1901-05-13

Mr. B. M. BRITTON (Kingston) moved :: That leave be granted the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines; and Banking and Commerce; and on Miscellaneous Private Bills, to sit during the time the House is in session.


Mr. WILSON.: I would like to ask the First Minister if it would not be well to include the Committee on Agriculture in that motion ? It will be necessary to have at least one sitting yet.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Very well.


Mr. SPROULE.: As we Aeet at eleven o'clock, if these committees are called at ten o'clock in the morning, as there is very

little work to be done it would interfere only to a very limited extent with the sittings of the House.


Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.: That is a very good suggestion if it can be carried out.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Byron Moffatt Britton: That owing to the advanced period of the session the requirement of rule 60 be dispensed with for the remainder of the session.


Mr. RICHARDSON (Lisgar).: What is rule 60 ?


Byron Moffatt Britton: No committee on any private Bill originating in this House, of which notice is required to be given, is to consider the same until after one week'3 notice of the sitting of such committee has been first affixed in the lobby; nor, in the case of any such Bill originating in the Senate, until after twenty-four hours' like notice.
On the day of the posting of any Bill under this rule, the Clerk of the House shall cause a notice of such posting to be appended to the printed Votes and Proceedings of the day.
.Mr. RICHARDSON (Lisgar). I object to that.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The motion cannot pass now without the unanimous consent of the House.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Let it stand until to-morrow.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I have not studied it yet, so that the motion had bettei stand until to-morrow.



QUESTION OF ORDER.

Mr. JOHN CHARLTON (North Norfolk).: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask for your ruling upon a point of order connected with the rides and proceedings of this House. The rule, as laid down in the Rules and Orders, for Monday is :
Private Bills, questions to be put by members, notices of motion, public Bills and orders, government notices of motion, and government orders.
This rule has been set aside by resolution of the House, and the order of business under that resolution comes into force today. That resolution passed on Wednesday last, is as follows :-
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, it was ordered, that commencing with Monday next, this House shall meet for the remainder of the session at 11 o'clock of the morning of each sitting day ; that in addition to the usual intermission at 6 o'clock p.m., there shall be also an intermission on each day from 1 to 3 o'clock p.m.; and that government orders shall have precedence at all such sittings after questions, on Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Now, Sir, are private Bills government orders or are we about to make a private Bill a government measure or a government order ? If not, then we are transcending the authority granted by the House on motion of the leader of the House in regard to the business it is proposed to adopt at this sitting. The point I take is, that we have no right under this resolution to proceed with the consideration of private Bills because this day has been taken by motion on the part of the government for the purpose of attending to and proceeding with government business.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I am sure that my hon. friend (Mr. Charlton) cannot be serious in such a contention. According to the standing orders the order of the day on Monday is :
Private Bills, questions to be put by members.
I provide in the motion that government orders shall have precedence after questions on Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. The programme Is interfered with only after questions ; the programme remains the same as to private Bills, and then follow questions and government orders.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The point of order is not well taken because the motion passed the other day provides only that government business shall have precedence after questions. The order concerning private Bills on Mondays remains as it was.



LEASE OF RAILWAYS BY MANITOBA.

[Stage Direction]
On the order :
House again in committee on Bill (No. 103) relating to an agreement between the government of Manitoba and the Canadian Northern Railway Company respecting certain railways.- Mr. Mclsaac.
John Charlton: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a suggestion which I think can be more properly made while you are in the Chair.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: There is nothing before the Chair. We are now in committee.
And Mr. Speaker having left the Chair for the House to go into committee on the Bill,


John Charlton: I wish to make a suggestion with regard to the order of business that shall be proceeded with under the order relating to private Bills. There are a large number of private Bills on the Order paper, most of which . unfortunately for the promoters of these Bills, come after the Bill (No. 103) ; and I would suggest to the government the propriety of dealing with a number of these Bills that can be dealt with
4941 MAY 13, 1901 4942	
*without debate, so as not to imperil the [DOT] passage of measures of such a character that no one has any objection to them. 1 throw out that suggestion with regard to Bills which are not opposed, and which might be allowed to pass their stages like unopposed notices of motion. The PRIME MINISTER. I cannot conceive how these other Bills can be imperilled if we go on with the present Bill. Mr. CHARLTON. They can be got through more quickly. The PRIME MINISTER. If I understand that this Bill is not to be allowed to be proceeded with, then they will be imperilled. Mr. CHARLTON. Not at all. The PRIME MINISTER. But if there is to be legitimate discussion, I do not see that there will be any danger of the other Bills being imperilled. On the preamble, Mr. CHARLTON. Mr. Chairman, the Bill now before the committee, the passage of the preamble of which you have just called for, is, it is unnecessary to say, a Bill of more than ordinary importance. I have offered a few remarks on this Bill on two previous occasions ; and, owing to the brief time allotted for the consideration of private Bills on the Order paper when I was speaking, I was unable to conclude my remarks. My argument on the case has been a continuous one for the two days on which the Bill has been under consideration, and I have still a few points to dwell upon which time did not permit me to give attention to on Wednesday evening and on Friday evening last. I wish to disclaim any intention to offer to this Bill factious opposition. At the same time, Sir, it is a Bill of such great importance, covering interests of such a wide range, and calculated to exert so potent an influence on the future of Manitoba that I deem it deserving of the fullest consideration ; and, while not intending to indulge in anything in the shape of obstruction, I do intend to give to this Bill as full and as fair consideration as I am capable of doing. It may be, Sir, owing to the peculiar circumstances under which my argument has been presented, in instalments as it were, like a continued serial, that I shall be compelled to be somewhat discursive; but I shall avoid that defect as far as it is possible for me to do so. I endeavoured to take up the discussion on Friday at the point where I had left it on Wednesday, and to-day I shall endeavour to take it up at the point where I left it on Friday night ; and I shall endeavour to urge on the committee the considerations which I deem sufficient, not for the rejection of the Bill, although I think it ought to be rejected, but which not only	warrant the government, but which imperatively require the government to refer this Bill back, with the amendments the Railway Committee have made in it, to the Manitoba legislature for confirmation. On Wednesday evening, when the time was called, I was engaged in a discussion of the proper functions of this legislature in relation to this Bill. I was endeavouring to point out that we were called upon to exercise positive legislative functions ; that we were here not merely to record the decrees of provincial legislatures, but that we had before us a piece of legislation which had been referred to us not only for revision and for the expression of our opinion, but for our action in the capacity of the paramount legislative authority, and that we had it within our power to amend the Bill, to reject the Bill, or to pass it with such conditions attached to it as we might deem prudent for a reference back to the legislature from which it emanated. These positions, which I reaffirm today, I hold to be unassailable. We are called upon to act in regard to this Bill as the legislature of Canada, paramount to all other legislative bodies in the Dominion, controlling their legislation so far as it comes under our supervision, and exercising functions analogous to those which would be exercised by the government if they disallowed a Bill passed by a local legislature. This Bill, as its title says, is ' an Act relating to an agreement between the government of Manitoba and the Canadian Northern Railway Company respecting a certain railway,' and it is endorsed with these words : ' Reprinted as proposed to be amended in the Railway Committee.' Here is a Bill, sent down to us by the Manitoba government, discussed in the Railway Committee of the House of Commons, and reprinted as amended by that committee, and now we are acting on a Bill which the Manitoba legislature has never acted upon except in part; we are acting on a Bill which is new, which is foreign to the Bill as it was passed by that legislature and sent to us for confirmation ; and what I say now, as I have said before, is that if we do not, under these conditions, choose to reject the Bill entirely, which we ought to do under the evidence, we at least ought to have the courtesy to refer back to the legislature of Manitoba a Bill which has emanated from them, which has been changed by us in material particulars, and which, if we now carry it into effect without their concurrence in the changes, will be a usurpation of their provincial rights. At this point the question arises, can we pass this Bill with a provision added, requiring its reference again to the Manitoba legislature for consideration and confirmation ? 1 answer, we can : and if that is not a sound position, let any lion, gentleman promoting the passage of this Bill name the particulars in which it is not. If it is a sound position that we can do so. the next question is, ought we to do so ? I say unquestionably

that we ought. I say that the circumstances under which this Bill passed the Manitoba legislature might without impropriety be termed suspicious. I would say, at all events, without fear of contradiction, that the Bill passed that body with undue haste, and without receiving the due consideration which its importance entitled it to ; that facts have been made known and circumstances have developed since its passage that might have had a very considerable bearing on the action of the legislature if they had been known at the time. If under these conditions we do not refer the Bill back to the Manitoba legislature, we shall be guilty of a line of conduct which will imperil the position of the province, which will leave the government of that province free to take snap judgments on the people and to promote the interests of a clique of men who have craftily secured the passage of this legislation.
Then, again, we have interests involved in this Bill, aside from the interests of the people of Manitoba. We have the interest of the people of Ontario and the east; we have the interest of the people of all the territories to the west; we have the general interest of the entire Dominion bearing on the prosperity of the provinces or of a single province; and we have, in addition, the principles of justice involved in this Bill. We have the necessity resting upon us to secure the application aud operation of the most ordinary principles of justice which should underlie the legislation of this and every other legislative body in this Dominion ; aud if we do not disregard the principles of justice and the interests of the province of Manitoba and of the Dominion at large, we shall pass this Bill, if we pass it at all, subject to revision by the legislative body from which it emanated. If this Bill were law and before the Privy Council, the government could of course veto it. Whether they could veto it after the House of Commons became a party to it is something more than I can say. That is a question which I leave to the constitutional lawyers. But the Bill is not before the government for disallowance, and the question arises here, a very important one, what is tlie degree of the government's responsibility for this Bill ? Are they in a neutral position ? Are they sitting here as spectators watching the progress of this measure and the combat waged by its friends on the one hand and the advocates of popular rights on the other, before making up their minds as to what position they shall take. Is that the position the government occupy ? I hope it is, and I hope that, as a judicious and impartial umpire, they will arrive at a right conclusion. But I am somewhat afraid it is not. In fact, I feel certain that the government is now in a position in which it is called upon to exercise its functions, as a government, with regard to this measure, and that it cannot escape the responsibility Mr. CHARLTON.
resting upon it of declaring whether this is practically a government measure or not ? Is the government in favour or not in favour of this Bill ? It cannot escape responsibility in my opinion. 1 find, on looking up the authorities, that this responsibility is set out in Todd's Parliamentary Government in England, vol. II., page 389, as follows
So also if the interests of the public were likely to be injuriously affected by a private'Bill, or if an attempt were made to establish an unsound principle by.such means, ministers will be justified in using their influence to oppose it ; whilst, on the other hand, ministers would be justified in promoting the passing of a private Bill, if it should appear to be desirable for the public interests, because they are responsible for exercising the prerogative of the Crown so as to control all legislation in parliament, whether upon public or private matters.
Let that be taken a note of It.
They are responsible for exercising the prerogative of the Crown so as to control all legislation in parliament, whether upon public or private matters, for the furtherance of the public welfare and the protection of private rights from unjustifiable aggression.
Now, here is a case where private rights, where the rights of 400,000 people in a sovereign province are being made the prey of unjustifiable aggression. Here is a case where a measure is pending before this House which has a most intimate bearing upon the welfare of the people of Manitoba and this Dominion. Here is a case, if ever a case arose under a private Bill, where the government are called upon to exercise the prerogative of the Crown, so as to control legislation in parliament upon a matter which intimately affects the public weal.
We have, iu addition to the authority of Mr. Todd, an authority equally well recognized, that of Sir John Bourinot, who states, in his work on parliamentary procedure, at page 807 :
Although It is not usual for a minister of the Crown to take charge of a private Bill, it is the special duty of the government, as the responsible leaders of legislation and the chosen guardians of the public interests in parliament, to watch carefully the progress of private legislation in the House and its committees, and see that it does not in any way interfere with the policy of the ministry or the statutory law in reference to the public lands, railways, canals, public works, and such other interests as are entrusted to the Dominion authorities. It is in the standing committees that the supervision of private legislation is chiefly exercised. One of the most important committees of the Commons, that of Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines, has invariably for its chairman one of the ministers of the Crown, and the minister in charge of the railways is also one of its members, whose special duty it is to watch all legislation that may affect the policy of the government.
Well, we had a minister of the Crown as chairman when that committee had this Bill under consideration. I would not venture,
4945	MAY 13, 1901	4946
if the question were asked me, to say that I thought that the minister who occupied the chair was thoroughly free from bias. But that is a question the people will ask some day and may be asking now. Is the government putting this Bill through ? Well, I do not know, but the people will want to know, and the people will know. At least the people will arrive at n decision, and will size up the situation and decide, in their own minds, whether the government is lending aid to this Bill, and whether it is practically making it a government measure and putting it through. I wrould not approve of the conduct of the government in doing that, because I believe the Bill is most obnoxious; and I ask the government to go to the extent at least of the referring the Bill back to the Manitoba legislature, and I think that those of us who take that position are taking one which is unassailable. If the government should refuse to grant the opportunity to the Manitoba legislature to reconsider this Bill, it will deliberately be putting Manitoba in a position of a most disastrous character, from which Manitoba might desire to extricate herself if she had the chance to put her second thought and consideration into operation.
The consequences involved in this Bill are of the most momentous character; they affect the future stability and prosperity of all the inhabitants of that province ; they affect the interests of people who at the present moment, perhaps, are but slightly aware of the magnitude of the issues that are involved ; they affect the future of that people who will inhabit Manitoba for 999 years, if the Bill continues ; they introduce conditions that, in my opinion, will lead to repudiation of the contract by an aroused people within a brief period of time, and will lead to commotions and difficulties of a most serious and regrettable character ; and all that has to be done to avoid responsibility for results such as these, is to send that Bill back to the source from which it originated, and ask them if they approve of the Bill with the alterations we have made. If this is not done, if this reconsideration is refused, the entire responsibility for this measure will rest upon those who have refused reconsideration, and have refused to send back the Bill. There will be no escape from that responsibility.
Now does my right hon. friend the leader of the government want his name associated in the future with a transaction as ill-favoured as the Pacific scandal ? Does he desire to be god-father or sponsor to this measure, which I believe may fairly be termed an iniquitous one ? Does he desire to stand upon the pages of history in future as the premier of a government that had under consideration an insane Bill, passed hastily , by a legislature of a province, and sent here for consideration, and considered.
confirmed, and referred back to the authority from which it emanated refused V If he desires to occupy that position, I shall be sorry, I shall be sorry for his own good name and good fame, I shall be sorry for the consequences involved, I shall be sorry for the honour of the country.
Now in this matter, Mr. Chairman, I wish to disclaim any feeling of hostility to the promoters of this measure, as I once did with reference to the magnates of the Canadian Pacific Railway, whom I attacked as having got from this government vastly more than they were entitled to. I never blamed them. They were railroad' men, they were getting what they could. The blame rested upon those who gave them more than they should have had. In the same way with Mackenzie and Mann ; I have no quarrel with them, I admire their enterprise, I admire their push, I hope they will be successful. I voted and spoke in this House for subsidies to the line from Port Arthur to Rainy River that I deemed exorbitant, $0,400 a mile, when they were receiving $4,000 a mile from the Ontario government ; I supported these because I wished to stretch to the utmost point my feeling of friendliness for Mackenzie & Mann in concrete action. I desired to see them put in a position to reach Manitoba with their railway line, I desired to see them placed in a position where they could give to the farmers of Manitoba competition in rates to Lake Superior ; and I had no objection to their securing by that arrangement and the bonding of their road, resources that would build 000 miles of railway and put the burden upon 300 miles only. All this I was willing to do in order that Manitoba might get this railway competition through the granting of these bonuses. But when it comes to the point of binding Manitoba hand and foot, after a company has got out of the province of Ontario and the Dominion government almost enough to build the road, when it comes to the point of getting Manitoba to guarantee $20,000 per mile of bonds upon that same road, to become sponsor for the purchase of the Northern Pacific line, to incur liabilities of $17,000,000 for getting something she does not get, and incurred under a false apprehension of what the character of the quid pro quo was she supposed she was receiving, I, say when I come to that point I have got to abandon Mackenzie & Mann and stand up for the interests of the taxpayer, the farmer, the settler and the residents of the province of Manitoba.
Now there are peculiar influences at work for this Bill. I think it is a unique kind of performance, taking it altogether. We have had nothing like it before in the history of political affairs in Canada. We have got a Bill put through by a Tory government in Manitoba, and because it is the work of the Tory government of Manitoba, the Tory opposition in the House of Commons is loath

*1948
to say anything against it, although undoubtedly they understand the character of the measure perfectly well. Then, having emanated from the Tory government in Manitoba and secured the sympathy of the Tory opposition in this House of Commons, it receives the quasi if not actual support of the government of Canada, because, while the Tory opposition are afraid it will ruin the Tory government in Manitoba if disallowed, the Liberal government hopes it will ruin the Tory government of Manitoba when it goes into operation. And so this little game at politics controls the situation ; oil the one hand an opposition favouring an iniquitous Bill because their friends are interested in it, on the other hand the government favouring the iniquitous Bill because they hope a pile driver will drop on somebody's head to their advantage. In addition to this we have Mackenzie & Mann, who are interested in this matter, and hope to gain the sympathy of the Tory government of Manitoba and possibly (K friends high in the ranks of the Liberal party-because there may be people who are under obligations to them, I do not know how that is ; but Mackenzie & Mann are astute railway men, and it does not matter to them whose political influence they purchase if it will only serve their purposes. So we have here, Mr. Chairman, in the parlance of the gambler, a sort of poker game, and a hand is held which will be a very difficult one to overcome. There is an old motto among poker players that it is hard to beat four of a kind, and here we have got four of a kind. We have got the Manitoba legislature, we have got His Majesty's loyal opposition, we have got the government of Canada, and we have got Mackenzie & Mann, and that is a hand that his Satanic majesty cannot get cards enough up his sleeve to heat. So that is the position of the matter, and I think I am warranted in saying that the conditions pertaining to this Bill are absolutely unique in their character, that we have never had anything like it before in this country, where both parties are united, the one because they want to save an ally, the other because they want to ruin him, both because they are willing to do this at the expense of the general public. Now the people's interests are of no account here, they do not count for a cent in this matter, not for one solitary cent. The demands of justice are not in it, they are not heeded at all. It is a mere game upon a political chessboard on the one hand for the purpose of securing ultimate political advantage, and on the other hand, for the purpose of averting a political disaster to friends.
Now I do not believe, if the government do put through this Bill, that the course pursued, that the associations they will be connected with in this matter, will redound to their advantage. I do not believe that a scheme of this character can result to the advantage of anybody connected with it ex-Mr. CHARLTON.	x
cept those who profit by the plunder ; and I reiterate the statement that if this Bill is not disallowed here, that at least it should go back to the Manitoba legislature that they may have a chance to retrieve a great political blunder, and redress a great outrage upon the rights of the people.


Mr. CLARKE.: Has anybody in authority in Manitoba asked that that course should be pursued ?


John Charlton: I do not think any one has, that I am aware of. But there are a few people in Manitoba who are to bear the consequences who have asked it. Numerous meetings have been held, public sentiment has been aroused, the indignation of the people has been aroused against the men who have not asked for a chance to undo their foul act; and while there are those who feel doubtful whether it would be an adequate remedy to send the Bill back to the packed jury from which it emanated, and who believe that it should be sent directly to the people of Manitoba, yet I am anxious to secure an honourable and respectable issue for this matter, and will be content if the Bill is sent back for reconsideration to the very men who perpetrated the outrage.
And this consideration, if the contract is all right, this sending the Bill back, does no harm. If, on the contrary, the Bill is what X believe it to be, the sending of it back gives us a chance to avoid a catastrophe. And in either case the course I recommend to be pursued strikes me as one of the best under all the circumstances that could be adopted. Now, there are many reasons why I feel unable to arrive at a conclusion, a thoroughly reliable conclusion, as to the character of this measure. There are items of information which X have not had an opportunity to examine. For instance, there are documents relating to the Minnesota and Manitoba Railway Company, fifty miles of this road running through foreign territory. There are documents and agreements in relation to that matter, and there are conditions that may have a very important liear-ing on this case. I would fain see these documents. So far as I know, they have not been produced. They were asked for, but If they are accessible T am not aware of the fact. I think it esseutial that we should have an opportunity of considering the character of the documents and agreements relating to this fifty miles of road. Then there are documents relating to the Minnesota and Ontario Bridge Company, which is connecting the territory of Ontario with the territory of Minnesota by a bridge over the Rainy River. This, like the other, is a matter entirely outside the jurisdiction of Manitoba, but both are matters in which Manitoba is very intimately interested. I think we should see botli these documents, as well as other documents before we can arrive at

a fair, a judicious and judicial conclusion. There are other features connected with this matter which have not been alluded to to examine so far as I am aware, l or instance, there is the question of the jurisdiction of the inter-state commerce commission and the effect it will have upon the operations of this road to the extent that these operations are carried on within the territory of the United States. To what extent could the Interstate Commerce Commission interfere with the operations that it is designed by this agreement to have carried on ? I do not know. But we ought to know, we ought to be able to examine into this matter thoroughly, and have in our possession all the details obtainable bearing upon it.
There is another feature of this question, This road from Winnipeg to Port Arthur, at it passes in part through the state of Minnesota, the American government can put its, hand upon the throat of this line of com,, muuication and render it worthless. A simple withdrawal of the bonding privilege, a simple change of the regulations with regard to bonding, and the Rainy River and Winnipeg Railway is not worth a dollar aa a line of communication between Winnipeg and Port Arthur. And here is a province assuming a liability of $17,000,000 for a road over which it supposed it had control, but over which it has no control, and regarding which its supervision is subordinate to that of the Dominion government-paying $17,000,000 for the use of a road which passes through a foreign territory, by the regulations of whose Interstate Commerce Commission all its operations may be thwarted- paying $17,000,000 for the control, as they suppose, of a road which may be shut up any day and for an indefinite period by the simple withdrawal of the bonding privileges. The whole thing is an investment of money without proper consideration, without proper thought; a hasty bargain made without due consideration of the difficulties and of the various circumstances that might render their expectations and calculations entirely visionary. And we ask-with all these facts discussed, with all these figures brought to our notice and the notice of the I>eople of Canada-the poor privilege of having the Bill sent back to these men and the question asked them : What do you think of this thing now ?-and if you are of the same mind as you were before, put it through, and that is the end of it. Parliament, as the matter stands at the present moment, proposes to enable a railway company to consummate a bargain in Manitoba without having changed the conditions of that bargain, without allowing Manitoba, the party most intimately and particularly, interested, to say whether she approves it or not. It is a monstrous proposition, an outrageous proposition. I wonder that any party of men can think of standing up and justifying an act which proposes to pass upon the measure in the sovereign capacity of a legislature, to change the character of that contract, to expose the fact that the conditions under which the contract was made do not exist-no control-without permitting Manitoba one more chance to pass upon it. I can hardly conceive such a thing to be possible.
I see but one purpose to be served, and that is to create a class of plutocrats in this country at the expense of the common people. They have already such a class in the United States. In Rome the Praetoriam Guard used to offer the imperial purple at auction, to sell the position of emperior to the highest bidder ; and, in the United States they have a condition of things almost quite as bad. Only the other day the interests of the people, the interests of many millions in the United States, were wagered by millionaire gamblers ; the dice were shaken, and tens of thousands of people were ruined ; values were unsettled and financial revolutions took place. And all from the machinations of men similar in character and created in the manner we propose to create a batch, a brood, a swarm of millionaires here to prey upon our interests


An hon. MEMBER.: Oh, oh.


John Charlton: My hon. friend laughs, but this is a state of affairs that all the world wonders at. This is the great menace to modern civilization, and the interests of the masses that exists in that country and that is being created in this country. I think we had better take warning from this example and strive to conduct our own legislation and our own management of public affairs with an eye to the warning that exists before us, with a desire to avoid the rocks upon which these interests have split. Now, there are some general objections to this Bill, which may be briefly summarized and which are briefly summarized in the list which I am about to read. Amongst these general objections are the following particulars :-
1.	The plan proposed includes ownership by the province of Manitoba (a sovereign power) of a Dominion railway; that is to say, a railway subiect to the control of the Dominion.
They are subject to that control by the terms of the contract between this company and the Dominion, by virtue of which a subsidy has been received. There are also under the control of the Dominion by virtue of the general law and by virtue of a special stipulation on the part of the company with the Dominion ;
2.	The rates of the company are, by the Railway Act, subject to control of the Dominion.
3.	The rates of the company are, by the Dominion Acts authorizing its subsidies, subject to the control of the Dominion only.
4.	By the terms of the Dominion Subsidy Acts, the compact of the company with the Dominion is that the rates shall be subject to the control of the Dominion only.

5.	In the same way, by virtue of the Subsidy Acts, Ontario is entitled to demand of the company that its rates be subject to the control of the Dominion only.
6.	All the provinces, other than Manitoba, as members of the confederation, are entitled to ask of the Dominion that the rates be subject to the control of the Dominion only.
7.	A portion of the railway system runs through a foreign country, and it is impossible to tell what difficulties may arise from this circumstance, especially in view of the fact that the documents relating to the portion in question have not been produced.
S. The railway system in question crosses an International bridge, the rates upon which are subject to the jurisdiction of the foreign state and the Dominion. It might be noted that the bridge connects, not Manitoba, but Ontario, with the foreign country.
9.	A very serious constitutional question is involved as to the whole of the bargain.
10.	A very serious constitutional question is also involved as to the control of rates.
11.	If the Dominion legislation has not changed the bargain as to rates, the province and the Dominion are already at issue.
12.	If the Dominion has changed the bargain as to rates, the mandate of the people of Manitoba, as expressed through their legislature, is not being carried out.
13.	The Dominion has changed the bargain in other particulars so that the bargain is not that of the people of Manitoba.
14.	Whichever view may ultimately be proved to have been correct in respect of the serious questions raised, the mere existence of those questions is enough to justify delay and to condemn a haste unfitting to the magnitude of the difficulties involved.
The natural inference would be, in view of all the circumstances, that it is incumbent upon us in the popular interest to give delay, to give an opportunity for mature consideration. to allow this Bill, with the amendment which was brought into this House, to go back to the legislature of Manitoba for reaffirmation. I was asked by my hon. friend from Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) as to whether there has been any expression of disapprobation of this Bill on the part of the members of the Manitoba legislature, and of course I was obliged to say that no disapprobation had been expressed so far as 1 knew by members of the Manitoba legislature. But, I judge from the tone of the press in Manitoba that public sentiment is very pronouncedly against this measure. I find this morning, and I make bare reference to it because it will be referred to later on, an article in the Winnipeg Free Press, a very powerful article, published about a month ago or a little more, in which the ground was taken that this question ought to be thoroughly threshed out, that it would, of course, require to be submitted to the Dominion parliament for ratification, and that after ratification there it should, beyond all question, be returned to the legislature of Manitoba for reaffirmation. I think that every leading paper in Manitoba, so far as my knowledge goes, takes substantially the same grounds. I would beg to call the Mr. CHARLTON.
attention of the hon. member for Centre Toronto to a list of meetings that have been held and it does not include a list of meetings held lately. A number of public meetings have been held in Manitoba to condemn this bargain. There was one held in Winnipeg, at which Mr. J. H. Brock, a brother of one of the hon. members of this House, moved the following resolution :-
Resolved that this board

The Winnipeg Board of Trade.
-disapproves of the contracts and Acts affecting the Northern Pacific Railway Company and the Canadian Northern Railway Company, as drawn and brought before the legislature, and in view of the great importance of the subject, the great liability to be assumed by the province, the number of railway proposals recently made to the government and the uncertainty as to future railway extension, this board is of opinion that the Acts confirming the contracts should not. be passed at thi3 session of the legislature, but that ample tjme should be given the country to study fully the whole railway situation.
Can anybody doubt the necessity for that ? Can anybody doubt that time should be given to study the railway situation, so vast in its reach, so complicated in its character, affecting as it does interests of such momentous consequence ? Can anybody doubt that time should be given to study the details of this contract and to arrive at a conclusion as to whether this is a good contract for Manitoba or not and if the Dominion parliament is in a position to grant this boon to Manitoba, is in a position to give time to consider this contract, is in a position to give that province an opportunity to retrace this ruinous step, is the Dominion parliament entitled by any species of reasoning to refuse that opportunity ? Is it not, on the contrary, a duty resting upon ns, a duty we are bound in all fairness to discharge, a duty that if we do not discharge, it will render us justly liable to the reprobation of the people of this country ? Then, we have resolutions to the same effect passed by public meetings in the following places By a large meeting of the citizens of Winnipeg, at Selkirk Hall; by a large meeting of citizens of Winnipeg, at the Winnipeg Opera House ; by a meeting of the Icelandic citizens of Winnipeg, at Northwest Hall ; by the citizens of the town of Selkirk ; by the Icelandic citizens of the town of Selkirk ; by meetings of citizens at Baldur, Shoal Lake, Grund, Gimli, Hnausa, Icelandic Itiver, Sifton municipality, Mor-den, Strathclair, and at numerous other public meetings. Will an hon. gentleman give me an instance where the people of Manitoba have assembled in public meeting and endorsed this contract ? I do not think he can. I think it counts for but little that the legislature, after twenty-five days consideration, has passed a measure whereupon scrutiny and investigation develops the features and characteristics that this measure pos-
4953	MAY 13, 1901	1954
sesses. It amounts to but little, and I think they had, better have a little more time to study the measure over again and see whether the opinion expressed by their friends, by the citizens of Manitoba, in meetings held at various points, and resolutions formulated by them, are well founded and justified by the facts of the case.
I say without hesitation that in so far as I am able to judge the state of public sentiment in Manitoba so far as it has beeu expressed, it is my belief that public sentiment is almost	unanimous against
the character of the legislation we have under consideration. I wish now to recount a few particular objections that I entertain to this Bill. I may perhaps repeat to a slight extent what 1 have said, but this is a recapitulation where the logical sequence and unity of argument require a brief statement. My first objection is that the Bill imposes a liability of from $623,000 to $683,000 annually on the people of Manitoba, or capitalized at 4 per cent, from $16,600,000 to $17,700,000 ; and that this liability is incurred without adequate consideration.


Mr. BOYD.: Are you sure about that ?


John Charlton: Yes, and I will make you sure of it in a moment. If the people of Manitoba were assuming this liability for something that warranted them in incurring it, the contract would not be open to the condemnation it is now open to. But they are doing this without adequate consideration, because in the first place the rates that they supposed they were securing under this contract will be by the natural law of competition exorbitant rates in three years, and higher than the people of Manitboa will be called- upon to pay without the investment of a red cent.


Nathaniel Boyd: Tell us how you make out that $17,000,000.


John Charlton: I am telling you my friend. The people of Manitoba have hitherto been dependent on one line of railway for an outlet for their freight and that line has been a monopoly. Some of the monopolistic features of that line, the Dominion government have bought off at a very great cost in bonusing the very road that forms a part of this contract and by the opening Of a road by the Northern Pacific system to Duluth. The province of Manitoba is about to have the benefit of competition from three lines in place of being the thraldom of one line, and the rates fixed by this contract will inevitably be found to be higher than the rates that would be secured naturally by competition.


Nathaniel Boyd: Where does it say the rates are fixed ?


John Charlton: I wish my hon. friend (Mr. Boyd) would allow me to proceed. His interruptions are not pertinent nor are they
calculated to elicit information. We find that wheat is carried from Chicago to New York, a distance of a thousand miles, at a regular rate of from 9 to 12 cents, and from Buffalo to New York, a distance of 450 miles, at a regular rate of 4 cents, and can be carried at 24 cents and afford a fair margin of profit.


Mr. WALLACE.: Is that a hundred pounds ?


John Charlton: M hundred pounds, or 50 cents a ton. Wheat is carried by the Booth line of steamers and rail from Chicago to Montreal for 3| cents a bushel, which is about 5 cents per hundred, and comparisons with freight rates over the leading lines must lead to the conclusion that the rates secured under this contract are rates that will be secured under the law of competition, so that the province of Manitoba is undertaking to pay $683,000 for absolutely nothing ; for securing that which by sitting still she will inevitably secure without any cost to her. The province of Manitoba has made this contract without adequate consideration, because her primary motive has not been attained, and contrary to the expectation of the great majority of those who supported this measure the Dominion parliament and the Dominion Railway Committee have paramount control over the rates by virtue of general legislation, and by virtue of special stipulation between the Canadian Northern Railway Company and the Dominion of Canada as a consideration for having received a subsidy. Again, no provision has been made and no provision can possibly be made against the adverse action of the Interstate Commerce Commission of the Enited States which will have control over fifty miles of this road south of Rainy lake and in the state of Minnesota. It is evident that Manitoba has overlooked this, and has not realized that the conditions in this contract cannot be fulfilled, because the authority of the Dominion of Canada, and the authority of the Interstate Commerce Commission of the United States can exercise influences that would defeat the purposes of the contract. Not only is there a possible interference by the Interstate Commerce Commission, but there is the possible destruction of the whole investment by the suspension of the bonding privileges in the United States, so that the whole thing would be at the mercy of the United States government and during its pleasure, for if this were done the contract would not be worth the paper it is written upon. Then there was no adequate consideration secured, because the contract was. so arranged that Manitoba had no adequate safeguard against paying the guarantee. Under section 8 of schedule B, it was provided :
8.	In consideration of the guarantee of the said bonds and the assignment of said lease and option, the company hereby agrees that up to

the 30th day of June, A.D. 1930, the Lieutenant Governor in Council shall from time to time fix the rates to be charged or demanded by the company for the carriage of all freight from all points on the company's lines in Manitoba to Port Arthur, and from Port Arthur to to all points on the company's lines in Manitoba, and from all points on the company's lines in Manitoba to all other points on said lines in Manitoba. Provided always, that before any rates are so fixed the company shall be heard and their Interests taken into consideration. The company agrees that it will not at any time after the said rates have been so fixed charge or demand for the carriage of freight between the points aforesaid greater rates than those so fixed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
I call particular attention to these words :
Provided always, that before any rates are so fixed the company shall be heard and their Interests taken into consideration.
In what way ? Well, I suppose it is in the interest of the company to have a dividend.
I	suppose it is the interest of the company to have some portion of its revenue that can be devoted to the payment of interest on the investment made by its stockholders. I ap-preheiyl that under that, clause the company would have a good case in demanding that the rates should not be put down to a figure that would not leave them something tangible in the shape of dividend or return from their investment. I draw that inference from this section.
Then, the province of Manitoba has not been properly protected and has no adequate consideration guaranteed in the matter of the provision with regard to deficiencies and two years periods. Periods are brought together, with two years in each. These two years may show a very large deficiency ; the next two years may show a surplus. One year in the two years period may have a surplus, and the other year a deficiency ; but the Manitoba government could take no advantage of that. Nothing can be applied from a two years period of surpluses to a two years period of deficiencies. As I said the other night, in this arrangement, it is heads I win, tails you lose, so far as the government of Manitoba is concerned.
Then, the most striking feature in this contract, and where the Manitoba government has failed most strikingly in guarding the interests of the province and providing for adequate consideration, is in regard to the operating expenses of the road. It is provided in this contract, in section
II	:
For the purposes of this clause the term * working expenditure ' shall not include the salary or remuneration of any officer, employee or other person whose time is not wholly employed bona fide in connection with the said lines of railway iu this clause mentioned; but as to officers and employees and other persons whose services are necessary or desirable in connection with the said lines and whose whole Mr. CHARLTON.
time is not taken up in connection therewith, there shall be included reasonable remuneration for the time actually expended and services actually rendered by them in connection with said lines; and the said term shall not include any expenses, payments or outgoings not reasonably necessary for the efficient management, maintenance, operation and repair of the said lines, nor shall the said term include the cost of double-tracking the said lines, but siding reasonably required for the traffic and operation of the lines shall not be deemed double-tracking.
Under this provision there can be charged to working expenses in the ease of the Canada Northern, first of all. the serious item of relaying the track with heavier rails, which will soon be necessary second, the item of renewing the bridges, which will probably soon be necessary, because the road is being hastily constructed, and many of the bridges are probably wooden trestles ; third, the construction of sidings, spurs and branches ; fourth, the erection of warehouses, elevators and station houses ; and fifth, all renewal expenses of every nature and kind whatsoever, except the mere laying down of a double-track line. Under this provision it would be hopeless, I imagine, for the Manitoba government to look -or if they did. they would be undeceived -for returns in the shape of payments for some years to come.
Then, this contract is without prospect of adequate compensation to Manitoba, for the reason that there is no provision in it to regulate the manner in which the railway company shall transport construction material over its lines. It is contemplated to extend this line from the western borders of Manitoba to the Yellow Head Pass, and from the Yellow Head Pass to the Pacific ocean ; and from some source a vast tonnage of steel rails, bridge materials, fishplates, joints, spikes, timber for stations, and a multitude of articles required in railway construction is to be procured. Naturally the great bulk of this material will pass over the line of this road from Port Arthur ; and there is nothing to prevent the company for carrying these materials to charge a figure so small as to be practically nothing, and leave to the province of Manitoba practically all the expense for carrying this freight over this line.
There is another item which warrants me in saying that adequate consideration is not secured ; that is, the fact that the government of Manitoba has no representative on the railway board. Imagine a government putting up all the means of setting up a company in business, becoming responsible for $17,000,000. leaving the company to wield these vast influences over a thousand miles of railway, and agreeing to pay $683,000 a year in case of mismanagement or recklessness, without reserving to itself the right of representation on the board-the right to have any individual there to watch its interests or to become aware as far as

possible of the conduct and manipulation ] and operations of these men. Why, it is simply setting a premium upon misappropriation and mismanagement, if it is in the interest of the party of the second part to do it.
In the second place, the particular objection I have to urge against this Bill, is that parliament is asked to make a bargain not endorsed by Manitoba, by initiating legislation and refusing a reference. That is what we are doing if we do not refer this matter back to Manitoba. We are practically making a bargain with the syndicate, the railway ring, which has entered into the arrangement with Manitoba. We are in a sense taking initiatory proceedings by entering into that bargain, and we are doing it without consulting the wishes of Manitoba, without referring the matter to the revision of the Manitoba legislature, 1 who are the representatives of the people who must bear all the consequences if any mistake is made.
In the third place, parliament in doing this is exceeding the functions, which it is at liberty to exercise in this matter, of concurrent and co-ordinate action ; and it has reached the position of initiatory action. It has put into the contract the idea that the people of Manitoba were labouring under the delusion that they were control-1 ling the rates. Having gone beyond the limits of concurrent and co-ordinate action, and having assumed the functions of initiatory action, and made practically a new1 contract, entirely beyond the knowledge or wishes of Manitoba, it refuses, forsooth, to send this contract to the Manitoba legislature for ratification. I do not know what kind of a figure such action on our part will make in our political history; but I do not think it will be the most shining example of fair-play that can be pointed to in the future.
Another particular objection which I have to the Bill is that if we refuse this reference, parliament will fasten upon Manitoba a ruinous bargain with full knowledge of the fact. We are not doing this in ignorance. We are not acting here hastily. We are not confirming the bargain because we suppose it is a good one. We know that it is a monumental act of folly. We know that it will fasten upon Manitoba ills that can scarcely be dreamed of. We know it is a bargain that cannot be justified. And we are, with our eyes wide open, with a cool knowledge of the facts, with the cool knowledge that this means ruin to Manitoba, fastening around the neck of Manitoba this bargain, with the changes we have made, and are refusing to allow, what we can do with perfect propriety, that bargain to go back to the Manitoba legislature in order that they may have a chance to exercise their second thought and better judgment, and decide
whether they will, with all the knowledge they have to-day, perpetrate one of the crowning acts of oppression that will characterize the first quarter of this century.
The fifth particular objection which I have to this measure is, that parliament is giving its endorsation to an Act which is ultra vires, or at least asserted to be ultra vires, and the argument upon which that assertion is found is evidently a good one. We are giving our sanction to that which is asserted to be ultra vires, we are refusing to test its validity, refusing to give consideration to the representations of those who affirm that it is an unconstitutional Act, either by referring it to the Department of Justice or the Supreme Court of Canada. Now, this is not the way to do business. If we are in doubt as to the constitutionality of an Act-and especially an Act of this character, an Act of such consequence, of such importance-we ought to be sure of our ground, we ought to know where we are, we ought to ascertain definitely, by reference to the proper authorities, whether the assertion that this Act is ultra vires is well founded or not. That is the course we ought to take. We ought to settle the question of constitutionality.
And in the seventh place-and this is somewhat of a reiteration, perhaps, of a point made before-the particular, and perhaps the greatest, objection that I have to the affirming of this legislation, is that it refuses to give Manitoba a chance to more deliberate consideration, to more mature judgment. And I say : Give to Manitoba that chance.
If we pass a Bill in this House and it goes to the higher branch of the legislature, and that branch makes amendments, no matter how trivial, as an act of courtesy-nay, more, as a necessary act to secure concurrent action of both branches-that Bill comes back to us, and we exercise our prerogative to accept or reject the amendments. They cannot be forced upon us. But suppose, after a Bill goes to the Senate, the Senate assumes to make amendments and then attemps to make it law without referring it back to this House, what kind of business would that be ? It would be exactly the same kind as is proposed here now, when we take this Bill and make amendments to it and then refuse to send it back to the legislature of Manitoba where it originated. To refuse this privilege to Manitoba, I assert without hesitation, would be a monstrous usurpation of power on the part of this House.
We hear a great many expressions about abstaining from interference with the rights of a province. We have a great many qualms of conscience expressed about doing anything that will interfere with provincial autonomy and the exercise of provincial authority and the carrying into effect of provincial wishes. For my part, I have never held that the provision in the British North

America Act with regard to the revision of legislative laws by the Dominion, and of Dominion laws by the Imperial government, was inserted in that Act without due reason. It has always seemed to me that in this great chain of commonwealth, from the Imperial Dominion of Great Britain down to the Dominion of Canada and the provinces of Canada, there is a centre of paramount authority, and that, consequently, the supervision of our legislation by the Imperial government is proper, as is also that of provincial legislation by the Dominion government ; and the reason that this has been called into question in the past was, perhaps, largely because that power of disallowance was improperly exercised, was exercised for purely partisan purposes, and uot always from the highest motives and in the highest interests of the people. But, where a case exists for the exercising of that power for the good of the people of a province and of the Dominion, for the preservation of our institutions, for our liberty and for the averting of calamities public or private-in all such cases, that disallowing power should be exercised, and the government, which has that power in its hands, should be governed in its exercise, not by the lower considerations of expediency, but the higher consideration of public duty. It should be governed by its duty to the public, both in the present and the future, and we come down here and strain at a gnat about disallowing some little law, and then are prepared to swallow a camel by putting this Bill through and refusing its reference back to the source from which it emanated. What do you suppose will be the natural inference on the part of the Canadian public ? Do you think that the public of Canada will applaud the high moral motive that prompted the refusal of that reference ? Do you suppose, Sir, that the Canadian people, after this thing has received the calm consideration that one or two or three years will secure for it, will believe, in their judgment, that high patriotic motives and a sincere desire to promote the interests of Manitoba led to our refusal to send this Bill back to the Manitoba legislature ? Well, I would be more afraid that the conclusion of the people would be that there was influence enough in this House of Commons, interested in demanding the passage of that Bill, to secure the refusal of its reference back to Manitoba, lest, in such case, the steal would be defeated by Manitoba's rejecting the measure. That, I believe, would be the conclusion at which the people would be more 'likely to arrive.
I really would like to know, at this juncture, whether this is a government measure ; because, if it is, I have said, perhaps, more than, as a good loyal supporter. I would have felt warranted in saying. But, I cannot conceive it possible that this is a government measure. If, however, the right hon.


John Charlton: gentleman who leads the government will state that it is, I will yield to his discretion at once. But, I am warranted in assuming, until we have some express declaration that it is a government measure, that although it is practically a government bill, that although the government cannot escape responsibility, yet, the government may not be actuated by a positive, definite line of policy that would lead them to desire its success, and determine to put it through.
If that be the case, I implore the government to use its influence in behalf of the request I am now making. I am asking, not that the Bill be referred back to the people to be decided by a plebiscite, but to refer the Bill back to the body in which it originated to give their final decision as to the character of the Bill with the amendments it has received in this House. We are entitled to do that; no fault can be found with this House for.doing that. But abundance of fault will be found with us if we do not do that. And I hold that if we do not do that, one of the most stupendous political mistakes that have ever characterized the operations of a government will have been made. I believe that if this is not done, this Bill will rise up in judgment against us. If this is not done, those who follow us will be unable to justify this action. If this it not done and ruin overtakes Manitoba, as it probably will, if circumstances develop the fact that this is an improvident bargain, as they will, if it becomes as clear as sunlight that the whole thing was an act of folly-inane, fatuous, supreme-if that point is reached, we will wish that we had stood from under and avoided direct primary responsibility for this measure. As I say, I never have advocated the thwarting of the purposes of Manitoba or any other province. But I want to know, I want to be convinced that Manitoba knows definitely what her purpose is. And if this is not a measure of the Dominion government, I want to know if it is a Manitoba measure, and, with the amendments of the Bill, I cannot know that until the verdict of the Manitoba legislature is given upon this measure. Until then, I cannot know, this House cannot know, this country cannot know if it is a Manitoba measure. If it is a Dominion government measure, of course put it through ; if it is not a Dominion government measure, let us take the precaution to learn definitely whether it is a Manitoba measure, by referring it to the Manitoba legislature.
Now, we have been dealing with remedies proposed or assumed, theoretical remedies, for transportation irregularities, means for the regulation of the perplexing question of railway freights. And we have been going at it in this instance wrong end first, we have been going at it by the exercise of powers that are subsidiary to higher powers and must be inoperative. There is a remedy, but that remedy is not in provincial action.

Provincial governments have not the power to apply the remedy ; the remedy for all these evils is Dominion action. The power is now in our own hands. If we have the honesty, if we have the courage, if we have the prescience, to exercise that power in a public direction, we can remove these evils. We can appoint a railway commission. A railway commission has been operated in the United States for nearly fifteen years with results in the highest degree beneficial and satisfactory to the public. Many of the evils that have attended the transportation question in that country have been remedied by the authority of the interstate railway commission in the United States ? Appoint a similar commission here, a commission exercising practically the same functions, and that commission in conjunction with the Railway Committee of the Privy Council will deal with this question ; and if it deals with it with authority, with fairness, with honesty, we shall have no call for contracts of the character of those we are considering; we shall have no complaints, or, at least, few complaints about transportation irregularities ; we shall have this whole transportation business upon such a basis that it can be controlled by a power whose jurisdiction cannot be questioned and whose field of operations will be co-extenslve with the Dominion government itself. Now, Mr. Chairman, this, perhaps, may be regarded as a diversion from the question at issue, in the sense that it is a reference to the proposed operation of the commission to act in conjunction with the government in the settlement of these questions, but I believe that the true remedy for these evils connected with the transportation problem, and without desiring to consume time-I have spoken with no intention of obstructing-I believe that I present to-day, as I have presented on two previous occasions, cogent reasons to support the position I take that this parliament of Canada is not obliged to record Manitoba decrees and legislation, that we have co-ordinate and co-operative functions, and that we have no right to initiate new features of legislation without allowing the body most interested to pass upon them. And if in matters of this kind we do not respect ourselves, the interests of Manitoba and the obligations that rest upon ourselves, if we do not promote the interests of this country by referring it back to the legislature, we have failed to do our duty in the premises. With these remarks, I beg to submit the question to the consideration of the premier of this Dominion and his colleagues in office, assuring them that responsibility rests upon them and that their action in this matter practically determines whether it is a government measure or whether it is not. The whole question hinges on their opinion, and they cannot divest themselves of the responsibility, they cannot shield themselves by the assumption that it is a private Bill. This is a Bill dealing with 156
vast interests and affecting the whole Dominion, a Bill so important that no Bill of greater importance has for many and many a year been under our consideration. The government must honestly face its responsibility and either say that the Bill meets with its approval and should pass, or that it should be referred back to the legislature of Manitoba to pass upon the provisions that have been incorporated in it by the action of this House.


Mr. BOURASSA.: I hesitated before again taking up the discussion of the premble of this Bill, on which I have already expressed my opinion. I really expected that after the long and well prepared analysis of the Bill and its consequences on the province of Manitoba, as well as upon the whole Dominion, by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), some representative of the government would have taken it upon himself to state the position which the rulers of this land intend to take with regard to it.
Of course, at the two other sittings which were devoted to the discussion of this Bill in committee, the Minister of Railways and Canals was absent; but now he is in his seat, and I suppose he will not allow this Bill to take its third reading without giving us an explanation of the position which he took in the Railway Committee. The Railway Committee discussed that Bill for a long time, arguments were presented for and against it, several members of parliament pronounced against it; and yet since the Bill came back to the House, the Minister of Railways and Canals has not deigned to give us any opinion upon it. When the Bill was in committee, however, he expressed the strongest views about it; and if I am taking such an interest in the matter, it is because that hon. gentleman greatly impressed me with the grave importance of this Bill. Now that the Bill is before us for our sanction or rejection, the Minister of Railways and Canals,.whose opinion the parliament of Canada is supposed to regard in railway matters, should favour us with his views. Therefore, before I go on with the discussion, I would like to know if the hon. gentleman is ready to give us his opinion on this matter.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Carried.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: No, Mr. Chairman, I am putting a question to the Minister of Railways and Canals, and I expect the courtesy of an answer. If he will not answer, then I shall have to proceed.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman had better proceed, then.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Then we know where we are. It is no longer a question of provincial rights, it is no longer a question of whether the province of Manitoba will be ruined by this legislation ; because the gov-



eminent refuses to take any position after its Minister of Railways and Canals has strongly opposed the Bill in the Railway Committee. From my point of view, the question Is not whether the government of Manitoba are getting certain privileges by this legislation, it is not whether the parliament of Canada is divesting itself of some of its powers in passing this Bill; the question at issue is whether the railways are to be controlled by the Federal or by the provincial authorities. The action we are taking now for the first time since confederation, will decide whether this parliament is going to keep control of its great transportation lines, or hand them over to the control of provincial authorities who may be able to interfere more or less with the whole transportation problem of Canada.
I listened with great pleasure the other day to the remarks of the Minister of Public Works, who is always interesting in any of his public utterances. Of course, I would not like to break the rules of the House by referring to a past debate; but 1 remember the strong opinion which he expressed in the matter of the Prince Edward Island special grant ; he expressed the opinion that the parliament of Canada should not increase the powers of the pro vinces. Mr. Chairman, the question of the equilibrium between the Federal parliament and government on the one hand, and the provincial governments on the other, has been discussed many times in Canada since confederation, and that is going to be one of the biggest questions in the future. Whether as concerns matters of education, of trade or of railways, the future of this country depends to a great extent upon the harmony between the Federal and provincial authorities; the future and prosperity of this country depend upon whether the Federal authority shall retain complete control over matters that have been assigned to it under the British North America Act, and also whether the provincial governments are going to keep strictly within their functions under the same Act. I would not go so far as the Minister of Public Works went upon that occasion, and say that this parliament should be the supreme authority. I would merely say that so long as we have not found anything to replace our present constitution, the Federal parliament should be supreme in Federal matters, and the provincial legislature should be supreme in provincial matters ; and that whenever we, by our legislation, create friction between the two authorities, we fail in our duty towards Canada and violate the spirit of our constitution. We have already difficulties enough before us without creating new ones. We are confronted with difficulties on account of the geographical conditions in this country, on account of the differences of race and religion that divide our people ; we ought not to create any more difficulties Mr. BOURASSA.
by hasty legislation, simply to please a group of politicians in one province or to hurt another group.
Sir, the idea of provincial control Is spreading in the North-west, and why ? There is no doubt that throughout Canada as well as throughout all the civilized countries, there is developing a spirit of government control of public services. It has gone very far in England, it has gone further stili in Australia, it has gone far in France, Germany and other countries; it has not gone very far yet in the United States, because there the great trusts have acquired more power than the State. But on account of our proximity to the United States the same question will come up in Canada before long, as to whether we are going to keep control in this parliament of the great transportation facilities, or hand over that power to the trusts and corporations.
The people of the -western provinces have devoted more attention to this problem because they need more transportation than we do. Their population being smaller and scattered over a large territory, they suffer from high rates ; and, therefore, seeing that the government are not preparing to assume control of the railways, they are going in that direction themselves. A few days ago, on the 24th of April, the government of British Columbia put before the legislature and the public of that province a Bill to indicate their railway policy. By that Bill they are asking from the legislature of British Columbia the right to make a loan of $5,000,000 for subsidies to railways. The Bill is a long and interesting one. And to show boil, members who have not made up their minds as to this Bill, who, in that blind faith and happy confidence of my hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Fraser), have not come prepared to vote one way or the other at the disposition of those who are in command of this Bill, what is going on in British Columbia, I shall refer to the features of the measure introduced into the legislature there. What do we find in clause 10 ? As I am going to make an extended argument on this clause, I suppose we may call it one o'clock.
At one o'clock, the committee took recess.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Mr. Chairman, just before we adjourned, I was beginning to give to the House an analysis of the railway Bill which has just been introduced into the legislature of British Columbia ; and before proceeding with that, I want to call the special attention of the House, and of the right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) in particular, to the bearing of this Bill. It is not an ordinary railway subsidy Bill. It is not one of those Bills that are, by this House, or by any provincial legislature in Canada, passed to sub-

sidize railways. The government of British Columbia have framed this Bill, and they are bringing it up for the discussion and vote of the legislature and presenting it to the people of British Columbia as the inauguration of their new railway policy in that province. They are endeavouring to get from the legislature the authorization of a $5,000,000 loan to subsidize the railway system of British Columbia. They have introduced a great many clauses into the Bill, giving the conditions upon which every one of these railways is going to be subsidized by the province. Among the conditions that are going to be attached to the payment of these subsidies, is the following one, in clause 10 :
The Lieutenant Governor in Council may enter into an .agreement with any person or company undertaking the construction of any railway under the subsidy that is hereto attached which may be necessary or convenient for the due construction and operation of such railway, which agreement shall in every instance, in addition to the other matters therein provided, contain the following provisions:

Among these provisions are those of subsection (e) :
The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall have absolute control of the freight and passenger rates to be charged by the railway company, and that notwithstanding and in the event of the railway being or becoming subject to the Jurisdiction of the Dominion government the same shall be deemed a contract between the province and the company.
Subsection (g) is as follows :
The conditions of this section may be varied at any time and from time to time as often as the Lieutenant Governor in Council may deem advisable, always provided that the control of the subject-matters referred to in this section by the government of British Columbia be not abrogated.
Sir, the very principle upon which the present legislation is based is the principle upon which the government of British Columbia have based their railway Bill ; that is, control of railway rates by the provincial government. They know, of course, as they know in Manitoba, that the Federal government, legally and constitutionally speaking, have jurisdiction over railway rates in general, that they fix the maximum rates upon all railways under federal jurisdiction ; but they have foreseen the case of railways subsidized by the provincial government becoming federal railways : they say that in these cases the Lieutenant Governor in Council shall have absolute control of rates, in virtue of a special contract between the government of British Columbia and the railway, which is the very thing we are called upon to sanction in this Bill, as far as the government of Manitoba and the Canadian Northern and Northern Pacific are concerned. Does that not authorize me to say what I stated the other day, and what I repeated this morning : that the tendency 1564
of the western provincial governments is to secure provincial control of railway rates ? Are we going to be told that this parliament, which, for the last thirty-five years has been working towards the equalization and control of rates of transportation, has no word to say on the doctrine that the lion. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Tarte) so justly stated the other evening? The doctrine is that this parliament should not divest itself of the powers that belong to it in favour of provincial governments ; not because the provincial governments or the provincial legislatures are not capable of dealing with such problems, but because, if they are left to exercise provincial jurisdiction over these matters, they would, of course, deal with them according to the special requirements of the people of their provinces.
If the government of British Columbia passes this legislation it will endeavour to control the rates in favour of British Columbia without any reference to the people of the North-west Territories and of Manitoba, in whom they have no political or commercial interest. Why has the Federal government power over these matters, if it is not to prevent a provincial government, either by public or private legislation, interfering with the rights of the other provinces, in order to gain some advantage for their own people? I may be answered that the control which the Minister of Railways said this government would keep over the Manitoba legislation, would still be in the hands of the Federal government; but I say that this control is either effective or ineffective. If that control be effective, then it cannot be exercised without violating the principle, and the only principle, upon which the members of this House, who are in favour of this Bill, are basing their decision. I have yet to hear any members of this House say that this bargain is a good one. I have been told that I and a few members who oppose this legislation want to pose as being the only authorities upon the matter. Not at all. If my worthy friend from Guysborough (Mr. Fraser) understood from me that my opinion is the only good one. and that the opinion of the rest of the House is bad, he has misunderstood me. I am afraid the hon. gentleman came to the House a little too much biased in favour of this legislation. Members of this House who have expressed any opinion at all admit this is a bad bargain, but they say they will not interfere with it, because the people of Manitoba want it. If that be the case they are nullifying in advance the clause introduced by the Minister of Railways to keep the federal control over these railways. If you admit that this legislation is calculated to bring on a clash between the Federal government and the provincial government, then you can only apply this Federal con-

trol by infringing on the absolute control of the Manitoba government. I would be pleased to hear the Minister of Railways repeat the statements lie made in the Railway Committee. We understood from him that he introduced this clause so that if at any time the government of Manitoba interfered with the rights of people of the other provinces; or so as to discriminate in favour of American railways against Canadian railways, the Federal government will then come on the scene and prevent them from doing so. That might be done in some cases by lowering the rates ; but in other cases, as the minister had to admit, the Federal government might have to raise the rates. What becomes then of the absolute right of the Manitoba government to get low rates under this Bill ? The Railway Committee of the Privy Council will have to choose between allowing the "Manitoba government to interfere with the rights of the people of Ontario and the North-west Territories, and possibly to divert trade in favour of American transportation lines, or between raising the rates that the government of Manitoba may have lowered so as to send the trade over American railroads. Therefore, you will have to interfere with the spirit of this legislation. It is impossible to avoid either of these alternatives, and why 1 Because as I repeat, and I cannot repeat it too often, we are asked to pass legislation by which the provincial government will have some rights and the Federal government other rights in a matter in regard to which the constitution says that the provincial government shall have no rights. We are simply trying to play with the spirit of our constitution. We are trying to cut the fruit in two and give one-half to the province and keep the other half for ourselves. In practice it will be impossible to do that, especially in regard to a province where the spirit of provincial autonomy has been viewed sometimes from a right point of view and sometimes from a wrong, and where both political parties have often tried to raise the cry of no federal interference. The moment you come to exercise or to apply that so-called protective clause of federal rights ; the moment you try to prevent the provincial government from exercising the rights you are giving them in another clause of this Bill, that moment you will be destroying this legislation, and therefore, you will have deceived the people of Manitoba. And what about the federal representatives of British Columbia here ? Their legislature is endeavouring at this moment to adopt a similar policy. Are they prepared to say, as federal representatives, that such legislation adopted by their province, shall be completely under the control of the Federal government ? Suppose the government of British Columbia should subsidize a rail-Mr. BOURASSA
way from the north to the south, the object of which would be to make better connections between the province of British Columbia and the state of Washington with a view of sending the trade of British Columbia to the United States, and of bringing the trade of the western states into British Columbia, which would result in interfering greatly with the Canadian Pacific Railway. Do the federal members from British Columbia think for a moment that the merchants of the eastern provinces and the producers of the North-west Territories would not appeal against that discrimination to the Federal government which has taxed them by the millions in order to build that railway for the benefit of the people of British Columbia ? We have no objection to Canadian competition on Canadian soil in matters of transportation, but none of the ministers will deny that there would be strong objection to see the province of British Columbia working their railway policy in such a way as to prevent the Canadian Pacific Railway or any transcontinental road doing the trade between the west and the east. In the Railway Committee, the Minister^ of Railways spoke of a possible clash between the Federal government and the Manitoba government. This is serious enough to impress itself upon the minds of all the members of this House who want to see peace prevail in this country. But I go further. I say that the principle which is at the bottom of this legislation, and the same which is at the bottom of the British Columbia legislation, is a principle which, if not courageously and immediately dealt with by the Federal government, will not only bring a clash between one province and the Federal government, but a serious clash between western Canada and eastern Canada. Signs of such a clash have already appeared, and they will appear still more in the future. The representation of the North-west Territories will grow. The proportionate strength of the western	representatives	in this
House will increase after each census. If we do not now see that those problems are put on a fair basis, if we do not make very clear now what are the powers of this government and preserve them untouched, the time will come when the western representation, taking advantage of political differences and personal influences similar to those which are being put into operation by this legislation, will, every time a Bill of this sort is brought before the parliament of Canada, make it the occasion of trouble between western Canada and eastern Canada. Sir, I do not want to pose as a pessimist. No, I am an optimist. I have the greatest possible faith iu the future development of Canada, and every part of Canada. I have visited the North-west and British Columbia, and certainly there is no

finer country under the sun than those *western provinces. I have the greatest sympathy -with my friends from the Northwest when they come here and appeal for better transportation facilities ; but it is not sufficient to attain some special end at the present. If by so doing we are opening the door for the greatest difficulties in the future, we are not doing our duty towards either Canada at large or the provinces concerned.
Now, with regard to the changes which have been made in this Bill, it has been contended on the one side-and I am one of those who have expressed that opinion- that this Bill is not the Bill which the Manitoba legislature passed. On the other side, it is said that the few alterations that have been made by the Railway Committee under the direction of the Minister of Railways and Canals, are changes of little importance and such as the people of Manitoba might expect to be made ; and that therefore on the whole the principle of this legislation is the same as the principle of the Bill which was before the Manitoba legislature. Now, Sir, I have my doubts as to that. Though I am called a very vain man, when I hear men of high standing and big Importance in this House and outside of it, men who fill their chair very easily, I am apt to take their opinions with a little more modesty than they think. But 1 have an objection to the newspapers putting in the mouth of the Speaker the opinions even of such a distinguished member of this House as the bon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser). The Ottawa Citizen has made the Speaker responsible for the speeches of the hon. member for Guysborough. I admit that the hon. gentleman is well able to fill the Chair ; but I do not think it is in the interest of the dignity of this House that when the hon. gentleman undertakes to deliver a lecture to any man, the Speaker should be reported as being responsible for it. But let us pass over that. Even after that difference of opinion, I went again over all the Bills-the Bill of the legislature of Manitoba, the Bill as introduced into this House, and the Bill as it stands now, after being altered by the Railway Committee at the request of the Minister of Railways and Canals; and it seems to me that two very material changes have been made in this legislation. The Bill as it was introduced in Manitoba, as every one knows, caused a great deal of public discussion. Strong objections were taken to it. The Board of Trade of Winnipeg made a strong opposition to it, and appointed a delegation to meet the Manitoba government. What was the result of that interview ? It was stated in the Committee of Railways and Canals, and it has been repeated here, that the Attorney General of Manitoba had made it very clear that the Manitoba people should assent to the Federal government interfering and maintaining its control
over rates, as provided for by the Manitoba legislature. Well, Sir, I do not know the Attorney General of Manitoba; he may be a very high authority; he may speak very authoritatively either from a legal point of view or from a political point of view for the people of Manitoba. But surely, either as a lawyer or as a minister of the Crown, he cannot speak black and speak white, and express at the same time tiie law and the opinion of the people of Manitoba. On Friday, the 8th of March, the Hon. Colin Campbell opened his remarks on the second reading of the Bill. What did he say ? There is no ' Hansard ' in Manitoba, but I read from the report of the Winnipeg Morning Telegram of March 9, the organ of the Manitoba government:
It is the intention of the government that the government will absolutely control 'the rates, and that the rates will be fixed so that no one but the Lieutenant Governor in Council will be able to dispute them.
This is the opinion of the Hon. Colin Campbell, Attorney General of Manitoba, as expressed in the House of Assembly on the 8th of March, speaking on the second reading of the Bill.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him a question? In that same speech did he not emphatically declare that they had this control under the contract, subject to the jurisdiction, of the Dominion goverment ?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Not so clearly as that, but I will come to that point.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I want the answer now.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I will give the two parts of the speech, as I am a fair-minded man. That was in reply to the representation made by the delegation of the board of trade which interviewed the government :
The board of trade represented that the government should make provision for passenger rates. Mr. Campbell said they had not yet been able to do this, but they would endeavour to do so. In conclusion, Mr. Campbell said he had very much pleasure In announcing that the government were willing to adopt all the suggestions of the board of trade, and he wished therefore to say that the government was not only willing to adopt the, safeguards that the board of trade had suggested, but all other suggestions that would be of material benefit to the province.
Wbat was the result of this declaration ? The result of it was that the majority of the board of trade withdrew their opposition. and practically ended their efforts to induce the Roblin government to change their legislation. Mr. Campbell is evidently a shrewd man. These remarks were made on the Sth of March; that was Friday. Saturday passed and Sunday passed and

