have a proper system of doing this business. The rails were not sold at the highest prices. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-They were. Mr. DOMVILLE-They were not. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE Then I give a flat contradiction to the assertion. Mr. DOMVILLE-The hon. gentleman may contradict as much as he pleases; I should like him to show during what period he based his prices. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE reiterated his statement, the rails were sold at the highest price. Mr. WORKMAN claimed to know something about the price of rails. He negotiated for the purchase of 2,000 tons of second-hand rails, and he refused them delivered in Montreal at $16.50 per ton. An Hon. Member-When was that? Mr. WORKMAN-During last year; I had my choice of several kinds. An Hon. Member-Were the rails sold to Mr. Fairweather? Mr. WORKMAN-They were rails used by the Grand Trunk. In answer to an hon. member, Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said he could not state the price obtained for the rails in question. Hon. Mr. BURPEE-They were sold at $26 per ton. Mr. WORKMAN-That is $10 more than what I refused rails for. Mr. DOMVILLE said it was a most pernicious system when a member of the Government should be a co-partner in a company, and that rails should be sold to the company, which did not pay up for months. The item was then passed. LACHINE CANAL. re-arrangement was made with an additional partner this last season. They were about cancelling the contract, but hoping that better headway would be made, they allowed this new arrangement to be entered into and the work had progressed better since. On No. 3 very little progress has been made, and very little could be done. Nos. 9 and 10 were let about the time the House met. Nos. 11, 8, 9, 7, 4, 5 and 6 are all being let at the present moment, and they hoped they would be under contract before the House was prorogued. Hon. Mr. TUPPER asked whether the policy of the Government had not been changed with reference to the widening of the canal, instead of making a new cut. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said the hon. gentleman would remember that Mr. Page, in his report of 1874, recommended a new canal a little above St. Gabriel's Lock, to enter there on the north side, and traverse the whole distance to Lachine. Mr. Page afterwards modified his opinion, and believed it was better to have one canal with a larger sectional area, than two canals with the area as at present; in other words, that two canals of the ordinary width would be equal in carrying capacity to one 175 feet wide at the top, and 100 feet at the bottom. A great deal of discussion took place on the point, and it was finally resolved to adopt Mr. Page's later recommendations-to make the canal wider than was originally intended, and have one instead of two. The engineer had a fear that by passing into the low ground between Montreal and Lachine he would get into a place where it would be difficult to find a good bottom, and that after an artificial bottom had been made the fissures in the rocks above would cause the On item 85, Lachine Canal, $1,- water to escape, and there would be 200,000. complaints for damages. The present canal passed a little above Coté St. Paul, which was chosen on account of the good bottom, and the plan was to enlarge that and thereby avoid possible suits for damages from the escape of water through porous soil. Hon. Mr. MITCHELL asked to what extent the working of the canal would interfere with the mills ? Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said it was one of Mr. Page's objects in the first place, in recommending the double anal, that after a certain time the water might pass through the canal and supply the mills, but he came to the conclusion that the utmost good was to be gained by the present scheme. The mills would be interfered with for one winter. Mr. JONES (Leeds)-What arrangements have the Government made with reference to the mills? Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-Some of them have the lease of such water as the Government can spare. Some have a claim for damages on that account. I am not prepared to say to what extent it may or may not be the case. It involves a legal question, and it would scarcely be proper for me to give any opinion on it. Mr. KIRKPATRICK enquired whether the Government had changed the plans with reference to the enlargement of the Lachine Canal? Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE I have already explained all, that we are not going to make a new cut, but enlarge the old canal. Mr. KIRKPATRICK-Will it be necessary to purchase any property? Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-Oh yes; a little here and there. Mr. KIRKPATRICK---On each side? Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-On both sides. In some cases, we have a great deal more than we want, and in others, we have not enough. Hon. Mr. MITCHELL, as he had done on a previous occasion, asked whether No. 3 section of the Lachine Canal would be deepened to 19 feet, as sections 1 and 2 were to be-in order to meet the requirements particularly of the coal trade between Montreal and the Maritime Provinces? This was also a matter of great importance in the interest of the manufacturers; as such an improvement would save heavy expense in the way of cartage. At all events, this should be done at some future time. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE did not consider that it was the duty of the Dominion Government to furnish a harbour for Montreal, but they were bound to provide a canal suited for the traffic carried on along the River St. Lawrence and on the Lakes. From St. Gabriel's lock down, it had however been thought advisable to make two large basins, and one large, triangular basin, of sufficient depth to enable heavy craft to enter to that distance; but to add another mile and a half, or rather three miles of wharfage to Montreal harbour, seemed to him to be a work entirely outside of the responsibilities of the Government. This the Harbour Commissioners should do; the lock on section No. 3 would, however, have a depth of 14 feet on the mitre sills, in anticipation of having this depth at a future time. Mr. KIRKPATRICK asked whether the proposed enlargement of the canal according to the present plans, required an expropriation of any land involved in the suit which caused considerable comment last summer? Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE - We will need very little of this land, but I think we must take a little in two or three points. Our own border is irregular there-in a zig-zag line; some must be taken from both sides. Mr. KIRKPATRICK-But a very small portion? Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-Yes; from 25 to 30 feet, and in some places, perhaps, 40 or 50 feet. Mr. MASSON-But for an inconsiderable distance? Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-We are making the canal wider-to Coté St. Paul 200 feet, and 175 feet, I think, above. I cannot tell the exact quantity of land which we will need. Hon. Mr. MITCHELL, with regard to section 13, thought that the Premier's reasons for not deepening it to 19 feet were not very logical. The hon. gentleman did not conceive that it was the duty of the Government to increase the harbour accommodation to the extent of 13 miles, but this the hon. gentleman had given, although sufficient accommodation was not provided, in his opinion, taking the requiremeets of our future trade into consideration. MACKENZIE Hon. Mr. This would not be providing for the commerce that passed through our canals, but for that which, coming from the east, cannot pass up the canal to the point desired. Hon. Mr. MITCHELL-The hon. gentleman has stated such provisions must be made by the Harbour Trust; but this Commission is the creature of the Government, which was not satisfied with the system adopted under the late Administration, when the shipping, the city and other public interests had the majority on the Board which public opinion controlled. Now, public opinion has no control over the Board which is a creature of the Government, and subject to its will and law; and you ought not to tell us that it is their duty. Hon. Mr. should I not? quired a good deal of attention at their hands. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-Hon. gentleman are beginning to ask when we are to get through. Thirteen days have already been spent over the Estimates. Never on any occasion since Confederation has so much time been taken up with them. Hon. Mr. TUPPER-There has not been much discussion on the items. Hon. Mr. BLAKE-The hon. gentleman's supporters occupied the time of the House at considerable length before we went into Committee of Supply. Mr. MASSON--What are we here for if not to lay our views before the country? We are not here to register the decrees of the Government. any complaint is to be preferred it MACKENZIE Why ought to be made in Parliament. Hon. Mr. ITCHELL-For this reason-they are under your control. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-No; not as to the harbour. Hon. Mr. MITCHELL-The hon. gentleman knows what has happened; he has removed some of them, and he thus controls the majority. His dic tum is law on the Board. If the latter had been left as it was it would have been controlled by public opinion; now this is not the case. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-Because public opinion did not control them they were removed. Hon. Mr. MITCHELL-My impression was that it was for an entirely different reason. If I chose I could give it, but that is not the point I am now discussing. The great shipping interests of the country demand the deepening of the Canal as mentioned; and if this was done it would be looked upon as a boon. Hon. Mr. TUPPER called attention to the hour, and thought it was a great mistake to endeavour to press forward the work of the Session too rapidly, as they could do justice after this fashion neither to the country nor to themselves. The items under consideration were important, and re If On item 86, appropriating $60,000 for the St. Lawrence Canal, Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE stated that the entire estimated cost of working these canals, 10 feet draft, excluding the Welland Canal, was $18,058,347. Hon. Mr. TUPPER-Does that in clude the deepening of the river? Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE replied in the affirmative. The cost of deepening the canals to 12 feet would be $12,540,900, making a difference of $5,000,000. The estimated cost of deepening the Welland Canal to 12 feet was $9,250,000, and the 14 feet estimate was $12,250,000; total cost for the 14 feet draft $30,290,347, and for the 12 feet navigation $21,790,000. IIe might as well say that they were making certain works on the Welland Canal 14 feet, whilst the locks facing the mountains would be made to 14 feet by raising the walls. the walls. In all places where they could raise the walls two feet they would do so. The Government had decided to test the power of a chain tug at Williamsburg, and it was said that a chain tug would overcome the Cedar Rapids. If this were so it would have the effect of materially lessening the cost of the locks. The House adjourned at Thirty minutes past Two o'clock p. m. HOUSE OF COMMONS. FRIDAY, March 31, 1876. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Ten minutes past Three o'clock. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE moved that when the House adjourns it shall stand adjourned to Saturday, April 1st, at two o'clock in the afternoon, and that Government Measures shall have precedence on that day. He remarked He remarked that he did not propose that the House should sit in the evening. The motion was carried. THE STEEL RAIL PURCHASE. Hon. Mr. CARTWRIGHT having moved the House into Committee to consider the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to Her Majesty. Mr. BOWELL stated that before the Speaker left the Chair, he begged to bring under the notice of the House a question which in all probability would have been brought before it in another shape had the papers, which were moved for by the hon. member for Cumberland sometime ago, been of thereof, for the purchase of steel rails in the year 1874, including correspondence, if any, with parties before the advertisement for tenders--copies of all the advertisements and names of newspapers in which they were published, with date of first insertion in each of them; all correspondence on the subject of further delay in the time of receiving tenders, copies of all advertisements postponing the time for receiving tenders, with name newspapers in which such notice was pub、 supply of steel rails, with all correspondence lished; copies of all tenders received for the in relation to them; and names of persons by whom or through whom such