and regulations.


George Eulas Foster: But the minister does not know whether these are all charged up to the Intercolonial.


George Perry Graham: No, I can give that information .to-morrow.


Robert Laird Borden: It is something in the nature of a clearing house between banks.


George Perry Graham: It is and it isn't.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it all reported to some central accountant amongst the different roads, or do you have to enter this up as between yourselves and fifteen or twenty different roads in the United States ?

Mr, GRAHAM. The Master Car Builders' Association lay down rules as to what constitute repairs and what must be done. If there is a dispute in carrying that out, they adjudicate and give a decision.


Samuel Hughes: Suppose a car is broken on a foreign road. Say, for instance, an Intercolonial car is running over the Boston and Maine and is smashed, the Intercolonial does not pay for that?


George Perry Graham: No, under the regulations the road that smashes the car pays.
Mr. ,T. D. REID. Why cannot the minister run the trains on time? A short time ago the minister gave me a statement of the running of the Maritime Express for several months, and I think he will agree that there were only about two days a month for three or four months when the train was on time. It was late by from five minutes to nine hours.


George Perry Graham: It is a large railway problem why trains do not run on time. In the first place, this is a long run-a thousand miles. We try to run on time, but I regret that we do not always succeed. If the hon. gentdeman will look carefully into it, I think he will see that, . in quite a number of instances, the lateness of the train is insignificapt-a matter of a few minutes. Of course, a matter of even five or ten minutes is sometimes enough to lose a connection. I remember that, in a matter of causing trains to connect which we discussed this session, we had to make quite an allowance for lateness. My own idea is that perhaps we make too many stops on this Maritime Express. We try, more than a company road would, to accommodate the smaller places. We have petitions from many of the smaller towns on the line, and I am quite unpopular in some of them because I do not have the train stop. There are many reasons why trains are late, but I think that, in this ease, one of the reasons is the many stops that we make.


John Dowsley Reid: I understand that this maritime express is supposed to be a fast train. It should run nearly on time. Take the Grand Trunk's International Limited-
I do not think it is late once in a month, but runs sharp on time always. Then take the train to the coast, which has a run of 3,000 miles, and it runs on time practically every day. Of course, a local train carrying express and required to stop often may easily be late. But I am told that one reason why this Maritime Express is late is that there are generally one or two government private cars on.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Oh.


John Dowsley Reid: What I am saying is that the International Limited, for instance, will not take on a private car. If this is


Robert Laird Borden: not the reason why the Maritime Express is late, theii I would like to know what the reason is. Out of thirty times in a month, I am sure it was late twenty-five times- I think that would be the average. If the Intercolonial is running a fast train it ought to run it on time, as the other roads do and not have it from ten minutes to nine hours late.


George Perry Graham: The hon. gentleman should know that he is wrong about the Canadian Pacific Railway fast train being on time. It was about nine hours late yesterday, I believe.


John Dowsley Reid: The limited train?


George Perry Graham: I think so. I am not saying that disparagingly for these difficulties will arise. We have the Ocean Limited which would correspond to the fast train on the Grand Trunk. No official cars are allowed to be carried on that train. But the Maritime Express is a through train and stops at as many places as possible to accommodate the people. It is not as fast a train as the Ocean Limited. I am confident that the lateness-which is liable to happen to any train-is not caused by official cars being carried.


Samuel Hughes: Some time ago I asked about an accident that occurred on the Intercolonial between Montreal and Quebec. The train was off the track twice before it reached its destination. Are such accidents frequent?


George Perry Graham: If the hon. gentleman will look up the record, I think he will find that accidents are not more frequent than on any other road-perhaps they are less than on the majority of roads. I have been on the Grand Trunk road myself and it ran off three times between Toronto and Brock ville.


Samuel Hughes: AVhat I want to know is, is the Intercolonial track in good condition?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: We have been here now since eleven o'clock, so far as this item is concerned, we have had a pretty good discussion on it. I think we might pass this item and retire to our virtuous couches.


John Crawford: Carried.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend could not open his heart sufficiently to include the next item?


George Eulas Foster: I think that ought to be discussed. I think the minister should be satisfied when he has $9,000,000 voted.


George Perry Graham: I am not complaining. But there will be many items of capital expenditure for the canals-and this is a canal
.TTTXE 10, 1908
item-on which we can have as full a discussion as lion, gentlemen may wish.


John Dowsley Reid: The trouble is that, when it is put off, we never have a chance to discuss the matter. I do not think it is fair to ask to have the item slide through without discussion.


George Perry Graham: This item includes the men on the canals, and, if a Supply Bill is put through, it would be well to have the money to pay the men.


Samuel Hughes: What is the amount?


George Perry Graham: It is $1,016,408 including the amount for staff and repairs. I am not urging it, but I am simply pointing out there are many items of capital expenditure on which I will guarantee that full opportunity should be given for discussion.


George Eulas Foster: It does not seem like having a meal when you take it off the table.


George Perry Graham: I am simply pointing out the reason why I would like to have this amount voted.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: What business Will be taken up to-morrow ?


William Stevens Fielding: The Minister of Militia will take up his estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.25 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 10, 1908.