Monday came. I suppose that the conscience of the lawyer was a little aroused, and he found that the position he had taken on Friday was apt to be discussed from a constitutional point of view, and therefore, on Monday he went on with his argument; and I am now coming to the point which the hon. member for North Oxford was so anxious to put forward. He went on as follows :
Now we come to the most important part ot the contract, in connection with which a great deal of discussion has arisen, namely, the imposition of tolls. There are gentlemen who desire to mystify the public in reference to this question. It is stated that the government cannot do what a private individual might do.
The Minister of Railways has laid down this proposition clearly and distinctly, that all the Dominion government does is to fix the maximum tariff. The Railway Act and the charter of the company give it the power to make and impose the tariff, that Is to say, it must go to the Dominion government for sanction; and we know the practice that prevails in the sanction of It. The government simply say what toll shall be the maximum toll. Now, the Railway Committee are permitted, and I have no doubt that hon. gentlemen who have anything to do with traffic know that they are allowed to contract within that maximum tariff. We find that this is done upon passenger rates; the rate is 3 cents a mile according to the maximum tariff, yet we find railways running cheap fares, cheap excursions, and if they were not permitted to contract at a less sum than the maximum tariff it would not be possible to get the benefit of these cheap fares. At the same time, we find there is a tariff for carrying freight at. a certain figure, yet the company are permitted, as Mr. Blair pointed out

I call the particular attention of the hon. member for North Oxford to this :
-to make whatever contracts they like within that limit. Now, all the government Is attempting to do is what each individual is doing for himself-that we are endeavouring to do for the whole people. That is to say, while I myself might go and make a contract, the government proposes to make that contract for the whole of the people of 'the province. The sections that deal with this matter state that there should be no discrimination, no special ratos, and no secret special rates, and there are other restrictions. Now, if the contract we propose to make were a discriminatory contract, it might be had under the Railway Act; but we are making a contract which is Just and equitable, and applies equally to every person in Manitoba. It is quite true that if we make a contract at a greater rate

Now, here is the point

-than that fixed as a maximum tariff by the Dominion, our contract would be superseded by the general tariff fixed by the government at Ottawa; but that would be no detriment to the people of this province, because we would get the benefit of the lowest tariff, whichever it might be. If the Dominion government made a lower tariff than the amount we had fixed, the people of the province would get the benefit of It; but if .our contract for rates was lower than the maximum, the people would get the benefit pf that, and that is what we propose to Mr. BOURASSA.
do. We have no objection to the Minister of Railways or the government at Ottawa, if they think fit, to make a lower tariff than we suggest; the people will have no quarrel with them, because we will receive the benefit of whichever Is the lowest tariff.
A great deal has been said about the Dominion government not allowing us to encroach upon their rights under the Railway Act, We do not desire to encroach upon the rights of the Dominion government, and I believe when the Dominion government come to ratify this contract, as they will be shortly called upon to do, they will say, as it is proper for them to say, that they reserve to themselves to fix any amount that they like, and if the amount is less than the amount we fixed no harm Is done.
You have there the point made by the Attorney General of Manitoba.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Was there any further statement made by the Attorney General ?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Yes, and that I shall read.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bou-rassa). But I think there was a further statement read in my presence in the committee by Mr. Barwick.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Mr. Barwick read the part I have just given. There is no further statement by the Attorney General in support of the position of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sutherland). This is the strongest part in favour of his position. The statement made by Mr. Barwick was what I have read here. The first part X have read was that by which the Attorney General succeeded in quieting the opposition of the board of trade by affirming that the Manitoba government was given full control.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would the hon. gentleman allow me to read a few lines which were not read in committee and which I think he has under his hand. This is Mr. Campbell, the Attorney General, dealing with the legal phase of the question :
A great deal has been said about the Dominion government not allowing us to encroach upon their rights-


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: That is what I have read.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I did not hear the hon. gentleman read that.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Yes, it is contained in the paragraph I have read. But that is the difference between the friends of the Bill and myself-they take a few paragraphs here and there, whilst I have read the whole of what Mr. Campbell has said about the Dominion interference.
Mr. SPROUI^E. I understand the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) to set up the contention that Mr. Campbell did not admit the right of the Dominion government to control rates.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: On Friday Mr. Campbell affirmed the principle without any qualification that the provincial government had absolute control, and this set at rest the fears of the board of trade. But Mr. Campbell who spoke on Friday was Mr. Campbell the politician. On Tuesday, Mr. Campbell the lawyer came forward with the statement and opinion that the Dominion government could interfere, and the part that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) has just read is taken from the paragraph that I read. But as I pointed out to the committee, and as I point out now, the only way in which the Attorney General of Manitoba said the Federal government could interfere would be in lowering the rates. But I put the question to the Minister of Railways in committee, and it was not challenged : In case the government of Manitoba fixed the rates in the interests of the people of Manitoba, not taking into consideration the rights of the people of the North-west or the people of Ontario or the people of Canada at large ; if they fixed the rates so that the whole grain trade of the North-west would be sent over American lines-could not the Federal government interfere and compel them to raise the rates, thus preventing discrimination in favour of the American lines ? The minister has admitted that the Governor in Council has the right to interfere. And I go further and say that it would be the duty of the government to interfere. If they are sincere when they tell us they want to build up this country, if they are sincere when, session after session, they ask millions to build elevators in Montreal and Port Colborne, to deepen our canals and maintain our national system of transportation, they must recognize their duty to interfere in such a case. If hon. members on both sides are sincere when they make such eloquent speeches about the development of this country, they will be in duty bound to interfere and prevent anybody from taking such action as will divert the trade of Canada to American lines.
There was some opposition to that Bill in the Manitoba legislature. Some of the members of the House, opposed to the Bill and supported at that time by the Winnipeg Free Press and encouraged by the Dominion government organs, both of Manitoba and of the province of Quebec, held public meetings. Some of them said : The great danger is this-we are going to vote for a measure which will bind the province, but in spite of which the Dominion government may interfere ; and so the province will be bound to assume an immense debt, but, it may be, without receiving any benefit. Well in this very same speech-and here I am going to complete the record of the argument of the Attorney General of Manitoba

in reply to Mr. Norris, member for Lans-downe. Mr. Campbell said :
Amongst the questions asked, was Question 5. As it was published in the first place It read:	' It Dominion parliament ratified entire
contract except as to rates and company used its best endeavour, as in paragraph 4, to obtain legislation ratifying rates, but failed, would there be any breach of covenant by the company ' ? Of course, the hon. gentleman said ' No.' Any lawyer would give the same answer. But at this time the local combine against this contract was being carried on these lines-the local lawyers had said if it ratified in part and not in whole, the province will be liable notwithstanding. (Hear, hear.) I take the sta.nd that the government take, that no legislative assembly in the British Empire would ratify a contract in part and not in whole. We take the part, and say if we do not get the whole benefit we are not liable	 I am afraid
the hon. member for Lansdowne on Saturday misled the farmers of Brandon when he told them the contracts may be ratified in part, and that they would not get the benefit of the whole contract. Perhaps he did so innocently. If he did, then I would accept his excuses, but if he did it knowingly, I do not know if the hon. gentleman is in the confidence of the Tribune or not, but if he did it knowingly, the legal gentlemen of Toronto had said the province could not be held in any way liable until the contract as a whole had been ratified, I cannot possibly find an excuse for him.
In the legislature of Manitoba one member was ridiculed by the Manitoba government because he said the contract would not be ratified wholly by this parliament. Now, we who are opposing this Bill are being ridiculed because we speak of the difficulties that may arise. When the government of Manitoba had to satisfy the board of trade, what did they do ? They spoke of the mortgage. Clause 8 of the Manitoba Bill says this :
There shall be included in the mortgage such terms to amplify and to carry out the provisions of the said indenture, and such other terms as the Lieutenant Governor in Council may deem necessary in the public interest.
At the time, this clause was introduced to meet the objections that were made in Manitoba against the Bill ; it was said : Of course, in the agreement there are many things that are objectionable, but there is going to be a mortgage deed, without which the contract is null, and in that mortgage will be added all the dispositions that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may deem necessary in the public interest.
When it came before this House, the Bill of the legislature was changed. Clause 2 of the Bill (No. 103) says :
The company may, in the mortgage securing the bonds mentioned in paragraph 5 of said indenture, agree to such terms to amplify and carry out the provisions of the said indenture and to such other terms as the Lieutenant Governor in Council of the province of Manitoba may deem necessary in the public interest.
This was almost a copy of the provision of the Manitoba Act. But these words were added :	[DOT]

the Mortgage Act, which they would have by passing the Bill as-it was; but, by amending the Act in the Railway Committee we are giving the people of Manitoba the right to say that we are the entire cause of their ruin. They will say that this clause of the Bill by which the company was able to administer the road in such a way as to ruin them, would have been amended in the Mortgage Act. The government of Manitoba were open to the influence of public opinion which was agitated when they made the contract,	and	they got	the	vote of	thelegislature by making the promise that they would amend the bargain by inserting the mortgage clause, which would become a part of the bargain and be construed with it. Therefore, I say that the moment that we prevent the government of Manitoba from amending the Mortgage deed we deceive them and we become re-ponsible for that legislation. I hope it will not	be	said that	we	are	not	responsible	for	what we	do,	and	for	mypart I am not ready to stand up with the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser) and say that I am ready to vote for anything that I do not understand. I am not ready to vote with the hon. member for Guysborough and say that I am not responsible for my actions. My actions may be foolish, but I mean to be responsible for them ; and I would rather be a responsible crank than an	irresponsible	genius.	We	are
creating the right on the part of the people of Manitoba, five or ten years hence, to come and ask us to make good the deficit. When that time comes I will oppose it if I am still here ; but I say that we should not shelter ourselves now under the pretensions of provincial rights. When we have amended this Bill ourselves, it is perfectly useless to talk in that way.
A few day ago the government of British Columbia applied to the Federal government for a temporary arrangement of the fisheries of that province. I have not followed the question closely, but it is my impression that I have seen it in the newspapers that the government of British Columbia applied to the Federal government and asked them to make a temporary arrangement. The Federal government would not commit themselves. They replied that the question being pending before the court, the government wrould not commit themselves nor undertake to interfere in provincial rights. If the rights of the salmon of British Columbia are to be protected, why should not the rights of the people of Manitoba have the same protection ?
I was not a member of this House ten years ago, but I see several hon. members who were here ten years ago. In 1891, the Senate of Canada conducted an inquiry in which it investigated a matter which had occurred in the province of Que-Mr. BOURASSA.
bee without having the slightest shadow of federal jurisdiction at all. The Senate constituted itself a tribunal of justice, it called witnesses and inquired into certain payments made to a railway company that was entirely within the scope of the provincial government. The trial of that government was conducted. Upon that trial the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec, a servant of the Federal government, took upon himself to, as he said later on, jump over the constitution. Where were the great defenders of provincial rights ? Not a Liberal in this House stood up at that time to defend the constitution when it was being so grossly violated in the province of Quebec. The Toronto Globe wanted Mr. Mercier to be hanged at that time. The Toronto Globe made, the whole campaign against the provincial government upon a purely provincial issue, and the leaders of the Liberal party were ashamed to show themselves in the provincial contest which followed. Mr. Mercier was brought down to his grave and, a few years later, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that his government was not guilty in the matter. It is a great thing to have principles. It is a great thing to have big flags to wave when it suits our purposes and to bury in the ground when it interferes with our political ends. I do not pretend to be a man of principle. I have very few principles in politics, but on account of my poverty I am obliged to stand by these. I am not so rich that I can afford to have a set of principles in all of my pockets so that when one principle suits me I take it out of my pocket and if it docs not suit me I put it into my pocket and reach into another pocket for another set of principles that suit the occasion. To my mind, if there ever was a time when provincial rights should have been protected, when it was the duty of the defenders of provincial rights to stand up in defence of their principles, it was when the Senate of Canada took it upon itself to conduct an inquiry in purely provincial matters ; it was when the Senate of Canada constituted itself a Star chamber to decide upon the fate of a provincial government and to condemn it before anything was heard, and allowed the servant of the Federal government, the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec, to jump over the constitution and constitute a government of his own. When a party and when men have been silent upon an occasion like that, for the sake of the honour of this country, let them not come before the parliament of Canada and tell us that now, upon a matter which will, be ineffective if we do not sanction it, just as ineffective as the paper upon which it is printed,-they stand upon the doctrine of provincial rights.
It is a question also whether a representative of the government has the right to come before a committee of the House, and ask us to take from this legislation three-quarters of what is in it, and then tell us :

Do not touch the other one-quarter, because there stand the rights of the province and they are sacred. This treatment of legislation resembles too much the law of the Sandwich Islands before civilization was introduced, when the King could point to a bush or piece of land and say it is ' taboo,' and the moment it was taboo no one could touch it; but the next year it was some other bush or some other piece of land that was ' taboo,' and you could do anything you liked with the former. Now7, Sir, this is either a provincial or a federal matter. If it is provincial, we have no right to touch that contract :	let us restore the Bill as
it was and let this parliament take no responsibility for it. If it is a federal matter, then you must safeguard the interests of the people of this country. If you do not want the Bill, throw it out: if you do want it, get up in the House and say it is a good Bill, and that you accept the responsibility of it. Let it not be a question of provincial rights in the House and a question of private interest in the lobby. I ret it be the same everywhere. That is all I ask. My opposition to this Bill came gradually. At first I had no opinion on the matter, but I became interested in the discussion in the Railway Committee, and I put a question to the Minister of Railways. I must say that the reply of the minister, coming after the several articles in La Pati'ie made me think that this was a serious question.
I did not found my opinion on the writings in La Patrie; I did not found my opinion on what the Minister of Railways said; I did not decide if I would vote this way or that way according to the little sign that was made to me by the government whip or by any minister. I studied the question, and when I saw that the arguments against the Bill were not replied to; the moment I saw that the Bill which was forced upon the members in the lobby had become a free Bill in the House, I said to myself:	We must have the truth out, and
that is all I want. I do not pretend to be infallible in this matter. It may be that I am mistaken from beginning to end. It may be that this is a good contract for Manitoba. It may be that this parliament is doing right in voting for it. It may be that we would be interfering with provincial rights by not passing it; all I ask is that the men who have responsibility for the legislation of this country, and to whom the people of Canada look for the proper administration of the public affairs, should at least stand up and reply to the questions put to them. If they prove that this is a good piece of legislation: if they prove that this bargain is beneficial to the people of Manitoba while it does not interfere with the interest of the rest of Canada; if they tell me that they are ready to apply the clause which they have inserted in the Bill the very first time the government of Manitoba will establish rates in favour of
American lines; if they tell me that they are ready to apply this principle to the British Columbia legislation in order to prevent British Columbia favouring the Northern Pacific to the detriment to our railroads; then I am ready to stop discussing this question. I shall vote against it of course, because I think it is wrong, but I am prepared to admit that the government have more knowledge and more intelligence, and certainly they have more votes than I have and so I will leave the responsibility on them. And I say also that the leaders of the opposition must take some responsibility in the matter. They must tell us what they think of it. The government must tell us why they force that Bill upon parliament, because there is no doubt it is forced upon parliament. The notice that was given last week that this Monday would be taken by the government, read that government measures would have precedence, but, afterwards, it was changed so that this government day is given to private legislation. I have no objection to that. I have no objection to this Bill being discussed provided it is discussed on proper lines, provided that the men who are responsible for it shall take the responsibility of it; provided that the men who want to impose it on the people of Manitoba will frankly say that they want to do so, and provided they tell us:	Don't
be afraid, we will protect federal rights. I have already given notice of an amendment because if this clause 3 of the new Bill is going to be introduced seriously -if it is not put there as a show in order to smooth the scruples of some of the federal members-then that clause 3 should be effective. I repeat that it does not make much difference so far as the rights of the Federal government are concerned, whether they say or do not say in this Bill that the Federal government maintains its jurisdiction. But I would like *that the warning that this parliament is going to give to Manitoba should be a complete warning, and that Manitoba should understand that in case they make a discrimination, not only against a certain set of shippers on that line, but in favour of foreign lines, or against the general trade of any one province, then this government shall step in and prevent any such discrimination. If the Bill must be forced on the House, I hope we will know before the debate is closed what is the opinion of the authority that will have to apply the law. The Minister of Railways gave certain opinions in the Railway Committee, and now that parliament is called upon to ratify that clause which the Minister of Railways added, it is the duty of the minister to come here and explain, in what way the Railway Committee of the Privy Council is ready to apply that clause, so that the people of Manitoba and the people of Canada may know what the effect will be; so that the people of Manitoba will know that their Bill

has been changed and that the Lieutenant Governor in Council of that province will not have absolute control over these railway rates. It is the duty of the Minister of Railways to tell this parliament that not only will Manitoba be hound to remain under the maximum rates, as Mr. Campbell says, but that if by lowering their rates they interfere with the general trade of Canada, then they will be checked by the Federal government. That is what I have been endeavouring to get for a week, and that is what I am endeavouring now to get from the Minister of Railways. The Bill has been given importance to, "in Manitoba and throughout the land, not only by newspaper articles, by speeches of members of parliament, by resolutions of the people, by discussions in Manitoba and elsewhere, but also by two straight declarations made by ministers of the Crown. Those men who made these declarations outside should make them inside of this House. That is what I am asking for, and I hope the preamble of this Bill will not be adopted before we get some explanation.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: After some large amount of consideration I have made up my mind to vote in favour of the Bill which is before the committee. I think it is proper to give briefly my reasons for having arrived at that conclusion. Although I might have preferred not to speak until the third reading of this Bill, I think that perhaps the present occasion is as opportune as any other to say what I have to say in this connection. I may say, Mr. Chairman, that it is a question which has caused me a good deal of consideration, in arriving at a conclusion as to the course which ought to be taken in respect to this Bill. It is a question which involves the determination of the relations between the provincial authority and the Dominion authority. As every one of us is perfectly aware, the action taken in regard to questions of this kind in the history of Canada has been perhaps more fruitful of friction, of difficulty, of agitation and of trouble than any other class of action which either parliament or legislature has been called upon to take; and there is perhaps no class of questions which comes before either parliament or legislature in Canada in which it is more difficult to determine just exactly how far a member is justified in carrying his own views and wishes than the class to which this question belongs.
In order to give my reasons clearly, it will be necessary for me to state in a few words the nature of this transaction in its legal and constitutional aspect as I understand it. This is the more necessary, because those gentlemen who have discussed the question heretofore have not considered it necessary to make a statement of that kind. They have confined themselves to Mr. BOURASSA.
stating certain objections, and discussing in a general way the merits of the contract which the government and legislature of Manitoba entered into. In order, however, to get a clear idea of the position, I think it desirable to say a few words with regard to the general scheme which the Bill and the contract with which we are dealing present for the consideration of the House. The Northern Pacific and Manitoba Railway consists of about 3G0 miles of railway In the province of Manitoba, no portion of which extends beyond the provincial limits. That railway was built under a provincial charter, with the exception of a small portion of it which was built after it received a charter from this parliament. It was originally built in 1888 under a charter of the provincial legislature, which was hotly contested by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, which was opposed by the authorities of the Dominion, and which resulted in an extremely warm contest between the people of the province and the federal authorities, as well as the railway authorities. The validity of that charter was disputed and carried to the courts; and the Supreme Court ultimately held that the charter was good. The province bonused that railway, while the Dominion never did. No assistance was ever given to it by the Dominion authorities. My point in mentioning that is simply to show that it is a railway that was built under the auspices of the provincial government, bonused by the provincial government, opposed by the Federal government, and never assisted in any way by the federal authorities. Subsequently to the construction of the greater portion of the line, the proprietors of that road, for the purpose of resolving possible legal doubts, came to this parliament and got a charter, or a confirmation of their original charter. That is the Act which brings that road under the jurisdiction of this parliament. If that Act had not passed there would have been no necessity for that portion of this legislation which refers to the Northern Pacific and Manitoba Railway. The Canadian Northern Railway was an enterprise that was begun by being constructed from the town of Gladstone on the Manitoba and North-western Railway, with the object of going on to the Saskatchewan valley. Subsequently the same people built from Winnipeg south-eastward, with the assistance of the provincial government. They amalgamated with the Ontario and Rainy River Railway Company, which was largely assisted, as we all know, by the government of the Dominion.
Now, the scheme of the government of Manitoba, as presented in this Bill, is this, that they have made an arrangement with the Canadian Northern Railway which, as soon as completed, will have a line from Winnipeg to Port Arthur, a line northwestward into the country known as the

Dauphin country, and beyond that for 100 miles or thereabouts, and they propose to attach to that the 360 odd miles of the Northern Pacific and Manitoba Railway. So that they will have connectiofis in all parts of the province in competition with the Canadian Pacific Railway, and running down to the lake. The idea of the contract, therefore, is that by getting the line of the Northern Pacific and connecting with the Canadian Northern, they will have a system of railways practically covering almost every portion of their territory, and giving them an outlet to the lake; and by the terms of their contract they desire to secure control of the rates on that system, agreeing to guarantee the interest and the fixed charges of the road. My hon. friend who has just taken his seat discussed the question whether the Bill now before us gives -them control of rates or not. 1 may devote a few minutes' attention to that later on. In the meantime, I do not desire to appear in the House in any sense of the word as an advocate of this legislation. I will explain my position on it in a moment; but I am only doing what I conceive to be my duty as a representative of a constituency of the province of Manitoba in endeavouring to make the position as clear as it is possible for me to do it.
This unusual contract which has been brought before us has been brought about by a certain course of dealing and a certain state of feeling in the province; and every one will readily understand that that course of dealing, which has gone on for some years, and that state of feeling which has arisen in consequence, must have been of a somewhat unusual character to induce the provincial government to go into this transaction. The late government of the province of Manitoba, the government led by Mr. Greenway, was in charge of the affairs of that province some ten or eleven years, and Mr. Greenway had announced before he had been defeated that he had under contemplation a scheme for the building of a railway from the city of Winnipeg to Duluth, and connecting with it a system of feeders in the province of Manitoba to enter into competition with the existing lines, that is to say, the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Northern Pacific. Mr. Greenway did not carry out that plan, but he had announced that he was in favour of it, and intended to do it-had in reality engaged in negotiations in connection with it. He was defeated, and in my judgment very largely on account of the irritation created in the minds of the people of the province in regard to his railway policy, and very largely because of the fact that the people demanded a policy which was characterized by a more aggressive spirit as against the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. Mr. Hugh John Macdonald, who succeeded Mr. Greenway, proceeded to make
a contract with certain parties in New York for the construction of a railway from Winnipeg to Duluth, and for a system of feeders within the province. That project was practically the same as the scheme of Mr. Greenway. Later on Mr. Hugh John Macdonald vacated the premiership of Manitoba, and that contract was not submitted to the Manitoba legislature for ratification. Mr. Roblin succeeded as premier, and for reasons, which I do not know that I ever saw stated by himself, Mr. Roblin did not go on with the contract which his predecessor had made, but entered into negotiations which resulted in the agreement before us. This narration of facts and circumstances may seem to have no special connection with the subject, but the reason I call attention to them is because I desire to make it clear to the House that there have been three successive prime ministers in Manitoba who were all agreed that some plan of the kind referred to would meet with the approval of the people, arid were determined to carry such a plan into effect.
As the facts of this contract place themselves before my mind, the matter appears to take this shape. We have the province of Manitoba-which, in a matter of this kind, is wholly outside of our legislative authority-entering into contract with two railway companies, and these two railway companies are corporations chartered by the Dominion. These two companies therefore must receive their contracting capacity from the action of this parliament. The province of Manitoba receives no capacity to contract from any action taken by this parliament. I doubt if this parliament could give Manitoba any further power to contract than it has under the constitution. But the railway companies which seek to contract with the province, require to get their capacity to do so from this government. If hon. members will read the Bill, they will find that it is a Bill to give the two railway companies the power to make the contracts into which they have entered with the Manitoba government. There is nothing in the Bill that seeks to give Manitoba any power which that province does not possess now. It seeks to ratify no problem or obligation that the province has incurred. I venture to say that nothing which could be put into a Bill to be passed by this parliament and to become an Act of this parliament, could make Manitoba liable for anything for which she had not made herself liable, or bind her to any contract, covenant or obligation which she had not herself entered into. Therefore when it is suggested that this is a Bill to ratify a contract made by the province of Manitoba, that is wholly a mistaken and inaccurate statement of the facts in so far as thd obligation referred to proceeds from the government of Manitoba to the railway companies. The Bill therefore is an enabling Act to give

49S8
power to the railway companies, but not an enabling Act in so far as the province is concerned. What I am endeavouring to make clear is that, as it appears to me, we have a contract between three parties, two of whom are railway corporations subject to the jurisdiction of the Dominion and the third is a province, not subject in any way in a contractual capacity, to our jurisdiction. These parties want to make a bargain among themselves, and the companies say : We cannot do it unless you give us the power ; we have not the corporate capacity, and we ask you to give us the power. The province simply says : We want to make a contract with the two railway companies ; give them the power and we will attend to the business and make our own contract and make it on our own responsibility. That appears to be a plain statement of the position in respect of this contract. I cannot conceive of any exception to this proposition, that where the sole power lies, there lies the sole responsibility. And inasmuch as the province of Manitoba has the sole power to place that province under a financial obligation by the payment of money or guarantee of bonds or anything of that kind, and inasmuch as we have no power, either to implement or assist or change or increase or diminish that power, surely the legislature of Manitoba is alone responsible for any action taken in that respect.
I do not think it is necessary for me to do further than indicate the conclusion I have arrived at on that point. It seems to me that the merits of what we have to consider are the merits of the legislation as respecting the railway companies which are under federal jurisdiction. What we have to decide is whether the powers which we are asked to give in this Bill to the railway companies, are powers which ought to be given them. If there is any objection to the powers which we are asked to give, from the standpoint of the general interests of the Dominion, or from the standpoint of sound principles of railway legislation, then the Bill ought not to pass. But when we come to consider that question, we find that the objections which are raised to the passage of the Bill are not based upon the idea that there is anything improper whatever in the legislation as applied to the railway companies, but upon the alleged fact that the province has not made a good bargain, that it has not protected itself, that in making this bargain it has been ill advised, that the bargain is improvident and hasty, and that the province would have better served its interests if it had not made this bargain at all. I am not sure that I do not agree in that view. Certainly, if I had been a member of the legislature of the province of Manitoba, I should have done, as my political friends did in that legislature. I should have opposed that contract on the ground that the liability is excessive, on the ground that the privileges which the Manitoba government Mr. SIFTON.
is getting in return are not sufficient to compensate it for the liability incurred, and upon the further ground, which was well enough stated by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) yesterday-and which, I think, I would have taken more strongly than any of the others-that having in view the rapid development of the western country and the fact that the Canadian Pacific Railway, Northern Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern Railway would soon be competing for the business of the province, and having in view also the improvements which are taking place in transportation methods and facilities, as well as the increase in the volume of traffic which must naturally take place in the course of a few years-having regard to all these things, I think I would have been justified in advocating that the province should not. make this or any other contract in the meantime, because we know that in the natural course of events, undoubtedly, railway rates will be reduced considerably below those of the present time. That is the position I would have taken as a member of the legislature of Manitoba. That is the position which was argued there at great length, and with very considerable ability, by some members of that legislature. And the discussion which took place in that House has not been amplified here at all, in so far as any statement of fact is concerned, statements of fact which might be invoked to influence the minds of members of this House. The legislature of Manitoba considered that matter and they decided for themselves, in one case by a majority of 23 to 9, and in another by a majority of 23 to 12, that they should ratify the contract and carry this transaction into effect. I regretted that decision, because I thought the action taken by the legislature was not a wise action. But, when the matter comes before this House for decision, it appears to me that the position which we should take here is not the position of entering into a discussion of the merits of the action of the Manitoba legislature, revising their decision in regard to their dealing with the finances of the province of Manitoba, which are wholly and entirely and absolutely within their jurisdiction ; but that the questions which we have to consider are the questions which relate to matters within our jurisdiction-that is, the question of dealing with Dominion railways and the manner in which we should permit them to contract. Now, we have these questions constantly arising. We have had instances, many times before, when some of us were in other places, in which the question has arisen as to the limits of the federal and provincial authority., And it has not always been easy to settle upon the line of action that ought to be taken. There are occasions constantly arising where both parties have a possible jurisdiction. In the case of the Manitoba school question, we had a
49S9

question in which the province took a certain line of action, and where it was held by the highest court in the realm that, to a certain extent, the federal authority had a right to override that action. There was no question as to the legislative power, hut, the question was as to whether it was wise to interfere-that was the question. And 1 cannot hut feel that in connection with a matter of this kind, where the province takes hold of a question and acts within Its own jurisdiction, it will prove to be an unwise course for this parliament to interfere in the financial merits of a question that the legislature have decided for themselves, and say that because we do not agree with the finding of the legislature in regard to financial matters, therefore, we will refuse the legislation which is necessary to enable them to carry their transactions into effect.
I may say that I have no special friendship for the government of the province of Manitoba, which proposed this contract to the legislature. As I have pointed out, my political friends in the legislature opposed the transaction. But while that is the case, I desire to point out that there has been no petition presented from the minority of the Manitoba legislature, asking this parliament to refuse this legislation. Members of that minority are without exception men who have taken part in the strong contests for provincial rights, for the principle that the only way in which the affairs of the Dominion can properly be carried out is to let the people of each province exercise their discretion in regard to matters of a local character. That is the position we have taken in Manitoba ; we have taken it repeatedly, and we have taken it very strongly, not only with regard to educational matters, but with regard to railway matters. And while I do not expect all, even of my political friends, to agree with me, I venture the statement that in attempting any other method of ruling our great western provinces, this Dominion parliament will find itself in continual difficulty and turmoil with those provinces. I have no hesitation in saying that, if I tvere to consult what might appear an immediate political interest, if I were to say what might, for a few days or a few weeks, be somewhat popular with persons, perhaps, who occupy a great space in the newspapers in the province of Manitoba, I would speak otherwise than I do to-day. But, I have taken the same position precisely with regard to any action of a government of Manitoba hostile to myself, and one that I did the best I could to prevent from coming into power, as I would take if it was a government with which I was in close political association. I do not believe that in this parliament members can take any other stand, unless they are prepared to bring about serious and lasting political difficulties in the different provinces of the Dominion.
The province of Manitoba is not a large province, it is not strong in its representation so far as members of this House are concerned. But, you have before you the constant possibility and the constant probability that similar questions will 'arise with other provinces larger and stronger in their representation, and you must establish a principle that will be the same for every province. You cannot apply one principle to one province and another principle to another. And if to-morrow, a Bill demanded by a large majority of the legislature of the province of Quebec or the province of Ontario, came before us, and this parliament, because it did not agree with the finding of the legislature of Quebec or Ontario, undertook to throw out that Bill, I ask the representatives of those provinces, what would be the position which the people of those provinces would take ? They would assume an attitude of hostility ; they would say that where their financial and provincial interests are concerned, it was competent for them to deal with them, this parliament being free to deal with matters of Dominion jurisdiction. That is the line of thought that has caused me to come to the conclusion that I ought to vote, for the passage of this Bill.
I listened to the remarks of my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) with a considerable degree of interest, at least to those portions of his remarks that were relevant to the Bill that is before the House. 1 may say a word or two with regard to the statement that this Bill is to ratify a part of the contract, and that it would be unjust to ratify a part of the contract without ratifying the whole of it; that under this Bill the province of Manitoba will not have the control of railway rates as it bargained for.
In the first place, the expression ' ratifying a contract,' made between the two parties is an expression which is misleading, which does not convey a correct idea of what is attempted to be done by this legislation. The legislation gives to the company power to do certain things, to enter into certain covenants. Now, if the legislation failed to give to the railway company power to outer into a particular covenant which constituted a material part of the consideration for the liability which the province of Manitoba is entering into, there would certainly be something in the argument which the member for Labelle has advanced ; but upon examination of the Bill it does not appear that this is the case. The Bill says in section 2 :
The Canadian Northern Railway Company has and shall he deemed to have had at the time of the execution of the said indenture of the 11th day of February, 1901, full power

(a)	to accept the assignment of the said lease;
(b)	to make the covenants and agreements in the said indenture contained-

(i)	relating to the said lease and to the payments thereunder and to the terms thereof;
(ii)	relating to the bonds mentioned in clauses 5 and 6 of the said indenture;
(iii)	relating to the rates to be charged or demanded by the said company for the carriage of freight and passengers.
So this Bill gives the company power to make the covenants which it has made in that indenture relating to the rates to be charged for the carriage of freight and passengers. As I understand the argument which is advanced by the hon. member for Labeile, it is to the effect that the saving clause in section 3 of the Act which provides that the power of the parliament of Canada and the Dominion government shall remain unimpaired in regard to this Bill, takes away the power of the local authority to reduce rates.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I did not say that this clause took away from the Manitoba government the power to reduce rates, but it meant that the Federal government kept the power of raising the rates, in certain cases, of the Manitoba government.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: My hon. friend's point is, according to his own statement of it, made just now, that the legislature of Manitoba, not understanding that this federal authority would retain the right to fix a rate higher than the rate which they fixed, have been deceived or would be deceived, and that they would not get the consideration which they had bargained for. Now, my hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) quoted a speech of Attorney General Campbell of the Manitoba government, which was made at the time this Bill was before the Manitoba legislature ; and as I read Mr. Campbell's speech, it is a complete answer to the argument of my hon. friend from La-belle, for it shows conclusively that the government and legislature of Manitoba had in mind this very fact at the time when the legislation was passed. The speech was quoted by the member for Norfolk the other day, but in order that I may make my argument clear, I will refer to a few statements that are contained in it, because it will show clearly that this very point was in the minds of the legislature of Manitoba when this legislation was under discussion. Mr. Campbell says :
The Minister of Railways and Canals has laid down the proposition clearly and distinctly that all the Dominion government does is to fix maximum terms.
As a matter of fact that is all we ever do. The Governor in Council fixes the maximum tariff of a railway; the railway can charge that tariff or it can charge less, but I do not think anybody ever heard of the federal authority ordering a railway company to charge more than they were willing to haul Mr. SIFTON.
stuff for. Such a thing would not only be wholly unprecedented, but wholly absurd. The absurdity of doing that meets the point raised by my hon. friends in this connection, because they take the ground that inasmuch as the federal authority has an overriding right to deal with the question of rates, therefore, we have destroyed the control which Manitoba thought she had. Now, a federal authority can only do one of two things, it can fix the rate lower than the rate Manitoba fixed, or it can fix it higher. If it fixes a rate that is lower, certainly it does not hurt the province of Manitoba ; but if it were proposed that it should fix a rate that is higher, we would have the Dominion government seeking to compel a railway company to charge a higher rate than it is willing to charge for carrying freight and passengers. It is only necessary to state the proposition in order that the absurdity may appear; and in order to accentuate that absurdity be it remembered that the province of Manitoba would be paying the shortage, so that we would be asked to say to the province of Manitoba: It is true you have the right to fix the rate, but we will not let you fix it, we will not let you cut it down, although you are prepared to pay the shortage yourself. You are liable and we are not. The possibility of that state of affairs is the possibility which these gentlemen suggest as a grave and serious practical objection to the ratification of this contract. It strikes me that it is an absolutely childish absurdity, a thing which no serious minded man would consider for half a moment. It strikes me as being a thing that is contrary to our general principles of action, and as contemplating a possibility that never could arise under any circumstances. But I wanted to say that that point is not being made now for the first time, because what Mr. Campbell said before the legislature was this :
The Railway Act and the charter of the company give it the power to make and impose the tariff, that is to say, it must go to the Dominion government for sanction ; and we know the practice that prevails in the sanction of it. The government simply say what toll shall be the maximum toll. Now, the Railway Committee are permitted, and I have no doubt that hon. gentlemen who have anything to do with traffic know what they are allowed to contract within that maximum tariff. We find that this is done upon passenger rates; the rate is 3 cents a mile according to the maximum tariff, yet we find railways running cheap fares, cheap excursions, and if they were not permitted to contract at a less sum than the maximum tariff it would not be possible to get the benefit of these cheap fares. At the same time, we find there is a tariff for carrying freight at a certain figure, yet the company are permitted, as Mr. Blair pointed out, to make whatever contract they like within that limit. Now, all the government is attempting to do is what each individual is doing for himself-that we are endeavouring to do for the whole people. That

is to say, while I myself might go and make a contract, the government proposes to make that contract for the whole of the people of the province. The sections that deal with this matter state that there should be no discrimination, no special rates, and no secret special rates, and there are other restrictions. Now, if the contract we propose to make were a discriminatory contract, it might be had under the Railway Act; but we are making a contract which is just and equitable, and applies equally to every person in Manitoba. It is quite true that if we make a, contract at a greater rate than, that fixed as a maximum tariff by the Dominion, our contract would be superseded by the general tariff fixed by the government at Ottawa,

So they knew perfectly well they were subject to the powers of the government at Ottawa. The Attorney General said so at the time the contract was under consideration.
-but that would be no detriment to the people of this province, because we would get the benefit of the lowest tariff, whichever it might be. If the Dominion government made a lower tariff than the amount we had fixed, the people of the province would get the benefit of it; but if our contract for rates was lower than the maximum, the people would get the benefit of that, and that is what we propose to do.
The only objection that can be raised to that conclusion is that this government would undertake to order that railway company to charge more than, according to the contract, the people of Manitoba were prepared to pay. X think the people of Manitoba would be perfectly safe in taking chances upon that.
We have no objection to the Minister of Railways or the government at Ottawa, if they think fit, to make a lower tariff than we suggest; the people will have no quarrel with them, because we will receive the benefit of whichever is the lowest tariff.
A great deal has been said about the Dominion government not allowing us to encroach upon their rights under the Railway Act. We do not desire to encroach upon the rights of the Dominion government, and I believe when the Dominion government come to ratify this contract, as they will be. shortly called upon to do, they will say,, as it is proper for them to say, that they reserve to themselves to fix any amount that they like, and if the amount is less than the amount we fixed, no harm is done.
Let me read that again.
-they will say, as it is proper for them +o say, that they reserve to themselves to fix any amount that they like, and if the amount is less than the amount we fixed, no harm is done.
So that the Attorney General of Manitoba explicitly stated the case just as it is now.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sifton) too often, but will he allow me to make an observation upon that very point ? I understand the point he makes is, that the Attorney General of Manitoba indicated that 157
there could be no discriminating rate fixed by the government of Manitoba, because it would be favourable to the whole people of Manitoba ; but the point that I have been making does not refer to the case of a discrimination between classes of shippers, but to the case of discrimination between one province and another. In such a case the Manitoba government would fix a rate lower for the people of Manitoba and higher for the people of Ontario and the North-west Territories ; would not that be a case of appealing to the Railway Committee of the Privy Council to raise these rates ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: That is a different point.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: That is the point I made all along.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: My hon. friend- (Mr. Bourassa) has made the argument, that because of the supposed change in the contract, Manitoba has been beaten out of the control of rates for which she bargained. That was his argument, and if that was not his argument it was not anything. There is nothing in it; it is wholly and entirely foundationless and now my hon. friend gets up and tries to switch off to the question of discrimination between the people of one province and another. I say that is another matter and I was not discussing that. I am discussing my hon. friend's contention which he stated to the House with great force and eloquence, that we are leaving out a part of the contract and depriving the province of Manitoba of something for which she bargained. There is no man who would stand up and prevent anything of that kind being done more quickly that I would myself, because, even the influence of political prudence, if no higher motive, would induce me to do it. If it could be shown that we were attempting to trick the province of Manitoba in connection with a matter of this kind by pretending to give it something that we were not giving, nobody would feel that political retribution which would follow more quickly than I would. If I were not absolutely clear in my own mind, I would not suggest to the Committee that it should take the course for which I have been contending. As to the other objection, and it is another objection and an entirely different objection, as to the question of discrimination between the people of Manitoba and the people of Ontario, that point has been raised a number of times, but it has no reference at all to the merits of the contract as between us and the legislature and people of Manitoba. It is a question affecting Dominion railway legislation and it might be necessary for the federal authorities at a future time to say to the railway company : You are discriminating as against the people of Ontario be-



tween the mouth of the Rainy river and Port Arthur, you are not cai'rying their produce as low as you are carrying the produce of Manitoba, and we will compel you to do that. It may very well be that the rate in Manitoba is lower than the rate in Ontario, but that does not affect or apply to the argument against this contract. I do not intend to take up any considerable time of the committee. I generally find that in matters of this kind, if It is desired to get at the real point and to discuss it, that may be done within a reasonable length of time and there is no purpose to be served, in my judgment, by going over at great length the points to which I have referred. It seems to me to be simply and clearly a question as to whether we are going to let the people of the province of Manitoba, who seem to have made up their minds upon the question, settle in their own way a matter which affects their own interests and those of nobody else. I think I have a fairly good knowledge of the electors of Manitoba, and I would be inclined to think that the most effective way of making them all think that this was a good contract, would be for the parliament of Canada to refuse to pass it. I know that a great many of the electors in Manitoba who may not and who do not approve of the provisions of this contract, would resent the idea that the parliament of Canada should not let them do their business as they see fit. Time and again, in connection with matters in this province, this position has been taken by many prominent citizens of Manitoba, and I have no doubt it would be taken all over the province. The merits of this question we will settle for ourselves, and we want the central authority to leave us alone, to let us settle it for ourselves, and the public men whom we elect to positions of trust will be responsible to us. So far as we are permitted to have any evidence given to us on the subject, while I am bound to say that some of my own strong political friends have taken and are taking very strong ground against this contract, there has been nothing to indicate particularly that the legislature of the province does not fairly represent the views of the people. We had a delegation from the city of Winnipeg, a very respectable delegation, headed by Mr. Bole, a personal friend of mine, a political friend, and, I think, president of the board of trade-at all events a member of the board of trade, not appearing, however, for the board of trade, but appearing on behalf and as delegates from certain gentlemen in the city of Winnipeg. Then, we have had a number of resolutions passed at public meetings throughout the province. I need not say to any hon. gentleman who has kept a close watch on the politics of the country for a great many years, that no public man will dream of accepting such demonstrations as representing the people of the province as against the formal action of the


Mr. SIFTON.: legislature of that province. Any such principle as that would be a most unsafe principle to adopt, and I do not fancy, unless they should be of a character which would show that there was an absolute explosion of public opinion, this House would be justified in accepting representations of that kind. It seems to me very clear that the legislature of Manitoba has emphatically made up its mind on that subject. The Bills were passed by a large majority. The opposition did not poll its full strength in the divisions upon which the Bills were passed. The government, I believe, did poll its full strength.
The legislature was importuned by the Liberal press to place in this Bill a provision to the effect that the law should not come into force until it was ratified by legislation at Ottawa, but the legislature would not do it, and the Bill does not contain any such provision. They bound themselves to the contract without condition. As I read that contract at the present time, the government of Manitoba is bound to guarantee these bonds whether this Act is passed here or not. That seems to be the legal effect of it. They have put no suspending clause in it, and it looks very much as though the legal construction of that contract would be that the provincial government would be bound to guarantee these bonds whether this Act is passed or not. They were certainly importuned by the Liberal press of the province to put a suspending clause in the contract, but I do not find it there. They did, however, put in a clause with the opposite tendency. It is a clause which did not seek to limit the executive of the province, but sought to extend the powers of the executive of the province by giving them power to include provision in the mortgage taken in pursuance of the contract, even though that might be inconsistent with the terms of the contract. My hon. friend from La-belle (Mr. Bourassa) pointed out that this Bill did not contain that clause, and the inference from his remarks would be that his view was, that on that ground the province of Manitoba would not receive in the carrying out of the contract the benefit of that clause. That, however, is not the case, because in making the contract between the railway company and the government, the government will be bound to carry out the terms of that provision and to put that particular provision respecting the payment of shortages in the contract. There is no legal effect in it being left out of our Bill here, in so far as the relative rights of the parties are concerned. Another thing which seems to make it stronger and clearer that the government of Manitoba and its followers are clear and decided in their position on this question, is the fact, that the counsel for the province of Manitoba appeared before the Railway Committee. I think I may say that the counsel for the province, Mr. Walter Barwick, of Toronto, is a man well

and favourably known all over the Dominion of Canada, as a very able, and very competent and reliable solicitor. Mr. Banvick appeared before tbe Railway Committee and declared that tbe Bill was perfectly satisfactory to his clients, the province of Manitoba. Well, if the Bill Is perfectly satisfactory to the government of Manitoba, if they can find no indication, if their counsel can find no indication that they are not getting what they bargained for, I should think that is pretty fair evidence that the apprehensions of our friends who are raising these points are without foundation. We have the application of the two railway companies ; we have the application of the legislature and of the government of the province, and we have the counsel of the government coming before us to say that the Bill is what they want. I can only conclude that the position in which we find ourselves is this : That the people of the province of Manitoba have fairly well made up their minds that they are going to have a railway connection to Lake Superior under their own control and able to compete with the Canadian Pacific Railway so that the Manitoba government can control the rates at which the produce of the province will be carried to the lake. That is the evident determination of the people of that province and they have been of that mind so clearly for the last four or five years, that successive premiers of the province, three in succession, have attempted to carry out some such plan as this. We are called upon to decide whether we will allow them to do that in their own way and upon their own responsibility, or whether we will say to them ; No ; you will stop at the boundary line of the province of Manitoba ; you cannot connect with any Dominion railway, and you have to take whatever rates these railway companies give you, under our supervision. That is the position we would have to take if we refuse this Bill. The best conclusion I can come to in reference to the matter is, that with regard to Manitoba or any other province under similar circumstances, we should allow the responsibility to rest where the power rests, and that we should endeavour to carry out as far as we can what are the well understood and very clearly defined wishes of the legislature of the province.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: I only intend to offer a few remarks on this question and particularly in reply to the statements made by the Minister of the Interior, because I think this is a very interesting question. I believe that the position each party occupies upon it should be fairly stated to the House. With a great many of the remarks of the Minister of the Interior I perfectly agree ; from some of them I differ entirely. I believe that the Manitoba government are perfectly empowered to enter into an arrangement of this kind. I do not see any reason why the province should not enter into an 157*
arrangement with railway companies, even outside of the province, for the purpose of obtaining better rates. But as to the liabilities of the two parties, and as to what we undertake when we pass this legislation I differ a great deal from the minister (Hon. Mr. Sifton). He says that this is merely an empowering Act to enable two corporations which have their entity from this Dominion to enter into an arrangement with the province of Manitoba. I take a different view. I am of the opinion of the member for Labelle that this is a ratifying Act, and not an empowering Act. As to what we do when we ratify the agreement, I also differ from the Minister of the Interior. The merits of the question enter into the ratification, and we are responsible for the merits of the agreement when we ratify It. When two corporations come to this parliament for the purpose of amalgamating, we need not particularly inquire as to the terms of the amalgamation, because that is a domestic matter, but if the minority comes before this parliament and protests that the majority are exercising powersi in the amalgamation which is detrimental to the minority, then when we grant them the powers of amalgamation we confirm the merits of the agreement. Therefore, I say that we are not merely empowering the parties to enter into this agreement, but when we confirm the bargain we confirm likewise the merits of it. I suppose the government have entered fully into the merits of this question. According to the statement of the Minister of the Interior, the province of Manitoba have fully entered into it. He tells us that one premier after the other has resolved upon it, and that it is part of the policy of the party to which he belongs to have railway communication from Winnipeg to Lake Superior for the purpose of competing with the Canadian Pacific Railway. He* says that policy has been adopted again and again by the province. Then as to the merits. So far as the province is concerned, they seem to have considered the matter fully and' to be favourable to it. As to the position of the government in reference to empowering or confirmatory legislation of this kind, the hon. gentleman says that in financial matters we ought to allow the province to go to ruin if it likes. That is not the policy of the Confederation Act. The power of disallowance was specially retained to the Dominion government, above all things, for the purpose of controlling the financial affairs of a province-to protect a province from going to financial ruin. I have heard statements and arguments to that effect by the promoters of the Confederation Act again and again when the question has come before this House. I have heard it again and again argued by Finance Ministers in this House that that was one of the principal reasons for the exercise of the power of disallowance, because the financial ruin of a pro-

vince would react on the Dominion, and therefore we ought carefully protect the financial position of the provinces. I have heard the present Minister of Trade and Commerce again and again in this House express the opinion that tlieir powers of borrowing ought to he limited, that they were exercising borrowing powers which they ought not to possess, and that we ought to exert a paternal influence over them in order to protect their credit, although there might be no immediate prospect of their financial ruin.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Would my hon. friend cite a case in which an Act has been disallowed 011 account of the financial proposals contained in it ?


John Graham Haggart: None whatever, for this reason, that perhaps we have not exercised the power properly, or perhaps the emergency has never arisen.


The PRIME MINISTER.: That ground was taken in this House in the case of the Jesuits Estates Bill.


John Graham Haggart: What I am arguing is this, that the founders of confederation held the view that the prerogative of disallowance should be exercised for the purpose of controlling the financial position of a province in such a way as to prevent it going to financial disaster.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: May I ask the hon. ex-Minister of Railways if the power of disallowance was intended to be exercised by the parliament of Canada or by the government of Canada ?


John Graham Haggart: By the government of Canada. I contend that the power of disallowance is vested in the government of the Dominion to be exercised when occasion requires. How much more, then, should it be exercised when we are asked to pass legislation which, according to some gentlemen who have spoken, would enable the province to effect its own financial ruin. I am not arguing as to the merits of the arrangement at all. I do not know but what it may be a most meritorious one, enitrely in the interests of the province. But what I contend is that when we pass legislation of this kind, we are not merely empowering the provincial legislature to do a thing into the merits of which we are not required to look at all, but we are actually approving of the merits of their action. I say that the government and the House, in passing this legislation, will be perfectly responsible as to the merits of the amalgamation and the whole transaction. The Bill is not merely an empowering Bill; it is a ratifying Bill which gives us a right to look into the merits of the arrangement. That is the question I rose for the purpose of discussing.


John Graham Haggart: We have heard some discussion as to the powers of the province to enter into a bargain of that kind. I am fully of the opinion that it has power to enter into such an arrangement to secure lower rates; but 1 agree with the hon. Minister of the Interior that the power given to the provincial government in this agreement is only to fix rates within the maximum rate fixed by the Railway Committee of the Privy Council. There is something in the argument of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) that under this arrangement a rate might be made which would discriminate against another province. The Manitoba government might fix a rate from Winnipeg to Port Arthur which would be less than the rate from the boundary line of Manitoba to Port Arthur, thereby discriminating against an individual living in the province of Ontario. After we ratify this arrangement I do not see how we could correct that by any action on the part of the Dominion government. It could not say that the railway company should not discriminate against individuals or against places.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I think my hon. friend forgets that this company, in addition to being under the general Railway Act, so far as the fixing of a maximum rate is concerned, is in a special position as a contracting party with the Dominion under the Act which gave it its subsidy, and which gives the Dominion government the right from time to time to revise and control the rates.


John Graham Haggart: The Dominion government can only revise and control the maximum rate.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: It has power from time to time to revise the rates, not only to fix the maximum rate.


John Graham Haggart: That is, the Dominion government has power from time to time to revise and fix the maximum rates. Within the maximum rates the Manitoba government can under this contract make any arrangement they please in favour of Manitoba. They can make a rate from Winnipeg to Port Arthur, which shall be less than the rate from the boundary of Manitoba to Port Arthur.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The point I wanted to make was that in that event the central authority would have the right, if it saw fit, to reduce the rate from the Manitoba boundary to Port Arthur to correspond with the other rate.


John Graham Haggart: I doubt that very much.


Samuel Hughes: I would like to ask the ex-Minister of Railways also, has not the Railway Committee of the Privy

Council to-day the authority, if they find the Grand Trunk Railway taking goods from Sarnia to Montreal at a certain rate, and similar goods from Toronto to Montreal at a higher rate, to step in and say that the Toronto rate shall not exceed the Sarnia rate ?


John Graham Haggart: Yes. They have the right to say that a railway shall not discriminate against individuals or against places. I was going on to say that; hut when you ratify an agreement with the Manitoba government the principal part of which is that the Manitoba people shall have special rates, you are giving the Manitoba government the right to fix differential rates in favour of the province. Can you afterwards take away that right by saying, although the rate you are charging from Winnipeg to Port Arthur is far less than our maximum rate, you must give a like rate in Ontario from the boundary to Port Arthur ? That would be doing away with the agreement altogether. The main object of the agreement between the Manitoba government and the two railway companies is that the people of Manitoba shall have the advantage of exceptional rates, to be fixed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. An arrangement of that kind, the Manitoba government have a perfect right to make.


Samuel Hughes: The contract says that they shall have certain rates agreed on, and if these rates are exceptional, then it will be for the Railway Committee of the Privy Council to declare that the Ontario rates shall be lowered.


John Graham Haggart: Surely the railway companies have the right to make exceptional rates in favour of the people of Manitoba. What is meant by exceptional rates, is lower rates for the people of that province.
I rose merely for the purpose of expressing my dissent from the opinion expressed by the Minister of the Interior as to the liability of this government to the people with reference to this bargain. I believe that by empowering these parties to enter into the agreement, you affirm and endorse the contract on its merits. By ratifying the bargain, you affirm its merits. This is not an empowering Act. An empowering Act is one which always precedes the agreement, but this is an indenture that is completed, and into the merits of which you have the right to look before you ratify it. Your ratification of it may be only a matter of course. Very little discussion may be required before ratifying some domestic agreement which two corporations have agreed upon. Perhaps in such a case, a court would not look into the merits at all unless fraud were alleged. But when, as in this case, there is a minority which protests that their rights are being interfered with, it becomes a duty of the ratifying power to inquire into the merits before giving its sanction to the measure and to refuse its sanction unless it approves of the agreement on its merits.
As regards the power of the province of Manitoba to enter into the agreement, I am perfectly in accord with my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior. But if the province of Manitoba has not the power to enter into such an agreement, we are not capable of delegating to it any such power. Any legislation to that end would, in my opinion, be futile. We cannot divest ourselves of any power or delegate to a province any power which we possess ; and to pass any Act empowering Manitoba to enter into a contract, which she had the right to enter into of her own accord, would be simply a work of supererogation. If Manitoba had not the power to make this agreement, the agreement is null. It is legal and binding only to the extent to which the province has the power to enter into it; and any Act of ours empowering the province to do that which it cannot now do, would be nugatory. If our legislation amounts to anything at all, it is legislation confirmatory of the merits of the transaction. We are giving to railway corporations, which have their entity from this government, the right to do what they have done ; and in so doing, we ratify what they have done.
But I am inclined to think, with the Minister of the Interior, that this is a question that after all concerns Manitoba alone, and that perhaps it is not of the serious nature which some hon. members have argued it is, and will not so seriously interfere with the financial position of that province that we may be called on to come to its aid.
But let us make no mistake about it, in affirming this legislation, we are approving the whole thing on its merits, and are lending our sanction to an agreement entered into by the province and the two companies.


