[Stage Direction]
Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 149) to amend the Meat and Canned Foods Act. He said : This is a Bill to make some small amendments in the Meat and Canned Foods Act of last session. The amendments are slight and are intended to make the Act more workable. I do not think it worth while to go into details now.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FISHER moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 148) to amend the Inspection and Sale Act. He said : This is to make some slight amendments in the Fruit Marks Act and also with regard to the Dairy Acts, which under the revised statutes are now incorporated under the Inspection and Sale Act. I think it better to leave the details until the House has the printed Bill.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FISHER moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 147) to repeal the Canned Goods Act. He said : This is an old Act which has become obsolete and which is never acted upon. The Meat and Canned Foods Act provides for everything that is covered in this Canned Goods Act but there are a few details in which the two appear to conflict. Therefore, after consultation with the Justice Department, it was decided that the best course was to repeal the old Act.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 150) to amend the Yukon Placer Mining Act.-Mr. Oliver.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day being called.
Mr. W. J. ROCHE.: Before the orders of the day are called, I would ask the government when we may expect the Bill to provide for the extension of the boundaries of the province of Manitoba ?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: The matter is engaging the attention of the government, but in the absence of the Prime Minister I would not like to make a definite statement.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS AND REPORTS.

Mr. WORTHINGTON.: When may we expect the returns respecting drill sheds asked for on December 11 7


Hon.   WM@: I'UGSLEY (Minister of Pub-lis Works). I shall make inquiry and let my hon. friend know, probably to-morrow. I may say that all returns moved for are in course of preparation and are being prepared as rapidly as possible.


Mr. BERGERON.: I would ask if the report of the Civil Service Commission is being translated into French and being printed concurrently with the English edition ?


William Stevens Fielding: The clerk of the House informs me that the translation does not take place until after the printing is done. I take it for granted the usual course will be pursued, as with all other public documents.


Mr. FOSTER.: What is the number it is proposed to print? I noticed in a paper an intimation that 2,000 had been ordered by the Printing Committee; that would scarcely give half a dozen each. Every man's life will be made miserable if he does not get more than that. I would suggest that the Printing Committee see that a good supply is printed.


William Stevens Fielding: I have no doubt the attention of the Printing Committee will be drawn to my hon. friend's question. It is not a matter in which the government presume to give any directions. Attention was drawn to the same point on Friday, and I presume it is engaging the attention of the Printing Committee.


Mr. HAGGART.: I would ask the Minister of Finance, who is leading the government, when we may expect the printed report on the Quebec bridge ? It is about time,


William Stevens Fielding: Does my hon. friend mean the printing of the report?


John Graham Haggart: The printed report, I believe, is not down.


William Stevens Fielding: The clerk of the House informs me that the usual orders were given, and he will make inquiry.


Mr. GRAHAM.: As a matter of fact, a portion of that report was laid on the table I think Thursday or Friday. The appendices are very numerous, they are now at the sixteenth.


John Graham Haggart: That is only the photographs; I mean the printed report.


George Perry Graham: Not the photographs at all. Appendix 16 is a long typewritten document.


George Eulas Foster: Is the minister going to have the photographs reproduced for us ?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend means the drawings.


John Graham Haggart: I mean the photographs.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: I would ask the Minister of Public Works when I may expect a return with regard to the Bayfield. Grand P6re and St. Joseph piers. Also I asked for a return from the Minister of Agriculture in connection with the cattle embargo; and one on February 10 and one on March 9, respecting the inspectors of packing houses.


Mr. FISHER.: The last-mentioned return has been on the table of the House for several days; three others were laid on the table to-day.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: With regard to returns belonging to my department, while some of them may be short, he must bear in mind that many of the returns asked for are very lengthy, and I have not felt justified in allowing the clerks in the department for extra time in making them up. Therefore they are doing the work in the ordinary office hours. We have no provision for extra clerks. My hon. friend must be patient with me.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 101) respecting the Fort William Terminal Railway and Bridge Company.-Mr. Macpherson.
Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What are the amendments to the previous Bill?


William Stevens Fielding: 


Mr. MACPHERSON.: The amendments are found in sections 2, 3 and 4. The first amendment is to bring this railway company under the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission; the original Bill did not do that. The next amendment gives the city of Fort William power to acquire or to abolish the tolls. The fourth amendment Is a question of the expenditure of money.


John Graham Haggart: Will the hon. gentleman explain the reason of bringing it under the jurisdiction of the Dominion government, a small road like this ?


Robert George Macpherson: The original Act left it practically in the hands of the Railway Department, and the committee thought it wise to place it under the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission. There was an arbitration as to where they should place the line, and some people who were fighting the Bill thought it better to place in the hands of the Railway Commission the power to say where the line should be located.


George Eulas Foster: Between what points does the line run?


Robert George Macpherson: It Is an electric railway operating between some islands in the Karuinistlquia river and Fort William. I may say this Bill was up for some weeks before the Railway Committee, and the promoters of the Bill and the city of Fort Wil-lian had a long fight over it. Eventually they came together and drew up the Bill in this form. It is a railway and bridge Bill. This company has power to erect bridges over the, Ivaministiquia river and operate on some of the islands. I fancy it is some gentlemen interested in real estate on those islands who are really promoting the Bill.
Mr. FOSTER, My hon. friend (Mr. Hag-gart) asked what was the reason this Bill should be brought into the Dominion parliament at all. It is a very short line, which I understand is to operate between the two towns of Fort William and Port Arthur.


Robert George Macpherson: No. I understand it does not run to Port Arthur. It crosses a navigable stream, and it is desired on that account to bring it under the jurisdiction of the Dominion parliament and the Railway Commission.


George Eulas Foster: That would only make it necessary to get permission from the Dominion parliament to build a bridge across the navigable stream.


Robert George Macpherson: This is the renewal of a charter. I do not know what the original idea was in asking for Dominion legislation.


George Eulas Foster: Does my hon. friend know why it was called a terminal railway ? It does not seem to have much chance either

to begin or to end. It is only six or seven miles long.


Robert George Macpherson: I was not at the christening, and I could not tell the hou. gentleman why.


Mr. GALLIHER.: It connects the Canadian Northern and the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Mr. J. D. REID.: Is this entirely in the province of Ontario?


William Alfred Galliher: Yes. The Fort William terminal is on an island in the Kamin-istiquia river, right in front of the town of Fort William. .
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



QUEBEC AND NEW BRUNSWICK RAILWAY COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 128) respecting the Quebec and New Brunswick Railway Company.-Mr. Michaud.
John Dowsley Reid: Has anything been done on this railway ? I see that the charter was granted originally in 1900 and that it has been renewed several times.


Mr. MICHAUD.: There have been about three miles of work done on this road and the reason why the work was not continued since two or three years ago was that it was expected that the Transcontinental Railway would take over part of this line. When the line was surveyed it was found that the Transcontinental Railway would only take a short distance of it. After the line of the Transcontinental Railway was surveyed we had to make an application to parliament to have the time extended. It is the intention of the company to start the work as soon as possible.


John Dowsley Reid: The company should have started the work in 1900 when they got the charter.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What will be the length of the road altogether ?


Pius Michaud: 130 miles.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: And there are three miles built ?


Pius Michaud: There are three miles built. The claims for the right of way have been settled with the farmers and we are ready to go on with the work.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Has there been a subsidy from the government given or promised ?


Pius Michaud: There were some subsidies, but I do not know whether there will be any in future or not.
198*


John Dowsley Reid: The company have done nothing up to the present time except grade three miles of road. Is not that practically all that has been done ?


Pius Michaud: It is the intention of the company to go on with the work as soon as possible.


Mr. LENNOX.: When were the three miles graded ?


Pius Michaud: Between three and four years ago.


Haughton Lennox: Before or since the last renewal ?


Pius Michaud: It was since the last renewal.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is that one of the lines that the Minister of Railways and Canals intends to take over as part of the Intercolonial Railway later on ?


Pius Michaud: I am not aware of anything of that kind.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: There is a scheme, I understand, in the province of New Brunswick by which the Intercolonial Railway takes over all these branch lines. Is that understood ?


Pius Michaud: Not that I know of.


John Dowsley Reid: Where does this road run to ?


Pius Michaud: It runs from Connor's to Chaudiere Junction.


John Dowsley Reid: Is it going to parallel the Grand Trunk Pacific ?


Pius Michaud: Only for a short distance.
!


John Dowsley Reid: In what part will that be ?


Pius Michaud: It will run parallel for probably three or four miles and then it branches off and runs in a different direction.


Mr. EMMERSON.: It serves an entirely different country.
On section 5-agreements with other companies.


Pius Michaud: I move that after the words ' railway company ' the following words be added : ' or the Atlantic, Quebec and Western Railway or the International Railway Company of New Brunswick.'


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: What will then be the effect of section 5 ?


William Pugsley: I have had occasion to look into the matter. This is a section

which provides that the company may enter into a contract or agreement of amalgamation with certain companies and this only adds two companies to those witii whom, with the consent of the Governor in Council, they may enter into an amalgamation agreement.


Haughton Lennox: We have given them power to amalgamate with the Grand Trunk Pacific and now the hon. gentleman proposes that they shall have power to amalgamate with two more.


Mr. CROCKET.: I would like to ask the promoter of this Bill what the object of the amalgamation of this railway with the International would be ?


William Pugsley: If my hon. friend who is promoting the Bill, will allow me, I may say that I understand that certain negotiations have been going on between the Atlantic, Quebec and Western and the International. The Atlantic, Quebec and Western are in some way interested in this charter, as I understand, and, having power to amalgamate with the Atlantic, Quebec and Western, may also think it advisable to have power to amalgamate with the International so as to get their line up to Quebec.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Have the Quebec and New Brunswick any power in this Bill to extend their line into the state of Maine ?


William Pugsley: Only to the boundary.


Oswald Smith Crocket: To make connection
there with a railway in the state of Alaine?


William Pugsley: That apparently has been struck out in the Railway Committee.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I hope the effect of this Bill will not be to divert the traffic from the northern part of New Brunswick to the state of Alaine.


William Pugsley: It could not do that.


John Graham Haggart: What is the use of these powers unless other railways are authorized to amalgamate too ? The Bill does not give you power to amalgamate with them.	.


Pius Michaud: We will be prepared to amalgamate when they are ready.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



PACIFIC COAST FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 40) respecting the Pacific Coast Fire Insurance Company.-Air. Alacpherson.
On section 1,
John Dowsley Reid: Speaking generally in regard to these private Bills. I notice that Mr. PUGSLEY,
a good many of them are passed on Friday nights when many of the members are uot present. I notice also that some of these companies are taking the names of long established companies in the old country. For instance, on Friday night a Bill was passed giving the title to a company of the London and Lancashire Guarantee and Accident Company of Canada. Now, the London and Lancashire Company has been established in Canada for perhaps 80 years and this company takes the same title with the exception that the words * of Canada ' are added. The government have already licensed the London and Lancashire Company to do business in Canada and this similarity of title is liable to lead to confusion and perhaps to deceive people. Of course if the Canadian company is as strong as the other it would be all right, but this might easily not be the case. I wish to draw the attention of the Finance Minister to the matter.


William Stevens Fielding: This question of the similarity of names of companies frequently engages the attention of the department and of the Committee on Banking and Commerce, and while discouraging the use of names of existing British or foreign companies doing business here, it has not been thought well that we should refuse such a name in every case as it would amount practically to a monopoly. We had that question under discussion recently with regard to an American company, and it was pointed out that a Canadian company going to the United States would not be allowed a monopoly of its own name there, but an American Company taking a Canadian name might readily be established in the United States. As a general rule, it is well to avoid a duplication of names. In the case States. As a general rule, it is well to glad to know that the London and Lancashire people are the promoters of the legislation and that it is practically that company which is doing business under a Canadian charter.


John Dowsley Reid: I am glad to hear that: nevertheless I think it well to call the attention of the minister to the matter.


William Stevens Fielding: We are continually watching that.


John Graham Haggart: Are the powers given under this Bill supplementary to some other powers which the company possesses under a provincial charter, or is this an entirely new charter?


William Stevens Fielding: It is a* provincial company which is now being converted into a Dominion company.


John Graham Haggart: Yes, but are the powers given in this Bill supplemental to those which they have under their provincial charter ?


William Stevens Fielding: The purpose of this Bill is to create a company which will take over the provincial company and then have power to extend its business throughout the Dominion.


John Graham Haggart: Yes, but we may he confirming powers which this company has ir. its provincial charter and which we would not give them in a Dominion charter.


Robert George Macpherson: At present this company cannot operate outside of British Columbia under its charter. It wishes to extend its business in other parts of Canada and it seeks for a Dominion charter. This Bill contains the model charter and they are getting no extraordinary powers from the Dominion parliament in any shape or form.
Mr. it. L. BORDEN. This Bill appears to create an entirely new corporation with certain new powers. I do not observe in the Bill any provision that the new company shall have all the powers now possessed by the old company, but it seems to be the scheme of the Bill that the new company shall have only such powers as are conferred by this Act. All the assets of the old company are turned over to the new company which will assume all the liabilities of the old company.


John Graham Haggart: If it is an entirely new charter that meets the point I have raised.
On section 5-liability of new company,


Robert Laird Borden: The proviso is rather peculiar. I do not know exactly how the abandonment there referred to can be created.


William Stevens Fielding: The Superintendent of Insurance advises me that this follows the language of other charters of a similar character. I suppose it means that a man is not to be liable to both companies.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand the object of it perfectly. The object is this : if you propose to come upon shareholders for an amount still due upon their shares in respect of any liability of the company-in other words, if you attempt to enforce a liability of the company by proceeding against the shareholders, you shall not proceed against the shareholders of the new company, unless you abandon any claim against them as shareholders of the old company. But just take a concrete case : some person may have a claim against the new company and is unable to collect that claim; he desires to proceed against the shareholders in respect of their unpaid liability upon their shares ; the very first thing that would confront a counsel would be the necessity of abandoning in some way his client's right against the shareholders of the old company, and it seems to me it is rather
difficult to know how to do that effectually.


William Stevens Fielding: This appears to follow the language of the old statutes, and I do not know that we can make it any clearer.
On section 12,


John Graham Haggart: The provincial Act, under which this company seems to have had its charter, may provide certain limitations or restrictions. You are now taking the insured from one insurance company and putting them under another. Does that remove these restrictions?


William Stevens Fielding: It is intended that they shall become subject entirely to the provisions of the Dominion legislation.


John Graham Haggart: But there may be contracts under the provincial Act. How are you to protect those who have contracts with the company under its provincial charter?


William Stevens Fielding: I should think that a policy under a Dominion charter would be as good as one under a provincial charter.


Haughton Lennox: That is not the point. The point is does the company get rid of obligations that may arise under the provincial charter?


William Stevens Fielding: Sections 4 and 5 guard against that. The new company has to carry out ail the contracts and liabilities of the old one.


Haughton Lennox: Is it the policy of the government to give to insurance companies, under provincial charter, a Dominion charter when these companies wish to do business throughout the Dominion?


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think we could offer any objection. If a provincial company desires a Dominion charter, it would not be our policy to offer any objection. There has been no objection to such a course in the past.


Robert George Macpherson: How about section 5 to which the leader of the opposition referred?


