1901-05-06

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 128) for the relief of Lilias Middleton.-Mr. Rosamond.
Bill (No. 129) respecting the St. Lawrence and Adirondack Railway-Mr. Monk.
Bill (No. 130) for the relief of James Ward McDonald-Mr. Lennox.

Mr. MCCARTHY moved :: That the petition of the Great Northern Railway of Canada; presented this day; praying the House to suspend all rules and formal notices regarding a Bill to be introduced amending the Act incorporating the Great Northern Railway of Canada and Acts amending same by enacting that notwithstanding the provisions of section 13, chapter 40 of the Acts of Parliament of Canada, 1892 (55-56 Victoria, c. 40), the bonds issued by the company secured upon the railway, exclusive of the bridge over the Ottawa river by indenture of trust and mortgage, dated the 1st of January, 1900, by and between the company on the one part and the Central Trust Company of New York on the other part, and designated as Series A, and the bonds issued by the company upon the bridge built over the Ottawa river, secured by deed of trust and mortgage, dated the 1st of January, 1900, by and between the company on the one part and the Central Trust of New York as the other part, and designated as Series B, shall all rank equally, pari passu, both upon the railway of the company and the bridge over the Ottawa river, and the revenues of both the railway and the bridge shall be treated and considered as one security for all the bonds of both Series A and B ; that the trustee or trustees for the holders of bonds Series A and B may, in the event of default by the company, sell the railway and the bridge over the Ottawa river, together for one price which shall be distributed amongst the holders of bonds of the railway, Series A and B, without distinction, in proportion to their respective holdings, and if the railway or the bridge be sold separately, the holders of bond3 Series A and B, without distinction, will be entitled to rank upon the price realized in the proportion of their holdings respectively; notwithstanding the expiration of the time for presenting petitions for private Bills, be read and received, and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders.
He said : I may say that this is rendered necessary by reason of the fact, as I am instructed, that those who were about to underwrite or purchase the bonds required, and the company agreed, that it would be wise to have the bonds on the railway and the bonds on the bridge applied pari passu on the railway and on the bridge. By chapter 40 of 55 and 56 Vic., power was given to the railway company to issue bonds to the extent of $20,000 a mile on the railway, and to the amount of $500,000 on
4407	COMMONS	4408
the bridge ; and the trustee deed recites that the bondholders and the railway company are agreed that these shall rank pari passu. As this is in a sense entirely a family matter, I do not think that the House will have any objection to the legislation being passed this session.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I was called away while my hon. friend was speaking, and did not hear that he gave any reasons for urging this legislation, or whether or not any private interests could be aftVcied by it.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: I did explain that no private interests could be affected, because it was entirely, as it were, a family matter. Thd trust deed and mortgage upon which the bonds are secured provides for such legislation. If the underwriting and the necessary financial arrangements had been made in sufficieut time for the company and the bondholders to have given notice for the legislation, that would have been done; but, that was not possible ; and as it is a matter in which only the bondholders and the company can be interested, and they have both agreed that such legislation should be applied for this session, I do not think it possible that any private interests can be affected. On the other hand, if the legislation be not obtained, it may jeo-jjardize the success of the company in carrying out the financial obligations which, by the issue of these bonds, it has assumed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon.  E. G.@: PRIOR (Victoria, B.C.) Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would ask the right hon. leader of the House to give his attention to some correspondence I have received concerning the Alaskan boundary dispute. Last year I asked in the House :
Has tiie iargo map of the Dominion. which was lately exposed to view in the vestibule of this building, been sent to the Paris exhibition as an official map of Canada exhibited by the government?
Is it true that the boundary between Canada and Alaska, commonly known as the ' Alaska boundary,' is marked on that map according to the United States contention, and that the boundary according to the Canadian, or British Columbia, contention, is not shown at all?
To this question, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture replied :
The map in question was sent to Paris as one of the exhibits of the Department of Public Works, but not as an official map. It is true that the boundary between Canada and Alaska, commonly known as the ' Alaskan boundary,' is marked on that map in two ways, marking the American contention and the Canadian contention as to the boundary, and each of these markings is distinctly stated to be what it represents, ^ so that I do not think there can be any possible difficulty or doubt as to what is meant.
Mr. McCarthy.
Last year I wrote to Mr. Begg, who has taken a great deal of interest in this question, and we both wrote to Mr. Brymner, who was then in Paris, asking him to go to the exposition and examine the map. I have not got Mr. Brymner's answer to myself, as I unfortunately left it at home, but I have a letter here from Mr. Begg on the same subject, dated 17th April, 1901 :
I have been looking over the letter sent to me by Mr. Brymner of Paris, who visited the exhibition at your request, and mine, to see if it was as represented-one provisional boundary for British Columbia and another for United States. In his letter to me dated July 17, 1900, he says : * I had your note re the frontier question, also a letter from Col. Prior, House of Commons, Ottawa, asking me to go and see if it was really as you stated, that the boundary marked ran up Portland Canal, and not up Clarence Sound, and if two boundaries were given and marked " provisional." There is but one boundary marked, and that is the one claimed by United States, and there is absolutely no mention made of its being provisional. There is no distinct colour between American and Canadian territory, so it is very difficult to trace the line, the area being so great (covered by the map) that nearly all the names have been left out, so that neither Portland Canal nor Clarence Sound are mentioned, Wrangel being the only name given in that neighbourhood.' My object in alluding to this matter now is that this same map may be sent to Glasgow exhibition, and it would be well to know if the erroneous boundary is marked running up Portland Canal, and if the British Columbia provisional boundary along Clarence Straits, as shown on British Columbia maps, is entirely left out.
Mr. Brymner's statement is undoubtedly correct, and it agrees with what I supposed were the facts of the case.
Of course, I have not seen the map myself. but if Mr. Brymner's statement, both to Mr. Begg and myself be correct, namely, that the only boundary marked on the map is that which the Americans contend for, the government is greatly to blame for having allowed such a map to be put on exhibit. No doubt if on this map only the American contention is shown, that will be brought in as an argument in favour of the United States whenever the matter goes to arbitration.
I would ask my right hon. friend whether he will find out if it be true that the American boundary is the only one indicated on this map, or whether there are two distinct boundaries marked on it and both stated plainly to be provisional ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I shall call the attention of my colleague the Minister of Agriculture to the representations of my hon. friend. I may say, however, that in view of the advice we have received from our law offi-ecrs, it is very hard to maintain that the boundary runs up Clarence channel. The treaty says in so many words the Portland canal, but there is a difference in opinion between the Americans and ourselves as to where that channel is. We claim that it is

west of Pearse Island. They claim that it is Observatory Inlet. As to endeavouring to have the line pass along Clarence channel, which is a pretension Mr. Begg has often submitted to me, I do not think any one, who will take a careful view of the matter, can be convinced of the correctness of that pretension. The point on which we and the Americans do not agree, is as to what is Portland channel. They want to make it run up Observatory Inlet and then to the west, making out that Observatory Inlet is only a small inlet running into the interior. We, on the other hand, contend that Portland channel is as it is described on the map of Vancouver on which the treaty of 1825 seems to have been based, namely, all that channel of water which runs west of Pearse Island.


Hon. Mr. PRIOR.: I do not think that this has anything to do with the question whether the map is wrongly marked. Whatever boundary is described on it, should be marked provisional.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The only provisional line we have agreed upon is around Lynn canal, and if my hon. friend will look carefully at the relief map which is exhibited in the library, he will see that that is the only provisional line we have agreed to.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN.