Mr. HEYD.: I do not propose to take up the time of the House more than a very few minutes. It appears to me that after all these laboured orations, we have to come to the gist of the whole matter, and that is that two railway corporations, the creations of this parliament, are asking us for power to enter into an agreement with a third corporation, which is independent of this parliament. And the question for us to consider is whether we are willing that these two railway companies should enter into that agreement. I do not see how we, as a Dominion parliament, have any power to go into the merits of the question at all.


Hon. Mr. TISDALE.: I wish to say a word or two on the constitutional aspect of

this question. I quite agree with my hon. friend from Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) on hoth the points made by him. I agree with him that Manitoba would have the right to preferential rates, for without these the whole agreement would fall to the ground.
I am not going into the merits of the question. I am not going to discuss whether we could prevent this preference or whether we ought to prevent it; but supposing we had the power, I maintain, that, after affirming this contract, it would be bad faith on our part to exercise it. Supposing we do retain to ourselves the power to regulate the rates, surely it would be bad faith for this parliament, after ratifying this agreement, to say to the parties: we are not going to allow you to carry out the bargain you have made. Surely it (would not be fair for us to prevent the people of Manitoba enjoying this preference, which is the only reason why they have entered into this contract at all, which we are now asked to affirm. Such rates would not be in one sense discriminating rates any more than are those rates discriminatory which we allow to-day on traffic coming from the United States through Canada, and going to the seaboard. In my opinion, once we have put our seal in approval of this contract, we are bound for ever to keep our hands off. I merely mention this so that we may know what we are voting for, and am not saying, by any means, that I am going to oppose the Bill.
The only ground taken by the government for passing this Bill is that there is nothing involved in it but the question of allowing two railway corporations to make a bargain with a province. Well, I think that this House is entitled to have an opinion from the law officers of the Crown on the point raised as to whether, in making this agreement, the province of Manitoba has exceeded its jurisdiction or not.
I believe that hon. gentlemen on the other side will not deny that under our system the government have a certain responsibility to this House. But this is a case in which we are entitled to be instructed by the law officers of the Crown as to the constitutional principles involved. We have had no such instruction. I object strongly to the government not acting up to its duty in this matter. I agree with my hon. friend from Lanark as to the responsibility the government has taken in this matter, and I believe that a large majority of the members of this House are quite prepared to authorize legislation for the carrying out of this contract. But we all ought to understand the matter. And the government ought to take the responsibility of stating the principles involved, so that in legislation of this kind we may understand thoroughly our position.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I am sure that we all listened to the hon. Minister of the Interior
(Mr. Sifton) with great pain and anxiety. He told us that after the most careful consideration of the merits of the case, he had decided to support the Bill. I presume he has spent many anxious days and several sleepless nights in considering the question before finally coming to this decision. Of course, we do not know anything of what is going on outside, and therefore we are ready to swallow without consideration the statements made by the hon. gentleman. We know, of course, that the Minister of the Interior was quite undecided, until the last moment almost, as to how he should vote on this question-and, apparently, his mind is not very clear even yet as to several things. But, after judicial examination of the question he has finally come to the conclusion that he should support the Bill. Do not we know a little more than that ? Do not we know the history of the transaction ? Do not we know the interest that the Minister of the Interior has taken in these railroad questions in the past, and with the gentlemen who are more immediately concerned with them so far as this House has understood ? But where is the government on the question ? The Minister of the Interior, after painful struggles with his conscience and intellect, has decided upon a certain course. But here is one of the greatest questions that has come before the House of Commons, a great constitutional question, a question that has not arisen before in this House in the form in which it is presented to us now. And I think we can fairly ask : Where is the government upon this question ; what are their views ? I see the right hon. First Minister and the Minister of Railways present, and they are not overly anxious, but I presume they are just waiting for the opportunity to declare the policy of the government. Well, no, I cannot say that, because the Minister of the Interior has informed us that the government is not going to speak, as a government. We know that the government, on large questions of this kind, must be a unit, they must have one decision upon the question. But they have not done so, according to what we can gather from the statement of the Minister of the Interior. I think the House and the country are fairly entitled to information from the ministers as to their attitude upon this great and important question. The Minister of the Interior told us that he does not appear as an advocate of this kind of legislation. But he did not support it. He did do that which he said in the early part of his speech he would not do-appearing as an advocate. But he spoke, apparently, only for himself and not for the other members of the government. He said : We must not discuss the merits of the Manitoba bargain. The hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd) said also that we are not concerned in considering whether it was a good bargain or a bad bargain. The Minister of the Interior says the people of Manitoba take this ground,


David Tisdale: and he approves of it, because he said : Let us settle this question for ourselves whether the bargain is a good one for the people of Manitoba or whether it is a bad one. Well, why does he not let them settle it for themselves ? What do they come here for ? In one breath he is for letting the people of Manitoba settle it for themselves, and in the next he says we must settle it for them. If we were to leave it to the people of Manitoba what would happen ? This bargain needs the ratification of the House of Commons, or they would not come here with this Bill. How would it do to leave it to the people of Manitoba to settle this question- and not deprive them of the opportunity, which, according to the Minister of the Interior, they so dearly love ? But that is not what is proposed. There are other interests affected.	There are
the great combinations and great corporations who are interested in this matter, and therefore the Dominion of Canada is called upon to legislate upon it. I can imagine the attitude of this House of Commons. When you look around you see the Conservative party well lined up and endorsing the course of the Conservative government of Manitoba. That is a natural instinct, it is a natural political sympathy. But what do you see upon the other side of the House ? The government who would dearly love to floor the government of Manitoba, our good friend the Minister of the Interior, who would be delighted if he could get an opportunity of striking back at the government of Manitoba, for whom he has told us this afternoon he has not a particle of sympathy, but who says he is compelled to-day to support the policy of the Manitoba government in this respect. But it is more remarkable still to see what other members of the government are doing-the right hon. the leader of the government sitting there silent, although as the member for Labelle told us this afternoon, sending out his whips into the corridors saying this is a party question. Then the Minister of the Interior gets up this afternoon and says this is a question not to be viewed as a party question at all. The government, I say, therefore, is whipping its supporters into line, compelling them, whether willing or not, to support the policy of the government of Manitoba.
Now, Six', so far as the Dominion interests are concerned. I contend there is no obligation resting upon the parliament of Canada to suppoi't this measure. Let the province of Manitoba make the bargain they please, we are told. Well, we are all interested in the terms that are made, and we are all interested as the member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) has told us this afternoon, in the final conclusion, because we have to assume the x'esponsibility of endorsing the bargain, whatever that bargain may be, that is made between these two railway companies, and the province of Manitoba
squeezed in between them ; and these two railway companies if we know the history of railways of this country, will do the squeezing, you may depend upon that. So I say that we are in the position of endorsing the course taken by the Manitoba government. But we are in a further position. If disaster should follow the course taken by the Manitoba government they will be able to come to this government and say : You endorsed this scheme, you made yourselves a party to it in every respect, disaster has followed, the province of Manitoba has no resources that we can fall back upon, and we are forced to come to the Dominion government, who have been partners in this transaction, and ask you to recoup the amount which may be required in order to pay the financial losses which have been incurred as a consequence. I am opposed to the bargain myself on account of the financial consideration. We were told that about $275,000 per annum were lost in the operation of these railways in Manitoba during the past yeai\ Well, if that is the case, I do not see how I can be a party to taking over a railway like that. My vote would be asked to become a party to that transaction, and I cannot see my way clear to becoming a pax-ty to a transaction by which a province takes over a railway which has lost $275,000 per annum. Then there is the construction. The road is to be bought at a price of $7,000,000. In my opinion that $7,000,000 is too much money to pay for such an extent of railroad.


Nathaniel Boyd: Is the hon. gentleman aware that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company have made an offer for the road he is speaking about, whereby they pi'opose to make to the province of Manitoba a gift of $500,000 to go into the treasury, and a reduction of rates on the present tariff which will amount to between $5,000,000 and $6,000,000 in the next ten years ? Is the hon. gentleman aware of that when he makes that statement ?


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Is that a better bargain for the province of Manitoba than this proposal 7


Nathaniel Boyd: The men who ai'e responsible for it do not think so, the legislature of Manitoba.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The people of Manitoba then have accepted another agreement.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I may say in l'eply to the question of the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) that the reason why the offer of the Canadian Pacific Railway was not accepted was that the company was so unpopular in Manitoba that no government entering into an agreement with it could live.


Nathaniel Boyd: I do not think such a reason was ever given. The Attorney General

stated that he thought this was a better bargain, and the legislature of Manitoba, by their acts, thought it was a better bargain.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I can understand that the province of Manitoba has been endeavouring to get genuine railway competition against the Canadian Pacific Railway, and between two offers on the same terms, we will say, by the Canadian Pacific Railway and by some other independent company, they would undoubtedly accept the proposal of the rival company rather than the Canadian Pacific Railway, even if the Canadian Pacific Railway's terms were better for them than those of the rival company, because they want that competition, and there is a feeling up in the North-west of hostility in that regard against the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
Now, Mr. Chairman, a point was raised here this afternoon and discussed by the member for Lanark and by the Minister of the Interior. The Minister of the Interior without a moment's consideration disposed of it off-hand by a snap of his finger and said there is nothing in that. The question is this : Suppose that the province of Manitoba agreed upon a rate, the 10-cent rate per hundred for wheat from Winnipeg and other points in the province of Manitoba to Fort William ; suppose that when the railroad comes this side of Manitoba, 120 miles this side of Winnipeg, when they would have about 300 miles to go to Fort William, a higher rate were imposed on the products of the people there than that imposed on the longer distance of 420 miles, where would be the remedy ? We would be parties to such an unfair agreement, and I refuse for myself to be a party to that unfair agreement, because I think if this government become in any way parties to an arrangement, they have got to deal with every place fairly. The province of Manitoba need not be guided by any such considerations, because they are making a bargain for the province alone, and they are not immediately concerned whether the province of Ontario this side of Manitoba is getting as good terms as they are. They are not concerning themselves about it; it is none of their affair. All they require for their own interest is to have a proper rate fixed for their own province satisfactory and suited to themselves. The hon. Minister of the Interior told us this afternoon that it does not affect the question at all, and he dropped it at that. I think it does affect the question. I think it is a matter of vital importance which should receive the consideration of the House.
Now, Mr. Chairman, there are other important features connected with this bargain. There are forty miles of railway in Minnesota where the bonding privilege can be withdrawn at a moment's notice and the railway might be unable to run. Another Mr. BOYD.
point is that the Dominion parliament, in my opinion, is abrogating its functions and handing them over to the control of one of the provinces. Some other province will, in the immediate future, ask for a similar concession. Some other province will, later on, come to us and say : We are going to exercise that privilege whether you like it or not. The Dominion parliament would not be in a position to refuse such a challenge and we will have great and important functions in the course of time handed over to the grasp of the provincial governments and of the provincial parliaments. I am an advocate of the retention of the powers of the Dominion that we possess instead of handing them over to any province-I do not care how good any province may be. I say that we are making a mistake in handing over the functions of the parliament of Canada that the Confederation Act clearly gives us to exercise.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Nathaniel Boyd: intention is to be as brief as possible. Since I have had the honour to be a member of this House I never have known a Bill to receive the consideration and attention that: this Bill has received from the Railway Committee, and I account for the patience of the Railway Committee by the fact that many legal questions were brought up which were of interest to every other province of this Dominion. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) entered into considerable detail with reference to the railway arrangements of Manitoba since the government of that province commenced the bonusing of railroads. Since 1888 the Manitoba legislature has bonused, or has aided three different pieces of railway in the province of Manitoba, namely: The Northern Pacific, the Manitoba Southwestern, and the Canadian Northern. The present idea of the Roblin government is to amalgamate these three, and to give such aid as will ensure a connection between the province and Lake Superior. With that object in view they conceived it to be a good arrangement to lease that portion of the Northern Pacific Railway system within the province of Manitoba, extending 360 miles. They have leased that, and subsequent events have shown that they made a good arrangement. Some will say: Oh, but they have lost money on this transaction in the past. Well, that is accounted for by the manner in which the Northern Pacific Company did their accounting. The practice of that company is to make a mileage charge for the repairs of their engines, their rolling stock, their road-bed, and everything else that appertains to the railway, and to that system of accounting is attributable the figuring out of the loss. There has never been any loss in the province of Manitoba. If such had been the case, the proposition which was made by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to the Manitoba government would prove quite conclusively that the bargain which the Manitoba government have made with the Northern Pacific railroad, even if they had done nothing more, is a good thing accomplished for the farmers of Manitoba. Now, what has the Canadian Pacific Railway done ? If you will allow me, Mr. Chairman, I will just quote the words of Premier Roblin in his speech before the Manitoba legislature, wherein, after speaking of the benefits which would accrue from an amalgamation of these roads, he says :
If that were not sufficient to show that we have made a good bargain, I have another reason-a testimony from one whose ability to appreciate the value of an enterprise no one will refute, and that is the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway. What does he say ? That the road is no good? That he would not take it off our hands ? That we will be embarrassed because of our inability to unload it on any other corporation ? Not at all. As soon as he learned definitely that we had se-Mr. BOYD.
cured control, he came to Winnipeg as quickly as a special train would carry him, in order to submit an offer, under his own signature as president of that great corporation-a proposition which I have before me, in which he offers a bonus of $550,000 to go into the consolidated revenue, and a reduction of rates amounting to between five millions and six millions of dollars to the farmers and consumers of the country within five years.
Now, Sir, I would like to have you bear this in mind when the opponents of this bargain tell you that it is an improvident bargain and one which the legislature of Manitoba should not have entered into. We have many figures which we could submit in support of it. The report which has been made by the Northern Pacific Railway Company to the Department of Railways and Canals, shows quite conclusively that some $950,000 worth of freight came out of and into the province of Manitoba and passed over the Northern Pacific system to and from the harbour of Duluth. I would like to call the attention of my hpn. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) who fears that^the effect of the arrangement we are now proposing will be to divert trade from Canadian into American ports, to this fact, that instead of doing that, we are by this means bringing back from American ports a trade of $950,000. Five million bushels of wheat passed over the Northern Pacific out of Manitoba and went to the port of Duluth, according to returns made to the Department of Railways. If to this $950,000 worth of freight you add $300,000 worth of local freight, which the Northern Pacific Railroad has in the province of Manitoba, you will have $1,250,000 worth of traffic, and, according to the sworn returns of the Northern Pacific Railway Company, they have managed their road for 48 per cent of the gross earnings ; and the Canadian Northern has managed theirs for less. So that you will have in that one item a profit of $600,000, to say nothing at all of the freight that will be secured on the division between Winnipeg and Port Arthur. I wish to impress that strongly on the minds of the members of this House, especially on the hon. member for Labelle, who fears that the result of this arrangement will be that we shall lose traffic from Canadian ports. The hon. gentleman may ask, as the leader of the opposition in the Manitoba legislature asked, Do you intend to build a branch into Duluth ? And he was answered by the premier of Manitoba : * So far as we were concerned, we did not care about it, but the promoters of the Canadian Northern asked for it, because they said, When we come to Port Arthur with our eastern trade, we are at the mercy, so to speak, of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and therefore, we wish to have power to get to the points east of Lake Superior if at any time they should act in a manner detrimental to our interests or unfair ' ; and I think the House will agree with me that

the Canadian Northern people were asking nothing more than any business enterprise would or should under the circumstances.
I think I have made it quite clear, first, what business the Northern Pacific Railway Company have had in the province of Manitoba, and, next, the business that will be diverted to the Canadian Northern Railroad from Duluth. I think X have shown quite conclusively that the Canadian Northern have a great asset in that.
Now, let us for a little while consider the Canadian Northern Railway Company. Under this amalgamation we shall have some 1,200 miles of railroad from Port Arthur to Manitoba, and within the province of Manitoba. Five hundred miles in Manitoba are bonded at $8,000 per mile, amounting to $4,000,000; then, there are 290 miles or thereabouts in Ontario, on which we secure the bonds, amounting to $20,000 per mile, making $5,800,000 ; or a total of $9,800,000, as the bonded indebtedness of the railway in Manitoba and eastward to Port Arthur. The average bonded debt of the Canadian Northern Railway Company will be the very small sum of $12,405 per mile, the lowest fixed charge for any road of the same size in the world. If you compare that with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, you will find that the latter's stock and bonded debt amount to $58,146 per mile, on which interest and dividends must be paid. But suppose we leave the preference shares and the common stock out of the question, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has a charge of $3.3,254 bonded debt per mile, on which, at 4 per cent, they must earn $1,330 per mile, as against $496 per mile on the Canadian Northern Railway Company and $591 per mile on the Northern Pacific lease.
Those people who are so solicitous about our future, who say that this is going to ruin the province, seem to have lost sight of the fact that the Canadian Pacific Railway have paid interest on their bonds and stocks at 4 per cent and 5 per cent. Who has paid that interest but the farmers of Manitoba ? And it may surprise this House to know that one-sixth of the whole business of the Canadian Pacific Railway is done between the boundaries of Manitoba and Port Arthur, and that the farmers of Manitoba are really paying the interest on that enormous mileage charge which forms the bonded debt of that company. Therefore, as I have shown to you, the Northern Pacific portion of this road cannot possibly fail to pay when we connect it with the Canadian Northern, and this whole system cannot possibly fail to be profitable owing to their very low bonded debt, so that I fail to see why any hon. member of this House should take such a very gloomy view of our affairs in that respect.
I regret very much that the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), who is, I believe, an old and respected member of this House, should have been misled as he
appears to have been. He tells us that this contract means $17,500,000 of an obligation, or an annual charge of $700,000 per year. It does not mean anything of the kind. I defy any man in this House to show that the debt, guaranteed by the province of Manitoba under this contract, exceeds $12,500,000. In the first place, supposing the Manitoba government bought the Northern Pacific system for $7,000,000. Adding to that amount, the bonds guaranteed for the Ontario division of the Canadian Northern, amounting to $5,800,000, on the 290 miles, no one can say that it amounts to $700,000 of an annual charge upon the province, and whoever gave that information to the hon. gentleman certainly misstated the facts. The charge on the Northern Pacific is $210,000, and as I have shown you the Canadian Pacific Railway made a very handsome offer to get that road into their hands. Well, supposing that the Canadian Northern failed to pay the bonds, what would the result be ? The road would revert to the Manitoba government, and consequently it is not likely that Manitoba would be called upon to meet any such indebtedness. Then there is the other $232,000, or 4 per cent on that $5,000,000. So that at the very outside, the whole amount chargeable is $432,000 and no more ; and any man who says it is more should be prepared to produce some figures in order to substantiate his statement. I think that I have shown that there is no likelihood of the province being called on to pay one dollar, because the Canadian Northern is a system that has been carefully and well managed up to the present. The Canadian Northern was a small system which was bonused by the Manitoba government in order to open up the territory to Lake Dauphin. And what have they done since they procured their first bonus and built their first mile of railway into that country ? In 1897, they had 100 miles of railway on which their gross earnings were $70,119, and expenses $30,858, leaving a profit of $39,260. In 1898, they did a gross business amounting to $106,698, and their expenses were $46,394, leaving a profit of $60,304. In 1899, they did a business of $161,534, and their expenses were $73,670, leaving a profit of $87,864, and in 1900. on their 330 miles of road they did a gross business of $276,858, and their expenses were $133,750, leaving a profit of $143,107 ; or, they conducted their business at an expenditure of 48 per cent on their gross earnings on their then entire system, which really is but a branch line of their present system. And when that system is connected with the Manitoba and Northern Pacific system of 360 miles and that again connected with the portion which we propose to bonus to Lake Superior, any man who wishes to give the matter any thought at all will see that it cannot help to be a profitable undertaking for the country and railway company.

Then as regards the appointment of an auditor, it is stated in the contract that the executive of Manitoba have the power to put an auditor in the office of the company, and the Manitoba legislature have taken all the powers they believe necessary in order to control the rates of freight and passengers over the whole system.
As regards the mortgage, the hon. member for Lisgar says that we should have the mortgage on the Table, but I hold here the statement of the Attorney General of Manitoba that just so soon as those companies are authorized to enter into a contract with the Manitoba legislature, that legislature will prepare its mortgage and see that the interests of the province are protected to the fullest extent. You ask to have a mortgage laid on the Table before you have any deed or bargain or anything empowering the company to give a mortgage, but so soon as the parties are authorized by this parliament to make this agreement, then the mortgage will be drawn out, and the Attorney General of Manitoba promises that the best legal advice possible will be secured to see that the interests of Manitoba are duly protected. I think, therefore, that disposes of this objection on the score of the mortgage.
A great deal has been said by the hon. members for Labelle, Norfolk, Lisgar and Winnipeg, about the deception practised upon the provincial legislature. The hon. member for Lisgar told us that the members of the Manitoba legislature are new, simple young men who might be easily bamboozled.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I said inexperienced.


Nathaniel Boyd: Well, I don't think that it is correct. The legislature of Manitoba is composed of forty members, and amongst them are farmers, lawyers, doctors and journalists ; and in intelligence, I think, they will compare with any other forty representative men that can be produced in the Dominion of Canada.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I am sure the hon. gentleman (Mr. Boyd) does not mean to misrepresent me ; but I may set him right in this matter, as any misunderstanding may lead to trouble in the future. What I said was that most of them were young and inexperienced, and unable to cope with railway financiers of the class they were dealing with. I did not reflect on the honesty or even upon the capacity of members of the legislature.


Nathaniel Boyd: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Richardson) had listened to me he would have seen reason in the nature of the bargain, as I have laid it before this House, to show that lack of experience did not stand in the way of these men. I think it has been shown that the legislature were not inexperienced, and, so far as the members of the government are concerned. I am sure hon. mem-Mr. BOYD.
bers will agree with me that they did not in any way attempt to mislead or deceive the legislature. The Minister of the Interior read some remarks by the Attorney General of Manitoba to show that that was not their intention, and that they wanted the fullest investigation of the matter on the part of the legislature. And not only that, but a member of the legislature told me that for twenty-four hours this matter was before the Conservative caucus before it was submitted to the legislature, and every part of it was thoroughly discussed by the supporters of the government. As a great deal of stress has been laid on the question of the attitude of the Manitoba government toward the legislature, I will read a few statements of the members of the government. Mr. Roblin, the premier, in the course of his remarks, said :
They were discussing

This refers to a discussion that took place in this House

They were discussing the Crow's Nest Pass Railway in the House of Commons last Monday. Mr. Oliver asked the straight question. Mr. Blair answered that what the government had done was to fix the maximum rate, which had not yet been exceeded by the company, and that this allowed the company to charge less if they saw fit.
Mr. Greenway-That does not say you have control.
*Mr. Roblin-My hon. friend does not propose to take the position that because the railway charges $4 from here to Crystal City it is prohibited from carrying my hon. friend on a pass if It chooses. (Applause.)
The Attorney General spoke as follows :
It is impossible for any question to arise under the Canadian constitution that the Canadian government may not act upon and overcome. But, Sir, we propose, in dealing with this question, and have always acknowledged that it was absolutely necessary to call in the Dominion government to aid the local government in order that the objects we have in view may be effected. There may be some points in which this government may not co-operate with us in carrying out the objects wo are after, but I do not and will not attribute any such improper motives to the Dominion government. I believe they will act with fairness and with the sole object of promoting the public weal when this question comes before them for action, as it must do shortly.
Again be says :
I desire, further, to say that the province of Manitoba does not on this occasion, nor will it cn any other occasion, try to usurp the functions . or legislative powers of tfie Dominion parliament.
Is this the language of a man who is trying to deceive the legislature, or to lead them to believe that they were getting something that they were not getting ? Again he says :
The Canadian Pacific Railway, subject to the Dominion government and the Dominion Rail-
5017	MAY 13, 1901	5018
way Act, made us an offer; the Canadian Northern, subject to the same authority, also made us an offer, and it was the duty of the government to consider which offer they should accept. I noticed that in the discussions in this House there has been no suggestion that we should have accepted the Canadian Pacific Railway offer. Then, the only proposition left was that of the Canadian Northern, and that was certainly the best under the circumstances.
This shows conclusively that they knew and acknowledged that whether dealing with the Canadian Pacific or the Canadian Northern, they were governed by the legislation of this parliament ; and in no way desired to mislead or deceive the House. Again he says :
A great deal has been said about the Dominion government not allowing us to encroach upon their rights under the Railway Act. We do not desire to encroach upon the rights of the Dominion government, and I believe when the Dominion government come to ratify this contract, as they will shortly be called upon to do, they will say, as it is proper for them to say, that they reserve to themselves to fix any amount that they like, and if the amount is less than the amount we fix no harm, is done.
Now, I think I may leave that portion of the question to the judgment of this House, because, as I said, I have endeavoured to show that we cannot possibly make a loss in regard to this transaction that has been entered into between the Manitoba government and the railway company. I have shown you that the legislators were in no way deceived, nor was the case in any way misrepresented. Hon. members in the course of their speeches in this House have seen fit to quote speeches made by members of the Manitoba legislature to show that the legislature did not understand this case. Why, Mr. Chairman, if there is one thing that the people of Manitoba do understand it is railroads and railroad laws. And for very good reason. The railroads stand between the farmers of Manitoba and their market, between the producers of Manitoba and the money they are going to make. It is necessary to their interest that they should be well posted on everything that appertains to railroads. I have shown you that one-sixth of the profits of the Canadian Pacific was paid by the farmers of Manitoba from the western boundary of the province to Take Superior. If we can pay as we have done, 4 per cent on that whole system, bonded as it is, for $54,000 a mile, is it reasonable to suppose that we cannot pay a dividend on a system bonded at $12,400 a mile ? It is all very fine for people to stand up and tell us what to do and how we ought to do it. I want to say to this House that we understand what we are doing. We know what the Canadian Pacific Railway stands for ; we know what any other railroad will stand for, if it has a monopoly as the Canadian Pacific Railway has had. As I have said before in this House, no man has been a better friend to the Canadian
Pacific Railway than I have ; I have stood up for it strongly, as well as my poor ability would allow, when they most needed it. Now they do not need it, and we do need competition. And when hon. members stand up in this House and raise objections of a merely technical character, they are not acting the part of friendship toward that people ; you cannot make the people of Manitoba believe that they are acting the part of friends of that great country.
Now, Sir, a great deal has been said about public opinion being against this Bill.
I wish to say right here that public opinion is not against it, the very opposite is the fact. Any representative of Manitoba in this House who is opposing this Bill, and will go back to his constituents on this question, will find out conclusively that he is not in accord with the wishes of the people of Manitoba. Mr. Chairman, tho whole opposition to this transaction originated with a few men whom I may call agitators in the city of Winnipeg. As some hon. members know, I was in Manitoba about the time this Bill was passing through the House, and I attended a public meeting where it is claimed the opposition to this Bill originated. I went in among the audience, and when hon. members tell this committee that the people of Winnipeg are opposed to this Bill with an overwhelming majority, I want to say that such is not the case. I must say that I never saw a more unfairly conducted meeting than that; it was a noisy meeting, there was opposition from the beginning, many men were not allowed to speak. One of the speakers was Mr. Isaac Campbell, a good speaker, a man who always gets a good hearing, and after making his speech, the chairman read this resolution, and asked those who were in favour of it to hold up their hands, and about one-third of them did so. I never heard the nays called, and while some of those men had their hands up, the chairman called the motion carried. I state that on my responsibility as a member of this House. Now they tell us that in all the public meetings that have so far been held in Manitoba the people have pronounced against this Bill. I wish to give that statement a direct contradiction. I wish to say further that the people of that province are not in accord with these hon. gentlemen. There was a circular sent out from that meeting to the mayors of several towns of Manitoba, and this is the way it reads :
Winnipeg, Man., March 16, 1901. To the Mayor of Gladstone, Man.
Dear Sir,-The accompanying resolution wa3 passed by a vote of fully five to one at one of the largest meetings ever held in the province of Manitoba. I have been asked to forward you a copy of the resolution and assist in every way to prevent tho ratification of railway legislation at Ottawa. I would suggest a public meeting to be held in your neighbourhood, and



JOHN ARBUTHNOT,

[Stage Direction]
Mayor of Winnipeg.
That is the origin of the agitation that was got up by those few people of the city of Winnipeg. In response to that call made by the mayor of Winnipeg, a meeting was held at Gladstone and a resolution was passed, not supporting it, but condemning it; a meeting was held in the town of Neepawa, not supporting it, but condemning it, a meeting was held in the town of Manitou, not supporting, but opposing it; a meeting was held in the town of Holland, opposing it; a meeting was held in the town of Carman, opposing it; a meeting was held in the town of Emmerson, opposing it; a meeting was held in the town of Gretna, opposing it; a meeting was held in the town of Cartwright, opposing it; a meeting at which 500 people were present was held in the town of Virden, only one man, after hearing the matter discussed, opposed it. So when the hon. member for Lisgar stands up and tells you, Mr. Chairman, that three-fourths or four-fifths of the people of Manitoba are directly opposed to this bargain, he is stating what the facts do not bear out, and what he cannot substantiate.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I represent a constituency in this House which sends six' members to the local legislature of Manitoba, and I have not received one letter, or one telegram, or one word of protest, from any man from that constituency, which I may say constitute one-sixth of the whole province of Manitoba. Now, is it possible that if such a feeling exists throughout the province as we are told, I should never have heard a word of it ? I believe that the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche), if he speaks to-night, will be able to give similar testimony regarding his constituency. I cannot possibly believe that these men are acting conscientiously and in the interest of their constituents in opposing this Bill. After it was discussed four days in the committee, and this is the fifth day in which It has been discussed here, and we are told that we are to be kept here all night, it is evident that if I were to prolong the debate I would be playing into the hands of those who wish to kill the Bill. I cannot believe tjiat they are impelled by public opinion in the action they are taking. Certain I am that the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Richardson) does Mr. BOYD.
not represent the wishes of those who sent him here. It is well known that the hon. member for Lisgar sits here by favour of Conservative votes, and I am certain that he is by no means representing the wishes of the people of that portion of the province, nor of any other portion of it, in his persistent opposition to this Bill. I have nothing further to remark than to say if this House, by any act on its part, goes against the wishes of the people who have been very recently elected to the legislature of Manitoba, and elected, Mr. Chairman, to give relief in regard to the traffic in grain and other merchandise in that province, it will have done an injury to Manitoba that will be felt for many a day to come.
Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Boyd) to tell me the exact title of those statutes he has just quoted.


Nathaniel Boyd: I will send them over to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa). They are the statutes for 1897 and 1899.


Mr. CHRISTIE.: Mr. Chairman, in rising it is not my intention to occupy the attention of the committee more than a few seconds. I simply desire to record my protest against this Manitoba Railway Bill. I may be mistaken, but, it does appear to me, that if this measure is sanctioned and carried out it will prove disastrous to the province of Manitoba. It will involve that province in such heavy liabilities that it must be more or less ruinous. But, that is not all. I am convinced that we, in this parliament, occupy a position of serious responsibility in regard to this question. If I understand the matter aright this measure has been amended and changed and it appears to me that it would be wise that we should delay proceedings and allow the measure that is now before us to be referred back to Manitoba for the consideration of the legislature of that province and in order that they may have an opportunity of pronouncing upon the measure which we are now dealing with. I will not further trespass upon the attention of the committee. I have just said in a single word what I think it would be wise to do.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Mr. Chairman, before the preamble is adopted, I want to say a word or two in reply to the argument that was made this afternoon by the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton). That hon. gentleman, to my mind, has made the strongest argument that could be made against the adoption of this Bill by the House. He has admitted from the start that the measure is a bad one, that if he had been called upon as a member of the Manitoba legislature to vote upon it, he would have entered his protest and his vote against it. But now, as a member of the Federal House, he is ready to vote for it. The ground

which the hon. gentleman has taken to explain his position is that we are not called upon to ratify an agreement between the government of Manitoba and a certain railway company, but that we are simply empowering that railway company, which has no existence unless it is under our jurisdiction, to enter into an agreement with the Manitoba government, while the Manitoba government remains free to carry out the agreement if it likes. Here is a bargain which cannot exist unless it is signed by two parties, one of whom is the Manitoba government and the other the railway company. That bargain cannot be made unless this parliament empowers the railway company to enter into an agreement, and we are told that we have no responsibility in regard to the bargain. The hon. gentleman told us that the province had the sole power to assume the financial obligations if it liked, and therefore, that the provincial House of Assembly in Manitoba is the only body to-day that can legislate for Manitoba, or something to that effect. At all events, the point that he made would lead the House to believe that if this Bill is passed the Manitoba government may enter into any agreement it likes, and that, therefore, the people of Manitoba will get their rights. The hon. gentleman appealed to us not to interfere with the wishes of the people of Manitoba. But, Sir, if we are responsible for the action of the railway company who will be a party to the agreement, surely the hon. Minister of the Interior will not deny that the bargain cannot be entered into upon any other terms than upon the terms that the railway company will get power to enter into in virtue of this legislation. And therefore, although we have no direct power to legislate for Manitoba, still, we have a direct influence upon the bargain itself, because the bargain cannot be concluded between the parties unless we allow one party to conclude a bargain in such and such a way. Now, the hon. Minister of the Interior passed very quickly over the question of the mortgage, and he did well too. As far as that question is concerned the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) referred to some preceding statutes. There is something very peculiar about this Bill. It is that the more we go Into it and the more authorities are quoted by the supporters of the measure the stronger they make the case against it. The hon. gentleman has quoted two statutes of this parliament, one, chapter 49, 60-61 Vic., in respect to the Lake Manitoba Railway and Canal Company.
The second clause of that Bill is in favour of the contention we have been making all along. It says :
The mortgage (a copy of which is set out in schedule B of this Act) and the bonds and debentures secured thereby, are hereby sanctioned and confirmed and declared to be binding as therein expressed.
I
There we had remedied the very defect we are pointing out in this legislation. We complain tof the absence of the mortgage which has been declared by the government of Manitoba to form part of the agreement, and to be construed with it, whilst in the Act quoted by the hon. member (Mr. Boyd), the mortgage is produced and is ratified by the legislation of this parliament. The other Act relied on by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Boyd) is an Act respecting the Canadian Northern Railway (Chap. 57, 62-63 Vic.) and the second clause says :
The mortgage set out in schedule B to this Act is hereby declared to be valid, binding and effectual according to the terms thereof, and the same may be enforced as therein provided as fully and effectually as if the said terms were embodied in this Act.
Therefore in the two Acts cited by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Boyd), the very thing is embodied which we complain is absent from this Bill. The parliament of Canada knew upon what terms they were legislating, and the people of Manitoba were bound only by the straight terms of the contract which contains the mortgage. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Boyd) has referred to the speech of the Attorney General of Manitoba in support of this Bill, but let us see what occurred. Speaking of this mortgage, objection was taken by Mr. Young, of Deloraine, who said that they were called upon to pass an agreement part of which was to be completed by the mortgage, and the least they could ask for was to see the mortgage before they ratified the bargain. Here is a report of the language used :
Mr. Young-If we are a party to that mortgage, we should certainly know what is in it.
Attorney General-Although that Is an Interruption, I wifi answer the hon. gentleman. No mortgage would be taken until the parties were in a position to give a good title, and, Sir, the Canadian Northern cannot give _ us a good title until the Dominion government say that they have that title, and until is ha3 received the endorsation of the Dominion parliament. They cannot give us that title until they have the authority of the Dominion parliament, and I think that will be sufficient answer to the hon. gentleman's objection. And now let me say here, lest I forget it, that not only does the government of this province intend that the contract as amended by this statute shall receive the endorsation of the Dominion parliament, but we intend, and have notified the company, that we will not part with one dollar of bonds until the Dominion government have ratified the mortgage they propose to take, so that when our title is given it will be absolute and not open to question from any possible source.	,
The next morning the organ of the government published the opinion of the legal adviser of the Manitoba government; the very gentleman who came to this House and told us that the Manitoba government was satisfied with the Bill as we were ready to pass 1 it; the very gentleman whom the Minister

of the Interior invoked as an authority this afternoon. He gave several reasons, in support of the positions taken by tinj Manitoba government, and his Gtli reason was as follows :
The Bill now before the Manitoba legislature intituled * An Act confirming a certain agreement respecting certain railways and respecting freight and passenger rates,' is sufficient with respect to the government and the three companies having provincial charters, and if similar legislation be passed by the parliament of Canada nothing more will be required to make the contract, including clause S, fully effectual, and to enable the transaction contemplated by the lease and contract to be carried out.
Here are the two declarations of the Attorney General of Manitoba, here is the opinion of their legal adviser that the contract would not be complete until the Federal government had ratified both the agreement and the mortgage. The mortgage is held out as the only guarantee which the Manitoba people had that their interests would be safeguarded, but that clause we have put aside in the committee, and we have simply left in the clause of the primary agreement which takes from the Manitoba government the right to complete the agreement. Are we to be told now that the Manitoba government remains free to make this bargain the way they like ? The hon. gentleman thought he had made a strong point when he said there was no agreement; that this was not the ratification of an agreement, but that it was an Act to give power to certain railway companies to enter into an agreement. But, by that argument, the hon. gentleman has made his position worse and has made the position of those who are going to support the Bill worse, because in supporting it they pretend that they are carrying out the wishes of the people of Manitoba. If the two contracts, the one between the Manitoba government and the Northern Pacific on the one hand, and the contract between the Manitoba government and the Canadian Northern on the other, are null because these railway companies have not asked the power from the proper authority to sign this agreement, then I say that we are giving birth to a new agreement. It is very true that the legislature of Manitoba has given to the government of Manitoba the right to add to that contract, but the railway companies have no power to accept any addition. The railway companies are bound by every article of the legislation we are going to pass, and the Minister of the Interior will not deny that fact. Whatever may be the powers of the legislature of Manitoba or of the government of Manitoba, the railway companies cannot sign any agreement going beyond the powers which we consent to give them by this legislation. I think the hon. Minister of the Interior, with all his skill and ability, will not be able to get around that point, for the very good reason


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: that I gave this afternoon. It is impossible to adopt legislation of this kind and make it sound. On the one hand, if you give to a province everything it wishes, you take from this parliament and this government powers that belong to them; but if you want to go half way, and satisfy provincial wishes and federal rights at the same time, you make absurd legislation.
Then, the hon. Minister of the Interior said that the point raised about the possibility of the Federal government interfering with the Manitoba government's control of rates in order to force them to raise rates instead of lowering them, was childishly absurd. That was not very complimentary to the Minister of Railways and Canals, who told the committee in so many words that that was the greatest point in regard to this legislation, and that it might cause a clash between the provincial government and the Federal government. Therefore, if I am childish in that, I am of the same age as the Minister of Railways and Canals. The hon. Minister of the Interior went pretty far on that line. He said that the sugges tion that the Federal government and the Railway Committee of the Privy Council would interfere with the power of the government of Manitoba to reduce rates, and would force them to raise x-ates, was perfectly absurd, and that such interference would not be justifiable. The hon. gentleman quoted words of the Attorney General of Manitoba which were an extract from the words which I quoted this afternoon ; but the difference is that I read the whole speech of the Attorney General upon the question, while the counsel for the government of Manitoba read a part of it in the Railway Committee, the Minister of the Interior read another part of it, and the hon. member who spoke last read another part. Of course each chose the part favourable to his contention. But if that speech has any authority at all on the legal bearing of this question, you must take the whole speech. You must not set aside the part I read this afternoon, on which the opposition of the Board of Trade of Winnipeg was withdrawn, that is, the part which stated that the government of Manitoba were securing absolute control of the rates. The hon. gentleman modified it a little, but not on the point I raised, which the Minister of Railways and Canals admitted involved the greatest difficulty, and might be the cause of a clash between the federal and provincial authorities. The Attorney General of Manitoba never touched that point; and when the hon. Minister of the Interior, representing the province of Manitoba, is called upon to give his opinion here on that point, he simply says it is childishly absurd. If I were the only man who raised that point, as I am accustomed to be treated in that way, I might admit it to be childishly absurd ; but when a colleague of the hon. gentleman's, the very man who

has jurisdiction over railway matters in this parliament, has said that it is the gravest point in this legislation, it is not sufficient, in order to dispel the argument, to say that it is childishly absurd. The hon. minister will not deny-in fact, he admitted this afternoon, and made a point of it-that the people of Manitoba are very touchy on these questions-that for years back they have been endeavouring to secure control of rates for freight and passengers in their province ; and he said l * Though the legislation is bad, and though I would have voted against this Bill in the legislature of Manitoba, I am asking the parliament of Canada to vote for the Bill, because, should we refuse to do so, the people of Manitoba would feel hurt in their love for provincial institutions, and would resent very strongly the interference of the Federal government.' That is exactly the point I was making on another occasion-that, in order toi avoid a temporary agitation which might result from our refusing this Bill, we are simply opening the door to a much more dangerous .agitation, We are now called to sanction a Bill that was secured by the legislature of Manitoba, after1 some discussion, and at a price which everybody admits to be very high for the sole purpose of getting lower rates ; and when the Minister of Railways and Canals tells us that a time may come when the government of Canada may be called on to interfere with those rates and force the province to raise them, the responsibility falls the more heavily on our shoulders. Does the Minister of the Interior think that the province of Ontario has no rights, or that the province of Quebec has no rights, or that the Federal government, whose duty it is to protect the interests of this country at large, would have no right to interfere with Manitoba and say : Do not interfere with the general trade of this country. The hon. gentleman said it was not the intention of the government of Manitoba to discriminate against anybody by this Bill. But when you put into the hands of a political body powers which should not belong to it, you must not treat that question from the same point of view that you would if the same powers were given to a private individual under your jurisdiction. If the people of Manitoba would resent our interference so much now, what would be the case after they had secured the right to fix rates ? Suppose they had the right to send the whole of the produce of Manitoba to American lines, and suppose we asked that redress should be given by the Federal government, the province of Manitoba would then resent much more strongly our interference than it would now. The hon. gentleman has repeated a quotation from the speech of the Attorney General of Manitoba to prove that the people of Manitoba expected this parliament to legislate on the matter. Therefore, if we should vote against this legislation, 15S
we would be simply doing something which the people of Manitoba expect and consider we have the power to do. Suppose we should throw aside this legislation because it is against the interest of the people at large, because it may be the cause of a conflict between one of the provinces and the Dominion, then we have sound ground for refusing to confirm the legislation. I do not care what language is used to describe our action ; let it be called ratification or granting power to the provincial government to enter into an agreement. Whatever the language is, the meaning is clear, that you put into the hands of a provincial government a power which may be used at any time against the general interests of Canada. In order to avoid a temporary agitation, you are sowing the seeds of a much more serious one. But. says the hon. the Minister of the Interior, neither the government of Manitoba nor the minority of the Manitoba legislature have protested against the Bill in its present shape. But when we find the Attorney General giving expression to two entirely different opinions on the same question in the same speech, it is not surprising that the members of the Manitoba legislature should not come to this parliament and ask us to refuse this legislation. The very reason why the government of Manitoba accept this legislation, and why the minority in that province, which voted against the Bill, will not protest against it, is the one pointed out by the Minister of the Interior. It is the feeling of provincialism which has been excited in that province for years back by both parties in their attempts to gain popular favour by narrowing the minds of the people. They have done this in matters of education and railroad policy. They have tried to make the people of Manitoba believe that in public matters, it is Manitoba first and all the rest of the Dominion after. But are we here to give away to any current of small local prejudice that may arise in any one province or another ? The Minister of the Interior has stated that he would be prepared to act in a similar way towards any other province. If so, he may find himself placed in a very awkward position. Suppose the province of Ontario should ask us to give her power to regulate the rates on the Car adian Pacific Railway running through that province, and on a certain part of its mileage in Manitoba, you would have the spectacle of one province imposing discriminatory rates on the railway mileage running within its own limits, and even on a portion of that mileage in the limits of a neighbouring province. The very basis of such legislation is absurd, and its absurdity proves how false a policy it would be for this parliament and government to divest themselves in any way of their sovereign jurisdiction on the transport system of this country. The moment we consent to an



agreement of this kind, let the reason be what it may, we are establishing a precedent that will impair federal control over railway matters. If any particular province deems itself subjected to any injustice in connection with our railway system, that province has the right to exercise its pressure upon this parliament in order to have its grievances remedied; and even if you should fail to apply the remedy, that is no reason why we should divest ourselves of our jurisdiction and power, and hand them over to a subordinate jurisdiction.
The principle of this legislation is a bad one. It is the principle of decentralization, so far as the administration of railways is concerned. If it be found that this parliament is not prepared to stand by its rights and keep in its own hands the control that properly belongs to it, we may have a different jurisdiction in each province so far as transportation is concerned. Freights and passengers, as they pass through each province, will find themselves subject to different jurisdictions and different laws. And if we are going to give each province the control over the railway mileage that runs through it, how could we refuse it the control of its own canal mileage. We may be called upon to give the province of Quebec the control of the ship channel, and to give every province the control of the harbours and rivers and canals in that province.
It may be argued that this matter before us is only a private one upon which the people of Manitoba have come to a decision. But we know the strength of a precedent in any British parliament; and the moment you grant this legislation in favour of Manitoba, the first time another province asks for similar legislation that precedent will be quoted against us. We may declare and reiterate as strongly as we please that the legislation asked for is vicious in principle: we will be met by the reply that at the time we passed the Bill now before us, we did so, although everybody in the House, with scarcely an exception, admitted that the bargain was a bad one and should not have been consented to by the province. If, therefore, we defer to the wish of a province in this matter, although we are convinced that the province is asking for something which is not in its interests, how can we refuse to accede to a similar request from any other province ? We cannot apply two standards to our legislation.
Coming back to the question of our responsibility as federal legislators, I maintain that having taken from the government of Manitoba, as we have done, the power to introduce into the bargain the safeguards they promised to embody in it, they will have the right to call on us subsequently for damages. It is no use in our raising legal quibbles about our inability to increase or decrease the powers of the Mr. BOURASSA.
Manitoba legislature. It is no use playing on words. The moment we have authority over one of the parties to the bargain and give our consent to it, we become a party to it. And the party over whom we have authority, and whom we authorize to enter into the agreement, cannot consent to any change in that agreement subsequently, but is limited by the authority we give it. Therefore, should the Manitoba legislature desire to amend this agreement in any way, what would be the result ? The representative of the railway companies would reply: It is all very well, and we are ready to consent to the changes you propose, but the parliament of Canada, from which we get our power to act, has not given its consent to those changes and we are debarred from consenting to any variance from the contract as it passed the Dominion parliament. The Canadian Northern will only rqonsent to an agreement drawn in conformity with the federal statute; and if the government of Manitoba should want to add any clause to that agreement, the attorney of the company will say that any change will render the contract null, because that change has not had the consent of the federal power. The company will urge that it can only consent to a mortgage based on the agreement as it passed the Federal parliament. This government and parliament, therefore, will justly be held responsible, because by our amendments to the Bill we have limited the powers of the railway company to consent to any change in the mortgage. And, after this Act has gone Into operation, if it is found not to do what was expected, if, on the contrary, it is found to produce the evils predicted by the hon. member for Lisgar and North Norfolk, and by the Minister of the Interior himself, who said this afternoon that if he had been a member of the Manitoba legislature he would have voted against it, we will be called upon to foot the bill.
If the Bill when applied should produce the evils that are contemplated by some of the men who are voting for it, and who are asking us to support it, the people of Manitoba have a right to come and say : You have prevented the Canadian Northern from consenting to the clauses we had contemplated for our protection ; therefore, if today we are ruined by the Canadian Northern, it is your fault, and you must repair our fortunes. And from what we know of the spirit of Manitoba, as it was spoken of by the Minister of the Interior, we know that they will make their complaint good. They have already asked for an extension of the limits of their province, they have already asked us to give them the Crown lands within their boundaries. Up to this time we have kept control of the lands and have assumed certain obligations because of that fact. So far as giving the administration of these lands over to Manitoba is concerned, I am

ready to agree to the principle ; but I would not assent to carrying that out, nor, I think would any member in this House, except on condition that the Manitoba government should compensate us for some of the works that we have carried on in Manitoba, because we were the owners of these lands. But if we put them in a position to be ruined financially by this Bill, they will be in a position to say that it is because of the limitations we have put on their legislation, and, therefore, we must compensate them and give them their lands. And the Minister of the Interior will be the first to push their claim. The hon. gentleman might be right in standing up for the rights and interests of his province. But we, the representatives of other parts of the country, are in duty bound to refuse to consent to injurious legislation by sheltering ourselves under false pretenses, to legislation that would compel a province to come and ask for further cpm-pensation because we have been the cause of their ruin. I expected from the hon. Minister of the Interior a strong argument on the case. I thought that he would tell us that the bargain was a good one, and that we ought to support it, in which case I would have withdrawn my opposition, though I still might have had my suspicions as to the method of this bar-gain. He tells us that the legislation is bad, but because we do not threaten legally the powers of the legislation of Manitoba we are not changing the bargain. I can only wonder what he thinks of relieving the other party from the obligation to conclude its bargain. It looks to me as if the hon. gentleman, who is a skilful politician, was looking in expectation that trouble would attend the future course of the Manitoba government, because of this bargain. It is perhaps his right and his duty to do all he can to defeat the government of Manitoba ; but this should not be done at the expense of the peace and prosperity of the province and the whole country. The hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) has accused us of obstruction and of seeking to defeat the Bill. My position is perfectly plain and a clear one. I voted against it in committee, and I am ready to vote against it at every stage. I am willing to vote for the six months' hoist. The legislation is bad, and I am against it. And if we are forced by the majority to adopt the principle of the Bill, I think I have a right, without being called an obstructionist, to ask that the government should enlighten the House as to its position and to ask for explanation of several clauses as they come up. I am opposed to the preamble * of the Bill. And when it comes to clause 3, I shall move that amendment of which I have given notice. The discussion so far has brought out valuable expression of opinion. The hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart), ex-Minister of Railway and Canals, though he declined to oppose the Bill in committee as well as in the House, has had the courage 13S*
at least to take his full share of responsibility. He pointed out also that there was danger of a clash between the authority of the Dominion and the authority of the province. So it would appear that all the speeches we have made have not been lost, since it gave the hon. gentleman, after a week's reflection, the opportunity to come and speak his mind. I hope the discussion that goes on in the future will have the further effect that we may learn where the majority stand. We shall then know why this measure is adopted. Some say it should be adopted because the people want it. Some say it should be adopted because there is no danger in it, and some because we are keeping to ourselves everything the keeping of which would prevent a clash. There is a good deal of difference in these opinions, but I hope that there will be some unanimity before the House is called upon finally to sanction this bargain.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. I do not wish to make any lengthy remarks upon this measure, which not only has been discussed here, but has been adopted in the committee. While I shall not say I have admiration for the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), I must congratulate him on the courage he has shown since the beginning of this session in espousing causes that are really in need of being espoused by the minority, I cannot congratulate him upon the consistency he has shown in this case ? In the first place the hon. gentleman has tried to impress the House with the idea that Manitoba in making this contract was not getting what she expected to get, that is control of railway rates, and, therefore, this House was in duty bound to refuse the legislation which is now asked, because we then would be protecting the interests of Manitoba. The latter part of his speech was altogether to the contrary effect; he was opposed to this legislation because, he said, he was opposed to the centralization of power so far as railway administration is concerned; that is to say. be was opposed to thiu legislative body delegating its powers to the local legislature. Well, if there is in reality a delegation of legislative power from this parliament to the local legislature of Manitoba, it follows that the legislature of Manitoba will get some kind of jurisdiction over railway matters in that province, and that is exactly what is asked for by the legislation that has been passed in Manitoba. What are we now to decide ? We are now called upon to authorize two railway companies to be parties to a deal that they are to enter into with the province of Manitoba. We have nothing to do with regard to the province of Manitoba, the province is not a party to this question; and I believe that it would be outside our province to dictate to the legislature of Manitoba as to their duties. WTe are not here to interfere with the autonomy of that province, that auto-

norny is well safeguarded by the constitution; and only in cases where the constitution provides for our interference, and where any act of the local legislature would be antagonistic to the general policy of the central power, has this parliament or government any right to interfere with the action of that local legislature or any other in the Dominion of Canada. Therefore, 1 say that when we take into account the rights and privileges of the province acting by her legislature, we are going outside of our domain, outside of our jurisdiction, and we have no right to discuss the action of the local legislature, inasmuch as that action does not interfere with the general policy of this government.
In the present case does the legislation that is now asked for interfere with our rights and privileges ? Not in the least, because the power that the local legislature will exercise by the bargain they have made with these railway companies in no way interfere witli the power of the federal authorities in fixing the maximum rate that will be imposed by the railway company. The Federal government here will still continue to exercise its right as to the maximum rate, but it will not prevent the province of Manitoba or any other province under similar circumstances from dealing with one or more companies in order to secure lower rates, if they can secure them, because it will not interfere with the maximum rate that will have been established by the federal authority. I think, therefore, it is obvious to any one who will look into this question with a broad mind, that in passing this legislation we are not interfering with the powers that are vested in the central authority here; and on the other hand, if we were to refuse that legislation, we would interfere with the liberties of the local legislature. Now, I say we have no right to interfere with the local legislature until such time as they go beyond their constitution and jurisdiction, until such time as their action interferes with the Federal parliament. With regard to other matters, as I have said already, there is in the constitution some clauses whereby7 in certain cases the provinces are subjected to the jurisdiction of the central power. Therefore, I say it is the duty of this parliament, aftet having looked into this question, to accept the legislation that has been reported to us by the Railway Committee.
Now with regard to public opinion, though I do not believe we should for a moment take any notice of all that has been said about it, still we cannot get over the fact that this legislation was passed by the Manitoba legislature after a general election. and it expresses the wishes of the people of that province regardless of political proclivities. The mass of the people are undoubtedly in favour of this legislation. I know it is contended that there is some opposition, but it is claimed that the opposi-Mr. LaRIVIERE.
tion is much stronger than we on this side at least believe it to be.
But, Sir, it is not a fact. I know something about it. I have received more than one hundred letters from my constituents favouring the passage of this measure and I have yet to receive a single letter from my constituents opposing it. Therefore, I may say that I think it is plain that in this House I am carrying out the wishes of the mass of the people that I have the honour to represent. My hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) has been trying to explain how it was that the minority in the local legislature of Manitoba did not protest against this legislation. When the vote came for the passage of this Bill, what was the result ? Two of the. leading members of the opposition abstained from voting. They left the Chamber and they would not vote because they were in favour of the Bill,' and they did not like to vote with the government side. That is a matter of politics and it does not prove that they were against the Bill. On the contrary, it proves that they wanted to facilitate its passage. I am informed that two more said openly that if their votes had been required they would have voted for it, so that there were about half a dozen members left who never said anything and who silently opposed the Bill by merely casting their votes. Not one of them ever petitioned this parliament or protested against this legislation, so that I may say, even in the local legislature, there was a large majority of members in favour of this measure. But, Sir, if there were anything wrong I would not claim that this would be sufficient for us to pass the legislation that is asked for. Is there anything wrong ? I have made a careful study of this contract. For a long time I avoided expressing an opinion upon it because I wanted to be perfectly convinced that everything was right, and I have come to the conclusion that the action of the province of Manitoba, though a daring one, and in the west whenever there is something to be undertaken we are daring, we are progressive, is the best thing that Manitoba could do under the circumstances. I therefore hope that this measure will not be subjected to any factious opposition, and that, having carefully considered the question, as it has done, both in the Railway Committee and in the committee of the whole, without any party bias, the House will vote for this Bill. It is not a ministerial question, it is not a political question, it is a question of jurisdiction, of administration, a question that will tend to promote the welfare of the people of Manitoba and the North-west Territories. Well, Sir, how is it that the majority of lion, members on both sides of the House, coming from the west, are in favour of this legislation, throwing away all their party ideas and uniting together to secure the passage of this legislation which is considered to be beneficial in the best interests of

the west ? This alone would be sufficient in my mind to satisfy lion, members coining from other provinces that in this matter we are acting in a patriotic way, not only for the best interests of the province of Manitoba and the North-west Territories, but for the whole Dominion, because the success of Manitoba and the west is of the first importance to the whole country.


Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).: Mr. Chairman, it was not my intention to engage in the *discussion of the subject-matter of this Bill until about an hour ago, as I felt that the Bill, having been before the committee and having been so fully discussed both in the Railway Committee and in this House, thus far by lion, members on both sides, I could add but very little of an original character, or of an instructive character to the debate. Lest, however, my silence should be misconstrued by those who, probably, are not as well posted as to the sentiments of the people of Manitoba touching this ques tion as those of us from the west are, and lest some of these impressions that are sought to be conveyed by the bon. gentlemen who are opposing the Bill should be taken for granted as being a true expression of the feeling of that province, I desire in as hurried and succinct a manner as possible, to place myself on record in support of the measure. I think it is rather a curious combination that has taken place of those who are opposing the Bill. Whom do we find ? In the first place we have the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourn ssal yoked with the hon. member for West York (Mr. Wallace). I think the committee will admit that that is a very curious combination and we usually do not find them working together. As for the hon. member for Labelle, of course, we are accustomed to look upon that hon. gentleman as rather erratic and we can excuse a great deal in an hon. gentleman of his temperament and egotism, but, we are a little surprised at tile hon. member for West York, because he is usually a very level-headed business man and not usually open to the charge of setting himself up in a position of being able to judge and to discriminate as to what is right and proper in the interests of tlie people of Manitoba more than those who are the representatives of that province. I can easily see that he has been misled and has not given this question that careful scrutiny and study that he generally gives to the questions that he discusses on the floor of this House. He has read some figures that completely gave him away as not being thoroughly posted upon the matter. Then, we have tlie hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), an hon. gentleman who is such a staunch patriot and such a strong supporter of the rights of the province of Manitoba that he got up on the floor of this House a few weeks ago and endeavoured to have a duty placed upon lumber in the
interests of those suffering residents of that western country. Then, we have the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Richardson), a gentleman who has been talking for many years past in the public press against this great Canadian Pacific Railway monopoly that the country was suffering under and claiming, that, in connection with any aid that should be given by the Manitoba government for the construction of any new railways in that province, we should have some compensation, something in return by way of reduced freight rates, or control over freight rates, or government owuersmp of railways. Now he is doing his best by argument in this House to produce the impression upon the members of the House that it is absolutely impossible for the province of Manitoba to secure the fixing or control of rates, a most contradictory policy which he has been following out with the hon. members who agree with him. Then, we have the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr, Puttee), with his running mate the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Smith), the president of the Trades and Labour Congress. These hon. gentlemen constitute the main opponents of this Bill. But, what is the objection they raised to this Bill at the outset ?
The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Richardson) can tell this House that the peojile in western Canada have been for years crying out against-whether rightly or wrongly it is not for me to say at present-against the monopoly enjoyed by the Canadian Pacific Railway. The people of the west have voted more than $700,000 in cash in years gene by for the introduction of the Northern pacific into that province to ensure competition against the Canadian Pacific Railway. Hon. members will recollect that when that Bill was going through the local legislature, it was declared by the then Prime Minister of the province, that he had a maximum rate fixed, and would guarantee that this maximum rate would not be exceeded in the taking of merchandise and wheat especially, out of the province. When that letter was published, showing that the only agreement entered into was that the Northern Pacific would not charge higher rates than the Canadian Pacific Railway, did we find the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Richardson) opposing the Bill, and calling upon the government to dissolve the legislature and go to the country to get the approbation of the people of that province ? Did we hear him telling tlie people that they were being misled, and that the Bill would never have passed the legislature had the people pronounced their opinion upon it ? No. On the contrary, he supported the Bill by his voice and by his pen. and he never called upon the local government to do what he is now asking this parliament to do. The Northern Pacific came into that province, and time has proven that while it lias been

beneficial to a certain extent in tbe district in which it operates, it certainly has not met in full the expectations of the people of that country. They have entered into a pooling arrangement with the Canadian Pacific Railway to charge the same rates for equal distances, and so not long ago negotiations were opened up with the president of the Northern Pacific with a view to having a line to Duluth. But the proposition made by the president of that road was such that it did not commend itself to the Manitoba legislature. In the first place he desired the province to enter into a partnership with them to build the line to Duluth in consideration of a reduction of rates, but the building of that road would entail a cash bonus of from four million to five million dollars, and the people of the province objected to that; some objected on the ground of sentiment, because it would help to build up a foreign port; others objected that it was entailing too great a liability on the province, because we were sure of being called upon to pay this four millions or five millions for the construction of the road. The management of the Northern Pacific refused to extend its line in the province of Manitoba, refused to reduce its rates, and under these circumstances the government had to find another remedy for the grievances of the people. They opened up negotiations with the Northern Pacific in order to take that line off their hands. Last year the owners of the Canadian Northern Railway attempted to purchase this line, I understand, and were blocked by the Canadian Pacific Railway. The government, however, entered into negotiations with the same company this year, and this contract with the Northern Pacific is the outcome. We now hear these gentlemen who are opposing this Bill talking about the great liability which the province is assuming in taking over the Northern Pacific, and they state it only cost four million dollars to construct that road. They say that the province is entailing a charge of seven million dollars for the taking over of that road. This is an entire misrepresentation of the facts. The Manitoba government have not paid seven million dollars for that road. They are not paying a single dollar for that road. They have the option of purchasing that line for seven million dollars at any time within thirty years, but is that a charge upon the province ?


