1901-02-19

REPORT PRESENTED.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Secretary of State for Canada for the year ending June 30, 1900.-Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

Mr. SPEAKER.: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received from the Hon. Mr. Justice Hodgson and the Hon. Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, two of the judges selected for the trial of election petitions, jiursuant to the Dominion Controverted Elections Act, a certificate relating to the electoral district of East Queen's, in the province of Prince Edward Island, by which the said election is declared to be void.
I have further to inform the House that the trial judges having reported
(c) That there is reason to believe that corrupt practices, namely, treating, extensively prevailed at the election to which the petitions relate.
(<f) We are of opinion that the inquiry into the circumstances of the said election has been rendered incomplete by the action of the parties to the said petitions, and that further inquiry as to the extent such corrupt practices prevailed is desirable.
I have, in conformity with section 48, chap. 9 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, withheld the issue of my warrant for a new election pending any action to be taken by the House in the matter.



MESSAGE FROM HIS EXCELLENCYSUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) presented a Message from His Excellency the Governor General.
Mr. SPEAKER read the Message, as follows :-
Minto.
The Governor General transmits to the House of Commons supplementary estimates of sums required for the service of the Dominion for the year ending June 30, 1901, and in accordance with the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867, the Governor General recommends these estimates to the House of Commons. Government House,
Ottawa, February 19, 1901.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved :: That the Message of His Excellency, together with the supplementary estimates for the current year, be referred to the Committee of Supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved :: That when the House adjourns this day, it stand adjourned until Thursday next.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. AV. S. Fielding) moved that the House resolve itself into Committee of Supply.
['My instructions were that all committees should be summoned for Thursday. If that has not been done in the case of the Public Accounts Committee it must have been a mistake. X will see to it that the committee is summoned for the following day.']
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (East York).: Mr. Speaker, before we enter into the consideration of that motion, I desire to bring an amendment before the attention of the House, dealing with the question of the government ownership of railways in this country. I have framed an amendment on the narrowest lines possible in order to elicit the fullest discussion, and in order to present the matter before the House and the public in a wide and clear manner. When, the other day, I brought this question to the attention of the House by moving the adjournment of the House, I was criticised because it was said that I was out of order, and that I was springing the question upon the House and the country. I am here to justify what I did then, because what I did then secured for me a very prompt expression of opinion from one end of the country to the other, and if I am moving to-day in a more regular way, it is because, to-day, I have at my disposal an expression of opinion that comes from one end of Canada to the other, and which proves the gravity and indicates the importance of this question, and which justifies me in bringing it up now on a motion to go into Supply. In the short week which has elapsed since I first made the motion, I have had expressions of opinion from all over the country ; from the press and from the public men of Canada endorsing my course ; and, in the discussion to-day these expressions of opinion will throw a great deal of light upon the subject. What is the question to which I direct the attention of the House and of the country ? It is the gravity of the fact that the great railroads of Canada are liable at any moment to pass into the control of that great monopolistic syndicate which has recently acquired control of the great railways of the United States. The future of Canada is involved in that question, and therefore if I take up a little time of the House in trying to make my position good, I trust hon. gentlemen will pardon me. Let me first give a sketch of these men in the United States who control the railways, and I shall do so by way of illustration. At the head of that combination is Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan, of New York, who to-day is the collossus of banking in the world. There is not a proposition that he will not undertake; he frequently puts schemes through which involve
from fifty million dollars to a thousand million dollars. He commands almost the entire banking support of the United States, and he has associated with him men of great experience and capacity ; men like the head of the Vanderbilt family, owning thousands of miles of railroads in the United States; men like Mr. George Gould, who controls thousands of miles of railway, as well as the telegraph system of the United States largely ; men like Mr. Rockefeller, the head of the Standard Oil Company, who also controls thousands of miles of railway ; men like Mr. Harriman, also a great railway owner, and these men, along with others, form to-day, the most powerful combination that ever existed in the United States. Within the past few weeks they have consolidated the Vanderbilt lines, the Gould lines, all the Pacific lines, including the Northern Pacific, the Union Pacific, the Great Northern, and the Southern Pacific. These men not only control the railroads of the United States, but they control also other great corporations. AVithin a week they have secured control of the iron and steel production of the United States, capitalized at $950,000,000. They control the oil production of the United States, through the Standard Oil Company; they control the copper production of the United States ; they control all the coal fields in the Eastern States and the Southern States, and the coal fields of Ohio, and they are preparing to control the ship-building of the United States. There is not a single proposition of the first magnitude that these same men do not seek to control.
What is still more significant to the people of this country to-day is the fact that they also control the service of Mr. C. M. Hays, who was the manager of the Grand Trunk Railway, and who is to-day to be the manager of the consolidated system-a man whom all the world admits is the greatest administrator of railway in America and who, having been in the service of the Grand Trunk, and knowing the transportation problems of Canada, as no other man in America knows them, is in a position by reason of his connection with this great syndicate and his knowledge of our railway, to lay out a scheme whereby in the twinkling of an eye the two great Canadian railways could pass into the hands of this syndicate. And even if they do not pass into the hands of this syndicate, they could be greatly injured by him.
They also control steamship and river lines of steamers, on the Pacific, on the Atlantic and on many of the inland waters of the United States.
Now, Sir, if they can control the railways of the United States, I am here to-day to argue that they can control the railways of Canada in a very easy manner, and since I raised this question last week, we have had the opinion of Mr. Shaughnessy, the head of the Canadian Pacific Railway, to show how

easy it would be for this powerful United States syndicate to control our Canadian railroads. In an authentic interview given out by Mr. Shaughnessy, he makes this statement :


Mr.  T. G.@: Shaughnessy, president of the Canadian Pacific Railway, was asked by a Herald representative to-day as to what he thought of the possibility of the Canadian Pacific Railway being acquired by a powerful syndicate of United States capitalists, as was stated in the course of the debate on government ownership of railways in the House of Commons yesterday afternoon.
' Oh, it is quite possible,' continued Mr. Shaughnessy; ' there is nothing whatever to prevent American capitalists, if they have got the money, from buying the stock of the Canadian Pacific Railway, which is for sale in London and Montreal, and on Berlin and other continental bourses. Having acquired the stock, there is nothing to prevent these gentlemen from controlling the policy of the company, and exercising their control for the advancement of United States interests.'
Now, not only can these men control these railways at a comparatively small cost-as Mr. Shaughnessy has said, of $30,000,000- but they can control these railways by the simple act of leasing them, for which they will only have to pay a very small consideration. We therefore see that these men can any day acquire control of both of our great Canadian roads for a mere nominal sum. And not only that they could ruin the Canadian manufacturer and the Canadian citizen toy the local rates which they could impose on our local traffic and by the preferences which they could give to American products and manufactures coming into this country. They could if they liked, in this strong position hold us in the hollow of their hand. We would all be their serfs and their servitors.
And if they once started to gobble up our railways, they could gobble up our great lines of production, just as they have got control of the iron and steel and copper and petroleum production in the United States.
We have been discussing the status of these roads from another point of view, and recently it has been pointed out that their management at the present day is a menace to our country. It has been charged against them, the Grand Trunk Railway particularly, that they were discriminating against Canadian ports, and rendering almost useless the great sums of money we have spent on our canal system, on our harbour improvements, and on the deepening of the St. Lawrence route. If these railroads can do that to-day, how much more injurious would it be to this country were they to pass into the hands of a United States syndicate. Today the fight is between the American shipping ports as against the St. Lawrence route, and do you think that if these men who have all their interests bound up in the ports of New York, Boston, Baltimore and Philadelphia, could get control of the Canadian rail-Mr. MACLEAN.
ways, that they would not use that power to the detriment of Canada. This question is therefore, to us, one of supreme national importance, and that is why I have thus early availed of the opportunity to bring it before the parliament of Canada. Why, this syndicate could render nugatory the effects of all the money we have spent in building up our canals and in trying to create great shipping ports in Montreal, in Quebec, in St. John, and in Halifax. These men could do all that by spending fifty million dollars in buying the control of our railways, or easier still for them, by leasing the roads. And, Sir, they would have no hesitation in doing it.
My argument in favour of government control of railways is, in the first place, because I wish to stop the unpatriotic management of these roads towards Canada, and in the second place, I wish to try and prevent our railways falling into the hands of United States monopolists. I have two arguments in my favour. First, that these roads on which Canada has spent so much money in the way of subsidies are to-day inimical to the interests of Canada ; and second, that they are liable to fall into the hands of these men in the United States. These, I submit, Sir, are two good reasons in favour of my contention. In order that X may bring the mind of the House clearly to this matter, I propose to read some expressions of public opinion which have been given within the past week on this question. I shall first quote the Hamilton Herald, which says :	.
Few speeches delivered in the Dominion are more worthy of serious attention than the one which was made yesterday hy the member for East York (Mr. Maclean). It was a very bold and radical speech, and a very important one. Mr. Maclean advocated the acquirement by the government of the whole interest in the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway as a means of averting the great danger. The proposition is made not so much as a matter of general national policy as because the nationalization of the railways is the only adequate means of defence against the national danger arising out of new and unexpected conditions. Even more significant and important than Mr. Maclean's advocacy of this policy is Mr. Charlton's tacit endorsation of it. The member for East York has for some years been an advocate of national railways; but Mr. Charlton has never given any hint of favouring such a radical innovation. The member for North Norfolk is a prudent, cautious politician, inclining to conservatism; and the fact that he favours the serious consideration of Mr. Maclean's proposal will go far to save that proposal from ridicule as one of Billy Maclean's fads.
La Patrie on the same day says :
The situation is far from being a desperate one; it is neither dark nor compromising as depicted by fantastic rumours. But the present agitation will open the eyes of those who had refused to see, and will cause those with serious thoughts to give careful attention and' efficacious protection to our great natural interests.

Here is an extract from another paper which I think will appeal to the House, namely, the Montreal Witness \
There are few persons who have been observing how the interests that are developing Canada have been falling into few hands, and many of these foreign, who have not wondered what might be the effect of it all on self-government and on Canadian nationality. Whether or not there be anything in the fear expressed by Mr. Maclean of the Canadian Pacific Railway falling into the tentacles of the all-absorbing railway octopus now developing in the United States, the bare mention of such a possibility must awaken serious reflections in the minds of all who remember the nature and extent of the sacrifices made by the country to secure the construction of that great transcontinental railway. If such an extraordinary anti-climax to an undertaking, originally designed to knit the scattered provinces together and make this country independent of the United States in matters of transportation, could have entered the minds of the statesmen who projected the railway, we may be sure they would have provided securely against it in the charter and Act of incorporation. The magnitude of the new power which has come into existence on this continent, however, with its unconcealed intention of controlling transportation between the two oceans, gives colour to the apprehensions expressed in parliament, extravagant though they may appear. The Canadian Pacific Railway is of the nature of an Impreial highway, as it is certainly an alternative route between Britain and the east. Such being the fact, its control by foreign and possibly hostile capitalists is a contingency not to be contemplated. Like the Suez canal, as Mr. Maclean says, it is an Imperial necessity. It has long been boasted as Canada's contribution to the empire's defences. It must remain a national enterprise. Mr. Maclean's proposal that this should be accomplished as Lord Beaconsfield secured the key of the east, is one which, should it be the right one, will not perhaps be facilitated by the public proposal of it. In taking the readiest way to answer the Sphinx's riddle and to unlock the Asian mystery, that Oriental magician did not propose at the same time to solve the great economic problem of the west, nor do we know that the way proposed is the right one. We only know that the question is a live one, full of electricity.
I am not going to read all the press opinions which I have, but I wish to read some extracts from an article in the Toronto Globe of only Friday last. The Globe says :
Mr. Shaughnessy says that there is nothing whatever to prevent American capitalists from buying the stock of the Canadian Pacific Railway, which is for sale in London, Montreal, and on the Berlin and other European exchanges. Having acquired the stock, there is nothing to prevent them from controlling the policy of the company and exercising their control for the advancement of United States interests. He might have added that there was nothing to prevent them exercising their power to the positive detriment of Canadian interests without overstating the case. The danger is even more immediate, for there is nothing to prevent the present owners of the road, whether they be Canadians, Americans or Germans, from operating the road in such a way as to favour foreign at the expense of domestic enterprises. In fact,
the present management have been convicted of such lines of policy on many occasions, not adopted for the purpose of favouring Americans or hurting Canadians, but that they might augment net receipts regardless of consequences. Such restrictions as have been placed on the transfer of stock in the Canadian Pacific Railway agreement seem rather for the protection of the company than to preserve the national character of the road. But even if there was a specific provision against the sale of stock to foreigners, it would be of no avail, for the exactions of a Canadian company would be quite as onerous as any pressure that could be applied by foreigners. The danger lies in the absence of any defence, against discrimination injurious to Canada. This defect has been mentioned by Mr. Shaughnessy, and it should be remedied, as far as possible, by the creation^ of machinery for controlling services and regulating rates.
Here is wliat the Globe says on government ownership :
With regard to the agitation for government purchase and operation, Mr. Shaughnessy expressed the view that it would be a far better policy to buy out roads like the Canadian Pacific and Grand Trunk than to subsidize and construct useless lines. He says emphatically that we have had too much wasting of public money in the past for the building of railways which are not only in themselves useless but are positively injurious, inasmuch as they cripple the lines already built. This, he says, is very pernicious, and it would be far preferable that the government should take over the existing lines than that they should build new ones to compete with them. All who have studied the history of competitive railway building in Canada and the United States will see the wisdom of this position. In every case where two roads have been constructed to do the xvork of one the result has been the maintenance of rates by agreement and the imposition of a double burden on the community. The people have been required to maintain two equipments instead of one, and the greater cost of management has militated against any reduction of rates. If anything has been established and settled by the experience of the past it is that railway competition is not often an effective means of regulating railway charges. Only an unreasoning and destructive obduracy that no business man would be likely to indulge in would justify the government in paralleling existing railways. We may get an exaggerated idea of the waste of parallel roads through the contemplation of railway maps. Unnecessary duplication of roads by the government would be a great waste of capital, and while it would not cost the government any more than the purchase of existing roads, it would mean the destruction of a great amount of capital already invested in the railways.
That is the opinion of the Toronto Globe of Friday last. Here is an extract from a St. John paper, the Gazette-this is directly the opposite of the wind-tip of the Globe article :
Perhaps the best way to meet the combination is by the construction of a government line of railway from Montreal to Parry Sound and another from Montreal to the Detroit river. This would prevent railroad combination from charging excessive rates of freight in the most populous sections of Canada and would furnish