Mr. BOURASSA.: On the 11th March, the House voted two addresses, calling for correspondence between Canada and the British government regarding the enrolment of the Baden-Powell police force, and the commissions granted Canadian officers in the British army. Part of the correspondence is down, but that which I want especially, the correspondence between His Excellency and the Secretary of the Colonies, has not yet been laid on the Table.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I have recently given orders to have the correspondence and papers brought down, and they will be down in a day or two.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FORTIN moved third reading of Bill (No. 26) respecting Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
Mr. WALTER SCOTT (West Assiniboia).: Mr. Speaker, this question has already been thoroughly discussed, and I do not propose to detain the House at any great length with further discussion of it. I must say that in the first instance, I was in favour of granting this charter to the Canadian Pacific Railway to build from Teulon to the Narrows of Lake Manitoba, but the discussion which has since taken place has served to convince me that it would not be proper to grant the charter. Various reasons
were brought out in debate which have led me to believe that the best policy for this House to pursue would be to refuse to grant this charter. The question is very much larger than the mere one of deciding whether this particular charter shall or shall not be given, or whether the sixty miles of road shall or shall not be built under the Great North-west Central charter. It seems to me that the details now under discussion show that there is a principle involved very much larger than would appear on the surface- a principle, I think. Sir, which is closely associated with the foundation, so to speak, of the railway position in the Dominion, so far at least as concerns the opening up of new districts and the giving communication to districts into which settlers have already gone, but which have not, up to the present, been given railway communication. To illustrate the principle to which I refer, I would ask this question:	Should or should
not railway companies which, by their charters, are bound to certain responsibilities and duties with regard to particular districts, be allowed to assume further responsibility before they have shown their ability to meet those they already rest under ?
The particular matter under discussion, it seems to me, sheds light upon the broader question of which I speak. As I pointed out the other day, we have large districts in the North-west Territories, north of the Qu'Appelle valley, in which there have been for years several hundreds of settlers. The Canadian Pacific Railway to-day stands- and for the last three or four years have stood as another company stood before the Canadian Pacific Railway-under agreement to give these people railway communication; and up to the present that agreement has not been fulfilled. The other day the hon. member for .South Norfolk (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) laid particular stress upon the agreement involved in the granting of a railway charter by this House, and he read a lecture to the House upon the duty of parliament to strictly observe the agreement involved in the giving of these charters. I could not help thinking that that was rather unnecessary, for I had not in my recollection a single occasion when parliament showed any disposition not to observe its end of the agreements with railway corporations. On the other hand, it seems to me, parliament on many occasions, has shown too great a willingness to allow railway corporations to depart from their end of the agreements. In the case to which I referred last Monday, as I have just said, the Canadian Pacific Railway stands-or rather stood, until a few days ago when they came down and got a new arrangement with the sub-committee of the Railway Committee of this House-under agreement to give that particular part of the country railway communications immediately. They came down the other day and

asked an extension of time, and immediately got a compromise and an extension of time. Year after year they come to parliament and ask permission not to fulfil their agreement, and on nearly every occasion parliament very kindly grants the permission. I think there can be no successful dispute of that part of the case so far as regards this charter covering the North-west Central country. But after they had come to this House and pleaded their inability to fulfil their agreement with parliament and with the people residing north of the Qu'Appelle valley, aud after they had arrived at a compromise with the sub-committee of the Railway Committee of this House, they make application for a charter covering something over 100 miles from Teulon to the Narrows of Lake Manitoba in the province of Manitoba. They thereby showed that the plea which they made before the sub-committee was not altogether a true plea, for the request for this charter is in effect a declaration that they are financially able to go on aud build a hundred miles of railway. However, 1 do not propose to g<5 at further length into that point. The question I wish this House to answer this afternoon is whether a company should be allowed to assume further responsibilities until it has shown its ability to fulfil the agreements under which it already rests. Some lion, gentlemen say that it is not proper for parliament to seek to compel anybody to build railways. I am willing to agree to that; but I think it is quite proper to compel a railway company to build a road which it has agreed to build-which is certainly the position of the Canadian Pacific Railway with regard to the North-west Central. The right hon. First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), on Monday last when we were discussing this question, suggested that those of us from the North-west Territories who were making the contention that I am making this afternoon were, to some extent standing in the position of the dog in the manger-that we were ready to declare that unless the needs of the settlers in our own districts were met we wrouId endeavour to prevent the meeting of the needs of the people in other parts of the country. I beg to submit that that is not the case in the present instance. If it were the case,
I would not srand here and oppose the granting of this charter. The position, as I understand it-and I may say that my information on this subject is gathered from statements made by my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. McCreary), who represents that part of the country-is that there are practically no settlers in the section of the country through which this Teulon line is intended to run. This being the case, those of us from the North-west who oppose this Bill are not taking a stand against any settlers of the province of Manitoba. And here let me point out another reason which Mr. SCOTT.
should weigh with this House. If this charter is granted to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, the district through which this proposed new road is designed to run may be in very much the same position in the future as the district of which 1 have been speaking, north of the Qu'Appelle valley, is in to-day. The Canadian Pacific Railway at present have the North-west Central country practically pre-empted. They have a small portion of the line built, and the people beyond that are thus practically prevented from dealing with any other railway builders or promoters than the Canadian Pacific Railway people. This is, as I say, a practical pre-emption in favour of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Suppose the Canadian Pacific Railway is granted a charter over this proposed route from Teulon-and I do not speak as I do because it is the Canadian Pacific liailway that is to get this charter; I would speak the same way if it were any other company, say the Canada Northern, the Mackenzie and Mann interest. The Canadian Pacific Railway, having got this charter may build a few miles, but they may fail to complete the line. Immigrants, knowing that the charter is granted and supposing that the line will be built, will probably push in there. But the Canadian Pacific Railway, instead of giving these people railway communication may come to parliament and ask for extensions of time. They come here every year aud ask for extensions of time for some or other of the railways for which they hold charters in the western country. If this is done, we shall have gentlemen arising in the House and telling ns that we should not deal harshly or arbitrarily with the company, that our interests are bound up with theirs and that we must grant the extension of time or their interests, and the interest of Canada, will be detrimentally affected. With regard to this particular charter, it appears from the information that has been placed before this House, that this application is in the interests of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company alone. It has not been shown that any person along the proposed line of railway is anxious for the road to be built, or anxious for this charter to be granted. On the other hand It has been shown in a manner to leave very little doubt that there is practically no person on the line of railway who is interested in the matter, and who wants the road to be pushed on. It came out clearly, in fact it was admitted before the committee by the representatives of the company, that they did not hope to reap any traffic from this road until they had passed the Narrows of Lake Manitoba and got into the Dauphin country. The Dauphin country, as the House knows, is already well served by the Mackenzie & Mann road ; the Dauphin section of the Canadian Northern road already serves the people in that district: and while

I suppose they would have no objection to having a second line built and thereby securing competition, still we hear of no outcry from the people of the Dauphin district, no evidence that they are anxious for this line.
No doubt one reason that will be urged against adopting the proposition I make against the third reading of the Bill will be the technical reason that the matter was threshed out in the Railway Committee, and that this House should not reverse the decision of the committee. Now I pointed out the other day that the particular matter which we brought up was not threshed out in the Railway Committee. A certain phase of the question was brought forward by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary), and that was threshed out, and when the consideration of that business was finished, the time of the committee expired and the committee adjourned. The committee met next day at 10.30 a.m. in place of 11 a.m. I, myself, and other gentlemen from the North-west did not know that the committee was meeting at 10.30. For my part I went to the committee at 11 o'clock that morning for the purpose of bringing this matter before it, and found to my surprise that the committee had already been sitting half an hour, and that tiie Bill had already been reported by the committee. But even if it were the case that we had failed intentionally or for another reason to bring the matter before the committee, I would ask the House not to allow that technical reason to prevail. No matter what may be the fault of particular members, that * should not affect the real position of the question, and I would ask the House to give its verdict upon the reasons presented in opposition to the Bill and not upon any technical reasons. With this explanation I move that the Bill (No. 26) be not now read the third time, but that it. be read this day six months.