Robert Lorne Richardson: They are paying interest on it.


William James Roche: They are not paying interest. They are guaranteeing the interest, but we claim the road will be a paying road itself.


Robert Lorne Richardson: They guarantee to pay a rental to the Northern Pacific which would amount to the interest on seven million dollars.


William James Roche: 


William James Roche: And whatever they guarantee to pay, the Canadian Northern guarantees to pay the Manitoba government the very same.


Robert Lorne Richardson: If the road pays.


William James Roche: 
Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: That is without the interest on the cost of construction.


William James Roche: Those are the total expenses and the total earnings. The hon. gentleman must remember that they are paying interest on some $8,500,000 of a capitalization.


Robert Lorne Richardson: But. they do not charge interest in this estimate.


William James Roche: No. But the hon. gentleman will see that the working expenses in connection with the Northern Pacific branch, run as a portion of the Canadian Northern, will be far less under the proposed arrangement than it would be under the Northern Pacific.


Robert Lorne Richardson: It might lose less.


William James Roche: There is another reason why the government handed this over to the Canadian Northern. The Greenway government had already guaranteed the bonds for $8,000 per mile to the extent of some $4,000,000. They had already guaranteed to Mackenzie & Mann for the road already constructed some $4,000,000 of its bonds. Now, were the government going to enter into an arrangement-that is why some of the people objected-with the Northern Pacific line to assist them
5037	MAY 13, 1901	5038
to the tune of some four or five-million dollars to enter into competition with the Canadian Northern, to which the province was already pledged for some four or five million dollars ? Would not the government naturally assist the line that the credit of the province had already been pledged to ? As I stated, this road will not be in arrears, and will earn to much better advantage under the Canadian Northern management than it would under the Northern Pacific management. As an instance of the manner in which the working expenses have been made up during the past year, it is only necessary for me to repeat what was stated in the Manitoba legislature, namely : That the working and the repair of engines alone amounted to $82,913.41 last year, and all they have are nine standard engines. Is it not ridiculous to suppose that the working and repairing of these engines cost nearly $83,000 '! You could almost purchase new engines for that amount. It is simply because these working expenses were taken, not as a branch line, but as a portion of the main system of the Northern Pacific, that they have been found to be running in arrears during the last few years. If this is such a bad bargain for the province as some would make out, and if the Northern Pacific road is not a paying enterprise, is it not strange that Mr. Shaughnessy, that shrewd business man and the magnates of the Canadian Pacific Railway-these gentlemen whom the hon. member for Lisgar is so fond of holding up to the condemnation of the public as monopolists, who have made their money out of the poor working farmers of the North-west -is it not strange that these gentlemen were foolish enough to offer the Manitoba government to take over the road on the very same terms that the government were giving to the Northern Pacific, and to give the Manitoba government a cash bonus of over $550,000 besides ? I rather think that the Canadian Pacific Railway would not make such an offer as that unless they thought it would pay them. Besides that, they gave a pledge to the government to reduce freight rates to such an extent as to afford a saving to the people of Manitoba during the next five years of $5,000,000. Were the Canadian Pacific Railway magnates aware of the very bad bargain which they were making when they made such an offer as that to the Manitoba government ? I think that is sufficient evidence that the Northern Pacific end of the deal is not a bad one, from the government point of view.
Now, we are told that the road is not worth $7,000,000. that it only cost about $4,000,000. But these gentlemen surely will not argue that that road could be purchased to-day for what it was built for. Has not the road improved ? Has not the country through which it passes improved ? Have the company not built splendid stations and given facilities for the shipment of grain which did not exist before ? Have they not created traffic and made the property a more valuable asset to themselves ? So that necessarily they would ask more for it to-day than the mere cost of the construction of the road. But the government are not buying the road for $7,000,000. They simply have an option to purchase it at any time within thirty years, an option which Mackenzie & Mann take over from them.
So far as the Ontario and Rainy River section is concerned, the government guarantee the interest on the bonds to the amount of $20,000 per mile on 290 miles at 4 per cent half-yearly. That involves an annual charge of $232,000 on that section. The government also assume the rental of the Northern Pacific for ten years at $210,000 per year. Add these two together, and you have the total liability of the province, which amounts to $442,000 per annum. In return for that, they have what ? The fixing of the rates. I am not going to enter into an elaborate legal argument to prove that the province has the constitutional right to enter into this contract. That has been thoroughly threshed out. and that I think should be the only question to be discussed in this House. The merits of the bargain in my opinion are for the legislature of Manitoba to discuss, and not this House. My hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) and my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Richardson) have taken the stand, though they are laymen like myself, that the province has not the constitutional right to enter into such an agreement. With regard to the control of rates, what is the contention ? While the province is liable for $442,000 in connection with these two systems, they are only liable for that after the interest and working expenses are paid, these being a first lien on the earnings of the roads. In return for that, they receive the absolute control of rates by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. They simply take the place of the railway directors, who enjoy the privilege of fixing the rates subject to the maximum rate ordered by the Governor in Council. After fixing that rate, the government have not a dollar of unsecured liability until after the rates are reduced to 10 cents per 100 pounds on wheat and 15 per cent on general merchandise. They have a mortgage on the road, and if the company defaulted, under a provision of the mortgage the government could foreclose the mortgage and obtain possession of the road. Thus we would have what the hon. member for Lisgar has been so long preaching, the government ownership of railways.


Robert Lorne Richardson: But the Minister of Railways assures us that under the constitution the province cannot own a railway outside of the province.


William James Roche: I have not heard the hon. Minister of Railways state

that in this House. The hon. member for Lisgar and some other hon. gentlemen have accused the Minister of Railways and Canals of saying certain things in the Railway Committee, and have ashed him to repeat them in this House; but he has not done so, and I doubt if he will state that he made that statement in the committee. The hon. member for North Norfolk states that the province will be called upon to pay this liability-iD other words, that the road will not pay its way at 10 cents per 100 pounds on wheat and 15 per cent reduction on general merchandise, and therefore that the government will necessarily have to pay the deficit of the road. The hon. gentleman overlooks the large amount of traffice that will pass over that road. He forgets the 29.000,000 bushels which were shipped in 1899 over the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Northern Pacific. The deduction of freight charges on the Canadian Northern does not mean a reduction on that road alone, but on the Canadian Pacific as well, in order that it may compete with the Canadian Northern. The crop of 1899 will be nearly doubled this year; but suppose we sent out only the same quantity, the first year's saving alone, on a reduction of 2 cents per 100 pounds on wheat and 74 per cent on general merchandise, will amount to $601,000 to the farmers in these items alone. Can they not afford, with such a reduction, to assume a liability of $442,000 per annum ? Oh. but, says the hon. member, in three years' time, without the government giving any guarantee whatever, the rates will be reduced by competition below 10 cents per 100 pounds. In that case how are the roads going to pay their way without the guarantee of the province, when he states that they are not going to pay at 10 cents per 100 pounds, and the government will have to pay the difference ? The hon. gentleman contradicts himself, and I am surprised that so good a man of business should put up such a man of straw in order to have the pleasure of knocking it down. To show that this is not my opinion alone. I will quote just a few expressions of the premier of the province when this deal was going through the legislature. He states that in his negotiations with these gentlemen :
They undertook on their part to try to prove that with the Canadian Northern it was better to have a fixed rate-that we should have an immediate reduction, say, of 20 per cent on the tariff of the Canadian Pacific Railway. But I did not agree with them, for while 10 cents may be a fair and reasonable rate to-day, five years from now it might be an exorbitant rate.
Tust what the hon. member for North Norfolk said. The hon. member will see that the premier had in his mind that rapidity with which science is changing and developing railway transportation facilities, so that what would be a fair and reasonable rate to-day might to-morrow be un-Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).
reasonable. But if a 10-eent rate per 100 pounds should become excessive, has not the government the power to reduce the rate to 8 cents or even 5 cents, or whatever figure would be fair and reasonable ? And as soon as a maximum rate is fixed by the Governor in Council, that rate would be binding.
If the freights that are secured via Duluth by the Northern Pacific Railway lines in Manitoba were diverted to the Rainy river line, or Canadian Northern, to Port Arthur, the total gross earnings would be $1,712,233 in the one year. The Canadian Northern is operated, as my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) has said, at a cost of 4S per cent of its earnings-a percentage lower than almost any other road. Supposing we put the operating expenses at 50 per cent, that would amount to $856,116 of its total earnings. That is the amount of trade that has gone out of Manitoba and been diverted over the Northern Pacific system to Duluth and vice versa, and which will be sent across this line to a great extent. It will not all be sent over this line, but the trade will increase as the population augments, therp will be more grain grown every year, and we feel confident that this road will pay from its inception. With regard to the objection of the hon. member for Labelle, that in case there should be discrimination against Canadian lines, this road may divert its traffic to the American lake port and thus cause great detriment to our own transportation companies, it is not likely that the government of Manitoba is going to allow the earnings of a portion of the road, upon which they have assumed liability, to be impaired by having the trade diverted to the American seaboard. They want all the trade they can get over their own system, in order to let them out of this liability which they have assumed ; and those in favour of the contract have not the slightest idea that the government of that province will ever be called on to pay a dollar of that liability. As my hon. friend from Macdonald has justly said, in the one year 5,000.000 bushels of grain are shipped across the Northern Pacific line out of Manitoba. Just Imagine that amount of grain passing over the Canadian Northern system to Port Arthur, and see what an immense reduction in freights 4 cents per 100 pounds on that traffic would amount to. It would simply mean that we will have the great bulk of the grain in that province and the North-west Territories going over our Canadian transportation lines to the great lakes, instead of being diverted to the American side of the line to build up American seaports.
It has also been stated that the fixed charges on this road are less than on the Canadian Northern Pacific or any other road on the American continent, or even in the world.
Hon. gentlemen have stated that $20,000 per mile is an excessive guarantee. The hon.

member for North Norfolk has stated that a bonus of $10,400 per mile has been voted by this parliament, and that if the Manitoba government guarantee bonds to the extent of $20,000 per mile, the total amount of aid and guarantee is over $30,000 per mile, whereas the road could be built for $12,000 per mile. On another occasion, he said $14,-
000.	The hon. gentleman is unacquainted with the facts, for I am sure he would not willingly misrepresent the true state of affairs. If he had gone to the Railway Department, he would have found that the government engineer estimated for the construction of this very system, which the hon. gentleman says could be built for $12,000 per mile, $28,000 per mile, without terminals and rolling stock. Is not the liability of the province the $20,000 guarantee 1 That is all that the province is guaranteeing. It has nothing to do with the $10,000 voted by this parliament, for all the aid voted by this parliament, in the way of land or cash subsidies, has gone into the construction of the line. The liability of the government of Manitoba is simply its guarantee of $20,000 per mile, and every other bond that is out at present has to be called in before a single bond can be issued by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, so that the bonding power, under the guarantee of the Manitoba government, cannot exceed $20,000 per mile. The whole bonding power, therefore, will be $12,500 per mile, which is the lowest of any road on the continent. The Canadian Pacific has a bonded debt of $68,140 per mile, and the Northern Pacific has a bonded debt of $S9,700 per mile, upon which they have to pay interest, so that there is no probability at all that the Manitoba government are assuming a liability of which they will ever be called on to pay one dollar.
This road has to be up to the standard of the Crow's Nest Pass line, and lias to pass the inspection, not only of the provincial inspector. but of the inspector of the Department of Railways and Canals as well.
The opponents of this deal state that no provision is made for future extensions of the line and that the government have guaranteed extra bonds to the extent of $2,000 per mile on that portion of the line already guaranteed to the extent of $S,000 per mile. I do not agree with the hon. gentlemen. The government have permitted Messrs. Mann & Mackenzie to increase their bonding powers $2,000 per mile on the portion on which bonds are already guaranteed by the government, to the extent of $8,000 per mile, but are not guaranteeing those extra bonds. They are simply permitting Messrs. Mann & Mackenzie to increase their bonds to that extent, and the contractors have to expend that money on rolling stock.
And another thing which I may mention, although it has no direct connection with this Bill, so far as the members of this House can see, is that the government of Manitoba have provided for future extensions ; and as
an outcome of this deal with Messrs. Mann & Mackenzie, the government have been enabled to enter into successful negotiations with these gentlemen by which the bonds on that portion of their line of railway, which extends outside of the province, and upon which the late Greenway government guaranteed bonds to the extent of $8,000 per mile over sixty or seventy miles, will be transferred to the construction of new lines in Manitoba.
It has been stated that Manitoba has no legal authority to guarantee bonds outside its own province. But Manitoba has already done so in the North-west Territories. On this very same line of railway it has guaranteed bonds to the extent of $S,000 per mile over sixty or seventy miles in the Territories, aud the Manitoba government has been enabled to have that guarantee diverted to the construction of lines badly needed in other portions of the province, and the major portion of such lines has to be constructed this very year.
Hon. gentlemen have taken exception to the fact that almost anything can be included under the head of working expenses, but the government have to approve of the auditor, and the auditor has to see that only what are really working expenses are placed under that head. Working expenses are defined in the contract, as read by the hon. member for North Norfolk, and should any dispute arise between the government and the company as to what are working expenses, the dispute shall be referred to the Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench in Manitoba, Who shall have full power to take evidence and consult experts and use his own judgment in coming to a decision, and his decison shall be final and binding, without appeal.
Thus, in any disagreement in regard to working expenses, the chief justice of the province is the sole arbitrator. The government also provide terminals at Port Arthur, and the prices charged in operating these terminals are not to exceed the charges of the terminals at Duluth. Now, the late government of Manitoba had exempted the lines of the Canadian Northern from taxation, but, after 1905, under this agreement this exemption ceases, and after that their gross earnings are taxed to the extent of 2 per cent, which will bring in a revenue to the province, and will place this railway on the same footing as the Canadian Pacific Railway. These hon. gentlemen say that the government have no right to fix rates outside the province. But the government of the province had already fixed rates on a portion of the system known as the Manitoba Southeastern Railway, having a certain tariff on logs and other articles, and the Governor in Council has approved of those rates. Now. in regard to the expression of public opinion in the province, is it likely that the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd),

the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. La-Riviere), and myself, would designedly commit political suicide by flying in tlie face of the well-known and clearly expressed opinion of the majority of the people of the province ? It would be foolish for us to do so. If we have any desire to remain in public life, we must wish, so far as is consistent with our opinions, to consult public opinion. I venture to say that public opinion is not against this measure, notwithstanding such expression as has been worked up by agitators sent out from the city of 'Winnipeg for the purpose. I may tell how these meetings are got up, judging from the experience in my own riding. An agitator comes up from Winnipeg and in some cases he does not even put out a poster, but goes to his friends, who for one reason or another are opposed to the Bill and gets them together at the meeting where cut-and-dried resolutions are carried much the same as the resolutions was carried in the public meeting in Winnipeg, as explained by the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd). And this is what is called a great outburst of public sentiment against this measure. I have not had a single letter sent to me by any of my constituents asking me to oppose this Bill. And I feel assured that the people, irrespective of politics, approve of the measure. Of course there are some who, because they want to get a slap at the provincial government, would object to the measure whether it is right or wrong. We must make allowance for that kind of opposition. There is no outburst of sentiment against the measure. The agitation is confined to the city of Winnipeg, and, even there, to a smaller portion of the people than the hon. gentleman (Mr. Puttee) who represents the city would have us believe. It must not be forgotten that three Liberal members of the legislature refused to vote against the second reading of the Bill there. And so far as the Liberal member of the town in which I live is concerned, he refused to lend his countenance to holding an indignation meeting in the town where we both reside, on the ground that he had made his fight on the floor of the legislature and that ought to settle it. The citizens' committee who have come here from Winnipeg represent but a small proportion even of the citizens of Winnipeg. Many hon. members may have felt that this committee was a strong expression of general opinion against this Bill, but that is only because these gentlemen have been making journey after journey to Ottawa, have been button-holeing members, and flooding parliament with literature setting forth their case, whereas the provincial government have not bothered to send delegates, but have depended upon the good sense and judgment of the members of the House to do them justice and to allow them to enter into this con-Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).
tract by which this large amount of money will be saved and by which they will have full control of rates, subject to a maximum rate to be imposed by the Governor in Council. And as to that point, nobody is trying to mislead the House.
This railway will pass through a country that is vastly richer than that traversed by the Canadian Pacific Railway and its local traffic will be very remunerative. It passes through rich mineral areas, including iron ranges. The Duluth and Iron Range Railroad, which passes to the south, is paying $8,800 per mile over and above its working expenses. Then in lumber alone, during the current year I have it on excellent authority, 30.000,000 feet will be shipped out of the district seventy-five miles long between Fort Francis and Fort William. I believe also that a pulp industry with a capacity of sixty tons a day is to be established at Fort Francis. The agitation worked up by the hon. gentlemen who oppose this Bill. I feel confident will act as a boomerang to many of them. They say they do not wish to kill the Bill, but only to postpone it. The effect of postponement will be to kill the Bill. The hon. member for Macdonald has pointed out that the Northern Pacific Railway would be only too glad to back out of the contract if they could get a good excuse for doing so. They notified the government that time was the essence of the contract, and if the government were not in a position to take over the road on the 1st April, they would cousider the deal off. However, an arrangement was made with them that the bargain is to stand until the decision of this House at this session is given with regard to legislation. If the measure is referred back to the legislature; the effect would be to kill the whole scheme. There are prominent Liberals in Winnipeg who approve of the measure. For instance, Mr. J. H. Ashdown, the wealthiest man in Manitoba, who contested Marquette against me in 1896, is holding up both hands in favour of the Bill. He is as shrewd a business man as there is in the province of Manitoba, and in the position he takes in this measure he is an example of many. Now, I do not wish to occupy the attention of the committee any longer. I feel that the measure has been fully discussed in the Railway Committee. If I have not spoken here, it was not because I was unwilling to discuss the merits of the question, but because I knew there were some who were obstructing the Bill, and I did not want to play into their hands by occupying the time of the House unnecessarily. I realized fully that hon. members have pretty well made up their minds how they will vote. I trust that the legislation will be approved, and the amendments which some hon. gentlemen intend to move will not be accepted.

504&


Robert Lorne Richardson: After listening to the numerous very able speeches that have been delivered during the day, I rise with considerable diffidence to make some remarks in reply. But there are some points which I do feel it necessary to touch upon. Before I enter upon a discussion, I would like to put a question to the right hon. leader of the House (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). I have been informed during the last few moments by a gentleman of authority that it was the intention of both sides of the House that the House should be kept in continuous session until this Bill passed its present stage. Now, if that is true, and an authoritative statement were given with regard to it, it might influence to some extent those gentlemen who feel it necessary to oppose the Bill ; it might influence the time which is to be taken by them if it were stated authoritatively that the House is to be kept in continuous session until the Bill passes this stage. If I have been misinformed. I would be glad to be put right by the leaders.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. It might be well if my hon. friend would inform the House if it is the intention of the opposition to this Bill to keep this thing going for several days.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I have no desire to urge any person to make any statement with regard to it. But if the statement that reached me be correct, it would be to the interest of all concerned to have it confirmed.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The hon. gentleman has told us what information lie had received. I have also received some information, and it is to the effect that the hon. gentleman and his friends intend to talk this Bill out. If such be their intention, the hon. gentleman and his friends would not think it extraordinary if I should ask the House to dispose of the Bill and to see it through.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Then I am to understand that the right hon. gentleman intends to ask the House to dispose of it ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Certainty.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Before we rise ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Am I to understand that the hon. gentleman, after having taken up two days on this Bill, is not yet satisfied ?


Robert Lorne Richardson: I do not think that has any bearing on the question.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I think it has.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I thiuk that fair-minded people will agree that the discussion which has arisen has been apropos to this question, that there has not been any
obstruction practiced with regard to the Bill. The general consensus of opinion is that this is one of the most important measures that has come before parliament since confederation. The grave words addressed to the Railway Committee by the Minister of Railways and Canals, and which I propose to read for the benefit of the House, justify us in considering this as one of the gravest, questions that have come before us. That being the case, I do not think any excuse need be offered for the time which has been devoted to its discussion. However, it will probably be better if I should proceed with the discussion.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Give us something new.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I will give the House anything new that I think the subject should receive.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: Would the hon. gentleman tell us what he desires ? Perhaps the House would be inclined to ask for some information of what the hon. gentleman proposes as to the length of the discussion which he thinks the Bill should receive.


Robert Lorne Richardson: If the leaders on both sides say that it is their intention to put the Bill through at this session, that might influence the discussion to a considerable extent.


Robert Laird Borden: In what direction ?


Robert Lorne Richardson: Well, I think


Robert Laird Borden: For my part I think it is desirable that the discussion should not be unduly protracted. It has lasted for a very long time, and I think there are some gentlemen in the House who have refrained from speaking simply for the reason that the discussion has been so thorough. I do not think any of us can complain that this matter has not been discussed from every standpoint. I would therefore suggest to my hon. friend that, while of course none of us desire to restrict the discussion on so important a measure, still it is not desirable-to unduly protract it. I think it would be in the interest of all concerned, if the discussion, while thorough, should not be so unduly protracted as to indicate that there was an attempt to talk the Bill out.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: There is another thing. There are a dozen or fifteen private Bills that have got to be reached, and there are other people interested in legislation besides the Manitoba members.


Mr. FRASER.: I have a Bill of the greatest importance relating to Nova Scotia, and I would like to reach it some time.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I am not authorized to speak for gentlemen who take
5 J47

The same view as I do, but I would say that so far as I am personally concerned I would be glad to let all unopposed private Bills be proceeded with at the present time.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Question, question.


Mr. PUTTEE.: So far as I am concerned, and I think I may speak for other gentlemen who hold my view, we are not talking for fun ; we are trying to impress the members on both sides of the House that this is a very serious matter we have under consideration. If this Bill is going to be forced through the House, we should be told so m order that we might know what course to take.


Robert Laird Borden: I for one am most desirous that every gentleman who is opposed to this Bill should have every possible opportunity to express to the House his views ; and if lion, gentlemen who are opposing the Bill would only let the House know just what their ideas are, what time they want, what object they are seeking to serve by protracting the debate, it might facilitate an understanding. I do not for a moment say that any part of the discussion has been lost up to the present time, or has been useless ; but when my hon. friends say that their views should be met in some way, I think the House might reasonably ask what their views are, so that we might consider how far we are able to meet those views. If either of the hon. gentleman who have just been on their feet would give us an idea of what they desire, it would serve I think, to guide the right hon. gentleman who leads the House and myself with regard to the attitude which the House ought to take.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: 1 think it is very unfair to state that this Bill has been forced. In my experience I have never known a Bill where the opposition has received so much consideration. In view of the representations made by some people who said they were opposed to this Bill, we kept it standing before the committee, that they might have an opportunity of studying it, of appearing by counsel and by themselves, for something like three weeks. The Railway Committee, if 1 remember right, .spent four days in considering this Bill. Observing that the discussion seemed to be rather irrelevant I offered, as chairman of that committee, to call a meeting on one occasion at a much earlier hour of the day, ,aud they said that it was not necessary, that there would be plenty of time. So I say that opportunity has been given in the Railway Committee to the opposition beyond any precedent that any old member of this House can remember, for a full discussion of the whole matter. Speaking as chairman of the Railway Committee, I must say that so much time has already been taken up, Mr. RICHARDSON (Lisgar).
and we have had so many long speeches, and some of them, in my humble opinion, not at all relevant to the question, that I think it is unfair to say that the Bill is being forced through the House. Solicitors are here at heavy expense and hon. members in the House have appealed to me to know how long they are to be kept here waiting. They think it is unreasonable that important legislation should be hung up in this House day after day and week after week without any apparent reason. I wish to say for myself that I quite sympathize with the desire of the people of Manitoba and the members of the legislature of that province that this matter should be fully considered and I concede that they should have every opportunity of making their views known to the government and to the House of Commons. I believe that every person should have an opportunity of expressing his views in regard to every point he may wish to discuss, but there should be some consideration for people who have important legislation here and there should be some consideration for the great majority of the members of this House who are anxious to get through with tlie business of the House and get away.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Mr. Chairman, the position at the present time is somewhat different from what it was last Monday when this Bill was discussed. I then offered an amendment which was to the effect that this Bill should be referred back to the Manitoba legislature for their sanction. I now have an amendment before the committee that is quite different in its construction and meaning. In it I ask that the Bill shall only 'become law upon its being ratified by the legislature of Manitoba. That makes this difference, that so far as this House is concerned it says to the people of Manitoba : You have passed a Bill, but the Bill which we have passed, it is claimed, is not similar to the one which you passed and a great deal of criticism has been raised in reference to that situation. Now, in order to prevent any doubt in Manitoba, we simply say, in view of the position which the lion. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Blair) has taken, in view of the position which the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) took this afternoon, when he said that the Bill was a bad one : in view of the fact that there is not one minister of the Crown but who regards this as an abominable Bill, and in view especially of the fact that the people of Manitoba are not receiving that control of rates which the utterances of their ministers would give them the impression they were receiving, that we shall refer this to the legislature of Manitoba and allow them to pass upon the Bill. We simply say to them :	Gentlemen, pause in this matter ;
and if after consideration yon decide to ratify the Bill, on your heads be it. We refer this question back to you.

We ratify your contract In so far as we are able to do so, but we do this with the intention that it shall only become law upon the assent of the Manitoba legislature. Surely, in view of the questions that have been raised, in view of the great importance of the issue, this is a moderate position for the government and for parliament to take. We simply say to the legislature of Manitoba : You may be allowed to pass the Act and you have this further chance of passing upon that legislation 'before you ratify it. Then, nobody can say that this government or parliament has attempted to interfere with provincial rights. We say to the people that they, themselves, have an opportunity of passing upon it. Then, practically all the responsibility in the matter will be taken from this House and from this government. Now, that is an entirely different proposition from the one I made at the outset. It need not delay this legislation for any considerable time. The legislature of Manitoba can be called at once. It is a small body, the members reside a very short distance from the capital, the legislation in regard to this Bill can be put through in a week from the time that we adjourn, and in a matter as important as this, and inasmuch as the passage of this Bill might mean the ruin of the province, should it not be our bounden duty to say to the legislature : We give you this chance to ratify your own measure ? We would not then be taking the position which the hon. Minister of the Interior spoke of this afternoon, of raising a disturbance throughout the country or of attempting any interference. I was struck by the language of the hon. Minister of the Interior who said that if we voted to pass this measure we might raise a very important issue as between this government and the provincial government of Manitoba, that we might bring them into conflict, and that the result might be very disastrous. I contrasted that statement with the one which the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals made in the Railway Committee when he said that this was an extremely grave matter and that if we ratified this contract we might be doing something to give rise to a grave clash as between the government and people of the Dominion and the government and people of Manitoba. The hon. Minister of the Interior and the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals are evidently in conflict in regard to their views upon this question. I propose to read later on for the benefit of the House the remarks which the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals made upon this Bill when it was before the committee, because I think them important. I should have liked, myself, very much and I am sure there are other hon. gentlemen who share the desire, to have heard the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals address this House upon this question. So far as I can learn
not one hon. member of the government believes that this is a provident deal. If you take the expressions of their organs throughout the country, you will find that this Bill is denounced as an abominable scandal, as something that will result disastrously to the people of Manitoba. That being the case, I say I should have liked very much to have had an authoritative statement from the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals on this question. I want to read, especially for the benefit of the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier), a statement in regard to the responsibility of this parliament. I will pause until I get his attention.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: What paper is that ?


Robert Lorne Richardson: I propose to read from the Winnipeg Free Press, the acknowledged organ of the present government, a paper that is generally believed to represent the views of the hon. Minister of the Interior. I want to read for the benefit of the Prime Minister the opinion of a gentleman for whom he entertains the very highest respect. From my own observation I am convinced that there is no man in Canada who commands a warmer respect from the Prime Minister than the gentleman whom I propose to quote at the present time. I refer to Mr. Isaac Campbell, K.C., of Winnipeg. Mr. Campbell has been president of the Liberal Association and has probably been the most prominent Liberal in the west. He is a man who has been practically offered every position within the gift of the Crown from a judgeship down, or a judgeship up, and I think my right hon. friend will agree with me that his opinions are entitled to the greatest respect.
I think my hon. friend will agree with me that Mr. Isaac Campbell's opinions are entitled to respect. I wish to read a brief extract from a speech he delivered in the city of Winnipeg to show what opinion Mr. Campbell entertains on the question of the reponsibility of the Federal government in this matter :
Mr. Campbell expressed fear that he was exceeding the time which had been allowed him, but he was urged to go on. He proceeded to say it had been pointed out, it had been urged, that this matter having now been decided by the legislature, having passed three readings and gone through committee, and there being no doubt that it would be sent up to His Honour for assent, it was now out of our hands, and that any interference would be very much like disallowance, that we are forgetting our own struggle for provincial rights. But it is a very different thing. The old struggle was this. When John Norquay passed the charter for their South-eastern, or for the Red River Valley road, the government at Ottawa, not parliament, under general powers, proceeded at once to disallow the charter. That was when the province, with complete unanimity, had passed a charter within its own powers. The Dominion government said : It is our policy to have a

national railway, and hence they disallowed charters to roads running to the south year after year. We said, we have chartered a provincial line of railway; it is a matter that concerned us; it is our own affair; and the Dominion government ought not to interfere. But the charters to-day need the assent of the Dominion parliament to become law, because the Manitoba Railway and the Canadian Northern are Dominion lines, they need the assent of the Dominion parliament. These Acts have got to go through the Commons and Senate to become valid and effective, and if that is the case, if the people of Manitoba, or any large section of them, think, or one man thinks, that he can effect something against them, it is his privilege to implore parliament not to pass them and make them still more binding.
You will see that in imploring this parliament as I have done in this matter, I am but carrying out the opinion expressed by Mr. Isaac Campbell.
He objected to our being cried down and put before the people as being false or recreant to provincial rights, because we ask the House at Ottawa to stay its bands.
I think the right lion, leader of the House has taken the position that to refuse to pass this Bill would be a direct interference with provincial rights. I would commend these words to the Minister of the Interior also :
The Senate and Commons are just as much our parliament, are just as much for us Manitobans, as our own local legislature-(cheers)-except his ancient friends the senators-(laughter)- they are just as responsible to the people as our legislature; not only the members of the House, but of the cabinet, the government, are responsible to the people. Every citizen is entitled to exercise his influence upon his representative, and thus upon those who guided the policy of the country.
That is Mr. Campbell's opinion and these are weighty words. Commenting on that, the Manitoba Free Press, the organ of the government and the special organ of the Minister of the Interior spoke as follows in the same issue-and I commend the statement in reference to the Winnipeg meeting to the hon. members for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) and for Marquette (Mr. Roche) :
The public interest in the matter of the railway contracts was well manifested last night in the crowded meeting held in the Winnipeg theatre. A resolution was passed by an overwhelming majority, calling on the Dominion parliament, whose members Mr. Issac Campbell properly said were as much our representatives as those in the Manitoba legislature, to refuse to pass legislation confirming the contracts until such time as the people of Manitoba had had opportunity of pronouncing on them. The resolution is published elsewhere.
In order to clinch this statement I want to read an extract from an article published in this very same paper not longer ago than March 14, to show what opinion was generally entertained at that time :
Let us see in what position the matter stands in relation to the Dominion parliament. This Mr. RICHARDSON (Lisgar).
countrx is an important part of the confederation. In fact, it is the most important part, for it has before it a greater future than the older portions of the Dominion. For every acre of territory in the Dominion of Canada outside of the west, there are a score in the west, and as we are twenty times bigger in territory we have twenty times the potential greatness. It requires no argument to show that the Federal parliament has a very direct, keen interest in any action which might have a calamitous effect on at least one of the only two organized provinces in the west. The official Canada Gazette contains a notice asking the Federal parliament to ratify the legislation now before the Manitoba legislature regarding these railway contracts. The exercise of the federal jurisdiction is acknowledged to be necessary to the validity of the Manitoba legislation. The Manitoba legislation is, therefore, not final. It is not complete in itself. We are told that the contracts cannot be carried into effect without federal legislation. If, then, the Dominion parliament is to be asked to exercise its undoubted jurisdiction it must examine the contracts on their merits, and it must examine into the resources of the province of Manitoba, on which these heavy liabilities are to form a mortgage, and the whole question must be threshed out at Ottawa, just as it is now being threshed out in this province.
The House will see tbe difference between that opinion and the opinion expressed by the Minister of the Interior this afternoon.
Manitoba has eleven representatives in the legislature at Ottawa, and the territory which is and proposed to be traversed by the Canadian Northern system is represented by twenty-four members. If we add to those the members of the government, who must determine that this is a matter for its deepest consideration, we have of those directly interested in this matter a representation at Ottawa of fully as many as the membership in the Manitoba legislature. There are at Ottawa fully forty members who will take an active and leading interest in determining the merits of this question, and in addition they will be assisted by the advice and counsel of first-rate lawyers, men like Mr. R. L. Borden, the leader of the opposition. Within the government there are several of the ablest lawyers in Canada, men like Mr. Blair, Sir Louis Davies, Mr. Fitzpatrick and Mr. Mills. Manitoba's representative in the cabinet, Mr. Sifton, is a keen lawyer, who is fully competent to analyse the contracts, and who is familiar with railway contracts, having had to do with them in his public capacity on more than one occasion.
The Minister of the Interior did analyse the contract this afternoon to some extent, and he did not hesitate to tell the House that he regarded them as improvident contracts which if he were a member of the legislature he would certainly oppose.
It has been borne in on the minds of the people of Manitoba with great force that while the companies have had superior legal advice and ability at their disposal, the government of Manitoba have been absolutely without any, and in such case the result can hardly be in doubt. If a layman entered a court of law and pitted himself against, an experienced legal counsel, we fancy that he would feel like a fool before he got through with the experiment.

We were told .in the other article that it rested equally on the members of the government and the Dominion parliament.
-and particularly on such members of it as are members of the executive. They are the persons to be dealt with by the electors, who believe a bad bargain has been made.
On the 14th of March last, according to this organ of the government, the responsibility would rest equally on this parliament and on this government; and we were told that patriotically members would stand up and fight .this Bill ; but to-day we are told that the responsibility is to rest entirely upon the legislature of Manitoba. Certainly, the two positions are not very consistent.
On the question of the responsibility of the government, let me read an extract from Sir John Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure and Practice, at page 807 :
Although it is not usual for a minister of the Crown to take charge of a private Bill, it is the special duty of the government, as the responsible leaders of legislation and the chosen guardians of the public interests in parliament, to watch carefully the progress of private legislation in the House and its committees, and see that it does not in any way interfere with the policy of the ministry or the statutory law in reference to the public lands, railways, canals, public works, and such other interests as are entrusted to the Dominion authorities. It is in the standing committees of the House that the supervision of private Bill legislation is chiefly exercised. One of the most important committees of the Commons, that of Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines, has invariably for its chairman one of the ministers of the Crown, and the minister in charge of railways is also one of its members, whose special duty it is to watch closely all legislation that may affect the policy of the government.
So that you will see that the government cannot possibly evade responsibility on this question, because the consensus of opinion with regard to this Bill is that while it is a private Bill, it will be far-reaching in its effects, and that no more important measure has been considered by this House since confederation. We are not sure that this Bill is infra vires. I entertain the opinion very strongly-and this is shared by a great many other members of the House-that this Bill should be referred to the law officers of the Crown in order to ascertain their opinion as to whether it is constitutional or not.


Byron Moffatt Britton: In what respect do you suggest that it is ultra vires ?


Mr RICHARDSON (Lisgar).: The hon. member attended the meeting of the Railway Committee and heard the legal discussion there presented by Mr. Nesbitt and other able legal gentlemen, who certainly suggested that there was grave doubt as to the constitutionality of the Bill.


John Charlton: And took strong grounds that it is unconstitutional.


Byron Moffatt Britton: I must apologize for interrupting the hon. gentleman if that was the case, because I have no recollection of any objection. It may have been stated in general terms, but I have no recollection of any reason being given why the Bill was considered ultra vires.


John Charlton: Mr. Nesbitt argued for half an hour that it was unconstitutional.


Robert Lorne Richardson: The hon. member for Kingston may have inadvertently missed the point, but the hon. member for North Norfolk agrees with me, and I am sure other members will, that grave doubts were cast upon the constitutionality of the Bill by legal gentlemen. That being the case, I think that even yet it would be wise to refer the Bill to the law officers of the Crown and get a short statement upon it. Let me read also from Todd's Parliamentary Government in England, volume 2, page 389, on this same point:
So also, if the interests of the people were likely to be injuriously affected by a private Bill, or if an attempt were made to establish an unsound principle by such means, ministers would be justified in using their influence to oppose it; whilst, on the other hand, ministers would be justified in promoting the passing of a private Bill if it should appear to be desirable for the public interest.
Now, ministers do not contend for an instant that this Bill is desirable for the public interest. In fact, the only authoritative statements which we have had have been from the Minister of Railways and Canals and the Minister of the Interior. One tells us that the Bill is liable to give rise to a grave clash between the Dominion and the province ; the other says he entirely disapproves of it, that it is a bad deal, and he made what I think was rather a monstrous propositon this afternoon when he said that no matter how vicious a Bill the province attempts to pass, it is not for the Federal government to interfere with it-that the province should not be interfered with in any way, tot must be allowed to pass a Bill, even if it should sink the province altogether. I do not think that is a sound principle. I do not see why the British North America Act should have provided a veto power on legislation at all unless it was considered that the Dominion government should exercise a review over provincial legislation of all kinds ; and inasmuch as we have practically a governmental declaration that this is a vicious and improvident Bill and one liable to bring evil upon the province, it seems to me that it is a subject for the review of this parliament, and one on which we ought to think very gravely before we pass the Bill. The hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) this afternoon took what appeared to me to be the very proper position when he said that inasmuch as we are asked to pass the Bill it is creative legislation, and we must pass upon the merits of the Bill, and assume responsibility for it. According to the dictum of the Minister of the Interior, where the power is, there lies the responsibility. That being the ease, responsibility must rest on this parliament and government, because, without our authority the Manitoba legislature is powerless. Let me go on reading this extract:


John Charlton: So also, if the interests of the public were likely to be injuriously affected by a private Bill, or if an attempt were made to establish an unsound principle by such means, ministers would be justified in using their influence to oppose it, whilst on the other hand, ministers would be justified in promoting the passage of a private Bill if it should appear to be desirable in the public interest.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Is the hon. gentleman reading from Todd ?


Robert Lorne Richardson: Yes.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: That is with respect to the English parliament. There can be no such thing as a conflict between the central parliament and the provinces in England. Sir John Bourinot would be a better authority on this question.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I have read Sir John Bourinot's work also and the House must agree that he takes a strong position on the same line. We are face to face with ministers passing a Bill which they admit is not in the public interest. The only expressions of opinion we have received from the cabinet clearly indicate that the ministry itself does not believe that this is a wise measure, and yet it is going to render itself responsible for it. I would like to-night to have a positive expression from the ministers present as to whether they believe this? is a good Bill or not ? Such an expression of opinion would influence men like myself. I must say that although I am opposing this measure with all the strength I am capable of, I do not at all pretend to the infallibility which the hon. member for Guysborough charges me with believing I possess. I am exceedingly fallible and may be wrong on this occasion, and if hon. ministers would state their position, that might help men like myself to reach a satisfactory conclusion. I have, from all the study I have been able to give to the matter, come to the conclusion that it is not desirable, in the interests of Manitoba, that this Bill should be ratified; and holding that opinion sincerely, I am offering what opposition to it lies in my power. I could not do less. I have no objection whatever to other members of the House holding what views they deem fit, and I am not here to say that they are not conscientious in the views they do hold. I am not here to question the motives of any member of the legislature, which passed the Bill originally, or any member of this House; but I claim for myself the same rights and privileges as I concede to others. And believing that this measure is not in the interests of the people of Manitoba, I feel it my bounden duty to offer every legitimate opposition I can to its passage. If I did less, I would be recreant to the trust reposed in me by the people of Lisgar.

I have here the remarks made by the Minister of Railways In the Railway Committee on this measure, and while these remarks are not as ample as they should be, I think it pertinent that I should draw attention to them. The hon. minister said :
Parliament could validate any agreement between the province and any company or between two companies, and it would not be abrogating any legislative functions. The present was an exceedingly awkward question, one of greater magnitude than parliament had had before it for many a day.
Surely in view of that statement, no excuse need be offered for the time spent in *discussing this measure.
He might not feel like saying that it was an improvident bargain

No doubt, but he evidently thought It was,
-or that the people, had been carried away, in their desire to get better rates, into making a bad contract, but it was a serious undertaking to ratify the agreement.
If the Minister of Railways did not hesitate to inform the Railway Committee, which is practically a small parliament in itself, that it was a serious matter to ratify that agreement, surely members who stand up in this House and offer all possible objections to it, should not be charged with taking an unfair advantage of the rules of the House.
It might be in the interests of the Canadian Northern and the province of Manitoba to have a tariff of rates as high as possible outside the province of Manitoba in order to neutralize the liabilities of the province under the reduced rates in Manitoba, and in this it appeared to him lay the possibility of a conflict between the provincial government and the government of the Dominion in regard to the control of rates.
Here the hon. minister admits responsibility, and has taken the very stand which we who oppose this measure have been taking in this House.
The question was of sufficient magnitude to demand the most careful consideration, and he was not prepared, on behalf of the government, to express an opinion. It was an extremely important question, and the difficulties in the way could not possibly be brushed aside lightly.
He found out that if this Bill were referred back to the legislature, it might give rise to a grave clash between the government of the Dominion and the government of Manitoba. He points out very naturally that this railway company is likely to charge the highest freights outside of Manitoba on its system in Ontario and the territories. Why ? In order that it might make up for the loss incurred in consequence of the low rates in Manitoba. If that were the ease, the minister stated that that would furnish an occasion for a conflict. If the rates were lower in Manitoba than in the territories on the same system, that would be discrimination and the Federal government might very well call for equali-159
zation of the rates. They might offer a protest against any discrimination in favour of Manitoba and the rates in that province-might be raised. The Minister of the Interior characterized that statement as most absurd, as something that would never occur. Well, we find that the Minister of Railways himself practically suggested this very thing. The hon. minister said that the only control that was exercised by the Federal government upon rates was the adoption or the fixing of a maximum rate. I could not help feeling at the time that if that was the only control which the Federal government exercised over rates, it was about time we had the practice revised, especially in view of the fact that the people have contributed such an enormous sum for the construction of railways in this country. It is about time that we should exercise a more thorough control and allow companies only to fix rates that would cover working expenses and allow a reasonable interest on a reasonably fixed capitalization. I repeat that, especially in view of the aid which was given to this Rainy River Railway, $10,400 per mile, and in view of the fact that parliament took power to control the rates in granting that subsidy, these rates should also be controlled by this parliament, and should be limited to fair working expenses and earnings upon the actual capital invested. When thdt subsidy was voted by parliament two or three sessions ago, I moved, seconded by the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver), that the rates of this railway should always be limited to producing 6 per cent on the capital actually invested by the company. I think had that motion been adopted the rates would have been so limited on that portion that Manitoba would not be under the necessity of giving so vast a guarantee in order to secure the supposed boom of the control of the rates. Let me continue to read from the remarks of the Minister of Railways and Canals :
Lieut.-Col. Hughes asked whether the people of Manitoba pay higher rates to Montreal and Boston than the farmers of the western states.
Mr. Blair said that the case which Col. Hughes referred to was governed by the Railway Act. There was a danger, if this agreement was confirmed, that under the operation of the lease and contract the government of Manitoba would, so far as its power went, compel a condition of things to exist which, if it did exist, would compel the Dominion government to take action to redress the grievances of the people discriminated against.
Now, could anything be stronger ? Could you make a clearer declaration with regard to the position we have taken than is contained in these words of the Minister of Railways and Canals ? He clearly foresees that there would be a discrimination in Manitoba as against Ontario and the Northwest Territories, and he intimates that if that discrimination existed it would be proper for the Federal government to step



in and regulate the rates in Manitoba. Now, if you are going to take that power from Manitoba which she supposes she is getting of absolutely controlling the rates, and are going to vest the control in the Federal government, then it must be clear that Manitoba is not getting anything for the vast liability which she is assuming. Surely hon. gentlemen will agree that the position which the Minister of Railways and Canals takes puts a new phase on the question as it appeared to the government and people of Manitoba. That being the case, are we not in duty bound to allow this matter to go back to the Manitoba legislature for ratification ? Should the members of the Manitoba legislature, in view of these statements by the Minister of Railways and Canals, not be allowed to revise that Bill ?


Nathaniel Boyd: Has not the legislature of Manitoba power to repeal its own Acts ?


Robert Lorne Richardson: There would be a contract, and the Manitoba legislature having made a contract with the Canadian Northern Railway, 1 do not think it would be in their power to repeal it.
Mr. BOY'D. I understand that any legislature has power to repeal any of their Acts.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I am not a lawyer, but I do not think it would be competent for the Manitoba legislature to repeal any Act of this nature involving a contract that they have passed. I would invite the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to answer the question which the member for Macdonald has asked.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I would have to get all the facts about it.


Robert Lorne Richardson: But offhand? Perhaps the hon. member for Guys-borough (Mr. Fraser) could answer it ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: There is no need of It. Hon. members on either side of the House are not called upon to answer questions off-hand. I would not give any opinion on it.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Perhaps I should have hesitated about asking this question. I might get a bill in the morning for legal advice. Perhaps if I had sent over a retainer, I might have been able to get an opinion. But the House will agree with me that if the Manitoba legislature passes a Bill embodying a contract, and obligations had been undertaken because of that contract, it would not be competent for the Manitoba legislature to repeal it.


Nathaniel Boyd: If the conditions are not carried out they can repeal it.


Robert Lorne Richardson: 


Robert Lorne Richardson: If I thought they were competent to repeal this legislation at any time, I would sit down and not say another word. Now, I continue to read from the report with regard to the position of the Minister of Railways before the Railway Committee :
Mr. Cochrane suggested that the same condition exists in Ontario with regard to the rates on freight from Chicago to the seaboard passing through Ontario.
Mr. Blair said that it did not, and he quoted the provision of the Railway Act which provided for eases when there was competition and it was necessary to make the rates in order to secure trade. He suggested that there should be a clause embodied in the Bill in the terms of the General Railway Act providing against discrimination in rates and against secret rates or concessions, and there could he, he said, no objection to such a clause going in the Bill, and the presence of such a clause in the Bill would he advantageous and have a restraining influence.
Mr. Lash, on behalf of the Canadian Northern Railway, said he would accept the clause suggested by Mr. Blair.
The clause as suggested was as follows, and it was embodied in the Bill :
3. Nothing in this Act or in this indenture contained in the schedules hereto, or done in pursuance of this Act or of the said indentures, shall (a) divest or limit, temporarily or otherwise, the rights or powers (under existing or future legislation of the parliament of Canada) of the Governor in Council, or of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, or of any commission or other authority, respecting any matter or thing, obligation or duty ;
It will be seen that with a clause like that in the measure, the legislature of Manitoba is not going to have the control that the speeches of the Premier, Mr. Roblin, and the Attorney General, Mr. Campbell, judging by the extracts I have given, must have led the people to believe they were receiving.
(b)	place the government of Canada, directly or indirectly, under any liability, obligation or duty with respect to any payment, matter or thing in the said indentures provided for or referred to ;
(c)	authorize the Canadian Northern Railway Company to charge or demand any higher rates for the carriage of freight or passengers than those heretofore or hereafter fixed under the authority of existing or future legislation of the pariiament of Canada, by the Governor in Council, or by the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, or by any committee or other authority.
That clause having been inserted in the Bill, who will say that it is the same Bill that passed the Manitoba legislature ? This clause served notice upon the legislature of Manitoba that it is not to have the control of rates which the members of the executive sought to lead the people to believe that they were receiving. I do not say. I have no desire to say. that the members of the executive wilfully sought to mislead the
-MAY 13, 1901
Manitoba legislature or tlie people of Manitoba. I am not here to impute motives of any kind. But, taking fairly the expressions of Mr. Roblin and Mr. Colin H. Campbell, I think that any fair-minded man would certainly say that they understood that the legislature was going to have control of rates. It is perfectly true that in one expression used by the Attorney General, Mr. Campbell, which has been read by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), he did indicate that the Federal parliament would still have the right to exercise the same authority. But in the statement of the Stli of February, which was read by the hon. member for Labelle, he positively assured the people that they were receiving the absolute control of rates. That was the burden of the entire song. This is what was to be received in return for the vast liability the people of Manitoba were asked to assume. Now, it must be perfectly clear to all reasonable men that, in view of the clause I have read, Manitoba will not and cannot have the control of rates that she expected to have. That being the case, it seems to me a most reasonable proposition that we should allow this Bill to go back to the legislature of Manitoba for ratification ; and if the legislature chooses to ratify it, it can do so within a week or two. In that case the responsibility would rest with them, and this parliament and government will have done its whole duty to the people of Manitoba. I do not see why such a reasonable proposition should be refused. I marvel that the Prime Minister should take the responsibility of forcing this measure through when he could relieve himself entirely of responsibility by accepting the amendment of which I have given notice, and which I shall move at a later stage of the proceedings.
With regard to the limitation of rates, it seems to me that the clause which says that before the government can lower the rates the company must be heard, and their interest taken into consideration, does not give the government of Manitoba any right to limit rates greater than is given'to the federal authority, as represented bv the Railway Committee of the Privy Council. The interests of the company would be taken into consideration in any attempt made by the federal authority to exercise control of rates. And in this case, what better control is given to Manitoba than the rights enjoyed by the Railway Committee of the Privy Council ?
Now. I want to say a word in regard to the financial position of Manitoba. I want to make a statement in regard to the gross liability which is assumed under this railway bargain. The statement has been made from time to time in the House, I made it myself and it has been used by other members. that the province of Manitoba was assuming a liability of over $17,000.000. The premier of Manitoba called my atten-159*
tion to the fact that that was an exaggerated statement and that the liability of the province would not be over $13,000,000 or $14,000,000. I presume that the figures were arrived at in this way : The Northern Pacific system is being acquired on a rental basis, taking the value of the road at $7,000,000, and if the' government acquire the road at any time as they have a right to do, they must pay $7,000,000. That would be the first gross amount. Then, there is the interest on the bonds on 290 miles of the Rainy River road for thirty years which would amount to $5,800,000, or, in round figures, $0,000,000. That would make $13,000,000. Then, I suppose the additional amount is made up in this way : The government of Manitoba not only guarantee the bonds for thirty years but also guarantee the payment of the bonds themselves at the expiration of the thirty years, and that would amount to some $6,000,000 or $7,000,000, so that the province would pay during the thirty years $5,800,000, and at the end of the thirty years be liable for the bonds themselves which would be something over $6,000,000. That is probably the way that this gross amount was arrived at. I am quite sure that nobody desires to misrepresent the facts. I think they are sufficiently grave themselves without any exaggeration and I gladly avail myself of this opportunity to offer the explanation which I have given.
I want to refer briefly to the position which the lion. Minister of the Interior took this afternoon on the Bill and I want to congratulate him on the very clever speech which he made. He rarely speaks that he does not make a clever speech. However, I am convinced that there was a good deal of sophistry in his position and that when it is examined by a legal man, somebody better qualified than I am, I think it can be shown to be entirely fallacious in its conclusions. However, in my own poor way, I will attempt to offer a word or two upon his remarks. He pointed out first that the Bill simply gives the two companies power to contract and that we are in no sense responsible, that we are merely giving to the Northern Pacific Railway Company the power to contract. I take the position that the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart) takes, and in view of the fact that he has been a cabinet minister, and is recognized as a very able man, his opinion is of considerable value, that we do not only give the power to these companies to contract but that in passing this measure we pass an enabling Act without the passage of which it would be quite impossible that this bargain could be consummated, and inasmuch as the hon. Minister of the Interior laid down the dictum that where the power lies, there rests the responsibility, and inasmuch as we are called upon to pass this enabling legislation, then, the responsibility


must rest upon us. If Manitoba is left to herself and Manitoba can by the passage of such legislation as she can pass authorize the contract the case would be different, but we are asked here to pass an enabling Act, and because we do pass that Act we take the responsibility on our own shoulders and we must be prepared to accept that responsibility. We do more than enable one company to contract with another ; we pass upon the contract itself. If we were only asked to say that the Canadian Northern Railway Company and the Northern Pacific Railway Company might be allowed to enter into a bargain there would not be so much cause for complaint, but, in this Act which we propose to pass, is recited the contract as a schedule and we must take the responsibility for that contract. We cannot avoid that responsibility. Without our passing this Act this contract could never be validated. It would be null and void. Why then say that we have no responsibility and that we are doing nothing ? I may be wrong. I have not the advantage of a legal mind, but I think that I have a little common sense, and it seems to me that the proposition of the hon. Minister of the Interior is one entirely averse to common sense. It is not reconcilable with common sense at all. Inasmuch as the schedule and this arrangement are set out in this Act which we are about to pass we must pass upon the merits of every sentence of that contract and we are going to be held responsible for it. If repudiation comes in Manitoba, if the predictions made by some hon. gentlemen prove true, and I sincerely hope they will not, the responsibility must rest upon us. Speaking for myself, 1 would be delighted to find if the Bill becomes law that the gigantic ventures will prove a success, because every interest 1 have is in Manitoba, and it is in defence of my own interests and of the interests of the people I represent that I take the stand I do to-night. If the time comes, however, when the predictions of those who think as I do that it will prove disastrous for the province, are realized, then, I say, the responsibility must rest upon the Federal government and upon the parliament of this country. To the Federal parliament the people of Manitoba will resort and will ask it to pay the debts that bring ruin to Manitoba. Why should you not ? They will be able to say to you that when you passed this Act you knew more than they did, that when we, the legislature of Manitoba, voted for the Bill, we believed the representations that were made to us by the executive that the absolute control of freight rates have been secured and was guaranteed to us. A minister of the Crown had stated clearly and hon. members of the House had said that Manitoba had not obtained that control, and in the face of that fact you passed that Act, and, therefore, we come to you and say that you must pay our debts, that we Mr. RICHARDSON (Lisgar).
are unable to pay ourselves. That is a grave position, but It is only fair and right that we should understand that when we pass this legislation we will be held responsible in the long run. That is why I appeal and why I have appealed to the government to pause in this matter, and to say: We decline to take absolute responsibility in regard to this measure. We say to the legislature : We hand you back this matter. We are not going to take the position of overriding your legislation, of overriding the legislature, we are not going to veto your legislation but we simply pass it on this condition : That in view of the developments since this Bill was brought before the Canadian parliament iyou have the right to say for yourselves whether you do think this Bill should finally pass into legislation. The Minister of the Interior told us that there had been no protest forwarded to this government by the minority of the Manitoba legislature. I do not wish to say anything that would be offensive to the minister, but it does seem to me that that Is a puerile objection. Did not the' minority register their protest by voice and vote against this measure in the provincial assembly, and do we not know that the political associates of the Minister of the Interior who follow Mr. Greenway, solemnly took the ground that this legislation was improvident and was not in the interest of Manitoba ? It does strike me that it would be superfluous for the minority to send any ; formal protest to this parliament. The Minister of the Interior warned the House that | the refusal to pass this legislation would be liable to give rise to serious agitation in Manitoba. I doubt that statement, but even if it is correct it could only be correct to a very small extent. The minister has a logical mind and he will see that if my motion is adopted and we say to the Manitoba legislature that they should reconsider the'r Bill in view of the developments at Ottawa, that would prevent any agitation against this parliament. Let me call the attention of the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Sifton) to the fact that the Minister of Railways stated that if we did pass the legislation it might give rise to a grave clash between the province and the Dominion, and that is one of the grounds on which I oppose the Bill. The Minister of the Interior gave it as his impression that even without this legislation here the government of Manitoba would be able to guarantee the bonds of the railway. If that be true, let Manitoba deal with this matter, and why should the Dominion parliament be called upon to confer power upon Manitoba to enter into this improvident bargain. As to the lease on the Northern Pacific and Manitoba system, I cannot for the life of me see how tliis railway is going to be made pay. The consideration that it cannot pay has led many right-thinking people to the conclusion that the contract is absolutely improvident. The returns furnished by the Northern Paefic Railway itself show

that during the year 1900 there was a loss on the Manitoba system of $185,000 on operating expenses alone, to say nothing of their not being able to pay any interest on fixed charges. In view of that loss on operating expenses how can it be expected that this road will pay handsomely when it is operated by another company ? Under a different management it is true the road may lose less, but I cannot see how reasonable men on the Manitoba system of $185,000 on oper-ting expenses and interest on fixed charges. And, if it fails to do that, what will be the result ? The resources of Manitoba consist in her per capita allowance and in some revenue which she derives from licenses, &c., amounting in all to about $700,000. For the last few years the province has been unable to meet its expenditure out of its ordinary revenue, and she has been drawing upon capital for some considerable time. She has been obliged to draw upon the school fund deposited with the Federal government in order to make up her deficit, in addition to borrowing money on provincial bonds. The delegates who came down here say that the annual outlay under this contract will be $600,000 ; but suppose it is $442,000 only, as those in favour of this Bill allege, Manitoba has no resources out of which to make good that deficit. She cannot go on borrowing money and paying her debts out of capital, and if she loses only $200,000 under this contract the House will see that the financial position of the province will be seriously jeopardized. The grant for schools by the provincial government has been doubling -during recent years, and the demands are increasing as settlement progresses. Manitoba is obliged to make up these deficits out of capital account. That being the case, if we fasten this liability upon the province, I believe it will be obliged to come back to the Federal government for relief, and it would be exceedingly difficult for us to refuse to grant that relief, because we shall be responsible for having fastened on the province the financial obligations which "brought it into that position.
Now, I want to say a word with reference to the remarks addressed to the House by the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd). He said that the opposition to this Bill originated with a few agitators in Winnipeg. I do not think that was a perfectly fair statement of the case. I think even the Minister of the Interior will agree with me when I say that the entire Liberal party was opposed to it. I do not think there was an exception. Mr. James Ashdown was mentioned to-night as an exception. as a strong supporter of the Bill, as holding up both hands for it. I do not think that was an accurate description of his position. As a member of the board of trade, Mr. Ashdown agreed with a majority of the committee appointed to consider the question, that if certain amendments were made to the Bill they would
withdraw opposition to it. Those amendments have, of course, not been made. We are told, however, that the improvements suggested will be put in the mortgage when it is executed. On that point I entirely agree with the position taken by my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) that we ought to have this mortgage laid on the Table of the House before we ratify the contract. It is exceedingly important that we should have an opportunity to protect the people of Manitoba in connection with this contract if it is the decision of the House that the Bill must be forced through. As I stated when speaking previously on the question, we want to have the mortgage laid on the Table in order that we may see that those provisions which men like Mr. Ashdown have asked to be placed in it are placed in it. In discussing that matter with the premier of Manitoba-and I do not think he will accuse me of violating any confidence in the matter-he said that until the mortgage was executed, it would be difficult to lay it on the Table. I replied that although the mortgage may not be executed, we ought to have the mortgage as prepared laid on the Table, so that if the House finally decides to ratify this Bill, we may be able to examine the mortgage and see that the conditions which the majority of the Board of Trade asked to be placed in the mortgage are placed in it. We could at least do that much for Manitoba.
Now, let me reiterate that I believe the entire Liberal party-I do not know a single exception-are unanimously opposed to this legislation. Mr. Ashdown, though called a Liberal, was formerly a Conservative. In addition to the Liberal party, the entire labour party in Winnipeg, and I presume they have associated with them the labour men throughout the province, have denounced this legislation as not carrying out the idea of governmelit ownership at all. The president of the labour party said that the Bill, instead of being government ownership of railways, was the government ownership of railway debts. Then, what do we find with regard to the Conservative party? We find that most of the leading Conservatives there are very hostile to this measure. It is quite true, they have been designated by politicians on the other side as not being thoroughbreds ; but be that as it may. many of them are heartily opposed to the Bill. I read a list of Liberal-Conservatives opposed to this Bill, the names being taken from the Winnipeg Free Press, the organ of the Dominion government, and a paper over which my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior exercises a very important influence :	Mayor Arbuthnot, of Winnipeg;
Mayor Dickey, of Carberry ; ex-Mayor Gilroy, of Winnipeg; ex-Mayor Andrews, of Winnipeg ; Mr. Gilroy has been a candidate for political honours in the Conservative interest ; so has Mr. Andrews. Andrew

Kelly, of Brandon, a prominent Conservative ; J. H. Haslan, the Conservative candidate for Selkirk in the last Dominion election. Mr. A. M. Nanton, of Winnipeg, a prominent Conservative ; Mr. J. H. Brock, of Winnipeg, one of the most prominent Conservatives in the province of Manitoba, and a brother of the hon. member for Centre Toronto ; Aid. Fry, of Winnipeg, another prominent Conservative. Just to show that Conservative opinion is as much opposed to this Bill as Liberal opinion, let me read a short editorial from this government organ. It is headed ' Take a vote on it,' and says :
There are several stout Conservative papers in the west opposing the terms of the railway contracts now before the Manitoba legislature. A Manitoba paper which has been friendly to the party led by Mr. Hugh J. Macdonald, the Portage la Prairie Graphic of the 3rd inst., says:
' The Canadian Northern contract now before the local House is one of those measures which should be referred to the people. There are two reasons why this should be done. The vital importance of the measure to the province, by far the most important measure that has ever come into Manitoba politics, marks it as one upon which the people should pronounce first hand. The other reason is that the present government was elected on a platform of public ownership, and while this deal offers several of the advantages of public ownership, it does not give us public ownership, while entailing some of its risks. The proposal of the member for Lakeside is a good one, and we would suggest that Mr. McKenzie should not wait for a cabinet minister to accept his challenge, but should resign at once in the event of the third reading of the Bill being delayed.'
During a discussion of this Bill in the Manitoba legislature, Mr. Young, of Delor-aine. a brother of Senator Young, and Mr. McKenzie, the Liberal member for Lakeside, a local constituency in the constituency of my hon. friend from Macdonald, both offered to resign their seats and make the issue of their re-election the merits of this railway bargain ; and their offers were not accepted. Their offer was not accepted, because the government must have felt that their candidates would certainly have been defeated.
Nearly the whole Conservative press is opposed to the contract, and scarcely a prominent Conservative in the province of Manitoba, outside of the members who voted for the Bill, approve of it. The Montreal Gazette opposed the contract from the start, and only the day before yesterday had an article deploring the provisions of the Bill and trusting it would not become law. The Ottawa Citizen, the Calgary Herald. the Montreal Star, the Belleville Intelligencer, which is controlled by Sir Mackenzie Bowell, the Hamilton Spectator, and the Toronto News, have all expressed themselves adverse to this deal. And among the financial and commercial publications opposed to it are the Canadian Trade Review, the Mr. RICHARDSON (Lisgar).
Monetary Times and the Winnipeg Commercial, I do not know of a single Liberal paper, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, that has expressed itself in approval of this transaction. Some of the comments of the Conservative press are very strong. Sir Mackenzie Bowell's paper says that if it does not ruin the province, the province will be very fortunate. And the other papers denounced it in the same strain. In view of the fact that this deal is condemned both by Liberal and Conservative papers, in view of the fact that the labour party is unanimously opposed to it, and that both Liberals and Conservatives of prominence have denounced it, we may reasonably assume that public opinion is decidedly opposed to the ratification of this contract.
The hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) said that I was elected by the votes of the Conservatives of the constituency of Lisgar. There is no doubt that a large majority of the Conservatives of Lisgar cast their ballots in my favour, but I must also say that without a vote of a very large number of Liberals in the county of Lisgar I would not be here to-night; and it is my firm conviction that were it not for the fierce campaign waged against me, I would have had a majority of at least 2,000 electors. The people of Lisgar, I believe, desired to pay me the compliment of returning me by a large majority, because of the position I took in defence of their rights.
Let me show the House what sort of tactics were resorted to against me. A few days before the election, a type-written circular was sent practically to every Liberal voter in Lisgar. That circular originated in the office of the Liberal organizer in Winnipeg. It was a forgery, and was signed ' The Central Conservative Association.' It was written as if it were intended for Conservative voters only, and what did that circular say ? It said that in the name of Sir Charles Tupper it was desirable that the mask should be withdrawn, and he wanted the faithful to understand that R. L. Richardson had made a deal with the Conservative party, and had sold himself out politically to that party. The circular further stated that it was important, in the interest of the Conservative party, that R. L. Richardson should be elected, because he had made a deal by which he was going to take over the Winnipeg Telegram, a Conservative paper, and amalgamate it with his paper, and that he would be very useful to the Conservative party as editor of the Conservative paper in the capital. Emissaries went all through the concessions of that constituency armed with that circular, and saying tp 'my old Liberal friends : What do you think of Richardson now ? Here is a circular issued by the Conservative party of Manitoba : it is intended for Conservatives. but it has dropped into the hands of Liberals.