means of transportation independent of company railroads to the great west. The Gazette is strongly in favour of fast transcontinental railroad owned and operated by the government of Canada. It has been shown time and again that less than one-half of the proceeds of the sale of stocks and bonds of railroads constructed in Canada has gone into the road-bed or equipment of these lines. .	. _.	. The time is
not far distant when Canadians will be compelled to grapple with the question of transportation rates, because if we only paid rates proportionate to the cost of moving the freight and allowing a fair interest on the actual cost of the roadbed and equipment, freight rates in Canada would be cut in two. The question is one which requires great consideration and careful legislation. It is a question which the Minister of Railways has already given great consideration, and he will probably be able at an early date to present legislation which will prevent any further inroad on public rights by railroad corporations or combinations.
Here is a brief extract from the London Advertiser, a prominent Liberal paper :
The question thus raised is a very large one, but not less large and formidable would be the proper handling if any remedy could be proposed. But these are the sort of questions which, before the twentieth century is very old, may compel men to sit up and think.
The London News says :
Mr. Maclean has stated that the government, that is the people of Canada, could secure control of the Canadian Pacific by the expenditure of $50,000,000. That looks like a large sum, and it is a large sum, but the question, to the Neios' mind, is simply whether that money shall be spent now, and the people of Canada be given a chance to transport their goods and do business on a fair basis, or whether we shall wait until the Canadian Paciflc Railway, the Grand Trunk Railway and the other big Canadian roads pass under the control of the United States railroad trust, and then have to be bought out at an enhanced figure.
There are many problems connected with government ownership of railways, and business methods would have to be strictly adhered to in the event of the government securing control of the Canadian Paciflc Railway, but these problems will be no easier of solution in the future than now, and meanwhile the plundering of the country by exorbitant rates will have been going steadily on.
The situation has apparently got to be faced. Why not do as Mr. Maclean suggests and face it now?
The next authority I want to quote is the hon. the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte), who addressed a letter the other day to the Montreal Board of Trade, in which he made the following remarks :
The American railways are equipping themselves in a most energetic and modern manner in order that they may he able to carry cheaper and cheaper every day the western trade to the ports of the United States. I greatly fear that unless we make an earnest effort on behalf of Canada, we will lose much of the benefits and advantages of the improvements that we have made to the St. Lawrence route.
In my humble opinion, we must not lose one moment. The St. Lawrence route must be overhauled, made deeper and wider, and as safe as possible from one end to the other, In order


William Findlay Maclean: to provide cheap and quick transportation from the west to the European markets.
The more I study the map of Canada the more I feel convinced that the ports on the Georgian Bay are destined to become splendid reservoirs and recipients of trade. All that trade can be secured to the St. Lawrence route if we make the necessary effort.
Tlie consequence, I believe, of what the hon. minister here says cannot be anything else than government ownership.
Let me read just two more newspaper extracts. The Winnipeg Free Press says :
It behooves the people of Canada to take some notice of symptoms that have lately developed among railway companies controlling the chief railways in Canada, of an effort to coerce this country by threatening to injure Canadian ports by transferring their trade and terminals to United States ports. .	.	. This practically amounts to an attempt to establish a system of terrorism and to frighten the Canadian people from taking steps which they consider proper. It is, therefore, a reasonable thing that the public should look to the government to exercise all possible control over these roads, and by legislation, if possible, prevent them from injuring what they were subsidized to build up and improve.
Tbe St. Thomas Times says :
If the government has no other means of stopping this anti-Canadian policy on the part of the Canadian railways, it should have no hesitation in putting Mr. McNaught's suggestion into practice.
That suggestion is that a preferential tariff should only be allowed on goods that come in by Canadian ports.
The St. John Telegraph of February 15, says :
But the interests of the country, and particularly of these maritime provinces, demand some such radical cure for the present trouble.
The writer in the above quotation refers to Mr. McNaught's remedy for the discrimination by Canadian railways against Canadian ports.
The St. John Telegraph of February 14, says :
The latter idea [the extension of the Intercolonial to the Georgian Bay] was outlined by the Minister of Railways in his speeches in St. John prior to the general elections. Such a movement will check for ever any possibility of American railway magnates monopolizing the constantly increasing transportation of Canadian products to the eastern seaboard.
I can hardly agree in the opinion that the extension of the Intercolonial Railway by the government will settle the question. That would only aggravate the situation, although I have supported in the past and may, under certain circumstances to-day, defend that proposition.
I have one more letter to read, out of many similar ones which I have received : Dear Sir,-I am much pleased to read of the stand you have taken with reference to the government ownership of railways. The stand you have taken is well chosen, and it is difficult to imagine any other way to escape from the railways of Canada being absorbed by the gigantic

combine that evidently has for one of its objects to get hold of and control our railways. Could they accomplish their design, then the independence of the Canadian people will exist in name only. For it is a self-evident fact that if any corporation can control the means of transportation in Canada, they can then dictate their terms in other directions. So far as I can learn, the system of government ownership in some European countries seems to give general satisfaction to the travelling and commercial public. One of the advantages is, that it for ever shuts out all gambling in stocks, and special rates to favoured localities or individuals. As I am a stranger to you, I will refer you to our member, A. E. Vrooman, or Hon. George McHugh; also will add that I am a lifelong Reformer. But your step is in the right direction, and of my own knowledge, know that a large percentage of the people were looking in the direction of government ownership before this movement was inaugurated. So you can easily see how much more interest will be taken in this matter now. You are at liberty, if-you see fit, to use this letter for any purpose that will suit your convenience.


Mr. WALLACE.: What is the name ?


William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Minthorne, of Oak-wood.
I think, Sir, I have proved to the House that a seriotis problem is before us. 1 think I have proved, by quoting the leading newspapers of the country and by a reference to the language used by two members of the government, that we have to grapple with a very serious problem; and having made that point, I think it is incumbent on me to make some practical suggestion. That practical suggestion is that there can be no radical cure of these evils except government ownership. You will says perhaps that government ownership involves a very large financial proposition. I said the other day that it would take $50,000,000 to acquire the Canadian Pacific Railway. I spoke wide of the mark intentionally, and have since found out that less than $30,000,000 invested on the stock exchanges to-day would secure control of the Canadian Pacific Railway. and also that for less than $20,000,000 you can secure control of the shares of the Grand Trunk Railway. But, there is a much more simple proposition, which perhaps will surprise the House and the public. I say in all seriousness that the government of Canada, which is controlling the Intercolonial Railway, the national system of railways, can obtain a lease of the Grand Trunk Railway for $1 a year, and the Canadian Pacific Railway for $1 a year, and that is in substance all the financial obligation involved. The government can lease these two great roads for $1 per year each and get a lease for 999 years, if it so desires. Such transactions are going on every day, But the government would have this to do, and I am not concealing that from the House and the country : it would have to assume the liabilities of these roads. But. who is assuming the liabilities to-day ? It is the people of Canada, for it is the traffic that sustains these roads. The bondholders,
the shareholders have not assumed them, but the people who use the roads are meeting these liabilities, and there is only one portion of these liabilities concerning which oue of these companies is in default, and that is the first shares of the Grand Trunk Railway. So far as the Canadian Pacific Railway is concerned, however, every dollar of liability in connection with it is being paid, and paid promptly, and yet the shareholders of that road would be willing today to lease that great enterprise, which has about $300,000,000 invested in it, to the people of Canada for $1 per year. That is a very simple proposition.


Mr. BRITTON.: Are you authorized to make that offer ?


William Findlay Maclean: No, but if the hon. the Finance Minister (Hon. Mr. Fielding) will authorize my hon. friend to make inquiries,
I believe he will find that such an offer would be accepted. That is the way I meet the question. How will you raise the fifty million dollars? I ask the Minister of Finance : Have you two dollars a year to spare? If you have, you can control both the great railway enterprises of this country.
I rather prefer the method of purchase to the acquirement of the lines by lease. But, they can be purchased-both of these great lines-for less than $50,000,000 ; and that is no great difficult burden for Canada to assume at this day ; we have faced larger undertakings, and have carried them out successfully. So far as financial questions ard concerned, there is very little to prevent the country acquiring both roads. If we acquire the shares of these roads and assume all the responsibilities, the time will soon come when the liabilities can be converted so as to be a much smaller burden upon the people. Five per cent obligations can be converted into three per cent obligations-not all at once, of course, for some of the outstanding bonds have years to run ; and the sub-leases of the smaller sections also will not be renewable for years to come-but, as the bonds and leases mature, they can be converted at much smaller figures, and thus, without confusion the liability can be made to bear a much smaller percentage of interest and the traffic will be relieved of a very considerable burden.


Mr. HEYD.: How much liability should we have to assume ?


William Findlay Maclean: The total liability of the Canadian Pacific, so far as I can make out is $300,000,000. But that rests upon us to-day, and the people are paying the interest upon it in the traffic rates. But, though we bear this burden, we have nothing to say about the management of the road. When we pay the piper we should have the privilege of controlling the road.


Mr. COCHRANE.: We have had experience in running railways.


William Findlay Maclean: That is the point I was coming to, and that is the point of my amendment. And, on this point I expect the support of the Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair), and the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte), because we have been informed in an official way, that they are prepared to extend the national system that we have to-day. I am prepared to extend that system if necessary, for our national railway is the best asset we have ; and I hope the country will extend it and expand it. My amendment is, in substance, that, as we have a national road, the first thing we ought to do is to de-politicalize its administration. We do not want politics in the Intercolonial Railway ; we do not want members of this House making appointments in connection with that road, or taking part in fixing its rates. I do not say that these things take place to-day, but I have heard that they do. The first step towards nationalizing the railways is to depoliticalize the railway we have. I do not mean to say that the Minister of Railways shall not sit in the House and be responsible to this House for that road. But what I do say, is that he should turn the administration of the railway over to first-class railway men who will allow no politics in the management. Is that possible? I believe it is ; and I am going to quote the opinion of a very prominent railway man on this point. I do not wish to give his name, but nearly all who hear me can guess who he is. He is said to be 4he biggest railway man we have in Canada. Happening to meet him, I said to him,
' What do you think of nationalizing the Canadian Pacific Railway and also including the Grand Trunk Railway, if necessary ?' He said: * It might be the best way out of it; but you cannot do that if you drag it into politics.' I then asked him,''Is it possible to administer the railway without dragging it into politics ?' His answer was, 1 It is.' He is a man of great force and rapidity of thought.; and he named over fifteen men. going from the maritime province, across the continent picking them out here and there. They were all first-class men. And he said, ' Take these fifteen men ; give them $1,000 a month as pay for going to a meeting once a week; let them appoint a general manager, the best man they can get, and pay him $50,000 a year if necessary ; and I believe you might run the Canadian railways with more economy and with better service to the country than by any other possible system.'


Mr. TALBOT.: Give us his name.


William Findlay Maclean: You will have to take my word for it. Iam giving you merely a conversation, and would not care to take more liberties with it than to say the gentleman I refer to is a very prominent railway man of this country.


William Findlay Maclean: 


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think we know who it is as well as if he had been named.


William Findlay Maclean: I suppose so. It was our friend Sir William Van Horne. In conversation the other night he said that if the road could be taken out of politics and administered by a board of the kind he had suggested, it would be possible to administer it successfully and with the greatest benefit to the people of Canada.
Now, as I pointed out the other day, we in Canada can carry out the proposition I have made, and do it very easily. We do not need any more legislation; we can do it under the legislation we have. We do not even need more money; we can do it with the money we have. In the United States, where there is a great movement in favour of the nationalization of railways, there are serious constitutional difficulties in the way. I have already said that I do not see how the American people could nationalize their railways without a revolution. But we have already started, and have only to continue in our present course, and, in a very short time all the roads can be taken over by the Dominion.
The proposition has been made, and the name of the Minister of Railways and Canals has been connected with it, of curing the railway grievances in this country by extending the Canadian national system-that is by nationalizing the Bootli line from Montreal to the Upper Lakes, and making some arrangement for a new government line clear across the continent. 1 shall feel obliged to support that if my own proposition is not realized. In the meantime I would say it is the most extravagant thing we could do, and, in one respect, only aggravates the situation. If you build another transcontinental line as a means of regulating the Canadian Pacific, you increase the burden that the traffic has to bear. Sooner than see this done. I would make every effort to take over the Canadian Pacific. How much would it cost to build a competing line across the continent?
I believe it would cost a hundred millions, and perhaps more ; and, when this is done, the country will have two lines to maintain, and. instead of getting lower rates may get higher. The true solution of the difficulty is to nationalize the Canadian Pacific-make it part of the Canadian government system. That can be done at small cost, and without aggravating the situation, while securing immediate relief to the people of this country.
Another thing that the government is committed to, and one that I must endorse if I cannot get government ownership of railways, is to attempt the removal of existing grievances by establishing a railway commission. If better is not done, I hope that commission will be established. But you must face the fact that a commission