Mr. DAVIS.: As I have the honour of having brought this question before the House in the first place, I desire to say a few words on the amendment. Regarding the contention of some hon. gentlemen that this Bill having been threshed out in the Railway Committee we, the members of the Northwest, should not now reopen the question in the House, I want to say that so far as I am concerned the Bill was not threshed out in the Railway Committee. As my hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) has stated, the Railway Committee, on the morning this Bill went through, met at 10.30 a.m. instead of the usual hour of 11 o'clock. T have been in this House for five years, and I had never known an occasion that the Railway Committee met at 10.30 in the forenoon. I did not look at the paper that was sent me, so I did not know the hour the committe was to meet ; therefore I think the North-west members have a right to
avail ourselves of the privileges of members of the House to discuss this question on the present occasion, inasmuch as it is of a special interest to our part, of the country. With regard to the principle which is laid down in the discussion of this question, 1 want to say that that principle has beeu adopted, it was adopted the other morning in the Railway Committee by the Minister of Railways and Canals with reference to this very same Bill. Now what are we asking for ? The Canadian Pacific Railway came down to parliament and asked for a charter to build a road from a certain place in Manitoba to a point called Sifton's Landing in the Dauphin country. They are asking for a franchise that will in the course of events become very valuable ; therefore I think it is only right that we, representing the west, should ask the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to build some portion of the road for which they already have a charter. We have taken the ground that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company are not asking for fresh charters for the purpose of constructing roads, but for the purpose of preventing other corporations from building these roads, in other words, keeping them from going in and occupying the ground. Now with reference to this question of principle, I find in looking over the Statutes of 1899. 62 and 63 Vic., chap., 58, an Act respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, that section 1 of this Act says :
The Canadian Pacific Railway Company, hereinafter called ' the company,' may construct, acquire and operate a railway from a point at or near the north terminus of its Stonewall branch, in the province of Manitoba thence northerly and north-easterly to a point on the west shore of Lake Winnipeg, between Gimll and Arnes; and also a railway from a point at or near Reston, or. the company's Souris branch, thence in a general westerly direction to a point in the Moose Mountain district, thence in a westerly and north-westerly direction to a point at or near Regina.
I find by this Act that the Canadian Pacific Railway have actually a charter to build this road to Gimli on the shores of Lake Winnipeg. I suppose the Minister of Railways and Canals was aware of the fact that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company had a charter, and when they came down to the House and asked for this charter for the Teulon branch, the Minister of Railways and Canals moved in committee an amendment, which was carried, and which was to this effect: That the company would not be allowed to exercise the powers granted under this charter they were applying for until they had carried out the conditions of this old charter, the conditions of this charter I have in my hand, and went to work and built this road into a place called Gimli so as to give the settlers in that portion of Manitoba railroad communication. Now in carrying out that very same principle we ask that the company shall not be allowed


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Mr. Speaker, the position which is taken now by the western members is more sound than the one that was taken the other day when they wanted to amend this Bill by adding a clause which would have the effect of forcing the construction of another branch of railway as the condition of the granting of this charter. Now they simply ask that this charter should not be granted at all on account of the Canadian Pacific Railway not having fulfilled their obligations in respect to another branch. When the question came up the other day, I had occasion to take part in the debate, simply because I desired to point out that the Northwest is not the only part of the country that is suffering from such a state of things. I think that the hop. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis), though looking at the question from a local point of view, has put his finger upon one of the great inconveniences in this country, that is, that we grant charters with too great facility to railway companies, and that when these companies are organized, we grant them facilities for building new branches without looking with sufficient care to what they have done in so far as their past obligations are concerned. As I pointed out the other day, a company, the name of which I have forgotten, received a charter twenty-five or thirty years ago for a line, and it began the building of that railway. The charter was for a railway from Montreal to Lake Temiscamingue through Laval, Terrebonne, Ottawa, as it was before the division of the county of Ottawa was made, and Pontiac. Afterwards they allowed their charter to
become null. Then a new charter was obtained from parliament. Then they entered into a lease with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and they finally sold their charter to the Canadian Pacific Railway without any provision being made for the completion of that branch. Of course, if I were to take the same position as is taken by the hon. members who have complained of the Canadian Pacific Railway, I would say that the Canadian Pacific Railway are entirely responsible for the neglect to build that road ; but, the fault rests with the directors of the old company, who sold their charter to the Canadian Pacific Railway without taking proper care to see that the rights of the people interested in the building of the railway should be protected. Therefore, the Canadian Pacific Railway became the owners of the charter without any obligation whatever to construct the line They simply waited for the proper time to build it. Now, I do not think it would be a matter of justice on my part to come here and ask that the Bill should not be granted for another branch of the same line until that branch, in which the settlers to whom I have referred to are interested, is completed.
I think each case should be judged on its own merits, but, at the same time, it emphasizes the fact that the government, who, after all, have complete control over legislation, private as well as public should look with more care into the charters that are asked for, either by new companies or by old companies, to extend their lines. The government should give more attention to the additional powers that are asked for by companies from time to time to increase their transportation facilities. It occurred to me the other day, that it was most improper to couple with the Bill then before the House, an outside question which had nothing to do with it. However, that may be, the government should adopt some means to insure that railway companies should be obliged to fulfil their obligations. We are sometimes told that the best way to force companies to carry out their obligations is to catch them when they come before parliament for subsidies, but when they ask for subsidies it is for a special railway, and if we then make objections because they have not built another branch,
| the reply is always ready : That we should i not object to subsidies being voted for this special line, but that we should reserve ! our objection until the company ask sub' sidies for the line which w,e complain has not been built. It is evident, however, that if a railway company refuses to build a branch, those interested will have a long time to wait before the company would ask for a subsidy for that branch. We all know that when the Canadian Pacific Railway wants to build a branch railway they find a way to ask for a subsidy, and they probably will get it if the railway is deemed necessary. The question now before the



House is another illustration of the evil which exists, not only in the North-west Territories and Manitoba, but in all the provinces in Canada. When a charter is once granted by parliament, the plea is set up afterwards that we have no right to object, but, it may happen frequently that the objection develops ten years or twenty-five years even after the charter has been granted. No charter should be granted to any new company, nor to any existing company, for the extension of their line, until we have valid reasons for granting the charter, and until we have evidence of the good faith of those who seek the charter, that they will build the road, and not hold that charter in order to prevent other parties from getting a charter over the same ground. Although I cannot support the motion of the hon. member (Mr. Scott), I do say that the government should study the question as to whether these charters should not be granted with a little more care. When once they are granted the government should take means to see, that the object of those charters is accomplished in due time and with satisfaction to the people. For my part, I would be glad if the government should take action in this direction, because in the counties of Labelle, Wright and Pontiac, settlers have gone in for the last ten or twenty years, and have undergone heavy sacrifices in opening up new land, cutting timber, and performing ail the arduous duties of pioneer life; yet, these settlers are to-day without any railway accommodation. That not only places the settlers in a bad position, but the whole province of Quebec is loosing revenue, as the settlers have to burn the very finest timber because of lack of means to send it to the market. After the pine, spruce and hemlock have gone, there remains the very finest maple and birch, which are the raw materials for valuable industries in the province of Quebec, but which we are now not able to forward to the manufacturing centres. There is a branch of the Canadian Pacific Railway extending 100 miles, but there it stops. Another company cannot apply for a charter because the Canadian Pacific Railway has the field occupied, and there is apparently no means of forcing them to build the line further. Although I must vote against this resolution, I repeat that I hope the time is not far distant when the government will study the question of taking more care in the granting of charters, and of seeing that the obligations held by the various railway companies under these charters are fulfilled.


Mr. A. W. PUTTEE (Winnipeg).: I have a good deal of sympathy with the object of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) who moved this amendment. I take it that he has done so, not because of any opposition to this charter being granted, but, as giving notice . on behalf of the representatives from the | North-west, that now and at any time when j Mr. BOURASSA.
the Canadian Pacific Railway comes here asking for something, these hon. gentlemen will insist that the North-west Central shall be built. That is a pretty extreme position to take, but I believe the facts justify it. For years and years a charter has been held for this line, and settlers have gone in ahead of the railway expecting that it would be extended, but in many cases they have become weary waiting, and have had to pack up and leave their farms deserted. We are, to some extent, responsible for this,
; because our immigration literature has always attracted the settlers to these parts where charters for railways have been granted. It does seem to me that in the future we should be honest in our immigration literature, and state that there is no chance of a railway being built in certain districts. I remember when this Bill first came before the committee, the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary), in whose constituency the proposed line is, very strongly urged that there was no necessity whatever for building a railway in that district, because there were no settlers there, there was no business there, and nothing for the railway to do until it turned around the north of the lake and came into competition with other lines which are now serving the country to the west. I believe the contention of the hon. gentleman was right. He urged that the Railway Committee should put a clause in the charter stating that the power granted should not be enforced until such time as the company had constructed the branch to Gimli. The committee accepted that clause, and I believe that already a construction gang has been put to work, and the rails are being laid. However, these gentlemen now come and ask us to insert another clause. I rather admire their energy in doing so. So far as it is a notice that hereafter all charters applied for will be resisted until such time as the company shows its intention to construct under existing charters, I am prepared to support it. There is a strong feeling in the west against giving charters, the intention of which is not to build lines, but to prevent other companies from building lines. There is certainly very good reason to believe that, to a very considerable extent, that is why this charter is being asked for. It is not that they really intend to build, but only to hamper other companies which are projecting lines.