Mr. WADE.: I rise to a question of order. What have we got to do with this circular ?


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Macdonald).: For a time I allowed the hon. gentleman to proceed, because there was a reference made to the manner in which he was elected. But, I think he has gone far enough, and he would do well to get back to the Bill.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I was just going to return. I had just one other statement to make.


Fletcher Bath Wade: We will take it for granted.


Robert Lorne Richardson: The hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) says the House is not interested1 in this matter, but I find I am receiving much more attention when I refer to this matter than when I speak upon the Bill. I would not have referred to it had not the hon. member for Macdonald stated that I was misrepresenting the people who elected me. I admit that I got a good Conservative vote in the constituency, but I would not have been elected without a very large Liberal vote, though the hon. member for Macdonald may be correct in saying that I would not be here if I did not get the Conservative vote. I may say, however, that I am here representing both Liberals and Conservatives. I ran as an independent, I got votes on both sides, and I am here as representing all the people of Lisgar. It lias been said to me : You are taking your political life in your hands by opposing this Bill. The Liberals who opposed you in Lisgar will not support you, and the Conservatives who supported you will not support you again. I realize that there may possibly be some force in that statement, but I am not in public life for the purpose merely of holding down a seat in this House. I desire in the interests of the people of Lisgar to stand up against this Bill. It is immaterial to me whether, in taking this position, I shall sacrifice my seat in this House. I would sooner do right and sacrifice my seat, than to be wrong and hold my seat. My experience in public life has not enamoured me with being a member of parliament. A man who takes an independent position has got no flowery path to pursue in public life. I care not the snap of a finger whether I sacrifice my seat in this House, or whether I shall ever appear here again ; but, I shall at least know that in opposing this measure I have acted conscientiously, and. as I believe, in the interest of my constituents. I trust the House will pardon this personal allusion.
The hon. member for Marquette also referred to me as having advocated government ownership, and that now- I was opposing that principle. I gathered from his remarks that he thinks this railway deal brings government ownership to Manitoba. I entirely differ from the hon. member in
that conclusion. My conviction is, that if we pass this Bill we will put back for all time, certainly for thirty years, government ownership of railways in Manitoba. Government ownership can only be effectively carried out by the federal power. The provinces may, to some extent, control the road-beds, and by virtue of the assistance-which they give to railway companies, may ask for certain rates ; but, inasmuch as it was clearly laid down in the Railway Committee by eminent legal authorities, that no province can own or control a railway outside of its limits, I think that opinion deals a fatal blow at the idea of effective government ownership by provincial authorities. The longer I study the railway question the more convinced I am that government ownership is the only effective solution of the transportation problem. I was surprised to find, these last few days, that the Hon. Joseph Howe, one of the greatest statesmen Canada has known, in his speeches and letters, indicated that government ownership was bound to come in due time.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: I would call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that the Bill does not include the subject of government ownership; therefore, I desire that the hon. gentleman direct his remarks to the Bill.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I would suggest to the Chairman that this Bill is by many regarded as securing the government ownership of these railways and government control of the rates, and I submit that I think I am strictly within the lines in pointing out that this is not secured. However, I would not like to transgress any further, if I am out of order. But, the whole contention of the hon. member for Marquette was, that I was to blame in opposing this Bill, because it provided for practical government ownership and control of rates. If the Chairman is still of the opinion that, under the circumstances, I cannot continue that line of argument, of course, I will accept his ruling.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: I am certainly of the opinion that it does not include the question of the government ownership of railways, and therefore I think it would be irrelevant to discuss the question of government ownership in the discussion of this Bill.


Robert Lorne Richardson: It was in connection with this Bill that we discussed the question of government ownership. I was just saying that I was being twitted-


Mr. GERMAN.: Oh, go on and talk.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: That is my ruling.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I would like to refer to a statement made by the hon.

member for Marquette (Mr. Roche), who said that the Northern Pacific Railway was Introduced into the province of Manitoba under the condition that it should not charge higher rates than were charged by the Canadian Pacific Railway. I may say that the hon. gentleman is slightly in error in regard to that point. A maximum rate letter was obtained from the Northern Pacific by the government of Mr. Greenway at the time the bargain was made, and that maximum rate letter called for a reductiop of 3 cents per 100 pounds in the rate on wheat from points in Manitoba to Lake Superior. X myself saw the tariff issued by the Canadian Pacific Railway, I think, in October, and the rate was 24 cents per 100 pounds on wheat from Manitoba points to Lake Superior, but as soon as this bargain was made between the Greenway government and the Northern Pacific Railway, by virtue of which this maximum rate letter was issued, and which reduced the rate from 24 to 21 cents per 100 pounds, the Canadian Pacific Railway withdrew its tariff and issued a new one, making the rate 21 cents per 100 pounds from Manitoba points to Lake Superior, so that, an actual and positive reduction of 3 cents per 100 pounds in the rate from Manitoba points to Lake Superior was obtained. In addition to that, the incoming rates on general merchandise were reduced on the Northern Pacific from 25 per cent to 33J per cent. Because of the reduction on the Northern Pacific the Canadian Pacific Railway was obliged to meet the rate, so that the introduction of the Northern Pacific in the province of Manitoba meant a very considerable saving in freight rates to the people of Manitoba.
I do not know that I have anything further to say at this stage of the proceedings. I have two or three amendments which I propose to move when the time comes, but I felt it desirable that the remarks which I have addressed to the committee should be addressed to it on the preamble of the Bill, in the hope that the government might see its way clear to accepting the amendment which I propose, and have this Bill come into force only upon being ratified by the legislature of Manitoba, after being referred back to that body. I have some memoranda which I shall present to the House when the amendments come to be considered, but in the meantime I will content myself with making a final appeal to the government to accept my proposal and allow this Bill to go back to the legislature of Manitoba for final ratification. If the government takes that course it will relieve itself of responsibility and relieve this House of responsibility. Before I sit down I would like to ask your ruling, Mr. Chairman, on one point. The order for Monday is private Bills. The Monday that we began with yesterday morning was exhausted about an hour ago. Now.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I want to know from you, Sir, if this is still Monday.


William Manley German: No, it is Tuesday.


Robert Lorne Richardson: The hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) says it is Tuesday. I think he is right. I am disposed to agree entirely with that assumption. I would like your ruling Mr. Chairman, as to whether this is Monday or Tuesday.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: My ruling is that the order of proceeding .is Monday.


Robert Lorne Richardson: What is the day ?


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: It does not make any difference. The order of proceeding is Monday.


Arthur W. Puttee: Mr. Chairman


Some hon. MEMBERS: Question, question.


Arthur W. Puttee: Can I get order, Mr. Chairman ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Carried, carried.


Arthur W. Puttee: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention


Some hon. MEMBERS: Carried.
Mr. PUTTEE-to make any lengthy remarks at this stage. I shall not-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Question.
Mr. PUTTEE-allow the preamble to be passed


Some hon. MEMBERS: Question.
Mr. PUTTEE-without putting in my protest that it should be passed without having any hope that any of the amendments that have been given notice of are going to be accepted.


An hon. MEMBER.: Louder.


Arthur W. Puttee: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that there is an hon. gentleman at the far end who is not able to hear my voice. As I was saying, it is not my intention to make any prolonged remarks this evening-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
Mr. PUTTEE-except to state that I have determined not to allow the preamble of this Bill to be passed


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
Mr. PUTTEE-without entering my protest that it should be attempted to be passed without accepting any of the amendments

which have been given notice of and without taking notice of the points and considerations that have been brought up during the last few days, during which this matter has been before the House. I am surprised at your ruling, Mr. Chairman, as regards public ownership of railways.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Arthur W. Puttee: When this matter was first introduced to the public the premier of Manitoba referred to the fact that his party was elected on the questions of government ownership of railways. He told the audience that it was not time in Manitoba to adopt that principle, that the people in the province of Manitoba would not be willing to entrust the operation and ownership of railways into the hands of politicians at the present time, but he claimed that he had made an arrangement by which all the advantages without the drawbacks of government ownership were obtained. I do not wish to discuss the question of government ownership, but I am surprised that the hon. gentleman who preceded me (Mr. Richardson, Lisgar) was called to order for referring to this matter, because I was charged in the Railway Committee with being false to the principles that I have stated here several times when 1 declared myself to be in favour of the government ownership of railways. I am pleased that the discussion has lasted as long as it has, and I claim that there has been no obstruction placed in the way of the passage of this Bill. Until to-day the character of the debate was even more remarkable than the Bill itself. With one exception it was not until to-day that any supporter of the Bill would say so. It was not until to-day that the Manitoba members would give their reasons for supporting the Bill. In fact, until to-day the response of the members of this House to all our argument was :	We
do not care about it. But the difficulties that we have all along pointed out are now recognized to exist. I would not speak on the preamble if any who are in authority would give us hope that the propositions we have put forward would be accepted. There is one amendment on the Order paper that I cannot for the life of me un-del-stand why it should not be accepted. It proposes that we should pass this Bill and that it should not become law until the legislature of Manitoba had passed upon it again. I have not the slightest doubt that if the legislature should remain of the same opinion as it was when it made the contract, the railway companies would be glad to accept the same terms. 1 have had the opinion of a gentleman who had reason to look carefully into this deal, and he told me that the bargain was so one-sided that if it had been made by an individual and if it were taken into a court of law, it would probably be declared void on the ground that the maker of the bargain could not possibly
have understood what he was doing when he entered into it. The Minister of the Interior told us to-day, what should have been recognized long ago, that the question before us is the passage of a railway Bill; that it includes an agreement with a second party, but that the railway companies can in no way involve that second party unless we give them the power. It always has been the procedure of this parliament for us to examine into the merits of proposed railway amalgamations, and it is our right and our duty to do so. Even if a shareholder of one of the companies asking amalgamation appears before us, he is listened to. In this case the appellants to us are the people of Manitoba. The Minister of the Interior looked at this purely as a matter between this railway company and the legislature of Manitoba, and he seemed to forget that it is the people who are appealing to this parliament. We are not here as representing corporations, but we are here supposed to look after the interests of the people, and to see that they are amply and thoroughly protected. The member for Labelle has pointed out to the House that under the contract included in this Bill, it was altogether likely that different rates would prevail in Manitoba from these prevailing in Ontario and the Northwest Territories, and that in all probability they would be higher in Ontario than they would be in Manitoba. The certainty then was that the people outside of Manitoba would appeal to the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, and as a remedy against this discrimination the Minister of Railways and Canals told us m the committee that it would be competent for the Privy Council to either lower the rates outside of Manitoba, or to increase the rates within the borders of Manitoba. The probability would be that the contention would be made that the rates outside of Manitoba were as low as they could possibly be, and therefore it would be incumbent upon the government to order that the railway rates in the province of Manitoba shall be raised. This seems to have been overlooked by the Minister of the Interior, and it would certainly bring this government into contest with the government of Manitoba. That I think has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the members of this House. Before we are asked to pass this preamble, we shall have a definite statement as to whether this is to be provided for or not. It has been claimed by some hon. gentlemen that there has been too much discussion upon this matter, and that the subject has been practically talked to death. I do not agree in that view. The discussion has been altogether one-sided until to-day. but I believe that a great deal of good has been done because the result of our efforts has been to point certain defects in this measure. It was only to-day that those in favour of the Bill spoke.


Mr. LARIYIERE.: My hon. friend (Mr. Puttee) is perfectly aware that one single member on the other side occupied the floor for two days, and that we did not have a chance to speak at all.


Arthur W. Puttee: I made one exception. The hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) this evening, for the first time in my knowledge, questioned the opposition of the people of Winnipeg to this bargain. Last Monday night I produced a great deal of evidence in this House as to the feeling of the people in the city of Winnipeg and also in the province at large in opposition to these deals ; and until to-night I have not heard that fact questioned. I wish to state most emphatically that public opinion in the city of Winnipeg is as nearly unanimous in its opposition to the railway bargain as it has been on any question I have ever known. I produced evidence from the leading journals of public opinion in the city. I cited the action of the city council, who were opposed to the deals, because they were advertising the sale of $1,000,000 worth of debentures, and on the recommendation of tlieir finance committee they took up this matter. I referred to the action of the board of trade, who did all they could to induce the government to meet their wishes and make the bargain decently fair, so that they could support it, and finally, after being told time and again that everything would appear in the mortgage, they lost all faith and went on record as opposed to the Bill. I referred to tlie Trades Council of Winnipeg, who, as believers in government ownership, were opposed to the Bill from the start, also the Labour party, which is a political organization. I quoted extensively from the Winnipeg Commercial, the only business publication in the west, and certainly as reliable as any paper in this country can be-a paper whose opinions are not swayed at all by political reasons, but which looked at the question simply as a matter of business. I referred to the public meetings in Winnipeg, which condemned the deal absolutely. The bon. member for Macdonald said that the meetings were practically in favour of the bargain, and that if the people present had been given a chance to vote, the majority would have been in their favour. The Tribune of Saturday, March 16, giving an account of the public meeting, said :
The success of the public meeting at the Winnipeg theatre last night for further discussion of the railroad deal was interfered with to some extent by an exhibition of organized rowdyism, for which the supporters of the railway deals are responsible. It was known as early as yesterday morning that organization for this purpose was going on, and fearing trouble extra police had been stationed in various parts of the theatre. The interruptions were conducted by what appeared to be a gang of navvies, who had secured a portion of the upper gallery. But their shouts were ill-timed, and showed the Mr. PUTTEE.
utmost ignorance of the questions under discussion. The ignorance of the gang, however,, was most superbly shown, when they even interrupted Messrs. Sproule and Samson Walker, who were speakers on the side of those who had engaged them:
The theatre was packed to the doors and the great bulk of the audieneq was thoroughly in sympathy with the resolution condemning the deal and asking for the protection of thg Dominion government in the matter.
I should not read this and have It put on record if it were not that I have had information from other sources which corroborates it. The description of the same meeting in the Winnipeg Free Press is as follows :-
The mass meeting held in the Winnipeg theatre last night to consider the railway deal was an affair of immense proportions. The spacious theatre was filled to the roof with au enthusiastic crowd, which, when the resolution was put to a vote, voted overwhelmingly in favour of it. The crowd was good-natured and noisy at times, but not disorderly, and the noise was the result of the efforts of an organized gang of disturbers who were opposed to any discussion of the matter, and who were assisted by a band of foreigners, navvies and shantymen who had been paid for this purpose, and marched to the theatre before it opened and seated in the top gallery.
Only to-day I received a communication from a gentleman in Winnipeg who was at that meeting, and he corroborates exactly the statements made by these papers. I recognize, of course, that the papers are generally supposed to lend a partisan colouring to their reports; hut it is only fair to say that the papers of Winnipeg, like the papers of metropolitan cities, have got to a considerable extent beyond that style of newspaper reporting. There was a deliberate attempt at that time to falsify the personal opinions of the citizens of Winnipeg In regard to those deals. The hon. member for Macdonald happened to be in the city that night, and an Innocent spectator at the performance.
I submitted last Monday evening a great deal of evidence to show the condition of public opinion as expressed in the press. I have in my hand a number of letters from different parties giving expressions of-private opinion. I know what weight is attached to a private expression of opinion, but many of the statements sent me, I think, accurately gauge the sentiment of the people of Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba. One gentleman writes me that the public has its mind made up as to the course to he pursued in the event of this deal becoming law, and that is to elect a government, at the first opportunity, pledged to repudiation, and that government will be neither Liberal nor Conservative, but a coalition of men from both parties. The attitude of the province, this gentleman says, is one of solid disgust, which will show itself with terrible effect whenever the opportunity offers, and he advises the

government to strengthen the militia contemporaneously with the passing of this Bill. Only in a few places is the contract at all approved of, and those are places which are in the expectation of public favours arising out of it, such as Emerson where a bridge is promised and where the Great Northern is expected to have a station. The writer of this letter is a gentleman who was unsuccessful in the last provincial general election, and who was one of the principal advocates of the very strongest platform on which the party now in power stands, namely, the government ownership of railways. He also is ex-mayor of the city of Winnipeg. I have also a letter from another gentleman who took a very active part in the last provincial election and who thoroughly understands the sentiment of the province in this matter.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Name.


Arthur W. Puttee: The gentleman is Mr. W. R. Mulock, and he writes that the sentiment against the deal is practically universal.
The hon. member for Macdonald laid great stress on the fact that when the Canadian Pacific Railway became aware of the nature of the bargain they offered the Manitoba government some $5,000,000 or $6,000,000 spread over the next five years, and that he claimed should be taken as the value of the present bargain. I do not agree with the hon. gentleman on that point. That simply shows conclusively that the argument advanced by the hon. member for North Norfolk is well-founded, namely, that in the next two or three years freight rates will certainly come down. I do not know whether the Canadian Pacific Railway are favouring this deal or not ; I do not know whether they are in collusion with the parties to this deal or not, but there is every probability that the rumour to that effect is pretty well founded ; but their offer of $5,000.000, spread over the next five years, would in any case be a low offer for an absolute monopoly. If they could get such a monopoly at that price, they would certainly be getting it cheap. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company, through its president, before this deal was made public, offered the provincial government an arrangement that seemed to be a very profitable one. But. there is no evidence that this is the value we should put upon this,bargain. As the premier of the province said, and quite rightly, they could not consider it as an alternative offer, because the people of Manitoba were anxious to get away from that monopoly, and to strengthen it even with the advantage of five millions on the other side would be out of the question. I do not think we should be called upon to pass this Bill without intimation being given whether any of these amendments of which we have had notice, will be acepted. I think I have stated the case fairly when I
say that though the matter was before the committee for four days, it did not receive proper attention, that it was not amended as it might have been if we had gone into both sides of the question. I do not think the preamble should be passed at all until we have an expression of opinon from the government. At all events, I will claim this much, that I have taken this Bill seriously, that the people of Manitoba are opposed to it, and we have a right to expect this parliament to protect the province. I have shown my sincerity, at all events, in believing that the province is against it by offering-and I think it is one of the best propositions made-that the matter should be referred to the people of the province. I do not think the proposal to refer it back to the legislature is adequate. The Manitoba legislature would probably be called together immediately and pass the measure.
Mr.- CHARLTON. Mr. Chairman


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Shall the preamble carry ? Carried.


John Charlton: No, Mr. Chairman.


Peter Macdonald: I understood that it was carried before anybody rose.


John Charlton: No, I was on my feet.


Peter Macdonald: I did not see anybody on his feet, and I declared the preamble carried. My decision is that it was carried before anybody rose.


John Charlton: I have only this to say, that I was on my feet and endeavoured to attract your attention, but you refused to look in this direction. I do not require very much of the time of this committee, but I do not intend to be gagged. If the government and the House desire to put this Bill through, they will be kind enough to bear in mind that it will be necessary to grant fair-play to those engaged in this discussion.


Peter Macdonald: I say that when I declared the preamble carried, there was no person on the floor, and I said ' carried,' and after the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) got up. Now, if it is the will of the committee that there should be further discussion, of course, the matter is in their hands.


Robert Lorne Richardson: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) arose immediately.


John Charlton: I was on my feet before the preamble was declared carried. I am the best judge of that matter,- for you were not looking this way, and did not raise your head. I did not rise to make a speech, but I stand here to declare my right as a member of the committee. If I am allowed to go on, I will do it; if not, I will not
o079

attempt to go on. I am sorry for this little episode, for I arose in a spirit of conciliation to make a suggestion.


Tile PRIME MINISTER.: What is the suggestion ?


John Charlton: In my opinion, tne discussion upon this Bill has proceeded as far as it is necessary for it to proceed, in the event of it being the desire of the government that the Bill should pass. If the opposition of this Bill could feel that there was a disposition on the part of the government to secure the passage of the Bill, and if there was any reasonable chance of securing the defeat of this Bill by continuing the discussion, it would be their privilege to continue it. But, if the government desire to put this Bill through, and intend to deny the motion to refer it back to the legislature of Manitoba, it is useless to continue the discussion. I rose to propose that the government should indicate their will in this matter; and that wish shall govern me. If the government desire to put the Bill through and deny the motion to refer it to the legislature of Manitoba, I desire to know that, and my opposition ceases.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I have already stated that it is not the intention of the government to make this a ministerial measure. But, I have no hesitation in stating to my hon friend that it is the desire of the government that the Bill, which is supported with almost complete unanimity by the House, should be carried-that the wiii of the House should not be thwarted in any way.


John Charlton: I accept that as a statement that will govern my action in the matter. Under the circumstances, I consider that it is not my duty to prosecute the opposition to this Bill further.
On section 3,


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Before section 3 is carried, I must say at once that the government, having accepted the responsibility of the principle of the Bill, my position is quite similar to that of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). In fact, I never had any intention of getting anything else but a declaration from the government that they were ready to accept the responsibility of this measure. But, I have an amendment to section 3, of which I have given notice. As the committee knows- and I may say that I am going to be very short in my remarks-this third section is entirely absent from the Bill as it was first introduced. I have already ventured the humble opinion that this section adds nothing to the powers of the Manitoba government, nor does it take anything from them. The powers of the Federal government and of the provincial government are defined by the constitution, which we cer-Mr. CHARLTON.
tainly cannot amend by an amendment to a Bill. The Minister of Railways made it clear in the committee that he wanted to introduce this clause as a warning to the government of Manitoba as to the spirit which animated the Federal parliament in adopting this legislation-that is, that the Federal government would keep its full power to interfere at any time to prevent Manitoba interfering with other people's rights in this regard.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Peter Macdonald: I hope hon. gentlemen will keep order for a little while. I think any disorder is lowering to the dignity of the committee.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: The clause reads as follows :
3. Nothing in this Act or in the indenture contained in the schedules hereto, or done in pursuance of this Act, or of the said indentures shall :
(a)	divest or limit, temporarily or otherwise, the rights or powers (under existing or future legislation of the parliament of Canada) of the Governor in Council, or of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council or of any commission or other authority, respecting any matter or thing, obligation or duty;
(b)	place the Governor of Canada, directly or indirectly, under any liability, obligation or duty with respect to any payment, matter or thing in the said indentures, provided for or referred to ;
(c)	authorize the Canadian Northern Railway Company to charge or demand any discriminating rate for the carriage of freight or passengers or to allow or make, any secret or special tolls on rebates, drawbacks or concessions, or any higher rates for the carriage of freight or passengers than those heretofore or hereafter fixed under the authority of existing or future legislation of the parliament of Canada, by the Governor in Council, or by the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, or by any commission or other authority.
If I understand the bearing of this clause, it means that if any individual or place feels that the rates imposed on the country by the government of Manitoba under this Act interferes with or discriminates against them, they can come to the Railway Committee of the Privy Council for redress. The point has been raised in the committee and in this House-and so far it has not been denied in any way except by the Minister of the Interior. by saying it -was a childish absurdity, while in the Railway Committee the Minister of Railways admitted that it was worthy of considerafion-the point has been made that the government of Manitoba might fix the rates so that there would be no discrimination against any part of the province while interfering with the rights of another province or the whole Dominion. Therefore, I gave notice that I would move, as I do so. seconded by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Richardson) that after the word ' any discriminating rate,' these words be inserted :

-in favour of or against either (1) any individual or corporation, or (2) the people or shippers of or from any particular place, section, district or province.
I do not see how, if the government are in good faith, as I am sure they are, in desiring that this warning to the government of Manitoba should be effective, if they really intend to exercise the powers that are included, I do not see what objection there can be to the amendment I am now moving.
I do not move it with any idea of making the measure satisfactory to myself-I am opposed to the whole Bill, but when it is demanded by the majority, I submit to the majority. But I do not see why, if this warning is to be given against interfering with the right of people or localities in Manitoba, it should not be a warning against interfering with the rights of the people and localities in other provinces, a warning that they are not to take such steps as will divert the trade to American railways, or to use their powers to the injury of the intei'ests of the people of the Northwest, of Ontario, or of any other section. After all, if this adds nothing to the clause, it cannot do harm. If the government are sincere in saying they are ready to maintain the rights of the rest of the country in ease they are interfered with, what objection can they have to this amendment ? I submit this amendment to the committee, hoping the committee will accept it, not as a movement to defeat the Bill, but simply to emphasize the reservation made by the Minister of Railways and Canals.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I will say to my hon. friend from Labelle that if this Bill were before the Railway Committee, I do not think I would have any serious objection to his amendment, in fact I would have none at all, because in my judgment it adds nothing to or detracts nothing from the sense of the clause we have before us. The clause now reads as follows
Nothing in this Act or in this indenture contained in the schedule hereto, or done in pursuance of this.Act or of the said indentures shall . .	. . authorize the Canadian Northern Railway Company to charge or demand any higher rates

	,
Or any discriminatory rates. Now, there is no doubt that if a person is discriminated against he has the right of appeal to the Railway Committee of the Privy Council. The Canadian Northern shall not be authorized to discriminate against any person, it shall not be authorized to discriminate against any place. If any place is discriminated against it will have the right of appeal to the Railway Committee. In the same way if this discrimination is made against a person, or a particular locality, or against a province, there would be the right of appeal to the Railway Committee. I do not see that the amendment is needed.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: In my opinion the amendment adds nothing at all to the value of the clause. Those who may be discriminated against have that right under the General Railway Act. Everything the hon. gentleman wishes to secure by llis amendment is already provided for in the Act.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I desire to say only one word. The hon. member for Labelle has attributed to me statements and purposes which I did not make or entertain when this Bill was under consideration before the Railway Committee. I did not suggest the inclusion of that section in this Bill in any way, shape or form; it d'id not emanate from me. The gentlemen who were promoting this Bill introduced a special clause for the purpose of affording some assurance to, I presume, some persons on the committee who had doubts as to whether the action of parliament in passing this Bill would in some degree impair its power and authority in the premises, that it would have no such effect.
All that I suggested in the committee was that inasmuch as the object of the amendment which had emanated from the promoters of the Bill, and by which it was proposed to say that nothing in the Act should interfere with the power of the Railway Committee in respect to rates; that is to say, that the rates could not be made any higher than the rates fixed by the Governor in Council under the Railway Act, and that inasmuch as the clause only referred to the question of the raising of rates, I thought it would be reasonable to also add a clause having reference to discrimination, or to the making of secret rebates or other arrangements which are clearly declared against by the provisions of the Railway Act. At the same time, I took special care to convey to the committee my own opinion, that we were thereby not at all strengthened in our position ; that it was not necessary that we should make that declaration, that nothing wm could do or say would add to the powers of the provincial legislature or derogate from our own powers, that we were not conferring any powers on them and that we were taking none from ourselves. So that, when the hon. gentleman suggests that this clause was inserted at my suggestion he is entirely in error and he is forgetting the statement I made upon the subject. I would have a very serious objection to this amendment, the hon. gentleman must, if he is familiar with the Railway Act, know that it does not profess to deal with the question of the regulation of rates where that regulation appertains to the traffic which goes outside of the country. It has not been thought expedient, in any legislation which has passed this country, to make provision in such a case. This amendment refers to

the subject -with the view of making such a provision, and I think it would not he expedient to adopt it.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Do I understand that in the Railway Act there is no power on the part of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council to prevent Manitoba, if she should choose to do it, sending the trade of the west to the United States ?
The MINISTER OB' RAILWAYS AND CANALS. I certainly do not think that the Railway Act deals with the question at all of the transfer of business to the United States. I do not find anything in it that deals with the question. The Railway Act does not provide for the classification of goods "which are carried out of the country into a foreign country or which may be brought from a foreign country on a through rate. We have declined to confer upon the Governor in Council any power to classify such goods for the purpose of having a rate fixed and we do not regulate the rate on such traffic.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Then, this throws a new light on the subject, and it adds very much to the seriousness of it. This shows that the government have no power under the Railway Act, according to the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, to prevent Manitoba from sending her trade to the United States. Therefore, I think I shall be able to show that question is a very important one, and when we come to the third reading, I think this should be made a little clearer than it is now.
Amendment (Mr. Bourassa) negatived.


Robert Lorne Richardson: * I have another amendment which I shall read and then make one or two remarks. I accept the position as the hon. member for North Norfolk and the hon. member for Labelle have accepted it. In view of the statement of the Prime Minister that the government desires this Bill to become law, we will bow to the inevitable. My amendment is as follows :
That section 3 of the said Bill he struck out and the following inserted in lieu thereof :
3. Notwithstanding anything in the Railway Act or in any other Act relating to the Canadian Northern Railway Company or the Ontario and Rainy River Railway Company contained, the rates to be charged or demanded by the Canadian Northern Railway Company for the carriage of all freight from all points on the Canadian Northern Railway Company's lines in Manitoba to Port Arthur, and from Port Arthur to all points on the Canadian Northern Railway Company's lines in Manitoba, and from all points on the Canadian Northern Railway Company's lines in JManitoba to all other points on said lines in Manitoba shall be within the absolute control of the Lieutenant Governor of Manitoba in Council.
Just one word by way of explanation; I may say that when this Bill passed the Mr. BLAIR.
Manitoba legislature I believe that the legislature believed that they were getting the absolute power to control these rates. I have made that proposition so frequently that I think it would be superfluous to reiterate it now. In order to be perfectly fair with the Manitoba legislature, if we are bound to pass this Bill, we ought to give to Manitoba all the power they thought they were getting when the legislature agreed to ratify the conti'act. We ought to divest ourselves so far as we can of any control over freight rates and allow Manitoba to exereise jurisdiction in that matter.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Would it not be better to introduce an amendment to the British North America Act ?


Robert Lorne Richardson: That may be. I quite see the force of the remark made by the hon. gentleman, but that is what I believe Manitoba expected she was getting when the contract was ratified. If we do this she cannot come back on us for damages or ask us to pay her debts if ruined.
Amendment (Mr. Richardson, Lisgar) negatived, and section agreed to.
On schedules A and B,


Robert Lorne Richardson: 1 beg to move the following motion, on which we have talked to-night;
That this Act shall only come into force when it shall be ratified by the legislative assembly of Manitoba.
Amendment negatived.


Arthur W. Puttee: I beg to move the following amendment, of which I have given notice :
This Act shall not come into force until such time as the indentures herein mentioned have been submitted by direct reference to the electors of the province of Manitoba, and a majority of the votes _cast are found to be favourable.
I would propose this amendment to any Bill imposing such liability on the province. I think the people themselves have the right to say finally whether they are in favour of it or not.	*
Amendment negatived.
Schedules A and B agreed to.
Bill reported.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: AVhen shall the Bill be read a third time ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Now.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Can this be done without the unanimous consent of the House ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Yes.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Is it the wish of the House that the Bill be read a third time, now ?


Robert Lorne Richardson: Hold on, Mr. Speaker, let me understand the situation. Is it within the province of this House notwithstanding that members may object to read this Bill a third time now ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Clearly. There is no doubt about that.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Then I beg to move in amendment, seconded by the kon. member for Labelle :
That the Bill be not now read a third time, but that it be read a third time this day six months.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: With a view of preventing the Manitoba government to discriminate against the rights of the people of the other provinces, or to divert the trade of Canada to the United States, I have moved an amendment to the third clause. . The Prime Minister told us that the power to prevent this lay with the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, but two minutes later the Minister of Railways told us that such power did not rest with that body. Well, we should know where we stand. There is no doubt from what we have heard from the Minister of the Interior, that the province of Manitoba will take the power, and probably a little more power than they are given under this law. It has happened in that province that where the constitution was plain, and where the highest tribunal in the land had declared the constitution was there, the government of Manitoba found a way to break the spirit of the constitution. If the government of Manitoba have already found a way to raise such a political agitation that the government of Canada did not deem it advisable to see that the constitution should be respected where the constitution was clearly on the side of a certain section of the population-and I am not prepared to say that the government of Canada was wrong in not interfering in that matter-I say that when we are creating an authority which may bring about a clash between that province and the Dominion, it is our duty to examine our position carefully. The Minister of Railways now tells us that there is nothing to prevent the Manitoba government from diverting the trade of that province to the United States. That is the point I raised in the Railway Committee, that is the point I raised on Monday last, that is the point that for eight days I have endeavoured to get explained by the Minister of Railways. But it is only at two o'clock in the morning, after a protracted debate and on a slight amendment to a subclause, that the minister chooses to throw light on the subject, and Ms light is that there is nothing in the Railway Act to enable him to protect the people of the rest of Canada against undue interference by the province of Manitoba. The minister tells us that he does not want to introduce into any private or special legislation, powers that we already possess under the Railway Act. Is this ordinary legislation ? No. It is entirely unprecedented legislation and it calls for unprecedented safeguards. The Minister of Railways has charged me with misquoting his words, and if I have done so, I ask his pardon, because I want to be fair to everybody ; but does the minister charge any one with misquotation who says that he stated in the Railway Committee that the powers given under this Bill to the Manitoba government might be the cause of a great clash between Manitoba and the Dominion. I suppose the hon. gentleman will not stand up now and state that he did not say those words, because all members of the committee are witnesses of them. Besides that, I understood the hon. gentleman to say that it would be a good thing, though per haps it would not do much by law, to introduce this as a warning to the government of Manitoba. The hon. gentleman says I misquoted him. All right ; I take that back; but I do not take back the statement that he said that this Bill would cause a grave clash between one of the provinces and the government of Canada. The hon. gentleman raised the question that on account of certain rates being adopted by the government of Manitoba, it might be the duty of the Dominion government to interfere to raise their rates in order to prevent them diverting the trade of this country to American lines. The hon. gentleman did not commit, himself very much on the details ; in fact, he has not been very committal on this Bill from the beginning till to-night. But, after the declaration made by the hon. gentleman a few minutes ago, this country is entitled to know what would be the effect of this legislation. On the one hand, the Prime Minister says they already possess that power, and the Minister of Railways says they do not possess that power. 1 would like to know what power they do possess, and the country would like to know.


Nathaniel Boyd: Is the hon. gentleman not aware, from the debate that has taken place to-night, that in 1899 ?1,000,000 worth of Manitoba freight has gone out over the Northern Pacific system to Duluth ?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I do not mind at all what has happened. If something wrong has been done, that is no excuse for another wrong being committed. What may have been done is nothing to us. We are here to deal with one piece of legislation. That piece of legislation may be the cause of great trouble between one province and the Federal government. That special piece of legislation is the result of such a popular agitation as was pointed out to this House this afternoon by the hon. Minister of the Interior as justifying no Dominion interfer-
508/

ence with the province in regulating their railway facilities. Such an agitation is what induces one of the members of the cabinet to stand up and vote for a Bill of which he disapproves, against which he says he would have spoken and voted had he been a member of the legislature which adopted it ; and now this parliament is called upon to sanction that legislation on the sole ground that the provincial feeling in Manitoba is so strong that it would not tolerate interference. If that feeling is so strong that w* are not free to oppose this legislation, what will the feeling be once the legislation is passed and the government have to interfere on behalf of the rest of the country ? I know it is useless to protest against this legislation ; but at this the last stage of the Bill, I will not let it pass without protesting once more against the way it has been conducted. No one has stood up to say a word for the measure except two members from Manitoba, who made a very weak defence of it. No one spoke for it until after four days of discussion ; and I think it was time to make some defence when the only minister who spoke on the Bill stated that he intended to vote for it although he was opposed to it. The discussion is not a good certificate to the legislation nor to our responsibility. I have been accused of posing for virtue; but I have no direct interest in this legislation. Whatever may be the consequences of it to the people of Manitoba, I do not mind so long as I have no responsibility in the matter ; but the moment we are called upon to vote for the ratification or the sanction of the legislation, that moment we become responsible for it. Under this piece of legislation, a provincial government may be in a position to work against the trade of the rest of the country, to nullify the work we are doing daily in this parliament to build up our transportation facilities ; and when we have the declaration of the Minister of Railways and Canals that under the Railway Act the government have no power to prevent that, it is imperative, even if it is useless to speak for those who have no axes to grind in this matter to express once more their full and true thought on the question.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. I understood, Sir, that at the start the great opposition to this legislation was because Manitoba had not full control of rates. My hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) now opposes it because Manitoba has too much power to control rates and may discriminate against the other provinces. I cannot understand why those opposed to this Bill do not unite together and try to bring their fiddles to the same tune. In one instance we are told that Manitoba gets nothing at all, and that it is the duty of this parliament to see that Manitoba gets what she expected to get. Now we are told that Manitoba gets too much, and that against tbe interests of the other Mr. BOURASSA.
provinces Manitoba will have power to discriminate. I say there is no sense in all this, because so far as these railway interests are concerned, Manitoba gets only what the constitution gives to her. We have not changed the constitution, and, as has been suggested very properly by the hon. Minister of Railways, if you want so many amendments, you had better strike at the constitution itself.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I am sure the hon. gentleman does not wish to be unfair to me. I have based my opposition to the Bill on this ground at every stage.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think I can very safely appeal to the members of the Railway Committee who heard what I had to say when this Bill was under consideration there, that I did not make any statements or convey any intimation to the committee to the effect that it was not entirely within the competence of this parliament, notwithstanding the passing of this Act, and without the clauses which are introduced in it, to prevent the Northern Pacific Railway charging discriminating rates. I never hesitated to say that the power of parliament was left unimpaired ; and while I stated that, I do not hesitate to say that I feared, and I fear at this moment, that there may be such a reduction of rates forced by the action of the Manitoba government upon the Canadian Northern Railway as to lead the Canadian Northern, even with the approval, if it were necessary, of the government of Manitoba, to impose higher rates on traffic on portions of their line outside of the province of Manitoba, so as thereby to reduce the loss which will result from operations within that province. That is where I fear there may be difficulties occurring, and to that extent I have not swerved in my opinion as to the consequences which might ensue from the carrying out of this agreement. When I stated a moment ago that I could not subscribe to the additional amendment proposed by the hon. member for La-belle, I had in my mind the provisions of the Railway Act, and those provisions have reference to the case of traffic which goes out of this country into a foreign country, in respect of which the Railway Act does not propose that the Governor in Council shall exercise any authority or control or undertake to say what shall be the rates imposed. The Railway Act provides, in the first place, that there shall be a uniform classification of rates fixed by the Governor in Council, that the various classes of freight shall be put under different classifications, and these shall be uniform over the whole of the railway, and the same rates, under certain conditions and classifications contained in the Act, which shall be imposed by the company, shall be uniform on one part of the line with the rate which is charged on that same classification
5 OS 9

upon other portions of the line. That is what the Act means when it says that railway companies cannot discriminate. Having declared under the authority of parliament what shall be the uniform classification of the different classes of freight, then what does parliament go on to say :
The company, in fixing or regulating the tolls to he taken for the transportation of goods, shall, except in respect of through traffic to or from the United States, adopt and conform to any uniform classification of freight which the Governor in Council, on the report of the minister, from time to time, prescribes.
That means that the companies shall not be called on to conform to the classification of freight where the freight is carried outside of Canada or brought inside of Canada to or from the United States.
The	MINISTER	OF	THE INTERIOR.That is the rule on	any	railway.The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. That is the rule on all railways.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Are any provisions of the Railway Act annulled or amended by the passage of this Bill ?
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. None whatever, but it was proposed by the amendment that we should entirely sweep away that well considered provision-an amendment which anybody must know would not be within the competence of parliament to enact, or, at all events, if it were, it would not be practicable to enforce. It is abundantly clear that our power in this regard, so far as railway rates are concerned, is clear and definite. It was in the endeavour to make it clear that the amendment is not in accord with the principle of the Railway Act, and would seek to impose on this particular traffic restrictions and obligations which are not imposed on railway traffic in any other country or in any other part of Canada, that I called attention to its character.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I just want to add a word to what the hon. member for Labelle has said. It is a remarkable spectacle to find an entire government and its supporters put through a Bill, which, I believe, they unanimously consider an improvident one-a Bill concerning which I do not believe there are three members on that side who are not of the opinion that it is one that would work injury to the province of Manitoba. That being the case, I cannot allow this House to divide without saying that we are presenting to-night one of the most remarkable spectacles ever witnessed in the House of Commons. I could not help wondering what Liberals like Papi-neau, Baldwin, Lafontaine, Alex. Mackenzie, Geo. Brown and Edward Blake, would think 160
of such an exhibition, and what stand they would take in a ease of this kind. I believe that time will justify the position that men like the hon. members for North Norfolk and Labelle and others have taken on this; question.
The House divided on amendment (Mr. Richardson, Lisgar).
YEAS :
Messieurs
Bourassa,	Richardson (Lisgar),
Charlton,	Wallace.-5.
Puttee,
NAYS:	1
Messieurs
Alcorn,	LeBlanc,
Ball,	Lefurgey,
Bazinet,	Lennox,
Bell (Addington),	Logan,
Blain,	Loy.
Blair,	Mackie,
Boyd,	MacLaren (Huntingdon).
Broder,	McCool,
Bruce,	McEwen,
Bruneau,	McGowan,
Bureau,	McGugan,
Calvert,	Mclsaac,
Carscallen,	Madore,
Clarke,	Marcil (Bagot),
Cochrane,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Culbert,	Martineau,
Davies (Sir Louis),	Mignault.,
Davis,	Monk,
Demers (LSvis),	Morin,
Demers (St. John),	Morrison,
Douglas,	Northrup,
Emmerson,	Oliver,
Erb.	Parmelee,
Ethier,	Prefontaine,
Fielding,	Proulx,
Fisher,	Reid (Restigouche),
Fortier,	Richardson (Grey),
Fortin,	Roche (Marquette),
Fowler,	Ross (Ontario),
Fraser,	Ross (Rimouski),
Gallery,	Ross (Victoria, N.S.),
Galliher,	Schell, '
Geoffrion,	Scott,
Gibson,	Sherritt,
Gilmour,	Sifton,
Girard,	Smith (Wentworth),
Gould,	Sproule,
Hackett,	Stephens,
Harwood,	Sutherland (Essex),
Henderson,	Sutherland (Oxford),
Hevd,	Talbot.
Holmes,	Tarte,
Hughes (Victoria),	Taylor,
Hyman,	Thompson,
Johnston (Cape Breton) Tisdale,	
Johnston (Cardwell),	Tolton,
Johnstcn (Lambton),	Tucker,
Kendall,	Turgeon, .
Kidd,	Wade,
Lancaster,	Ward,
Lang,	Wilmot,
LaRividre,	Wilson,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Lavergne,	Wright.-107.
Amendment negatived.	
Bill read the third time and passed.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 69) to incorporate the St. Lawrence Power Company.-Mr. Logan.
Bill (No. 108) respecting the Manitoulin and North Shore Railway Company.-Mr. Dyment-by Mr. Logan.
Bill (No. 81) respecting the Algoma Central Railway Company, and to change its name to ' The Algoma Central and Hudson's Bay Railway Company.'-Mr. Dyment-by Mr. Logan.
Bill (No. 98) incorporating the Kettle River Valley Railway Company.-Mr. Galliher.
Bill (No. 105) to incorporate the Kamloops and Atlin Railway Company.-Mr. Prior.
Bill (No. 120) respecting the Subsidiary High Court of the Ancient Order of Foresters in the Dominion of Canada.-Mr. Heyd.
Bill (No. Ill) to incorporate the Interprovincial and James Bay Railway Company. -Mr. Murray.
Bill (No. 80) to incorporate the St. Mary River Bridge Company.-Mr. Dyment.

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee on Bill (No. 95) respecting the Ontario, Hudson Bay and Western Railways Company.-Mr. Dyment.
On section 9,
Mr. HENDERSON.: It seems to me the powers granted here are altogeter beyond what this Bill contemplated. As you will notice by reading the section it really creates a new telegraph or telephone company, giving all the powers that a telegraph or telephone company could have to construct and operate a line and connecting this with any other line whatever. So that, as a matter of fact, we might in this way create a new company that could operate a line from Vancouver to Halifax. I do not think this was the intention when this clause was allowed to pass the Railway Committee. I think it rather slipped through without notice. I beg to move that:
That section 9 be amended by inserting after the word ' lines ' the words ' on its line of railway.'
Section as amended, agreed to, Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



NOVA SCOTIA EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 104) to incorporate' the Nova Scotia Central Railway Company.-Mr. Fraser, considered in committee, reported and read the third time.	.
Mr. FRASER moved that the Bill be now passed and that the title be as follows : Mr. RICHARDSON (Lisgar).
' An Act respecting the Nova Scotia Eastern Railway Company (Limited.) '
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill No. 106) respecting the South Shore Railway Company.-Mr. Geoffrion.
Mr. BALL.: I would like the Bill to stand.


Mr. GEOFFRION.: I cannot agree with the proposition of my hon. friend. The Bill was considered in committee, and I would like it to go through as fast as possible.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I must object to railroading through the Bill in this way, the Speaker leaving the Chair without the formal motion.


Georges Ball: Mr. Chairman, the other day when this Bill was before the committee, I asked that it should be postponed, as I could not be present the next day.


Mr. MONK.: As the hour is very late, I would suggest that the committee rise and report progress, and go on with non-contentious Bills. The hon. gentleman will then make his remarks when the Bill is next in committee.
Progress reported.



ARNPRIOR AND PONTIAC RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
On the order :
Consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill (No. 55) to incorporate the Am-prior and Pontiac Railway Company.-Mr. Le-mieux.
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies).: It has been arranged that all the Senate amendments would stand over with Bills of a contentious character, and that we should proceed to-night only with Bills to which there is no opposition.


Mr. MORRISON.: This Bill is not of a contentious character. The only amendment of the Senate is the insertion of a clause providing that the works are declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada, which was inadvertently omitted in the original Bill.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: We cannot make an exception in favour of this Bill, and it will have to stand with the other Senate amendments.


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: I think that those in charge of the Bill should be consulted, and as I have wasted all night to have this Bill put through, and the amendment is purely a formal one, I beg to move that the amendment made by the Senate be agreed to.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: I hope my hon. friend will not insist on dividing the House. We must adhere to the understanding arrived at, and I therefore move that the debate he now adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 130) for the relief of James Ward McDonald.-Mr. Lennox.
Bill (No. 128) for the relief of Lilias Middleton.-Mr. Lennox.
Bill (No. 135) respecting the Great Northern Railway of Canada.-Mr. McCarthy.
Bill (N#. 129) respecting the St. Lawrence and Adirondack Railway Company.-Mr. Monk.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) moved the adjournment of the House.
David Henderson: With regard to the Bill referring to Victoria Day-in the event of the House not being prorogued on the 24th of May, and that Bill not having received the assent of the Governor, what effect would it have with regard to that day being a bank holiday ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Not any.


David Henderson: Then, it would not be a bank holiday ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No, I think not.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 3.40 a.m. Tuesday.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 14, 1901.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER took the Chair at Eleven o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. PARMELEE presented the fifth report of the Joint Committee on the Printing of Parliament. He said : This report contains the recommendations of the committee with respect to the printing of parliament, with particular reference to complaints with respect to the translation, printing and distribution of public documents. When I move concurrence to-morrow or next day. I will 160J
take occasion to call the attention of the House and the government to the contents of the report.

Robert Franklin Sutherland: That owing to the advanced period of the session, the requirements of Rule 60 be dispensed with for the remainder of the session.
He said : This is simply that private Bills will not require to he posted for the full seven days.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 139) to amend the Gas Inspection Act.-Hon. Mr. Bernier.
Bill (No. 140) to amend the Electric Light Inspection Act.-Hon. Mr. Bernier.

[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER (for the Minister of the Interior) moved that the House resolve itself into committee, to-morrow, to consider the following proposed resolution :
Resolved, that It is expedient to provide that the salaries of the police magistrate for Dawson and the police magistrate for White Horse shall be $2,400 per annum each, and that they may be paid, in addition, such living allowances as are fixed by the Governor in Council.
He said : I have the honour to state that the Crown assents to this resolution.
Motion agreed to.

The PRIME MINISTER moved :: That when this House adjourns on Wednesday, the 15th instant, it shall stand adjourned until Friday, the 17th ; that the House shall meet on Saturday, the 18th, at eleven a.m. and the order of procedure on that day shall be the same as on the previous sitting day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Mr. Speaker, before presenting the papers in my hands, I wish to say a word of explanation. In the supplementary estimates for the coming' year we have an appropriation for public buildings at Dawson. It has been ascertained, however, that there is urgent need for a portion of the money before the 1st of July. We propose, therefore, to introduce a supplementary estimate granting

a portion of this money for the current year, and the item in the other estimates will be reduced accordingly. It is not an addition, but is merely a transfer of an amount from one item to another in order that it may be available for the current year. I beg leave to present a Message from His Excellency the Governor General.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER read the Message, as follows :-
Minto.
The Governor General transmits to the House of Commons, further 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, May 13, 1901.
On motion of the Minister of Finance, His Excellency's Message, together with the estimates accompanying it, were referred to the Committee of Supply.



IMPORTATION AND EMPLOYMENT OF ALIENS.

[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER moved third reading of Bill (No. 47) to amend the Act to restrict the importation and employment of aliens.
Edward Frederick Clarke: Mr. Speaker, when the Bill passed the committee stage, through the courtesy of the right hon. the Premier, it was allowed to stand for a day or two for the third reading in order that an opportunity might be given to consult those who are deeply interested in this measure as to the efficiency of the amendments which have been made to the Alien Labour law. I have taken the liberty, since the Bill passed the committee stage, of consulting labour men who are deeply interested In this matter. I have sent them copies' of ' Hansard ' containing the discussion which took place in the committee ; I also sent them copies of the amendment which I suggested should be made to the Bill ; and I am authorized to say-and their opinion is in accordance with my own- that the Bill will not be as efficient an instrument as it otherwise would he if it were amended in the direction suggested, that is, to give power to police magistrates to try cases of alleged infraction of the law. I had hoped the right hon, the premier, having gone as far as he has gone in amending the Bill, would have seen his way clear to have accepted the amendment which was offered on two occasions. As he has not done so, I beg to move :
That the said Bill be not now read a third time, but he referred back to the committee with instructions to strike out all the words after ' fifty dollars ' in section 1, and insert the following in lieu thereof : ' Recoverable in the name of Mr. FIELDING.
His Majesty in a summary manner with costs, under the provisions of Article 58 of the Crimi-nel Code, 1892, before any police magistrate, stipendiary magistrate, judge of session or county court judge, having jurisdiction where the offender is to be found or where the offence was committed.'
House divided on amendment of Mr. Clarke :
YEAS :
Messieurs
Barker,	Lavell,
Bennett,	Lennox,
Birkett,	McIntosh,
Broder,	Monk,
Bruce,	Northrup,
Cargill,	Osier,
Clancy,	Puttee,
Clare,	Richardson (Grey),
Clarke,	Robinson (Elgin),
Cochrane,	Roche (Marquette),
Culbert,	Rosamond,
Fowler,	Sherritt,
Ganong,	Simmons,
Gilmour,	Sproule,
Hackett,	Taylor,
Henderson,	Tisdale,
Johnston (Cardwell),	Tolton,
Kidd,	Wilson.-37.
Lancaster,	
NAYS :	
Messieurs	
Angers,	Loy,
Bazinet,	Ivlackie,
Bernier,	Maclaren (Huntingdon)
Britton,	McCarthy,
Bruneau,	McCool,
Bureau,	McCreary,
Calvert,	McEwen,
Carroll,	McGowan,
Charlton,	McGugan,
Christie,	Mclsaac,
Copp,	McLennan,
Davies (Sir Louis),	Marcil (Bagot),
Demers (Levis),	Martineau,
Emmerson,	Matheson,
Erb,	Mignault,
Etln'er,	Oliver,
Fisher,	Parmelee,
Flint,	Proulx,
Fortier,	Reid (Restigouche),
Geoffrion,	Richardson (Lisgar),
Gibson,	Roche (Halifax),
Gould,	Ross (Ontario),
Heyd,	Ross (Rimouski),
Horsey,	Ross (Victoria, N.S.),
Hughes (King's, P.E.I.),	Schell,
Johnston (Cape Breton),	Sifton,
Johnston (Lambton),	Stephens,
Kendall,	Sutherland (Essex),
Lang,	Sutherland (Oxford),
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),	Tarte,
Lavergne,	Tolmie,
LeBlanc,	Turgeon,
Legris.	Wright.-66.
Amendment negatived.
Bill read the third time and passed.