will be constantly at war with the railways, and that war will be carried on at great expense. If you nationalize the railways, the whole energy of the commission can be given to managing the roads and securing the interests of the people. It you wish to avoid this constant warfare which the establishment of a railway commission would involve, you must have national ownership. In that respect, I wish to read other portions of this interview with Mr. Shaughnessy which bears directly on the point. Now, this is the most serious statement of all, and it is well worth the attention of the Minister of Railways and Canals :
' So much for the possibility of the control of American capitalists. What do you think, Mr. Shaughnessy, of the suggestion that in order to prevent this the government should itself acquire possession of the Canadian Pacific and other railways material to the prosperity of Canada, which are now owned by companies?' 'Well,' observed Mr. Shaughnessy, 'speaking quite frankly, I think it would be infinitely better, if the government intends to take up seriously the business of railroading, that the public money of this country should be invested in the acquisition of such railways as the Canadian Pacific and Grand Trunk than that it should be wasted in the subsidizing and construction of useless lines. fVe have had too much wasting of public money in the past for the building of railways which are not only in themselves useless, but are positively injurious, inasmuch as they cripple the lines which are already built. This is very pernicious, and, as I have said, it would be far preferable that the government should take over the existing lines than that they should build new ones to compete with them. You are at perfect liberty to quote me as having said this; I really do not think there is anything more I can say on the subject.'
Now, what are we up to ? We are up to this, that we have got to establish another government line, and maintain a railway commission, and have two great continental roads in the service of the country, or we have got to nationalize the one we have. There is no other way out of it. There is great expenditure ahead of you, and the Minister of Railways and Canals is almost committed by his newspaper friends to another transcontinental, line, and to a railway commission in constant warfare with the roads ; either that or you have got to nationalize the road you have. That is what we are up against, and that is another point to which I desire to direct the attention of the country.
Now, can we nationalize railways l Is it a foolish idea ? What are the facts in regard to that ? Our fellow colonists, as we call them, in the southern hemisphere, in Australia, in New Zealand, have nationalized their railways, and they would not change their policy to-morrow under any circumstances. This is a great fact that comes home to us. In some European countries the railways have nearly all been nationalized. In Germany there are two
kinds of railways, state-owned and private-owned ; but the tendency is to take over every private-owned railway there. In Austria and Hungary they have the best transportation for passengers in the world, and the cheapest, and it is because the government controls the railways. It is the same in almost every other European country. They have state-owned railways, and the people do not for a moment think of abandoning the system and going back to private corporations. Public opinion is growing in favour of state-owned railways ; and in England to-day one of the few ways in which the British manufacturer will be able to meet foreign competition is b.V having lower freight rates, and the way they wish to attain that object is by the state taking over the roads.
Now, Sir, this railway question will never be smaller than it is. Delay only aggravates the situation. Let us never forget that it is the traffic that pays for and maintains the railway, not the shareholders, or the bondholders, or the administration of the road. In other words, the people who use the roads support them ; why should they not control them ? Canada can buy the controlling shares of the Canadian Pacific Railway for less than thirty million dollars, and she can buy the controlling shares of the Grand Trunk Railway for less than twenty million dollars. Canada can own and control both roads, subject to the mortgages on them, for less than fifty million dollars paid for their controlling shares. Canada can lease and secure control of the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway for $1 each a year, on undertaking to guarantee the shareholders who now have the control, less than 4 per cent on the face value of the shares. The stock of the Canadian Pacific Railway guaranteed by government at 3 per cent would be above par, and that is what the shareholders desire.
The proposition of public ownership in its simplest form lies in assuming the liabilities, guaranteeing the interest and dividends, and leasing each road at a nominal rental of $1 a year. Surely the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) has two $1 bills at his disposal. As a matter of fact, the traffic of the roads is now doing all these things, with the single exception of some shares of the Grand Trunk Railway. Rut. with government ownership the extravagant competition for traffic would cease, the working expenses incident to rivalry would be reduced, the existing obligations in the way of rents on leases of road would be absorbed, interest on bonds and preferred stock could be gradually reduced, and that very materially, and in a thousand ways savings could be effected in works unnecessary to a co-operative railway and a cooperative rail and water system. Better wages could and would be paid to the smaller number of men, but the wages bill

of a consolidated system would be mueb smaller.
And these railways once consolidated would be the complement of all our other public works, our canals, our harbour improvements, our river improvements. Today the railways have antagonized the national railway system of this country. I also speak within the truth when I say that the railways of Canada for years did their best to delay the deepening of the canals of this country, and they succeeded in it ; and I believe they are trying to interfere to-day in every way possible with the utilization of these canals. But if once the government owned the railways, the canals and the railways would then be complementary of each other, and would work harmoniously for the benefit of the Canadian people.
I have heard it said that if we start out to nationalize the railways by purchase, the shareholders would run up the price. Now, that is not a fact, the converse would actually happen. As soon as it became known that Canada proposed to nationalize the railways, there would be a competition between the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway as to who would sell or lease first ; and if the majority of the stock of either roads was to be acquired, there would be a rush and a competition between the shareholders to sell to the government. Neither road, nor any of the shareholders of that road, would wish to be left out ; and instead of the price of stocks going up they would naturally come down by reason of this competition. No doubt that may seem a peculiar statement, but it is one I am prepared to stand by.
In the supreme struggle which is now going on between the United States and Canada, between New York, Boston and Portland on the one side, and the St. Lawrence route and Canadian ports on the other, can we for one moment allow our great railway system to fall under the control of the great United States combine, which has its centre in the American ports of New York, Boston and Baltimore ? Can we afford that ns a Canadian people ? Can we afford to allow great interests in American ports to control our own railway system on which we have spent so much money ? Some gentlemen think they see a great many lions in the way of government ownership. I admit there are difficulties, but I think they can be met and overcome. We have to retrace our steps, but in doing so we will be doing something that I believe the people of Canada desire us to do.
The greatest curse in politics to-day is the corruption wrought and exercised by corporations in the municipal, provincial and federal spheres. The corruption of corporations even threatens our courts. The political corruption of a political administration of a railway is a flea-bite compared to the corruption of the people and legisla-


William Findlay Maclean: tures by corporations. A corporation never dies, because it is a past-master in corruption. That is not the case with individuals. People say they are opposed to government railways on account of the political corruption which would exist in their management. Sir, I am not afraid of that. The political corruption that I am afraid of in this country is that which has been exercised by great corporations. There is no comparison between the two. I grant you there will be some corruption and there will be some maladministration, but that is nothing to compare with the greater corruption that threatens this whole country by reason of the power of these great corporations.
An intelligent democracy like ours ought to be equal to cope with any problem that arises. A people who prides themselves on their ability for self-government ought to be equal to the further responsibilities of selfownership of great franchises. Surely if we are competent to govern ourselves we ought to go forward and put in practice this proposition of assuming control of the great railroads of this country. We are not less able in the solution of our economic problem, not less competent to do what our fellows in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, or what the nations of Europe have done. Here is the next proposition which I wish to submit; you cannot settle a twentieth century problem with nineteenth century ideas. This great problem is a twentieth century problem and the solution of it is in national ownership and not in the practices that have been observed in this House and in the Railway Committee of this House for the past thirty years. What is the problem before the railway manager as the roads are run to-day ? The problem before Mr. Hays, or Mr. Shaughnessy is : How can we administer this railway so ns to secure the best returns for the men who have invested their money in it ? The problem before the manager of a national system of railways is : How can I run this railway in the best interests of the people who have to support it ? These propositions are two entirely different ones ; the man who is working for the government has much higher work in his hands. All he has to do is to see what he can do for the people, but with Mr. Hays and Mr. Shaughnessy nine-tenths of their time is taken up dealing with questions of competition and finding out how they can make a profit for the shareholders and bondholders of the road. Instead of public ownership of railways tending to demoralize the people, I believe it would compel every man to take a deeper interest in public affairs and to use his ballot more conscientiously. Instead of public ownership entrenching a party in power it would tend to effect more rapid changes in parties. Patronage and responsibility are a source of weakness not of strength to party. This is the way I understand the idea of selfgovernment in this country. If every man

has an Interest in the railways of the country he would take a greater interest in public questions, and instead of railway administration being a bar to good government I think it would help it. The difference between a private trust controlling all roads of a country and state ownership is this: The trust gets all the benefit of consolidation, economical management and the saving effected in not having to duplicate existing lines and takes the bulk of these benefits to itself. A state-owned system receives all these benefits and economies and gives them to the people. A trust antagonizes or may antagonize a nation ; a state-owned system is bound to be patriotic.
Science, genius, enterprise, public spirit, utilizing the thousand and one imprescriptible legacies of the past, are constantly striving to better the lot of mankind, and up to the present time the wealthy, the ambitious, the trusts, the combines, the corporations have tried to corner and to restrict, have succeeded in cornering, in restricting the use of these discoveries, of these gifts to man made by genius, intellect, enterprise and public spirit.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have taken up a good deal of the time of the House, but I do trust that I have brought clearly before the House and the country this question of government ownership. I trust that the question as brought up by me will receive the attention of the House and the government and in doing what I have done I have only discharged my duty. I am one of those who believe in and have every confidence in the Canadian people. I believe they are equal to the task of owning and controlling the railways of this country. I am not one of those who cast a slur upon the honour of my fellow-countrymen in Canada. It is said up and down Canada by the great corporations owning the railways of this country that the Canadian people are unfit to own railways, that they are dishonest, unpatriotic and corruptible. I do not believe that ; I agree with what Senator Hoar of Massachusetts said who, discussing the question of trusts in the United States declared : I believe that the great bulk of the American people are honest, patriotic and incorruptible. I believe the same of the Canadian people, but the men who own these great trusts in Canada to-day have a paid propaganda, a propaganda that is filling the newspapers of this country with the idea that we are a corrupt lot of people, that the government is corrupt and that in no way could a railway be honestly administered by the people. I repudiate that slander on my fellow-countrymen, on the government and legislature of this country. I believe we can do these things. I believe this is the work before us now, and that is the reason why I have brought this question up here today. I have not brought it up to embarrass the government, or the House, nor have I brought it up to embarrass my own friends,
as has been said, but I have brought it up so as to direct public attention to it and if possible to induce the government, before they go into a system to which they seem to be committed, namely, of extending the Intercolonial Railway, to first try to make a reasonable effort to nationalize all the railway lines of this country. If they do that they will be doing something patriotic ; they will meet with the support of the people of this country, but if they do not do it there will be a party arise in this country and arise in this House that will make the nationalization of the railways in Canada its main plank and if this party and these men do come forth I believe that when they make an appeal to the people of Canada they will receive an overwhelming mandate to nationalize these roads. Mr. Speaker, I beg to move :
That all the words after the word ' That ' be left out, and the following added instead thereof:
' In order that the government railway system of Canada may be used to the best possible advantage of the people by being a substantial check on the freight charges of railways owned by private corporations, and in order that the government system may give the public the most efficient service, this House is of the opinion that the administration thereof should be freed of all political influence or Interference.'


Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: Mr. Speaker, 1 was in hopes that we would have heard a word or two from the right lion, gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) or the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) in regard to the matter which has been brought before the House by my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) who has just taken his seat. I think, in the first place, that the thanks of this House and the country are due to the hon. gentleman for having brought this matter to the attention of the House and the country, because, while there may be some of us who would not go so far as the hon. gentleman has gone in his remarks in regard to this matter, there can he no doubt whatever that this is a subject which should invite the earnest attention of the government. We know that the government of this country is at the present time engaged in carrying on a business which is ordinarily carried on in this country by railway corporations, and we know that it is carrying on that business in competition, to a certain extent, at least, with private corporations. Now, my hon. friend's motion is perhaps not so wide as the remarks which he has addressed to the House in regard to it. His motion is that the administration of our railways should be freed from political influence or interference. If I rightly understand what the hon. gentleman intends by the language which he has used in this motion it seem3 to me that there could hardly he two opinions in the House in respect to the desirability of the principle which he has laid down. The Intercolonial Railway is run as a department of the government. It is, I

presume, and always has been, more or less, subject to the same party political influence which affects other departments of the government in this country. Now, I suppose, that none of us could doubt that if the administration of the Intercolonial Railway, or indeed of any department of the government, were freed from that political influence and interference which are sometimes not conducive to the public interest it would be a distinct gain to the country. The government railways of this country stand in a different position from other departments of government in that respect. For example the Post Office Department deals with the carriage of mails throughout the country, and it is provided by statute that any person undertaking to enter into competition with it shall be guilty of an offence. When you come to deal with railways there is a different condition of affairs. Look at the administration of the Intercolonial Railway. It is more or less subject to what is called political influence and political interference. I am using the language which my hon. friend used in his motion. Let us suppose that the Canadian Pacific Railway, or the Bank of Montreal, or any great manufacturing concern in this country were to undertake to carry on its business subject to political influence and interference of this kind. Does any one suppose for a moment that the business of such a corporation would not be greatly hindered under such conditions? Does any one suppose that equally good results could be arrived at by any great Canadian corporation if it were hampered in such a way V Therefore, so far as the motion tends to prevent political influence and interference in connection with the administration of the Intercolonial Railway, we ought all be heartily in accord with and I presume that the Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair) would be the first person to join in the wish for such a desirable consummation as that.
When you come to go further and to deal with the means by which you shall attain such an end, and with the question of nationalizing the railways of Canada the House perhaps may not be prepared to express an opinion. Since my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) brought this matter to the attention of the House, I have endeavoured to examine in some slight way the mode in which other colonies have dealt with this matter, and I find that in the Australasian colonies and in New Zealand, the railways are for the most part dealt with by a commission, and in these colonies the freedom of the administration of the railways from political influence has been found to be productive of very beneficial results. I am not prepared to say that we should at once follow the example of these colonies. We have a very much larger problem to deal with in Canada than arises in the Australian colonies Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
because we have about 17,000 miles of railways (of which about 1,500 are government railways) and the paid up capital of the railway lines in Canada runs up to nearly $1,000,000,000. Therefore, when we speak about nationalizing the railways of Canada, or when we speak about dealing with the Intercolonial Railway by means of a commission, we have a pretty large problem to consider, and we possibly have difficulties which were not present in the experience of the colonies to which I have referred. I think, however, that the matter has very properly been brought to the attention of the House, and it is a matter upon which the government of this country should have a policy. There are many matters as to which the government has made investigations during the past five years, and on which the public money of this country has been expended, which are very much less worthy of the consideration of the government and of the country than the matter to which my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) has drawn the attention of parliament. While it is a matter in which I agree we should not move hastily, a matter which we should take time to consider ; it is nevertheless a matter which the government should take into earnest and prompt consideration. I believe that the country demands that the government should do so. I am prepared to support the motion giving it the meaning which I have attached to it ; not dealing with it as necessarily involving the appointing of a commission, not dealing for the present with the question of the nationalization of our railways or the means by which that will be accomplished, if it is ever accomplished, but dealing with what I understand to be the main proposition laid down by my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean), namely : ' that the administration of government railways in Canada should be free from party political influence and interference.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Is that all there is in the resolution ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: That is all.


Robert Laird Borden: That is what I understand.