Mr. FRANK OLIVER (Alberta).: I wish to take the opportunity of supporting this motion for the purpose of emphasizing the position which was taken a few days ago on the general question, that railroad companies should be compelled to fulfil the obligations already entered into by them before they are given further privileges. This is a principle susceptible of application from one end of the Dominin to the other, and not confined at all to the North-west. Many parts of the country are suffering
4421 MAY 6, 1901 4422	
from the failure to support this principle; but I think it is only fair to say .that as a matter of fact the North-west Territories has Suffered and is suffering more than any other part of the country, and that it is suffering more because of this particular North-west Central charter than because of any other charter. Now, I want to deal with a point which seems to be in the minds of many members of this House, namely, that the North-west is asking for something in this connection, and is in the debt of the Dominion of Canada for railroad construction. So far from the North-west being in the debt of the Dominion of Canada for the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the account is largely the other way. The length of Canadian Pacific Railway which benefits the North-west, extending from the Red river at Winnipeg to the foot of,the Rocky Mountains at Calgary, is about 850 miles. That is the only part of the line that cau be considered as actually tending to develop the North-west Territories. In aid of the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, 25,000,000 acres of North-west land were appropriated as a bonus. The line from the Red river to Galgary certainly did not cost more than $20,000 a mile, or a total of $17,000,000. It would not cost nearly that much if duplicated to-day ; but supposing that it did cost what it is said in the public returns to have cost, namely, $17,000,000, and reckoning the lands in the North-west Territories which were appropriated as a grant in aid of the construction of the whole line as valued at one dollar an acre, that leaves the Dominion of Canada in debt to the North-west Territories to the amount of $8,000,000 on account of the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the bonus thereto. Mr. JOHNSTON (Cape Breton). Where did the lands come from ? Mr. OLIVER. The lands came from the North-west Territories; they are in the North-west Territories. Mr. JOHNSTON (Cape Breton). Where did they come from before that ? Mr. OLIVER. They were always there; they never shifted. They certainly did not come from the maritime provinces. The great cost of the Canadian Pacific Railway, as every one knows, is in those parts of the line which traverse the province of Ontario and the province of British Columbia, not that part which traverses the North-west Territories or Manitoba. It is true, the productive, earning portion of the Canadian Pacific Railway is situated in Manitoba and the Territories; and our contention is that not only has our land paid for the road, but our labour keeps it running. That is surely not a charge against us as being in debt to the rest of the Dominion. As to the value of these lands, it is argued that they were worth nothing until the rail-139J [DOT]	way was built. But, I am given to understand that these lands were mortgaged'to the amount of $1.25, and the good cash was raised on them, before a mile of the railway ever reached the Territories. So that the lands were not only worth more than $25,000,000, but the money which they were worth was actually realized and used for the construction of the railway riot only through the North-west Territories, but in the province of Ontario and the province of British Columbia. It is true that a large amount of money has been paid to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company for the construction of its line for the development of the North-west Territories. That part of the line which lies betyveen the Red river and Lake Superior, some 450 miles, was built out of the [DOT] treasury of this Dominion, and was handed over as a free gift to the company. The building of that portion of the line cost this country between $18,000,000 and $20,000,000, and you say that Manitoba and the North-west are in debt to this Dominion because of that vast expenditure. Let me say to the House that if that road had been built, if that expenditure had been made, for the benefit of the people of Manitoba, that province would not to-day be mortgaging itself to the extent of $17,000,000 as the only means of getting fair rates for the transport of its produce over that particular stretch of country. I say that the province of Manitoba and the North-west Territories are not in the debt of this Dominion for the construction of that road. If it pleases Ontario, Quebec and the maritime provinces to spend $18,00(1.000 for the benefit of themselves, or for the benefit of a railway company, that is their business; but they have no right to charge it up to us, when that expenditure has been so far from achieving the result aimed at that the province of Manitoba has to incur such a huge additional liability to achieve that result. - In regard to this North-west Central Railway and the land grant, let me place the facts before the House. The attempt was made the other day to discredit our argument because we were not posted as to what had become of that land grant. I am in a position to-day, to inform the House. The land grant to the North-west Central Railway, at the rate of 6,400 acres per mile, was held for the company from the year 1S86, until the 20tli of February. 1900. As a matter of fact, over 700,000 acres of North-west lands were scheduled to the company during that time, although during the greater part of that time not a mile of the railroad was completed, and at the longest limit only 50 miles have been completed. It is only fair to the present government to say that the land which was actually earned by the building of the 50 miles was scheduled to the company by order in council of the 20tli of February. 1900, and that the rest of the land grant has

lapsed. That is something which the country should know, and which the government should be given credit for. But our point remains the same, this vast area of land was tied up from settlement for fifteen years, for the benefit of this particular railway company-this land that was valuable enough to have built the railway itself, which was not built, not because of any lack of proper inducement towards building it, but for the sole purpose of perpetuating railway monopoly in the Northwest Territories.
It is well that the House and the country should understand that the conditions are peculiar with regard to this North-west Central charter, and it is because of these peculiar conditions that we have dared to make the strong stand we have made and support the strong motion we are supporting in connection with that railway. We desire to use this particular instance, which is one of the most extreme, for the purpose of establishing the general principle, that it is not well for this country to allow speculation in railway charters, whether by large companies or small ones, in one part of the country or another. The interest of the country demands that wherever a company is granted a charter, that company shall be compelled to use the charter which it has received ; and the fact that this policy has not been acted up to in the past has been one of the principal reasons for the disappointment throughout the whole of this Dominion in the lack of progress of the Northwest Territories during past years. But a new day is dawning in the Territories, new ideas are prevailing, and we hope that this House will inaugurate a new policy witli regard to railway development, so that the twenty years we are now entering upon will not be twenty years of disappointment such as those we have passed through.
Amendment negatived ; Bill read the third time, and passed.



CANADIAN NURSES' ASSOCIATION.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 88) to incorporate the Canadian Nurses' Association. -Mr. Clarke.
Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.: As far as my judgment goes, there does not appear to me to be any necessity for this Bill, nor is it in the public interest that we should pass it, more especially with the conditions which it contains. It seems to me always a mistake to do, as I am afraid this will accomplish, create a close corporation. I think that the parties who are asking for this Act, representing some of the large hospitals in the city, are going to give a standing to nurses wrlio graduate from those institutions in preference to others who will graduate from institutions quite as well qualified to give the training desired. If the parties de siring this legislation would give the same Mr. OLIVER.
privilege to all hospitals throughout the country, which are considered worthy of Dominion and provincial grants and which have passed inspection, and are as well qualified to give training to nurses as the larger institutions, the objection to it would be removed. It is all very well for the promoters to say that it is not their intention to create a close corporation or a privileged class, but if such be the case, then why not amend the Bill, and put the hospitals in the smaller towns or cities on the same footing as the larger institutions.