STEAMSHIP SERVICE TO FRANCE.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright)
[Stage Direction]
5098 moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution :
That is is expedient to make provision for a subsidy, not exceeding a sum of one hundred thousand dollars per annum, for a steamship service between a port or ports in Canada and a port or ports in France.
He said : The House will remember that for many years we have had on the statute-book an Act whereby $50,000 a year was appropriated as a subsidy to encourage trade with France. The House is also aware that during all these years we have found it impossible to obtain any proper service for that money. We are at present about to propose to the House a subsidy not to, exceed $100,000, for which, however, we expect to obtain a largely increased service. The service will be not quite but nearly double what was proposed in the original Act, that is to say, if it is carried out. The minimum service will be eighteen voyages, however, instead of 24, 12 to be performed during the summer months, and six during the winter months. They will probably be from the ports of Montreal and Quebec during the summer, and from the ports of St. John or Halifax during the winter as is the case with several of our other subsidies. They go to northern ports in France, probably to Havre and Boulogne, having the right to go also to the Mediterranean ports if it is found expedient. These are the chief modifications which we propose to make in the Bill we propose presently to introduce, founded on this resolution. Of course, the House is aware that all these grants are in the nature of the case largely experimental ; and while I am sure that, all will agree with me in thinking that it is very desirable indeed to extend our trade with France, which has a population of 40,000,000, a well-to-do population, and where, if we can introduce articles of food products more especially, we may look to do a very considerable business ; still there are, no doubt, owing to the French tariff and other causes, rather serious difficulties in our way. These we hope to overcome to a considerable degree by the creation of a line which we hope will ply if not weekly, at any rate once every ten days, between Canada and France.
The present traffic with France, as the House is aware, amounts to nearly $6,000,000 a year, exports and imports, $5,800,000, I think, is the exact figure. Of this the greater portion are imports from France. But we have been of late years extending and increasing our trade with France, and there is a reasonable hope, if we obtain a permanent line of steamers, of making a very considerable advance. Moreover, there are certain articles largely consumed in France Which I think we could deal in to a verv great advantage. For example, in the article of pulp, there are good hopes of a large increase in our trade. At present their supply of pulp comes, I am informed, almost
entirely from the Scandinavian countries, but apparently there is no reason why wre should not be able to compete with them on favourable terms. We are also in hopes of being able to sell respectable quantities of iron and possibly of coal to France, especially if we have the advantage of conveying them in steamers directly to a French port, which, under the French law, would be necessary in order to obtain the benefit of their traiff. In the article of manufactures we have already developed a considerable trade, principally in agricultural implements, and we hope to do more. There is some trade in lumber ; how far that can be extended, I am not exactly in a position to say, but still there is a reasonable possibility that it may be done. In the matter of food products, there would no doubt be a considerable chance for development if we can induce the French government to give us some moderate concessions. As the House is aware, a treaty was made by our predecessors with the French government under which certain articles are admitted under their minimum tariff ; but it was a condition of that treaty, in effect at any rate, that a line of steamers should be subsidized to France, and without that, as I have mentioned, under the French tariff, it is very difficult to obtain anything like the full value of the concessions that have been made to us.
It lias also appeared to the government that the present is a proper time for attempting to increase our trade with France. I am happy to say that a great deal of attention was paid to the Canadian exhibits which were displayed at the recent exposition in Paris. A good many orders have been obtained, I am told, in consequence of the impression that was made on the French public by reason of the exhibits there produced ; and there is, I think, ground for believing that we may to a considerable extent increase and develop our trade, even in the last named articles. Practically, I may add, this is a joint subsidy. Under the French law considerable bonuses are granted to ships making ocean voyages. One-half of these vessels would foe under the French register, and will obtain the benefit of the French subsidy ; one-half of them will bear the English flag and obtain, of course, our subsidy. The House is aware that the articles at present imported from France are chiefly articles of luxury, articles of the nature of silks, of fine woollens, of wines and brandies, and fancy goods generally. There are some other articles, but those constitute the staples. Of course I am not yet in a position to say what results may follow, but I think there is reasonable ground of belief that the money we propose to expend in this way will be found not to be thrown away. In the first instance we may probably not exceed the subsidy now on the statute-book, which amounts tb $50,000 a year ; but we have taken provision
5099	COMMONS	5100
that in case an additional number of steamers are put on we may be at liberty to increase the subsidy to $100,000, but not more. I think the subsidy which, under these circumstances, would be earned by French vessels employed, would nearly if not altogether equal ours.
I have further to add that although this contract is being made with the Franco-Canadian Company, that company have agreed to form a new company to which this contract is to be assigned, which company will be largely composed of Canadian stockholders. The gentlemen whose names are given to us as having agreed to take an interest in it, are gentlemen well known in this community whose names I think are sufficient guarantee that the enterprise will be prosecuted with all reasonable vigour. I will give the House the names of the principal incorporators of the new company to which the present company) propose to assign the the contract with the government. We have not been able to wait for the full incorporation of this company, owing to the necessary legal delay which must elapse before they can receive their charter. But we have agreed with the promoters of the Canadian company that their contract should be assigned to the new company. The principal incorporators are the Hon. Itobt. Mackay, of Montreal ; Mr. Henry Miles, Mr. Alfred A. Ayer, Hon. Geo. E. Drummond, Hon. Alfred Thibaudeau, Mr. Blumhart, Hon. Melvin Jones, J. R. Booth, of this city, E. B. Douglas, and Mr. Clergue, of Sault Ste. Marie. Those, I think, are all the facts material to the consideration of the proposition of the government ; but of course when we go into committee I shall be glad to give any further details.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman spoke of food products ; what business does the hon. gentleman expect to do in that line V


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: The corporators expect to do a considerable trade in that article ; it is probable also that a considerable trade may be developed, specially with the Mediterranean ports in the article of coal, which is daily becoming more and more needed for French manufacturing purposes. We entertained hopes that there may be considerable development in the iron trade also.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will any provision be made for cold storage in connection with this line ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: That will be done by my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture in the usual way.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee on the resolution.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Can the minister inform us as to the development with the trade Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.
with France since we have a new tariff arrangement ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: We have had no direct line of steamships, and that seems to be almost a sine qua non of any considerable development. But I can give my hon. friend roughly the figures. In 1896, our exports to France were $581,000 in round numbers ; in 1897, they were $690,000 ; in 1898, they had increased to $1,025,000 ; and iu 1899, to $1,557,000-1 think that was largely due to the export of foodstuffs. Last year the exports were $1,374,000. Thus the increase in our exports since 1890 has been about 150 per cent. Similarly with our imports : 1890, $2,782,000 ; 1897, $2,500,000 ; 1898, $4,090,000 ; 1899, $3,879,000 ; 1900, $4,464,000. This, as will be seen, makes the total trade, exports and imports, nearly $6,000,000 a year, as against $3,364,000 in 1896. The imports are mainly articles of luxury-silks, tine woollens, brandy, spirits aud fancy goods.


Mr. SMITH (Wentworth).: By what route do these imports come now ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I have been informed that the trade its to a considerable extent done through American ports, but some direct to Montreal. It is not at all unlikely, although we have no means of tracing it, that our exports to France are really in excess of these figures, for I have very little doubt that a good deal of the exports credited to the United States are really Canadian goods sent via New York.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I believe we have a very large potential trade with France, and that the best way to encourage that trade is this scheme of subsidizing a direct line of steamers. Let me call the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the advantage which would result to us from interesting our commissioner in France in the development of that trade. I do not know whether we receive from time to time reports from that commissioner as to the prospects for increased trade with that great country. The commissioner is no doubt aware to what an immense extent the trade with the United States has been increased through the efforts of their consular agent abroad. Side by side with this encouragement of a direct line of steamers with France, I think we should be kept fully informed as to the lines of trade that might be opened up with France. I would ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if we receive regular reports from our agent in France, and, if not, whether it should not be feasible to provide some means to keep the country informed of the commercial needs existing in France, and, if necessary to send for that purpose what seems to me would need to be but an inconsiderable sum of money. We have an agent there

wlio is an intelligent man as those who know him are aware. If something were done in the line I suggest, I think it would materially aid the object we have in view.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. Israel Tarte).: I have no hesitation in saying that if our agency In Paris were put upon a better footing, we should attain a considerable commercial result. Mr. Fabre has been paid the paltry sum of $3,000 a year. He has received those who have come to him, and has done his best to furnish them with information as to Canada. I know personally that hundreds of callers visit his office. Unfortunately, the office has not been equipped on a commercial footing. My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) is quite right in suggesting that improvement should be made. Before last year, I had travelled a good deal in France and other continental European countries as well as In England, but never with the same view as when I was there last year. In the execution of my duties as Canadian commissioner to the Paris Exposition, I had the advantage of meeting many people of all classes, including many interested in all branches of commerce, in mining and so on. rue establishment of a direct line of steamers cannot fail to bring results that will surprise us. We are selling to France to-day a good deal of pulp-wood timber, and paper also, i have no doubt that hereafter we shall be able to sell many things that we do not sell now. At this season last year-I think I have stated this in the House before, but it will bear repetition-I paid one, two and even three francs for a single apple. That may seem ridiculous, but it is true. I need hardly say that I did not buy many of them. But it is true that in April and May people are compelled to pay for some classes of fruit simply ridiculous prices. With our system of cold storage and with a direct line of steamers we could export our fruit to France and sell it at very fine prices indeed. And what is time of fruit is true of other things. We can sell iron, coal, furniture, pianos and other things. Our furniture was the only line in which we were not represented in the Paris Exposition as we should have been and as we might have been. But in spite of the inferior samples that we had there, a good many orders have since been sent from France to our manufacturers. But to assure success, we must, as my hon. friend has suggested, have a better agency -not that Mr. Fabre is not an able man, but he is not a commercial man, and moreover he is not equipped as he should be.
Coupled with that policy which will be actively pushed, it will be necessary to equip our agency better than it has been in the past. I do not say that we will be bound to spend a large amount of money, but we must have in Paris a commercial man who knows Canada thoroughly well and of course can speak both English and
French. Our American neighbours are doing an immense trade with that country, and there is an American chamber of commerce in France. Our agency there will also be able to reach Belgium, which is taking a deep interest in Canada to-day. The group who are working with the King of Belgium, and who have carried out such important enterprises in the Congo, have settled With us. They are erecting a large pulp and paper mills at the Shawinlgan Falls. Those men command millions. Both BT-ench and Belgium capitalists have invested largely in Russia and lost large amounts of money. I have been in a position to know that they have lost immense sums. Well, all those who know the economical condition of the continent will admit that there is plenty of money in France and Belgium. The people there do not know what to do with it at times, and invest it right and left. Canada is a good field for investment. Our laws are becoming better known. Those people know that capital and labour are safe here, and if we give our attention to the continent we will draw capital from these countries by leaps and bounds, especially as considerable of their capital has been invested elsewhere and has not brought the results which it will necessarily bring here.
Perhaps we will be able also to bring about closer and better relations between these two mother lands, if I may speak as a French Canadian, and I believe that to be a very legitimate ambition. It is surprising what magnificent results are brought about by closer relations. The two races have lived in peace and harmony, and I do not see why England and France, which are among the foremost civilized nations in the world, should not also live in peace and harmony. From that standpoint, I have no doubt that the policy which was initiated by the late government, and which we are continuing, will have results that both sides will applaud.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have for a good many years been of the opinion that our agent in France is only an ornamental gentleman ; and if he is to be depended on soley for the development of our trade in connection with this steamship line, I am afraid our efforts will be a failure. He may be a very good man in some lines, but what those lines are I am unable to say. I have nothing to say against the gentleman personally, whom I do not-know. He may be a very good man for work to which he is adapted, but it is very importent, if we hope to develop trade with France, that we should have in that country a live commercial agent who is more familiar with Canada's resources and products. There is no doubt a good deal of truth in what the hon. minister has said as to the large amount of capital on the continent looking for investment, and if we make it known that there are many lines in this country in which that capital may

be profitably invested, no doubt our progress will be considerably accelerated. A friend of mine who is living in France writes me that lie is struck with the large amount of capital lying there idle and the desire of the people to invest, if they only knew where to invest it safely and profitably. But we would certainly require to have a live commercial agent in that country, who would be on the alert for possibilities of extending our commercial relations with France and with Belgium as well.
If we hope to succeed in establishing a trade with France in the food lines, we will have to do something with regard to cold storage. The Minister of Trade and Commerce says that the Minister of Agriculture will attend to that matter, but I would take this opportunity of pointing out that in that connection there are several considerations to be kept in view. There is the speed of the journey, and there are the freight charges and the question of cold storage, on the satisfactory solution of which will depend largely our trade with that country. The lion. Minister of Public Works spoke of the cost of apples in France, which would indicate a profitable market for that product ; and while it may not be necessary to have cold storage for apples, they will require a species of cold storage until land ed. I notice that we get a good deal of wines and brandy from France, and am not aware what our temperance friends on the opposite side would think about increasing that trade, but, as regards wines, many people hold the opinion that temperance habits would be promoted if our people would drink light wines instead of strong liquor. We get a considerable quantity of silks and satins from France and also woollens, but I do not see how the French woollens can compete with the English make, when the latter has the preferential rate in its favour.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: We get a class of goods which does not come into competition with the English.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will these boats make a trip every week ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: We hope to have a weekly service, but for the first year we only expect a fortnightly service in summer and a monthly one in winter. We will not pay more than $50,000 for that service.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No doubt the money spent advertising our country at the great exposition will have fruitful results, but we should have a good lively commercial agent there.
I do not think our present agent is a man of that character. He may be valuable in some lines, but that is not his line.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am very glad to see the spirit in which this resolution is


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 
The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: They could if they were under British register.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tarte).: Mr. Fabre is a man whose services we should not think of dispensing with. He is not a commercial man. but he has made a large circle of acquaintances in commercial circles. He is a very useful man. We should have a commercial agent in France. There is a great deal of interest taken in us in France now. If my hon. friend from Toronto will remember, a few years ago there was an exhibition in which a great many French people took part. They were so well pleased with that venture that before I left they asked if Canada would not have an exhibition on a large scale either at Toronto or Montreal. Although they are French they said that they preferred Toronto, because they had been so well treated there, and they have been selling in Ontario since then pianos and expensive things of that kind. My hon. friend has observed the name of Mr. Lyman .Tones among the promoters of the line. This is because the Massey-Harris Company have established a very large trade in France already, but with this new line they will double and treble that trade. They are selling implements in France where these implements are not known as they should be. They are only beginning to be known. We had a trade last year amounting to $5,500,000 with France, and, as the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) has said, this does not represent the volume of business we are doing with France. There is in Montreal a large circle of French peo-


Ilon. Mr. ROSS.: If they were under British register or that of any other country which participates in her, coast clearing trade, they could take cargoes from one port in the Dominion to another port. A steamer under French register could not take any molasses from the port of Halifax to Montreal, while a Norwegian or an Italian steamer could. These French steamers could not participate in our coasting trade. While they could take freight from France to different ports in the Dominion, or from different ports in the Dominion to France, they could not take freight from one port in the Dominion to another port in the Dominion under French registration.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I would be glad to support any legislation in favour of increasing our trade with other countries in which it can be done profitably. For that purpose, I presume it is necessai^y to give subsidies in some cases but particularly to establish communication with countries to which we can export goods. There is no question that it is necessary to hunt for markets for our products. For that purpose, the first essential is to have a good agent in that country ; an agent who will look up all the lines of trade that can be most profitably engaged in there. I do not know what are the qualifications of the gentleman who now represents us in France, but whether he be suitable or not for the purpose, I contend that it is the duty of the government to get the vei-y best man possible when we are going to subsidize steamers to develop that

trade. I would vote in favour of such a subsidy only on the condition that these boats are equipped in a manner suitable to carry on the trade. The minister (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) says that is a matter with which the Minister of Agriculture has to deal.
The MINISTER OF1 TRADE AND COMMERCE. As to the question of cold storage.
Mr. SMITH (Wentworth), Whatever department lias to deal with it, it is most important to secure that these steamers should be equipped so as to carry perishable products.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Hear, hear.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I am not so sanguine as is the Minister of Public Works that we can find in France a market for a large quantity of our fruit, but doubtless with a direct line of steamers something may be done. France is our largest competitor in the British market in some lines of fruit, especially pears ; but we may perhaps find ,a market for our apples there at some seasons of the year.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Peaches also.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: In order to carry our apples to France under proper conditions we must have the holds of these vessels thoroughly ventilated. I have heard it stated frequently that the reason we cannot make satisfactory arrangements in this respect with the steamships running to Britain is because the contracts are already let and we cannot compel the steamship companies. We are now about to enter into a contract with a steamship company, and now is the time to make the bargain that we shall have the latest improvements to carry our perishable products across the ocean in good condition. We heard a few days ago in the Committee on Agriculture that our cheese deteriorated in value to the enormous extent of about three million dollars last year, because it was not carried to Britain in good condition. That was due entirely to the poor equipment of the steamships and the railway cars in this country. If we are going to develop a trade with France, we must provide in this contract a hard and fast bargain that the holds of these vessels must be so ventilated that their temperature will not be higher than the temperature outside the vessel. The temperature of the ocean air outside the vessel is sufficiently low to enable us to carry even pears, as well as almost all kinds of perishable products, across the ocean and deliver them in the European markets in infinitely better condition than with cold storage, and this can be secured at practically no expense. The cost of fitting up a steamer with proper ventilating apparatus is merely nominal compared with the cost of a cold stor-Mr. SMITH (Wentworth).
age plant. I presume that butter would require cold storage, but almost all our perishable products require only this forced ventilation. We voted the other day a small subsidy for a steamer running from Annapolis to Great Britain for the purpose of carrying apples, and from the statements made in this House it is apparent that although the subsidy was voted purposely to accommodate the apple trade, no arrangements were made to carry these apples properly, and the hon. gentleman who spoke on the question told us that the returns showed that the apples arrived in England in a rotten condition ; in fact, that it was the worst shipment of apples that ever went from Nova Scotia. This will show how important it is that we should take precautions when we are subsidizing steamers. If we are going to develop a trade in perishable products with France, we must have the holds of these vessels thoroughly ventilated, and that stipulation should be made now when we are voting a subsidy to a new line.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The suggestion just made by my hon. friend (Mr. Smith, Wentworth) is a most admirable one, because any one who knows the nature of our trade with France, knows that a great portion of that trade will be in perishable products. Now, when we are making the contract, is just the time to provide for the cold storage which is necessary. I have no doubt that if ever we develop extensive commercial relations with European countries, and particularly with France, we will do a large business in perishable products, including, of course, meats. The hon. Minister of Public Works knows the price of meat in France.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Two francs a pound.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Yes, and I believe we could therefore compete successfully in that market. Any one who is well acquainted with Mr. Fabre will know that what the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) stated is absolutely true. At the same time I must add very promptly that it would be very great folly to dispense with Mr. Fabre's services at present, because he is extremely useful to us in France. We all know that in promoting commercial relations with European countries, side by side with commercial aptitude, you want a man who is something of a diplomat, and Mr. Fabre fills the bill in that respect perfectly. I would suggest to the Minister of Trade and Commerce the advisability not only of giving us proper commercial representation in France and in Belgium, with which our chances of trade are very great, but also with some other European countries. I believe that we can develop a very large trade with Italy, perhaps not quite to the same extent ns with France, but much on the same lines. The same remark applies to Germany. I believe sincerely that we might very easily stand

some retrenchment in the amount of money we pay to immigration agents, who, to a very large extent, do not benefit this country, and with half that amount I believe that we could pay proper commercial agents who would greately develop our trade with the European continent. Those who have read Edwin Williams' book upon the cause of the decadence of British foreign commerce, know with what insistence he demonstrates how the Americans have developed their foreign trade by the employment of skilful commercial agents. I think we could take a leaf out of Edwin Williams' book, because I believe that money spent in that direction would give returns a hundred fold.


Fletcher Bath Wade: I may, perhaps, be permitted to say a few words with reference to the subsidies which are granted to steamships. It is true that the steamship line which we ran from Annapolis last year did not give satisfaction to the parties interested, but it is only fair to say that this service was demanded by the people, who supposed that it would be of great value to them. Previously to this year, at all events in the near past, the fruit-growers of Nova Scotia were of the opinion that it would be necessary for them to have cold storage for the shipment of their fruit. They have changed their minds in that regard, and after investigation and experience, they are now satisfied that all that is necessary is proper ventilation of the holds. I understand that provision has been made by the government by which any steamer putting in forced ventilation shall receive half the cost of installing the same. I would urge upon the minister that all contracts for subsidies to steamers plying from the ports of Nova Scotia-and I think, probably, it would apply to St. John, N.B., as well-should have in them a stipulation requiring them to install a forced ventilation plant when carrying cargoes of fruit. I have brought this matter to the attention of the House before, and I take this occasion to impress it upon the mind of the minister, because the people of the country are unanimous in their opinion that it is a thing which should be done. If that is done, we are satisfied that the fruit can be carried with the utmost safety. If that is not done, and the subsidy is given to a line of steamers calling at these ports, then, it prevents competition which would otherwise take place, because the shippers are satisfied that if the business were left open to competition, other lines of steamers would install the necessary ventilation in order to carry the fruit to the other side in proper condition.


Mr. OSLER.: It is pleasant to find a resolution which we can all agree on and heartily support. I think this resolution is a move decidedly in the right direction, for developing the trade of the country ; but I thoroughly agree with my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule), and my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), that we want to go further and appoint business agents in all these countries. I thoroughly believe that if we had proper business representatives in different countries, it would pay us to stop all the expenses we now incur on account of immigration. Immigration would follow, and we should have a much better class of immigrants than we have had in the past. As regards the suggestion that this is an occasion when proper equipment should be provided for the carriage of our products in a businesslike manner, I think that is certainly worthy of the consideration of the government; and if it is necessary to ask for a further sum of money for that purpose, I am sure that this side of the House would join with the government in providing whatever is necessary to carry out the business properly.


Samuel Hughes: From what port will these vessels sail in winter ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: From maritime ports.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I did not mean to convey the idea that Mr. Fabre's services should be dispensed with, but that he is not a suitable man to promote the development of trade, and therefore it would be necessary to appoint a live commercial agent; and I think we might go further and have an agent in Belgium as well.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I quite understand that the hon. gentleman's remarks were not intended to disparage Mr. Fabre's capacity as a diplomatic representative agent. I may say that the point raised has been receiving- the consideration of the government, and we are now considering the question of improving our commercial facilities in France and elsewhere. The matter of cold storage has been more particularly under the direction of the Minister of Agriculture. I may add that tlie Prime Minister informs me that he hopes soon to have the pleasure of welcoming informally an agent of the French government in a semi-official capacity, with whom we hope to confer as to getting further advantages and privileges from the French government ; but these negotiations are not at a stage where we can make any statement to the House in regard to them.
Resolution reported, read the first and the second time, and concurred in.
The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 141) further to amend the Act respect-tag ocean steamship subsidies.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 130) to amend the Railway Act (Mr. Fitzpatrick), read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: This Bill is merely to provide for arrangements which may he made by the creditors of insolvent railway companies, to enable them to wind up the company or reorganize it-practically applying to railway companies those provisions of the Winding-up Act which are applied to other financial institutions in the country. The provisions of this Bill are adapted from the Imperial Railway Companies Act of 1807.


John Graham Haggart: Will the Solicitor General explain how the franchise of the old company passes to the new company ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The franchise remains absolutely vested in the company. It is simply a scheme for a rearrangement of the liabilities of the company.


Byron Moffatt Britton: I am sorry to have to admit that I have not read the Bill until now ; but what I cannot understand is, what benefit it is to the creditors of the company to classify and rearrange their securities if the company itself is unable to run its trains.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The benefit is that the liability of the company might be wiped out in some quarter.


Byron Moffatt Britton: They might wipe out the liability in two ways-by transferring the franchise to somebody, or by an Act of parliament.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The company has a certain amount of liability, bonded debts and ordinary liability. In order to relieve itself of these liabilities, there is a scheme of distribution provided to which the creditors are obliged to assent. It may be in the interests of the bondholders, as well as the shareholders to have the liabilities of the company reduced, and this scheme is for the purpose of enabling a company to arrange with its creditors in such a way as to reorganize the liabilities and induce the creditors to accept so much on the dollar.


John Graham Haggart: It is compulsory reduction and getting rid of debt. Why not let the creditors get a judgment, as they can under the provisions of the Railway Act, and then work the road, and if necessary, come to this House for a franchise?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: This is a more satisfactory proceeding. Under the present law, you can get a judgment against a road and then proceed to sell it and have the assets distributed by the sheriff. But you cannot liquidate the liabilities in that way, unless you dispose of the whole enterprise, whereas it may be important to all


Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.: interested to keep the railway in the hands of those who originally started it and rearrange the liabilities. This law has been in force in England since 1867, and worked very satisfactorily. At present, take a road running through different provinces, you cannot sell that road and have a proper distribution of the proceeds.


John Graham Haggart: You can sell the franchise of the road, and if you buy the franchise you can get from this House the right of running it.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Let the hon. gentleman refer to the case of the Manitoba and North-western and see how that system works.


John Graham Haggart: There is a provision in the Railway Act enabling the creditors to take possession of the road under an order of the court, and when they have been in possession a certain time, they can come to this House and get a franchise.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: But what is the object of all these involved proceedings ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: All that requires legislation, and in the meantime the affairs of the company are in a state of confusion. It has been found in England very useful indeed to have a power of the kind proposed in this Bill vested in the court. If my hon. friend has followed in any degree at all the practice in England, he will find that the system is exceedingly popular and has been found to work very advantageously. The result is that the various interests in the country-bondholders, stockholders, preference holders and whatever they may be-are brought before the court. The whole case is presented and objections are considered by the court. Then a scheme of assessment of all the interests is proposed by the judicial tribunal and usually accepted, and the machine then starts on a sound and healthy basis, with all its entangling difficulties removed, and matters on a satisfactory and smooth footing. Such matters cannot be settled in any other way so effectively as by this system, and I wonder we have not had it in operation long before this. I hope there will be no objection on the part of the committee. It is not a novel experiment at all, but one which has worked well in England.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Take the ordinary Winding-up Act, applicable to all our corporations. An exception is made with regard to railway companies. You can extinguish liabilities by the Winding-up Act, but that Act does not apply to railway companies.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am in sympathy with the object of the Bill, but why has the jurisdiction been vested in the Exchequer Court ?

Would it not, as a matter of convenience, be better to give jurisdiction to the court of the domicile of the railway. On the question of notice, I see that the Bill, in two instances, provides for notice in the Canada Gazette only. In our country the bondholders very seldom read the Canada Gazette and perhaps such notice would not be sufficient for the parties interested.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: It is important to have a scheme of distribution made by a court over which we have direct authority ourselves. Besides the railway to which this Act will apply will be railways running through different provinces, and it is doubtful if a provinica'l court would have the right to distribute the assets of corporations running in different provinces. It is better to have the whole matter under the control of one special court, the jurisdiction of which cannot be doubted.


John Graham Haggart: In the liquidation before the court, can the court lessen the first or second class security or make a rearrangement ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: This cannot be done without the approval of the creditors themselves. You get your scheme of distribution, which must be prepared by the creditors among themselves. All that the court does is to ratify that which the creditors have agreed to, or upon cause shown- for instance, in a case of an irregularity-the scheme may be readjusted by the court. The whole thing starts with the creditors and is all dependent on their concurrence and consent.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The most important part is the voluntary liquidation scheme. Whether the creditors would always be safe is questionable, though it would be very convenient for the railway company.


Edmund Boyd Osler: 
The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The case referred to certainly illustrates the necessity for this Act. Their Lordships of the Privy Council said that they look upon it as a curious anomaly in our legislation that we did not have applicable to railway companies
a scheme which is applicable to all our other financial institutions.


William Ross: Section 2 of the Bill gives an idea of its scope. If a railway unfortunately got into debt and some heavy creditor was pressing it, the company may appeal to the court and have a decision satisfactory for the benefit of all the creditors. I think the Bill a very proper one.


Byron Moffatt Britton: The Bill is in the right direction but does not go far enough. There was no better illustration of its necessity than we had in the legislation passed a few years ago in reference to the Kingston and Pembroke Railway. A road goes into the hands of a receiver, but we know that the receiver can do nothing but receive and disburse. He cannot formulate any scheme, or do anything for the extension of business or the promotion of the interests of the road generally. But, under the first section, it is only when the company is unable to do anything else that the directors are to be the moving parties in a matter of this kind. As I said, that is all right so far as it goes, but it seems to me that it ought to go further, to allow some one else to be the moving party in preparing a scheme, and then it should go so far as to allow the court to sell the franchise of the road. Where the court is seized of the whole matter, it should be in a position to adjust the claims of the creditors and, if anything is left, to protect the shareholders.


John Graham Haggart: The Solicitor General says that this is to be done by the consent of the creditors. But I do not see anything in the Bill providing that the consent of the creditors is necesary.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Section 5 provides :
The scheme shall be deemed assented to by the holders of mortgages or bonds, under the authority of the Railway Act

And so on.


John Graham Haggart: But I mean the ordinary creditors of the road.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Probably the hon. gentleman refers to the class covered by section 6 ?


John Graham Haggart: No, they are not the ordinary creditors. They are not provided for.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Look at section 8.


John Graham Haggart: Well, we shall strike it after awhile.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: You cannot jumble all classes together, making the Bill unintelligible. There must be a separate provision for every class of creditors.


John Graham Haggart: But I do not see
any provision for getting the consent of

the ordinary creditor ; for instance, the man iwho holds his judgment against the road.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: As we go through the clauses, I think the hon. gentleman will find that provision is made for all that it is necessary to provide for.
On section 11,


John Graham Haggart: There is no provision for the ordinary workman, for instance, who has a claim against the road.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The ordinary creditor is not affected hy this Bill. This relates to the mortgage creditors and shareholders. Section 12 provides that the creditors have a right to be heard as against the scheme. But their claims remain.


Mr. BELCOURT.: I think the Solicitor General is mistaken. Section 1 speaks of a ' scheme of arrangement between the company and its creditors.' The word ' creditor ' is used in a general sense, and the ordinary creditor needs to be provided for as well as the others. This Bill ought to apply to the line which, for instance, a man who furnishes material and whose claim has not been paid. He ought to have the opportunity of setting this Act in motion as well as the shareholders.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: It is not the shareholder, but the preference creditor.


Byron Moffatt Britton: This gives a general creditor the right to come in and be heard, and this is the first time that this class of creditor has been mentioned.


John Graham Haggart: The creditor has to satisfy the court that he might in some manner or other get his claim, if this arrangement was not carried out, but all the others have to be consenting parties to it.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I think the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Britton) is very "reasonable, whether those who are not consenting are going to be affected by this proceeding, that is to say, when all the special creditors mentioned here eoncur and they agree to wipe out claims for wages, claims for material supplied, &c. That is an idea that naturally suggests itself. My contention is that this scheme of distribution does not affect those claims. Perhaps I may be wrong. I will not ask the committee to dispose of the matter until I have a chance of looking into the matter further.


John Graham Haggart: If you apply the principles of the Insolvent Act to railways, it is simply for the purpose of getting rid of those creditors, there can be no other object. If the Solicitor General intends to look into the subject, he will see that this Bill has that effect.


John Graham Haggart: 


Byron Moffatt Britton: I would ask the Solicitor General to consider whether it might not be well to incorporate in this Bill proceedings for the sale of the road under certain circumstances. That is something we have not got at present in Canada. Whenever a road is insolvent and a readjustment is necessary, the company has to come before us to be authorized to carry on its undertaking, and we have to make some new legislation ; whereas here we have now a court established for considering the case of an insolvent railway, and why not go one step further and have this court authorized to sell the franchise of an insolvent railway.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: As I view it, it would be improper to give to any court the right to dispose of a franchise. That is a matter which is conferred by parliament upon a certain number of individuals, and if the franchise is to pass to other parties it seems to me that parliament must exercise control over that franchise when it passes into other people's hands.
At one o'clock, Committee took recess.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Previous to the adjournment I was called upon to consider the question as to whether or not this Bill would affect creditors who are not specially mentioned therein, or outside creditors. I have had an opportunity of looking at the cases, and I find that there is a formal decision under the corresponding section of the English Act. That is section 18 from which our section 13 is taken verbatim. It is there decided that this section makes the scheme binding Only upon persons assenting to it or bound by it; that is, those who have actually agreed to it, or those, who, not having agreed to it, are declared by the previous sections to be bound ; in other words, the majority and the minority of the various classes whose votes are taken (per Lord Cairns in re Cambrian Railway Company's scheme, 3 ch. 278, p. 296). The question was further discussed afterwards in the case of Stevens vs. Mid-Hants Railway Company, 8 ch. 1064, where it was held that outside creditors and unpaid land-owners are not bound by the scheme.


John Graham Haggart: Is the wording of this section precisely similar to the wording of the English Act ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: If you take our section 13 I will read the English section 18, and you will see that they exactly correspond :
The scheme, when confirmed, shall be enrolled in the court, and thenceforth it shall be binding and effectual to all intents, and the provisions thereof shall, against and in favour of the com-

pany and all persons assenting thereto or hound thereby, have the like effect, as if they had been enacted by parliament.


Hon. Mr. IIAGGA  RT@: That is word for word ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Yes, word for word. This Bill of ours is taken from the Railway Company's Act of 1867, par. 6 to par. 19 inclusive. We take practically these paragraphs and make of them a special Bill.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I take it from the remarks of the lion. Solicitor General this morning that the government have considered the advisability of vesting the Exchequer Court with jurisdiction in these matters ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Yes, we thought that being a federal court it would be the best court to dispose of matters of this sort which are under the control of the Federal parliament.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The point that I wish to bring to the attention of the hon. Solicitor General is this ; I suppose, under the general Act referring to the Exchequer Court, that if it should be found necessary to have proceedings of this kind, for instance in the district of Montreal, the court, for the purposes of section 12, might sit in Montreal to hear the directors, creditors, shareholders and other persons before confirming the scheme of settlement. I suppose the court would not necessarily have to sit in Ottawa.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The Exchequer Court necessarily would, in connection with a matter of this sort, follow the practice which it has followed heretofore, that is to say, sit in the different provinces for the convenience of the persons interested in the scheme.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



MONTREAL HARBOUR LOAN.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following resolutions
1.	That the Governor in Council may from time to time advance and pay to the corporation of the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal, in addition to the moneys authorized to be advanced to the said corporation by the Governor in Council by chapter 10 of the statutes of 1896 (first session) and by chapter 47 of the statutes of 1898, such sums of money, not exceeding in the whole the sum of one million dollars, as are required to enable the said corporation to construct such grain elevators and other terminal facilities as are necessary properly to equip the port of Montreal.
2.	No such advance shall be made unless the plans, specifications and estimates for the works to be performed by the said corporation and
on which the money so to be advanced is to be expended have been first submitted to and approved by the Minister of Public Works.
3.	The said corporation shall, upon an advance being made, deposit with the Minister of Finance .and Receiver General debentures of the said corporation equal in par value to the advance so made (which debentures the said corporation are hereby authorized to issue), and such debentures so issued shall be of such amounts as the said Minister of Finance and Receiver General determines, and shall bear date on the day when such advance is made, and shall be repayable within twenty-five years from the date of their issue, and in the meantime shall hear interest at the rate of 3 per centum per annum, such interest to be payable half-yearly, on the 1st day of July and the 1st day of January in each year.
4.	The principal and interest of the sums so to be advanced, as aforesaid, to the said corporation shall be paid by the corporation out of the revenue of the corporation mentioned in section 8 of chapter 10 of the statutes of 1896 (first session), and shall he a charge upon said revenue in the same manner and to the same extent as if the sums so advanced had been borrowed by the corporation under said chapter 10 of the statutes of 1896 (first session).
He said : Mr. Speaker, I think it will be agreed that throughout all the discussions that have taken place in this House on the question of transportation it has been generally admitted that whatever may be said regarding the needs of other ports, it is of the utmost importance that the port of Montreal should be properly equipped. Now, the question has been, What is the best method by which to provide the desired accommodation ? Up to a few months ago it was thought that a business concern commonly known as the Conners syndicate, was to provide accommodation in the way of elevators and other facilities at the port of Montreal, but owing to various causes the promoters of that enterprise failed to obtain the necessary capital. Other schemes were then advanced to serve the same purpose, schemes which involved guarantees and so forth. The conclusion which the government reached was that it is not desirable to grant aid through the hands of private enterprise, but that if these facilities are needed, as we believe them to be, at the port of Montreal, the wisest course would be that the government should grant this aid to the harbour commissioners, who are public trustees, and leave to them the working ont of the necessary details. The Harbour Commissioners of Montreal have already received considerable advances from the Dominion treasury, but it is only right to say that they have promptly paid the interest on these advances, so that, in the case of the loans to the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal, they are not gifts but loans on which they have paid a fair rate of interest. In 1896 we advanced to the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal 82.000,000. partly in renewal of old loans and partly for improvements. In 1898 pro-
[Stage Direction]
vision was made for a further advance to the harbour commissioners, and schemes have been outlined for the construction of tiie piers and so forth in that port which will ultimately take up the amount so authorized, $2,000,000, so that for the purposes of elevators, which Is the particular object in view now, it is necessary to make a further and special provision. We have therefore determined to ask the consent of parliament to a further appropriation from time to time, not exceeding $1,000,000, to be furnished as may be required to the harbour commissioners for the purpose of providing elevators and such other terminal facilities as in their judgment may be deemed necessary for the equipment of the port. I think I would be correct in saying that the general feeling of the House will be that if money is to be advanced for securing proper harbour facilities it will be best advanced through the medium of the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal, who may be relied upon, both from their local interest and pride, to see that these funds are administered for the good of the port.
John Graham Haggart: What are the other terminal facilities ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The expression is put in rather that the harbour commissioners will not find themselves restricted. The great purpose of the grant is for the building of elevators, but incidentally there may be found something else which will require to be done. We have not desired to restrict the harbour commissioners too closely, although the money is granted for the purpose of erecting elevators.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the indebtedness of the harbour commissioners now ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The indebtedness of the harbour commissioners is $2,000,000 now, on which they have paid interest up to date.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Some of the leading newspapers in Montreal have lately been advising very strongly that the harbour commissioners should refuse to pay any further interest upon the advances which have been made to them as they were entitled to these as gifts, and in view of this, I think we may consider this question in the light of a gift.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is a very dangerous admission. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) ought not to admit that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Some time ago it was stated that Mr. Clergue made an offer for building these elevators and that another company-I forget the name-also made an offer.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not recollect Mr. Clergue's scheme. There was a proposal made to the Harbour Commissiou-Mr. FIELDING.
ers of Montreal, but we came to the conclusion that it wg.s not desirable to wait for private enterprise any longer but to have this grant made to the commissioners, because time is passing and in the delay of private enterprise we are suffering a delay which may be very dangerous to the business of the St. Lawrence.


Mr. BROCK.: WTill this grant be placed in the hands of the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal to be spent in any direction they please, or is it simply for the purpose of building elevators ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Of course, the whole sum is not at once placed in the hands of the harbour commissioners. This is an authority for the government to advance the Montreal Harbour Commissioners such amounts as may be deemed proper for the purpose, not exceeding $1,000,000. The principal purpose is for elevators, although the expression ' other 'terminal facilities ' is also used. The plans and specifications of the proposed works must be submitted to the hon. Minister of Public Works and have his approval.
ilr. BROCK. Is there any expert evidence before the government that such elevators as they are going to build in Montreal will be in the interest of transportation generally, or is it specially in the interest of the city of Montreal that this advance is to be made ? I think that the country at large, which is granting this money, expects that there should be something before the government to show that the money expended in Montreal is for the general advantage of the country. We have heard a good deal said about the port of Quebec. The question is a very large one and It is desirable that some expert engineering evidence should be before the government and before the country when this large sum of $1,000,000 is being advanced, so that it will not be found afterwards that this money has been completely wasted and that some other port will be a more desirable port. We know very well that the Grand Trunk Railway Company are diverting a large portion of their trade from the port of Montreal to Portland. If it can be shown that the establishing of a harbour at Portland will place the farmers and other producers of this country in closer touch with Liverpool at a lower rate of freight, I think it is well for us to consider before spending such a large sum of money in Montreal if it is going to have the effect which it is expected it will have. I fear myself that it will be found before many years that a cheaper means of getting the freight out of the country will be found and if that is the case we will look back with regret at this large sum of money which is being spent in Montreal without having sufficient evidence before us to show that this is the best port available.
512]


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The government are not giving any sum of money to the port of Montreal-not one cent. The government are advancing money to the harbour commissioners on bonds that are given us and upon which the interest has been faithfully paid in the past, as I have no doubt it will be in the future. The debt of the harbour of Montreal, according to the last report dated the 10th of July, 1900, was $3,822,000. It Is a little more now; it is, in round numbers, $4,000,000, with an average interest payment of 3J per cent. As I said, every dollar of the interest has been paid so far and in that same year there was a surplus of $52,927. In other words, the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal are perfectly prepared to meet all their obligations. The amount of money that we had power to advance them in 1898 and 1899 is all engaged in the works that are now being carried out.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is the last $2,000,000 vote ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes. The whole amount is engaged in the works that are now being carried out. The House will perhaps remember that in 1899, before I left for the other side on account of illness, the sum of $500,000 had been placed in the estimates of the Department of Public Works to build an elevator in Montreal. The item was struck out after 1 left Ottawa. My colleagues explained to me that difficulties had arisen and that they had made up their minds that it would be better not to go on with that policy. Then, the Conners syndicate came along and made the offer that the House knows of. The big American railway companies immediately started a powerful opposition against the Conners syndicate to prevent the American capitalists who are associated with Mr. Conners from getting the money he required to carry out the undertaking. A few months ago Mr. Conners notified the harbour commissioners that he had failed, that he could not possibly raise the money that he expected to raise. Then several offers were made, and Mr. Booth made an offer. The Montreal Board of Trade, the Chamber of Commerce, and the harbour commissioners considered very seriously the question as to what was the best thing to do. The Montreal Board of Trade were unanimously of the opinion that the time had come when the government should build these elevators, or advance the money to build them. In other words, they pronounced themselves very strongly in favour of public ownership. I may say that I altogether share their views. The government of Canada own the canals. It seems to me that we should be the masters of our terminals. The Montreal Harbour Commissioners are only trustees for the government : they are the trustees for the country. They will have full control of the rates to be charged at these 161
elevators as they have control of the rates charged in the harbour itself.
After a good deal of consideration and negotiation, we came to the conclusion, as the Minister of Finance stated, that it was better to advance one million dollars to the harbour commissioners to help them to build an elevator, warehouse, etc., and to complete, so far as that amount can, the harbour accommodation. The ex-Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Haggart) asked what it was intended to do with that money. The primary object is to build elevators. I may say that in my opinion a big warehouse should also be erected. It will be also necessary to have these works equipped with railway tracks, and so on ; and permanent sheds will have to be erected and supplied with every modern improvement, so as to allow the freight to be handled cheaply. The hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) alluded to the fact that the Grand Trunk Railway seemed to have finally settled in Portland. What reason did they publicly give for their action in that respect ? The Grand Trunk Railway authorities stated that they would not have followed that policy if the port of Montreal had been properly equipped, and in that I believe them. The port of Montreal was not equipped, and it is not equipped to-day, to handle the large trade that the Grand Trunk Railway was carrying to it daily. The Grand Trunk Railway used to have hundreds and hundreds of cars waiting for the freight to be handled, and as they could not put up with that they moved elsewhere. I may also say that the Grand Trunk Railway Company complained very bitterly that the municipal authorities did not deal liberally with them. Every one who views the matter from the standpoint of handling trade and commerce cannot fail to realize that not a single one of our Canadian ports is equipped as it should be. The port of Montreal is not equipped as it should be ; the port of Quebec is not equipped as it should be; the port of St. John, although not badly equipped, is nuc equipped as it should be ; Halifax has not what it should have, and the ports on the great lakes have not what they should have. I say that the whole thing has to be overhauled.


William Ross: What does Halifax want ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Well, I hope we will have in a short time a fast line of steamers.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Cape Breton).: To Sydney ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I was saying that the whole St. Lawrence route, from the upper lakes down, would have to he equipped and overhauled. A good deal has been said about the different advantages of the port of Quebec and the | port of Montreal, and so on. For me, that



3s not the question. Those ports have each their natural advantages, and their natural 'difficulties. The port of Quebec is 160 miles further down than the port of Montreal, but, on the other hand, it has magnificent natural facilities. I have no doubt whatever that in the near future the larger ships will not come to Montreal, but will stop at Quebec.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: All the same, the import trade that will stop at Quebec will have to come by the St. Lawrence route to Montreal as the final distributing point, and most of the western trade from the lakes will come to the port of Montreal, to be transhipped for the ocean voyage. If it were not a sure thing that the port of Montreal will be equipped as it ought to be, then Buffalo and the other American ports would get the trade which is in store for us. We have been, perhaps, a little too slow, although we must not complain. This young nation has done great things. We have spent millions and millions of money to build railways ; we are beginning to get our ports in order. Recrimination is no good in our days ; we must view the future and the future alone, and we must put our heads together without political distinctions, because there is no party politics in these broad questions. We must put our heads together to try and make the St. Lawrence route the best. It is the shortest route, and we have only to exert ourselves to make it the best.


Mr. KAULBACH.: In the summer time, you mean ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Of course. The port of Montreal was closed last year only four months and twenty-five days. It is too often said that the port of Montreal is an ice-bound port. I feel that I am on safe grounds in saying that the port of Montreal is open about seven months in the year, and during these seven months it is at the head of ocean navigation and at the foot of the great lakes, which are the reservoirs of forty million tons of freight each year. I feel that when the port of Montreal is equipped as we are equipping it now ; when the St. Lawrence route is dredged and widened as it will be within a couple of years ; when my hon. and distinguished friend, the Minister of Marine (Sir Louis Davies) will have made the improvements that the trade requires ; I believe that then the St. Lawrence route will be one of the best Commercial routes in the world. Some little accidents happen. A day or two ago a ship grounded through the chain of her rudder breaking, but that was an accident over which the government had no control. The Tiverton grounded at Contrecoeur. She was drawing 18 feet of water, and there were 38 feet of water in the channel that day. The pilot had evidently lost his head, if he had ever a sound head on his shoulders, and he grounded the boat in full daylight. We cannot help such things happening.


John Graham Haggart: You are to blame for having such pilots.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am very glad my hon. friend interposed that remark. I quite agree with him. I have followed all the inquiries into accidents from 1896 to 1898, and I am sorry to say that in nearly every case it was found that the pilot was responsible. That state of affairs has to be put an end to. and without any delay.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have no hesitation in saying, that, speaking for myself, and I am sure for all my colleagues, we have no desire that that state of affairs shall continue any longer.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear. hear.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There are able pilots, but there are pilots that are not able. Let the able pilots stand on their own merits, but let the bad pilots be dispensed with. In other words, in my humble opinion, free pilotage should be the order of the day.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 
An hon. MEMBER.: Stick to it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It seeems to me that in matters of trade like this, we should have no hesitation to apply a radical remedy where it is clear that there is a radical evil.


Mr. BENNETT.: I wish to ask the minister a few questions. What is the capacity of the Canadian Pacific Railway elevators which load direct into the ships in Montreal ; what quantity of grain was handled to these two elevators last year ; will the proposed elevators be erected near the Canadian Pacific Railway elevators ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Oh, no. The Canadian Pacific Railway elevators, if I am well informed, handled last year five or six million bushels of grain. Of course, I do not know the Canadian Pacific Railway Company's plans very well, but I know that they have made up their minds to handle a great deal more grain in Montreal, and they will have to have more elevators. The elevators that are intended to be built are not in that locality at all.


William Humphrey Bennett: How far away are they?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not very far. The Canadian Pacific ele-


Mr. TARTE.: vators are located on the shore wharf, where there is a pretty strong current. The other elevators will be erected in the centre of the harbour in still water. 1 am not authorized to speak for the harbour commission. All I know is that I have been asked to approve of an enlargement there so as to allow of the erection of an elevator. There are three large wharfs to be erected in the centre. One is completed, another will be completed in a few weeks, and the third the next season; and there will also be three large basins. The Montreal Board of Trade insist very strongly that two elevators should be built to serve the trade that will take place in these basins and on these wharfs. In other words, these elevators will serve the same purpose that is served by the elevators at Portland. Big ships will come to the wharfs, load and unload produce, cattle or anything else, and at the same time the grain in the elevators will be loaded into the whole of the ships. The whole operation will be done simultaneously, as on every well equipped wharf. The question is whether two elevators are immediately necessary in the centre of the harbour, because we must not lose sight of the fact that we shall have to deal to a very large extent with all-water trade. I am sure that ships will come down by the canals in greater numbers than hitherto.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: What will be the capacity of these elevators ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The plans have not yet been decided upon. Perhaps a million bushels. I cannot say as to that, because the whole thing will be under the contrpl of the harbour commissioners, subject of course to my approval and the approval of my colleagues, because I take pride in submitting all such questions to my colleagues; I think it is my duty to do so. As to the exact location of these elevators, I am not prepared to say. A large warehouse is also to be provided, because we must not forget that the grain trade is not the only one we shall receive from the lakes. A great deal of flour, molasses, sugar and package freight will be handled in the ports of Montreal and Quebec. Mr. Booth handles to-day a large quantity of package freight between Philadelphia, Buffalo, New York and western ports. What we have done on a smaller scale in the past will be done in the future on a larger scale, when we are better equipped-when. Port Col'borne, Parry Sound, Collingwood, Goderich and all the other ports on the lakes are better equipped. I have confidence in every port on the Georgian Bay and the lakes. Each one will be a gatherer of trade, and what we have to do is to supply means for handling that trade by the St. Lawrence route. I see that my hon. friend from Toronto is getting anxious
about Toronto itself. He wants me to speak of Toronto.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Certainly; always glad to hear you.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have no objection to say that, in my opinion, no scheme should be discarded without being considered carefully. I have given my best attention, and I am going to give more attention in the future, to that air line project which has been often suggested in the House. If it is the shortest route, it will become one of the best; there is no doubt about that. Two and two make four, and when a route is the shortest and the best, the trade has to flow there. But of course this is a question at which any man who does not want to commit himself without knowing should look carefully. I know that the Grand Trunk people have settled in Portland; but I am glad to say that they have intimated to me and to some of my colleagues that when the port of Montreal is fully equipped, they will take down the St. Lawrence route as much trade perhaps as we can handle. I am not going to speak of plans which some gentlemen may have in their minds. The Department of Railways and Canals have plans which have been submitted to them for the further improvement of the port of Montreal. These are not before the House at the present time; but I feel that tiie port of Montreal, being at the foot of the lakes and at the head of navigation, will always be the most important distributing point in Canada. Am I unfair to any other port in speaking as I do ? Decidedly not. I know that Quebec will have a large share; we all hope it will. The larger the ships will grow, the more trade Quebec will have. Quebec has that great advantage of being open to navigation longer in the year than the port of Montreal. We Montrealers are well-wishers of the port of Quebec. Speaking for myself, nobody has lived happier years than I have in Quebec. I have kept an affectionate souvenir of that fine old capital, and there is no one more anxious than I am to do for Quebec everything in my power. Nature has done a great deal for Quebec. It is one of the most magnificent ports in the world.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Where is the Grand Trunk at present bringing its grain from to Montreal ? And where does the Grand Trunk carry it to from Montreal ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The Grand Trunk is still sending some grain to Montreal from American ports. Midland has become one of the important gathering points of the Grand Trunk system; but it is well known that the Grand Trunk Railway is sending more and more of its freight to Portland, for the excellent reason that it can handle its freight there

cheaper than in Montreal, because Montreal Is not equipped as it should be.
I would like to compel the Grand Trunk Railway, not by force, except by the force of low rates, to come back to Montreal, and I have no doubt that if Montreal be well equipped, if the St. Lawrence route, which is the shortest, is also made the best, the Grand Trunk Railway will have to come back to that route. Railway companies are not actuated by sentiment, but by their own interests.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Will the hon. gentleman permit me to put him a question V Is the Grand Trunk Railway carrying more grain from Montreal to Portland than it did before it acquired the Drummond County Railway ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: This has not the slightest bearing on the question. The piece of railway that the Grand Trunk Railway then acquired is still owned by the company.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: But the traffic that used to go over that road is now going to Portland.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: It is not in the same direction at all. The Grand Trunk Railway has been for years using its road between Quebec and Montreal as a local road, and as nothing else, and the question the hon. gentleman has put has no bearing at all on the point. My hon. friend from Bellechasse (Mr. Talbot) has asked me what I mean by free pilotage. I mean that every navigation company should be free to choose its own pilots. There is now in force a system of what is called le tour de role. In other words, when a pilot has made thirty trips, though he may be the best pilot in the world, he is not allowed by the rules of his corporation to make any more.