The MINISTER OE RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. Mr. Blair).: I have no desire to cast any reflection upon the procedure of my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean), because I am quite convinced that his disposition is to treat the House in a bona fide spirit on this question. It is, I am sure, not his intention to ask us to vote upon a resolution to which he has not addressed the attention of the House, and in support of which he has made no argument. Indeed, if his remarks has even a remote relation to the subject-matter of the resolution, I am unable to see it, but perhaps that is my misfortune. My hon. friend (Mr. Maclean)

puzzles me. He will, I think, confess that he himself is puzzled because if his argument proves anything it proves that the best policy for this country is that the railways should be absolutely and entirely controlled by the government of the day and become government property. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) is a sincere advocate of the nationalization of railways, but does it not occur to him that as he has presented the question to-day it is more an academic question than a practical one. We are met in this parliament as practical men for a practical purpose, but my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) has not recognized that fact in the course which he has taken on this question. He has not offered us any suggestion as to the manner in which this policy is to be carried out, and when he tells us that it would cost five thousand millions and two dollars to acquire the Canadian Pacific Railway and Grand Trunk Railway systems, it would seem to be necessary that he should follow that up by at least giving us some hint as to how we should finance an undertaking of such magnitude.


William Findlay Maclean: Two dollars will do it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: When my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) says that two dollars will do it, his statement is a convincing proof that he is not looking on this question from a practical point of view. Inasmuch as all of his argument has been of that character and as it did not touch the resolution at all, I apprehend that when the matter is duly discussed he will withdraw his motion rather than have the public suppose that we are voting on a motion which might lead those who read his speech to think was the real question before the House, when as a matter of fact it deals with an entirely different matter. The hon. gentleman's motion deals entirely with the government railway system, and on a careful study of its wording he will find that there is involved in it a distinct implication that a government system of railways is not a wise system, that it is attended with disadvantageous results, that there is a tendency that the rates on a government railway will be higher than on another railway, because the government railway is subject to political influence.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Mr. Mulock).: That the rates will be.lower.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, higher ; because my hon. friend-his language, if it means anything implies this-suggests that you ought to get this government system of railways freed from political influence or control in order that rates may not be maintained, but that the tariff of rates may be diminished. I am not, I think,
misinterpreting the words of the hon. gentleman's motion, which is distinctly and explicitly pointed against the policy of government ownership and control of railways altogether. If it means anything, it means that. It means that you must not own or control railways, because they will be subject to political influence. Can you imagine a railway owned by a government which is not subject to political influence ? Is there a possibility of such a thing existing ? I cannot conceive of it, and I am sure my hon. friend cannot conceive of it. Why do I say that it is under political influence ? Because, being a property of the people, the trusteeship of it must be in the government of the day supported by the representatives of the people. Its very basis and foundation is that it is under the control and supervision of the people, and that control and supervision can only be exercised in a political way. Will my hon. friend suggest to me how it is conceivable that a government railway system can be managed without the management largely partaking-and I am putting it in the mildest possible form -of a political character ?
Now, I am not speaking entirely without having had some opportunity of gathering information as to the experience of others on this question. We can turn, as my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has done, to the results of the experiment in the various Australasian colonies, and what do we find there ? They started out building and owning all their railways. They had probably felt some dissatisfaction with the extent to which political influence was operating in connection with the maintenance and administration of those railways, and they concluded that it would be a wise policy to change the system, and they changed the system. Take the case of New Zealand, for instance, which was largely followed by the other provinces. Down to 1887, the province of New Zealand owned its railways as a government system, controlled and managed exclusively and directly through the administration. In 1887 they changed that system and adopted a commission. Their idea was that they would have all the advantages belonging to government ownership without any of the incidental disadvantages consequent upon political interference or control. After trying that svstem from 1891, down to 1894, they found that after all they had not overcome the disadvantages which they had hoped to be able to overcome. They found that political influence still existed. They had not found that it was so very harmful under the direct administrative system prior to 1887 ; but they found that it still prevailed ; and in 1894 ' they made a change in the character of their commission, and tried that change down to 1S97. The change did not seem to suit their purpose any better; and in 1897 the policy of the govern-

meat took a marked advance-or a retrograde step, as some might perhaps regard it. They went back practically to direct government ownership and control through a minister of the Crown ; and they did that distinctly on the ground that they had not freed themselves from any of the disadvantages incident to government ownership and control, but had incurred a very great many disadvantages which were injurious to the country as a whole, under the system of a railway commission. One of tlie things they complained of especially in respect of the management of a railway commission was that the commission was not open to the pressure from the people and from parliament and from the government which it ought to be open to-that there was not the same broad and liberal policy maintained by the commission that would have been maintained if the railways had continued under the direct management and control of the government, and that the commission was not in close touch with the people and ready to yield to the people's wishes. They complained that tlie rates were maintained against the public interest to the disadvantage of business, prejudicial to the establishment of industries and against tlie spirit of enterprise which was abroad in the country. So they have practically gone back to direct control through a minister of the Crown.
The same results have attended the experiments of the other provinces in the same directions. In Tasmania up to 1891, the railways were being operated by companies. By an Act of 1891, all government railways were vested in a minister. The Governor in Council appoints the general manager, who acts under the direction of the minister. In Victoria, a system of three independent commissioners was introduced in 1883, but in 1891, there was practically a return to government control, the minister being made the head of the commission, and having a dual vote. By an Act of 1S96, the form of the commission was changed from three to one. and a commissioner was obliged to act simply as an adviser to the head of the department. In New South Wales, by an Act of 1858, tlie commissioners of railways held office during pleasure; but in 1888 three independent commissioners were appointed, as in Queensland and Victoria. This condition of things has since been changed so that the commissioners are unable to take any steps or adopt any policy without the consent of the Governor in ' Council. In South Australia, by an Act of 1858, a commission was created and commissioners appointed to continue in office during pleasure In 1887 a clia-ge was made, and three independent commissioners were appointed In 1894 one commissioner was appointed iii lieu of the three, and the Minister of Railways in the government was vested with


Mr. BLAIR.: power to decide all questions wherever any differences of opinion arose. So that you see that while all these experiments have been going on in these other provinces, whose conditions to some extent resemble ours, the changes which have been made within the last ten or fifteen years have been all in the direction of revesting in the government the direct control and management of these railways. In the discussions which have taken place upon these various proposals from time to time, I have seen no difference of opinion expressed upon this point, that no matter how the government railways might be managed-whether the control be invested in a commission or remain in a minister-it was impossible to divest the administration from political influences and control. These would make themselves felt under any circumstances. I am quite sure that my hon. friend, when he asks this House to subscribe to the proposition that we should free the administration of these railways from government control-


William Findlay Maclean: Political.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Political control rather, he practically declares himself in favour of freeing the railways from government control entirely, and divesting the government of the control they now possess, both as owning and as operating the railway system.
I think, therefore, as far as I can judge, that the motion of my hon. friend is not one which can commend itself to the House, and I trust he will not press it to a vote.
He must himself admit that it does not reflect the conclusion which one is entitled to draw from the argument he presented to the House. His argument was not in support of the proposal embodied in his motion, but on the contrary directly antagonistic to it.
While I am not prepared to say that the ideal condition, so far as the management of railways in Canada, and possibly in any country is concerned, might not be that these railways should be entirely under the control of the government-be owned and managed by the government or under direct government supervision-while that might well be said to be an ideal condition, we have not this question before us in any such practical shape, it has not been presented to us in any such form, as would justify us in passing upon so large and momentous a question as that at present.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: I listened, Mr. Speaker, with a great deal of interest to the remarks with which my hon friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) introduced his resolution, and I thought he was doing bravely until he read the terms of the resolution itself. I am one of those who believe that tl*e time has come when the people should get a certain portion back or

that which belongs to them, and that it is time we should call a halt in the rolling up of these immense fortunes by a few individuals. The number of people who believe that much of the wealth which should go into the hands of the people generally is being diverted by corporations, and particularly by large railway corporations, is increasing largely, and I listened with favour to the remarks of my hon. friend, and would support to the best of my ability any scheme calculated to lessen the burdens that rest upon the producers in this country, and give a larger share of the benefits to the great mass of wage-earners. But the resolution is entirely different from the language in which it was introduced. The question of state ownership does not present itself at all in the resolution, nor do we find in it any condemnation of monopolies. The only thing we find in the resolution is this, that the hon. gentleman took advantage of a sentiment that is strongly growing in this country in order to disseminate the idea that the present government is not successfully carrying on the affairs of the Intercolonial Railway, and that we could only hope for successful management by vesting one-half of it in the hands of Conservatives. That is all there is in the resolution. It does not call on us to approve of government ownership, but simply to condemn the present management of the Intercolonial Railway by the Hon. Mr. Blair, and to declare that everything would be bright and rosy if he would only associate with himself some good red hot Tory. I am not prepared to support that resolution, because there is not the remotest connection between it and the speech with which my hon. friend introduced it. I am with him when he declares himself in favour of bettering the condition of the mass of the people. I am with him when he expresses his desire to prevent millionaires from rolling up fortunes and going to distant lands and seeking honours in distant lands by becoming Sirs and Lords and Dukes ; but I am not prepared to condemn the present management of the Intercolonial Railway. I do not want, nor do the people want, hon. gentlemen opposite, for years to come, to have any share in its management.


Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: i merely wish to say, Mr. Speaker, that while I subscribe entirely to this resolution, which I cannot conceive can be controverted by any one, I am not prepared to accept in their entirety the views expressed by my hon. friend in his very able address, concerning the great danger which by common consent threatens the railways of this country. I cannot understand how it can be possible, after the discussions we have heard in this House, for any man to uphold the principle that the administration of the Intercolonial Railway, or any railway controlled by the government, should not be free from political interference or influence.
Why, that doctrine has been accepted on all hands. We have had experience in the province of Quebec of the danger and evils of political influence-not governmental control-but political influence in the management of railways and of how dangerous that influence may become. My hon. friend opposite, the right hon. leader of the government and hon. gentlemen who have followed political events in the province ot Quebec, and the results of the ownership by the government of railways there, will surely not fail to subscribe to the proposition advocated by my hon. friend the member for Bast York (Mr. Maclean) that any such plan as he advocated to-day, under the name of nationalization of railways, must be preceded by the freeing of government railways from that political influence and interference, as he properly terms it, which by the consent of everybody has always been so detrimental.
My hon. friend took occasion to refer to the great danger which threatens us, the existence of which he ably showed by the quotations he made, namely, the danger of the absorption of our railways by foreign capitalists, few in number, who would use those railways, built up largely by us, for the benefit of their own country and for their own selfish ends. That danger is well known. We all know that we are threatened with it, and we had the right to expect some expression of opinion from the government benches upon so momentous a question. Have they not thought it over V Are they not able, even if they cannot give us a remedy for that dreadful evil, to show us that they have thought it over, or that they intend to think it over ? Apparently they are not. If my hon. friend the leader of the opposition had not risen to express his own views, we would have had no expression at all from the government on this question. Why ? My hon. friend from East York has spoken to us of the project ot the hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) to extend the Intercolonial Railway-which we all know he prolonged from Ste. Rosalie to Montreal at considerable sacrifice to the taxpayers of Canada. He has the project, my hon. friend informs me, of carrying that railway as far as the Pacific. We all know the great weight my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works- and I am pleased to recognize it-has in the councils of the government. We can well understand, if what we have heard in the province of Quebec is true, that the Minister of Railways, clever though he may be, after his experience in Paris last summer, when he went over


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I was not in Paris last summer.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: A strong delegation of the government went over to influence the Minister of Public Works ; but we all know how that hon.. gentleman downed



them on that occasion. We can understand why they should now hesitate to express an opinion on any subject coming before them until they know what the Minister of Public Works thinks about it. The Minister of Railways and Canals tells us that there is no connection whatever, between the motion which appears upon the paper and the views discussed by my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean). He thinks that if we are going to nationalize the railways, it is useless to discuss the proposition, even as a primary proposition, that the government railways should be free-not from political control, he came down to that in closing his remarks, but from that political influence and interference which has always and admittedly been so detrimental to the management of railways. If we are to accept the astounding proposition of the Minister of Railways, that political influence and interference must always exist; there is no remedy. Surely, the hon. minister is a pessimist in that regard ; surely, there is some hope that the people of Canada will see to it that, in time, and with patience, that evil is removed. But, No, says the minister, that political influence and interference must be associated with government control. As to that, we know that the railways in those countries in which they are under government control are free from that obnoxious influence and interference. We have only to open the books which treat of that subject to convince ourselves that there is no such thing under European control of railways as political influence and interference, with all the evils that those two words imply ; and we have proof that in British dependencies, where railways are owned by the government, efforts have been made, and with success, to obviate this evil. Let me quote a word from Larrabee, a well-known authority on railway questions. On page 65, speaking of the railways in Victoria, he says :
All lines are under control of a board so constituted as to be entirely removed from political influence. Several roads were originally owned by private companies, but all of them were acquired by the colonial government, the last one in 1878.
Hole, on the nationalization of railways, page 226, says :
New South Wales has adopted the system of putting its railways under the control of three experienced railway commissioners, of which Mr. Eddy, an expert from England, was the head. The political element in New South Wales proved itself quite as objectionable as in Victoria.
Here, Sir, are two countries similarly situated to our own, where, more hopeful than the Minister of Railways and Canals, they did not start with the idea that political influence and interference in the management of railways, is the inevitable consequence of government ownership, and where they have succeeded. Therefore, I ask, is it Mr. MONK.
not possible to adopt the principle at least, that political interference and influence is totally distinct from government control ? That is what my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) is advocating-government control of railways. Even if political interference under government management cannot be done away with at once, at least we should work in that direction ; and that is the opinion of the country. Now, I said that, though quite in favour of the proposition of my hon. friend from East York, I did not entirely agree with him as to the means of carrying it out. Of course, if, as the government says, no danger threatens us, if it be true, as the Minister of Railways and Canals tells us, that this is merely an academic question, we are losing our time. But that is not the opinion of the country. Have we no remedy other than the acquisition of these two vast lines ? For my part, I am not prepared to suggest another remedy ; but I think that the remedy proposed by my hon. friend, and so skilfully defended by him, is fraught with great danger at the present moment. The danger is one to our finances, and I think that the existence of that political influence and interference, which I, for my part, condemn, constitutes another danger, should we carry out the project of acquiring these railways. We are not in the same position as the Congress of the United States. Their powers of legislation, in a case analogous to this one-I imagine, without having gone fully into the question-would be extremely limited by the constitution. Our parliament on the other hand, is supreme. My hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) has referred to the acquisition of Suez canal shares, one of the masterly strokes of Mr. Disraeli's policy. But, in carrying out that policy, the great English statesman was acquiring a property entirely beyond the control of the parliament of Great Britain. I am exposing merely a primary view of the subject before us, but would point out that we are dealing with two immense enterprises that we have built up, I might almost say with our own money, and which we maintain. We have built these railways for what purpose ? We have built them in order to develop this immense inheritance with which Providence has blessed us. But now, if I am to accept all that has been stated by my hon. friend, who has so carefully studied the subject, we are in the presence of the danger involved in the possible acquisition of these two great roads by foreigners, by a syndicate composed of a few men who have no interest in Canada, and who desire to make these railways, which, I think, we can fairly consider the railways of the people of Canada, useful in carrying out their own private aims, and to benefit a country which is not our country. Under these circumstances, I ask myself if there is no remedy in legislation ? I ask if parliament, being supreme, and having in view what has been done by the people of