Robert Laird Borden: I would think it might be put in a much more satisfactory form perhaps:
Provided, however, that any person who recovers under section 150 of the Company's Act in respect of any shares in the new company shall be held to have abandoned, pro tanto, his right to recover in respect of the corresponding shares in the old company.


William Stevens Fielding: That is his own Act shall constitute an abandonment in respect of the old company without his having to make any formal abandonment.


Robert George Macpherson: He automatically abandons it.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: I see no objection to that, and the section might be amended accordingly.
Section as amended agreed to.


Robert Laird Borden: I would move to Insert after the word ' company ' on the fifteenth line, section 5, the words ' and its shareholders.'


William Stevens Fielding: I do not see any objection to that.


Robert George Macpherson: It should read, first against the new company and its shareholders and then against the old company and its shareholders.
Section as amended agreed to.


William Pugsley: I would call the attention of the Minister of Finance to section 18, by which the bringing into force of this Act is made to depend on a vote of the shareholders. As the bringing into force of the Act might be a matter of importance I would suggest that when the vote of the shareholders has been taken, the Secretary of State should be informed and he should publish a proclamation which would bring the Bill into force and avoid the objection.


William Stevens Fielding: This was under consideration in the committee. Of course it is not desirable that the bringing into force of an Act should depend on the vote of certain shareholders and not on a proclamation. We were met, however, by the fact that this was the form used in several Acts and it seems to have worked satisfactorily; therefore it was allowed to stand. The same thought presented itself to me as has presented itself to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley), but it was decided that, in view of the circumstances I have mentioned, it was not necessary to change it.
Bill reported, read the third time, and
passed.



DOMINION GUARANTEE COMPANY, LIMITED.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 127) respecting the Dominion Guarantee Company, Limited.-Mr. Pringle.
Haughton Lennox: Is the Minister of Finance satisfied about the agreement referred and confirmed in this Bill ?


William Stevens Fielding: It is an ordinary mortgage agreement and has been examined by the officials of the department.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


Robert George Macpherson: 



QUESTIONS.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. SPROULE-by Mr. Blain-asked :
1.	What salary does Dr. Horace Rhindress receive as port physician at North Sydney?
2.	How much was paid last year to boats or steamers for conveying Dr. Rhindress to steamers entering the harbour?
3.	How much was paid up to date for providing apartments for Dr. Rhindress at North Sydney ?
i.	flow much was paid within the last year for putting in grates, bath tubs, furnishings, furniture, &c.. for Dr. Rhindress' rooms or offices at North Sydney, and to whom paid?
5.	Who owns the building in which such offices or apartments are situated?
6.	At whose request was such expenditure made ?
William Pugsley: So far as concerns my department, the government has not expended any money in providing or fitting up or furnishing apartments, rooms or offices for Dr. Rhindress at North Sydney.


PUBLIC BUILDING AT ACTONVALE.
Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	What was the amount of the contract for the construction of a public building at Actonvale, Quebec?
2.	What is the total cost of said construction to date, including all extras?
3.	What iyas the cost of the installation of electric lights in said building?
i.	What is the total amount paid for lighting, heating and maintenance generally to date?	,


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	$10,250.
2.	Actual cost of -building including extras $10,760. This does not include cost of site, fittings, heating, tower clock, wiring, superintendence, &c.
3.	$425.
4.	$2,106.23.


IMPORTATIONS OF BRASS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. STAPLES-by Mr. W. J. Rocheasked :
1.	How much plate and rod brass, respectively, was imported into Canada during the years 1905, 1906 and 1907?
2.	What was the quality of said plate and rods?
3.	What was the amount of duty collected?
Hon. WM. PATERSON (Minister of Customs).: The importations of the above mentioned articles during the fiscal years 1905, 1906 and the nine months ending March 31, 1907, have been as follows :

Fiscal years.	Brass in rods, bars, in coil or otherwise, not less than 6 feet in length.	Brass in strips, sheets or plates not polished, planished or coated.	Cwt.	Value. $	Duty.	Cwt.	Value. $	Duty.1905	7,784	116,874	Free.	11,010	169,562	Free.1906	10,589	183,861	Free.	10,912	200,265	Free.4,258	29,918	Free.	4,974	98,521	Free.*1907 	3,167	66 j 255	6,505 15	6,544	122,074	$12,191 80
* These articles placed on dutiable list since November 29, 1906.


George Eulas Foster: Is 1907 for the nine months.


William Paterson: I am not quite sure, I suppose it is the fiscal year.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-TRURO BUILDINGS.
Mr. STANFIELD asked :: 1.	What were the names of the tenderers and the prices of tenders received for car cleaners' building and sand house at Truro ?
2.	What were the different prices per cubic yard, brook work, for the removal of gravel, concrete abutment and stone masonry?


George Perry Graham: I understand in my department that my hon. friend has got a reply to that question and was going to move that it be discharged.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Stand.


RIFLE RANGE AT CHARLOTTETOWN.
Mr. DANIEL asked :: 1.	From whom did the government recently
purchase land for the rifle range at Charlottetown ?	...
2.	What was the purchase price paid each owner and when paid?
3.	What is the extent of the land purchased for the range proper?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 1 and 2. Land has been purchased from the following for the purposes of a rifle range at Charlottetown, P.E.I.:	Alex. B.
and Isabel Warburton, 26 acres-purchase price $13,035, paid May 21, 1906. John F. Curtis, 14 8-10 acres-purchase price $740, paid December 13, 1906. The Beazley Estate, 75 9-10 acres-purchase price $4,527, paid December 13,1906.
3.	Answered by the above.


STATIONERY SUPPLIES FOR MILITIA AND MARINE DEPARTMENTS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. NORTHRIJP-by Mr. Blaiu-asked :
What sum has been paid to, or is owing to, or charged by, (a) any person, firm or company, (b) the King's Printer, or any other department, for the hooks, stationery and other supplies ordered for the Department of Militia and Defence and Marine and Fisheries, respectively, in consequence of the investigations and recommendations of Mr. Falconer and his associations?
Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: (a)	$2,659.04 has been paid by the Department of Marine and Fisheries through the Government Printing Bureau to Messrs. Beauchemin Co., Ltd., ,of Montreal, for loose leaf book supplies ; and
(b)	$257.13 to the Government Stationery Office for books, stationery and other supplies, in consequence of the investigations and recommendations of Mr. Falconer and liis associates
The Department of Marine and Fisheries does not owe to, nor has been charged anything else by (a) any person, firm or company, (b) the King's Printer or any other department, in this matter.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: As far as the Militia Department is concerned, nothing has been paid.


GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC-CONTRACTS.
Mr. FOSTER asked :: 1.	What contracts and for what mileage, and the price at which each have been let, upon the eastern and western sections of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway?
2.	What is the date of each contract, and the period set for completion?
3.	What is the estimated cost of the unlet portions ?


George Perry Graham: May I ask my hon. friend if he means the mountain or prairie section of the Grand Trunk Pacific proper or the Transcontinental Railway from Moncton ?


George Eulas Foster: I mean the whole thing.


George Perry Graham: I will get all the information. We define one as the Grand Trunk and the other as the Transcontinental Railway.


George Eulas Foster: I will remember that in future.


GOVERNMENT SECURITY FOR DOMINION NOTE CIRCULATION AND SAVINGS BANKS DEPOSITS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MARSHALL-by Mr. Blain-asked :
1.	What sums have the government on deposit in gold as security for the Dominion notes issued by them for circulation in this country?
2.	What sums have the government on deposit in Imperial Guaranteed Bonds as security for Dominion notes issued by them for circulation in this country?
3.	Have the government any gold or Imperial Guaranteed Bonds on deposit as security for the money deposited in the Government Sav-mgs Banks and the Post Office Saving Banks?
4.	If so, how much of each kind?
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :: 
BAYONETS FOR THE ROSS RIFLE.
Mr. WORTHINGTON asked :: 1.	Has a contract been made by the Department of Militia and Defence for the supplying ot bayonets for the Ross rifle?
2.	If so, with whom has the contract been made?
3.	Has a contract, agreement, or order for bayonets been submitted to council by the Minister of Militia and Defence?
4.	On what date was the recommendation to council submitted?
5.	What is the date of the minute in council?
6.	Has an order in council been passed? If so, on what date?
?;.What is the price the Department of Militia and Defence proposes to pay for the bayonets ?
8.	Are payments to be made on delivery or on progress estimates?
9.	How many bayonets will be contracted for, what will be the terms of delivery, and where will the bayonets be manufactured?
10.	Has the company with whom the contract is to be made a factory or building in which the bayonets are to be manufactured?
11- If not, will one be built, and how long a time will be required for construction?
12. Has the site been acquired for this factory ? If so, where and under what terms or conditions?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The matter is under consideration.



NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-QUESTIONS IN DISPUTE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BARKER-by Mr. Blain-asked :
1.	Are there any matters in dispute or question between the Grand Trunk Railway Company and the government, or the National transcontinental Railway Commission, res-peering the route or the right of way or the works of construction, or cost thereof, upon the eastern division of the National Transcontinental Railway?
["It is not given in the report of the Governor General's trip at page 20 of the Auditor General's Report, only the actual provisions consumed are given, all the rest are charged to the winter service. These steamers may be suitable for lighthouse service along the Labrador, lower Quebec and Newfoundland coasts, but I am not sure that they are the best boats even for that purpose. As I suggested this afternoon, if these boats were kept for the winter service entirely and were put out of commission during the summer, the crews of the winter aud summer steamers being interchanged, there would be a material saving.\nWe have no special fault to find with the management of these boats by the Marine Department except, as I have stated, that that department was not established as a carrying or transportation department, and should not have control of work of that kind,. while the Railway Department was established for that purpose and is conversant with all details of transportation questions. I have already suggested that a railway corporation situated as the government is situated here, with portions of its railway on the island and on the mainland would also control the connecting link.\nInasmuch as my object in making this motion has been attained by this discussion and the minister has suggested that it be withdrawn for the present and that it would be taken under consideration by the government, I see no reason for not acceding to his wishes. I am glad to see the matter has been fully discussed by the Minister of Railways, the leader of the opposition, the Minister of Marine and others and I am sure good will come of this discussion. I have pointed out the serious handicap under which the people of my province rest in the shipping of their products in competition with the people of the other provinces of Canada. That is the real point I had in view iii bringing up this motion. We should be on an equality with our neighbours on the mainland, with the rest of the people of the Dominion, in regard to freight and passenger rates, or at least we should have a nearer approach to equality than we have now. This matter deserves the immediate consideration of the government, and I am convinced that if it were all under one department we would be nearer an equalization of rates with the rest of Canada, than will be possible with the service under two departments, go long as the existing conditions continue, we will not have attained the object we had in view in entering confederation. Mr. Speaker, under these conditions I will agree to withdraw the motion for the present.\nMotion withdrawn."]
George Perry Graham: There is no matter in dispute or question between the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and the National Transcontinental Railway Company respecting the route, or the right-of-way, or the works of construction, or the cost thereof, upon the eastern division of the National Transcontinental Railway.



Mr.  J. D.@: REID-by Mr. Blain-asked :
1.	Did the Department of Marine and Fisheries, during the summer of 1907, arrange with Messrs. Halliday Bros., of Quebec, for the shipment by steamship ' Restigouche/ of stores, to certain lighthouses on the lower St. Lawrence ?
2.	If so, on what date or dates were said stores taken on at Quebec?
3.	What was the rate paid per ton, and upon how many tons was freight paid?
4.	Who vouched for the full quantity being placed on board?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	August 21 to 23.
3.	$5 per ton for freight; $2 per ton for landing ; Heath Point, 314 tons ; Bird Rocks, 23 tons ; Cape Anguille, 150 tons.
4.	P. E. Parent, the resident engineer at Quebec for the Department of Marine and Fisheries.


DREDGING AT WIARTON.
Mr. BENNETT asked :: 1.	Was any dredging performed at Wiarton in the year 1907?
2.	If so, how much was paid therefor, and were tenders invited for the work?
3.	How many persons tendered therefor, who performed the work, what was the price paid and the material dredged ?
4.	Was any formal request made for said work ? If so, by whom ?
5.	Who was the inspector of work, and on whose recommendation was he appointed?


Hon. WILLIAM PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) $25,026.60 ; (b) Yes.
3.	(a) Two ; (b) A. F. Bowman ; (c) 20 cents per cubic yard ; (d) 124,200 cubic yards of clay, sand and boulders.
4.	Yes, the municipal council of Wiarton.
5.	Tlios. Dargarvel. I am unable to state what recommendations were made to the then minister, but am informed that Mr. John Tolmie, M.P., was one of those who ad-


190S
[Stage Direction]
vised the minister as to the experience and integrity of Mr. Dargarvel, and I presume it was either wholly or largely upon Mr. Tolmie's advice that lie was appointed inspector.
Mr. BENNETT.: What was the other tenderer's name ?


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman did not ask for the other tenderer's name and I have not the information here.


THE COASTING TRADE.
Mr. STANFIELD asked :: 1.	Under existing legislation can Norwegian ships which are British built change their flags and engage in coastwise trade in Canada ?
2.	After January 1, 1909, is there any existing legislation which will prevent Norwegian ships, which are British built, changing their flas-s and engaging in coastwise trade in Canadian waters?
3.	Under existing legislation can foreign-built ships which are British-owned engage in coastwise trade in Canadian waters, by obtaining a license from the Minister of Customs without reference to the Governor in Council ?
4.	After January 1, 1909, is there any existing legislation which will prevent foreign-built ships British-owned from obtaining a license from the Minister of Customs without reference to the Governor in Council, permitting such ships engaging in coastwise trade in Canadian waters?


William Paterson: 1 and 2. Under existing legislation Norwegian ships which are British built may become British registered ships and may then engage in coastwise trade in Canada, both prior to and after 1st January, 1909.
3 and 4. Under the law respecting the coasting trade of Canada, foreign built ships which have been British registered since 1st September, 1902. are required to pay 25 per cent duty before obtaining a license to engage in the coasting trade. Such license may be issued by the Minister of Customs under authority of statute without order in council. There is no legislation changing these provisions as to payment of duty and issue of license after 1st January, 1909.


BELLEVILLE HARBOUR.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. PORTER-by Mr. Blain-asked :
1.	Has the government authorized or permitted in any way the commissioners of Belleville harbour to issue bonds or debentures or any other form of security upon the harbour or revenue thereof? If so, in what form, for what amount, and when? .
2.	How were such bonds, debentures, or other securities, if any, disposed of, to whom, upon what terms, for what purpose, and what rate of interest do they bear?
Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: 1.	Yes, approval by the Governor General in Council on August 16, 1906. $12,000 at 5-per cent. 15 years.
2.	Twelve debentures of $1,000 each dated October 1, 1906. Interest payable each year October 1. Principal payable October 1, 1921. Sold to Mrs. M. N. McKenna, 6 debentures. No. 1 to 6; Rev. R. N. Adams, 2 debentures, Nos. 7 and 8 ; W. J. Andrews, 2 debentures, Nos. 9 and 10; Quinlan & Robertson, 2 debentures. Nos. 11 and 12. Interest, 5 per cent. Sold for cash and at par. They were issued for the purpose of paying balance due for building the revetment wall.


