I gave the names of the bridges : Chisholm's Bridge, $629.64; Riversdale, $3,169.42 ; Bible Hill, $723.49 ; McManus, Mill, $1,505.84 ; North River, $1,416.52 ; South Coeaigne, $723.81 ; Buctouche, River, $685.34; South Coal Branch, $3,084.54; Red Pine, $465.82; Little Elm Tree, $1,201.26; Fournier's. $616.31 ; Martin's Mill Race, $706.78 ; Charles River, South crossing, $2,971.42 ; Charles River, North crossing, $4,427.34 ; Gordon, $1,229.01; St. Alexis. $722.69; Tobogote, $690.99 ; West Tobogote, $488.11 ; Cedar Hall, $713.76 ; St. Moise, $461.74 ; St. Moise Tank, $1,068.71 ; Ste. Flavie, No. 1, $474.67; Ste. Flavie, No. 2, $469.96 ; St. Luce No. 1, $588.66 ; St. Luce, No. 2, $459.26 ; St. Luce, No. 3, $672.13; St. Anaclet, $440.01; Bic, $467.14 ; St. Fabien, No. 1, $369.01 ; St. Fab-ien, No. 2, $376.89 ; Trois Pistoles, $234.15 ; Isle Verte, $356.14 ; Halifax street crossing, $8,725.96 : Beaver River, $905.73 ; Canal
I wish to state to the minister my reason for asking for these details. For two or three sessions I have complained of the manner in which the railway estimates are brought down. We find large items such as this $385,000 in a bulk appropriation covering a large number of works. There is no other department of the public service that treats the House in this way. If the minister will turn to pages 50 and 51 of the estimates he will find the appropriations of the Public Works Department. In these there are ten items of between $500 and $900 each. This form of estimate enables the Auditor General to carry on his work properly. But he cannot properly audit such an item as this of $350,000 covering thirty or forty works. The Auditor General lias before him only an appropriation of $385,000 for strengthening bridges, and, so long as the department keep within the amount, they may expend the whole sum on only half the bridges and leave the other half to come up again next year, when another similar appropriation may be asked for. I am quite sure the officers of the railway understand that that is' not the proper way to bring in appropriations. It is not the way the bridge department of a railway submit estimates to the general manager. In fact, as we have seen, the general manager of this railway submits to the minister, very properly, the details showing exactly, even down to a single cent, as the hon. gentleman has read, just what he proposes to do on each particular work. The very information the minister needed to enable him to deal with this subject is needed by the Auditor General as the work goes on to check the purposes to which the money is applied. I am glad to have in ' Hansard ' the list of items the minister has given. But such a
list should be in the estimates. It would be muc-b less expensive, for it would save the time of the House, and it would enable us to get the information more satisfactorily. We should be saved a great many questions which now must be asked. If the sum was divided into items as it should be, many of those items could be passed without any consideration to detail. I would suggest to the minister, therefore, that next year he should give the estimates in such detail that we may not be obliged to take the time of the House in making these inquiries.
The course pursued this year is the same as that pursued for many years past-so I am informed by the general manager. But I will take a note of what my hon. friend (Mr. Barker) says of course, the change will mean very voluminous estimates where so many particulars are to be given. That, I think, would be the only objection. I think there is a great deal of force in what my hon. friend says.
The hon. gentleman will see that last year we had votes of three and three quarter millions in a bare half page of the estimates. As I said before, there is not another department that gives so few items as the Department of Railways and Canals.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Emmerson) is not correct in saying that the same system is pursued this year as last year. For, last year the hon. member for Hamilton urged upon the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) who then had charge of the railway estimates, what he has urged to-day and the Minister of Finance absolutely refused to give us certain information which was then asked for and which has been given this year. In that respect the Minister of Railways is to be congratulated upon having adopted a part of a system that was advocated by the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) last year. Last year the hon. member for Hamilton insisted that when a certain sum was asked to pay for sidings along the line, a bulk sum of $100,000 or so, the committee should be told the particular places where this expenditure was proposed, with the amounts in each case. The Minister of Finance absolutely refused to give the amount of expenditure in each case, but he did in the end give the names of the places where the expenditure was proposed. He said it was not proper to give the amount. This year on the other hand Mr. BARKER.
we have the Minister of Railways giving us not only the proposed expenditure for sidings and increased accommodation along the line, but he is giving us in each case, at the request of the committee, the amount proposed to be expended in each case. Now,
I think the minister, having started out so well, ought to consider, in case this administration should have another opportunity of presenting the estimates next year, which we hardly think they will have-the minister should consider the advisability of placing upon the estimates each sum and the place where it is proposed to expend it, along with the necessary particulars. That would greatly expedite the work of the committee.
I find that I did not give the information I should have given with respect to the other amounts, that together make this total $385,000. For instance, tjiere is fthe conveyance or the transfer of these bridges, that is estimated to cost $8,000. To erect and double up certain bridges, $46,000. I can give the names of the bridges that it is proposed to double up. New Glasgow, Canal, Christie's brook, Beaver river, North Coc-aigne, North Coal brook, Richibucto river, Nelson's, Dickie's, Benjamin river, Otterbrooke, Indian brook, One-half mile west of Sayabec, two miles west of Sayabec, one-half mile west of St. Anaclet, one-half mile west of Trois Pistoles, twenty-five or twenty-six bridges at these places.
There is one and a-half mile'west of Trois Pistoles, three bridges at Benjamin river, three at Ricliibuetou river, three at North Coal Branch, two at Beaver river, two at canal, three at Indian brook ; these require to be doubled up, that is, to have two spans. The doubling up is estimated to cost $46,000. Then at Sackville we require $66,000 to replace a bridge. That is in Westmoreland county, New Brunswick. Then there is the Sackville bridge, $66,000 ; Laplanche, $11,000 ; Sutherland river, $25,000 ; Salmon river, $19,400. Then Nicolet river, bridge No. 1, $110,000 ; and bridge No. 2, $85,000. The whole of these items will total more than the $3S5,000, but a portion was paid out of last year's appropriation, and $385,000 will be sufficient to complete the work.
The hon. gentleman sees that under cover of this item he has sums of $85,000 and $110,000 for instance. He must see that it is not treating the committee properly to lump all these together. Surely the committee is entitled to discuss separately an appropriation of $100,000 for any work. Then I would ask the hon. gentleman what he means by the carriage of the material. Is that included in the charges for carriage upon the Intercolonial?
I observe the New Glasgow bridge is mentioned as being doubled up. My impression is that that bridge was doubled in some way a few years ago. Is it proposed to repeat the operation, or what is meant by doubling up ?