Canada towards the construction of these lines, and being face to face with a danger which is recognized by all, except, perhaps, by the Minister of Railways and Canals, but realized, I think, by my bon. friend the Minister of Public Works-being face to face, I say, with an imminent danger, is it possible that parliament, whose powers are so great, can provide no remedy ? I would be inclined to say that before this imminent evil falls upon us, before the evil of foreign ownership or foreign control of these lines is actually realized, there must be some remedy in legislation.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Is there not foreign ownership already ? Is not a large portion of the Canadian Pacific Railway stock owned by Germans ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend seems to be just wakening up to the danger which threatens us. Everybody knows that the capital which built the Canadian Pacific Railway, and the Grand Trunk Railway too, so far as I know, was largely furnished by people who live in Europe. But surely there is a difference between that and the ever increasing action, the devouring action, if I may use that expression, of these five, or six, or eight men whom the member for East York (Mr. Maclean) named here the other day, and who are known by all men who take any interest in that subject. We are face to face, I say, with the danger of a few wealthy Americans obtaining control of the great railway lines ; and that is a very different thing from a certain amount of European capital being invested in our railways with no other object than of earning a dividend on that capital. I am not going to take up the time of the House by indicating particularly any legislative remedy. In the first place, I do not know of any ; but I do submit to this House that this parliament is all-powerful. We are in the presence of a great danger, and surely we have the power in this parliament, without being obliged to buy over again these lines which we have built largely with our own money, to discover some legislative remedy which will enable us to ward off that impending danger, and to keep these great railway lines in our own control, for the purpose of developing our own country, instead of allowing them to be used for the development of the neighbouring republic.


Mr. HENRI BOTJRASSA (Labelle).: It is to be regretted that the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) has brought forward so big a subject, one of such vital concern to the people of Canada at large, on so small a motion. I agree with almost every word that has fallen from the lips of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) ; but I must say at once that I cannot vote for this motion as it stands, though I fully concur on the main principle 6i
that there might be government control without political interference. I cannot agree with the proposition of the Minister of Railways and Canals, that government control of railways and political interference with government control of railways are one and the same thing. They are two things in most civilized countries, and I hope the time is not distant when they will be two things in Canada. But the concrete proposition contained in this motion is not a practicable one at present. The reason is trivial, but it is true all the same. We know that one party who was in power for a great many years never attempted to cure that evil, and used the political advantages of government control of railways to their fullest extent. It is quite natural, therefore, that the other party now being in power would likewise be unwilling to take steps to cure that evil while they have a chance to take their revenge. But when an equilibrium has been established in the administration of the Intercolonial Railway, when the blue blood and the red blood have been mixed up in equal proportions, I think the proposition of the hon. member for East York will likely receive more favourable consideration from the members on this side of the House.
But, to my mind, that is a very small question compared with the greater one which has been so well dealt with by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier. I am in total disagreement with the Minister of Railways and Canals when he calls this an academic question. I think it is the most practical and vital question that is before the people of Canada to-day, or is likely to come up for the next few years. It is no argument against the proposition of the hon. member for East York to say that the capital of the Canadian Pacific Railway, or of any other big railway in Canada, is in the hands of foreign shareholders. For my part, and I think I express the opinion of most Canadians. I have no objection to foreign capital coming into this country to build railways, or to establish any other great enterprises, provided such capital, the moment it is invested on Canadian soil and receives the protection of the Canadian government, becomes Canadian capital for the benefit of the Canadian people. I have no objection to as many foreigners as you like being shareholders of the Canadian Pacific Railway so long as that railway is controlled by the parliament of Canada ; but I have a great objection to Americans coming in here and obtaining the control of the Canadian Pacific Railway and making it a mere branch of an American railway system.
Now, as to what legislation we should adopt, I do not propose to indicate any at this time ; I did not rise to say to the Minister of Railways and Canals that he should do this or that he should do that. I have sufficient confidence in the business ability

of that lion, gentleman, as well as In the clear-sightedness of his colleagues, to believe that when they give their earnest attention to this question they will be able to discover a remedy ; I have no doubt that they will look upon it from a Canadian point of view. Sir, I have been for some months past branded as a disloyal citizen ; but as a Canadian, considering this question one of the greatest national problems which has ever been brought before this parliament, I say now to ministers of the Crown and members of parliament, that if they do not give it their serious consideration they will be committing a national crime. The moment the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Grand Trunk Railway become a branch of an American railway system, controlled by an American syndicate whose primary interest will still be in the American republic, that moment will Canada be in danger. Even though this American syndicate had for its whole object a profit on their capital invested in Canadian railways. If they find out that they can increase their revenue and increase their dividends by wiping out the political line which exists at present between the United States and Canada, they will find means to do so. They will find capital enough not only to buy out our railways, but they will find sufficient capital to buy newspapers in Canada ; and, without insulting the members of this House, I may say they will probably find means to incline to their wishes and their schemes some of the representatives of the people of Canada whom they will be able to secure. We have seen other legislatures influenced by capitalists, we have seen other statesmen who have been influenced by foreign money.


Byron Moffatt Britton: Speak for yourself.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: The hon. gentleman is a little too sensitive; I meant no personal allusion to him. I have enough respect for the hon. gentleman to tell him that he is wrong in considering my remark as personal. But I wish to say, Sir, that while this parliament is composed of good men, they are no better than the average statesmen of any other country ; and we know that in a legislature it sometimes takes but very few voices to change the balance of power. When strong attention is not given by the representatives of the people to questions of this kind, when they rely simply upon the leaders of their party to frame their policy and then go on blindly and vote as the whip of their party will tell them to vote; it might take no very big amount of money and very few men to put this country into the most dangerous position that it could be put into. Therefore, Sir, whilst I am certainly not going to vote for the proposition of the hon. member of East York (Mr. Maclean) because I think in its concrete form it is not opportune, I say that we have a duty to perform here ; and it is to give warning not


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: only to the members of this government but to all the members of this House, whether Conservative or Liberal, whether friends or opponents of the Canadian Pacific Railway because, after all, these are small questions compared with the real issue. It is our duty as representatives of the Canadian people to look at this big question from the real national point of view, not to have any prejudice about it, not to make up our minds hastily that it will be solved either by government ownership of railways or by some other means but to realize that the question is so important that we should give our personal attention to it. We should think of the future of our country, and of the great sacrifices that have been made in the building of our railways. We would not be equal to our position, we would not fulfil our duties to the people if we did not give to this question the attention which it deserves and I know, or I hope I know, that the government of Canada will give proper attention to it, and that, on some future occasion, we will be able to hear from them an expression of opinion which will resolve itself into a practical result when the danger will really come upon us.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Mr. Speaker the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) thinks that we should wait. He says that there is a great danger, that the danger is threatening but that we should wait until that danger has really come upon us and then he is confident that the government will do the right thing.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wallace) will allow me : I do not say that we should wait. On the contrary, I say that we should prepare at once and be ready to meet the danger with a practical remedy when it comes.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I understood the hon. gentleman's last sentence was that we should wait until the danger comes. He also says that one of his objections to the motion made by the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) is that when the Conservative party were in power for many years they had the control of affairs, that they had the patronage and that we should wait until the Liberal party have been in power for a number of years more so that they may even up. I think it will be conceded by every one who has watched affairs that they have done remarkably well in that direction during the past five years and have evened up, that they have dismissed officials and appointed others with remarkable facility. The hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd) has the same grievance. He acknowledges that a great evil is threatening this country, that dangers are around us. He says the wealth of the country is being converted into the hands of individuals and corporations and that we should be on the alert, that we should be prepared

to defend the interests of the people, yet, he says the same thing as the hon. member for Labelle. He says that some red hot Tory may obtain a position and therefore he will oppose the motion. That is his only argument against it. I suppose he thinks there are a great many red hot Grits hungry still that have not been given an opportunity of feeding at the government trough who will have to be satisfied before the interests of the country can be looked after.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) told us this afternoon that the motion of my hon. friend for East York means that the government must not own railways nor control them. I do not think it could be fairly given that interpretation. The government must always control the larger politics of the country and the policy of the government might be very much different from the policy that would be promulgated by a commission. A commission might be endeavouring to make the road a financial success, on the same lines as the railways that are owned by private corporations are doing. Their managers are attempting to build up business and to get the highest prices possible from the business point of view, to make their road a paying one and a popular one. That would be their object, but the effort of the government in controlling the railways would be higher than that. It might be said that a railway was required through a particular portion of the country. It might not be a financial success at all. The portion of the system going through that country might be a losing road so far as the financial side of it was concerned. It might not pay its way for many years to come but it might be valuable in developing and opening up the country, and therefore the government with political foresight and having regard to the higher politics of the country would control such a road. Now, the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals says that the Australian colonies and New Zealand started out to build railways. Our condition and our circumstances are very widely different because the great railways, the great arteries through the country, are already built. We have them here to-day, we have 16,700 miles of railway in operation in the Dominion of Canada. We have people thickly settled, there is a network of railways, there is every railway accommodation and facility that can fairly be demanded by the people. All we have to do now Is not to plan how to build railways but to provide amongst other things against the great evil of unnecessarily duplicating lines of railway. There can be no more wasteful expenditure of public money than the building of parallel lines of railway. Last session there was up in the House the question of running a line of railway parallel to the Michigan Central Railway up in the counties of Essex and Kent and the government took power, then, if I remember correctly, to investigate the
matter and give the subsidy if, in their judgment, after full investigation, they should so decide and we heard the other day, I think, from the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals that the subsidy had been given to a line running side by side with another railway. Now, I object to that use of the money of the people of Canada. The Rainy River Railway case is practically another example. They say that the commercial necessities of the country require that we shall have two lines of railway out of Manitoba and the North-west Territories to carry the freight. If that lie the case let the second line be a commercial undertaking because the justification for tlie second line is that the business has so largely increased as to make its construction necessary. If that be the case, then that railway should be built, not by the enormous subsidies given by the Dominion and by the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba-which we are told would in themselves be nearly sufficient to construct the road-but it should be built as a strictly commercial undertaking. If we had government control of these roads the evils which are pointed out would not exist and the money of the Canadian people would not be diverted from useful enterprises to the wasteful extravagance of duplicating lines of railways. We all remember that a few years ago they had almost a revolution in Manitoba because the Dominion government had refused permission for this railway to enter that province. The pressure brought to bear upon the government of Canada was so great at that time, that the government was compelled to back down from the position they assumed and were forced to allow the Northern Pacific to enter1 Manitoba. The people of the province were promised that there would be competition and that competition would cheapen rates and prove of an inestimable value to the province. But what occurred ? Why, Sir, we have the fact admitted to-day that the scheme was an absolute failure and that no competition and no cheapening of rates resulted. This railway company took the money of the people of Manitoba and they turned around and made an arrangement with the Canadian Pacific Railway and the same rates were charged as before. In the province of Ontario there is no competition between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway which tends to cheapen! rates. Go to one of these railway companies and they will tell you that they cannot reduce passenger rates or freight rates because they have made, an arrangement with the other company, and the stipulated rates must be lived up to by both. They will tell you that they cannot run an excursion even to a competing point without consulting the other railway company and insisting upon the terms mutually agreed upon. These are great evils which exist to-day, and we are threatened with the further great evil that

our Canadian railways may at any moment be handed over to Individuals foreign and hostile to the interests of Canada ; to individuals who would make the Canadian lines subservient to the lines of the United States, a condition of things which would work ruin to; our people. Do we not see to-day that the Grand Trunk Railway has not its summer terminus at Montreal or Quebec, nor its winter terminus at Halifax or St. John ? Do they not announce that their summer and winter services will be at Portland ? I say, Sir, that we should use the powers that the parliament of Canada undoubtedly possesses to look after the interests of our Canadian people, to see that the ports of Quebec and Montreal, of Halifax and St. John, and this new port of Sydney shall get the Canadian business so that the harbours we have built up at vast cost shall not be deserted. We all know that to the point to which the freight is carried, there will the shipping go to take it across the ocean. It is absurd to say that although the Grand Trunk Railway carries its freight to Portland, and the Canadian Pacific Railway may carry its freight to Boston, there will still be a great trade for the port of Montreal. Sir, if our Canadian railways carry the produce of Canada and the United States freight in transit through Canada, to American shipping points, then there will be no trade for our Canadian ports. It is the duty of this parliament to look after the interests of the Canadian people. The railways will not do it. It is true we have had an incompetence in the government; we have had the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) splurging around doing great things for the port of Montreal in his mind, but actually accomplishing little or nothing for five years. We have had him making great pretensions of what he was going to do at Port Colborne to make it a transhipping point, but we would like to know what he has actually done. He cannot tell us, because he has accomplished but very little. However that may be, it is not the point. The point is that the Canadian people are capable of self government. We surely have the material to properly administer our affairs and to control our business. I have faith in the people of Canada that they will do so, and whether it is done by a commission, or whether it is done by a minister, or whether it is done by a combination of both a minister and a commission, it should be done by ourselves. The Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair) told us that in New South Wales they had a commission (independent, I presume, of the minister) but they were not satisfied with it, and so they adopted the new plan of having three commissioners, one the Minister of Railways and the other two railway men of experience, and although the minister did not attend to the details yet if a difference arose he had the veto power. The minister (Hon. Mr. Blair) points to that as Mr. WALLACE.
a conspicuous instance of the failure of a commission, but if it is the better way to give the minister for the time being a veto power, then let us adopt that system which has to commend it the experience of other colonies. Surely there are means which will remove the control of our railways from the political arena so far as the details are concerned, and still leave the supreme power over them to the parliament of Canada and to the government of Canada which represents parliament. Sir, public opinion is rapidly forming on this question, and as has been said by the member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) and the hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd), thousands of people outside of parliament are eagerly watching the event transpiring today, and are coming rapidly to the conclusion that it is the duty of the government to promulgate a policy in this regard. The government of this country is bound to have a policy on all great questions of public interest, and to express it to the people of Canada. Sir, the people of Canada are eagerly watching for the announcement of the policy of the government in this respect. But, Sir, as far as we learn, the government have very little opinion upon it ; and the only one who spoke, the Minister of Railways, has thrown cold water on the proposition for any further government ownership or control of railways. In that, Sir, I venture to say that he and the government for whom he is speaking, do not represent the views of the people of Canada.