HOMESTEAD LOCATION OF FRED HINTZ.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. PORTER-by Mr. Blain-asked :
1.	Has the person appointed to investigate the_ location of Fred. Hintz for the northeast quarter of section 32, township 36, range 16, west second meridian, and the alleged purchase by him or some one for him, of the rights of Peter Sorenson as a homesteader of said lands, yet made a report thereon?
2.	Will such report be brought down, and when?
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) :: 1.	Homestead Inspector Gibson was instructed on the Gth of March, 1908 to investigate and report. The report has not yet come to hand.
2.	The report will be brought down without delay after it reaches the department.


IMPORTATION OF REGISTERED CATTLE. FROM THE UNITED STATES.
Mr. CHRISTIE asked :: 1.	How many registered cattle were imported from the United States to Canada duty free during the years 1901, 1905, 1906, 1907r respectively ?
2.	How many registered horses were imported from the United States to Canada duty free during the years 1904, 1905, 1906, 1907,. respectively ?	.


Hon. WM. PATERSON (Minister of Customs) :: 1.	Cattle for improvement of stock imported into Canada from the United States-(as per home consumption entries) :
Fiscal year ending 30th June, 1904, 765 "	"	"	"	1905.	478"	"	"	"	1906,	423
Nine months ending March 31, 1907, 151
2.	Horses for improvement of stock imported into Canada from the United States, registered or found on inspection to have tiie properties and qualifications essential to-improvement of breed (as per home consumption entides) :
Fiscal year ending 30tli June, 1904 551
	 "	1905, 606
"	"	"	"	1906.	631
Nine months ending March 31, 1907, 538


COUNCIL OF SIX NATIONS.
Mr. LAKE asked :: 1.	Has the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs refused an interview to a deputation of the chiefs of the council of the Six Nations? If so, on what grounds has this refusal been based?
2.	Has the government refused to the Six Nations an inspection of or a copy of certain petitions or memorials from an association known as the Indian Rights Association or Warriors' Association?
3.	What are the matters in negotiation or difference between the council of the Six Nations and the Department of Indian Affairs?
4.	Why does not the Department of Indian Affairs assent to or recognize the request of the Six Nations for an inspection or copy of certain petitions or memorials?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) :: 1.	The Superintendent General has not refused to receive a deputation of the chiefs of the council of the Six Nations, but has signified his willingness to receive them at any time it might suit them to come to Ottawa.
2.	The department did not refuse to send the Six Nations council a copy of the petition or memorial from the Indian Rights Association ; it refused .to send a copy of the names of the subscribers, as these were very numerous and it was not understood that there would be any use in doing so.
3.	(a) The loan system. They state that the present loan of $20,000 is insufficient, as they desire to improve the sanitary conditions and build a better class of houses.
(b)	Investigations. They are not satisfied with the present system of holding investigations, especially as regards the cost of witnesses.
(c)	Hereditary council. Some of the chiefs are in favour of simply improving present council, but others favour elective system.
(d)	Independence of council. They think their liberties restricted by the department.
(e)	Provincial grants. They derive no benefit from either the Dominion or provincial grants to the county of Brant.
4.	As stated in answer to question No. 2, the department did not refuse to send a copy of a certain petition from the Indian Rights Association, but said that it did not see any use in sending a list of the subscribers. This list is 13 feet, 7 inches long, and contains some 380 names.


MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.
[Stage Direction]
A copy of all correspondence, telegrams, reports and recommendations in possession of the government, or any member or official thereof, with respect to improved railway service on the Belfast and Murray Harbour Branch Railway.-Mr. A. Martin (Queens).
A copy of reports and correspondence relating to Aurel Mercier, carboneur, on the Mr. PATERSON.
Soulanges canal, who was killed in the performance of his duties in the summer of 1907; also a copy of the report and correspondence relating to an accident which happened to Madame Rock Bradley in attempting to cross the canal on the canal bridges in the summer of 1907.-Mr. Boyer.
Copy of all the correspondence exchanged between the government and Messrs. T. B. Mongenais, Hugh McMillan and others, relating to dredging work done in the River Rigaud, formerly the River Graisse, up to the year 1890. A copy of the reports and correspondence relating to the construction or purchase of the Graham wharf. A copy of the report and correspondence relating to the dredging done at Como up to 1900. A copy of the reports and correspondence relating to the dredging done at Vaudreuil Village, and also relating to the construction and repair of the wharf situated in that village since 1867. And also, a copy of the report and correspondence relaing to the deepening of the River St. Louis at Beauharnois.-Mr. Boyer.
Return showing the number of locomotives on the Intercolonial Railway out of service on the 31st December, 1907, and the date of purchase of each engine out of service, from whom purchased, type of engine, passenger or freight, haulage capacity, when in efficient state of repair, when put out of service, and when last used.-Mr. J. D. Reid-by Mr. Foster.
Return showing the number of locomotives in service on the Intercolonial Railway on the several Sundays in the months of October, November and December, 1907, hauling freight trains.-Mr. J. D. Reid-by Mr. Foster.
Return showing the number of trains, both freight and passenger, on the Intercolonial Railway breaking down or detained from defects in engines during the months of October, November and December, 1907, and the causes of such defects.-Mr. J. D. Reid-by Mr. Foster.
Return showing the number of tons of new steel rails lying along the line of the Intercolonial Railway unused, date when purchased, if required, and when to be used.-Mr. J. D. Reid-by Mr. Foster.
Copy of all correspondence, reports, telegram®, resolutions, petitions, &c., in possession of the government or any member or official thereof, respecting the demand of the Charlottetown Board of Trade or any person in Prince Edward Island, for federal legislation to give sailing vessels and steamers equal rights in their proper loading turns at the coal ports in Nova Scotia and Cape Breton.-Mr. A. Martin (Queens).
Copy of the report of the Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals, and the Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries in reference to their meeting with delegates of the boards of trade of Prince Edward Island at Charlottetown in June last, to take into consideration, the removal of the heavy freight and passenger rates on the Prince Edward Island Railway and the Intercolonial Railway, and on freight and passengers to and from Prince Edward Island. Also all correspondence, telegrams, &c., in possession of the govern-

ment or any member or official relating thereto, and other questions discussed at said meeting.-Mr. A. Martin (Queens).
Return showing how many persons have been employed by the government since 1896 who are or were residents of Brome county, province of Quebec, giving their names and the salaries received.-Mr. Clements-by Mr. Blain.
Return showing: 1. The number of men taken into the service of the Intercolonial Railway in the province of New Brunswick during the month of January, 1908.
2.	The number of men taken into the service of the Intercolonial Railway in the province of New Brunswick during the month of February, 1908.
3.	The names of the persons so taken into the service, where were they employed, and the nature of the work assigned to them.
4.	What positions were filled, and by whom these duties had been previously performed.
5.	The number taken into the service during the corresponding months of 1907.
6.	The total number of employees on the Moncton pay-roll for the month of January, 1908.
7.	The total number of employees on the Moncton pay-roll for the month of February, 1908.-Mr. Daniel.
Copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda and correspondence of every kind between the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, or any officer of his department, and any person or persons, respecting the purchase, of supplies' for the Department of Marine and Fisheries at Quebec, St. John, New Brunswick, and Halifax, during the years 1892, 1893, 1894, 1895 and 1896.-Mr. Johnston.
Return showing: 1. Any government lands near New Westminster, British Columbia, sold to one J. W. Patterson, and, if sold, by what department of the government.
2.	Whether they were Indian or military reserve lands, or either of them.
3.	The prices Mr. Patterson paid for said lands, if any were sold to him.
4.	The date of such sale or sales.-Mr. J. D. Reid-by Mr R. L. Borden.
Return showing what coal lands were granted to sundry persons through the agency of P. E. Lessard, of Edmonton, together with copies of all letters, papers and documents relating to the application, sale, lease or cancellation of the same. All from the general file for the group of claims, and not the special file for each section.-Mr. Ames.
Return showing what coal lands in townships 41 and 42, ranges 17 and 18, west of the fifth meridian, were granted through the agency of McGiverin & Haydon, of Ottawa, together with a copy of all letters, documents and papers relating to the application, sale, lease or cancellation of same. All from the general file for the group of claims, and not the special file for each section.-Mr. Ames.
Return to bring up to date the information contained in sessional paper. No. 207 of 1906-7, presented to the House on the 12th April, 1907, in respect of certain fishing leases.-Mr. Ames.	«
Return showing what coal lands are now or have been at any any time owned, controlled, leased or operated in townships 53 and 54,
range 7, west of the fifth meridian, by the Alberta Development Company, Limited, together with a copy of all applications, correspondence, deeds of sale and other documents in connection therewith.-Mr. Ames.
Return showing what coal lands in townships 9 and 10, ranges 21, 22 and 23, west of the fourth meridian, were granted through the agency of J. W. Bettes (or his firm), of Winnipeg, Manitoba, together with a copy of all letters, documents and papers relating to the application, sale, lease or cancellation of the same. All from the general file for the group of claims, and not the special file for each section.-Mr. Ames.
A copy of all petitions, memorials, documents, correspondence and papers touching any matters, transactions or negotiations between the Department of Indian Affairs and the council of the Six Nations Reserve, or the chief or chiefs of the said council or the Indian Rights Association or Warriors' Association, from the 1st day of January, 1906, to the present time.-Mr. Lake.

Mr.  J. D.@: REID (Grenville)-by Mr. Foster-moved for:
Return showing the number of hours late arriving, and explanation of the District Superintendent in each case, of express trains Nos. 33 and 34 between Halifax and Montreal, and Nos". 19, 20, 85 and 86 between Halifax and Sydney, for the months of October, November and December, 1907, on the Intercolonial Railway.


George Perry Graham: I agreed with the hon. member for Grenville to let some of those motions go through without discussion, and some I said I would ask to stand. In his absence I do not know which are to stand.
Mr. FOSTER, The hon. member for Grenville thought perhaps I might persuade the Minister of Railways to let them all through.


George Perry Graham: Let this motion stand.


George Eulas Foster: We will have to drop it and serve notice that before the estimates go through we will ask for the information.


George Perry Graham: It has been asked for in an indirect way in other places.
Motion dropped.


THE CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEM.
[Stage Direction]
On the notice of motion:
That the Civil Service System of Canada should be based on merit and character alone, and the appointments thereto should be made only from candidates whose competency has been established through open competitive examinations, conducted under a non-partisan Civil Service Commission.
George Eulas Foster: I propose to drop this, inasmuch as the report of the Civil Service

Commission has not yet been printed; but I will bring it up in a different way.
Motion dropped.
On the notice of motion:
That in the interests of political morality and good government it is desirable that party patronage should be eliminated from the administration of all federal departments in Canada.


George Eulas Foster: The same remark that I have made with reference to the other resolution applies to this.
Motion dropped.


GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS.
Air. J. J. HUGHES (Kings, P.E.I.) moved:: That in the opinion of this House the names * Intercolonial Railway ' and ' Prince Edward Island Railway ' should be dropped, and the name ' interprovincial Railway 1 substituted therefor.
That the government system of railways should be considered as one entity in the keeping of accounts and in all other respects.
That the ferry service across the Straits of Northumberland should be owned and managed by the railway department, winter and summer, as the ferry service across the Straits of Canso is now, and as the ferry service across the Gulf of Georgia between Vancouver and Victoria is owned and managed by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, the resolution
practically explains itself to those who know the objects I have in view and are acquainted with the local conditions; but as you, Mr. Speaker, are not familiar with those conditions, I think a few explanations will be in order.
The first paragraph relates to the name of the government railway. While it is not very important by what name a thing shall be known so long as the name is fairly descriptive of the thing, and so long as there is no danger of confounding it with something else that is similar, yet I think everybody will admit that the name Intercolonial applied to a railway that extends across three provinces, and will, if it is built, of which there is some probability, to the great lakes, and perhaps finally reach the Pacific ocean, is certainly not a suitable name. We are no longer a group of colonies; we are a federation of provinces, and the name of our one government railway should not, I think, be a misnomer that belies our actual status. Whether Interprovincial would be a better name or not I do not know. Perhaps Canadian Government Railway would be the correct name. There is a real business reason why the present name should be changed. The fact that the initials are the same as those of the Illinois Central Railway has resulted in cars going astray and being used by other railways, and thus becoming lost to the Mr. FOSTER.
government of Canada. In consequence of that I think the department is at present making some change in the lettering of the cars. This goes to show that there is a necessity for a change of name.
If the other two paragraphs of the resolution, which are of more importance from my point of view, should commend themselves to the House and the government, it would be more important still that the name should be changed. Since Prince Edward Island joined the confederation and became a part of the Dominion of Canada, it has been customary to consider the two railways, the Prince Edward Island Railway and the Intercolonial Railway, not only as two separate systems, but as antagonistic systems in some respects. I do not think that is a proper condition of affairs. In my judgment the Prince Edward Island Railway ought to be an integral portion, a branch, a feeder, of the Intercolonial Railway, and not be considered in any respect a foreign road. This works to the disadvantage of the Island railway. There has grown up in the public mind for some years the opinion that the Intercolonial Railway should at least pay operating expenses. This opinion has been given voice to in parliament, in the press, and throughout the country, and I have no doubt that it has impressed itself upon the management of that road. At the same time, there appears to be an idea that the Prince Edward Island Railway never did pay, never was expected to pay, and never will pay its operating expenses. The result of that is, so far as I can ascertain, that the management has diverted traffic that would naturally go to the Island railway, to the Intercolonial at the expense of the Island railway. I do not know whether that is the reason this discrimination takes place; but that there is real discrimination I think I can prove to the House. Freight originating on the Intercolonial Railway at L6vis and at Montreal to come over the Intercolonial Railway, and destined for Prince Edward Island, is hauled to Pictou for the same rate that it is hauled to Point du Chime, although the dis-stance to Pictou is 160 miles greater. There might be some reason for that from a railway point of view, because Pictou is a distributing point, and railway men make very little extra charge for a considerably greater distance so long as the freight is loaded on the cars, and other cars are going in the same direction. For all points on the Prince Edward Island Railway, if the freight crossed at Poine du Chgne and Summerside, the haulage would be very considerably less. But owing to the freight going by Pictou, the Intercolonial gets nearly all the hauling, the Prince Edward Island Railway very little. Consequently the earnings of the Island railway are smaller than they otherwise would be. I have the figures here, and I will submit just a few. The rates from Lgvis and Montreal to Charlotte-