Mr. TALBOT.: That is between Quebec and Montreal ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, I am not speaking of below Quebec, because there is a different pilotage corporation governing that route altogether. The pilots between Quebec and Montreal pool their receipts, and each one enjoys an equal share; and under the rules of their corporation, no one pilot can make more than thirty trips in one season. That is a dangerous policy to which this country cannot submit any longer. The navigation companies must be given the right to choose the pilots they want. In that respect it is that I use the term ' free pilotage.' I hope also that in the near future we -will have a dis-tinot tribunal to judge the pilots, although my hon. friend has already taken a step in the right direction in appointing a pilot commissioner. It is to my certain knowledge that in the past, pilots who were guilty of the greatest negligence, found a means of Mr. TARTE.
escaping punishment. That state of affairs must cease. The interests connected with this matter are so large that no petty question of English or French Canadian must be allowed to have any weight. I am in favour of having pilotage open to the world, so that every competent man, no matter where he comes from, may become a pilot.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee on the resolution.
William Rees Brock: The hon. Minister of Public Works has explained the basis upon which he is asking for this appropriation, but the question I put him was not as to the desirability of making a large appropriation, but as to whether the government had sufficient technical knowledge to say that this will be sufficient for all purposes, or whether it is merely the insertion of the small end of the wedge, and that in two years hence we shall be called on to contribute another large appropriation.
We know how appropriations have been voted for canals in times past. When the Trent canal was about to be built, we were never told that it would cost what it did. The first vote was for $1,000,000, but that vote was merely a small instalment of the [DOT]entire cost.
This vote which is now asked for the harbour of Montreal is no doubt intended for the benefit of the whole country, but we have nothing to show that ultimately the policy we are adopting will prove the proper one. We have no means of knowing whether other railways may not find the port of Portland the one to which they had better ship their freight if they want to control the business. I am quite satisfied that each of the ports of Quebec, Montreal and Halifax has its merits. For the last ten years I have been importing millions of dollars worth of goods, and I do not allow one pound of freight I import to come into Toronto over an American road, and I find that 1 am able to compete with those who bring in their goods through American ports. But when I am shipping goods to the English market, where they have to compete with American goods, I must send them by such a route that they will he able to compete in the matter of price.
There are two questions to be considered in this connection. One is the question of imports and the other of exports. On the question of exporting goods, we should have a little better information than we have at present. To go on voting millions upon millions will not make Montreal or any other inland port an all the year round port. Business in this country is conducted in such a way by banking and shipping interests that merchants want to draw continually against the goods they are shipping anil cannot keep these goods locked up six months of the year. It is the duty of the government to have a fixed plan laid before the country, and that plan they would as-

certain if tliey would appoint a commission as suggested by my bon. friend from Jacques Cartier, which would furnish us with expert evidence, so that we would not merely have the dictum of a minister, who asks us to vote a million dollars in order to equip a certain port, which may equip that port, as far as the minister knows, for the present, but which equipment would be utterly inadequate three years hence. We should have more information than we appear to have at present to justify our inserting the small end of the wedge, when it may afterwards be found that cattle and other products could be carried past Montreal to Quebec, by an extra line of railway, probably, the building of which would not cost anything like what we may have to expend if we are to keep continually adding to the equipment of the port of Montreal. It may appear that I am speaking against Montreal, but in reality I am not doing so. On the contrary, I am anxious to make Montreal a great city, and I think we can do so without making it a great exporting centre. The city of Quebec we should assist at present in every way possible ; and if we were to spend a few million dollars in the construction of a railway, we might make of that city a winter port. If that be the case, this enormous expense for the purpose of making Montreal harbour suitable for large vessels could be done away with, and it would still remain a great distributing point. If the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Finance will go on from year to year appropriating millions of dollars for the benefit of the harbour commissioners of Montreal, these gentlemen will no doubt honestly expend the money, but I fear it will not be expended with good judgment unless we have more information than we have now regarding the general transportation needs of the whole country.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The committee perfectly appreciate the motives which have prompted the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) to ask the question he has just put to the hon. Minister of Public Works. It has always seemed to me, since I have had a seat in this House, that on this transportation question we have not that technical information to which my hon. friend referred. It was under that impression that I urged-and, I think, with some degree of justice-that we should imitate the American government and have a commission appointed to investigate continuously the whole question. The hon. member for Maisonneuve and for Terrebonne (Mr. Prefontaine) took exception to my remarks in that regard, considering them as a reflection upon the Montreal Harbour Commissioners, which was never intended in any degree. But I maintained that the commissioners of any one port, particularly gentlemen as busy as these gentlemen, cannot have the necessary qualifications to deal thoroughly with such
an immense question as that of transportation viewed from the different points from which it is necessary to view it. And so I claimed, as I still claim, that, under our present system, the Minister of Public Works, having sources of information on which no one body possesses, can best consider the pros and cons of the transportation question. But, in view of the remarks of my hon. friend from Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock), I think we have enough information to convince us that we must provide additional facilities at Montreal. We have spent immense sums upon the canals ; and information which comes from all sides shows us that immense quantities of grain would be brought to Montreal if we had there even the most elementary facilities for handling it. In my discussion of the matter I showed the immense difference in the facilities at Montreal and another port, Buffalo or Duluth for handling grain, and how simple and unavailing were the facilities we had in Montreal. We are not absolutely paying out tile country's money for the purpose of providing the facilities required ; but rather making advances. And the advances which have been made to the port of Montreal in the past have been so treated that we should not be discouraged from making the advances now contemplated. I think we must gradually accustom ourselves to look upon expenditures of this kind and upon the whole transportation question from a high standpoint rather than from the point of view of any local interest. For my part, I quite agree with the Minister of Public Works, having managed to rid myself of the spell under which we were on our visit to Quebec owing to the extreme kind treatment which we received there. Before I went to Quebec I had the opinion that I now have, that it is absolutely certain that Quebec will become a very important port and that it will fulfil many wants which it is impossible for Montreal to meet at present. But what has happened in the case of the Grand Trunk Railway and the port of Portland is an intimation that we must do something ; and the first step, it seems to me, is to provide Montreal with improvements in the shape of elevators. And in this connection I would ask the Minister of Public Works if it has been possible for him to secure information as to what should be done-for that is as essential as the improvements at Montreal- at the port of distribution on the great lakes. Has the hon. minister-and this is the part of the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Brock's) question in which I join-has the hon. minister any comprehensive scheme in connection with the improvements of Montreal, which improvements, I agree, are necessary ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I quite understand the point of view which my hon. friend from Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) takes. As a sound business man he wants to know on what

plans we are working. Well, during the last five years the plans on which we are working have been discussed by the board of trade, by the harbour commissioners, by the railway corporations, by the navigation companies. Plans were prepared fifteen or sixteen years ago. When X took office I thought-I do not mean to put forward my own personal opinion except as it was formed after having taken the advice of competent men-that these plans should not be carried out. They provided for narrow and long wharfs and narrow basins. Those who know the port of Montreal will remember that there is a pier which is called the Guard Tier, which was erected to form a still basin and protect the port from the rapid waters of the lake. In my humble opinion, if the plans formerly prepared had been carried out the port of Montreal would have been altogether spoiled. 1 consulted engineers and gave my best attention to that important question. I have travelled a good deal keeping this matter in view. The harbour commissioners themselves made a tour of American ports. Finally, we came to the conclusion that the present plan was the best that could be adopted. We are carrying out that plan. I think that when the works are completed the port of Montreal will he one of the best-equipped on this continent. My hon. friend asks if we are sure that this is the last time we shall apply to parliament. I am not going to say that I am quite sure, hut I am convinced that it is about the last call that we shall make. Still, the trade of this country is developing to such an extent that nobody can tell. If we have dozens and dozens of big ships coming to Montreal, if we have hundreds of barges taking down grain and package freight to the port of Montreal by the St. Lawrence route, we shall need more accommodation and parliament will be obliged to provide that accommodation. We cannot tell where this country is going to stop. I hope before we die we will see in this country a population of 10,000.000 or 12,000.000. When we have that population we will necessarily have more trade, and we will have to equip our harbours and rivers in a more thorough manner. Let my hon. friend who speaks of the expenditure remember that we are at the end of it. When the harbour commissioners took charge of the St. Lawrence between Quebec and Montreal, there were only 11 feet of water in Lake St. Peter ; now we have 27 feet and a half, and within two years we will have 30 feet. The St. Lawrence has been deepened 271 feet its whole length. Last year my department dredged ten miles and a half to a depth of about thirty feet and a width of 450 feet. We are completing our route. Would we be jsutified in now folding our arms ? We are completing our work, in my opinion a most necessary work. There will always be big ships coming to the port of Montreal. Perhaps the giants Mr. TARTE.
of the sea will have to stop at Quebec, the 15,000-ton ships will stop at Quebec ; but the 8,000 and 10,000-ton ships will always go as far as they can inland. That is the law of trade, my hon. friend knows it as well as I do, because he is an able business man. We are now contemplating the idea of opening a great national highway from Montreal to the lakes by the Ottawa and the French river. The tendency of trade is to go deeper and deeper inland. Montreal, therefore, will always remain a most important trading port.
Now, my hoh. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) has asked me a very proper question, he wants to know what we are doing on the upper lakes. We had a debate on that subject a few nights ago, I am sorry he was not here. Both the Department of Public Works and the Department of Railways and Canals are carrying out important works at Port Colborne. Port Colborne had not even a harbour, and how could our canal system expect to compete with American ports when we have not even a place where a ship could throw anchor ? It was out of the question. But we have so many things to do we cannot do them all at once. I do not blame anybody for that, as we have been going on most successfully indeed. At Port Colborne the Department of Public Works has awarded a contract to Messrs. Morgan & Macdonald; the hon. member for Jacques Cartier knows them, they live in Montreal. That work will be about 5,000 feet long. We have awarded only part of the contract, because parliament has not voted all the money. The first part of the work that has been awarded will be far advanced this coming fall, but it will not be completed. I expect the whole breakwater will be completed by the end of next season. The Department of Railways and Canals are deepening the entrance to the Welland canal. They are also contemplating the erection of two piers adjoining the canal. I am told my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals has brought down the plan. There will he two piers on which terminal facilities will have to be erected. At this moment a large American company is trying to arrange to take down trade through the St. Lawrence route and the Welland canal. They have not yet made up their minds how much trade they will take to Montreal or to Quebec ; but Mr. Wolvin, whose name Is well known, has made an offer to the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal, and negotiations are going on between them. His view would be to use large freight carriers on the lakes to take cargoes of grain and package freight to Port Colborne, there to tranship it into smaller barges, barges with a capacity say of 250,000 bushels, and take this freight to Montreal or Quebec, or Three Rivers. I suppose they cannot make up their minds

as to which port they will go, it will depend on the advantages that will be offered to them. The question will then be between the water bound interests on the lakes and the water bound and railway interests, in other words, between the St. Lawrence route and the American route. Here is Buffalo at the right hand of the Erie canal, and here is Port Colborne twenty miles away. Prom Buffalo grain has to he carried by rail to American ports. Now, from Port Colborne grain and package freight and trade in general will have to be carried by water. Let us not forget that there are only about seventy miles of canals from Port Colborne on the St. Lawrence route, the balance of the route being fine open lake navigation. Now, these American and Canadian capitalists believe that they can carry a cargo of grain much cheaper from Duluth, from Chicago, from Milwaukee to Liverpool by the St. Lawrence route, a water route all through, than they can carry it by the American routes. They make a vast difference in the cost of freight between the two routes.
Of course, to have low rates we must have accommodation, we must have the best possible handling facilities. In Montreal, up to a year or two ago, and even to-day, we have not such facilities. Those who have visited ports both in the United States and in Europe know that Montreal is not in it in that respect. Not one of our Canadian harbours is able to compete with the United States from the modern standpoint. We have not the modern equipments. The most important part of the work, however, is done, we have laid the foundation, we have now only to crown our work ; and it is with that object in view that we are asking parliament to advance, not to give, $1,000,000, on which interest will be faithfully paid, to complete one or two elevators, one large warehouse, to lay down tracks for the accommodation of trade in Montreal. At present a great deal of freight in the port of Montreal has to be moved by hand at a great cost. It is indeed marvellous that we have been able to do as well as we have, with our imperfect means of handling freight. Our natural advantages must be immense to have enabled us to compete with American routes even to the extent we have done. Let me say that when I speak of the St. Lawrence route I speak of it as a whole. I applaud with both hands the national and patriotic statement made a minute ago by the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock). He is a great importer of trade, and it is cheerful to hear a man of his standing say in the House that he does not allow a pound of his trade to pass through American channels. Let us be a nation, let us be Canadians before everything else, and it is with that object in view that I would not hesitate to spend a
large sum of money to make of this Canadian nation, a nation independent of our American neighbours. We are on good terms with them, but we are on better terms with ourselves. St. John, Halifax- all these harbours should be equipped and everything that parliament has in its power to do to make of St. John and Halifax winter ports, so that we may have winter ports of our own, should be done without any hesitation whatever. I do not like to spend money uselessly. I believe I am a fairly sound business man in that regard. I do not like to waste money, hut I like to have money spent in developing the trade of this young and enterprising nation. I may be a little enthusiastic over the S1. Lawrence route. I feel at times that I am a little bit crazy over it; I dream abut it, but I think a public man may have worse dreams than to dream of advancing the natural advantages of this country.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I agree with every word uttered by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). I think if there is one feature more than another in the outline of the undertaking of the hon. Minister of Public Works, it is that one particularly mentioned by the hon. member, that it has not been carried out upon a comprehensive and intelligent plan. I think there is no doubt whatever that all these ports are valuable, but there must be in the future some of them that will be winter ports and some of them summer ports only, some that will be suitable for boats drawing a great depth of water and others suitable for boats of light draft. We have Halifax, St. John, Quebec and Montreal. We have been trying to build up a trade at the port of St. John lately, but the result is that the trade during this last winter, as compared with last year, has fallen off about one-third. What is the reason of that ? Is it because the Grand Trunk Railway are taking the trade to Portland ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The Grand Trunk never sent a pound of freight to a Canadian winter port. St. John has never received a pound of freight from the Grand Trunk.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Canadian Pacific Railway has ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: At any rate there is some cause for it. Is it for want of proper accommodation to handle the trade, or, is it on account of the distance that the trade must be drawn before it reaches the winter port ? There must be some cause, and it seems to me that if we were able to get that information by a commission it is very desirable that we should have a commission appointed independent of all these ports so that it might be in a position

to make comparisons as to the relative merits of these different ports and report the results to parliament. My own opinion has been for a good while that the head of ocean navigation will he Quebec. I entertain that belief on the ground that it is closer to ocean navigation than Montreal, and that it has a greater depth of water, and that the influence of the tide is felt there. If the trial which the government propose to make during the coming season by putting on a boat to ascertain whether winter navigation is practicable in the St. Lawrence, proves successful, Quebec will afford ocean navigation the year round. If that be the case, then it is the most Important jjort in Canada to-day, because it brings ocean navigation so much farther west than any other port we have while affording a sufficient depth of water to ensure a safe passage to the very largest ships that traverse the ocean. That is why I think it may be a valuable port. I think It will be a valuable port because it will be found in the future to be a port for twelve months In the year, a port that makes shorter railway hauls than the port of St. John, or Halifax, or Portland. If that be the case it seems to me It is a very important port, but notwithstanding all that, Montreal will always also be a very valuable port. Iu saying what I have It is not for the purpose of opposing the proposal which the lion. Minister of Public Works is making, because, In my judgment, there cannot be too many facilities for handling the trade of the country. Until we have better facilities for handling the trade it will go to other ports, whether to Portland or elsewhere, wherever these facilities are provided. As to whether this sum will complete the work or not, I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that instead of $1,000,000, it will require from $4,000,000 to $7,000,000 before it is completed. To me It appears doubtful whether we will ever be able to get a sufficient depth of water between Montreal and Quebec for the largest vessels. I think that with the ice in the winter and the Ailing in of the channel in the summer


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It does not fill in at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Well, whether it is In the depth, or the width of the channel, or the danger of rocks falling down from the side, there is something that will prevent it from being navigable for vessels drawing the greatest depth of water, and with the trend towards larger vessels this will be a disadvantage. The celebrated engineer, Mr. Sawyer, who spoke to us the other day, said that in his judgment we had reached the maximum of the size in vessels, but there are a great many who disagree with him because they are building larger and larger vessels all the time, and they believe that the same increase in size will go on in the future Mr. SPROULE.
as has gone on in the past. That will bring us very close to the time when we require 30 foot navigation and perhaps even more for the use of these large vessels. I do not think that the channel to Montreal is likely to afford that depth of water.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have it now.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 
Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: If we do not encourage them they might be obliged some day to do, perhaps, what the Grand Trunk Railway has done. I know from my personal knowledge, that the Canadian Pacific Railway would be in a position to make advantageous arrangements to-day at Boston, and even at Portland. I am sure they do not contemplate anything of the kind. But, Canadian public men. and this Canadian parliament, must not lose sight of this natural fact: That if we want to do the export trade by our winter ports we must take the necessary means to do so. So much for our winter ports. My hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has paid a good deal of attention to the transportation question, but I am afraid he loses sight of the facts to a pretty large extent. The navigation between Montreal and Quebec is not dangerous. There may be some little accidents, but there cannot possibly be any serious wreck. A ship may ground, but she cannot be lost. The navigation between Belle Isle and Quebec is the great trouble, and the greatest part of the marine losses have always been on that part of the route.


John Graham Haggart: I understand that in some place between Belle Isle and Quebec the navigation is not deeper than on Lake St. Peter, and I have never been able to get assured on that point.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is nothing of the kind. There is abundance of water. At Crane Island there
is a little 'spot of about 1,500 feet that has to be dredged, but that is a question of detail. The trouble is that there is a fog at times, but there is also fog on the American routes. I have travelled enough to be often caught in a fog going by an American route. But, with the improvements on the St. Lawrence route that are in sight ; with an improved system of fog-signals, of dredging, lighthouses and beacons, that route between Belle Isle and Quebec can be made, and will be made, a great deal safer than it has ever been in the past. In the supplementary estimates, my hon. friends will find a pretty large amount of money to complete-perhaps not to complete, but to improve our system of fog-signals and lighthouses. I am asking this year a pretty large amount of money-


Mr. COCHRANE.: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: A pretty large amount of money, but not too much, to build powerful dredges.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: The entrance at St. John harbour has to be dredged. At low tide there is only 18 feet there now, and there is no sense in that. In the maritime provinces there is also a large quantity of dredging to be carried out. Within two or three years after we get these powerful dredges we can create a kind of commercial revolution on the great lakes. When the Canadian people once get started, they go at a pretty high 'speed of progress and development.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: May I be permitted to call attention to the fact that this debate is only partial in its scope. I have great hopes in all that has been said, and I cheerfully vote for this, or for any other sum that may be necessary to make the St. Lawrence route a good route. Perhaps we may have to spend money in order to get information. A nation has to spend money to get information as well as an individual, and that information may not be all that we may desire. There is one thing certain, and that is, that the conditions at present existing, both at Montreal and Quebec. are not such as to make for the betterment of the transportation question. I vote for this appropriation because it will tend to bring about that which must come ultimately in Canada. All the ports named on the whole St. Lawrence route, including Montreal and Quebec, must be ultimately the collecting points for the sea-shore ports in Nova Scotia.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I admit that if it can be shown that Quebec is navigable during the whole year, the transportation question from that side will be solved ; because you can bring by rail to Quebec the wheat and other products cheaper than you can bring

them to the lower provinces. But having a strong doubt on that point, I think we should bear in mind that all these expenditures are summer expenditures and somewhat tentative of what must in the end come. I am sure the lucid explanations given by the Minister of Public Works, indicating a clear understanding of the question, and the broad views he has enunciated, whatever may be the feeling of hon. gentlemen as to his political views, must commend themselves to every Canadian.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: These are my political views.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: They could not be otherwise, believing as the hon. minister does politically. Of course, where nature is lavish, art has to do less. So far as Montreal is concerned, if shipments can be made to Montreal with larger ships, as the hon. minister hopes, then Montreal has the advantage that the expenditure of carrying by rail to Montreal will not be as great as Quebec ; but, on the other hand, there are the difficulties which I have pointed out, and we have always to bear in mind the question of the ultimate result. There is Nova Scotia, the vestibule of the Dominion, with the ocean always open, with ports like Halifax, Country Harbour, Whitehead, the Straits of Canso, Louisburg, Sydney, and other harbours which I have not mentioned at all. Going around the coast of Nova Scotia, at every ten miles you will come to harbours which would be considered in the less favoured parts of the world, like Ontario and Quebec, as magnificent harbours, and they are never mentioned at all.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Yes, and a lot of suckers in them, too.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Not a sucker in them. Suckers are fresh water fish ; they are never found in the sea. They are mud fish, found up in the lakes and the small streams of Ontario. Salmon, and cod, and mackerel, nice large trout, and sportive -whales, you find in the ocean ; but turtles, suckers, and flat fish you get inland.


An hon. MEMBER.: And eels.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Yes, and eels of the most slippery character. My firm conviction is that we must turn our attention to transportation by land, and in some way make it cheap and effective. Our railways must in some way, by means of larger locomotives, a better road-bed, or other facilities, be enabled to do the work quicker and cheaper than they do it now. In a country like Canada, with the St. Lawrence frozen for a part of the year, we shall always be subject to difficulties which our neighbours to the south of us are free from. Their ports are open all the year, and they have to use their railways a good deal more than we do. The Mississippi and Missouri form a mightier avenue than the St. Lawrence ; but some-Mr. FRASER.
how or other it is a wonderful fact that they do not carry one-tenth of the trade in proportion to population that the St. Lawrence does. As to these expenditures, I am for them with all my heart. I believe that expenditures on transportation, though lavish, if wisely and honestly expended, are the best investments Canada can make. We need not be afraid of such expenditures. Why, I see that some of the small nations in Europe are almost doubling their expenditures in building ships, preparing for war, and that sort of thing. If we in Canada understand the value and extent of the wealth we have, we shall not stint our expenditures. We will lay our foundations deep on the broadest and most liberal grounds, to serve, not simply the trade of to-day, but the trade of a quarter of a century afterwards, that those who come after us may have the advantage. I was struck with a remark made by the hon. minister to the effect that the plans of sixteen years ago, if they had been followed, would have ruined the harbour. Let us not forget that the same thing may happen sixteen years hence if we are small in our plans and ideas to-day. With regard to large ships, I see there is a ship now being built in England of 18,000 tons. I do not see why, with the increased knowledge of materials and construction, we should not be able to build ships in the next ten or fifteen years that will carry 30,000 tons and if mid-ocean caravans carrying 30,000 tons are crossing and recrossing the ocean, do what you will, there will always be danger if they come inland. Therefore, let us spend wisely and liberally to-day, with the fullest information we can get, and with hope and confidence in the future. I am not going to say anything about what the hon. member for Jacques Cartier said. I have often thought of that. I do not know of any better expenditure we could make than to take three of the ablest men we could find in Canada and give them $25,000 or $30,000 a year each to take this whole question into consideration. You cannot get a good man now except at a large price, and you want the very ablest business men in Canada for this work. Hon. members may think that the sum I have mentioned is a very large one, but I only mention it as one I would willingly give to the right men to solve this question.
In the exercise of his duties, no minister who has ever occupied the position of Minister of Public Works has shown better results than the present incumbent; but he is a very busy man, and when he has to attend to all the work of his department, when he has besides to run an election and keep the opposition from doing wrong, and do the thousand and one things which a minister has to do, even if he were an intellectual giant beyond any man living, he could not give that study to this subject which would enable him to find out what is really the condition of things in Canada.

You want, for example, one of the best engineers in America or Europe to ascertain what should be done. 1 remember the (ate premier Sir Mackenzie Bowell going to a gentleman in connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway and saying to him: I want a good man for the Intercolonial Railway. What kind of a man do you want ? Sir Mackenzie went on to describe the kind of man he wanted, and then this gentleman asked: What are you ready to pay him. Well, said Sir Mackenzie, 1 might give him $6,000 or $7,000, if I could get a man like that. You would, would you, asked the other. Well, I have been looking for a man like that for ten years, and if I can find him I will give him $25,000 per year. We make a great mistake in taking a man who may be good, but who is not the best, and I thoroughly approve of the suggestion of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier. We have a number of ports, each one claiming that it is the best. Naturally enough, the members of the various constituencies urge that the particular locality in which each is interested is the one in which our money could be expended to the best advantage. But an engineer of great ability would not pay any attention to the views of men influenced by local preferences, but would come to a decision apart from such views altogether, and no doubt tlie employment of such a man would be one of the best investments we could make.
Let me again remind the House that all this work must end as I have indicated. Let me remind them that the ocean, which never ceases in its inflow, and is always open inviting the commerce of the world, is the ultimate point at which the shipments of Canada must be made.
ing to do what we can for them, and so on, but he submitted to this House no systematic plan. These hon. gentlemen come down year after year deploring that things are as bad as they are, deploring that there are no facilities in Montreal for carrying on the business, and that the Grand Trunk Railway is forced to go to Portland. Well, what are the government there for ? They did not come into power yesterday. They have been here five years. They told us that the canals would be finished at a certain date, but that certain date has long since passed, and the canals are still unfinished. Those terminal facilities necessary for the carrying on of the business, and the elevators, are still not completed. The government has done nothing except spend money in a reckless fashion without having any matured, well-considered scheme. They have been simply going on spending money, as the Minister of Public Works has been doing, for instance, at Port Colborne. He produced a plan by the engineers of his department which called for an expenditure of five and a half million dollars at that port. He told us that he did not want to spend five and a half million dollars, and was only asking a vote of a million or two. and he said: Just vote me the money, and I will show what I will do with it. He comes before parliament with the crudest possible ideas as to what he is going to do, without any well-considered scheme for the expenditure of that money which _ he calls on us to vote. When we hand this money, which he is now asking us to vote, over to the Montreal Harbour Commissioners and they spend it, they will be responsible to the Dominion for the payment of 3 per cent interest, but the principal will be paid by the people of Canada and not by the harbour commissioners at all. How much money do the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal owe the Dominion to-day ?


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: 


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I have a statement here showing $1,700,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think they have drawn something since, and the amount is now about $2,000,000.


John Graham Haggart: The statement was made by the Minister of Public Works a short time ago that it was $3,800,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is the whole indebtedness of the board, but not to the government.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: To whom do they owe the rest ?


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I punk that the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser) has made out a very good case for the appointment of a commission, and he indicated, I think, that he himself would be just the style of man to fill the bill.


William Ross: You mean the size of man.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Yes, the hon. member is, according to his own opinion, just the man to suit, and the salary would be just about the size suitable for him. He has eulogized the Minister of Public Works untii the hon. minister had to clear out.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: No, he knew that you were going to speak.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I have listened to the Minister of Public Works for almost several hours, and I never heard a speech so absolutely destitute of information. He just indulged in a lot of platitudes about Montreal being a great port, and Quebec being a great port, and Halifax and St. John being great ports, and about our hav-


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: To different parties. They have simply issued bonds which they sold in the ordin-

ary way, and on which they pay the interest.	.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: And the Dominion guarantees the bonds ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not all of them. The government guarantee bonds for the amount advanced and nothing else.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: $2,000,000 under the one statute, and an outstanding power for $2,000,000 which has not yet been used.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: That makes $4,000,000 which the Dominion will become liable for?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The second part is not yet paid.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: But the harbour commissioners can draw upon it ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: To be expended in accordance with the plans- yes.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Since the present government came into power, the liabilities of the harbour commissioners to the government of Canada have increased from $385,000 to about $2,000,000; and the harbour commissioners have power to expend $2,000,000 more as it is required, under approval of the government. [DOT] The Minister of Public Works prepared one scheme, found it a failure and adopted another, and yet the facilities that should have been provided when the canals were completed are not provided. And we are told that it will be years before the port of Montreal will be equipped. In the meantime, the Grand Trunk Railway lias sought its port at Portland, the reason being as the Minister of Public Works tells us that proper facilities have not been provided at Montreal. It is a great humiliation to the people of Canada after we have been spending money thus copiously, to find the business leaving Canada, and Portland becoming the summer and winter port of the Grand Trunk Railway system. We have just two great railway systems, the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway. The Grand Trunk has its ramifications through the most productive parts of the Dominion and naturally does the largest freight business. And when this great system establishes its terminus in a foreign country the government stands idle, helpless; it has no programme, nothing to recommend as a means of keeping the business in Canada The only thing they have to suggest comes from the Minister of Public Works who tells us : Give us more money and we will spend it for you. The government should have retained the business on this side of the line so far as the Grand Trunk is concerned. The government, when extending the Intercolonial Railway to Montreal, gave the


Mr TARTE.: Grand Trunk immense sums of money for the Improvement of their bridge, sums of money out of proportion as we contended to the service rendered by the Grand Trunk. And now we find the president of the Grand Trunk in the old country boasting that they have received enough money to doubletrack the road almost from Montreal to Portland, thus facilitating the carrying or the business away from this country to which it naturally belongs. This is the government that claims to be a business government and that claims to be looking after the interests of the people. They are neglecting the interests of the people. We look over the supplementary estimates and we find that they have about $3,309,000 for the balance of this year to the 30th of June, and they have other supplementary estimates to the amount of $8,300,000, which will be available for the government works during the coming summer season, in all, over $.12,000,000. These are supplementary estimates that are simply unrivalled, unprecedented in the history of this country. The government have been unequal to the task imposed upon them-they have not shown adequate results for the money entrusted to them. For my part, I enter my protest against voting away euormous sums without knowing how the money is to be expended. We are told that this money is to be spent under the approval of the Minister of Public Works. But when the minister comes before parliament asking for a vote of $1,000,000 to be expended in this way he does not come with any programme or scheme showing how that money is to be expended. I listened with a good deal of interest to the statements made by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) with regard to the port at Quebec, and I think he has fairly stated the case. The port of Quebec is the great ocean port of Canada, leaving out of consideration for the moment the Atlantic ports of Halifax, St. John, Sydney and the others to which reference has been made to-day. The freight carried on the inland waters will go to Quebec and will there be loaded on the enormous steamers that are to do the business in the future. Even on the great lakes we see vessels larger than those that were used for sea-going commerce a few years ago, vessels so large that until within recent years no one would have dreamed of utilizing them for inland commerce. The ocean vessels also are being built larger. And the port of Quebec meets the requirements of these vessels. A few years ago I was in the city of Quebec when the first-class man-of-war Blake came there. They found that they could not go up the stream to Montreal, the vessel being of too large a size.
Quebec will no doubt capture the trade; and the business should be arranged on that basis, on an intelligent basis, instead of doing a lot of work this year that he will
5145	MAY 14, 1901	5146
have to undo next year. The minister should have his schemes ready, his plans ready, his business ready, instead of coming here and saying, we deplore these things, we have 'to acknowledge that the Conners syndicate is broken down, and we are trying to get somebody else to take their place. That is not the way to do. The money of the country is being expended, its business is being retarded, and the canals, though completed, are not producing that benefit which these gentlemen had predicted. I remember the First Minister, in a speech in Toronto shortly after he became premier, saying : The first thing we did when we came into power was to recognize the fact that the transportation question was the great problem of the future in Canada. He said : We undertook to dig the canals-indicating that there were no canals before he came into power. It was like his inspiration, like his creation of the Dominion in one night ; he dug the canals while we were all asleep. They were to have them all ready by a certain date. Well, year after year has passed by, and the predictions of the right hon. the First Minister have not been verified in any degree. The business of the country along those lines has actually decreased. While they are boasting of the enormous increase of business, the business at Montreal has actually decreased, the canals have not done the business that they were going to do, we do not see that enormous increase that we might have fairly expected if proper facilities had been provided for doing it. Now I protest strongly against these enormous expenditures. I protest against the minister coming here with an off-hand demand for a million dollars, and uttering a lot of platitudes, meaningless, without information, in order to get the House to vote this money. Let him come here with a well-defined specific plan. The resolution says that the expenditure must meet with the approval of the Minister of Public Works. Well, he has no doubt the plans before him, else he should not have come to parliament and asked for this money. Has he a plan, has he a specific arrangement ? He has not told us so this afternoon, he has not given us information that would justify us in voting a million dollars for the purpose he has indicated.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend is the first member of parliament during this debate who has placed it on party ground, and he will be the last one, I am sure, because the opinions that have been expressed on both sides of the House have not been in that direction.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: That clap-trap is all played out.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman is himself played out. If he goes on as he is going we will not hear much of him in a short time, and the less, perhaps, the better for the country. However, the hon. gentleman has a right to his own policy. He has a policy of his own, we saw that yesterday evening. On this occasion also he has a policy of his own. I would like to see him have the courage of his policy. Is he opposed to this grant for the improvement of the St. Lawrence and the port of Montreal ? If so, let him make a motion. That is a practical way of proving that he means what he says. The hon. gentleman says that I am uttering platitudes. Well, the country will judge between his speech and my modest utterances as to who is uttering platitudes. I do not profess to be anything else than a very plain man, and on this occasion I am only stating plain facts to parliament. When we took office the port of Montreal had not been attended to. We discussed plans that had been prepared but that had not been carried out. The plans were changed. After consultation with the great commercial bodies of Montreal, we agreed on plans that are now being carried out. The hon. gentleman says that we are doing nothing, that we have no policy. Well, let the hon. gentleman, who is still under the impression of his trip to Quebec, come and see what we are doing in Montreal. He will have an opportunity of making another conciliatory speech like the one he made in Quebec, and which, I understand, has made him one of the most popular men of the whole party that went down to Quebec. The hon. gentleman intends to be a candidate in Joliette. We will be glad to see him there. He has a perfect right to ask for the suffrages and votes of the French electors. To gain their favour he has but to read his speech that he made at Quebec and he is done for. He will never be elected in a progressive province with utterances like the ones we have heard. As I have said, we are carefully carrying out plans that are prepared. The hon. gentleman says we have nothing to show. Well, we have already done work in Montreal to the value of $2,000,000. Let the hon. gentleman come and see that work, and he will find that we have not wasted out time nor the money of the country. The hon. gentleman has thought proper to speak of Port Colborne, and to rehash the old story that there is an expenditure of $5,000,000 in view. The hon. gentleman knows right well that he is only talking to the moon.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I said nothing of the kind, I did not say that. the government were contemplating an expenditure of $5,000,000 or $5,500,000 at Port Colborne. But the minister told us distinctly that he was not going to adopt that $5,500,000 plan of expenditure. Now he turns round and puts words into my mouth the very opposite of what I used.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Well, the hon. gentleman is just taking back water, as he has often done before when

lie lias found liimself in a corner. He is intimating


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I won't permit any one to misrepresent what I stated. What I said was that his engineers had a plan for that amount of expenditure, but that he himself did not propose to adopt that plan, but said : You give me a much smaller sum and see what I will do with it. That is the statement I made to the House, not that he had adopted the $5,500,000 plan, but that he had repudiated the plan of his engineers, and was adopting a plan of his own.


The MINISTER OE PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman is again talking to the moon. My engineers did not suggest that expenditure of money. There was a plan prepared, not for the immediate expenditure of money, not for the purpose of any expenditure of that amount ; there was a plan prepared by which it would be possible, if trade developed, to spend that money later on. Those plans have no immediate importance at all, but the hon. gentlemen are trying to create the impression that we contemplate spending millions and millions of money. That is just what they have tried to do. The work that we are carrying out at Port Colborne is a very simple one, but a most useful one, indeed. There was no harbour at that point. Big ships could not unload. The Department of Public Works is building a breakwater inside of which large ships will be able to load and unload. The Department of Railways and Canals is building piers and docks, at which large Ships will be able to load and unload. The plans have been placed before parliament. It will be great pleasure for me to put the plans on the Table of the House. That work is being carried on under well-defined and well-prepared plans, and it is no use for hon. gentlemen to say that we are coming to parliament without any definite plans. The works have been awarded and the plans prepared. As far as Montreal is concerned, there is a part of this plan completed. One large work is completed and the other one will be completed in a few weeks. Three large piers will be completed next year. To handle the grain at this port at these three wharfs the Board of Trade of Montreal believe that two elevators are necessary. Whether there will be two elevators built or only one at that particular spot, I am not prepared to say. It is an open question, upon which I am not prepared to say anything to-day. I must have more information. But, in the meantime, we are asking parliament to allow us to advance $1,000,000 to the harbour commissioners so that they may build elevators and warehouses, and other terminal facilities, on plans to be submitted to us. I do not see what more we can place before parliament to justify us in asking this amount of money. If we did not ask for money this year before the plans of the elevators are prepared, we might Mr. TARTE.
be open to reproach of having wasted time. We are asking for the mouey in advance so that the plans may be prepared immediately and the work may go on without delay. The hon. gentleman has made a mistake from a party standpoint in talking about politics. I am not going to follow him. I am not going to recriminate because the Conservative party when they were in office accomplished some important things. They built railways and harbours, but they have not been able to do everything. It is well known that the port of Montreal was not equipped and that the port of Quebec was not equipped. I am not going to make it a crime to the Conservative party that they have not been able to do that. Things come in their time and in their day. We are doing good work now we are in office, as our i>re-deeessors did good work when they were in office. God forbid that I should forget myself to the extent of making party politics out of a question of such importance. I will leave that to the hon. gentleman if he is not able to rise higher.


David Henderson: Mr. Chairman, when the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) introduced these resolutions, I was very much pleased with the manner in which he treated the subject. It is certainly a national question, a question which ought to receive the very best consideration of both sides of this House, apart from any political feeling whatever. 1 confess I regret that an hon. gentleman occupying the position of the hdn. Minister of Public Works should have turned the whole debate along the lines of making it simply a political question. He has done his utmost to show the advantage politically that would accrue to him and to his party by the expenditure of this money, and if perchance any hon. gentleman should say one word not in sympathy with his views, then he declares it would be impossible for that man to be elected in the city of Montreal or in the province of Quebec. I hope the hon. gentleman will take back something of what he said and that he will endeavour to undo the mischief, if he intends to get these resolutions passed with the unanimous consent of the House, which, to my mind, ought to be done if done at all. To my mind, the government, before they proceed to authorize the expenditure of any large sum of money for the purpose for which this resolution is designed, ought to have some definite policy. I think they ought to arrive at some conclusion as to which port is to be the great national port of Canada. I do not say that whilst we select one port and expend money to make it a port at Which great vessels can come from the ocean, can land their cargoes, we ought to neglect other ports, but, we ought to make a selection of the port on which we are going to expend the largest sum of money for the reception of the very large vessels that must of necessity come to this

country to do the trade of the country. 1 say, therefore, that the government ought to have some definite object in view so that, whether it be Montreal,or Quebec, or Halifax, it shall be a place that we can rely upon. It seems to be a little dangerous for an hon. member to speak his mind upon this question, but at the risk of falling out with the hon. Minister of Public Works, I would venture to say that there is one port in this country which has advantages far above and beyond that of any other port for carrying on the trade of the country. At the city of Quebec we have deep water and abundance of water, and there is a probability of that port being open for ten or twelve months in the year. That harbour can be made an excellent harbour without the expensive dredging that is incidental to almost every other port in the country. Large ships can come into that port and facilities can be arranged by which the largest vessels that sail the ocean can come in there, receive and discharge their cargoes. Well, now, if that port is placed over all the other ports of Canada, if with the expenditure of the same amount of money it can be made advantageous to the country, to make it the national port, why cannot the government decide upon the scheme that they are going to aid for the next ten, fifteen or twenty years, and let us know exactly the aim and object they have in view ? I have nothing to say against the port of Montreal. Montreal will be a port. There will always be a large amount of trade carried on at Montreal. The largest vessels that come may not be able to come to Montreal, but there will be a class of vessels that will always come to Montreal, and it will be necessary that Montreal should be equipped and maintained as a port. But, I believe that the national port of Canada will be the port of Quebec ; that in the future it will be the port where the great vessels that trade between Canada and other countries will receive and discharge their cargo. Now, in reference to the vote that is before us, I desire to say that I think this is a very large sum of money for this parliament to vote to be controlled by the hon. Minister of Public Works. I do not think it is good policy. I think the whole government should have something to say as to how that money should be expended, and that its expenditure should receive the approbation of the government, and the government be held responsible for its proper outlay. I therefore take exception to the wording of the resolution so far as it declares that the money is to be expended entirely upon the approval of the Minister of Public Works. It places a tremendous lever in his hands, and from the exhibition of political feeling he has given us to-day, I am very much afraid that this money may be used for a very improper purpose.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This point has not been raised before, but
I may say that the wording of the resolution ,1s identical with that used in the resolution of 1894, when the first advance was made to the harbour commissioners, and when my friend, Judge Ouimet, was Minister of Public Works. What was good for the goose then ought to be good for the gander now. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Henderson) says they were wrong, we are wrong ; but, if they were right in 1894, we are right to-day. The hon. gentleman was then a member of parliament, and he did not object to it.


John Graham Haggart: My views on the transportation question are well known. I suggested in the House some time ago, that as part of a proper transportation scheme, it was absolutely necessary to afford the very best kind of facilities at the port of Montreal. But, the Minister of Public Works should have given more information to the House. The Harbour Commissioners of Montreal have stated to him what they wanted to complete their port, and amongst other things, elevators are mentioned. Now, one million dollars will build four large elevators, containing nearly two million bushels. The minister stated that we were to have besides elevators, terminal facilities, warehouses and other necessary adjuncts. He praised his Montreal harbour scheme, but, it is my opinion that a great waste of money will be entailed by it, because the scheme is not as comprehensive as it should be. The present scheme will afford only a moiety of the facilities necessary to make Montreal a first-class port. If you have elevators it will be necessary to have them connected with the main lines of railway, and you should have warehouses large enough for the port, but it will be difficult for you to make railway connection under the present scheme. We should have before us the plans which the minister has approved of, as well as the other plans which he has rejected. I was on a committee for the purpose of adopting plans for the Montreal harbour improvements, and one plan commended itself to me more than any other, which proposed to improve the facilities along the river which at present exist, and which would include an inland harbour or dockage connected with all the railway lines. The railways would have their terminals,.and there would be ample room for elevators and warehouses. Montreal will never be the port it should be unless there is a radical change made in the arrangement of its harbour.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: At what part of the harbour would that be ?


John Graham Haggart: The plan I refer to, and which was approved by the department to a certain extent, was a little below where the old barracks used to be.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Below St. Mary's current ?
51 -"* 1


John Graham Haggart: Yes. I would have made a good job of it while I was at it. I agree with the Minister of Public Works, that the harbours which are the furthest inland from the sea, and which require the shortest railwas' haul, are the harbours that will be utilized. No man can make me believe that railways can compete with water communications. I stated the other day that freight can be carried by sea for one-tenth of a cent per ton per mile, and that cannot be done by any railway system that ever existed. Look at Germany to-day, improving its canal system. Why was the Manchester ship canal built ? It is because . it is known to all practical men that water transportation is the cheapest. An hon. gentleman has said that the St. Lawrence is closed for five or six months of the year, and that our traffic must be done by ports which are opened all the year round. Does he not know that more than one-half of the trade of the United States is done under circumstances similar to those existing in Montreal ?
We are now loaning to the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal one million dollars. They have faithfully kept their bargain with us in the past, and have returned every cent of interest on the loans they got from us. I believe that in the near future the people of Canada will insist that the harbour dues shall be taken off from the port of Montreal, and as a pre-requisite, we shall be compelled to assume the whole debt of that harbour. We must, therefore, look to the future. Although they are able to repay us, and will repay us. yet, the future of the country demands that the expenditure in Montreal shall be the best and the wisest. Harbour dues are like tolls on country roads, a relic of barbarism.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Hear, hear.


John Graham Haggart: We must get rid of them. I will say that the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal have spent the money they have got from us wisely.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Hear, hear.


John Graham Haggart: They have done the best they possibly could with the money but that money has not been applied to the best possible advantage, because the plans are defective. I do not know whether or not that plan was forced on them by the Minister of Public Works, but, at all events, it is behind the age, and is not sufficient for the requirements of a port like Montreal. There must be a bigger plan, a broader plan, and a better plan adopted. From the remarks which the Minister of Public Works made three or four years ago, I thought the hon. gentleman agreed with me. and that he was not going to go along ' futtering,' as the Scotch say. with little expenditures and little improvements.


Joseph Israël Tarte: After all, the prosperity of this country depends on the development of the St. Lawrence as our natural highway to the ocean, and on proper facilities being afforded in the port of Montreal; and these elevators and warehouses, as well as the terminal facilities for the railways, could, I think, be all placed in a better location than they are at present. However, I rose particularly to say that I am in favour of a large expenditure for the purpose of developing the port of Montreal to the fullest extent. It is a disgrace to this country to have its exports carried past our own maritime ports and taken to ports in the United States. We should make every effort to build up our own maritime towns, and not the towns of a foreign country. To that extent I am with the minister in any expenditure he can possibly make. I am a firm believer that, with proper facilities at the port of Montreal, our western sea-bound traffic will go by that port as the cheapest and best possible route to foreign markets, and not by ports in the United States; because nature has given us advantages in that respect above those of the United States. Let the minister be sure that his plans are of the best; but I doubt that they are. We have not had an opportunity of judging them. The plans ought to be spread broadcast; we ought to have them in the House. We ought to have before us the proposals of the harbour commission as to the building of these elevators, the terminal facilities, and everything else. It is a large sum of money, and if we are not ourselves able to judge mechanically as to the proper location for these works, we ought to be able to consult people who are. We are totally in the dark. We are asked to vote a sum of money for a laudable purpose if it is properly expended; but the information necessary to judge as to that ought to be furnished to the House.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Of course, I have not the slightest objection to bring down the plans of all the works now being carried out; but the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals must not forget that these plans were submitted to the House three years ago. Rightly or wrongly, they were adopted then, and we are simply carrying them out.


John Graham Haggart: Our memory does not go back for years.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I quite remember bringing those plans before the House. I quite know what my hon. friend means. The port of Montreal is divided into two parts-the central part, where the most important works are being carried out, and the eastern part, where a certain amount of work has been carried out in the past, and where I am now erecting a large pier. My hon. friend I am sure remembers all the difficulties which the late government had when they attempted to

deal with his plans. They could not carry them out, so great were the influences against them, although I agree with him that they were the best. My hon. friend means an inland basin in the eastern portion of the harbour.


John Graham Haggart: You have no such trouble as that to contend with.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Well, I have had a great deal of trouble when I have attempted to carry out the same plans. When I first said that certain works had to be carried out in the eastern part of the harbour, I had to face a great deal of opposition and difficulty. I have carried out parts of our common plan, and I am carrying out part of it now. If trade develops as we expect, 1 have no doubt that portion of the harbour has a great future before it. It cannot be otherwise; it is bound to be the natural port of Montreal. But works of improvement were begun when we took office, and we have simply improved on the improvements that were carried out in the past. My hon. friend will agree with me that the work which is now being carried out will be a most useful one. The piers now being-erected will be a splendid improvement. An inland basin would have given better facilities, I grant; but an inland improvement could not be made in the centre of the harbour. We are now completing the improvement of the western part of the harbour; and when that work is completed, if the trade of the future is what we all expect it will be, my notion is that it will have to go down to that inland basin. But for the time being, I am doing the only feasible thing. There was such a strenuous and powerful opposition that I could not do more. I am perfectly frank about that. My hon. friend could not do anything; but I have done something, though not all I wanted to do. In politics we must understand that we cannot always get our own way; we must do the best we can with the means available. The work that is being carried out now has been approved by the most important commercial bodies of Montreal. I am glad my hon. friend has borne testimony to the good work done by the harbour commissioners. There is no party politics in the harbour commissioners. Mr. Creighton, Mr. Allan, Mr. Torrance, and other Conservative gentlemen have just as much influence with this government in regard to these improvements as our political friends have. If Mr. Creighton were to speak, he would say that he has exercised perhaps more -influence on certain decisions we have made than any other man on the harbour commission. I am glad to say that the harbour commissioners are working hand in hand. My hon. friend should not ask for more information than I can give. I cannot possibly give all the information as to the site of the elevators, for the excellent 162
reason that we do not know yet what may happen. There are big American companies who want to come to Montreal, and; who ask that a large elevator be placed on the Windmill basin. The Montreal Board of Trade want two elevators in the centre of the harbour. My hon. friend has very properly said that with $1,000,000 we could construct four elevators. He is right there; but the harbour commission do not intend to construct four elevators. They intend to construct two elevators, a large warehouse equipped with all modern conveniences, and to use the balance of the money, I suppose, in laying down rails, &c. All the expenditures will be connected with the improvements in the eastern part of the harbour, where the Canadian Pacific Railway is located, and which will be used largely by the Canadian Pacific Railway. The Grand Trunk Railway is not located in the eastern part of the harbour; but I hope that with the new plans we are now carrying out the Grand Trunk will find its way down to the spot which is near to the heart of both my hon. friend and myself, because I believe it is the most important part of the port of Montreal.
This very morning a large capitalist from Ontario called on me and asked whether the government could not do something in the way of providing facilities at the port of Montreal for the export of cattle, as he thought of organizing a big company for that purpose, but there were no decent facilities for a cattle port. That gentleman said to me, just what my hon. friend has stated, that the eastern portion of the harbour is the best adapted for that trade. All things come to those who know how to wait, and I have no doubt that he and I will live long enough to see our plans in the eastern part of the harbour carried out. In the meantime, we are accommodating the trade in that part of the harbour where the work was begun before he and I were in public life.
Resolutions reported.



SUPPLY-REMOUNT STATIONS.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved that the House go again into'Committee of Supply.
["I want to say that yesterday, when the question of the sitting of committees during the sitting of the House was being considered, I suggested to the chairman of the Railway Committee that it should be called at ten o'clock, and I understood him to assent to that. But I find by the paper before me it is called at eleven o'clock as usual. It seems to me it would have been better to call it at ten o'clock."]
Nathaniel Boyd: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of the government, and more particularly to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture, a question that is of very deep interest to the people of Manitoba and the North-west Territories. I refer to the establishing of remount stations or some similar arrangement which would enable the government to give such assistance to the producers of -horses in that country as would enable them to reach the markets of the purchaser of those animals. There can be no question as to the



suitability of that particular portion of Canada for the raising ot' horses such as arc now being purchased in very large numbers in other portions of the world, and of which large numbers are now being purchased in other sections of the Dominion. 1 may say that no portion of Canada, or for the matter of that of the world, can produce such animals, as are now being raised in our western country. As an evidence of this, I need merely refer to our North-west Mounted Police. I know whereof I speak, and other lion, members will bear me out, When I say that as many as twenty or thirty horses of that force, carrying on their backs from 150 to 170 pounds each, have been known to cover 120 miles in 12 hours in the pursuit of horse thieves. And I may add that although the horses we sent to South Africa were not by any means the best we raise, I have been assured by men who served throughout the campaign there, and who were mounted on Canadian North-west horses, that they have ridden the same horse from the time they landed in South Africa untn they came away. I saw a smile on the face of the Minister of Agriculture when I made the statement of what our horses had done, but if he wants the evidence he will have no difficulty in obtaining it. We can, in fact, grow any kind of horses that are needed for any purpose. We have an enormous territory, and can raise any amount of them ; and it is quite evident that the British army, benefiting from past experience, will require a very large number of those animals in the future. Their eyes have been opened, and I maintain that it is the duty of this government to assist that great industry by doing for it what the Department of Agriculture has done for the industries of cheese and butter by the establishment of cold storage and other facilities. The government are just as much entitled to come to the aid of this great industry as to grant a vote to the extent of $100,000 for a steamship, which we have done to-day. Why should the government not advance $50,000 or $100,000 in order to build up that industry ? And the government can do it through their police department or in many other ways. If they ask me to devise a scheme to bring together in trade the producers of these animals and the parties who need them, I think I can do it very readily. Now the difficulty with regard to sales to the Imperial authorities is this-these animals run wild from the day they are foaled until the day they are sold for some purpose. If the owners gather these animals when five or six years old, break them, train them as it were for the work they are to do, they are not certain of being able to sell them for that work. If they were certain of a purchaser, any number of horses could be provided. Probably as many as a thousand head could Mr. BOYD.
be got there now. But these men cannot go to the expense of gathering these horses, training them, making them as quiet as these people demand they shall be, if there is nobody to buy. What I ask the government to do is to devise a scheme and provide the means to bring the producers and the purchasers of these animals together. You have a body of mounted policemen there, you might increase the number and start a remount station or breaking station. Then when the horses have become sufficiently tractable and ready for the market, they could be shipped and the trade started. This could be done much as the cheese industry was encouraged under plans started by the late government and followed up by their successors who are now in office.
I would direct the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture to the possibilities of this trade as one that is as well worthy of attention as the production of cheese. And, while I am on my feet, it might not be amiss for me to say that the influence of the present government might be brought to bear upon the Imperial authorities by showing them that there is no better place for a military station, where a regiment might be trained in the arts in which the Imperial forces showed themselves deficient in the last struggle they were engaged in-scouting, horsemanship, and so on. There are the plains, there are the mountains or hills or kopjes or whatever you choose to call them. There could be no better training ground. I do not wish to occupy more time, but I would again urge the government to give attention to this trade, the possibilities of which are unlimited.


Mr. T. O. DAVIS (Saskatchewan).: I have very much pleasure in saying a few words in favour of the proposition presented by the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd). I think it would be a step in the right direction if the government endeavoured to induce the Imperial authorities to turn their attention to the Canadian North-west as a source of supply for horses. There is no doubt that, as the hon. member for Macdonald says, we produce the best horses in the world" for this particular service. I can bear out what the hon. gentleman says about the endurance of the horses used by the North-west mounted police. Horse ranching was a flourishing industry in the North-west some years ago, and many horses were produced as suitable for remounts for the army. Unfortunately, however, prices dropped so low that it did not pay to breed these horses, and the ranchers were obliged to turn their attention to the raising of cattle, which does not pay the people of the North-west so well as horse-raising did. Another important point is that you can raise horses where you cannot raise cattle. Any one who knows anything about the grazing lands of southern Alberta knows

that it is only where there are streams that cattle can be raised, the animals ranging only about three miles back from the water. All the land back of that is useless for raising cattle. But the horses roam much further back. Consequently millions of acres might be used for raising horses that cannot be used for cattle-raising. The industry would be very profitable for those engaged in it. As my hon. friend (Mr. Boyd) says, if it is right and wise, as I believe it is, to assist in the production of butter and cheese in the North-west, why should not the attention of the government be turned to this great industry of horse-raising. There are portions of the Territories where dairying cannot be carried on successfully, but where horse-raising could be carried on with the greatest success. It would be of untold advantage for the people to have a remount station in the North-west Territories or in Manitoba. I have no doubt that if the government opened negotiations with the Imperial authorities their attention could be turned in this direction. We could raise all the horses that are desired, and, if a market is furnished, the people of the North-west will turn their attention to this industry in order to meet the demands.


Mr. FRANK OLIVER (Alberta).: I desire to say a few words in support of the suggestion that steps should be taken to establish a market for the horses of the Northwest. It may not be within the knowledge of the members of the House, but it is nevertheless a fact, that there are very large areas of the North-west that, by reason of natural conditions are suitable to the rearing of horses, but are not suited to the rearing of cattle or the production of grain. In fact, that there are large areas of the North-west Territories that must come into use as horse-raising country, or they will be of no practical use. There is, therefore, substantial reason from a national point of view why the question of securing a market for the horses of the North-west should engage the attention of parliament. The general idea in this eastern country is that horses are more delicate than horned cattle. That is not the case; the horse is the hardier animal of the two. He can paw a living in the winter where cattle cannot; he can get his living under conditions where horned stock would die. In the summer time, also, in districts of the country where water is scarce, cattle cannot live, because they cannot travel far for water, as horses can. Consequently in those vast areas where winter is too severe to admit of cattle pasturing out, and where water is too scarce for them during the summer, horses could be produced in large numbers, becoming a source of great wealth to this country. I am not prepared to suggest any scheme of operation, I merely want to bring to the attention of the House existing conditions. Let me say that it is not for any lack of enterprise which has been 162}
displayed by horse ranchers in the Northwest that the enterprise has so far failed. I may say that hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent in the district that I represent in the enterprise of breeding horses for the Imperial army. The ranches were established, but the market was not reached, and the industry turned out to a large extent a failure. It turned out a failure at any rate on the scale that was intended. To-day many of these ranches are for sale, or are turned into cattle ranches. Iam not able, in the time at my disposal, to give the particular reasons why the industry was not successful; but I believe that the conditions have so changed that where failure occurred before, success is within reach now. In former times the demand of the British army was for heavy cavalry horses, and there is a difficulty in rearing the highest class of heavy horses on the ranch ; it can be done, but the expense is increased to such an extent that the profit of the ranch is minimized. Now the conditions have changed, so that the army does not require such high class horses as it formerly did. They are buying horses that are well within the capacity of the North-west to supply.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Frank Oliver: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at six o'clock, I was speaking of the efforts that had been made in the North-west, for the supply to the British army of cavalry horses. This is not a new idea. It is an old idea ; the effort has been made at the expense of many hundreds of thousands of dollars. The fact that it was not successful in the past is no indication that it will not be successful, or that it cannot be successful, in the future. As I have already remarked, the conditions have changed, so that the class of horses which was demanded for British cavalry purposes ten years ago is not the class of horses that is in demand to-day. A different class is in demand, and it is a class particularly available on the ranches of the North-west. There are difficulties in the way of the development of this trade. The chief difficulty is not in the production of horses, is not in the securing of capital to rear the horses, but, the difficulty is in making connection between the market in Great Britain and the scene of production on this side of the water. It may be asked : Why does not the trade develop itself, just as did the trade in cattle and in wheat ? The reason is, because this is a special article, required only for a special market. If it were an article of world-wide demand, there would be no special effort necessary in the way of bring-

ing it to market; but, the conditions in regard to the horse industry, that is, the feature of supplying army horses, is that it is a special industry to supply a special market, just as is the cheese industry or the butter industry, which supplied a special market. In that case the conditions were such that something more than the mere natural course of trade was necessary in order to bring about the desired results. It is so in the case of this horse industry. Although we have the horses, and although Great Britain furnishes a market, it remains a fact that while Great Britain has purchased, during the past year or two, not less than 100,000 horses in the country to the south of us, and not less than 200,000 or 300,000 horses in other parts of the world, Great Britain has, so far, not purchased a single horse from the Canadian North-west, although the horses are there for sale, and although the horses are of the quality they were proven to be by those who went to South Africa as mounts for the second Canadian contingent, and, for the Stratheonas. The very reason that there was a difficulty in the way of producing range horses suitable for cavalry in the past is the reason of the advantage of these horses at the present time. What the British cavalry wanted years ago was the largest and heaviest animal that could be produced of the class required,, in order to carry weight. The conditions had to be adapted to the production of that class of animal; that is to say, conveniences of stabling, feeding and breeding had to be all of the most complete character. Such conveniences do not exist on the western ranches, and as a consequence, horses were not reared of the size then demanded by the British army. But, to-day, the British army is not asking for such large horses. What is wanted now is a horse of possibly smaller size, but with greater endurance, and it is in that feature that the horse of the Canadian Northwest excels, we claim, any other country in the world. As compared with the stable-reared horse, there can be no question that the horse reared on the plains, on the range, which has faced the heat of summer and the cold of winter, which has been on the prairies all his life, is certainly an animal which can stand the vicissitudes and hardships of a military campaign in a way that the stable-reared horse cannot possibly be expected to do. Taking horses of an equal weight from the prairies and from the farms, the prairie horse is worth far more for practical army purposes than the stable-reared horse. But, the very fact that he has been reared on the range, that he is not a gentle horse, is the very reason of the difficulty that exists in marketing him for army purposes. When the army wants a horse it wants a gentle horse, a horse that can be handled. The prairie horse is good, but he is not gentle, and he has to be gentle before he can be used. There is the difficulty which is now in hand, and there is Mr. OLIVER.
the difficulty that is asked to be met by the establishment of an Imperial remount depot in the North-west, where it will be possible to break these horses, or have them broken for military purposes. The reason why it is necessary that there should be special conveniences fob this purpose is, that while it costs practically nothing to rear a horse, it costs a good deal to break him, and he must be kept in use or the advantage of the breaking is lost. The ordinary horse rearer cannot keep on his range a number of unused, broken horses. The expense of breaking them and the impossibility of keeping them broken absolutely prevents this. A horse, then, must be broken immediately previous to his being sold, in order that the full advantage of his breaking shall be secured. It is because of this condition that the necessity exists for some general arrangement whereby horses can be marketed in large numbers, and brought together for the purpose of being broken economically, and disposed of at the time.
I would call the attention of the House to the fact which I mentioned a few minutes ago, that the British army has purchased within the last few years several hundred thousand head of horses, and of the hundreds of thousands of head of horses purchased, the Canadian North-west has not had the privilege of selling one single animal. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that, under all the circumstances, something, perhaps, might have been done that was not done to secure for us the benefit of this market. Only a few days ago, 1,200 young Canadians sailed for South Africa to take part in the operations there as a mounted force, and they are to be mounted on horses brought, probably, from the other side of the line. It seems to me reasonable that if Canada can supply the men Canada can supply the horses, and especially as the Canadians supplied are acknowledged to be the best men so Canada can supply what are acknowledged to be the best horses. It seems to me that this was an opportunity which should have been availed of, and it is only because the conditions have not been generally understood that it was not availed of. It is because of this patent fact that we desire to bring the conditions to the attention of the House here to-night. .
The hundred thousand head of horses purchased in the United States meant a distribution of English money in the United States of something like $1,000,000, and if a proportionate number of horses had been obtained from Canada there would have been a like distribution of wealth in this country. This is something surely worth considering, something worthy the attention of parliament. It is not that an expenditure is desired to be made. The horse business necessarily involves such a large private expenditure on the part of those connected with it, that a mere matter of expenditure by the govern-

ment makes very little difference. It is not a question of expenditure ; it is a question of bringing together demand and supply. It is because of the stupendous demand that has existed for the past few years for the very class of horse that we can supply, and because that demand has not turned to our advantage at all that we desire to bring to the attention of the House and the country the necessity that exists for something to be done to turn this great source of wealth to the advantage of our people, not only in the west, but also in the east. It is desired that measures should be taken to let the British government understand that there is in Canada a field for the production of the horses that they need, so that the; demand shall meet the supply, and the advantage shall be mutual. The peculiar conditions that exist in the west are such as almost necessarily to produce the class of horses that is required by the army at the present time. There are people there now, and others are ready to go in, to take the means to produce that class of horse, and to add so much to the wealth of the country. But, as long as the market is not found for the horses produced, so long must the industry suffer a drawback, and so long must that wealth be lost to the country.
Everything is at hand. The demand is greater than ever before, and it is probable that this demand will continue, if not in as large a degree, yet in a very considerable degree. Capital is invested for the purpose of producing the animals, and all that is necessary is to establish relations between the producer and the market. At the present time the British government has sent a buyer to Canada, and it is expected that that gentleman will visit the Northwest within a short time. It is because of his prospective visit there, that we desire particularly to draw attention to the question at the present time. This gentleman who is buying for the British army will require his orders filled within a short time, and in the case of range horses it is necessary to make preparations beforehand, so that the order can be promptly filled. I understand that arrangements are being made to meet this gentleman from the War Office with the class of horses he requires. so as to make the experiment successful. We desire to see the British War Office continuously buying horses in Canada. No stock is so profitable as horses if there is, a demand, and no stock so unprofitable when there is no demand. There is no stock which is as easily reared in the North-west as horses, and there is no) stock on which people have lost more money simply because they could not get the market for the ani-mais. It is because of these conditions and the possibility of so vastly increasing our trade in horses in the future, that we bring this matter to the attention of the House to-night.


The MINISTER OE AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: This question is now attracting the attention of our people to a very great extent, and I am glad that it has been mentioned in parliament. Perhaps the most noticeable thing about the war in South Africa has been the largely increased use of mounted men in the field. We feel confident in Canada that just as our men did good service to the empire, so our horses can be turned to good account in the Imperial service. The Imperial authorities, however, required to get an enormous number of horses at the shortest possible notice during the war, and the contractors for the supply sought them in the cheapest and quickest market. Canada was comparatively unknown as a horse-producing country, and there was unfortunately in the War Office a report furnished some years ago which was rather against the good name of the Dominion as a field for the production of army horses. Strong representations were made to Lord Strath-cona asking the Imperial authorities to send a purchasing officer here, and that was done. He was urged to send forward the animals immediately, and he believed that his duty called upon him to buy his horses last year entirely in eastern Canada. We are glad to know that these horses created a very favourable impression amongst the officers of the army, and showed up well in comparison with any other horses that were sent to South Africa. This year representations came to me from the people of the North-west Territories, and some three or four months ago I sent a cablegram to our High Commissioner asking him to urge upon the War Oflfice, that still large numbers of Canadian horses could be advantageously purchased for the army. As a result of that Colonel Dent, the Imperial purchasing officer, who is at present in Canada, was sent here with instructions to buy two ship-load of horses as rapidly as possible, and then to make a tour of western Canada to purchase other animals, and to make a report upon Canada as a ground for supplying horses to the British forces. Our desire is that not only in the case of an emergency like the present, but that at all times the British War Office should purchase horses in Canada, so that the men in Canada who breed horses may know that there is a market for a certain type of animals, in order that they may take steps to produce that particular type. Up to the present time there has been no such demand in Canada, and the result has been that while one man would take a fancy to a certain class of animal his near neighbour produced an altogether different breed. Consequently when the purchaser sets out to purchase a certain type of animal in large numbers, he has got to travel over a great deal of ground, and he has to lose

a great deal of time. When it is understood that the Imperial authorities are going to purchase a fixed number of horses in Canada each year, then our breeders of horses can govern themselves accordingly.
This subject has been receiving the most earnest consideration of the government. [DOT] I have myself been in constant discussion with my colleague, the Minister of -Militia and Defence (Hon. Mr. Borden), whose work in connection with the armed force of Canada naturally brings him very closely to this subject-as closely as myself, representing the farmers of the country. We have been discussing various plans and schemes which have been put forward ; and I can take the House into my confidence by saying that quite recently a rather elaborate memorandum on this subject has been sent to the Imperial authorities pointing out the advantages of Canada as a breeding ground for horses, and the advantage to the Empire as a whole that such a supply of horses as may be needed for army purposes should be obtained within the bounds of the empire; and pointing out that no part of it is better, if equal, to Canada, for this purpose ; also that Canada, lying as it does between the Atlantic and the Pacific, midway, so to speak, between the mother land and the Orient, is particularly well suited for the supply of horses to the armies of the empire, both eastward and westward ; pointing out further, that if the Imperial authorities would undertake to purchase a reasonable number of horses in Canada year by year for army purposes, the encouragement which would thereby be given to the breeding of horses for army purposes in Canada would tend greatly to strengthen the defensive forces of this colony and promote the growth of armed militia forces within the empire. These views have been presented to the Imperial authorities with all the force possible to us. I hope within a few days to sail for England, and this subject is one of the most important of those with which I shall have to deal while there. I may say that we have been assured already by the Imperial authorities that our views and representations shall receive most careful and friendly consideration. Under these circumstances, the object which the hon. gentlemen who have addressed the House this evening have in view, appears to be almost within sight. Just how the Imperial authorities will view the proposals we may make to them, it is beyond my powers to say ; but I can assure hon. gentlemen that nothing will be left undone on the part of the government or myself in my visit to England to bring about what I believe to be not only in the interest of the horse-breeders of Canada, but in the interest of Canada as an integral part of the empire, as well as in the interest of the strength and effective supply of material to the whole force of the empire when war may arise. I do not need, I think, to take up the time of the House any longer, ex-Mr. FISHER.
cept that I would like to refer to a remark made by my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) a little while ago, when, speaking of the great endurance of our horses in the west, he said that a certain troop had covered 120 miles in twelve hours. If that is the case, it is the most extraordinary instance of endurance and speed known in the world's history of equine animals. I think he must have meant twenty-four hours instead of twelve. He shakes his head, so I suppose he means twelve hours. If the hon. gentleman can prove that that has occurred, he will prove the most extraordinary feat by any horses that have ever existed on the face of this earth. I shall be glad indeed if he can prove that of Canadian horses. Even if they had done it in twenty-four hours, it would' still be one of the most extraordinary feats of endurance and speed I have ever heard of in my reading regarding horses and horse work. I quite understand that Canadian horses will do perhaps more than any other horses, and I would be glad, indeed, to find an instance in which they have accomplished what the hon. gentleman has said.