Mr. SAMUEL HUGHES (North Victoria).: Mr. Speaker, as this question presents itself to my mind, there are three issues before us. One is the political control by the government of the Intercolonial Railway, a government railway; another is the non-political control of the Intercolonial Railway by a commission; and the other is the state ownership of all railways. Taking for granted that the motion of the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean)-not his speech-refers to the non-political control of the Intercolonial Railway, I shall have pleasure in supporting it. My hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) spoke for the motion and is going to vote against it. My hon. friend from East York made the motion and spoke against it. We hear a great deal of discussion about the danger that exists of foreign control of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway. To-day, Sir, the stock of both of these railways is controlled by foreigners. The trade of Portland, Boston, and a large portion of the trade of New York is being built up by these railways. For years the freight charges on these railways have been as they are to-day as low to Boston and Portland, as to Montreal, and in some cases lower. This has been going on for many a day, and I presume that it will

continue for a considerable period longer. The danger Is not coming on; it has been in existence for many a long year, and I am glad that the people are at last waking up to the need of building up Canadian seaport towns and cities, and putting a stop, so far as they can, to the building up of American cities by Canadian railways. The control of the Australian railways by commissions is reported to work very satisfactorily. The railways there are practically all government railways; but there is this peculiarity about them. They run to large cities, and do not intersect the country with branch lines to the same extent as is the case in Canada. In South Africa the railways are all owned by the government, but their control is non-political, and they are, I believe, working remarkably well. The only objection I have heard urged against the non-political control of government roads was that the commissioners do not keep pace with the times in regard to freight rates. That would be corrected, however, by the competition of other roads in this country. In New Zealand and the Australian colonies there is no competition; but in Canada there would be, and the commissioners would be kept up to the mark. I have pleasure in supporting the motion of the hon. member for Bast York on the understanding that it means the non-political control of the Intercolonial Railway, and not, as his speech indicated, the government ownership of railways.
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee.
Charges of management	 $17,443 80
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: It will be noticed that there are several small increases in the contingent accounts of the different offices throughout the country. The largest item of increase is $5,000 on account of the printing of Dominion notes. That arises from the general expansion of business throughout the country. There is an increase of $650 in the item of expenses in connection with the issue and redemption of Dominion notes. That is made up of small increases of $30, which are contemplated to the young ladies engaged in that branch.


William Findlay Maclean: Will the hon. gentleman say why he has increased these salaries?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I did not mention any particular salaries, but I said there were several votes taken in contemplation of increases. I can give the hon. gentleman the items. The increase of $150 in Winnipeg is explained by the fact that a young lad who has been doing minor clerical work is put on the permanent list at the not very extravagant salary of $350 per annum.
At Charlottetown it is contemplated to take authority to give two increases of $100 each. I think these are the only salary increases which are provided for here.


William Findlay Maclean: I thought the hon. gentleman spoke of general increases to a number of young ladies ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, I say there are $30 increases to a number of young ladies engaged in the work of signing notes. These are persons who are poorly paid and they are given their $30 increase.


William Findlay Maclean: Would the hon. gentleman tell us now whether he is prepared to recognize the claims of the letter carriers of this country in the same way ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: When we come to the Post Office Department, that question will be settled.


William Findlay Maclean: The hon. gentleman has raised the principle of a poorly paid portion of the public service getting an increase, and we are thus within our rights in asking whether he will apply that principle to the poorly paid letter carriers. I would be quite willing to vote for this increase if the hon. gentleman will tell me that when he comes to the Post Office Department he will recognize the claims of the letter carriers.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If my hon. friend will show me any letter carrier who receives less money, I will be almost disposed to agree with him.


William Findlay Maclean: The letter carriers have families to support, and these ladies have no one probably to keep but themselves ; and if one section of the service is to be recognized, the hon. minister ought to be able to tell us whether he proposes to recognize another poorly paid section.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I will have to hand my hon. friend over to the tender mercies of the Postmaster General in respect of the letter carriers, and I do not think he will be found ungenerous. The increases I ask for are very small and are given to the fair sex, and I appeal to my hon. friend's gallantry to allow them to pass.


William Findlay Maclean: I am not objecting, but would like to see the men getting a fair proportion as well.


Robert Laird Borden: What are the salaries of these employees ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: After these increases are given, the highest salary paid will only be $530, and the salaries of these ladies range down to $430 or thereabouts.


Hon. Mr. PRIOR.: That is a pretty good salary compared with that given the letter carriers.


Mr. CLARKE.: Might X ask some information as to the details of the item for commissions on the payment of interest on public debt. What bank receives the commission?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The Bank of Montreal and the agent of the government in London.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What commission does it receive ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The arrangement is an old one, made some years ago, and has not been altered. It is quite a small commission, but I could not give the exact fraction from memory.


Byron Moffatt Britton: The hon. gentleman will find the details on page G-12 of the Auditor General's Report.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I see there is an increase of $5,000 over the sum of $55,000 paid last year for printing Dominion notes. Has the increase of printing been so great as to justify this large increase ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is no increase in the rates, which are established by contract, but in the amount of business done on account of these growing times.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What is the amount of notes printed ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The increase in the circulation is in proportion to the general increase in the volume of business. As the trade of the country expands, you have to provide more notes. Instead of providing too many, we are receiving criticism for not issuing new notes fast enough. The complaint is that many of the notes have been years in circulation, and are not as clean as they should be.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Are the plates on which these notes are printed still being engraved in the United States?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The system which has obtained for several years continues. All the work of engraving is done in Canada, but the dies on which the plates are made, are, under the terms of the agreement, permitted to be made in the United States.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like the hon. Minister of Finance to tell us what proportion of notes this increase of $5,000 represents. It is an increase of one-tenth.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is our own estimate of the probable requirements of the year beginning the first of July next, and necessarily it is only an estimate. It is impossible to do more in a general way than indicate the sum of money to be required. We have not figured Mr. PRIOR.
out the precise number of each kind of notes, but inasmuch as the trade of the country is increasing from year to year, we ask some small increase in the appropriation for that purpose.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I judge from the remarks of the hon. minister that this increase is intended to meet the requirements of the growing times. I presume he will also say that the same evidence will go to demonstrate the fact that a growing time heretofore did not exist because there was no increase of Dominion notes required. 1 am not sure that we have any greater reason for believing that there will be an increased demand for those smaller notes in the years to come than there was in the past, though I think it very well to make provision for the calling in of those notes which are soiled and torn, and the replacing of them by a new issue. I am quite sure that the country will hail with delight the promise that a great many of those small notes which have been handled so much are taken out of circulation, and some cleaner ones substituted in their place.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The last item on page 10 includes printing, advertising, and so on. Is it intended that this printing shall be done in the Government Printing Bureau here, or will it be given out ? I wish to enter an emphatic protest against the practice, which seems to be carried out to a greater extent than heretofore, of sending the government reports and other matter to be printed in various printing offices throughout the country. With all respect, I contend that the aim of the government should be to make the plant here as complete aud perfect as possible. The work of printing can be done with a government plant more cheaply and expeditiously than if it is farmed out. Is any of the work covered by this item to be done outside of the Government Printing Bureau ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: None of the printing in my department has been sent out.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I congratulate the minister on that.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The general question is worth discussing, and it can be taken up at another time. The printing of my department has all been done at the Bureau.


Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER.: What was the expenditure under this head last year? In the report of the Auditor General, I see that the estimate was $12,000, but the expenditure was $21,000, an excess of nearly 100 per cent.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Under the items in the Auditor General's Report, a number of the expenditures seem to be

grouped. I cannot give the hon. gentleman (Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper) the information he asks for, hut will try to procure it.
X would be willing to reserve the item, or, without that, to give the information at a later period.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: I do not wish to have it reserved.


Mr. CLANCY.: Can the hon. minister explain the very rapid increase in the vote for printing Dominion notes ? The estimate for 1899-1900 was $40,000, and it is now increased to $60,000. There may be a good reason for it, but the increase is a large one.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) is right in his figures. If he will turn to the statements I have made in the budget speeches, he will see that there has been a great increase in the circulation of Dominion notes. I have not a statement of the increase for the current year, but it is very considerable. There is no other explanation, for there has been no increase in the rate.


James Clancy: Does any of this increase arise through the issue of new denominations, to which we have seen some references in the public press ?
The MINISTER OF FINANCE No ; there has been no change in that respect; we are not issuing new denominations.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Can the hon. minister tell us what portion of this item is for printing, and what for advertising, and so on ? It would shorten the work of the committee if the factors making up such an item as this were given.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I find that the Auditor General has grouped some of these items, and I cannot at the moment answer the question, which was the same as was asked by my hon. friend from Pictou (Sir Charles Hibibert Tupper), but, if it is desired, I shall be glad to procure the information later on.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: I do not wish to delay the committee, but it seems to me that it is stretching this item somewhat to include in it this amount of $9,000 odd.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That was a special transaction, due to handling a large amount of gold, which was exceptional, and was due to the stringency of the money market.
Civil Government-Governor General's Secretary's Office, including W. H. Walker at $1,700, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act	 $10,410


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In that item there is one increase from $1,550 to $1,700, one statutory of $50, and $60 for a messenger ; and there is one new junior
second-class clerk at $700 ; making a total increase of $960.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What need has arisen for the new clerk ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Instead of having a man as a temporary whose pay is chargeable against the contingent account, one clerk has been given the rank of a junior second-class clerk, and so comes upon the permanent staff.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Is the contingent account reduced ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, it is somewhat reduced.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: On what account ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is decreased on that item, but increased on another one.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. minister does not seem to have seen his way clear to so amend the law as to make it unnecessary to have this provision so often in the estimates-1 notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act.' I have brought that to the attention of the hon. gentleman on more than one occasion, and have reasons that seem to me to make it undesirable that items should appear in that form, and have suggested that it would be better to amend the law. I presume the hon. gentleman has not seen his way clear to take that course.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The difficulty of course is that the law deals with matters generally, and these items are necessarily of an exceptional character. It might be difficult to frame a law which would cover all these cases. The theory is that the general outline of the Civil Service Act may be considered right, but in exceptional circumstances, when it is desired to give a larger increase than is authorized by the Act, these words have to be inserted. It may be said they occur often, but in proportion to the total number of officials in the service it will be found that they occur very seldom.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the reason for the inclusion of the words in this particular item ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Because the gentleman named in the Governor General's office would receive a larger salary and a larger increase than he would be permitted to receive by the ordinary operation of the Civil Service Act. He would only be entitled to get, by the ordinary method of statutory increase, $50. The proposal is to give him $150. The gentleman's name is Walker.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Has he received the usual statutory increase during the past two or three years ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, this is a special increase.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Notwithstanding the fact that he received the usual increases during the past two or three years ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What particular service does he render to entitle him to a special increase of $150 while the other clerks are practically not getting any at all ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In all the departments there will be found some officials who are deemed specially worthy of an increase, and the officials who are connected with the Governor General's department have reported this gentleman as especially worthy, and we have accepted the responsibility of recommending the increase.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: How long has he been in the service ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: He has been there for quite a long time. He is an old official.


James Clancy: I would like to ask the Minister of Finance where he expects this thing to end, of refusing those in the civil service their promotion, or rather the statutory increase to which they seem to be entitled. I am not going to argue the question upon the ground that has been discussed here on many occasions, whether they were legally entitled to it or not. The government have contended from time to time that they were not, while others have taken the opposite ground. But, I want to point out that we are constantly met with difficulties from that system being carried out. There is gross favouritism appearing upon the surface; I will not say that it is so in reality, but, I say the hon. gentlemen expose themselves to fair criticism when they do that kind of thing. Instead of laying down one rule which should be carried out in every instance, we find this exceptional treatment from year to year growing worse. We have estimates filled with that saving clause ' notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act to the contrary.' I will venture to say in looking over the estimates that it will be found to occur oftener than last year, for the simple reason that hon. gentlemen have taken it into their own hands to set aside the law. The right hon. gentleman seems to be amused at it. It is not a matter of amusement. If he were in the position of these gentlemen who have to live at the beck and nod of their superiors, with their merits no longer an element entitling them to receive what the law allows, he would not be amused. I say it is not fair, it is dealing unfairly with the civil service and putting them in an unfair position. The end can only come when we have adopted a system that the civil service of this country should be entirely independent of any government. We are now entering upon a


Edward Frederick Clarke: discussion of the estimates, and we are met with these unsavoury items, I say unsavoury, because they lead to such evils that they will never be rectified until the government go back to the old system.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think the hon. gentleman will find, as respects the general question of statutory increases, that we rather liberally interpret that declaration this year, and he will not have so much reason to complain as he supposes.
At six o'clock the committee took recess. After Eecess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Robert Laird Borden: We were asking, in respect to item No. 2, as to what the special qualifications were which necessitated an increase to Mr. Walker.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: It is rather a difficult question to answer, other than that the officials to whom we look for advice in connection with the office reported him as specially worthy. I do not know that I could give my hon. friend any other than a general answer.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If my memory serves me, when the vote for the Secretary's office in connection with His Excellency the Governor General was up last session, this question of statutory increase occupied a good deal of the time of the committee. May 1 ask if the minister depends entirely on the recommendations made by the head official in that office as to whether increases shall be given or withheld ? What is the rule that has been adopted ? We find that in this and some other offices some officials are given statutory increases regularly, while in other cases such increases are withheld. Is merit the final and sole guide in giving or withholding these statutory increases ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I need not say that every office is under the control of ministers, and ministers are responsible for them, but there are some offices which come more directly under the personal observation of the minister, and he is able to rely on that. In respect to others, this is not the case, and he has to rely upon information given him. The Governor General's office is one of that kind. We are all responsible for it, and we join in the recommendation, but the officers do not come so closely in touch with us as some others do.