Mr. CLARKE.: I am sorry that the hon. gentleman did not, at an earlier stage, intimate the objections he has now made. The Bill has been again and again before the committee, but, at the suggestion of some hon. gentlemen, was held over. However, in its present shape, it passed -unanimously through the committee. If I understand the meaning of the English language, there is nothing in the Bill to justify the assertion that the intention is to establish a close corporation. Certainly nothing could be further from the desire or intention of the ladies whose names appear as incorporators than the forming of a close corporation. And if the hon. gentleman who has just spoken will recall the procedure of last year, he will acknowledge that the Bill of last year was withdrawn because it was thought that it might be said respecting it that those who were named as incorporators, coming from one city, intended, possibly, to make a close corporation under the provisions which they sought to have enacted into law. When that was pointed out to the hon. member for St. Antoine division, Montreal, (Mr. Roddick) he withdrew the Bill at once. This Bill having the same object in view has been reintroduced. The names in the list of incorporators, I think, is the best possible proof and guarantee that we could give to this committee and to the public that only the interests of the nursing profession are intended to be promoted. I need not read the list of names. It includes ladies who have been connected with the profession of nursing in the leading hospitals of this country from Vancouver to Charlottetown. I can say for the ladies from Toronto, whose names appear on this list, that they stand in the very front rank of the profession. Miss Snively has been lady superintendent of the Toronto General Hospital for many years ; she has been president of the American Nurses' Association, and is at present one of the executive of the International Nurses' Association. Miss Brent was for years, if I am correctly informed, the superintendent of the Grace Hospital, the second largest hospital in Toronto, and is at present in charge of the Sick Children's Hospital. Miss Jean Smedley is a graduate of Victoria Hospital in Montreal, who has taken her diploma in the Johns Hopkins and

Sick Children's Hospitals, and. is now the superintendent of the Western Hospital. X mention these facts, because I am familiar with the record of these ladies as nurses, and I know that they stand at the very head of the profession of nursing in the city of Toronto. They have nothing to gain by having their names placed upon the list of incorporators ; it will mean a great deal of work and a great deal of worry, and a great deal of responsibility, so far as they are concerned. The Bill is promoted by those who are interested in the welfare of nurses and the maintenance of a high standard for the profession. The main desire is to put the nursing profession on a higher level ; the legislation asked for is not designed to establish a close corporation, it is purely benevolent; it conflicts with no existing interests ; it disturbs no existing rights or privileges ; it impairs no certificates past, present or future. The Bill does not take away from any persons who are qualified, but who do not join the association any rights or privileges which they now enjoy. It does not impair the validity of the certificates of which they have become possessed. It is purely a question of standing, and the desire to place before the nursing profession in Canada a high ideal and

	*


Robert Franklin Sutherland: , My hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) says that there is no intention of establishing a close corporation. Now, nobody said anything against the character of the incorporators or against this legislation, so long as it secures equal rights to all. My hon. friend says he has no intention of depriving any person of any benefit that may arise "from having a certificate of qualification while remaining outside of this association. Why not put that in the Bill ? That is all I ask.


Mr.   CLARICE@: I do not understand the meaning of what the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) says.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The hon. gentleman must understand that I said nothing against the incorporators, nor against the nurses being incorporated as an association. If it is to their benefit to be incorporated, I heartily support the proposition. But what I do object to in this Bill-and parliament thought it well to have the Bill withdrawn last year for the same reason


Edward Frederick Clarke: No, I have given the reason. It was objected to because those who asked for it came from one city.
getting special benefit by this legislation over others who are properly qualified.


Mr.   CLARICE@: What is there in the Bill that gives the members of this association any privileges ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I will tell the hon. gentleman. The Bill provides that only nurses who have graduated from a hospital having forty beds or over shall be entitled to be members.


Mr.   CLARICE@: I feel that I am almost entitled to ask the hon. gentleman if he has read the Bill. Objection was taken in the committee to that provision in the Bill, and it was stricken out, and it was left to the incorporators to make by-laws and rules and regulations to say who should be members.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I may inform the hon. gentleman that I have read the Bill. I am not interested in this matter any more than is my hon. friend (Mr. Clarke). I am sure that the desire of both of us is to advance the interests of the nursing profession. I think I can show the hon. gentleman that he is completely wrong with regard to his amendment, and if he can show the contrary, I shall have nothing more te say. It is true that the clause was struck out in committee, as stated by the hon. gentleman, but the amendment that was made makes the case twenty times worse so far as parliament is concerned. Formerly it was provided that those were eligible who graduated from hospitals with forty beds or over ; but now those who are incorporated are allowed to say who are to have the privileges of this association.


Mr.   CLARICE@: Certainly.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: That means that you are passing an Act affecting a very large number of people in this country, and to these few incorporators, or a majority of them is given the power to say who are to become members of this association. I ask the hon. gentleman and this committee if that is the kind of legislation we ought to pass affecting a large and respectable and useful class of people in this country ? Would we pass that with regard to any other class of people ? My suggestion is that we should give the same privileges to all who are properly qualified, and, if tlie hon. gentleman desires the same, we ought to be able to settle this question in a moment.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: And it was feared by some that those in the association would make by-laws and regulations under this legislation which would place them in a better position than those in other associations. The same principle is involved here. Now, the hon. gentleman has stated that the incorporators have no intention of


Mr. FRASER.: I was before the committee the first time this Bill came up, but when it came up the second time, unfortunately, I was obliged to be in the Public Accounts Conjmittee. I wish to emphasize the remarks of the hon. member for North Oxford (Hon. Mr. Sutherland). My contention before the committee was that the

nurses from any institution tliat had a provincial charter should come under the operation of this Act. My hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell) will bear me out when I refer particularly to the hospital in our own town. I think I can safely say that the institution built by the citizens of New Glasgow has no superior in the lower provinces-I doubt if it has a superior anywhere. Yet what is the purpose of this Act ? It is expected that a certificate from this association possessing a Dominion charter will be worth more all over the country than a certificate from a smaller one. It would enable a member of this association to say: I have a certificate from an association with a Dominion charter, and therefore my certificate is worth more than one that comes from an institution like that at New Glasgow, or any of the smaller towns. That is what I object to.
Now, I did not want to interfere with section 5 on that occasion, but I did desire, if we specified the institutions that were to come under the operations of this Act, that such an institution as that of New Glasgow should not be prevented from sending a nurse there ; and the moment she came she could become a member of that institution. If the purpose be, as the hon. member for Oxford (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) said, to raise the standard, then, the only way you can raise the standard is to recognize all those who are honestly trying to do their best to perfect themselves in the profession. If, for example, this association were to be something like a post-graduate course at which a nurse could learn more than she did before, that would be all right. But, do not put it into their power to say. as they naturally would say in the great cities of Toronto, Montreal, Halifax or Charlottetown. who shall come in and who shall not come in. Suppose these benevolent ladies of whom the member for Toronto speaks should die, and others of less fine fibre should take their places, they would then shut out all the smaller nurses in order that the nurses of the larger institutions should have positions. I would agree with the hon. member for Toronto that the Bill should be sent back to the committee, and be so framed that an opportunity would be given to all who are so entitled, to become members of this association. It would be better for the association itself, and for every institution in the various provinces.


Mr. BELL (Pictou).: I have pleasure in speaking a few words in support of what has been said by my hon. friend from the county of Guysborough (Mr. Fraser). I seconded a motion to bring the Bill before the committee, but, at an earlier stage, 1 opposed that Bill before the committee, on the grounds, I think, very much the same as those taken by the hon. member for Oxford. that is to say, that two clauses fixing the qualification required by a nurse to be-Mr. FRASER
come a member of this association were objectionable. The first is clause 5. That fixes the qualification as belonging to nurses who graduate from hospitals with not less than forty beds. And again, in subsection 4 of that section, the qualification for another grade or class of nurses was fixed as having graduated from hospitals containing not less than twenty-five beds. To those two points I objected strongly, on the ground that there were, to my own knowledge, hospitals in Canada doing good service and turning out thoroughly qualified nurses, which could not comply with these conditions. Now, these points have been amended, in the Standing Committee these clauses have been struck out; and the objection which now remains against the Bill is to be found entirely, I think, in section 4, in which the corporators, that is, those whose names are in tlie first clause of the Bill, would have it in their power to place restrictions, or to fix qualifications which would exclude all nurses except those graduating from the very largest Institutions. I think the House will be prepared to admit that it is proper and right that nurses who receive an Act of incorporation should be placed in a position to associate together and to act, as do all other bodies, for their own mutual interest. particularly if the object be as stated here, to raise the standard of nurses. That is a matter in which we are all interested. Those who are acquainted with the care of the sick recognize that in many cases a good nurse is equally as necessary as a good physician, if not more so. Therefore, it is entirely to the interest of Canada that this Bill should pass, if the result will be to raise the standard of nurses, either in requiring a more lengthy and ex-' haustive course of education, or in excluding from the ranks of the profession undesirable persons. I think there should be no difficulty whatever in that respect, and I would imagine the hon. member for Oxford would see his way clear, perhaps, to agreeing with the suggestion to allow this Bill to go through committee, and be amended when we reach section 4, so as to guard against the possibility of legalizing any Bill that would exclude from the ranks of the nurses' profession the graduates of the smaller hospitals. It has been argued, I think, by some that the nurses graduating from the larger hospitals are better nurses.
I do not think that is a correct idea. It is unquestionable that smaller institutions,, with a thoroughly competent and enthusiastic superintendent, will turn out quite as good nurses as the larger ones, possibly even better. Take, for example, the Aberdeen hospital of New Glasgow, to which the hon. member for Guysborough made reference. There is an institution which has some seventeen beds, it is a hospital in which there is very rarely a vacant bed. It is situated in the midst of a mining district. and it draws its patients from all