Nathaniel Boyd: If I may be permitted, I would say that the information given to me was that a possfi of mounted police had done as I say-followed some horse thieves a distance claimed to be 120 miles, in twelve hours. That distance in twenty-four hours would not be considered uncommon. There are men in the gallery who have ridden 115 miles in twelve hours, and the riding of 100 miles in that time is looked upon as an ordinary feat in that country.


Mr. MACLAREN (Huntingdon).: How long are your miles in the North-west ?


Nathaniel Boyd: I may tell this House that during the last campaign I was driven ninety-three miles in twelve hours by a team of those horses from the town of Neepawa to a place between Makinak and St. Rose du Lac ; and the man turned round and drove back the next day. So that I am not drawing on my imagination at all, and ordinary horses have accomplished even more than I speak of now.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I thought the hon. gentleman must have made a mistake in the figures. I do not wish to discredit what he has stated at all. Since he has made the statement, I accept it, of course, and I am glad to find that such endurance and power are well known in the North-west, because I confess it is something very uncommon amongst other horses in the world.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I do not rise to add anything of special value to this de- [DOT] bate, but only for the purpose of joining with my fellow-members from the North-west in urging on the government the importance of

this question. I have listened with gratification to the statement of the hon. Minister of Agriculture with regard to pressing this matter on the Imperial authorities. Especially in view of the large contributions which Canada is making to the empire in connection with the military operations in South Africa, it is particularly desirable that this matter should be pressed on the home authorities. All things being equal, the Canadian people should receive a share of this trade. I do not think the experience in regard to the Strathcona Horse should be taken as any criterion of the permanent value of Canadian-bred horses for military service.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
['I do not rise to add anything of special value to this de- [DOT] bate, but only for the purpose of joining with my fellow-members from the North-west in urging on the government the importance of\n\nthis question. I have listened with gratification to the statement of the hon. Minister of Agriculture with regard to pressing this matter on the Imperial authorities. Especially in view of the large contributions which Canada is making to the empire in connection with the military operations in South Africa, it is particularly desirable that this matter should be pressed on the home authorities. All things being equal, the Canadian people should receive a share of this trade. I do not think the experience in regard to the Strathcona Horse should be taken as any criterion of the permanent value of Canadian-bred horses for military service.']
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I would ask the committee to allow me to put the agriculture items through to-night, as I am obliged to leave Ottawa to-morrow.
To increase the salary of F. C. Chittick, acting accountant to $1,300, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $100.
To increase the salary of A. 15. Powell, a junior second-class clerk, to $850, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $100.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the meaning of that 1


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: These gentlemen are doing the accoutant's work in my department. During the last) year the work has been enormously increased by the census and the exhibition. They are in the receipt of low salaries, and I thought it was only fair to give them this recognition.
Cold storage, &c., $18,600.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: $14,000 of this amount is for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Fruit Marks Act, passed this session. Under that Act we have to appoint inspectors, and this is to pay them. The other portion has to do with inducing steamship companies to provide that ventilation which my hon. friend from South Wentworth (Mr. Smith) has urgently been asking for.
While cold storage and ventilated chambers are required for some of our products, our other products do not require the cold storage chambers, but nevertheless it is absolutely necessary that some arrangement should be made to carry them safely and properly across the Atlantic. I propose to make a contract with the steamship companies, by which we will aid the companies to put in the necessary ventilating shafts and cold storage traps, so that cold air may be forced into the holds of their ships. Up to the present the proposition has always been simply to put in ventilation traps in, order to give the air in the hold the same temperature as outside, but we propose to go a step further and
provide a small chamber, in which the air will be cooled and then forced into the hold. The chief products for which this will be used are fruits and cheese. During the last year or two our cheese has suffered in reputation in consequence of heating in the holds of the vessel, and it is well known that our fruits have been cooked a good deal in the tightly battened down holds. These difficulties we propose to obviate, and hope by our arrangement with the steamship companies to bring about a complete revolution in the carrying of these perishable products. The amount may seem a little large, but I am satisfied that the money will be well expended in the interests of the fruit and cheese trade.


Robert Laird Borden: This makes a total of $188,600. How many steamships does the hon. gentleman propose to have fitted up with these facilities, and from what ports are they to sail ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Some seventeen or twenty steamers. We propose to fit up those steamers that go from Montreal and Quebec in the summer and St. John and Halifax in the winter, and which go to Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester, Bristol and London. Our information is that this amount will fit up seventeen vessels, but I hope it will fit up as many as twenty. This is entirely apart from the cold storage vote.


Robert Laird Borden: With what particular steamship lines will this arrangement be made ? We were told by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that certain steamships, which came within the mail contract, were not to have any cold storage facilities.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think the hon. gentleman slightly misunderstood my colleague. The supplying of cold storage accommodation is not a portion of the mail contract given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but in many cases we make a contract with the same ships that carry the mail. I have the assurance from the following lines of their willingness to enter into these contracts on the terms we stipulate : The Beaver, the Manchester liners, the Elder-Dempster, the Thomson people, and others. The Furness Withy steamers, which go to Halifax and St. John, have not been satisfactory to us. I say this with regret, but am constrained to say it, because we made the same kind of contract with them as with the other companies, and they did not carry it out. We may be able to make better arrangements with them in the future, and hope to do so. I should be glad if we can make arrangements with the other lines. There is a line subsidized by the Minister of Trade and Commerce which is to run, I think, from Kingsport and Annapolis. If that line is running, as I trust it will be, as I understand it is specially intended to

carry fruit, we will be ready to give them the same encouragement as the other lines. The question of a French line arose this afternoon. Our fruits at the Paris exhibition astonished the people there, and I believe there is a great opening for us in that line. In some fruits, such as pears, the French are themselves our keenest competitors in the English market, but in other lines they make a demand for our fruit.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many steamers are there on each line, and between what ports do they run ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The Donaldson line runs to Glasgow, the Allan line to Glasgow, Liverpool and London.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do they make their trip every two weeks ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The arrangements differ with the different ports. The Allans run every week to Liverpool and every week or fortnight to London. I think they send a boat every fortnight to Glasgow. We hope to have a weekly service to Liverpool and London and fortnightly to Glasgow, weekly to Bristol and fortnightly to Manchester. Then, if we have a service from the maritime ports, Halifax and St. John, our facilities would be sufficient.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What freight rates do you charge ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The ordinary rates.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood that the rates last year were raised one-half. Has the minister been able to make better arrangements this year ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That was for freight in cold storage chamber. This is for freight in the ordinary hold of the vessel, and one of the conditions is that the rates shall be the ordinary freight rates.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has the hon. gentleman made up his mind with regard to the line to France ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I was saying that I hope to make such arrangements. But we cannot say to-day what the trade would justify. If they begin this season, as I trust they will, we can see how the trade develops. We will try and keep a little in advance of the development. But I cannot say as to the number of steamers.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do you put in the same construction as for the ventilation of the chambers ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not think my hon. friend has appre-Mr. FISHER.
bended the idea. We have steamers with insulated chambers in which goods are placed that need a low temperature. But the arrangement that we are talking about is to force cold air into the hold of the vessel, the 'tween decks, as it is called. We are proposing, as in the other case, to pay within the course of three years half of the first cost of this apparatus, that is, to pay one-sixth of the total each year for three years.


Mr. CLANCY.: How does it compare in cost with the Mackenzie cold storage ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The cost on a steamer of the ordinary carrying size would be about $8,000. We would pay $1,333 each year for three years. This is for the ventilation of the hold of the vessel.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is that without the mechanical cold storage ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We must cool the air by mechanical apparatus, the cost of which, with ventilating shafts, is about $8,000. The other arrangement was a mechanical apparatus to cool the air in a closed chamber into which articles like butter and poultry, which require low temperature, were placed. But vessels carry in their holds in the ordinary way thousands of barrels of apples or thousands of boxes of cheese. When the hatches are closed tight, the cheese or the apples develop a heat of their own, the effect of which is to reduce their value. We propose to arrange the hold so that there will be ventilating shafts through it and out of it, and an intake of air from the outside. This air would *be cooled by mechanical apparatus and forced through the hold, cooling the air about the barrels or boxes. This system has been adopted in the new line of steamers running from England to the West Indies, put on practically by the Imperial authorities, to aid the West Indian fruit trade. The same system is used in the fruit-carrying steamers from St. Michaels, the Azores and the Canary Islands, to England.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand we have cold storage for one class of produce and the ordinary ventilated chambers for another, both in the same steamer.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In some cases. In the cold storage chamber we permit certain extra charges to be made. The last contract was at the rate of 16 shillings per ton. In this arrangement, goods will be put in the ordinary hold, and they will not be charged any extra, but just the ordinary freight rates on the same kind of goods.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The minister says that this $48,000 would equip sixteen steamers, or perhaps twenty. Now, there must be some

minimum amount required to equip a steamer for tlie purpose of carrying fruit properly. It would be, I think, bad policy to equip a steamer unless you made it thoroughly efficient. It would be much better to spend all this money on ten steamers, if it requires that amount to make them efficient, than to spend it on twenty steamers none of which will be thoroughly equipped. I understood the minister to say that they would equip sixteen steamers, and he hoped twenty. But if it is going to take all that money properly to equip sixteen or seventeen steamers, it would be a great mistake to spread it over twenty. I am in accord with this vote, I am willing that the amount should be amply sufficient for all the purposes ; but from what the minister says I fear he is trying to produce quantity rather than quality.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I quite agree with my hon. friend, but I think he misunderstood me, because the apparatus would depend upon the size of the steamer. If we were to take seventeen average steamers such as are now engaged in the trade, it would take the whole of this. But we may undertake to equip some smaller steamers, in which case it will cost a little less. For instance, we have one steamer we propose to equip that is undertaking to trade between Prince Edward Island and England, devoting itself to that tra'de exclusively. That trade only requires a comparatively small steamer, and the equipment will not cost much more than half what it would for one of the larger Elder-Dempster boats sailing from Montreal to Liverpool. The reason I left a margin as to the number of steamers, was that I do not know yet which steamers we are going to equip, and we cannot say how much it will take. But we propose to use the whole of this money if we can make a contract with steamship owners, and we propose in any steamer we do equip to give the full capacity of cooling power.


Mr. LEFURGEY.: I desire to ask the minister what will be the capacity of the steamer for Prince Edward Island, what date the first steamer is expected to call there, and the extent of the cold storage appliances he is to put into that steamer ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am not very familiar with shipping questions, and would not like to state the number of tons of the vessel. Perhaps the hon. gentleman may know the vessel, it is a vessel called the Micmac. She has been twice to South Africa with hay for us, and we are expecting soon to close an arrangement with the owners of that vessel. The vessel was chartered to go to South Africa again, and they have asked us to release them from that charter that they may take up this other trade. She will be equipped with a
cold storage chamber for carrying butter, poultry and such things as require extreme cold in the insulated chamber, also with a cooling apparatus and a fan to force cold air through the hold where apples and cheese may be stored.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: About what date do you expect that steamer to sail from Prince Edward Island, and how many trips will she make ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is not yet settled when she will commence. When she does commence she will make as many trips as possible. I understand that it will take a little over a month to make the round trip, and it is expected that she will start on her first trip in the month of June.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Does she sail direct from Prince Edward Island, or does she go first to Montreal ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Her duty will be to ply from Prince Edward Island to England and back.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: And she will make possibly five trips during the season ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is expected she will make five trips this season, and six trips afterwards.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I would ask the hon. gentleman if a careful investigation has been made into this system of driving cool air through the holds. It seems the operation must necessarily be slow ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We have been examining the reports of these other vessels which have been equipped with this mechanism, and it seems to work well. We have also had the advice of the Cold Storage Equipment Company who have equipped ships similar to these, and who are now prepared to equip these ships on our Canadian trade. I may say that a number of leading cheese buyers and exporters of the city of Montreal who have been in England quite recently, have strongly recommended this system, and have been in consultation with Prof. Robertson and myself in reference to the matter. The best example that I know of is the line from Jamaica and the West Indies to England, which has recently been established.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Has the hon. gentleman made any arrangement in England by which, on the landing of goods in cold storage, the temperature may be gradually lessened ? I believe that a large part of the loss that occurs almost every year in some of our cold storage shipments arises from the fact that the goods are taken out of cold storage at once and placed in warmer air, moisture condenses on the surface, and gives the fruit a mussy appearance, detracts from its value. Al-

though it does not rot it, it makes it look bad. I think that could be obviated by gradually warming the cold storage chambers.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We were rather expecting that these ventilated holds would cease to operate a few days before the vessels got to England and allow the temperature to rise.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I am referring to the old cold storage.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We have not ourselves undertaken to deal with the situation in the old country. As a matter of fact the goods which are now being sent forward in these cold storage chambers are not goods that are handled in the way that was mentioned. At one time they tried to send eggs in these cold storage chambers and also fruit. But they have practically given up the eggs altogether. Cheese also has been given up in so far as sending it in the old cold storage chambers is concerned, which are now used almost entirely for butter, for iruits, poultry, beef, and other meats. As far as fruits are concerned it is a very difficult problem unless we provide something of the nature of a chamber in England for the purpose. I do not know how the difficulty can be avoided, but the trade object to that because they say that when the fruit gets to England they want to put it on the market as rapidly as possible without any detention.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I should think that a short delay of twenty-four hours to bring the temperature back gradually to its normal condition would be time well spent. Of course, we must send pears to England in cold storage chambers. The complaint which has been made most frequently is that they present a mussy appearance.*


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Our agents in England are watching the trade and keeping in view its special requirements.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I hope the hon. minister will see his way clear to sending a fruit-grower or an expert over in charge of these shipments next year. I think that the men looking after the fruit department, while perhaps perfectly efficient in other departments, are not experts on fruit. I believe four men went over last year.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We have two fruit men there now, a well-known fruit man from Peterborough, in Ontario, was over there and a well-known fruit-grower from the Cornwallis valley in Nova Scotia who was in London all last fall.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood the hon. minister to say that they have given up sending cheese over in cold storage.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: 


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In regard to butter, meat and fruit, what was the experience last year, because most of these were trial shipments, I understand, with this new system.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There was no new system last year particularly. Butter has always been sent over and occupied the greater part of the cold storage. There was a good deal of fruit sent over last year. Speaking from memory, I would say that the pears went over most successfully. There were comparatively few peaches sent over last year, and I could not speak with positive assurance as to the success. I dare say that the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Smith) knows better than I do the details of these shipments. Although I have had them before me, I would not like to make a statement from memory in regard to them. Grapes were also sent over, and I think more successfully than heretofore, but in regard to that I am also speaking from memory. I can say positively that pears were sent over most successfully with profit to the growers.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How about butter and meat ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There was hardly any other meat than poultry meat sent over last year. We are now sending over other meat. The poultry meat went over most successfully. There was one single instance where it did not go over successfully, and that was because some butter was put into the cold storage chamber with it.


Mr. McGOWAN.: I would like to ask the hon. minister if he has made any arrangement for shipping fresh meat. I am interested in that trade.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There is now every week going over fresh meat in cold storage. There is a firm in Ontario that has made arrangements by which they send over fresh meat regularly. I do not think I need mention the name.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is that Mr. Harris ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I know them as the William Davies Company. I think Mr. Harris is in with them. They have made arrangements by which they get cold storage accommodation for fresh meat.


John McGowan: Will that be continued all summer ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What arrangements are made in regard to cargoes for these various steamers ? You had a special arrangement last year that after a certain time they might load with anything they could get, provided they did not get a full supply of

Canadian produce. What arrangements have you made this year ?	*


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They will take Canadian produce and if there is any space not filled they can take other produce.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What arrangement have you made in regard to filling the space if there is not sufficient Canadian produce offered ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We take no responsibility.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then, I understand the hon. gentleman to say that they charge 15s. a ton more than the ordinary freight rates ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: My hon. friend is speaking of thef cold storage chambers, not the ventilated holds.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We have no new contracts with them. The contracts are the same as last year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What were they last year ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They called for the payment of 15 shillings extra for cold storage accommodation.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Suppose all the space is not taken ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Nobody is responsible for it in any way.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Are the same contracts continued ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Some expired last year, and some are continuing still. I think there are about twenty still in force. I want to explain to the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) that we have no responsibility in connection with any space in the cold storage chambers that is not occupied.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood from shippers last year that owing to the scarcity of steamers on account of the South African trade the rates were very much higher, and I understood the hon. minister to say that several of these contracts were made for a longer time than one year and are therefore in existence at the present time. If that is the case the rates will be very high. Could the hon. minister not make better rates this year ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The contract is for two years. It was made a year ago this spring for two years and I cannot break the contract.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The result will be that the shippers, if they can get cheaper rates from other sources, may not avail themselves of this cold storage, because I understand that last year there was a serious objection on the part of a number of shippers to the freight rates and that they could not afford to send their produce in cold storage.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They would get as cheap cold storage on these steamers as anywhere else.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Many of them decided to run the risk of sending their produce in ordinary storage rather than in cold storage, because they thought the rates were too high.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They have given that up.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many new contracts have been made this year ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We have not made any new contracts for the ordinary cold storage. The steamers on which the contracts have run out are still running on the Canadian route and are retained in the service for the Canadian trade as we anticipated they would be. Last year some of these steamers were taken off for the South African trade, but they have come back now and are running with cold storage without any contract, just as we anticipated they would.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: At the same rate ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, I believe so. Of course, we have no control of that, they not being under contract.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: What arrangements have been mad^ to see that the steamship people will really keep the machinery in operation ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Last season we put self-registering thermometers in all the cold storage chambers, so that we have a check upon them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the minister know whether, he will be able to make arrangements for cold storage on the steamers plying to France ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have not discussed it with them yet.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: As there may be considerable possibilities for us in this trade, I trust the minister will exert himself in that direction.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Have any arrangements been made with the steamers running to Hamburg ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I believe that a very large trade in apples could be carried on with Hamburg.


David Henderson: I understand that in Alberta the government is carrying on a certain number of creameries and disposing of their produce for the benefit of the farmers. I shall read an article from the Nelson Tribune, of April 10th last, which will explain the grievance to which I wish to call the attention of the minister. It is as follows :
Official Circumlocution.
And the Government Creameries.
A local wholesale firm wrote to the Minister of Agriculture at Ottawa, in December last, asking if they could not have an opportunity of handling a share of the product of the government creameries of the North-west Territories. Several weeks having elapsed without any acknowledgment of the communication, the firm again wrote the department, and received the somewhat unsatisfactory reply that their first letter had not reached its destination. Another copy of the original document was then forwarded, and only yesterday was this acknowledged, through the Commissioner of Agriculture and Dairying. This official conveyed the intelligence that there was no butter available in September last, according to the superintendent of the dairy at Calgary, and that * when we have butter to offer, we are glad to sell it to whatever firm will give the best price.' The firm in question are anxious to make a bid on the product of the creameries, but have not been afforded an opportunity of so doing. They contend that at the time they were apprised that there was no butter available, the article was being supplied freely by another firm, and they reasonably think that they should be in a position to get the butter, provided their price is as good or better than that paid by their rival in business.
It appears that all the butter manufactured in these creameries is disposed of to the firm of J. Y. Griffith & Co., who advertise themselves as the sole agents, and are thus enabled to conduct a very profitable trade, to the injury of others who are engaged in similar business, and who think that as this enterprise is supported by the public funds, they ought reasonably have a share in the trade, and that there should be no monopoly. They think that the butter should be sold to the highest bidder, and that they should not be compelled to go to J. Y. Griffith & Co., and pay an advanced price for this butter. These gentlemen contend that they should be allowed to purchase on the same terms as Griffith & Co., or else that they should have an opportunity of purchasing in the open market. If the butter belonged to a private firm, there could be no reasonable complaint, because that private firm would have the right to dispose of its butter as it thought fit. But, these creameries being carried on by the government, each firm thinks that it should have a fair opportunity of purchasing the butter, and that Griffith & Co. should not have a monopoly on the sale of this superior article.
I ask the minister, if it is the decided policy of the department to give this one firm the sole control of this butter, to the detriment


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: of other dealers, who have an equally strong claim to a share in the trade?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am glad that my hon. friend (Mr. Henderson) has brought this matter up. My attention has been called to it, and I went fully into the matter with Prof. Robertson. As a matter of fact, Stewart & Co., of Vancouver, get this butter exactly on the same terms a!s J. Y. Griffith & Co. We are responsible to the patrons of these creameries for marketing their product as well as we can, because the profit which they get depends on the price of the butter. The department simply acts as their agents, charging a certain price for manufacture, and whether the butter be sold at 20 cents or 25 cents, the profit goes to the patrons, and we make nothing out of it. It is our duty to sell this butter as well as we can, in the first place because we are acting as agents, and in the second place because, if we make a success of the experiment, it enhances the reputation of the country for dairying purposes. When we inaugurated this business, we sold the butter to any one who would take small lots. The result was that a great many persons purchased this butter who had no proper facilities for its storage, and it was constantly found that butter with the government stamp upon it was being sold all over British Columbia in a deteriorated condition, thus hurting the reputation of the butter. That tended to lower the price, and we decided that only those who had proper warehouse facilities, and who were really in the distributing trade, and not jobbers or agents who would buy and sell anything that they could make a profit upon, would be entrusted with the sale of this butter. We found that there were several houses in British Columbia so situated that they could do that, and we have always given these people every facility for buying all the butter they could handle. But, we came to the conclusion that it was not in the interest of our patrons or of the government creameries, to allow jobbers to buy this butter, and sell it in any way they could to the retail trade. That is the reason why only certain firms have had this butter for sale. I may say that last fall the only firms that would take our butter in quantities were the two I have mentioned- J. Y. Griffith & Co., and Stewart & Co. ; and Prof. Robertson, in the exercise of his business discretion, made a contract with them to give them all the creamery or brick butter, as it is called there. They offered to take all the butter that was made. We could not get any others to bind themselves to take a definite quantity, and Prof. Robertson believed that he was making the best possible bargain in the interest of the government creameries. I may say that at this very moment we are asking for offers from any firms in British Columbia who will be able to handle the butter in the way I have

indicated. I do not care who does so. There are other firms.


David Henderson: Starkey & Co.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They are a jobbing firm only, and it was because they were damaging the reputation of our butter in the way they handled it that we declined to give them the contract. They bought our butter in job lots and sold it in job lots without seeing it at all.


David Henderson: There may be something perhaps in what the minister says ; but there seems to be an impression that these people have been unfairly dealt with, simply because the manager of the firm of Griffith & Co. is very closely related to Prof. Robertson.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, Prof. Robertson's brother.


David Henderson: And for that reason the impression is that he, having the government behind him, is giving the firm of J. Y. Griffith & Co. a monopoly of this business through the Kootenay district. The other firm of Stewart & Co., I understand, sell it in Vancouver.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They also sell it up the country.


David Henderson: That seems to be the impression with regard to J. Y. Griffith & Co., and it is not fair to Prof. Robertson that that impression should prevail if it is not true. Is it possible that they sell to consumers all the butter they handle ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Oh, no; they are wholesale as well as retail merchants.


David Henderson: Then they are jobbers too ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No. The other men never see the butter. They simply contract to deliver so much, and then they- buy it from us, and it is delivered to the parties to whom they sell it. They have no warehouses or places to store the butter, and my information is that the butter handled by them has been frequently injured. I may be incorrectly informed, but I have been investigating the matter. Prof. Robertson has shown me correspondence to show that his brother has had no privileges which the other firms in British Columbia have not had, and that J. Y. Griffith & Co. have not been treated differently to several other firms in the same line of business.


David Henderson: The minister says that the firm of Starkey & Co. have no warehouses, and not the same facilities for handling the butter that the others have. I think that is the very reason why the butter would be delivered to their patrons
in better condition than butter delivered by J. Y. Griffith & Co.; because they give the order, say at Calgary, and the butter is shipped directly to the purchaser instead of passing through a warehouse. I fear that the minister has been loaded up by somebody in the wrong way. I hope he will investigate the matter, and not allow one firm to have a monopoly of this business.


John McGowan: I am well acquainted with J. Y. Griffith & Co. I was in their warehouse in Winnipeg last summer, and I may say they have an excellent establishment there, and I have no doubt they have others in other parts of the North-west. I know they were good Conservatives when they went out there, and I believe they are good Conservatives yet; so that I do not think there is any jobbery in the matter.


David Henderson: I did not say anything about their politics, or that there was any politics in the matter. It may be that they have a good warehouse in Winnipeg ; but that does not prove that there are not other firms in British Columbia capable of handling this butter.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand that there are three kinds of cold storage : first, on steamships: second, on railways ; and third, in creameries. Will the hon. minister tell us what arrangements he has made for cold storage on railways, mentioning the different lines, and the supply of cars per week or month ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am afraid I have, not got with me the details of all the lines. I may say in general terms, however, that all the lines served last year will be served again this year, and that we are adding considerably to the number-that, as a matter of fact, we add to the number wherever there is any demand.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it a weekly supply ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Where there is a large supply going forward, it is weekly, and sometimes two or three times a week. At other places where there is not so much going forward, the supply is fortnightly. Of the forty-two or forty-three lines which had cold storage last year, thirty have a weekly service, and seven or eight fortnightly. To-day there is a net work of the railway system of the country by which the refrigerator cars converge on the shipping ports during the summer time.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What rates are charged on these lines over and above the ordinary class rate ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The rate is the ordinary less-than-carload rate. There is no extra charge. We guarantee to the railway company that the cars

shall be two-thirds paid for whether they are used or not, and If at any time less than two-thirds of the accommodation is utilized, we pay the difference ; but when more than two-thirds are utilized, the railway companies are obliged to credit us with the extra, and we make up the account at the end of the season. The result is that on most of the old lines there is nothing to pay. On the new lines, in the beginning we pay ; but, as the work goes on, and there is more freight for them, they come to the paying point. That is the system we have pursued all along.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the minister tell us what arrangement he has made for cold storage for creameries ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The same as last year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is, you give a subsidy to each creamery that builds a cold storage warehouse of a certain capacity, and the subsidy is in proportion to the capacity ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


James Clancy: Perhaps the hon. minister is prepared to give some information with regard to an item to which I called his attention some time ago, the item of Quebec Cold Storage Company, and the cold storage at Charlotte. He promised to lay the contract on the Table.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think I did.


James Clancy: Perhaps he will be able to tell us how it comes that so large a sum was paid in excess of the contract.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The contract will furnish a good deal of the information which the hon. gentleman requires. When we came to settle, we said the contract bore one interpretation, and the Quebec Cold Storage Company claimed it bore another, and the Justice Department upheld the interpretation of the company. We consequently had to pay.


James Clancy: Is the hon. gentleman continuing that contract ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Does the hon. gentleman intend to continue the experiments with grapes in the old country ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.
For the purpose of renewing and improving Canadian exhibit at Imperial Institute, London, $3,000.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Those who are familiar with the Imperial Institute, know that for a long time com-Mr. FISHER.
plaints have been made about the representation of Canada at that institute. The matter was brought up several times in the House, and I replied that it was entirely in the management of the provincial governments. When the institute was first established a special request was made by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, that the colonies all over the world should provide adequate representation of their products in the institute. Considerable exhibits were sent by the provinces, but the province did not keep them up, and the result has not been creditable to us. Over and over again the Dominion government have been asked by the provincial governments to relieve them of this work, as they could not afford to do it ; and after discussing the matter with Lord Strathcona, when he was here last, and also with my colleagues, I concluded that it was in the interests of Canada that the Dominion government should take hold of this exhibit and see that it was put into proper shape. I hope when over in England to visit the institute and see what is necessary to be done, and I have no doubt that by taking advantage of the exhibition at Glasgow, we will be able to make a proper representation of Canada at this institute. Three thousand dollars will be sufficient to completely renovate the exhibit, and a small amount will toe required from year to year to keep it up.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I agree that this is a wise expenditure, but I have been told several times that our exhibit at the Imperial Institute is not at all creditable to us, and it would no doubt prove of considerable advantage if kept up properly, and a greater variety of exhibits shown.


James Clancy: I am afraid that the sum which the hon. minister is asking will not be found sufficient to put life into the exhibit. Every one who has visited London is greatly disappointed with it. A friend of mine, who visited London during the last three months, told me that it was completely worthless, and it would be better to have none at all. I would sugest that the hon. gentleman should urge on the different provincial governments to contribute towards the expense of making this exhibit creditable to this country. Otherwise it would be better to do away with it altogether. I am afraid that the amounts asked is not sufficient, but do not think that the Federal government should have to bear the whole expense ; and if the provinces will not contribute, better to do away with the thing altogether than keep it up in a half-hearted, [DOT]manner.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It would be a mistake to rely on the province doing any considerable part of the work, not because they have any lack of interest in the matter, but because their financial affairs

are not in such a condition that they feel warranted in engaging in what seems to them ornamental work. I know that when I was in the government of one of the provinces, while we had every desire to aid this exhibition, we found great difficulty in obtaining an adequate grant for the purpose. My hon. friend is right in saying that it is better that we should not have any exhibit than have the one that has been in the Imperial Institute for several years past. Some of the provinces have not prepared an exhibit at all. You will find vacant Avail space which, on inquiry, you are told belongs to a certain province. And even the provinces that have made some attempt at exhibiting have not succeeded very well. The Dominion government contributed to the building, if my memory is correct, $100,000, but left to the provinces the management of the several exhibits. Unfortunately, the provinces were not consulted, and did not feel auy great obligation to exhibit. It is not too much to say that hardly one of the provinces has made a good exhibit. The Imperial Institute is not in the part of London best calculated for a popular exhibition. It is in the south-west of London, and if we were selecting a place for a London exhibit, very few of us would select that locality. Still, this is a great Imperial movement, and other colonies have participated, and my hon. friend will agree that it is hardly creditable to Canada to be poorly represented. In the meantime, I think it is better to relieve the province and undertake this as a Dominion matter. With the facilities at our disposal when the Glasgow exposition closes. I think we should be able to make a creditable exhibition for a time at least, and, later on, we can consider what is the best place in London for the exhibition of our resources.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There are two reasons for this exhibit, one is to extend the trade, and the other is to promote immigration. Both of these are under Dominion control, and it is quite reasonable that this government should keep it up. If it is well done, it will be a most effective means of bringing Canada into wide and favourable attention.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I agree with the hon. gentlemen who have spoken on this side and with the Finance Minister, that this vote is necessary if Canada is to be at all creditably represented in London at this exhibition. I very much doubt that the $3,000 asked for will be sufficient. While it is true that the Imperial Institute is not, perhaps, in the best place, it is a very important centre, and is visited by an enormous number of people. All around there are interesting exhibits, ana I believe that Canada could well afford to have a first-class exhibit there. I am glad to hear the Finance Minister say that he hopes that after the Glasgow exhibition closes a number of exhibits may be available for the institute. I hope that if the government intend to keep a representation there of Canadian products, they will see to it that it is done well and creditably. I do not think that any money necessary to that purpose will be begrudged.
Statistical Year-book, $1,000.


James Clancy: How many copies of the Year-book will be distributed to each member under the present regulations V


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: For the current year we had 4,300 in English and 1,200 in French, the cost being $3,161. This vote, added to the previous vote, will make a total of $4,000 available for next year. At the rate of cost of last year, and I have no reason to suppose that it will be materially different, we ought to be able to provide about 6,500 instead of 5,500 copies, and there is no reason why that extra 1,000 should not be pretty well distributed to members of the House of Commons.
Quarantine-Public health, $30,000.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Is that a new item ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This is in addition to the main estimate. This extra item is made necessary almost entirely by smallpox.


James Clancy: Has the attention of the hon. minister been called to a case of smallpox in the Indian reserve at Brantford ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, that would not be reported to me. I am dealing with quarantine, not with the cases already in the country.
Civil Government-Auditor General's Office-
To increase the salaries of A. B. Hudson, J. W. Reid and Wm. Kearns to $1,600 each from July 1, 1901, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act	 $ 300
One junior second-class clerk	 600
Contingencies-Further amount required
for clerical and other assistance. 1,000


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The increase in this first item, which the Auditor General has asked, increases for these gentlemen whom he selects as being specially worthy. Mr. Hudson is now receiving $1,450, and it is to be increased to $1,600. and the same with Mr. Reid and Mr. Kearns.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did they get any increases last year ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: If they did, it was only the ordinary statutory increase.


James Clancy: I suppose there is no significance in these increases. I believe these are very good officers. The Finance

Minister will remember that one of them made an audit not long since in a certain place. Is this in recognition of the clear statement and report made upon that occasion ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This item, I believe, was sent to my department previous to the investigation referred to. If it had been later, the amount might have been increased further. This is a very capable officer. But, take the most capable accountant and bring him under the crossexamination of one of our committees, and he will not appear to as great advantage as a witness as he does in his own office.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Particularly if the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) is the crossexaminer.
Department of Marine and Fisheries-To increase the salary of W. P. Anderson, chief engineer, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $200.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much does Mr. Anderson get now ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: He gets $2,800, and I propose to ask the committee to make it $3,000. He is the chief engineer of the department, one of the most skilled and hard-worked officers in the service, a man who gives unqualified satisfaction, and whose work well justifies me in recommending that he be placed on the same footing as the engineers in the other departments. He has been here for many years, under many ministers, and his record is excellent.
To increase the salary of B. H. Fraser, assistant engineer, $250.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Mr. Fraser is now getting an increase which was promised him in 1896, before this government came in. He is an excellent officer, and is highly recommended by his chief. His salary now is $1,300.


James Clancy: In glancing through the estimates I am glad to see the hon. gentlemen have repented of the course they took when they came into office, and that they are now doing justice to the civil servants.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am glad my hon. friend is pleased, even at our tardy repentance. But he will bear in mind that the principle we laid down was that when the ministers had become acquainted with their departments and found deserving men, it was the duty of the ministers to bring their cases before the House and to recognize really deserving service rendered. These two gentlemen are not entitled to the ordinary increases under the Civil Service Act of $50, but it gives me great pleasure to recommend those two increases on account of meritorious service.


James Clancy: Post Office Department-To provide for the promotion of B. M. Northrop to a first-class clerkship from July 1, 1901, $1,400.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Mr. Northrop was appointed in 1883 and he has passed his maximum. He is considered one of the best officers of the department, with very responsible duties, and is recommended by the deputy.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It does not increase his salary, but it gives him rank.
Inland Revenue Department-To increase the salary of L. G. Roy, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $100.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What salary has he now?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE (Hon. M. E. Bernier).: 
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is an item in my own department where I wish to provide for an additional clerk. I remember in my school-boy days when, the master had his own son at school, he had to lick him frequently in order to set a good example. That is the way with the Minister of Finance in his estimates, he tries to set a good example by not increasing his appropriations, and we have been doing that thing so severely that we are hard-up in my department. Several of my officials are away on sick leave and we really need an additional appointment.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this a promotion to the first class ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No. In this case I propose to increase the strength of the staff by adding another officer. It may be that when some of those who are advanced in years retire, we shall be able to reorganize in such a way that we will not add anything to the expense. But for the present, as I do not wish to undertake to superannuate some of these officials who have done good service and who are temporarily ill, this will be an addition to the expense. I have inserted these words because I have in my mind to appoint to that office a man who has had some banking experience, but who may not have the technical qualifications required by the Civil Service Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then these words ' notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act' are made to apply to the qualification as well as to the increase of salary ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In this case we create a first-class clerkship, and these words release us from the obligation of having a technical examination. It will
5185 MAY 14, 1901 5186	
mean for the time being an increase to the extent of one additional clerk, but I have no doubt that in the readjustment that may be made before long, the expenditure of the department will not be increased at all. Mr. SPROULE. I foresee the trouble that practically it does away with the requirement of an examination. The MINISTER OF FINANCE. As respects this particular individual, yes. Mr. SPROULE. You are setting a precedent here which will be taken advantage of by others who desire to get in without passing the examinations. Heretofore we have not disregarded the Civil Service Act in that direction. In the first place these words were usually introduced to show that a civil servant was receiving a salary from some other source, and the law provided that these words should be put in so as to indicate that it was a violation of the Civil Service Act. In this case you go further, and you overcome the Civil Service Act by providing that you may take in a man who has not passed either the preliminary or the qualifying examinations. The MINISTER OF FINANCE. My hon. friend is quite correct ; I will admit at once. I propose this vote to enable me to take a man into the department who, while he will not have the technical qualifications called for by the Civil Service Act, will have the better qualification of actual experience in financial matters. We have had one death in the department, and we have three men absent at the present moment on sick leave, and it is necessary in the interest of the public service that we should strengthen the department. Ocean and River Service-Towards the construction of a steamer to replace the Newfleld $100,000. The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies). The Newfield was the vessel that was lost last year in the Bay of Fundy, and we have to replace her. Tenders are now being called for the construction of a steel steamer to take her place. We are asking the House to vote $100,000. Mr. SPROULE. Where is the steamer to be built ? The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES. We hope in Canada. We have called for tenders here. Mr. SPROULE. They are providing a very efficient shipyard for the building of steamships in Collingwood, and with the arrangements they made they will be able to turn out satisfactory work, I think. I went through the establishment and saw where they are putting in the machinery. They are in a position to supply all kinds of material now, and especially when the Clergue works get into operation, they will be able 163 REVISED E	to do work in any part of Canada. I hope they will have an opportunity to compete for this work. The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES. Yes. Mr. MCCARTHY. I may say that the Collingwood works have already tendered for this steamer, and I hope they will get it. Mr. CLARKE. I hope that when the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries is making up the list of those who will have the opportunity of tendering, that he will include a tender from the Bertram shipyards, of Toronto. The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES. The tenders are publicly called for in the newspapers, and every one will have the privilege of tendering. Mr. CLARKE. I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that he take a trip from Toronto to the Thousand Islands in the new steamer Toronto, so as to see what has been done by the Bertram shipyard, which is turning out the finest vessels on the lakes. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if this steamer, the Newfield, was insured ? The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES. No. Mr. CLARKE. Then she will be a total loss ? Mr. SPROULE. I would suggest to the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) that if he would arrange for a trip we would all go down. Mr. CLARKE. I think when the hon. gentleman speaks of the Collingwood shipyard he might get parliament to go up and examine it. Mr. CLANCY. What will be the cost of this new steamer ? Your item would indicate that this is only a portion of the cost. The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES. Yes ; this is only a portion of it. It will be in the neighbourhood of $150,000 or $160,000. Towards the construction of a steamer to replace the Druid, $50,000. The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES. The Druid was the steamer which was engaged in the buoy and light service below Quebec, and she got worn out so badly that her sides were as thin almost as that piece of paper. We had a survey made of her, and she was condemned as being unsafe. We took everything out of her that could be taken out and sold her. She brought a very small amount, I think about $1,800. Tenders are being called for the new steamer in the same way as in the other ease. Mr. CLANCY. What is the estimated cost of the new steamer ? DITION

The MINISTER OF MARINE AND *FISHERIES. It will be under $100,000.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Are the specifications so drawn that anybody can tender ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. Yes, anybody.


Edmund Boyd Osler: There is no little reserve so that anybody can be kept from tendering ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. No.
To establish a new life-saving station on Long Point, Lake Erie, including cost of boat and maintenance of a paid crew, $2,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has there not been a lifesaving station there before '!
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. The life-saving station was at Port Rowan, but it was too far from the lake to be efficient. And the boat was one of the old type. We are going to establish a station on the shore of the lake about ten miles from the old location, and as nobody lives near that point it will be necessary to provide quarters for the crew.
Lighthouse and Coast Service-A new lighthouse and fog alarm building on Middle Ground, Lake Erie (revote), $10,000.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: This is the lighthouse and fog alarm which is now nearly built and will be put in place in a short time. The chief engineer is there now putting it in place. We are asking for a revote of $10,000. It will be on the Middle Ground.
A rmrmanent pier and light at Lower Traverse, $75,000.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: WTe built a permanent pier at the Upper Traverse two years ago. and it has been such a great success that we propose to build one at the Lower Traverse, two and one-half miles farther down. It will cost $75,000. This is part of the improvement of the service in the St. Lawrence.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is the contract let ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No, I am only asking for the vote.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I presume it will be let by contract ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No, I do not think so. It is not the kind of work that can be done by contract. The other pier was built by the chief engineer by day's labour, under efficient supervision. We have a man who supervises these works and he builds them by day's labour under the almost personal direction of the chief engineer himself. It is a very delicate piece of work to put these permanent lighthouses in the proper place.


James Clancy: The tide runs at the rate of seven and one-half knots an hour, and it is a very dangerous piece of work. The chief engineer says he could not recommend it to be done by contract at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How did the work turn out as to cost with the estimate of the engineer ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. The cost and the estimate were very close.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Who is the chief engineer who prepares the plans ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. Mr. Anderson.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is a pier that is to be built ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. Yes, a permanent pier. We used to have a lightship there, but the lightship swings around a great deal and we want a permanent pier at the edge of the channel.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The engineer of your department does not think that can be done by contract ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No, he thinks not.
For improvements to aids to navigation and the construction of lights and fog alarm stations, steam sirens, to provide for additional gas buoys in the Gulf and River St. Lawrence, and to improve the light at Baccaro, N.S., $78,000.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I promised the committee when I spoke of this before, that I would give a statement of the details. .They are ] as follows :
1.	Fame Point, GaspS coast, to improve
light and establish steam siren	 $ 7,000
2.	Low Point, Sydney Harbour, to improve
light and remove fog horn from Cranberry Head to this station		5,000
3.	Bellechasse, River St. Lawrence, to
change light to an occulating light...	2,000
4.	River St. Lawrence generally, to provide four additional gas buoys	 12,000
5.	Bird Rocks, to change light from fixed
to flashing and to improve fog alarm. 5,000
6.	Baccaro, N.S., to improve light	
5,0007.	Gulf of St. Lawrence, to procure modern illuminating apparatus for two or three stations, Metis and Matane suggested, but may be changed after inspection	
10,0008.	Gulf of St. Lawrence, to provide a fogsiren at one station to be selected after inspection	
7,0009.	'North end of Belle Isle, to establish alight and fog alarm station	
25,000For lights and fog alarms	
$78,000
'Note.-The light asked for on the west end of the Island of Orleans, to cost $1,000 and some buoys asked for by ship masters, will be provided out of this year's vote.

When the chief engineer makes his spring inspection of the different stations he will select the place where this fog siren is to be established. On the north end of Belle Isle there is to be a fog station costing $25,000. That is the one there has been so much difference of opinion about for so many years back. The chief engineer insisted that it ought not to be built, and the shipping interest insisted that it ought to be built. The chief engineer has waived his objection in view of the opinion of the owners of the ships, backed up by a number of sea captains, and now we will have two fog alarms on Belle Isle, one on the south-eastern coast and one on the north. It is expected that the ships making the grand circuit from Liverpool will be largely aided in making the land fall by this light to be erected on the north end. There is a dangerous shoal of rocks there and the chief engineer thought that there ought not to be a light because it might induce ships to go near these shoals, but he gave way to the wishes of the captains and ship-owners. That would make the total of $78,000.


Byron Moffatt Britton: There is: a subject, having some bearing on this, about which I wish to say a word and to ask the minister to give it a little consideration. It'is well known to all persons who have had anything to do with marine matters that there is a very substantial difference between the pilot rules of the United States and our navigation rules as embodied in our statutes. I have considered the matter and it seems to me most desirable that there should be uniformity in these rules. In many respects the rules are the same, but in very many respects they are entirely different. That desirable uniformity can only be secured by correspondence with the United States authorities, or by commission to consider the matter, or by some action taken by one or other of the two countries. Without going into the details to-night, I would ask the minister if the matter has ever been brought under his consideration, and if anything is likely to be done in the direction I have indicated ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: This is a very important question, and it has had a great deal of consideration from the department. It is not so simple to bring about uniformity as my hon. friend (Mr. Britton) may at first sight think. The British Marine law provides that the Admiralty shall make these regulations as to the number of blasts a steamer must blow in a fog, and so on, and these British regulations are adopted by us. Our rules are uniform with the British rules, so that a certified British captain or a certified Canadian captain understands exactly what the regulations are. If a vessel leaves Great Britain and comes up the Gulf of St. Lawrence to Montreal, and beyond Montreal to the great lakes, the Brit-163*
ish regulations govern her. Unfortunately the American regulations are different. I see the very great advantage that would be derived from uniformity, but if we make our regulations conform to the American regulations we are all at sea with regard to the British regulations. I have never yet been able to find a solution of the difficulty. I have talked it over with my officers and with the captains on the lakes, most of whom desired to have the American regulations, but I have never seen my way clear to make our regulations conform to the American regulations and to differentiate them from the British. So far as sea-going ships are concerned, our rules must be the British rules up to Montreal, and to make a different set of rules above Montreal seems to present difficulties which at present I am not able to overcome.


Byron Moffatt Britton: The only thing I could suggest would be to call the attention of the people at Washington to it, and perhaps they would be willing to make some concessions.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I have taken occasion to bring that to the notice of the Washington authorities not only by correspondence but personally when I was there.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does this appropriation of $78,000 cover all the demands of the shipping interest as they were presented to the government in so far as lights and fog alarms are concerned 7
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. Not all ; because I think they asked a little more than they expected to get ; but it covers the substantial ones.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: They wanted modern lights and they indicated the places where they wanted them put.
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. Yes, and I have read a list of those that we propose to establish this summer.
Mr, MONK. Does it leave out many 7
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. A few.
Steamer to replace the Bayfield, $50,000.
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. The Bayfield was built in 1837 and she has been engaged on the survey of Lake Huron for many years. She is utterly unfit to go to Lake Superior and encounter the stormy weather there. It would not be fair to ask human beings to risk their lives in the Bayfield for another season. She has been condemned two seasons, and this year she is just patched up to enable us to finish the survey on the east coast of Lake Huron. That will conclude the Lake Huron survey. Next year we begin on Lake Superior, and I hope the new vessel will be ready for the work.

Mr.	SPROULE.	Has	the work	been
finished on the Georgian Bay ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. Xes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Where is this steamer to be built ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. Wherever	the lowest tenderer comes from.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I should have referred to the Poison Company, of Toronto, as a successful firm for the construction of vessels navigating the great lakes. Is this the proper place to ask whether any conclusion has been reached by the government with regard to granting substantial aid to Captain Bernier to enable him to construct a vessel for an Arctic research expedition ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: That has hardly any connection with the subject of hydrographic surveys. Captaifi Bernier is, I believe, appealing for contributions from those throughout Canada who are interested in his proposed North Pole expedition, and in a conversation which I had with him a short time ago, he told me that he has been fairly successful. I think it is his intention, if he receives a fair amount of contributions from the general public, to ask the government of Canada to supplement the amount. There has been no decision reached at all on the matter. We are not in a position to reach a decision yet.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Since my bon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) has brought this matter up, I think it is a very opportune time to discuss it, because the session is coming to a close. I think it is very desirable that we should do something in the direction of satisfying the aspirations of Captain Bernier. What Captain Bernier asks from the government-he is very highly recommended in that-is, I believe, the cost of the vessel. He is pretty nearly certain of getting, in the shape of contributions from the citizens of Canada and from scientific societies, sufficient, or very nearly sufficient money, to equip the vessel. The cost of the vessel would be $60,000, if it were built at Montreal, at Quebec, or in the maritime provinces. If built in British Columbia, it would cost some $80,000, although it would be nearer the point to .which he intends to sail in the first instance, that is to say, Behring Straits. I suppose the hon. minister is aware that Captain Bernier has received very great encouragement from Europe ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Sympathetic encouragement.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No, he has received more than that. He has received, I think, subscriptions, and in Canada he has received a great many subscriptions. Captain Bernier


Sir LOUIS DAVIES.: asks nothing whatever for himself. He does not ask the ship for himself ; it will belong to the government. He is ready to give two or three or more years of his time, provided he gets the ship, and provided the citizens of Canada and the subscribers generally furnish him with sufficient to equip it. He is ready to go and devote all that time to his country for nothing. Under these circumstances, and as we have perfect proof that he is not an enthusiast, but a navigator of very great experience, and with a most commendable record, I think it is fair to consider whether we should not give him that much encouragement. We may say that it will not cost us so much, because, unless the vessel is wrecked, it will belong to Canada after his return. I wanted to mention the matter, but I had hoped to do so after giving notice to the hon. minister. I see that the hon. Minister of Public Works has come in. I think he will appreciate the appeal I am making. Captain Bernier is, I think, preeminently qualified to go in search of the North Pole; and if he does not get the necessary encouragement from us, I believe he will get it from the American people. I believe he has already been approached by enterprising American newspapers, with the object of securing his services for that purpose. Under these circumstances, I think this country is interested more than any other country at the present moment in advancing the project which Captain Bernier undertakes. I think we can gain a great deal by discovering the North Pole, if it is to be discovered ; and such an expedition, at a cost of some $80,000, would, I think, be very beneficial indeed. As hon. members are aware, Nansen got within about 300 miles of the pole, and the Italian duke who went afterwards got 60 or 70 or 100 miles nearer. Captain Bernier has the benefit of their experience ; he has given the subject a great deal of study ; and any one who has heard his demonstrations must believe that he will get nearer still-that he will probably reach the pole.


Edward Frederick Clarke: He will get there.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Under these circumstances, I think we should do all we can to encourage him. I am glad the hon. member for West Toronto has brought the matter up.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not know any man who is better fitted than Captain Bernier for that expedition. He has a long experience. He was born in a cold country, and he has been a navigator all his life. He is one of the best built men I ever met. I happen to know a good deal about him. He was one of my employees for some time. He is a man who, I think, can live fifteen days without sleeping, and yet remain as fresh as we are here to-night. He is well educated, and he has travelled all over the world. He is a

strong man, physically an>d mentally. I think his plans are good. I happened once to have him on hoard one of the government boats with a couple of my colleagues, one of whom was the Minister of Finance ; and he gave us a private conference on his X>roposed North Pole expedition, which was so interesting that I shall remember it all my life. He is not a public speaker ; he does not appear to advantage before a large public audience ; but, in a room with half a dozen men, let him explain his venture, and he will convince any half dozen capable men that if there is any man living who can discover the pole, he is that man. Well, what is going to be gained financially by that discovery ? I am not quite prepared to say. But, it will be a great advertisement. Highly civilized countries encourage men who are prepared to go on such ventures. Speaking not as a minister, but as a member of parliament, I would be very glad indeed if the government could see their way to help him. Parliament seems to be well disposed, and the nation seems to be well disposed, towards his enterprise. Nansen is an able man, but I do not think he is as well qualified as Captain Bernier for such an expedition. He had not the same experience nor the same physical strength. Moreover, Captain Bernier has the benefit of the experience of those who have attempted to reach the pole.	I am
very glad indeed that both sides of the House seem to agree that Captain Bernier should be encouraged. I think it would be an easy thing to get private subscriptions to a very large amount. I think $50,000 will be raised in a short time in Montreal.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It should be a national undertaking. The government of the country should undertake it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Of course, I am not prepared to speak as to that. The right hon. gentleman who leads the government and the House is here. It is for the House to express its views, and if there is a strong opinion on both sides, no doubt the government would be largely influenced by it. I may state, from all the conversation I have had with hon. members on both sides, that the opinion is practically unanimous that if the government should see its way clear to make a grant towards this expedition, it would reflect the public opinion of the country.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I have had many conversations with Captain Bernier, and have learned from them that he is a man of very considerable experience, that he comes* from a seafaring stock, that he has been a seafaring man all his life, and that he has thoroughly studied the experiences of Nansen and others who have engaged in arctic explorations ; and every Canadian would be proud if, under the auspices of this government, a Canadian could do what no one
has yet been able to accomplish, namely, fix the location of the north pole. I have no doubt that physically and in every other way Captain Bernier is eminently well qualified to take command of such an expedition, and would do as much as any man ever did to accomplish the result aimed at. Speaking for myself and many other members on this side, we would have much pleasure in supporting a vote to fit out a vessel to enable Captain Bernier to enter on that perilous undertaking.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The accomplishment of the object of this proposed expedition would have a very important bearing on our interests. In the impression of many, the discovery of the north pole would enable us much more easily to determine what is our own in making a dividing line between our territory and that of Russia and the United States, leaving aside altogether the great advertisement which it would give this country. I do not think that the government should give a very large grant; but according to the newspapers, jtiaptain Bernier has. been very successful up to the present in getting private subscriptions, and the hope is entertained that he will succeed in getting all that is needed, through these subscriptions, except the supply of a vessel. If a vessel could be supplied for $00,000, that does not appear a very large sum, and I think we might go that far, if he were able to secure all the additional support he requires.
Amount required for repairs to marine hospitals and the building of an hospital at Louis-burg. N.S., $12,000.


Mr. FLINT.: I would like to call the attention of the hon. Minister of Marine to a subject concerning which I have several times communicated with the department, and that is the advisability of a more careful inspection of the various marine hospitals of the Dominion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the hon. gentleman will allow me, the hon. minister gave us no information regarding the construction and equipment of the observatory on Silver Mountain.


Thomas Barnard Flint: These hospitals should be kept up to the best standard, and, as far as I am aware, they are fairly well conducted. But the necessity of something like regular inspection has often impressed itself on my mind. I believe that inspecting could be done at a very trivial expense, because the department has officers who travel around the country inspecting lighthouses and other public works and whose services might be utilized in inspecting these hospitals. A couple of hundred dollars each year would pay the extra expense entailed.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I think the suggestion a

very good one, but I do not think it necessary to ask for a special vote. The fund is a trust fund which, although voted by parliament, does not come out of the general revenue at all. It is administered by the accountant in my department on very strict rules. There seems to be almost a conspiracy on the part of many medical men to exact enormous fees from this trust fund which belongs to the sailors, and we have some difficulty in getting their fees kept down to a proper figure. There has been a change in the policy during the last ten or twenty years. Formerly the department used to build marine hospitals at the seaports, and we had our own staff there, but this was found very expensive, and we have adopted the plan of utilizing the many excellent hospitals which have been buiit in most of the cities and towns of the Dominion. In Montreal, we are under contract with the larger hospitals for so much for seaman per day. and the seamen get in these institutions the most scientific treatment at much less cost than if we had them in hospitals of our own.
But there are places where they have not facilities and where we have to provide hospitals. We have one at Pictou. As a result of an inspection made a short time ago, we find some repairs and improvements necessary. We propose also the construction of a cottage marine hospital at Louisburg, the shipping of which port has largely increased within the last few years. Hitherto, we have farmed the men out, as it were, in private houses. But there are no houses where the men can get proper hospital treatment, and to take a sick man and ship him to Sydney for treatment in the hospital may expose him to dangers on the trip. Considering the circumstances, we have decided to build a new cottage hospital at Louisburg, estimated to cost about $5,000. The hospital at Sydney, owing to the enormous increase of shipping there, needs a new wing, and besides we want to improve and modernize the appliances there. This will cost about $5,000. Thus there will be $5,000 for the new hospital at Louisburg, $5,000 for new wing and modern appliances at Sydney and about $2,000 for improvements at Pictou.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In lake ports we have several hospitals that are called marine hospitals. Do they get any assistance as marine hospitals ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No. All the shipping in the
maritime ports pays a tax for the marine hospital fund and this is kept apart as a trust fund. But the shipping on the lakes is not subject to any such tax and there is no assistance given to these hospitals of which the bon. gentleman speaks.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. minister has not told us about the observatory.


Louis Henry Davies: 


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Mr. Stupart, the meteorological director, has been for some years advising the department to construct an observatory on one of the mountain peaks near Banff. So far, I have not been able to get the vote, but this year I have been successful. The observer has visited the peaks, and he has reported to Mr. Stupart, who has decided that Sulphur Mountain, while not the highest, is the most practical point for the work. It will cost about $1,000 to put up a building, which will be of stone, that being more suitable for the work than wood. About $1,000 will be spent in scientific instruments. But the most expensive item will be at least $2,000 for a cable containing the wires that electrically connect the instruments at the top of the mountain with the recording instruments at the base. The building will be constructed under the supervision of the Banff park superintendent.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will this be the whole cost ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The government does not intend to put up a telescope ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No, not there. Curiously enough the astronomical observations are under the supervision of the Minister of the Interior. Mr. King, chief astronomer and his staff are in the Interior Department. I believe, although I am not sure, that it is contemplated by the minister to ask a vote for an astronomical observatory with proper instruments.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think it would be important to have a telescope there because of the elevation and because


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I do not wish to be understood as saying that the intention is to have the observatory there, I am not sure, but I think it is in the city of Ottawa. However, I would rather that my hon. friend would ask the Minister of the Interior, who, I know, has been giving the matter a great deal of consideration during the last twelve months. They have a fine observatory in Washington with a magnificent telescope, and are doing good work. For my part I would rather see a modern telescope in this the capital city of the Dominion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I have to ask that vote again. I am sorry to say that though negotiations have been going on with the Russian government for the last four years we have not been able to come to a conclusion as to the terms of the reference. I was not able to make this statement until within the last few days. We have insisted upon having the reference made on terms which would enable us to get justice for our vessels that were seized. And we think that the terms upon which the Russian government are willing to make the reference would prevent us getting justice. These vessels were seized a long distance from shore while they were engaged in the lawful killing of seals. The Russian government make a claim for control for sixty miles around their islands.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Pribyloff Islands ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No, this had nothing to do with the American cases. I take the vote, however, in case we do succeed in coming to an agreement. We continue pressing upon the Russian government the necessity for having this reference made in language which we think will enable us to get justice; we will not refer on any other terms.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Have any legal expenses been incurred yet ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Nothing except paying couusel, the Hon. Edward Blake. I think there was a vote taken for him two years ago.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is the contract let for that steamer ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes.
To provide for the construction , of a white-fish hatchery in the North-west Territories, $5,000.


Edmund Boyd Osler: In what district will this be?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: In the Qu'Appelle district, we hope, but the exact location is not fixed yet. I hope Mr. Commissioner Prince will be able to go there and fix the location himself.
Towards the establishment and maintenance of a fishery biological laboratory in Georgian Bay, to be paid to such persons and on such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may prescribe, $1,500.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Where is this going to be established ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: We do not establish it. The scientific gentlemen connected with the universities. Prof. Burwash, I think, of Victoria University, and others will organize it and have charge of it. This is a grant similar to that made towards the laboratory in the maritime provinces two or three years ago. That has been a great success, they are doing excellent work, and I hope this will be an equal success.
Some resolutions reported.
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved the adjournment of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I want to say that yesterday, when the question of the sitting of committees during the sitting of the House was being considered, I suggested to the chairman of the Railway Committee that it should be called at ten o'clock, and I understood him to assent to that. But I find by the paper before me it is called at eleven o'clock as usual. It seems to me it would have been better to call it at ten o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 15, 1901.