Edward Frederick Clarke: By whom are the recommendations made ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The recommendations are made by the officer in charge, and, of course, we accept them, and endorse them as we do by bringing them before the House.
] 81

Department of the Secretary of State, including A. Drouin at $1,500, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act	 $37,730


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: The only thing which requires explanation is in regard to the salary of Mr. Drouin, and the explanation given that his salary is increased $100 this year is, that he has received no increase for several years. He is a very competent officer, and does all the engrossing for the Department of the Secretary of State. The minister recommends it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: This is one of those cases where the head of the department did not recognize the efficiency of the official. I understand the Prime Minister to say that this is a very efficient officer, and notwithstanding that fact he has been deprived of his statutory increase for two or three years. How is that ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) asks how it is that he has not received his statutory increase. It is more than I can say at the present time, because I did not confer with the hon. the Secretary of State upon this subject. I only answer for the increase this year. This year he is given, not $50, but $100.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: How did he vote in November ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Well, if he voted according to his former proclivities, perhaps he voted wrong, but perhaps he has had more light.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the explanation of the decrease ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: It is inexplicable.


The PRIME MINISTER.: One messenger less.
Department of Interior, Including A. P.
Collier at $1,100, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act.. $109,764


David Henderson: This is a very large increase ; I think we should have some explanation of this item.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: The increase in this vote amounts to $7,040. The increase is made up as follows : Statutory increases for thirty-nine clerks, at $50, $1,950 ; $25 for one clerk, which comes in because the period of proportion came in the middle of the year ; four statutory increments to messengers, at $30 apiece, making $120. In the amount stated there is an increase of the salary of the deputy minister of $800. This is a matter which the government does not ask to have finally passed upon by the committee at the present sitting. Then, there is an additional second-class clerk, Mr. A. P. Collier, at $1,100, and eight additional junior second-class clerks, at $600
each, making $4,800. The four statutory increases given to mesengers on July 1, 1900, was not provided for last year, the amendment of the Civil Service Act not having passed until after the estimates were framed, but as there was money available, they got the benefit of the Act, and there were three increases of $30 each and one of $10. The total increase is $8,825. There is a decrease against that, of the difference between the salary of $700 of J. Curley, retired, and Mr. B. Scott, appointed junior second-class clerk, at $600 ; the salary of one second-class clerk, whose services were dispensed with, $750, and two messengers promoted to be junior second-class clerks and their places not filled. $980. An increase of $150 for the accountant was placed in the estimates last year, but he was not entitled to it until January 1 of this year. The net increase is $7,040.


James Clancy: This item stands.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Only as respects one portion of it. The increase in the salary of the deputy will be reserved for further consideration.


Mr. WILSON.: Would it not be as well to let the whole item stand ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We propose to reduce the item for the present, so as not to raise the question of the increase in the salary of the deputy minister. If that proposal is made it will be a matter for subsequent consideration.


David Henderson: In the event of the government deciding that the salary of the Deputy Minister of the Interior shall be increased, will the government carry out that policy in regard to the other deputy ministers ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I do not think the hon. gentleman understands what the Minister of Finance said. The minister (Hon. Mr. Fielding) said that he would ask the committee to pass the item less $800, leaving the salary of the deputy at $3,200. If the government should ask the House to increase the salary it will have to be done by another resolution.


David Henderson: I understand what the Minister of Finance said, but the Minister of the Interior does not understand the question I asked. In the event of the government increasing the salary to $4,000, will it be the policy of the government to increase the salaries of the other deputy ministers to $4,000 ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If we proposed to increase the salary to $4,000, that question would be pertinent, and if later on we propose to increase it, the question will come up, but just now it has no bearing.


David Henderson: We have the right to know why the government contemplated

this change at all, and we should also know the policy of the government on this matter.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: As respects these estimates the policy of the government is not to make any change in the salary of the deputy.


Robert Laird Borden: Why does the minister ask for this increase of $4,880 ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: It is for eight additional junior second-class clerks at $600 each. Legislation was passed last year to provide for junior second-class clerks which would in many ways be the same as the old third-class clerks. The increase of the staff has become necessary owing to the immense increase in the clerical work of the Department of the Interior. If my hon. friend Mr. Borden has time to look at the departmental report he will see that the actual clerical work of the department is more than double what it was three years ago, although the staff has practically remained the same. I might have asked the House to authorize an increase in the writer class who are paid out of contingencies at $400 a year, but it is desired, in some cases at least, to get the services of men rather than of ladies and it is difficult to get male clerks at $400 a year.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Who is the registration clerk mentioned here ? In the Auditor General's Report there is no such designation.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Mr. K. J. Henry.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: When was he appointed under that designation ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I do not think he was called by that title in the estimates previously. He was registrar of the official correspondence when I came into the department and there has been no change.


Mr. TAYLOR.: You will remember, Mr. Chairman (Mr. Macdonald, Huron), that when you and your friends sat in opposition previous to 1896, the continual cry of the opposition of that day was that there were too many civil servants and too many ministers. This year, however, the Department of the Interior proposes to increase the number of its employees by six, and the number in the Department of Indian Affairs by three. Previous to 1896 these two departments were in one, so the proposal now is to appoint nine extra clerks for that department. In almost every department of government it is the same thing this year. Yet only a few years since these gentlemen opposite proclaimed that the work could be done by half the officials. That goes to prove that every statement they made in opposition was incorrect. The work has not Mr. HENDERSON.
increased in these departments, but the government is constantly increasing the number of officials.
Department of Indian Affairs	 $51,070


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to have an explanation of the increase of $3,390 in this department.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The increases altogether amount to $3,390, and the explanation of them is as follows : Thirty statutory increases at $50 each, $1,500 ; three statutory increases of messengers at $30 each, $90 ; three junior second-class clerks at $600 each, $1,800. I may explain that the three junior second-class clerks are not additions to the staff of the department. They are promotions of persons in the lower class of writers, and the amount of their salaries as paid at present will be taken out of the vote for contingencies. These clerks now receive $515, $430, and $460 respectively. They have all been in the department for some time.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: How much are the messengers getting now ?
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
$480, $510, and one packer at $560.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Are the clerks now being appointed required to pass any civil service examination ?
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
Oh, yes.
Office of the Auditor General ... $30,437 50


Robert Laird Borden: What is the explanation of the increase ?
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
The increases are entirely statutory-twenty at $50, and one which will cover only three-quarters of a year at $37.50, making a total of $1,037.50.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Is the Auditor General now satisfied with the assistance in the way of clerks which the government affords him ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have heard no complaint of late. All the recommendations he has made in the matter have been confirmed.
Department of Finance and Treasury
Board	 $49,927 50


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is one special increase to Mr. Fraser, who has been twenty-five years in the service, and has very important duties to perform as inspector of savings banks and Assistant Receiver Generals' office and who is a particularly capable officer. There are six statutory increases of $50, and two of messengers at $30. These would make an increase of $560 but there are two messengers less in the list of permanent officials, owing to the fact that two old mes-

sengers have passed out of our department, and we shall have to provide for two messengers in the contingencies to supply their places. These are the only changes in the department.
Department of Customs	 $41,040


The MINISTER OP CUSTOMS.: It is proposed to advance one officer who is at the maximum of a first-class clerk to a chief clerkship, and to fill his place hy promoting a gentleman who is at the maximum of the second class, and whose place will be filled. It is also proposed to take a vote in order that perhaps another officer may be advanced to that class, making one extra clerk in that branch. It is proposed to put into the junior second class three clerks whose salaries have hitherto been paid out of the contingencies.


Samuel Hughes: Has the minister any i objection to give the names of the clerks who get the increase ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: They will not, of course, be granted until the first of the year ; but the promotion proposed of a first-class clerk to a chief clerkship is that of Mr. Farrow, the accountant of the department, who has been there for twenty years. His salary is now $1,800, the maximum of the first class, and it is proposed to make him a chief clerk without increasing his salary. It is proposed that Mr. Bliss, who is at the maximum of the second class, and is the chief of one of the branches, should fill the place of Mr. Far-raw, if his promotion takes place.
Department of Inland Revenue	 $38,200


Robert Laird Borden: Is there any change in this department ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: The amount asked for is the same as last year. There are increases for three officers in the first class. One is promoted from the second class to the first class. There are nine $100 increases in the second class. It is proposed to have seven first-class officers instead of six, ten second class instead of eleven, and three junior second-class clerks instead of two. The number of messengers remains the same, with increases of $60 each.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the explanation of the fact that the Commissioner of Inland Revenue receives $3,200, and the Commissioner of Customs $2,800 ? Perhaps the Minister of Finance can tell us.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Both of these gentlemen occupy dual positions and receive payments from two sources. Just why one receives more than the other, I cannot tell. I believe the salaries are the same as before. The Deputy Minister of Inland Revenue, I think, receives $800 as Commissioner of Standards. The Commissioner of Customs receives payments in the same way. They do not correspond exactly with those of the Inland Revenue.


Robert Laird Borden: The salaries really are the same.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: With a slight difference.
Department of Agriculture	 $59,072 50


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I would like to change this resolution by reducing the amount by $1,000 in the class of third-class clerks.


Robert Laird Borden: Are you bringing these in too much just for the purpose of striking them out ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, it was a mistake.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the explanation of the increase that still remains ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They are the statutory increases given to the clerks who are entitled to them.
Department of Marine and Fisheries, including J. F. Fraser at $1,900, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act	 $62,440


Charles Hibbert Tupper: What does the head of the topographical service, Mr. Stewart, get. He had about $1,600 or $1,700. Although I have not had any communication, directly or indirectly, with Mr. Stewart since I left the department, I think that his case has not been considered by the government as it ought to have been. I remember his character in the department and his extreme modesty, and doubt very much if he has ventured to press his case on the attention of the government, and I hope that in bringing his name to the attention of the government, I am at least doing him no injury. It is not encouraging to men of exceptional ability, who graduate in our universities and enter the public service, that their ability should not receive fit acknowledgment. When I was in the Department of Marine and Fisheries, we had a very able and costly officer, so far as our exchequer was concerned, in Commander Boulton, who did very good work indeed, in organizing the Hydrographic service on the lakes. He was borrowed from the Admiralty and we had to give him his imperial pay and what was called a colonial allowance, fixed by the Imperial navy, or something like $5,000 a year, in all. He got the assistance of Mr. Stewart, who came on the staff without any political influence, but solely on his merits, and who was a graduate of the Kingston Royal Military College, especially recommended for his ability. After a year or two of service under Commander Boulton, Commander Boulton was asked what were his qualifications for the work. He came in at a small salary of some $600 or $700, and his salary had risen

to $1,000 or $1,100. Notwithstanding tlie fact that Commander Boulton well knew what would be the result, he gave a very strong certificate in favour of Mr. Stewart. Being not only an able man, but an English officer and gentleman, Captain Boulton gave Mr. Stewart the highest possible recommendation, and said he was quite satisfied that any charts made under Mr. Stewart's supervision, after survey made by him, would be acceptable by the- Admiralty as Admiralty charts. Mr. Stewart took Commander Boulton's place. It was my intention to advance Mr. Stewart as rapidly as possible, as such men are very rare in all the colonies. The Admiralty has had to lend men like Commander Boulton, at very high salaries, to other colonies, and I question whether in any of the colonies there is any superior to Mr. Stewart in charge of that high class of work, and I do not believe there is an officer performing similar duties in the Imperial service to-day, under the Admiralty or any colonial government, with such small pay.
I am not personally interested in Mr. Stewart, but simply know his work and press his case on the government, not only in Mr. Stewart's own interest, but in that of the government, as it is certainly in the public interest that when men of that kind can be obtained at home, they should be given every encouragement, and a certain amount of generosity in our dealings with them will in the end be a great saving to the public service " pour encourager les autres."


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I agree with the hon. gentleman that capable scientific men are not too common, and that we should show our appreciation of their services. I have no personal knowledge of Mr. Stewart, but find that he is now receiving a salary, including the small increase in these estimates, of $1,950.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: That is better than I thought.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is evident therefore that my hon. colleague, the Minister of Marine, has endeavoured to recognize Mr. Stewart, but I will draw his attention to the matter.
Department of Railways and Canals, including S. L. Shannon at $2,200, Gerard G. Ruel at $2,000 and J. W. Pugsley at $1,600, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act	 $41,350


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is no material increase in the amount. But it has been provided in the ease of two or three of the officers who were considered exceptionally entitled that an additional allowance be made to them. We allow the accountant, who is a most excellent officer, an addition of $150. The law clerk, who also is a very efficient and capable man, is' given an increase of $200. We allow the clerk of the Railway Committee an ad-Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER.
dition of $100. Then we promote Mr. Ross from the second to the first class, but without increase in pay.
Civil Government-Department of Public
Works	 $47,020


Robert Laird Borden: Is there any explanation of the increase here ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The fact that no special increase is mentioned shows that the increase is due simply to statutory increases.
Civil Government-Geological Survey___$55,200


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The increases in this vote amount to $1,300. There are the usual statutory increases of $50 of twenty-one technical officers, and $100 for two technical officers, Messrs. Faribault and J. M. Macoun. There is also $50 for the chief clerk and accountant. The reason for the special increases to Messrs. Faribault and Macoun is this : Last year I asked the House to increase the salaries to some of the officers who were in the same rank as Messrs. Faribault and Macoun. These gentlemen were left out then because they were going to Paris and were getting a little special allowance in connection with that service, which was considered, for that year, equivalent to the increase of $100. I am asking the committee to authorize the same increase of $100 to these gentlemen this year.
Civil Government-Post Office Department, including Miss M. A. Slater at $600, notwithstanding anything in the
The POSTMASTER GENERAL	(Hon.
Wm. Mulock). This vote is increased by $8,045, made up, as follows :
Ninety-nine increases of $50 each	 $4,950
Twenty-seven increases of $30 each		810
One increase	 20
Nine increases of $50 each, paid in 19001901, over and above the number estimated for	 450
One additional first-class clerkship ... 1,600
Proposed transfer of R. P. Taylor, Ottawa Post Office, not carried out and salary
not re-estimated	 420
One additional packer, which through error in last year's estimates, money
was not provided	 300
Junior second-class clerk. Miss Slater ....	600
Provisional allowance, short estimate__	5
Difference of salary of J. D. Campbell as a junior second-class elerk ($600) and the amount ($140) specially voted for him last
year	 460
To provide for the salaries of six third-class clerks, to be transferred from outside service as junior second-class clerks	-	 4,000

Decreases.
Difference between the salaries of six second-class clerkships which became vacant ($7,800) and the salaries of six junior second-class clerks promoted to those vacancies ($6,600)	 $1,200

Difference between the salaries of thirteen junior second-class clerkships which became vacant ($11,560) and the salaries of the eleven temporary writers appointed to fill those vacancies ($6,600) and the two vacancies in second class ($2,000)..	2,960
Proposed transfer of two letter carriers,
Birtch ($510) and Jeffrey ($500) from Ottawa, not carried out	 1,010
Difference between Mr. Harrington ($1,-S00), promoted from first class to chief clerkship, and that of Mr. Binks ($1,400), promoted to fill vacancy	 400

Increase	 $ 8,045
With special reference to Miss Slater whom it is proposed to appoint as a junior second-she has been in the service in some minor capacity for many years, and has attained an age which makes her ineligible for appointment without special provision of this kind.
Hon. Mi'. PRIOR. Has the hon. minister given the statutory allowance to every clerk in the post office, or has he picked out some whom he considers especially worthy ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Provision is made in these estimates for all who are eligible.
Office of the High Commissioner for Canada, including C. J. Taylor at $1,500 and Thos. Allin at $950, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act	$10,500


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is a statutory increase of $50 and two special increases of $100, as set forth in the estimates.
Civil Government-Contingencies, rent and insurance, &c.-High Commissioner in England	 $11,200


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is it the intention of the government to make any change in the clerks in the high commissioner's office ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am not in a position to make any definite statement on the subject at present. In regard to the item for contingencies, &c., the increase is made up of small contingencies, one item, I recollect, being an increase in the income tax, which has been increased in England owing to certain events.
Department of Finance and Treasury Board	 $6,700


James Clancy: What is the reason of this increase of $800 ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend will, perhaps, observe that in the item of Civil Government I explained that two messengers, who were formerly a charge against Civil Government, would now pass to contingencies. There was a reduction in the item of Civil Government for
these two messengers, and they had to be provided for in the contingent item instead of in the direct vote. It makes no alteration in the number of officials.