town via Pictou are exactly the same as they are to Summerside via Point du Chene; but freight for Charlottetown going by way of Point du Chene is charged considerably more. The rates from Montreal to Charlottetown via Point du Chene are: First class, 64 cents per 100 lbs.; second class, 56 cents ; third class, 45 cents; fourth class, 34 cents; fifth class, 30 cents; sixth class, 28 cents. The same goods going by Pictou pay: First class, 56 cents; second class, 49 cents; third class, 39 cents; fourth class, 29 cents; fifth class, 26 cents; sixth class, 24 cents per 100 pounds. The difference would be on the first class 8 cents; second class, 7 cents; third class, 6 cents; fourth class, 5 cents; fifth class, 4 cents; sixth class, 4 cents, although the distance is 112 miles less.
From points west of Montreal, for instance, from Toronto, the discrimination would be still greater. From Toronto to Charlottetown via Point DeschOnes and Summerside, the rates are on first class 86 cents ; second class 75 cents ; third class 64 cents ; fourth class 54 cents ; fifth class 44 cents ; sixth class 42 cents ; seventh class 33 cents ; eighth class 33 cents. And from Toronto to Charlottetown via Pictou, first class 74 cents ; second class 64 cents ; third class 55 cents ; fourth class 46 cents ; fifth class 38 cents ; sixth class 36 cents ; seventh class 28 cents ; and eighth class 28 cents. The difference against the Island road is therefore on first class goods 12 cents ; second class 11 cents ; third class 9 cents ; fourth class 8 cents ; fifth class 6 cents ; sixth class 0 cents ; seventh class 5 cents ; and eighth class 5 cents.
It may be said by railway and business men that freight destined for Charlottetown going via Pictou would save one handling and that if it went by Summerside it would have to be loaded on the cars, which would have to be taken into consideration. But that would not account for the large difference in the rates I have pointed out. Take freight destined for other points where the handling is just the same. On freight destined for Georgetown and Souris there is still a large discrimination although the handling is exactly the same. Let me just quote the figures. From Toronto to Georgetown via Point Deschenes and Summerside, on first class 92 cents ; second class 80 cents ; third class 69 cents ; fourth class 57 cents ; fifth class 47 cents ; sixth class 44 cents ; seventh class 35 cents ; and eighth class 36 cents. From Toronto to Georgetown via Pictou and Charlottetown, on first class 86 cents ; second class 75 cents ; third class 64 cents ; fourth class 54 cents ; fifth class 44 cents; sixth class 42 cents ; seventh class 33 cents ; and eighth class 33 cents ; per 100 pounds. Or a difference against the Prince Edward Island Railway, with the same handling and labour, as follows : First class 6 cents ; second class 5 cents ; third class 5 cents ; fourth class 3 cents ;
fifth class 3 cents ; sixth class 2 cents ; seventh class 2 cents ; eighth class 3 cents, w,hile the distance from Toronto to Georgetown via Point Deschenes and Summerside is 122 miles less than via Pictou. And the difference to Souris is from one to two cents per 100 pounds greater still.
The only reason I can see for routing freight in such cases via Pictou is to give the Intercolonial Railway practically all the earnings and to give the Island road as little as possible. That is not fair to the Island road. While it makes no difference to the public purse, it certainly tells against the Island road since the accounts are kept separate, so that when we come to the government and ask for any concessions we are met, in one form or another, by this deficit on the Island railway. It may not be brought up in all cases but you have to face it. In speaking to ministers, and very often to private members of the House this deficit is a thing of which all complain, and I would rather explain it in this general way than try to explain it to every member of the House or minister. This is one of the reasons why I think the Prince Edward Island Railway ought to be an integral portion of the government system both in the keeping of accounts and in all other respects. That would relieve the Intercolonial Railway officials from the necessity of making this discrimination, and I presume it must take some of their time and attention to make these changes in the routing of freight. But while the accounts are kept separate, this discrimination is absolutely unfair to the Island railway.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I understand by the hon. gentleman's motion that he would change the letters which to-day designate the Intercolonial Railway. Instead of Intercolonial Railway he would call it interprovincial or some other name.


James Joseph Hughes: Or the Canadian government railway.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Has my hon. friend ever examined what would be the cost of making that change?


James Joseph Hughes: I have not, but I understand that the department are under tiie necessity of making some change in order that the Intercolonial cars may not get mixed up with the cars of the Illinois Central Railway. I understand they are making some change now, and perhaps the loss of a few cars would be sufficient to pay for the change. The next paragraph in the resolution I propose reads in this way :
That the ferry service across the Straits of Northumberland should be owned and managed by the Railway Department, winter and summer, as the ferry service across the Straits of Canso is now, and as the ferry service across the Gulf of Georgia between Vancouver and Victoria is owned and managed by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.

We have a rather peculiar system of transportation to and from Prince Edward Island. I do not think such an anomalous system would be established if we had to establish it to-day. It grew up little by little from the time of confederation. The Railway Department owns and operates some 1,500 miles of railway on one side of the Straits, on the mainland and some 270 miles on the other side on the Island. The Marine and Fisheries Department own and operate a ferry service during the winter season, when the service is most difficult and least profitable. The steam navigation company owns and operates a ferry service during the summer when it is least expensive and most profitable and does the work well. Two departments of the government and a private company are called in to do this work ; it is a tripartite system. If we were about to establish a system I am sure that we would not adopt that plan to-day. No board of business men having to control and operate a railway on both sides of the straits and having to maintain the ferry- because that is in the terms of confederation-would continue the present system any longer than they could possibly avoid it. If the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Grand Trunk Railway or the Canadian Northern were placed in such a position and had to maintain the ferry service according to their charter, I am quite satisfied that if they maintained and operated it in the winter, they would also maintain and operate it in the summer, and the reasons which would lead a railway corporation to do that would certainly, in my judgment, be sufficient to cause the government to do it.
Another reason is that the Marine and Fisheries Department is not, and never will be a carrying or transportation department; that is not its business. On the other hand the Railway Department was established for that very purpose, is pre-eminently a carrying department and is in a better position to carry on that business than any other department of the government service. If one department of the government service maintained and operated this ferry service throughout the year, it would simplify matters greatly. For instance, the captains and crews could be transferred immediately from one set of boats to the other, there would be no interregnum and no delay. As it is now the Marine Department has to keep its captains and principal officers on hand while the boats of the Steam Navigation Company are in service, in order to have them when its boats resume, and the Steam Navigation Company has also to maintain its staff during the winter. This necessarily means increased cost which the country or the business men in the end have to pay.
Again there is the very serious disadvantage that it is now practically impossible in


James Joseph Hughes: shipping between the mainland and Prince Edward Island points to obtain through bills of lading from the point of origin to the point of destination, and to know in advance exactly what the freight will be. There are nearly always more or less back charges and that hampers business and is very annoying. Again it is almost impossible in case of loss or damage to goods in transit, to fix responsibility upon either department or upon the company, as they throw the blame one upon the other so that business men who have had experience, having found It nearly impossible to obtain redress, would rather not take up a claim, unless it is a large one, owing to the difficulty and delay in securing an adjustment. If one department of the government service had charge of the whole transportation system there, this serious difficulty would be obviated and we would like to see this under the Railway Department.
Freight rates are much higher to and from the island than they are in other sections of the country, sometimes more than double, and under present conditions we find it very difficult to compete with more favoured shippers. We feel that simply because we are an island we should not be treated in that way. We contribute our share towards the upbuilding of the transportation facilities of the whole country, towards the upbuilding of the great ocean ports on the Atlantic and on the Pacific and yet when we come to use these transportation facilities and ports we have to pay more than any other persons in the Dominion of Canada. As a matter of fact the business men of the maritime provinces, of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, who know the conditions, when they have come together and considered this matter, have expressed as strong views on it as we do on the island. Perhaps I could not do better than read the resolution of the maritime board of trade, passed at its thirteenth meeting in the city of St. John last summer in regard to this matter. As I have said, these are men who know the conditions exactly and who certainly have no reason, beyond the desire to see fair-play to all Canadians, to express an opinion. The resolution is as follows:
Whereas the trade of Prince Edward Island has been seriously handicapped for many years past, owing to the difficulties of navigation and the excessive freight rates demanded by reason of three short-haul freight rates between points on Prince Edward Island and points on the mainland;
And whereas, the freight rates prevailing to and from Prince Edward Island are altogether disproportionate with those prevailing from Montreal eastward, as will be seen from the following:
From Montreal to St. John, 9 cents per 100 pounds, plus 1J cents for elevation; distance, 735 miles.
From Montreal to Halifax, 9 cents per 100 pounds, plus li cents; distance, 832 miles.

From Montreal to Sydney, 16J cents per 100 pounds: distance, 977 miles.
Regulation rates on grain in carloads from Tignish to St. John, 26 cents per 100 pounds; distance, 428 miles.
From Tignish to Halifax, 23 cents per 100 pounds; distance, 309 miles.
From Tignish to Sydney, 26 per 100 pounds; distance. 380 miles.
And whereas, the province of Prince Edward Island, being a part of the Dominion of Canada, has to contribute its full share of the cost of maintenance of all government-owned and subsidized railways and steamers, should, therefore, be entitled to equal privileges, mile per mile, with the upper provinces, over all such railways and steamers, due allowance being made for extra handling of freight from cars to and from steamers;
Resolved, that in the opinion of this board, the government be and is hereby requested to so equalize the three short-hauls system of transportation of Prince Edward Island with the continuous haul of the other provinces, with which it is in competition;
And further resolved, that Prince Edward Island be placed on the same basis as to import and export rates to and from ports outside of Canada as are accorded to the other provinces of the Dominion.
That is all we ask for, Mr. Speaker, and what we ask for appears to us to be a fail-deal, and it appears to the businessmen of the maritime provinces to be a fair deal. I do not think it is too much to ask. I do not know why the Intercolonial should not maintain the ferries and these highways. Perhaps there would be a deficit. The earnings might not be so great as they are now if the rates were reduced; and again they might be, because in all probability a greater amount of freight would go over the Island Railway and over the Intercolonial. But even if there were not a greater amount of freight, I do not think we should, be placed at a disadvantage. Cape Breton is an island also, and it has exactly the same rates, mile for mile, as they have on the mainland. Of course the straits of Canso are not as wide as the straits of Northumberland. but I presume that should not make any difference. But if it does, I find that the island of Vancouver, separated from the mainland by the gulf of Georgia, is placed on exactly the same footing as the mainland in regard to transportation rates, and that is done by the Canadian Pacific Railway, said to be a soulless corporation. It is said that corporations are not doing business for fun, so it must appear to them to be fair, and I suppose they do it from a business point of view. Now if the Canadian Pacific Railway Company gives people living on the island of Vancouver the same passenger and freight rates as they do to people on the mainland east of the Rocky Mountains, as far east as Winnipeg at all events, I can see no good reason why the government operating a transportation line on Prince Edward Island and on the mainland, should not place Prince Edward Island on an equality with the mainland.
Now, Sir, I have given my reasons why I think a change of name of the road would be advantageous. We are no longer, I repeat, a mere colony, we are a confederation of provinces, and our government railway should not by its name belie our actual, our geographical and our historical existence. I have given reasons why I think there should not be a separate accounting for the Prince Edward Island Railway and the Intercolonial; at all events, if there is to be a separate accounting there should not be discrimination. All freight destined for points on Prince Edward Island should go over the island road, and the island road should have all the earnings that are coming to it. when the distance by the island road is shorter than by the Intercolonial via Pictou. Further, I say that we should have one branch of the government service owning, operating and maintaining the ferry service on the straits of Northumberland. For the reasons I have pointed out, it would simplify matters and reduce the cost. I am satisfied that a board of business men considering this matter would recommend it, and would bring it into operation just as soon as it could be done.


Mr.   A.@: MARTIN (Queen's, P.E.I.) I am sorry there is not a fuller House on this occasion when my hon. friend from Kings, Prince Edward Island (Mr. Hughes) has brought up this important question. I am sorry that so few ministers are in their places ; I am sorry the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is not here, and that th'e Prime Minister is absent. This is a question of great importance, both to Prince Edward Island and to the whole of Canada. I have no criticism to make of the manner in which the hon. gentleman has treated the subject, but I doubt if the resolution he has proposed would have the desired effect, or would carry out the tenor of his speech. I do not see why changing the name of the Intercolonial would cheapen the rates down to Prince Edward Island. I suppose this government has lots of money to spend, and I think on mature consideration it would involve an expenditure of a quarter of a million dollars to change the name on all the cars from the Intercolonial to the Interprovincial Railway. Even when they had accomplished that great feat of calling the Intercolonial the Interprovincial Railway, I wonder what effect it would have on those exhorbi-tant freight rates which I am proud to see my hon. friend now realizes. It took him a long time to see them. I never heard him say a word of criticism on the government in keeping these freights up. but now he has obtained new light. He has always been very quiet in this House, and I am proud that he is now waking up. I do not think he has overdrawn the picture, in fact I do not think he has drawn it quite so dark as it is. I have some figures before
<5251


Mr. A. A. MCLEAN (Queens, P.E.I.).: Like my colleague I did not know that this matter was coming up this afternoon, and I am therefore quite unprepared to discuss it. It is a matter that has engaged the attention of every farmer and of every business man not only of Prince Edward Island, but of the maritime provinces. It is a matter which has engaged the attention of the people of Prince Edward Island and those who deal with them. My colleague (Mr. A. Martin) has stated that the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Hughes) had wakened up to the fact that this was a matter of some importance, because every time that the matter of transportation has been brought up in the House he has either ridiculed members on this side of the House coming from that province or he has pointed out to the government that it was simply a grievance they were using for political purposes. Now, he has come out of his shell and he sees, with the rest of the province, that it is a very important matter and one which should receive the immediate attention of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) and of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeuij. Last year a commission including, I think, the deputy Minister of Railways and Canals, the deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries and

certain other gentlemen, visited Prince Edward Island, and when they went to meet the board of trade and other business men in the city of Charlottetown, they promised that the matter would receive the immediate attention of the government. But nothing has been done. I want to direct the attention of the Minister of Railways and Canals to an answer which was given to me by himself a few days ago in this House, and I would ask him to compare the rates for transportation in force on the rest of . the Intercolonial Railway, because I take it that the Prince Edward Island Railway is still a part of the Intercolonial Railway, with those charged on freight shipped from Prince Edward Island. A return was brought down a few days ago showing that it costs 11 cents to take 100 pounds of freight from Charlottetown to Pictou, and in the summer time it costs from Halifax to Pictou 20 cents. But when the summer boats went off the Intercolonial Railway increased the tariff to 24 cents per 100 pounds. Why is this? Why are the people of Prince Edward Island asked to pay 4 cents per 100 pounds more in the winter than in the summer? To-day if you wish to take 100 pounds of freight from Charlottetown to Halifax, you pay 35 cents for it when you can ship from Montreal to St. John 100 pounds for 9 cents.
Just imagine that it costs for less than 120 miles from Charlottetown to Halifax 35 cents per 100 pounds and for the 735 miles from Montreal to St. John it costs only 9 cents per 100 pounds. Here is a matter which the Minister of Railways, although he is new to his office, should take under his immediate consideration. According to this return which the minister brought down the first class summer and winter rate from Truro to Pictou is 16 cents and Truro is distant about 50 miles from Pictou and about 100 miles from Charlottetown. But for the distance between Truro and Charlottetown you pay 27 cents per 100 pounds. Then, from Amherst the rate is the same both summer and winter. In summer the business for the Island via Moncton goes entirely by way of Pointe du ChSne and when the Pointe du Chene route is closed it goes by Pictou. The summer rate from Moncton to Charlottetown by way of Pointe du Chene is 32 cents, and the rate from Moncton to Charlottetown by way of Pictou in the winter time, 197 miles, is enormously high. When navigation closes at Pointe du Ch6ne the cost by way of Georgetown is 52 cents per 100 pounds to Cnarlottetown. Just imagine at this date in the history of transportation paying 52 cents for 100 pounds of freight from Moncton to Charlottetown when you can bring that same 100 pounds of freight from Montreal to Sydney, a distance of 977 miles for 164 cents. Is that a condition of affairs which should exist? Is it any wonder that the population of the maritime provinces is being depleted ? Is it any 199
wonder that our population is leaving us when the greater portion almost, of the profit which the farmers of Prince Edward Island should have in their pockets for their products, goes either into the government railways or the government steamboats. This resolution states that the government transportation system down there should be under the control of one department. To-day it is under the control jointly of the Department of Marine and Fisheries and the Department of Railways, but would it make any difference who controls it when they charge 41 cents for 100 pounds of freight for 147 miles from Moncton to Pictou and 11 cents from Pictou to Charlottetown, making 52 cents in all? Is there any use in changing the name of the Intercolonial if these rates are allowed to continue in force ? What benefit would it be to the people to change the name and still charge these high rates? There is not the slightest doubt that the Intercolonial is to-day charging more for freight that goes to Prince Edward Island, than any other railway in Canada. You can take goods for almost one-fourth less from Montreal to Sydney over the Canadian Pacific Railway than you can take them from Moncton, N.B., to Charlottetown, P.E.I. Here is a matter which should receive the immediate attention of the government. The hon. gentleman who introduced the resolution states that the government system of railways should be considered as one entity in the keeping of accounts and all other respects. He does not say what the ' all other respects ' are. Perhaps it might be beneficial to the government of Canada to have the railway under one system for the keeping of accounts, but what benefit would that be to the people of the province which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes) represents? In my opinion there is only one way in which this grievance can be remedied and that is by the government giving their immediate attention to the building of a tunnel between Cape Tormentine, N.B., and Cape Traverse, P.E.I. Then we would have the fulfilment of the terms of the union and we would have one continuous haul, one entity as the member for Kings calls it. We would then have one railway, and you may call it the Interprovincial or the Intercolonial, or anything you like so long as the people of my province receive fair treatment at the hands of the government of Canada. We may be told now that the tunnel question has been brought up here from time to time for a number of years and that justice was not done by previous governments, but the time has come now to do something. If the people did not press for a settlement of this grievance long ago it was their own fault, and as a matter of fact the question of excessive freight rates has never been prominently brought before the government until within the last three or four years. And



