Is it necessary for the hon. gentleman, when asking a question, to pat a sting into it, as he did when he referred to Mr. Russell as an importation from the United States ?
Mr. INGRAM.
I am a Canadian in the first place, and when any man imported iuto this country runs down the manufactures of Canada, I am opposed to him.
If the hon. gentleman wants to be set right, I can tell him that there was nothing in the statement he made which could be construed as, running down the products of Canada as such.
Mr. INGRAM.
I simply said, and I say it again, that Mr. Russell wrote to the different superintendents calling their attention to the unsatisfactory way these engines were performing their duty, and the reason he gave was the construction of the. engines. Now, the hon. gentleman's own officer imported here from Moncton the other
day, proved it was not the construction tu.it -was a fault, but that they required readjustment.
Well, if the hon. gentleman is anxious that his certificate should be given as respects the character, quality and workmanship of the engines we are getting iu Canada, I will be only too glad, and l am sure the officers of the road will be only too glad, to give the highest certificate of their qualities. I have never hesitated to say in this parliament that the locomotives we got from Kingston always gave us great satisfaction, and in saying that, I am expressing the opinion of the officials of the road who are competent to pass an opinion upon that subject. And I have said chat we were only too sorry we could not get them all here.
Now I say that for the purpose of comparison it would be utterly absurd to complain of our charging expenditures of this character against capital, when they charged the expenditure of trivial amounts against capital, and where we are absolutely reconstructing the line in many important particulars; so that the force of the argument they resort to does not weigh in the present instance. It is in fact only a mere technical controversy ; the hon. gentlemen are chasing a shadow. The substantial fact is that the country has not suffered in the slightest, to the extent of u farthing, by reason of the way in which these expenditures have been charged. Has the country suffered under this administration as compared with their administration? I say no. To charge us up, as compared with their administration, with the millions we have spent in improving, renovating and recreating the road, would be an outrage upon all fairness, all reason, and all justice; therefore I entirely repudiate the force of the argument, and claim that there is nothing in it, and the country I think will be of that opinion also. Now there is a way in which a comparison can be made between this administration of the railway and their own, in which every element of justice and fair-play will be found, and by which they may obtain every advantage that possibly belongs to them. There are certain classes of expenditure which may properly come out of earnings year by year in order to keep up the standard of the road. Those are classified under a few heads and are very accessible. You can easily get at them, and you can easily see what is the gross amount of those expenditures. Now, take up the expenditures which are made for maintenance of way and works under the late government, and we find they expended in the gross, we will say, a million dollars. Now if I take the expenditures under this administration and show that under the same heads, for the same general purposes, we have expended less than they; or if they can show that they
have expended more than we, making allowance and charging up against us what would be a fair proportion for additional mileage, then they have got an argument. But if they cannot do that, they have not got an argument. They cannot show where we have expended less for those purposes, comparatively, than they expended, making allowance for the increased mileage ; then they cannot say that the comparison tells in their favour and does not tell in ours, or they cannot argue that we have taken out of capital money which we ought to have expended upon maintenance, in order to keep up the comparison and to make our position good as compared with theirs. I think I have made my proposition clear, and if so, then I will endeavour to elucidate it by the actual facts.
After all there are these different heads : Ways and works, which include all that is laid' upon the track, all that is laid out for improvements upon the stations, and all that is laid out for sidings, repairs to locomotives, and renewals of locomotives, repairs to cars and renewals of cars. These are the three heads under which the various amounts are found which have been laid out upon the road, and the fair comparison can be made from them. We can take these three items, these three general classes of expenditure by the late government, we go into them, we ascertain that they spent so much each year in respect to ways and works, so much in respect to repairs and renewals of locomotives, so much in respect to repairs and renewals of cars, we add these up and get year by year what they have laid out on the road. I do the same with the years of our administration. For the purposes of this comparison I have taken the last year of the late government. It is a fair year. They expended as much that year and rather more than in any previous year. It is a fair year for comparison, as I think my hon. friend will allow. I will take, of our administration, the years 1900 and 1901. I will compare their-last year with two years of our administration. The expenditure upon ways and works in 1896 was $774,556-the last year of the administration of the late government. The expenditure for the same purpose during the year 1900 was $962,978. For repairs to locomotives and renewals of locomotives in 1896 the expenditure was $230,000 in round numbers, and in 1900 it was $317,000. In 1896, for repairs to cars and renewals, the expenditure was $290,000, and in 1900 it was $472,500. Now, the total expenditure, therefore, of the late government for these three classes of work was $1,294,372. But we had more mileage than they. We had 15 per c.ent more mileage, we therefore had the earnings of 15 per cent more railway, and we are entitled to add 15 per cent to their outlay to put them on the same footing with us in 1900. If you will add 15 per cent to $1,294,372, you will find that it