tenders were submitted or made; all correspondence with any of the parties tendering, as to the quantity of rails to be supplied by them; copies of contracts entered into and of all correspondence relating to them; copies of contracts for the transport of steel rails from Montreal to the different parts of the Dominion, with any changes made in such contracts, and correspondence relating to such changes at the time the contracts were entered into, with a statement of the dates of payment of all moneys on such contracts, the present location of the rails, and all charges for transport or storage of the same." this. Surely the Premier did not pretend to say these papers had been laid before the House. Had they been, they would have been laid before the Printing Committee, printed, and disbrought down. On the 18th of Feb-tributed among members long before ruary, the hon. member for Cumberland placed on the notice paper a motion asking for all papers and documents, and advertisements and all other matters connected directly or indirectly with the purchase of a large quantity of steel rails. A short time afterwards the motion was made by his hon. friend, and passed by the House. Since then, however, they had not been brought down. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-I am quite sure that I called the attention of the hon. member of Cumberland at the time to the fact of their being there. Mr. BOWELL--To what do you allude? Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-I remember handing the hon. gentleman the report of the Chief Engineer, and stating as I Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-What has difficult to obtain any further report, laid them on the Table, that it would be not been brought down? until towards the close of the Session, Mr. BOWELL did not remember tion, and it could not be so voluminous as to require a couple of months to get it ready. He should, therefore, before the Speaker left the Chair, make the following motion, seconded by Mr. Kirkpatrick : "That the Speaker do not now leave the chair, but that it he Resolved, That the purchase by the Government of 50,000 tons of steel rails, without the previous consent of Parliament, was an unconstitutional exercise of the Executive power, and that such purchase was premature and unwise, and has caused great pecuniary less to the country." now the Cabinet directly under the control of Par liament, and to take from them the power of using any portion of the people's money withpoint out as an instance of the course the Liberal Party will pursue, that in Ontario, when the Reform Government came into power, they repealed a portion of the Act granting aid to railways, so that all grants had to receive the sanction of the House before a farthing could be paid." out a direct vote for its service. I might use of the following language:- "What had been the great issue during the election. It was the same as during the Ontario election of 1871. It was simply to decide whether the thirteen ministers at Ottawa were to usurp legislative as well as administrative authority-were practically to become a political oligarchy at the head of our system of Government. They assumed to have the right to have the money not only voted to them as a Government, but voted to them in such a way as to GIVE THEM THE DISPOSAL OF IT ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN VIEWS." This declaration of opinion held by the hon. gentleman when in Opposition, was received, as the report mentions, with immense cheering and The best evidence-it ought to be at thundering applause. At a later least to those on the Treasury Benches-period the same hon. gentleman made to show that this motion embodied the views which had been held by the gentlemen who the govern country, could be given by reading short extracts from the Premier's own speeches, containing these declarations of opinion and principle when in Opposition. It must be in the recollection not only of every member of the House, but of every clector, particularly in Ontario, that during the late elections one of the principal planks in the platform of the hon. gentlemen opposite, when they went to the people, was that public money should not be taken or used by any Administration without the previous consent of Parliament. They remembered very well that the Parliament of Ontario had passed an Act, placing at the disposal of the then Administration, of which the late Hon. John Sanfield Macdonald was leader, the sum of $1,500,000 to aid in the construction of railways in that Province, and the principal objection taken to the constitutionality of that Act, by the gentlemen now in power, was that the Government was empowered by Parliament to distribute that money without first coming down to the House, and asking for additional authority to do so. Not only was this said to be a breach of the constitution, but also a usurpation of power, that could be used not only to the detriment of the people, but to keep them in office, and no man denounced the principle more strongly than the Minister of Justice. Discussing this matter, the Premier on the 5th July 1872, in the city of Montreal, employed the following language: "The policy of the Liberal Party is to m. ke l'arliamentary Government supreme, to place This was also received with great cheering as the fundamental principal of the party. In this instance not only had the present Premier spent money without it having first been voted by Parliament, but he had entered into contracts for the supplying of large quantities of material to the value of nearly $3,000,000, portions of which, it was supposed, would be required before this time, but other portions not for years, and on this he spent a sum of money amounting to between $2,000,000 and $3,000,000 without consulting Parliament until after the contracts had been entered into. It had been said in justification of that purchase that the market at that time was falling, and that a great saving was affected by their going into the market at that time. Exception, howto that declaraever, was taken tion, and subsequent events have shown that those who took the objection were right. The Finance Minister in his budget speech of 1874, prognosticated in doleful language a stagnation in trade. It was evident from that fact that he must have considered that the prosperity which had created the high prices paid for all kinds of goods. was likely to take a turn downward. Premier And if the had paid |