since it has been brought to their attention I understand that the officials who went to the Island are treating the Board of Trade and the other gentlemen who are pressing this matter in the province, with almost contempt. Resolutions were passed by the board of trade and were brought before these commissioners who went down there last summer, and notwithstanding the fact that there was a shorthand report of what was said at that meeting by the members of the board of trade and by the commissioners, still a contention exists as to what was said, and also as to what the resolutions were. But we have these resolutions here and they wmre read in the House not only by the member for Kings but by Mr. Martin, the member for Queens, and they were plain and distinct, and the government have received copies of these resolutions because it was directed that copies should be sent to the government. But in this case as in almost every other ease that has come before them, the government are neglecting this question. I hope the present Minister of Railways will do his duty a little better than his predecessors did, and that he will at once take this matter into his consideration. I do not see the Minister of Marine and Fisheries in the House just now, but I know that when his deputy was down in Charlottetown a year ago with reference to this matter, he gave great promises that he would place the matter before the minister and before the government. But nothing has beeh done. The people of Prince Edward Island are under this great handicap which no free people should endure any longer. I think we have endured this grievance long enough, and it is high time that the Minister of Railways and Canals and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and the government should give this matter their immediate attention. They are attending to the wants of the great west, they are looking after the building of the Transcontinental Railway, but they are neglecting the descendants of the men who settled in eastern Canada many years ago and hewed homes for themselves out of the forest, and they are sending every young man in the east who grows up to manhood away to gain his livelihood in the United States or in the great west where this government is spending millions and millions of dollars to develop. I say it and I say it advisedly that the east is neglected by this government. Not only is that the opinion of men who live in the east, but one of the ablest journalists in western Canada has endorsed that view, and has stated that the government is neglecting the wants and requirements of Eastern Canada. And when the people of Eastern Canada come here and ask the government plainly and distinctly to meet their wants, they are turned down and the transportation question in Prince Edward Island and the maritime provinces has no atten-Mr. A. A. McLEAN.
tion paid to it by the government. So far as the proposal to change the name of the Intercolonial Railway is concerned, I have very little sympathy with it. I think the government can do this without changing the name. If it is not done in a very short time, the same feeling which exists in British Columbia to-day with reference to certain matters engaging the attention of this government may assert itself more forcibly than they think in the east.
Mr. E, M. MACDONALD (Pietou) : Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a good deal of interest to our hon. friends from Prince Edward Island who have discussed the questions involved in this motion. While careful attention should be paid to the adjustment of rates on the Intercolonial Railway, our hon. friends seem to overlook the natural conditions arising from the fact that the province of Prince Edward Island is an island, and that its communication with the mainland must necessarily be maintained by water service, winter and summer, and as a consequence higher rates must be paid for transportation across the Northumberland Straits than are paid on the mainland. It is of very little advantage, in arguing this question, for our hon. friends to compare the rates charged from Montreal to St John or Halifax, on all-rail routes, with the rates charged on transportation that involves, first a rail haul, then a steamer haul, not under the control of the Railway Department, and then another rail haul. I am glad to hear our hon. friends speak of the rates being somewhat high, because one of the theories sometimes put forward in this House in support of government operation of railways is that people get the advantage of low rates, particularly those who live along the line of the Intercolonial which is not enjoyed by people living along the lines of company railways. I ventured to make the statement in this House not long ago that usually a low rate was charged by the Intercolonial Railway on long hauls of certain staple products, while it did not give its patrons any advantage in regard to short hauls ; and I pointed out that our hon. friends who live in the province of Ontario are sometimes inclined to argue that the government administration of the Intercolonial Railway is a poor one, because it is purely for the benefit of the people who live in the provinces through which the railway runs.


Mr. BLAIN.: The Hon. Mr. Blair stated that the freight rates on the Intercolonial Railway were 50 per cent lower than those of any other railway in Canada.


Mr. E. M. .MACDONALD.: If Mr. Blair ever said that, my hon. friend and his friends on the other side of the House have frequently made the same statement. One of their arguments used in the province of Ontario is that this government has admin-

istered the Intercolonial Railway purely and solely for the benefit of the people who live along the line of the railway and for political purposes, giving them low rates ; and I say that I am very glad that our hon. friends from Prince Edward Island have shown to-day that no such condition of affairs exists. They have proven that certain staple products of the western portion of Canada are hauled to the maritime provinces at low rates, the Intercolonial Railway thus serving the interchange of products between the different provinces at the extremes of the railway. But when some of our hon. friends speak in this way, they overlook the difference in the rates charged on long hauls and on short hauls. We have the same difference in various portions of the maritime provinces. The percentage charged on certain classifications of goods for hauling them fifty miles is very much higher than it is for hauling the same goods 200 or 300 miles!. These differences are bound to exist.


Mr. A. A. LEFURGEY.: How about the case I cited a short time ago, in which the rate for a long haul from Prince Edward Island to a few miles east of (Toronto was four or five times the rate charged from Montreal to Halifax or Sydney, and that was a long haul rate? It does not work both ways apparently.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend has forgotten to take into consideration the fact that that freight had to be delivered in Montreal to some other railway, which, under the arbitrary division of freight earuings, no doubt made the extra charge. This question of freight earnings is one of the most complicated known in railway administration. I do not think our hon. friends will seriously assert that there is any intention on the part of the government or of the Railway Department to discriminate against the province of Prince Edward Island.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: 
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: All over the maritime provinces we have the same condition in regard to freight charges on goods from points west of Montreal, with other railways sharing in the transportation. In regard to my hon. friend's motion for the change of name, there does not seem to be any particular objection to the Intercolonial Railway being called, as it should be, the Interprovincial Railway, except the fact that after some thirty years of operation, and after all the rolling stock has been provided, such a change would be attended with a great deal of expense and difficulty. That is a matter which should not be overlooked by any responsible department in considering the question. In this connection I want to refer to a remark made by my hon. friend from Kings (Mr. ,T. J.
Hughes) to the effect that the Railway Department had been criticised for charging the same rates on goods consigned to Prince Edward Island, whether they went via Pictou or Pointe du Chene.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After- Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Referring to the second clause of my hon. friend's resolution, in which he proposes that the government system of railways should be considered as one entity in the keeping of accounts and all other respects, my hon. friend seemed to consider it a grievance that the same rates were charged on the Intercolonial Railway for goods going to Prince Edward Island via Pointe du Chene as via Pictou, although Pictou was 100 miles or so further away from the point of shipment than Pointe du Chene might be. I do not think my hon. friend had any good grounds for his argument. This arrangement as to similarity of charges between these two points was made purely on behalf of the people of Prince Edward Island. The whole of the eastern portion of that island, from Charlottetown to Souris, receive their freight by the Intercolonial Railway through the port of Pictou. If all these people, who import these goods, were compelled to pay an additional impost because of the extra mileage betwen Moncton and Pictou, that would only mean that the people of Prince Edward Island would have to pay so much more for their goods. But a great deal of my hon. friends' complaint would be relieved if they would join with me in urging on the Railway Department the necessity and advantage of treating the port of Pictou as entitled to the same low rates as are- granted the ports of ,St. John and Halifax. Pictou is a point of distribution which covers the whole of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Not only are there steamers from there plying to Charlottetown and Murray Harbour, which is an important point of the island, being the terminus of the new branch of railway constructed a few years ago, and in addition continuous steam communication with Georgetown, which is the capital of Kings county, and Souris, an important mercantile point on the extreme east of the island, but in addition it is a distributing point for the Magdalen islands and the greater portion of the eastern part of Cape Breton. Yet I was surprised to find, not long ago, when inquiring regarding certain products which came to Nova Scotia from the west, that the ports of St. John and Halifax were the only ones which received the advantage of what is called an export rate. If the port of Pictou were given the same favourable treatment

as these other ports, my hon. friends in the island would be able to receive their imports at much lower rates of freight than at present; but that is a difficulty which cannot be urged by my hon. friends as one peculiar to Prince Edward Island, because those who live in the eastern portion of Nova Scotia experience that same difficulty as do all the other points which are served from the port of Pictou. So far as I am concerned I am particularly anxious to support any proposition to obtain for the island the cheapest possible rates of freight, but they should bear in mind that in consequence of only St. John and Halifax enjoying the advantage of the export rate, we in the eastern portion of Nova Scotia are practically in the same condition as our hon. friends on the island, with this exception that they have the Straits of Northumberland to cross and the additional impost which will always result where you break bulk and have to use different methous of transportation. There is this trouble in obtaining this export rate, and that is the difficulty in adjusting rates with the Grand Trunk Railway or Canadian Pacific Railway, where either controls the export. To a very large degree the railway which produces the freight controls this matter, and I understand from the Intercolonial Railway officials that the difficulty to which I am referring is very largely due to freight which originates with either of these two companies and to the fact that they control the situation. But so far as the difference in rates is concerned, the answer which the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) gave the other day to a question put by my hon. friend from Queens (Mr. Martin) shows that the charges of which these gentlemen complain do not arise in many respects on account of the charges made on the Intercolonial Railway. Thus out of a freight rate of 52 cents paid from Moncton to Charlottetown, 28 cents is only paid to the Intercolonial Railway, 10 cents is paid for transportation across the straits and 14 cents to the Island Railway. So that while the Prince Edward Island Railway has the advantage of having the 14 cents earning upon these products, the party who imports has to pay that rate on account of the rule which obtains with regard to transportation everywhere namely that where you have a short haul, the short haul must pay. To say therefore that the difficulties suggested by my-hou. friend and his colleague would disappear if the government were to consider the Prince Edward Island Railway and the Intercolonial Railway as one entity in the keeping of accounts and in all other respects, is to say what the facts do not bear out. To call a railway by another name or to keep the one set of books for the two railways will not do away with the necessity of making such charges as have to be made in order to meet the cost of transportation ; and where you have goods placed at the point of shipment so as Mr. MACDONALD.
to cross the straits at the lowest possible rate, you get a condition which is the best you can hope for because you will always have to contend with the cost of transportation by steamer across the straits.
The last part of my hon. friend's resolution proposes that the ferry service should be owned and managed by the Railway Department in summer as well as in winter. This much is well known, that the company which transports freight and passengers across the straits during the summer months has been a great dividend payer and is owned and controlled entirely by men from the island. Every cent of stock in that company is owned by men on the island, and the company have been earning handsome returns-so handsome that they are rather reticent about telling us how much they do earn. They do not seem public spirited as they might be, but the fact that they have earned dividends is one which should be taken into consideration when considering the feasibility of the proposal of my hon. friend. On the other hand the cost of transportation in winter must necessarily be very great and it could hardly be expected that products can ever be transported across the straits except at a loss. At the same time I think the Railway Department should deal with the whole question, and that the management of the steamers across the straits, summer and winter, should be in the hands of that department. It would not, of course, add to the surplus of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways, and possibly our friends opposite would sometimes complain because the surplus was not as large as it might otherwise have been; yet notwithstanding that fact I think that the Intercolonial Railway or the Interprovincial Railway, should have charge of the transportation of freight across the Straits of Northumberland, and that any loss which might be occasioned by this service would be willingly borne by the people of Canada, as it would be simply carrying out the terms of confederation under which Prince Edward Island entered the Dominion. This step would, of course, involve a large expenditure in taking over the steamers of the company now operating there in summer and also in assuming the management of the government steamers employed in the winter service. This portion of the resolution I regard as well worth the consideration of the government and a step which, if carried into effect, would greatly improve the means of transportation of freight to and from the island province.


Mr. A. A. WRIGHT.: Is all the transportation in summer done by a private corporation?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes.


Aaron Abel Wright: And in the winter when the loss is heavy is it all done by the government?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes.