amounts to $1,488,000. The gross expenditure by this department on the Intercolonial Railway in 1900, for these three purposes was $1,752,000. or $264,000 more when you add the additional mileage and percentage than was expended by the late government. Now, that $264,000 more was paid for the keeping up, repairing and improving of the road in its various departments out of earnings in 1900, and in the name of common sense is it possible for any hon. gentleman to construct the argument, or to support it, that we have taken money out of capital to do what they did in order to make a comparison with them ? Is it not an unmeasured fallacy ? Will it hold ground for a moment ? These are the facts and hon. gentlemen have the records and they can go through them. I do not deny that my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) can, as he no doubt will, pick out a few of the items which go to constitute these three classes of work, and make a long speech, and to those who are interested in minute details connected with railway expenditures, he can make an interesting speech. He can say, that, whereas the late government in some year, in any year that he chooses to select, spent $75,000 on one item, we have only spent $25,000. He' can do that in a hundred instances, or twenty or thirty instances, perhaps, and what is the value of it after it is done ?-Because to make a fair comparison, you must take the totals. The totals show that in the year 1900 the expenditure for all these purposes put together, taking the larger with the smaller and the smaller with the larger, by this government was $264,000 more than the expenditure in 1896, and that just so much more money was taken out of the earnings for the betterment, improvement and maintenance of the railway.
Now, I will ask to be allowed to make another comparison. I will give, for the benefit of my hon. friend, the result of the operation of the road in 1901, in which year we had a deficit of $488,000, and I will show what was spent for maintenance, ways and works, repairs to locomotives, renewals of locomotives, repairs to cars and renewals of cars. The late government spent in 1896, as I have already stated, for these purposes, $1,488,000, while we expended in 1901, under the same heads, $2,051,182, or $562,000 more, after adding 15 per cent for the additional mileage. More than half a million of money in excess was laid out on that road in these various departments, under these different heads, for the purposes which I have named, that is to say for betterment and improvement out of earnings. If we had not spent any more on the Intercolonial Railway for maintenance out of earnings than these hon. gentlemen did, making allowance for the additional mileage, we would have had a surplus of $80,000 instead of a deficit of $488,000. My hon. friend (Mr. Haggart) laughs. I do not know what the Horn Mr. BL UR.
laugh is indicative of. I would like to be able to interpret that laugh but he renders me no assistance. Does he laugh because he thinks the comparison of that kind is of no value ? Well then, if it is of no value, figures and accounts and statements are of no value. If the hon. gentleman thinks that figures are of no value then let him live up to his statement, because, if he does, he will have to hold his peace instead of offering any criticism upon the administration of the Intercolonial Railway. My hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) would not like to subscribe to that, because, when he comes to make his speech, he will simply overwhelm us with statements of figures and calculations which will go to show, as he would say, that the comparisons were favourable to the late government and unfavourable to this government, but here are the figures which can be found in the public accounts and in the ' Hansard,' and they can all be criticised. Here are the figures as they are furnished by the department in the ordinary way, and they prove this, that if comparisons are of any value at all, if there is anything in the argument which hon. gentlemen make that we have taken money out of capital and spent it, which we ought to have taken out of earnings as they did, then that fact would appear on the record and would be evidenced by the results for that financial year. But, these things disprove any such inference, and absolutely nullify any such argument.
In connection with the question of capital expenditure, I must crave the indulgence of the committee, if I refer to another matter which I quite overlooked in the course of my digression for the benefit of my hon. friends opposite. I want to make this statement, and it is a somewhat important statement. The hon. gentlemen opposite who have been criticising the method we have pursued in charging expenditures to capital, wish us to understand that they never did such a thing when they were in 'office, and that therefore they are on strong ground when they now condemn this system. They would wish it to be inferred that their condemnation of the system was the result of their ripe experience in carrying out an entirely different system when they managed the affairs of the Intercolonial Railway. Well, Sir, even that ground, weak as it would be in view of the other arguments I have presented, is not available to my friends opposite. They cannot stand even on that narrow platform, because I will be able to show that they were equal sinners in that respect with us, if sinners we be. I will show that these very gentlemen, time after time, came to parliament and asked parliament to give them money on capital account for exactly the same purposes as we have spent money on capital account, and which they now condemn. Of course the expenditure was not exactly upon the same scale; I do not
fedb..