James Clancy: Does it makes any alteration in the status of the civil servants ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: These messengers who went out were men who had been in the service for a long time. One of them was promoted to a clerkship, and the other one has passed to the staff of the House of Commons.
Department of Customs-Clerical and other assistance, including $1,750 to be paid, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $5,625; printing and stationery, $2,000; sundries, $2,730; total $10,355


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The decrease of $1,825 in clerical and other assistance is explained by what I said before, that three extra clerks, who have been paid out of contingencies hitherto, have been granted a vote in the civil service vote. Then, we took last year a vote of $15,000, preparatory to the new plan of compiling statistics. We do not need to ask for that this year, as the staff is under way and in operation. There is a saving of $15,000. When we come to the outside vote you will find I have to ask for this $15,000, and for several thousand more.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Then, in reality, there is an increase of about $2,000. You ask for $10,000 this year, and $12,000 last year.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: There is $1,825 taken out of contingencies and put in the civil service vote.
The Department of Inland Revenue-
Clerical and other assistance	 $2,000
Printing and stationery	 2,800
Sundries	 2,200


Edward Gawler Prior: What is this increase ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: There is an increase of $700 for printing and stationery, and $50 for sundries.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: How does the hon. minister justify the increase in the item of printing ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I have not the explanation, but if it is considered important I will bring the information later on.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Perhaps the hon. minister will give us that information upon the reservation which has been made of the item of printing generally.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: What we would like the hon. gentleman to explain to us is the occasion for that increase in the cost of printing. Why is it that an increase in the printing is necessary ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I will bring the information.
Item allowed to stand.
Post Office Department-
Clerical and other assistance, including $50 to pay W. Cooch, a packer and sorter for the technical work of inspecting letter carriers' boots, and $120 to pay S. J. Carter, of the dead letter office at Winnipeg, a provisional allowance for excessive cost of living in Manitoba, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act.... $32,355
Printing and	stationery	  21,000
Sundries	 4,000
Balancing and summarizing depositors' accounts at close of year ending June 30,1901	 3,425


James Clancy: I think we had something relating to this same matter last year, in regard to this party, who, I believe, was removed from the city of Ottawa. Perhaps we will have some explanation of this item.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There are only two increases in this vote, one an increase of $50 to a man named Cooch. Cooch is a packer, and being on that service could not, without special reference in the vote, be allowed any increase other than the normal one, but he performs some special work, the work of examining the boots. Mr. Sidney Smith, the head of the stores branch, has recommended him, and thinks him very well entitled to be paid for that service. It is a valuable service, and we would either have to pay him or engage some person especially for it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Are the boots propured by tender ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Well, I really do not remember how they are obtained, now, They have been buying them in the same way for many a year.


Edward Frederick Clarke: No change ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No, I have made no change in the system; we change the boots occasionally, that is all. The $150 is what I think the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) has particularly alluded to. His memory is excellent. We did have a reference to this gentleman foefore. Mr. Carter has been transferred from Ottawa to Winnipeg, although he is still in the inside service technically. The dead letter branch belongs to the inside service, but when we decentralized it and opened up two or three offices, this gentleman was sent up to look after the Winnipeg office. We propose to give him this special grant on account of the extra cost of living in Winnipeg.


James Clancy: It is not a new thing to have it stated to the House that gentlemen are employed on the ground of being able Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
to do some technical work. This is going-pretty far. I am not objecting at all to the party in question, but it never ocurred to me that it required much technical skill to examine boots. What is the nature of the examination that is made and the extent of it ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There are 1,816 pairs of letter carriers' boots examined per annum, and the estimated time occupied is three weeks.


Edward Gawler Prior: Is it to see that the union label is on the boots ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I suppose the real object is to see that the boots are of good quality.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Well heeled.


James Clancy: Will the hon. gentleman tell the committee what was the occupation of Mr. Cooch before ? Is he a practical boot maker ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: He was a shoemaker by trade.


George Taylor: I would like to inquire if Mr. Cooch is the packer referred to in item No. 21 for the Post Office Department. I see one packer is paid $300 a year. If this $50 is additional to that $300 a year, I will gladly support it, for I do not think the hon. Minister of Labour, who happens to be the Postmaster General, would want a man to work for a year as a packer for less than $1 a day. I hope this $50 given for this technical work of inspecting the boots is to the packer who is put down for the small sum of $300 a year.


Mr. ROCHE.: Mr. Chairman, I take exception to the wording of this paragraph, which reads :
To pay S. J. Carter of the dead letter office at Winnipeg a provisional allowance for excessive cost of living in Manitoba.
I do not think this is fair to that province. We wish immigrants to come into that province and we do not want to leave the impression that the cost of living there is excessive. In future editions of the estimates that term should be left out; indeed, it might be struck out now.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The point is well taken, and perhaps a better word can be substituted.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: The words formerly used were ' provisional living allowance.'


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I will find out the words which are used in the other votes and adhere to them.


George Taylor: The Postmaster General did not tell me who this Mr. Cooch is.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Mr. Cooch was in receipt of $500, the maximum salary of his class, but last year parlia-

ment was good enough to Increase the maximum to $600, and Mr. Cooeh being an excellent officer, came in for an increase of $30.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How long has he been in the service ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: He was appointed on the 5th of August, 1872.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What portion of that $21,000 is for printing, and what portion for stationery.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: This is a bulk sum, and it has not been customary to apportion it to each item, so that the officer cannot give me the information.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is that printing done outside the government printing office?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It is all done in Ottawa.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is it done at the Government Printing Bureau ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It is all done by the King's Printer.


Edward Gawler Prior: I see $300 mentioned here as the salary of a packer. That seems an absurd amount.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There is no man drawing that salary for this office which is vacant.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It is likely to remain vacant at that salary.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: If there were an appointment to be made we could not pay more, but we found that salary on the statute-books when we took office.


Robert Laird Borden: If a vacancy can receive a salary of $300 that is a strong argument in favour of the letter carriers.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Would it not be well to draw the attention of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Mulock) to this, so that he can send his officer to make inquiries.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I will mention it to the Minister of Labour.
Department of Trade and Commerce-Contingencies	 $6,500


James Clancy: Is it the intention in this case as in others that the sum which appears here as a decrease shall appear as an increase in some other vote.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is a transfer from one service to another, but that does not alter the number of officials.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Nor the amount to be paid each.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If they are employed as temporary writers, and are now made junior second-class clerks, they would of course get increased salaries.
Administration of justice	 $101,055


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Is it necessary that this vote should stand in the absence of the Solicitor General ?


Charles Hibbert Tupper: 1 do not ask that the vote should stand, but when the Solicitor General is here I would like very much on some occasion, possibly when going into supply, to mention a matter in connection with this vote, and I give this as notice to the Solicitor General so that he may be prepared to discuss it. There seems to be a misunderstanding at the bar in Vancouver in regard to the arrangement for the sittings there of judges of the Supreme Court. Some time ago the question was raised as to whether there was a condition in the order in council, or in the commission, or in both, requiring the judge who was appointed at that time to reside in Vancouver. As a matter of fact no judge does reside in that city, although there is an impression that there was an arrangement made at the request of the bar of Vancouver to bring that about. One judge comes over generally on Monday and leaves on Friday or Saturday. That does not mean that there is always a judge from Tuesday to Friday, because for various reasons the judge who generally attends is not always able to keep these appointments. I wish the Solicitor General would refresh his memory on that matter, so that it may be known whether the government is in the position to have the wishes of the bar of Vancouver met, in order that we might have a resident judge in Vancouver.	.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I will see. that the matter is mentioned to the Solicitor General, and no doubt at a later stage he will deal with it.


Mr.   CLARICE@: This vote includes the item of $9,000 for the enforcement of the Alien Labour law. Is there any objection to letting the item stand ? We ought to have some explanations of it from the Solicitor General.


Mr. LEFURGEY.: Might I ask for an explanation of the increase of $400 in the salaries of three judges in Prince Edward Island ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think the salaries of these judges are regulated by statute. When the Solicitor General is present, I am sure he will give my hon. friend the explanation.
Item allowed to stand.
Legislation-House of Commons contingencies, including $300 for clerical assistance for the leader of the opposition	 $25,000


Charles Hibbert Tupper: I think the government would do well to take into consideration that item of $300. It is a very small amount for a first-class man.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am quite agreeable, and perhaps when we bring down the supplementary estimates we may have something more.
Publishing debates	 $40,000


Edward Frederick Clarke: What does that include ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: It is for the publication of the Debates. We expect that this session will be a short one, and next session also, and that is the reason why we are simply asking for the sum of $40,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The question of more expedition being used in issuing ' Hansard ' after the House closes has been already before the Debates Committee. It seems to me that an unnecessary delay takes place now, and also that it might be possible to have * Hansard ' supplied to the members of the House at a much earlier hour on the day following the debate. I do not know whether the matter had best be discussed here or in the Debates Committee ; but I would like to ask the minister if any application was made by the Department of Printing for an additional press for the purpose of expediting the printing of ' Hansard.'


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes- not particularly for the printing of * Hansard,' but for the several work of the department, there has been a suggestion that we should increase the plant. We did provide some increased plant a little while ago, but it is the kind of department that will always require a little more money.


James Clancy: I would like to ask if the vote of last year for this service, $60,000, was all expended ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Yes, I understand that the vote of last year was fully expended, owing to the session being so long.


David Henderson: There is perhaps not so much complaint with regard to the publication of the bound volume as there is with regard to the issuing of the revised copy. I understand the press throughout the country does not receive ' Hansard ' until revised and printed, and there is usually a delay of ten or twelve days before that is done. It seems to me that that time should be shortened at least one-half. There is no reason why the revised * Hansard ' should not be issued say between five days after the unrevised edition is published. This would be a very great convenience to people in the country. We get extra copies of the revised edition to send out, and in the case of important speeches on special subjects, the subject is almost too cold by the time the public receive the debates. I hope those in charge will use every effort possible to have the revised edition published at a much earlier date.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The printing of debates is entirely under the control of the Debates Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TTJPPER.
Committee, and the subject is one which should be discussed before that committee. I understand that last year this question was brought up several times and that some new scheme was devised in order to secure greater expedition in the distribution of ' Hansard.' I do not know what has been the result, but the Speaker of this House has nothing to do with the printing of the debates, and the members of the Debates Committee are doing their best to render justice in that regard, and I have no doubt will do their best to give the House satisfaction.


David Henderson: I am much obliged to Mr. Speaker for his explanation. I have never had the honour of being a member of the Debates Committee and thought this the proper place to draw public attention to the matter. Perhaps the committee will think it proper to take this into their consideration again.
Estimate of Sergeant-at-Arms	 $39,540


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: There is a decrease of $85. A new assistant messenger has been appointed who received $200 less than the former messenger, and on the other hand we are providing for an increase to two messengers at $30 each, one doorkeeper $30, and night watchman at $25.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Are these all permanent officers.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: There is a reduction of $20,000 in the amount provided for the Debates, because it is expected that this session will not be long, but why is there not a reduction provided in the case of extra sessional clerks, &c.?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: We have voted the same amount for many years and have never provided for long sessions, but take a supplementary vote when necessary.


Robert Laird Borden: Some hon. gentlemen are desirous of going home, as tomorrow is a holiday. We have made very substantial progress, and I think we might now adjourn.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I agree with my hon. friend Mr. Borden (Halifax), that we have made a very fair degree of progress.
Some resolutions reported.



[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved the adjournment of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: Before the House adjourns I would like to mention the desirability of having the Committee on Public

Accounts organized. I understood that this committee was to have been called to-day. But that was not done, for some reason that 1 do not understand. Notices have been sent out to members of other committees announcing meetings for Thursday; but I, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, have not received notice of the summoning of that committee for that day. 1 think it very desirable for the purpose of expediting the business of the session that this committee should be organized as early as possible. It is very natural to suppose that that committee will have business to transact, and business in which a great many members of the House are more or less interested. 1 would suggest to the right hon. Prime Minister that he or whoever is charged with that duty should see to it that this committee is summoned for Thursday.


The PKIME MINISTER.: My instructions were that all committees should be summoned for Thursday. If that has not been done in the case of the Public Accounts Committee it must have been a mistake. X will see to it that the committee is summoned for the following day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 9.45 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thtjbsday, February 21,1901.