Aaron Abel Wright: A nice state of affairs, is it not?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: As my hon. friend is one of those gentlemen who are perfectly willing to build a tunnel that will be operated all the year around at a heavy cost, I presume he will not object to this. We must always remember that the maintaining of this service both in summer and in winter by the Dominion is one of the terms of confederation, and whether the loss is small or great the service must be carried on by the government. The only point under discussion is whether the management of that service should be under the Railway or the Marine Department. It seems to me that it would be very much more satisfactory to have the whole system of transportation there under the management of one department. There would, of course, be difficulties but it would appear that the greatest difficulties complained of would be overcome by the step proposed. Owing to the division of authority between the two departments claims cannot be readily adjusted, but I would point out to my hon. friends from the island that the difficulty of securing the adjustment of claims by business men is not confined to Prince Edward Island, but is common to the entire Intercolonial system, as it must be from the nature of the ease where you have government ownership of railways, and it is not possible to recover damages for torts against the railway but have to proceed by the tortuous process of application for petition of right and trial in the Exchequer Court. If a cow is injured in transportation or a box is broken open then this tortuous process must be resorted to in order to secure redress and this is a cause of serious inconvenience and complaint among business men throughout the maritime provinces. I hope that the minister will look into this question of claims so that the business men of the maritime provinces may have some safe, sure and ready method by which to have their claims adjusted. I do not know whether under any system of government operation the difficulty could be obviated ; under such a system it must always exist in some degree, but I hope that the minister will rearrange the claims department of the Intercolonial Railway so as to afford more prompt readjustment of claims. My hon. friend's remarks on this subject deserve as much attention from the minister as any other portion of the resolution. The portion of the resolution which involves the placing of the service across the Straits of Northumberland under the control of the Railway Department receives my strongest support.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I am very pleased to note the change that is coming over the spirit of the dreams of the
hon. gentlemen opposite-for they have been dreaming for a long time-in regard to the resolution before us. For the past seven or eight years members on this side of the House have time and again brought up the important matter of transportation across the Straits of Northumberland and the excessive rates under which we suffer. Members on the other side of the House have had ample opportunity to put forth their views, and some of them, I am glad to find, are waking up and telling us what they think. The mover of this resolution has had several occasions during the present session to bring up this question of freight rates, for instance, when the Railway Commission was being discussed and when the tunnel resolution of my hon. friend from Queens (Mr. A. Martin) was before the House, but upon those occasions he took the opportunity to apologize for the government. Now, however, I am glad to see that he has awakened from his dream, and sees at last that the government have not used all the means ill their power to endeavour to overcome the wrongs under which the people of my province have been suffering for a great number of years. But_ after all, Mr. Speaker, the solution of this whole question is to be found in giving us an up to date means of transportation, such as was promised to us thirty odd years ago, and which we have been fighting for ever since in this House. We have urged upon the government to go forward and fulfil the promise that the leader of this House made when he was in opposition, and give the people of the island a tunnel. That is after all the only solution that will end our complaints. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonaid) said that we must not overlook natural conditions. Well, that is why we are discussing this question in the House, it is because the government have been overlooking natural conditions. We realized these natural conditions when we came into confederation, and it was the realization of these natural conditions that brought Prince Edward Island into the confederation, with a promise from the Dominion that they would be overcome. And how were they to be overcome? By bringing the island system of railways into connection with the mainland system. Now, that is the whole solution of this excessive rate question. The hon. member for Pictou says we have got to overcome these natural conditions. That was the promise made at confederation, and in the meantime, while the government is not using the means at hand to overcome them, is not prepared to put before this House surveys and estimates for a tunnel, our shippers to and from the island should not be put under the obligation to pay the piper on these short hauls, but the loss should be made up to them by the government by equalization of rates. Instead of that we find from an answer made the other day to my hon. friend from Queens (Mr. COMMONS
McLean) that the government instead of equalizing the summer rate with the winter rate, have increased the winter rate and during the period when they have control of the whole service. Now, I want to say that the government have certainly broken their pledge and are continually breaking their pledge to the people of Prince Edward Island .and are perpetrating a gross injustice in increasing the winter rate between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. It is all under the control of the government, and the people have to pay higher rates in winter than they do in summer when a private company is operating. As regards overlooking natural conditions, we still have the natural conditions, and successive governments have not used bona fides with the people of Prince Edward Island in attempting to overcome them. The clause in the terms of confederation required the Dominion to give us this connecting link, and it does not matter to us whether they fulfil that promise in one way or the other so long as the government justify themselves by using every effort to overcome these difficulties.
Now, the hon. member for Pictou has also referred to the long and short hauls, and he has been the apologist of the government for the fact that the long haul is not as reasonable to the province of Prince Edward Island on goods going to the west as it is on goods coming from the west. As has been pointed out by hon. members on this side of the House, rates from Montreal to Halifax, St. John and Sydney are only about one-third of the rates between Tignish and Sydney, Halifax or St. John ; while the distance in the former case is from two to three miles as great. Now, I want to call the attention of the hon. member for Pictou to the difference in the long haul rate from Prince Edward Island to a point called Myrtle, about 400 miles east of Toronto. and which is only 300 odd miles further than from Montreal to Halifax. The rate from Montreal to Halifax is 9 cents per hundred pounds, while the rate over this long haul from Prince Edward Island to Myrtle is 40 cents per hundred pounds. So there must be something radically wrong in a situation where you can get a long haul rate going from the east to the west of 40 cents per hundred pounds, and a long haul rate coming from Montreal to our ports, into competition with our natural markets, of 9 cents per hundred pounds. The hon. gentleman says you cannot get over a lot of these troubles with a government-owned road. But we have offered a solution of them several times on this side of the House, we have proposed to put the Intercolonial under a commission, and then possibly we could get some justice in the adjustment of these rates. We have asked several times during tins session that the government road should be put under the control of the Board of Railway Commissioners. That I


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: seems to many members on this side of the House to be a condition under which these rates could be adjusted, in conjunction with the rates on all the other lines that are under the control of this board.
Now, when I take up the resolution of the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Hughes) I find, as I said, that there is nothing new in the gist of the resolution at all; nothing but what we have been advocating year after year before this House, and nothing more than what the boards of trade all over the maritime provinces have been petitioning the government for by sending up resolutions. With regard to the first part of it, that the name of the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railway should be changed to the Interprovincial Railway, I do not see that is going to help the people of Prince Edward Island; I do not see how that is going to adjust our freight rates, or how it is going to do away with the grievance under which we have been suffering for many years. As x'egards the system of keeping accounts, it seems to me that makes no difference at all. If the Prince Edward Island Railway were put into physical connection by a tunnel with the mainland, the Prince Edward Island portion would not suffer by comparison with any part of the Intercolonial, because she would be the greatest feeder to the Intercolonial. Products from all points of the island would converge to a centre, the rolling stock of the Prince Edward Island Railway would be constantly in use, and it would be distributed from tlie central point on the main line to the Intercolonial. Prince Edward Island would be an immense feeder; she would have a very long service in the additional amount of work that would be borne over the line and the Intercolonial would benefit immensely by such a programme being carried out. So as regards the system of accounting between the Intercolonial and the Prince Edward Island Railway, I do not think we need be at loggerheads on that point.
The last question, and the most important part of the hon. gentleman's resolution, that the ferry service across the Northumberland straits should be put under the control of the Railway Department, is a good idea, but not a new idea. Year after year we have advocated that. We have known of the bungling of the different departments, the Marine and Fisheries Department, the Railway Department and the Post Office Department. It has been a byword in this House and throughout that province for the last fifteen or twenty years. There is nothing new in it. We have advocated and asked for it. The answer which the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries gave to a little question that I put the other day, shows how this subject is looked after by the department. I asked the minister if he knew that the Summerside harbour was practically open and that the steamer ' Stanley ' could

readily go in there and open up transportation between Summerside and Cape Tor-mentine instead of letting her run between Georgetown and Pictou involving the transportation of our stuff from Tignish to Georgetown on the Prince Edward Island side and a haul of a couple of hundred miles on the Intercolonial Railway on the mainland side, whereas, with a little attention and foresight on the part of the department you could go almost straight across. The answer of the minister was that the control of these boats and the discretion as to their movements were left entirely in the hands of the captains. Is not that a nice state of affairs? It is no wonder that you have such a report brought in by the Civil Service Commission when you have such a haphazard way of doing the business of the country as leaving this most important feature of the work of the department entirely at the discretion of the captains. We have a marine agent in Charlottetown who represents the Department of Marine and Fisheries. Why is he not made the responsible party and why is he not given authority to report the conditions which exist there? The idea of leaving it to the two captains of the boats who are away from the western end of the island and who know nothing about the conditions to be found in different parts of the island because they are crossing from Georgetown to Pictou, is something that would not occur to the mind of any one who desired to carry on the affairs of the department in a businesslike way. It is high time that the responsibility for the transportation facilities between Prince Edward Island and the mainland was put upon one department to which we could carry our grievances and which would be responsible for the service. The Department of Marine and Fisheries puts the blame for the unsatisfactory condition of the mail and passenger service upon the Department of Railways and Canals. The Department of Railways and Canals attributes the fault to the Post Office Department and the Post Office Department throws it back again to the Department of Railways and Canals, and that is the sort of humbugging and nonsense that have been going on year after year. I think there is some merit in the last part of the hon. gentleman's resolution, but from our experience in the past I do not have any hope that this government will take any active measures to attempt to remedy the unsatisfactory conditions which exist at the present time. If they have not given it a trial before this or if they have not realized the position of this service I have very little faith in them doing anything except that they may try to drag a red herring across the trail because elections may be coming on next fall. However, there is some merit in this part of the resolution and I hope at any rate that the ministry will get together and put the service under the control of the Department of Railways and Canals so that we will have some
department responsible for the whole service.


Mr. TAYLOR.: I would like to inquire of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) what it would cost to carry into effect the first part of this resolution. Has he any idea of what it would cost?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think it is very unfortunate that a resolution of this character should be discussed


George Taylor: I was making an inquiry of the minister.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I assume that the minister will perhaps later on say something in answer to your inquiry.


George Taylor: I intended to say something more when I got an answer to my inquiry.


George Perry Graham: I have never made any estimate of what it would cost. If it were going to be done I imagine it would be very much cheaper to do it gradually than to do it all at once. It would cost a good deal of money.


George Taylor: How much?


George Perry Graham: I would not like to give an estimate.


George Taylor: I am of opinion that it would cost $100,000 or $200,000 to make the change. You would have to change all your books and stamps in connection with the whole system besides repainting and lettering all your cars.


Henry Robert Emmerson: You are very moderate in your estimate.


George Taylor: I think it could be done for that. I think that if the change were brought about at all the simplest method would be to change the Prince Edward Island system and make it part of the Intercolonial Railway. That would not cost so very much. Then, all the book-keeping could be done at one headquarters. It would cut off a good deal of expense and I think that would be the business way of doing it. I think, with my hon. friend from Prince Edward Island (Mr. Lefurgey), that you should have the system, including the steamboat service, under one management instead of having two or three different bodies controlling the Prince Edward Island, the Intercolonial Railway, the mail service and the ferry. That would give you an opportunity of conducting it in a business manner. But, to change the whole system, unless the government have $100,000 or $200,000 to throw away, would do no good. The Intercolonial Railway is now known the world over and if you changed it to the Interprovincial Railway it would take people years to understand what it meant. I think it would be a great mistake.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I was about to say that it was very unfortunate that a resolution of this character could not be discussed from other than a petty partisan standpoint. My hon. friend from Prince (Mr. Lefurgey), who is one of the modern Jeremiahs from the island, has spoken in a complaining way as usual, setting forth the grievances which he has repeated year after year. He speaks very indefinitely with respect to the call which has been made upon the government for a number of years. He seemingly forgets the fact that Prince Edward Island entered this confederation in the early seventies, that it entered it under the government of Sir John Macdonald, that the conditions which exist to-day, existed then, and that from 1878, when Sir John Macdonald resumed the helm of state in Canada, down in 1896, the conditions of which he complains to-day existed. He points to the present Minister of Marine and Fisheries as a sinner with respect to the management of the boats. He points to the present Minister of Railways and Canals and to his predecessors since 1896 as guilty sinners, forgetting perhaps that there were Minister's of Rall-ways and Ministers of Marine during the period between 1878 and 1896. These conditions existed then and they exist to-day. It is a problem not easy of solution. As to changing the name of the government railway system we must remember that when the Intercolonial was established under a clause of the British North America Act to connect the city of Halifax with the city of Quebec, it was given its present designation which has become so to speak historic, and I would protest in the strongest possible way against changing the name and calling it the Interprovincial Railway. It must also be borne in mind that the Prince Edward Island Railway is a narrow gauge, and that as such it can never form part of a great railway system. Whether you have a tunnel or whether you have a modern ferry service such as we have at Canso, the Prince Edward Island Railway can never be part of a great railway system while it continues to be narrow gauge, and if you had a tunnel or a transfer car service the very first tiling you would have to do would be to widen the gauge of that railway. Now, there could be no improvement by transferring the present steamboat service from one department to the other because that would not in itself lessen the rates. Anyway, it would be absurd to call it a ferry service because a ferry service such as you have at Canso would mean that the cars would be taken on to the ferry at the mainland, transferred to the island, and then they would be supposed to run over the Prince Edward Island Railway, but the moment they touched the shores of the island they are met by a narrow gauge system.	.
My hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdon-I Mr. TAYLOR.
aid) has referred to claims against the Intercolonial Railway and he has asked that there should be a reorganization of the claims department. In my opinion no reorganization of that department will improve the conditions in favour of claimants against the railway. It must be borne in mind that claimants have always two strings to their bow, and even if you give them the widest latitude to appeal to the courts of the country, having failed to obtain there what they thought was their due, they would still turn to their representatives in parliament and political influence would be sought. If there is a reorganization of the claims department it can only be properly conducted when the Intercolonial is placed under a commission. My own experience is that where claims have been presented against the railway, after full inquiry by the claims department and after it had been determined by the Department of Justice that there was no liability, and when the Auditor General would not pay the claim even if the department were willing, notwithstanding all that a claim never dies. It rises phoenix-like from year to year and the ghost of its former self appears sometimes increased in amount and sometimes intensified in details so far as the grievance is concerned. How this difficulty in connection with a government railway could be removed I cannot see, unless it were that the railway were put under a commission. In my opinion until the Intercolonial is placed in such a position that it is not directly managed by the Crown there can be no reorganization of the claims department such as has been suggested by my hon. friend from Pictou. It has been stated that the summer service between Prince Edward Island and the mainland is under the control of a private corporation which has paid very large dividends ; a corporation so strong that when a few years ago it was proposed in this parliament to have a ferry system by which the cars could be transferrd, and there could be a crossing two or three times a day during the greater part of the year and during most of the winter months, that proposition was opposed by the gentlemen from Prince Edward Island. And at whose instance ? At the instance of this very strong corporation which now and for the last 40 years has controlled the navigation of the straits during the summer season. They are not in a position and do not place themselves in a position to do the winter business. What is the result ? The government are obliged to take these steamers, a part of the marine fleet, and pursuant to the terms of confederation utilize them for providing winter crossing. To place them under the Department of Railways and Canals will not improve the situation. It will not. in any way alter the conditions which exist to-day and which have existed for many years. There is no

clause in this resolution which I can support.


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Speaker,
I estimate that it would cost nearly a quarter of a million dollars to make the necessary changes involved in carrying out the first part of this resolution. I am not opposed to anything that would be in the interests of the province of Prince Edward Island ; but I think it is well to keep the accounts of the two railways separate, as they are now. I do not think any one on either side of the House makes any complaint even if this railway shows a loss in its operation. With no connections with any other railway, it is pretty hard to expect it to make a profit. I do not see that changing the name to Interprovincial would make any material difference. The name Intercolonial has been well known since confederation, and I am in favour of retaining it. To change the name would be simply to incur an unnecessary expenditure of $200,000 or $300,000. It would necessitate changing the whole book-keeping system of the failway. As to the ferry service between the island and the mainland, I think this government should do everything possible to make it efficient. I for one am in favour of doing everything necessary to provide the best possible communication between the island and the mainland. For many years I have heard members from the island on both sides of the House urging the government to build a tunnel. I would like to see an estimate of what such a work would cost laid on the table of the House. With the latest improvements in making tunnels, I think it might possibly be shown that it would cost less to build this tunnel than it now costs to maintain and operate the steamers between the island and the mainland. I suppose it is impossible to obtain such an estimate this session, but I hope it will be obtained and laid on the table of the House at the earliest possible moment. I believe the time will come when that tunnel will be built. The people of this country are in favour of providing the best possible communication between the mainland and Prince Edward Island, and there is certainly nothing that would give such a complete and satisfactory connection as a tunnel. At the present time, with the facilities that exist a tunnel could be built for perhaps one-half of what it could twenty or twenty-five years ago. I for one hope that an estimate of the cost of a tunnel will be laid before the House at no distant date, so that the matter may be thoroughly settled once and for all. In the meantime, unless the Minister of Railways can advance some good reason why the name should be changed. I think that the first part of the resolution should be dropped. The other parts of the resolution I would support.