parts of Nora Scotia. You will find in that hospital, in the course of a year, examples of almost every disease, of almost every injury, of almost every surgical operation to which the human frame is subject. The nurses from the New Glasgow hospital, in addition to the proper hospital training they receive, do a large amount of home nursing. They go out on certain conditions and nurse in the houses of the people in the neighbourhood, and thereby acquire a special facility for rendering that service which, perhaps, wotild not be so well acquired by nurses whose whole training had been in a hospital. They go to the homes of the people, and there they practice out-door nursing and derive very valuable experience. Now, on the whole, it seems to me, it is very desirable that we should pass this Bill. The only point in question is this, that the committee should see that it may not be pos. sible for the corporators mentioned in this Bill-I do not anticipate that they will be disposed to do so-to constitute a close corporation, or to shut out from the ranks of the profession those most desirable nurses who graduate from the smaller institutions.


Mr. McCREARY.: This Bill, it seems to me, should not have been brought down at so late a period in the session. We have in Manitoba and the North-west, many hospitals of a private nature. Some of them have existed for years. Take the hospital at St. Boniface, under the direct or indirect charge of the Roman Catholic Church, and, I suppose, some of the same nature which are under the direction of the Sisters of Mercy throughout Canada. I am acquainted with some of them in the west, and I know the great benefit that they are conferring on the people. Not only as far as Edmonton and the settled portion of the Territories, but even away beyond that district towards Hudson Bay, these women have gone out as nurses. I have some experience in connection with these nurses myself in the St. Boniface hospital, and with the Roman Catholic institution at Winnipeg. When once a smallpox epidemic broke out in the city of Winnipeg, I was unable to procure trained nurses from the general hospital at Winnipeg, and X found these ladies, the Sisters, gave their services at a small fee, and undertook to go in among those small-pox patients and nurse them through. I have always felt a great deal of sympathy for those ladies who undertook that task, and I am sure that before any Act is passed which would exclude them from the benefits of this association, such ladies as those nurses, those sisters in those Roman Catho lie institutions, they should at least be consulted. because I believe they are as efficient as any trained nurses we have. There are also a number of small hospitals recently started in Manitoba and the North-west, such as those at Medicine Hat, Lethbridge. Calgary. Morden and other places, that
would not come under this Act, and these institutions could not get a certificate if they were required to have practiced in a hospital containing forty beds. This is a matter that ought to be referred back, and all the hospitals and institutions througnout the Dominion of Canada interested in the measure should be apprised of what its effect is likely to be. I do not wish to go into the details of the Bill, because I have not studied them sufficiently to be in a position to discuss them at the present time, but, it will not be able to pass at this late date in the session, and I think the course which I have suggested should be pursued.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies).: When the Bill was in committee, I was at a loss to understand what the meaning of clause 5 was. It divided the membership of the association into five classes, active, associate, ordinary, honorary, and corresponding members, but it did not designate what would be the functions or the powers of these different classes of members, what they should do at a meeting of the association, whether they should vote or not. or who should vote and who should not. When the objection was raised in the committee as to qualifications which the Bill required from those who were to be active members and those who were to be ordinary members, I pointed this out to the committee and the committee thought the best plan was to strike out the whole clause and leave to the corporators the power to determine who might become members of the association. It was pointed out at that time that there was an objection to that, because the corporators might act unjustly and exclude a class of nurses that it wras not desirable should be excluded. I think the hon. promoter of the Bill will agree that the general sense of the House seems to be in favour of the abolition of a restriction such as this, which was introduced in the Bill in the first instance, and that if it is desirable to introduce a restriction that it should be very much wider than that designated in the 5th clause. I would submit to my hon. friend whether it would not be better to strike out the 5th clause altogether and insert a clause like this, not dividing the members into classes.


Mr. MONK.: That clause has been struck out.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I know it was in the committee, but I propose this in place of it:
All certificated nurses actively engaged in professional work, who have graduated an'd hold certificates from incorporated hospitals which give not less than two full years' training in the hospital, shall be eligible as members of the association. [DOT]
That would meet the objection taken by the hon. gentleman behind me and it w'ould, taken in conjunction with the next follow-

mg section, ensure tliat only competent persons could become members, because, as the bon. gentleman sees, tbe following section provides for an advisory board for tbe government of tbe association, to be elected at each annual meeting, and it goes on to provide that tbe advisory board shall require candidates for membership to submit to an examination. That being so, to meet tbe requirements, in tbe first place, to be eligible for membership, if this section is adopted, a person should be a certificated nurse, to be a graduate from a certificated hospital, giving not less than two years training, and secondly, every person should pass an examination.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: What is the meaning of the expression ' incorporated hospital ' ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I do not know what the meaning of the draughtsmen who put these words into the Bill was. I presume it would mean any hospital incorporated under provincial charter, or any other charter.


Robert Laird Borden: In the province of Nova Scotia we have a hospital which would hardly be called an incorporated hospital. It is under the control of the government, and it is a most efficient hospital, but it would not come within the meaning of these words.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It might be desirable to introduce some word besides the word * incorporated,' and if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) would suggest a word, I would be very glad to embody it in my suggested amendment. The amendment I have submitted is to meet the adverse criticism that the Bill, as drafted and as amended, might result in excluding a large; class of nurses, who it is desirable, should be eligible, and it seems to me that this class of nurses will be eligible, if they submit to the advisory board to do anything that is required.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It seems to me that it would be a great pity if we did not deal with this Bill immediately. Everybody seems to agree that incorporation is absolutely necessary.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: No.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What are its disadvantages ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Perhaps we will know better when the Bill comes to be worked out.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is a disadvantage to incorporate an association such as this ? I heard my hon. friend (Mr. Sutherland) say that. There are no exclusive privileges granted by the Bill. If hon. gentlemen will look through the Bill they will find that the only privilege actually granted to the members of the association is that mentioned In section 8 :


Sir LOUIS DAVIES.: The members of the association shall have the right to designate themselves as such by using after their names the letters ' M.C.N.A.,' or any other title that the association may adopt.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) think that is no privilege or advantage ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: On the contrary, it is an advantage, but this incorporation does not present the objectionable features that many such Bills do which prevent those who are not members of the association from carrying on their profession, as, for instance, in the case of doctors. A person may continue to act as a nurse, and I have no doubt will continue to act, particularly in the case mentioned by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary), of the Catholic nuns whose lives are devoted entirely to nursing and who will not, I know, from their circumstances, seek this certification.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: It appears to me that there is only one justification for this legislation, and it is that it would be an advantage to the nurses who are members of the association. If that is so, those who cannot become members of the association must be discriminated against, and there will be a reflection cast upon all those faithful nurses because they are not members of the association.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: What construction does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) give to the cabilistic letters ' M.C.N.A.' ? This Bill does not appear to designate the meaning of these letters.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Their meaning appears evident. Members of the Canadian Nurses' Association. I do not think it requires any great intelligence to see that.