say that they were called upon to spend as large sums as we have been obliged to expend, but surely when a question of principle is under consideration, the question of the amount does not seriously affect the argument. If they asked for $100,000 on capital account, and if for similar purposes I ask $1,000,000, their position is not one whit stronger so far as the principle is concerned. They claim that in reference to this expenditure on capital, they are contending for a principle upon which they have lived, upon which they died, and to which they say we should adhere. Let us look at the records which are at our disposal. These records will afford some en-lightment to the House. I go back to the year 1891, and I find the Minister of Railways in the Conservative government asking parliament for capital expenditure for the construction of a ' Y ' at Truro, $1,500. Surely nobody will say that a ' Y ' at Truro was the introduction of something that was entirely so exceptional as to call for its payment out of capital account, if there is any reason at all in the argument now advanced by these gentlemen. Surely if they were justified in charging $1,500 for a ' Y ' to capital account, the cost of laying rails and of material for the equipment of a whole yard could be properly charged to capital account. Here are the expenditures for 1890-1 on capital account: Intercolonial Railway.-Statement o£ capital expenditure. 1890-91. Construction of a 'Y' at Truro $ 1,500 00 Increased accommodation, Moncton.. 10,608 73Increased accommodation, St. John.. 4,355 17Dartmouth branch 413 94Indiantown branch 402 63St. Charles branch 12,033 49Rolling stock 50,083 44Construction 531 94Total $ 79,929 34 It will be noticed that there were even some very small sums charged to capital account. I do not say that these gentlemen opposite were not justified upon the ground which I justify myself in asking for every one of these expenditures on capital. I am not condemning their expenditures. I never have, but I think it is rather more than human patience should be asked to stand to hear these gentlemen opposite venting their indignation and condemning in unmeasured terms my action when they themselves were the originators, and the adopters of exactly the same policy. If I were of opinion that they did wrong, I could not justify myself, but as I am strongly of the opinion that what they did in that respect was right, I think I may refer with some little confidence to their own record as in some degree tending to mitigate the wrath which they now pour out on my conduct, for doing the same thing as they did. In 1891-2, the Conservative government charged the following sums to capital account: 1891-92. Foot bridge over railway at Truro..$ 5,983 70 Stairs at Halifax station 691 00 Halifax Cotton Factory siding 3,184 09 Increased accommodation at Moncton. 710 00 Increased accommodation at New- Glasgow 11,107 91Increased accommodation at St. John 1,086 65Extension along front, city St. John.. 176 15 Additional property accommodation, St. John 79,960 42Dartmouth branch 796 46indiantown branch 642 75St. Charles branch 45,171 27Rolling stock 22,026 25Train Ferry, Strait of Canso.... 10,297 GoOxford and New Glasgow Railway . 4S.745 23Cape Breton Railway 89,639 31Total $320,218 84 These are the items of 1891-2 on capital account expended by tbe Conservative government, and you would hardly credit it. To sit here patiently listening to the violent condemnation of these gentlemen upon me, you would hardly credit that they spent such sums on capital account. And mark you, that condemnation does not come from the men who simply sat by and zealously supported them in doing this, but it comes from the very men who> did it themselves. It would almost try the patience of Job if he had to sit here and listen to such absurdities from these gentlemen opposite. Surely we are endowed with no ordinary quality of patience when we can sit here listening to the denunciations of these gentlemen. Surely we may congratulate ourselves on the patience exhibited by some of us, and by myself particularly. In 1892-3 these gentlemen spent the following sums on capital account: 1892-93. Increased accommodation at Halifax. $ 56,934 62 Additional sidings at Halifax 4,500 00 Increased accommodation at New Glasgow 5,999 47Increased accommodation at Moncton 8,590 00Increased accommodation at St. John 9,512 58 Additional property accommodation at St. John 120,526 49 Extension along the front, City St. John 2,816 b3 To pay interest and costs, Gallivan vs. the Queen 476 30Stations and sidings at Eureka Junction 9,000 00 Siding at Campbellton to Mowatt's wharf i,914 00Rolling stock 16,813 06Construction 125 65St. Charles branch 1,061 59Total $238,260 39 That amounted to $238,000. Of course it does not amount to $2,000,000, but I suppose these gentlemen opposite will not claim that there can be a line drawn between capital expenditure which may be justified, and capital expenditure which may not be justified, and that they are the persons who shall determine where that line shall be drawn.