Haughton Lennox: I am entirely opposed to the proposal to change the name of the railway. We have not always had the most satisfactory conditions in the operation of the Intercolonial Railway, but it has been recognized as a great public work, and I hope the time will come when it will be operated on a more satisfactory basis than it has been in the past. With reference to the loss of cars, it would be easy to prevent that by having the word ' Canada ' painted on each car. I do not experience the same difficulty that some hon. gentlemen do from the fact that we are referred to as colonists or Canada as a colony ; and the term Intercolonial is quite satisfactory to me. However, I did not rise for the purpose of discussing that question so much as to submit a matter of very much more importance, and that is the question of the tunnel between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. I think the time has come when the government should take some definite and serious step ' to ascertain whether that scheme is feasible or not. I am not at all afraid of the expense provided it is gone into in a fair and businesslike way. In my opinion we ought not to treat this matter any longer, as it has been, as a perennial .ioke, but should treat it as one that ought to receive the most serious consideration.


An hon. MEMBER.: What about the cost?


Haughton Lennox: I do not know how much it would cost, but I would not be inclined to plunge into the scheme, as we did into the transcontinental project, without having the fullest preliminary investigation. What we require to do is to find out what it will cost and whether the project is a feasible one or not. As one of the members representing Ontario, I am fully prepared to take the responsibility of advocating a reasonable expenditure for the purpose of finding out whether we can remedy the present condition of Prince Edward Island by constructing a tunnel between the mainland and the island. I am not in favour of going into it at any cost, but I am inclined to think that the work can be carried out on terms beneficial to the Dominion, and I am disposed to advocate a proper investigation with the view of ascertaining whether it would not be in the interests of Canada as a whole, as well as of Prince Edward Island, to have this work carried out within a reasonable time.


Aaron Abel Wright: You may think that a person coming from the province of Ontario has no interest directly with the people of the maritime provinces. Will you allow me to give you one instance out of many which have come under my own notice ? For example, for a great many years we bought a large quantity of potatoes from

Prince Edward Island, but gradually difficulties arose so that we could not get them there because we could not get transportation the year around. The consequence was we had to go to New Brunswick for our potatoes, and will you allow me to tell you that to-day and the whole year round, there are hundreds of carloads going from New Brunswick to Toronto which are sold there every day for 10 cents a bushel more than the potatoes grown right around Toronto.


Henry Robert Emmerson: They are worth it.


Aaron Abel Wright: Certainly; if not, we would not give 10 cents a bushel more for them. I do not know whether they have better facilities or give greater care, but they give us better potatoes and all of one quality. If you want to get a carload of any one kind, you can go to New Brunswick and get them. We cannot get them from the island because they have not the facilities for shipping them. I need only give you that one instance to show you that we are directly connected with the maritime provinces. I have listened many years to the complaints made by our friends from the island, and it seems to me that the Dominion government has done everything it could under the circumstances to carry out the compact made with the provinces. The difficulties to be contended, with in going across the straits in winter are simply enormous, and no human skill apparently can overcome them. I am willing to bear my share, as far as Ontario is concerned, in giving these people every facility winter and summer to get to the outside world. I have thoroughly considered this tunnel question. One hon. gentleman, when he spoke to me with reference to my advocating the building of the tunnel some time ago, said I did not know what I was talking about and had no business to say anything on the subject. Well, I consider it a national question and I have as good a right to speak on it as any other person in the country. I believe that this government has been doing everything it could; but if our friends in the island are in difficulty and we can relieve them, I do not see why we should not do it. When Prince Edward Island came into confederation and took her seat around our national fireside, she became part of our national family, and if she is in distress it is our business to come to her relief. When a fire took place in Hull we gave liberally to help the sufferers; and this year, when our friends in the western provinces were in trouble about seed grain, we voted $2,000,000 to help them, if then the people in Prince Edward Island are in difficulty why should we not help them in like manner? It may be that the building of this tunnel is not written in the bond, but I care not. If it is necessary, why should we not build it? And I do not think the cost would be prohibitive. Take the cost of the Simplon tunnel under the Alps, where they encountered a lake of hot


Aaron Abel Wright: water. Nevertheless they built it and without enormous cost, and I am satisfied that with modern appliances this tunnel can be built without very much expenditure of money. If it can be built for $10,000,000, I am prepared to pay my share of the amount, but I am thoroughly convinced it will never cost anything like that. The only way Is to face the difficulty like men. Let us see what the tunnel will cost; and if not too much, we should grapple with it at once and put an end to all this clatter we hear every year. I am sick and tired of it, and if anything can be done to relieve the House of it I for one am satisfied to do it.


Mr. J. BARR (Dufferin).: I cannot agree with my hon. friend when he says that this government has done all it can to relieve the situation of Prince Edward Island and carry out the compact of confederation. On looking through the record, I cannot find anything substantial that they have done. I cannot find any reliable report in connection with this tunnel. Having agreed to give Prince Edward Island continuous communication with the mainland in return for her joining confederation, it was the duty of this government and of preceding governments to have had a thorough investigation into the matter and have laid before the House plans and specifications so that the country might know exactly what it would cost to carry out the compact of confederation. It seems to me that Prince Edward Island has just reason to complain that an honest effort has not been made by either this or previous governments to carry out the terms of confederation. It is true that steps along that line were taken by the late government and an estimate was prepared. That estimate I think was about $10,000,000. If it cost twice that amount, it would be worth it to the Dominion and particularly to Prince Edward Island. As a people, as a nation, we should fulfil our obligations to the different provinces. As the last speaker said, it is not a provincial but a national question and one which this House and this country must solve if it is practicable. We have not before us the data to enable us to say whether it is practicable or not, but we can say that it is the duty of the government to secure estimates and all possible information from the best engineers obtainable.
I do not think any relief will come from changing the name of the Intercolonial Railway. From all we can gather it would seem that there has been discrimination and I hope the new Minister of Railways will see that even if the tunnel is not built the service will be improved and rendered as efficient as possible. Such a policy will meet with general approval and so I think would the building of a tunnel as soon as that is practicable.


George Perry Graham: The discussion on the

resolution of my hon. friend (Mr. J. J. Hughes) has not only been interesting, but has produced considerable information on tunnel building as well as on other points. I submit that the discussion of the tunnel is a little beside the spirit of the resolution, but this information is, of course, always welcome, even if it be in this instance 30 years behind the times. The hon. gentleman from Grenville (Mr. J. D. Reid) made a suggestion that the building of tunnels was getting cheaper. To that extent it has paid us to wait and the longer we wait perhaps the cheaper the building of tunnels may become.


John Dowsley Reid: If we do not wait too long.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend of course does not like to have the argument extended. However, it is a question of serious importance not only to Prince Edward Island, but to all Canada. It is not a matter for the people of any one portion of the Dominion, because I decline to discuss these matters on that basis; that is not the best way to bring about the results or to bring about that unity of citizenship which we desire. I do not for a moment admit that the people of any portion of the Dominion have been ill-used by the others ; I do not admit that the people on any part of the government railway system have been discriminated against by this or the previous government. The question of freight rates is an Intricate one and the making of these traffic sheets and running arrangements has become a science. Although I have devoted some study to it, I admit frankly that I am not in a position to discuss it in detail and to give the reasons for making rates in one part of the country along certain lines and in another along certain other lines. There has been no discrimination in the making of rates against Prince Edward Island; there has been no desire to give one part of the people undue advantage in rates on the government railway. Speaking in a broad sense I may say that the framers of confederation had no desire whatever to discriminate whatever against any section of Canada. They did come to an arrangement at the time Prince Edward Island entered confederation by which it was agreed that the Dominion government would give continuous steam communication between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. That has been the understanding, no person has ever attempted to deny that part of the contract. The advisability of constructing a tunnel is a question that has arisen only during the last few years.
Sir, has the government kept that part of the compact of confederation? I think that reasonably speaking it has. My hon. friend has suggested the running of a ferry from year end to year end under government control or government management. Possibly that is worth considering, but at
the present moment has the compact of confederation been kept? I say it has, perhaps not with the result that hon. gentlemen would desire or that the framers of confederation would have desired had they lived at the present time and seen the state of affairs to-day, but under existing conditions I have no hesitation in saying that the governments of' Canada have endeavoured to carry out the terms of confederation from the east of Canada to the west, regardless of the part of the country affected. Steam communication between Prince Edward Island and the mainland did not of necessity mean a railway. I believe I can go further and say it did not mean a railway at all; that the framers of confederation had not an idea of a tunnel in their minds. Then we have the question of communication by steamer. Has that been kept ? It has, and it has been kept too at a great cost to the Dominion of Canada. The other evening I had occasion to refer to the cost-I am not complaining, of the maintaining of a government system of railways on Prince Edward Island. Last year i think approximately speaking, we paid something like $60,000 over and above the income. It was perfectly right for the government of Canada to do that, but it shows that Prince Edward Island has not been neglected. Then take the part of the compact which relates to maintaining communication between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. You would think to hear the hon. member for Prince and the hon. member for Queens that the government of Canada had done nothing, was doing nothing, had never done anything and that the island had been greatly neglected in this respect. I do not for a moment admit that. It has cost the Dominion of Canada an annual subsidy of $84,000 to keep up communication between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. As I understand our communication last year cost $100,000 and the revenue from that service was $16,000, leaving an annual charge of $84,000 a year to run a ferry between Prince Edward Island and the mainland during the winter. It is proper to make that expenditure, but the fact remains that the expenditure has been made.
Coming to the question of complaints, I would say that so long as the government owns and operates a railway so long will it have a greater number of complaints than if a company owned and operated the railway. I think I am safe in making that statement. I think I can go further and say that it is easier for a company to settle complaints or claims than for a government to settle complaints arising from various causes. The hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) explained the position clearly. A government railway is the property of the people; the representatives of the people are looked upon by those who own the railway as the medium through

which to bring before the powers that be their complaints, and naturally so, and every representative of the people thinks it his duty to his constituents to urge the claims made to him. Now the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) stated correctly that there are claims made to the Department of Railways and Canals that it has no power to settle, even if the minister and every member of the government wanted to settle them. The question is : Are we liable under the Act governing the running of the government railway? And if we are not, and it is referred to the Justice Department, as it must be, then the Justice Department must, under the Act, say that we have no right to pay; and if all these conditions were waived, the Auditor General would not let us pay. The members of this House, if they understood this thoroughly, would not have so many grievances against the Department of Railways and Canals as to the non-settlement of claims, which in many cases the department has no possible power to settle, no matter how willing it might be. During the present session an amendment has been made to the law by which the government railway is brought so far as possible under the provisions of the ordinary Railway Act as to the settlement of claims. Perhaps this will reduce the difficulty to a certain extent, but I imagine these claims will still have to go before the Exchequer Court as they do to-day, although the causes of complaint will be easier to be got at in a way. When cattle are killed on the track, for instance, the owners of them will find a settlement easier on account of the fact that the law is so changed that the conditions under which cattle may not go on the track are not the same as they were previously. I agree without hesitation that that is a weakness. I do not mean a weakness in the manning of the branch at all, but in existing conditions under the law, and under the Act governing government owned railways, it has been impossible to do even what the minister might want to do in the way of settling claims. I am in hopes that the new condition of affairs will remove some of the difficulties, because I want to say to the members of the House that so far as the department is concerned it has no desire whatever to shirk responsibility in paying claims that ought to be paid, even if, under the Act as it has been constituted, there might be no legal liability. There are cases that have come under my attention when I would gladly have made a settlement, cases of bodily injury where death has ensued, but there has been no legal liability; and the House need not be startled if I ask them before this session closes to vote money to pay some of these claims for which there is no legal liability, but which I think as matter of equity and of humanity ought to receive recognition at the hands of Mr. GRAHAM.
this parliament. Now, taking up the resolution and the statement:
That in the opinion of this House the names ' Intercolonial Railway ' and ' Prince Edward Island Railway ' should be dropped, and the name ' Interprovincial Railway ' substituted therefor.
Without going into the question of the cost of transferring the rolling stock from Intercolonial to Interprovincial, let me say this, that there may not seem to be much in names, but if you take any business in the Dominion of Canada or elsewhere, the name of the company or the name of the firm is considered one of the most valuable assets in that business. It is a trade mark, it is the name which stands for certain things; and long years after the men who first formed the company or the partnership are gone, their names are still retained in the business in order that the standing the business had may be kept up under the original name. It is so with the Intercolonial. This is a government-owned railway, the world knows the Canadian government railway under the name of the Intercolonial. Wherever you go and discuss with railway men, they know that Canada owns a railway, they know the name of it, it stands for something. Leaving out the consideration of the cost, I would hesitate very much before I would consent to allow the name of the Intercolonial to be removed from the rolling stock of the government railway and be replaced by any other name, modern or otherwise. T believe we had better retain the name Intercolonial for what it stands for and what it has stood for. I may say in passing that I think hon. gentlemen will agree wTith we that the Intercolonial at present stands for a good roadbed, and a good service at minimum cost. We do not want to change the name, we do not want to change these conditions, but to make them better if possible. Take the next section:
That the government system of railways should bo considered as one entity in the keeping of accounts and in all other respects.
On the face of it that looks very easy, but under present conditions the Department of Railways and Canals requires every railway in the Dominion of Canada to make a return along certain conditions. You have to give the number of cars, what they cost, the mileage, what it cost to build, you have to go along certain lines in making out the original cost, the expenses, and all that kind of thing. It would be impossible for a narrow gauge road and a standard gauge road to unite in this return to parliament. So long as the road on Prince Edward Island is maintained as a narrow gauge road, so long the railway itself must be considered as an entity by itself, and it cannot be reported upon in connection with a standard gauge railway. Then there is another thing I will point

out. The Intercolonial has a certain business, it runs to certain points, it does not connect in any way with the Prince Edward Island road at present. Business on the Prince Edward Island Railway is kept by itself, and we do not begrudge the loss. But it would not be fair to the Intercolonial that is doing its through business, making connection with every railroad on this continent, either by itself or through other roads, that It should have the Prince Edward Island Railway attached to it. It must be run on different lines, run on different standards, run at a different cost. I do not think the change would be advisable, I think it would not be practical and would not attain any good result; particularly as the people of Canada are willing to pay a certain amount each year to provide the people of Prince Edward Island with railway facilities, and they can be accommodated as thoroughly with a narrow gauge railway as with a wider gauge railway.
That the ferry service across the Straits of Northumberland should be owned and managed by the Railway Department, winter and summer.
I take that as complimentary to the Railways and Canals Department. I know that my hon. friend from Queens and my hon. friend from Prince will not again say anything about the Railways and Canals Department being badly managed, because here they come and ask, in order that the service may be benefited, in order that the island may be better served, in order that the transportation between the mainland and the island may be carried on properly, that it be placed under the management of the Railways and Canals Department. I thank my hon. friends for the compliment. Now, should the Railways and Canals Department assume this responsibility? That is a question that is debatable, I say at once. If it is thought by parliament and by the country that we ought to make it part of the transportation problem from the west clear to the island, then that is a debatable point and one that should be discussed with a good deal of attention. I am not going to condemn it, but I am going to say that I do not think for a moment that running merely a winter service by the Railway Department would have any advantage over running the winter service by the Marine and Fisheries Department. The government, in order to carry out the compact of confederation, spends $84,000 a year over and above its receipts in order to keep up winter communication.


Angus Alexander McLean: Is not that $84,000 a portion of the expenditure on the boat while engaged in the summer service ? You have not yet eliminated the expenditure of the summer from the winter, and how can you tell that the expenditure of $84,000 in winter was over and above what was expended in summer ?