William Forsythe McCreary: Cannot my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) see that it will be a great advantage to these nurses and a disadvantage to other nurses who do not belong to the association? Suppose that a municipal body, or a local government passed an ordinance, or an Act, that no nurse should be engaged in cases of contagious disease unless she were a member of the Canadian Order of Nurses ; that would debar all the nurses that do not belong to the association, and it would enable them to hold me up if I wanted to secure a nurse to take charge of a smallpox case or any other case. If I did not pay an exorbitant fee, I would not be able to secure a nurse at all. I would not be able to get one of these excellent nurses who are not members of this order to do the work.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Let me tell my hon. friend (Mr. McCreary), in the first place, that I do not think it probable that any municipality will adopt such a rule as that which he indicates. In the next place, as regards the Catholic nurses, the nuns, I do not imagine that there is a single one who will seek to

obtain the privileges mentioned in this Bill- not one. Does my hon. friend think they will seek these privileges ? sir. McCreary, no.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Certainly they will not, because this is a Bill which refers particularly to lay nurses. They have to seek a qualification and under this proposed amendment there would be very few debarred fom obtaining it. The point I wish to make is suggested by the remarks of the Minister of Marine and the leader of the opposition, and it is this :	Is it not
better for us to adopt the amendment and leave the association itself to judge of the qualifications necessary ? We are sure to make some mistake and to omit some people if by the statute we fix the qualifications. Take the ease of the hospital in Halifax, which is not incorporated, but which has nurses pre-eminently qualified. This is an association composed of specialists, because nurses are specialists, and we might, as is done generally in such cases, allow them to fix the qualifications. They can change these qualifications without returning to parliament to suit the necessities of the times. I believe it would be better to permit the association to frame these qualifications as is done in the cas'e of clubs and of most associations of that kind incorporated by Act of parliament.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: The difficulty raised by the leader of the opposition can be easily met. With the exception mentioned by the hon. member (Mr. Monk), that is, of sisters wh'o I think would not want to become members of this association; the only other hospitals would be incorporated hospitals or hospitals under the control of the government, and the words of the amendment could be changed to suit that.


Robert Laird Borden: Or under the control of a municipality.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Yes.
Mr. MONK, We have many private hospitals in Montreal which are not incorporated.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Would the hon. the Minister of Marine be kind enough to again state what Ills amendment is ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The suggestion was made that that portion of section 5 which was stricken out altogether and which consists of subsections 5 and 0 should remain, and that there should be only one other class of membership :
The members of the association shall consist of active, honorary and corresponding members. All certificated nurses, &c., actively engaged in professional work, who have graduated and hold certificates from incorporated hospitals, or hospitals under the direct control of any provincial government, or any municipal authority, which
give no less than two full years' training in the hospital, shall be eligible as active members of the association.
As the sense of the House is pretty well understood and as there is no notice given of any amendment, I think it would be well if this Bill were referred back to the Private Bills Committee where it can be more intelligently amended than across the floor of the House.


Mr. GILMOUR.: I hope the suggestion of the Minister of Marine will be adopted. This is an important Bill, from the fact that it discriminates against many nurses, and that it will give to the nurses who may belong to the Canadian Nurses Association, a very great advantage. In clause 5 you restrict the hospital from which a nurse may be graduated to an hospital with not less than twenty-five beds.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That is struck out.


James Gilmour: So it ought to be.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: But the amendment is worse.


James Gilmour: Clause 4 is just as objectionable, in that it gives to these persons who may be members of the association the power to determine the qualifications for membership. We should first of all know that the persons named in the Bill have themselves the qualifications to know what a nurse should be.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


James Gilmour: I approve of the suggestion that this Bill should be referred back to the committee so that it may receive more consideration than it evidently has received. The Bill will serve a very good purpose if it is properly framed, but on the other hand it is likely to have a bad effect if drawn up on wrong principles.


Edward Frederick Clarke: In view of the suggestion made by the Minister of Marine, and in view of the objections which have been taken by hon. gentlemen on the other side, I shall' of course bow to their wish and ask that the committee rise with a view to the Bill being referred back to the Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills. I would like to point out the position we find ourselves in. I need not say that I do not know enough of the profession of medicine or of nursing to be able to frame this Bill myself, hut those who did frame it endeavoured to provide who were eligible to be active and who were eligible to be ordinary members. They thought that in order to qualify to be an active member of the association, a nurse should be graduated from an hospital containing at least forty beds, and that an ordinary member should be graduated from an hospital containing at least twenty-five beds. The committee struck out that clause altogether, and under clause 4 they gave power to the

association to determine the qualifications for membership. There must be some power given to the incorporators to get the association properly inaugurated; they must be given some reasonable latitude, 'if the House has no confidence in the ability and good faith of those ladies who are named as incorporators, the best thing to do would be to move that the committee rise and thus kill the Bill. But believing that hon. gentlemen have made the suggestions in good faith, I think that in the interests of the Bill I should adopt their views for the present and ask that the committee report progress, so that the Bill may be referred back to the Committee on Private Bills.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps it might meet the objections raised if clause 4 were amended by providing that the bylaws fixing the qualifications for membership should be subject to the approval of the Governor General in Council.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: That was suggested and the objection was taken that we were relegating to the Governor in Council what we should define ourselves.


Robert Laird Borden: You are not relegating it to the Governor in Council, you are relegating it to the members of the association. The objection to giving them that power without control is, that they might make regulations which would not be fair to the different hospitals all over Canada. It occurred to me that if the regulations were controlled by the Governor in Council there would be no reason for supposing that any injustice would be done.


William Forsythe McCreary: In my opinion the proper course would be for the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) to send, during the recess, a copy of the Bill to all members of parliament so as to allow them to consult the hospitals in their constituencies. It is sought to rush this Bill through the House at a moment's notice and to form a close corporation without the hospitals and nurses, especially in the west, knowing anything about it. I shall object to this Bill passing until those in the west -who are interested, shall be made aware of its provisions.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I submit with the greatest possible respect, that if the hospitals in the west have not- been notified, the hon. gentleman (Mr. McCreary) is not blameless himself. I took the' trouble to send the Bill to the hospitals in my city, and other hon. gentlemen on this side have sent copies elsewhere. The Bill was introduced on the 22nd of March, and it was allowed to stand again and again. On three occasions days were fixed for the Bill to come before the Private Bills Committee. but its consideration was deferred. As some hon. gentlemen opposite have asked that the Bill be referred back to the


Edward Frederick Clarke: Private Bills Committee, I have no objection to that course being taken.


Mr. YROOMAN.: Is it the intention of this Bill that the members of this association shall be confined to those who are in Canadian hospitals ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: No.
Progress reported, and Bill referred back to the Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills for further consideration.



LEASE OF RAILAWYS BY MANITOBA.

[Stage Direction]
House proceeded to further consideration of the proposed motion of Mr. Mclsaac, that the House go into committee on Bill (No. 103) relating to an agreement between the government of Manitoba and the Canadian Northern Railway Company respecting certain railways.
Arthur W. Puttee: Mr. Speaker, at the last session of the House, when this order of business expired, I was speaking to an amendment to the motion now on the Order paper, as follows :
That all the words after ' that ' be struck out and the following substituted therefor : ' It is the opinion of this House that the Bill be not passed until the subject of the proposed legislation has been submitted by direct reference to the electors of Manitoba in order that their wish in respect to the same may be ascertained.'
I went briefly over the history of what is now known as the Manitoba deal, outlining the liabilities wbicb the province bad assumed and the risks it ran, and the position of tbe Canadian Northern Railway Company in reference to this deal. I did so because 1 wanted to give tbe House some information regarding tbe public sentiment In the province of Manitoba in respect to this Bill.
I did so also because during the time the matter was pending before tlie local legislature, tbe provincial premier and tbe members of tbe local government promised time and again to all parties that all other matters should be dealt with and provided for before tbe contracts went through the legislature ; and they kept on telling them so until as a matter of fact tbe contracts wrent through the legislature without any vital amendments being made. I propose, without trespassing on tbe time of tbe House any more than is necessary, to give some information regarding public sentiment on this question in tlie city of Winnipeg and tlie province of Manitoba, because the motion which I put on the paper is rather a novel one. At tlie same time, looking at the Bills as they stand to-day, it seems to me that the most feasible and sensible plan that can possibly be proposed is that before this parliament gives these Bills its sanction. the contracts shall be referred to the people of Manitoba themselves by a direct reference, in order that they may express their opinion either for or against them.