Surely these gentlemen are not impressed with the idea that what they did must have set the standard of propriety, and that they have figured out that the very expenditure on capital account which they made should be the guide for all future governments as to the limit of the expenditure on capital which future governments should make. In 1893-4 they spent the following sums on capital account: 1893-94. Increased accommodation at Halifax. $ 855 41 Increased accommodation at Moncton -machinery 2,700 00 Extension along the front, City St. John 30,821 01 Construction 1,678 19 Rolling stock 11,251 13St. Charles branch 33,349 19Purchase of two heavy locomotives. 22,244 47 Train ferry between Mulgrave and Point Tupper 63,463 03Oxford and New Glasgow Railway.. 112,332 75Cape Breton Railway 158,770 61Total $437,515 79 In 1894-5 they spent the following sums on capital account: 1894-95. Increased accommodation at Halifax. $122,708 28 Increased accommodation at Moncton 7,494 17 Increased accommodation at Ferrona Junction T 1,981 57Construction 1,920 18St. Charles branch 890 65Indiantown branch 1,291 07Dartmouth branch 118,153 94Rolling stock 9,984 24Oxford and New Glasgow and Cape Breton Railways 62,610 41Total $327,034 51 Now we come to 1895-6, the following sums were expended on capital account: Increased accommodation at Halifax $124,910 00 Increased .accommodation at Moncton 1,000 00 Increased accommodation at Sydney. 11,374 41 Construction 1,948 35St. Charles branch 1,271 96Indiantown branch 1,436 10Dartmouth branch 107,402 17Rolling stock 10,000 00 Oxford and New Glasgow Railway.. 80 40 Total $259,423 42 I am assuming that my hon. friend will admit that this was his year; but probably I am assuming too much. Perhaps be will not admit it. In case he will not admit it, I want to read to you a document which my hon. friend presented to me-not personally. He did not hand it over to me, but I received it as a bequest from my hon. friend when I was deputed to occupy the place which he so efficiently and worthily filled. I have a document here which hears my hon. friend's sign manual and endorsa-tion. He said, ' Here it is written on the record which I present to you as the incoming Minister of Railways.' Well, I inno-Hon. Mr. BLAIR. cently took it up and adopted it, and I did not expect, I frankly acknowledge to you, in doing that, that among the first persons whom I would find sitting in unhesitating and unqualified condemnation upon mv conduct would be my hon. friend who left this as a legacy to me after his departure. You can judge how grave and serious was my hon. friend's conduct when I read to you the items which I propose to read now-the items of my hon. friend's last will and testament; the very estimates which the government of which he was a member prepared. to which they laid on the Table of parliament, which they struggled for many weary months to get the assent of parliament. and failed. If these estimates did not become the law of the land, it was through no fault of theirs. If they had become the law of the land, the expenditure would have gone on, and where would be the critics who are now condemning the expenditures ? If all that they have said in reference to our mode of making these expenditures is well founded, what must he the punishment of those who would initiate such outrageous expenditures as these ? My hon. friend first proposed to purchase rolling stock on capital account.
Mr. ROSS (Ontario).
What is the date of that ?
The fiscal year ending the 30th of June, 1897.
Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
Did the hon. gentleman say that it was presented to parliament ?
I do. Does my hon. friend say it was not 1
Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
I do not know.
Then, what my hon. friend does not know, would, I think, form a very large volume, indeed. My hon. friend does not know that the government of which he was the Minister of Railways, presented estimates to parliament early in the session of 1896, struggled to get them through, and ultimately failed; and my hon. friend, who undertakes to criticise the different items of our railway expenditure, does not know that in that year he put before liis colleagues, got their consent to, and brought down to parliament with their entire approval, the items of expenditure on capital account which I am now about to read to you; and the first item is for rolling stock. Gould anybody imagine such a thing as that ? This incident is fresh, mind you. It is not as if some years before he left the government he had got new light and changed the error of his ways; it was not as if my hon. friend had struggled with this question in all its length and breadth, and had come to see how monstrous was
the course he had been pursuing, and at the last moment had got conversion aud had been put in the right way. But in the very act of dissolution, in his last extremity, my hon. friend's last kick was to perpetuate a system which he is now condemning. No wonder my hon. friend would like to take refuge in ignorance, because, while it is not a justification, it is the only excuse my hon. friend can offer. I am not able to yield even to the force of that as an excuse, because I cannot credit the possibility that these items could have been submitted to council, could have passed council, could have been laid on the Table, and yet my hon. friend, as the head of the department, which fathered them, could not have known of their existence. T cannot reconcile these things at all, and I do not think he can when he comes to give them a moment's reflection.
Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
I have not heard any of them yet.
The hon. gentleman will hear them soon enough. The first is $15,000 for rolling stock. Does that not strike everybody as amazing from the hon. gentleman who said when we got the Drummond County' Railway, that rolling stock could only be charged to earnings and must not be paid out of capital account-
Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
Hear, hear.
Hear, hear, says my hon. friend. Does my hon. friend say that this $15,000 was for rolling stock that was got by reason of an extension of the Intercolonial Railway during the preceding year ?
Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
Yes, perhaps.
Will my hon. friend enlighten me as to when and where the extension took place for which this rolling stock was asked ?