George Perry Graham: Is it not only in winter that the government undertakes the service ?


Angus Alexander McLean: Yes, but in the summer time the government spend large sums of money, last year some thousands of dollars, in running that boat for the fishery protection service and they gave the Governor General a trip which cost $10,000 or $12,000.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend is getting away from the point. The Marine Department have given me the figures. My hon. friend can reduce them by $10,000 if he likes but it makes no difference to my argument.


Angus Alexander McLean: The figures are incorrect.


George Perry Graham: The hon. gentleman may reduce the amount by $10,000 if he likes.


Angus Alexander McLean: They should be reduced by $30,000.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend is extravagant in that as in other things, but we will let that go. We come back to this question of the ferry service. It is a matter for serious consideration whether the ferry service should not be made part of the transportation system. Possibly it is a service which ought to be placed under the control of the Department of Railways and Canals which deals with the transportation problems of the country, but I would not like to undertake the winter service if the summer service should not be placed under the same management. If we proposed to go exclusively into a ferry service winter and summer we would be confronted by the hon. gentlemen who are urging the construction of a tunnel, if it would be wise at the present time, that the government should incur another large expenditure in securing steamers while perhaps in a few years they would have to be discarded for the construction of a tunnel ? It opens up the question as to the advisability of making a thorough investigation with reference to the matter. I had hoped before this session is over, and*I still hope, to lay upon the table of the House a report in connection with it. I am not prepared to say how much information it contains. I have had a considerable amount of discussion on this question with the chief engineer of the department, Mr. Butler, and as I stated in a previous debate, he promised to send down some information with reference to the construction of a tunnel. I had hoped to have had it on the table of the House, or in my hands, before this debate came on, but in that I have been disappointed. There is another question involved in this and it is the question of a car ferry. Sometimes it is suggested that the whole difficulty can be solved by the construction of a ferry service across the straits that will carry cars

as they are carried at Detroit. Of course the distance is much greater but that would not make any difference except that the cost of transportation would be greater and the capital involved would be locked up during the longer time that it took to carry cars across the strait. That would involve the necessity of changing the gauge of the Prince Edward Island Railway from a narrow gauge to a standard gauge and it would involve the changing of the rolling stock from narrow to standard gauge and the expenditure would be very heavy. In connection with that it will at once be perceived that the project would be increased in cost to the extent of changing the Prince Edward Island Railway from a narrow gauge to a standard gauge. The connection cannot be made by rail without always taking into consideration the question of the different gauges of the Intercolonial Railway and the Prince Edward Island Railway. The two roads must be made one, that is the Prince Edward Island Railway must be brought up to the standard and in figuring up the cost of making the connection, either by a ferry or a tunnel, this must always be taken into consideration. I am not prepared to say that the government ought to plunge into this without giving it the most serious consideration. The connection between the Canadian Pacific Railway at Vancouver and at Victoria has been referred to. But, the conditions there are altogether different. The Canadian Pacific Railroad boats leave Vancouver outward bound and call at Victoria ; on the inward passage they call at Victoria and then proceed to Vancouver. These are two ocean ports, more to be compared with St. John and Halifax, although they are scarcely in that position, at which the Canadian Pacific Railway steamers stop. The Canadian Pacific Railway have worked out that part of their transportation problem and it is not probable that they will make any change in it. But, if we were confronted by a transportation problem of smaller magnitude such as we have down at Prince Edward Island, I think that the management, even of the Canadian Pacific Railway, would possibly charge as high a price for that accommodation. I am willing to make a comparison between the Intercolonial Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway rates, having reference to the accommodation afforded, at any place on the continent. This is not a question to be brushed aside lightly as being of no importance. I do not look upon it, as an hon. gentleman has suggested, as a joke ; I look upon it seriously.
I do not know of anything having been done or said to affect elections. It is a matter of business and not of politics. It is in the interest of Canada, looking to the compact of confederation, looking to the interest of the people of Prince Edward Island as being part of the Dominion of Canada, that we should endeavour to provide good Mr. GRAHAM.
transportation facilities and better connection between the island and the mainland. I think, however, that it is the duty of the government, or any other government, even though this question has stood on the Order Paper for years, to look into the matter, and I feel assured that no government has any idea of treating this matter lightly, but, believing that this is a matter for serious consideration, I would suggest to my hon. friend, that, having secured the object of his motion in bringing this matter to the attention of the House and having had it discussed and ventilated, he should withdraw it for the present, leaving it in the hands of the government to make further inquiry.


Robert Laird Borden: I desire to say a word or two. The Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) has referred to the very great advantage which has accrued to the country from the delay in constructing the tunnel. The tunnel, he says, can be constructed now much more cheaply than if it had been undertaken ten, or twelve or fifteen years ago. I suppose that if my hon. friend carried that argument to its legitimate conclusion he would point out that in the course of time, by geological changes, Prince Edward Island would be joined to the mainland and that the otherwise large expenditure involved in constructing the tunnel would be saved to the country altogether. I do not think that an argument of that kind would be very satisfactory to the people of Prince Edward Island and perhaps the noteworthy inaction of the government in regard to the tunnel may possibly lead to the delay to which I have just now alluded.
The minister referred to the large amount that has been expended by the government, the sum of $84,000, in maintaining one of these steamers in commission, during the winter, but as I understand it that amount would include the cost of maintaining the steamer in commission not only during the winter service but during the summer as well. And if one looks at the record of that expenditure on these steamers one finds, for example, that the ' Montcalm ' is charged with an expenditure of $93,741.56 gross, or $85,110.88 net, although that steamer was not engaged in the winter service between the island and the mainland at all.
After all it does not matter very much whether it was $84,000 or $54,000. The government have made an effort to carry on this service so far as it can be carried on by steamboat, but that effort during portions of the time' at least has not been very successful. It remains to be considered in the end that the country is pledged, under the terms of confederation, to an efficient steam service winter and summer between the island and the mainland. It may be that the framers of confederation did not have a tunnel in their mind when they used the language quoted by the Minister of Rail-

ways, but it is the meaning of the words which they used and not the intention which was in their minds that eventually controls. If the intention that was in the minds of the framers of confederation had governed, there is not much doubt but that Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island would be entitled to-day to the same representation in this House which they had when they entered confederation. However, in the judgment of the court, the language of the statute did not bear that meaning, and, therefore, the representation of these provinces has been reduced. To take the converse, although it may not have been in the minds of the framers of confederation that a tunnel should be built for the carrying out of this service, nevertheless if the words actually used could be made to include that meaning upon a reasonable interpretation we are not to go back and consider what was in the minds of men who used these words ; we are confined to a consideration of what the meaning of these words is when construed from a reasonable standpoint.
There is just one other consideration that it does not seem to me the Minister of Railways and Canals has had sufficiently in mind. When I visited Prince Edward Island some years ago I found one grievance to which I have repeatedly referred in the House and which it seemed to me it would be easy to remedy. That was the grievance, that the Post Office Department, the Department of Railways and Canals and the Department of Marine and Fisheries have different offices and different work and different responsibility in connection with the winter service between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. I have repeatedly pointed out to the House during the last two or three sessions that it would seem a comparatively simple matter to place the management of that winter service under the control of some one department, so that we would not have the unnecessary and irritating delays which have taken place in the transmission of mails and passengers. I have never been able to imagine any particular reason why we should have the Intercolonial Railway service on the mainland and on the island under the control of the Railway Department, and that the connecting steamship link between these two railways should be under the control of another department. It does not seem to me there is any necessity for that. Although the steamship service between the island and mainland may not be a ferry in the same sense as the service at the straits at Canso, nevertheless it is a ferry in one sense and it is a part of the transportation system between the two railways. It would be a step in the right direction if the views expressed by my hon. friends from Prince Edward Island were given effect to and the entire system placed under the control of one department of government. If you
had united management and united action it would tend to a great degree towards the avoidance of these delays which are so irritating and exasperating to the people of Prince Edward Island. Something of that kind should be done in the meantime until the tunnel is built, or at least until the government, after the lapse we hope of a few more months which will bring the total delay up to about twelve years, shall have placed upon the table of the House that information upon this subject which ought to have been afforded to us long ago.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: In reply to the remarks of the leader of the opposition I may say that in my opinion it is advisable that the winter steamboat service should be under the control of the Department of Marine on the general principle that all government steamers should be under the one department because it requires special organization and special management. Although there are some exceptions I believe that generally speaking that is the proper principle to follow, and that in the public interest it will be better to have all our steamers under the one department.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman would not suggest that the ferry at the straits at Canso should be put under his department?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is purely a railway ferry service which is directly connected with the railway and which transfers the cars from the mainland to Cape Breton.


Robert Laird Borden: That is true, but even when that ferry did not transfer the cars, but merely transferred the passengers and baggage-it was then analogous to the service to Prince Edward Island-it was under the control of the Railway Department.
Mr. BRODEUR, It must be remembered that the steamers which ply between Prince Edward Island and the mainland are only used in that service during the winter months and that in summer both the ' Stanley ' and the ' Minto ' are used for lighthouse and buoy service and for carrying supplies.


Robert Laird Borden: But my hon. friend, I understand, is charging all this up against Prince Edward Island.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Oh, no. My hon. friend mentioned the ' Montcalm.' I suppose he made a mistake in the name. The ' Montcalm ' is not used in the Prince Edward Island service.


Robert Laird Borden: I said it was not.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The boats used in that service are the ' Stanley ' and the ' Minto.' The expenditures for the ' Minto ' are set out

at page P-20 of the Auditor General's Report. The total expenditure for the year ending 31st March, 1907, is $60,118.90. Of this $52,483.90 was taken from the vote for Dominion steamers, $2,633 from the vote for winter mail service and $5,000 from the vote for construction of lights. It is fair to deduct from that the expenditure, which is detailed there, amounting to $5,939.66.


Angus Alexander McLean: Does the minister deduct from that the expenditure for the Governor General's tour?


Mr.   BRODETJR@: That is what I am deducting. This leaves a balance to be charged to the winter service of a little over $54,000. For the ' Stanley ' the expenditure is to be found at page P-27. This amounts to $45,504, making a total of $100,000 outside of the expenditure made for the Governor General's tour. These are the figures which have been given by my colleague, the Minister of Railways and Canals. The receipts are to be found at page 201: the ' Minto ' gave a revenue of $9,075.23 and the 1 Stanley ' $7,793.65, making a total of nearly $17,000. So that the figures given by the Minister of Railways and Canals are absolutely correct.


Angus Alexander McLean: Do you not credit something for the use of the steamers in the summer season by the government of Canada?
Mr. BRODEUR, The service that is rendered by the ' Minto ' during the summer is detailed under the Governor General's tour.


Angus Alexander McLean: The ' Stanley ' was engaged in that work too.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not remember that the 'Stanley' was so engaged; I think she was undergoing repairs, though I may be mistaken in that. There is no doubt that the amount expended on the winter service is far in excess of the amount of the receipts. It is suggested by my hon. frieud that the government should also take the summer service. I cannot accede to that proposition, because I think the service now given by the company engaged in it is giving general satisfaction. Moreover, the government is so often criticised for the winter service that I am afraid we could not give as good a service as that given by the company. It is well known that public utilities are better administered by private companies than by governments. It is suggested by my hon. friend from Prince that we should adopt a different policy with regard to the use of these boats. The principle adopted by the department is this: When the summer service of the private compauy is ended, it is taken up by the government between Charlottetown and Pictou. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lefur-gey) proposes that the boats shall go first to Summerside. then to Char-Mr. BRODEUR.
lottetown and then to Georgetown. I am not in favour of changing ports so often; I think it is in the interest of the island that the service should be as much as possible concentrated at one place. Summerside is not so central as Charlottetown, and I think it is in the interest of the whole island for the boats to begin running from Charlottetown to Pictou, and that any change should be made on the advice of the captains, who are very efficient and cautious men, and whose judgment in that respect can be relied upon. I know that they have sometimes been accused of not being as bold as they should be; but it must be borne in mind that they have to assume a serious responsibility, and so far they have not got their vessels into any serious dffi-culty. Instead of condemning their action,
I think we should commend it. It is the policy of the department, in all cases, so far as a change of route is concerned, to base our action on the advice of the captains; and in that respect I am sure that we shall be sustained by the public opinion of the island. But the idea of changing about-one day at one place and another day at another-is not a practical one, and I do not at all agree with my hon. friend from Prince. I do not want to offer any more criticisms on the proposition which has been made. As far as the Department of Marine and Fisheries is concerned, we have given this year a very good service, and it is our intention to have an ice breaker built . which will be strong enough to cope with the situation.


James Joseph Hughes: 
Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Oh, yes.


James Joseph Hughes: It is not given in the report of the Governor General's trip at page 20 of the Auditor General's Report, only the actual provisions consumed are given, all the rest are charged to the winter service. These steamers may be suitable for lighthouse service along the Labrador, lower Quebec and Newfoundland coasts, but I am not sure that they are the best boats even for that purpose. As I suggested this afternoon, if these boats were kept for the winter service entirely and were put out of commission during the summer, the crews of the winter aud summer steamers being interchanged, there would be a material saving.
We have no special fault to find with the management of these boats by the Marine Department except, as I have stated, that that department was not established as a carrying or transportation department, and should not have control of work of that kind,. while the Railway Department was established for that purpose and is conversant with all details of transportation questions. I have already suggested that a railway corporation situated as the government is situated here, with portions of its railway on the island and on the mainland would also control the connecting link.
Inasmuch as my object in making this motion has been attained by this discussion and the minister has suggested that it be withdrawn for the present and that it would be taken under consideration by the government, I see no reason for not acceding to his wishes. I am glad to see the matter has been fully discussed by the Minister of Railways, the leader of the opposition, the Minister of Marine and others and I am sure good will come of this discussion. I have pointed out the serious handicap under which the people of my province rest in the shipping of their products in competition with the people of the other provinces of Canada. That is the real point I had in view iii bringing up this motion. We should be on an equality with our neighbours on the mainland, with the rest of the people of the Dominion, in regard to freight and passenger rates, or at least we should have a nearer approach to equality than we have now. This matter deserves the immediate consideration of the government, and I am convinced that if it were all under one department we would be nearer an equalization of rates with the rest of Canada, than will be possible with the service under two departments, go long as the existing conditions continue, we will not have attained the object we had in view in entering confederation. Mr. Speaker, under these conditions I will agree to withdraw the motion for the present.
Motion withdrawn.



COMMON'S ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OP THE HOUSE.

William Stevens Fielding: I understand tliat the next motion in order is one which, if entered upon, will lead to a protracted debate. It has been suggested that we do not enter upon it to-night and I would move the adjournment of the House.


George Taylor: When will the correspondence between the Prime Minister and Mr. Justice Cassels, promised for to-day, be brought down ?


William Stevens Fielding: If the Prime Minister is not here to-morrow I shall make inquiry for it. I have no doubt it will be brought down to-morrow.


George Taylor: What business will be taken up to-morrow ?


William Stevens Fielding: A motion for Supply will be made. I understand the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knowles) desires to discuss the Hudson's Bay Railway and this motion for Supply will be made to afford an opportunity to discuss that subject as well as to go into Supply later.
Motion (Mr. Fielding) agreed to and House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Tuesday, April 7, 1908.