I think that is necessary, because the proposition is a gigantic one for so small a province. Nothing that has been done there hitherto can have the influence on the future of that province that this bargain will have. I am going to refer in the first place to the representations and resolutions of public bodies in Winnipeg. I may say that I have never known such unanimity of opinion in the city of Winnipeg on any question as there is in opposition to these contracts. To prove that, I am going to refer to the action of the city council itself, to public meetings that have been held in the city, to the action of the Board of Trade, the Trade and Labour Council and the Labour party of Winnipeg, and to the business publication, the Winnipeg Commercial. All these agree in asking that more time be allowed to the people of the province to consider the proposition contained in these contracts. The city council is not in the habit of taking up matters that are before the local legislature ; but it was practically forced to take up this matter, because in the near future it expects to offer for sale about $750,000 worth of bonds. Just a week after these contracts were put through the Manitoba legislature, the municipality of Westbourne offered its bonds to the First National Bank of Chicago, one of the largest handlers of such securities on this continent; but the bank replied to the agent who offered the bonds, that it did not care even to make an offer for them on account of the province proposing to involve itself in such tremendous liabilities. The controller of the city of Winnipeg gave it as his opinion to the Finance Committee that if these Bills became law, they would seriously interfere with the sale of the city's bonds and would have a very serious effect on their price ; and the Finance Committee asked the city council to pass a resolution, which I will read to the House :
Your committee have considered the proposed agreement between the provincial government and the Canadian Northern Railway Company. They feel that the action of the government in taking the people into their confidence is worthy of all praise, and could only have been done with a view, not of making useless discussion, but of profiting from suggestions that might be made.
It will have been observed that many prominent citizens who have approved of the deal, have only done so on the assumption that the interests of the province have been safeguarded at all points, while the adverse comments of our shrewdest business men, irrespective of party, who have carefully gone into the matter, make it apparent that the consensus of opinion is that the liabilities to be assumed are too great for the resources of the province.
It is not necessary here to recapitulate the many objectionable features' of the agreement, as they have already been gone into, suffice it to say that the main features are excessive capitalization of the Northern Pacific lines, too great a bonded guarantee,. a liability of $600,000 per annum, with no recourse against the
company in case of default, and apparently no penalty clauses.
It is almost certain that as soon as the new road is in a position to compete for freight, the Canadian Pacific Railway would, in selfdefence, initiate a rate war, which would mean that the province would have immediately to meet the fixed charges, with but one result-
' ruin '!
Therefore, in the interests of the city of Winnipeg, whose welfare is inseparable from that of the province, we would strongly and respectfully urge the government to either withdraw the present agreement or to so amend it as to meet the vital objections that have been urged against it.
This resolution was carried in the city council of Winnipeg, and it expresses what is practically the sentiment of all the opposition that has been brought against these Bills. The Winnipeg Board of Trade, which is a very large body, took, of course, a great interest'in this contract. They held special meetings and invited the premier of the province to address these meetings, which he did. They appointed some committees to consider ail the matters involved and to make suggestions to the local government, which suggestions the local government had invited, and then, finding that they really could get no satisfaction, they passed this resolution :
Resolved, that this board disapproves of the contracts and acts affecting the Northern Paclflc 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 this session of the legislature, but that ample time should be given the country to study fully the whole railway situation.
It was then common knowledge that several propositions had been made to the Manitoba government of a similar nature to the one finally accepted, and the board of trade considered that the people had not had sufficient time to thoroughly look into the various proposals. But, after the fullest consideration that could be given the whole matter, it became evident that the government had not made a wise selection, and that the proposition they had accepted was given the preference, for some reason or other, without regard to the resources of the province and the obligations incurred. The hoard of trade, therefore, asked that the matter should be suspended until the consensus of opinion of the people was obtained. They considered that, in a matter so vitally concerning everybody in the province, the local legislature had not shown fairness or discretion of a legitimate regard for the opinion of the people, in taking up this railway proposition and hurrying it through all its stages, and then presenting it to the Dominion parliament at the very

last moment, and attempting to hurry it through that body. It is not often that you find all the public bodies and organizations of a large city agreeing on a matter of this kind, in which, necessarily, party politics must be to a considerable extent involved, as these bodies have agreed together in the city of Winnipeg. The next resolution was one passed unanimously by the Labour party of that city. They condemned the contract as hasty and unwise. They stated :
That the Winnipeg labour party, after two weeks' further consideration of the railway proposals of the provincial government, finds no reason to recede from the position taken by the party at a meeting on February 20th, when a resolution condemning the scheme was passed. That having examined the explanations offered by the government, both inside and outside the House, such examination leaves our objections substantially as before.
And whereas, we believing as we do that ownership is essential to any real control, finding this principle, both for the present and future, eliminated from the contracts except under the most onerous conditions, which secure every advantage and all increment in value to the Canadian Northern, we believe it would be an abandonment of our principles if we failed In offering our strenuous opposition to the proposals.
We are further confirmed in our distrust of the government by the indecent and unnecessary haste with which a matter of such magnitude has been hurried through every stage in the legislature, and hereby pledge ourselves to use our utmost endeavours to secure disallowance, by appealing to the Lieutenant Governor to withhold his assent until such time as the will of the people has been ascertained beyond doubt, and failing that, to endeavour to secure disallowance by the Dominion parliament.
And ns late as last week, this same body passed a further resolution sustaining its previous action :
Whereas, in the opinion of this party, public sentiment in Manitoba, irrespective of party politics, is decidedly averse to the ratification of the Manitoba government's contracts with the Northern Pacific and Canadian Northern railways. And whereas, repeated appeals from representative bodies of all classes of citizens and parties to have the matter submitted to the people have been ineffectual; be it resolved, that we appeal to the Dominion parliament to withhold its sanction to the contracts until they have been endorsed by the electorate of the province.
The Trade and Labour Council of the city took up the matter at an early stage- and this body I consider one of the most important in Winnipeg, for it is made up of delegates from other bodies, representing practically all the organized mechanics in the city. This body dealt specially with the contract, in view of the argument made in its favour, both in Ottawa and Winnipeg, that it involved the principle of government ownership, which was one of the planks in the platform of the party now in power in Manitoba during the last election. But that plea, of course, has not met with any Mr. PUTTEE.
credence in the city of Winnipeg, although I have been asked several times why I should oppose this measure, seeing that 1 am in favour of the government ownership and operation of railways. The Winnipeg Trade and Labour Council dealt with the question as follows :
Whereas, section No. 6 of the platform of principle? adopted by the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, and concurred in by this council, is as follows :-
' Public ownership of all franchises, such as railways,' &c.
And whereas, by an Act of the provincial legislature of Manitoba it is proposed to offer inducements to a private corporation to build and operate further railways in Manitoba, such inducements being in the form of the guaranteeing of interest and other pecuniary obligations of a very extensive character.
And whereas, such Act or Acts of the legislature of Manitoba dees not provide for or recognize the principle of government ownership ;
And whereas, the declared principle of this council is as set forth in the said 6th section of the platform of principles adopted by the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada;
Therefore, be it resolved that this council petition the member for Winnipeg to oppose to his utmost extent the measure now before the parliament of Canada, which proposes to confirm the Acts of the Manitoba legislature which have reference to agreements between the Manitoba government and the Canadian Northern Railway Company.
Then follows a list of the members of parliament to whom they sent this resolution.
But one of the most striking expressions of opinion that was ever given in the city, was given by an immense mass meeting at which there were present the three members of the local legislature. When speaking of public opinion in Winnipeg, I think it well to point out that for the provincial elections, the city is divided into three divisions, and that each division returned at the last election a supporter of the present Manitoba government. But, notwithstanding that fact, and notwithstanding the fact that these three members were present, this large meeting passed the following resolution, on a vote of five to one :
Whereas, at a mass meeting of the citizens of the city of Winnipeg, held in Selkirk hall on Saturday, the 23rd day of February last, a resolution was almost unanimously passed protesting against the carrying out of the proposed contracts between the government of Manitoba and the Northern Pacific Railway Company and the Canadian Northern Railway Company;
And whereas, the said contracts have also been condemned by the board of trade of Winnipeg by a vote of 36 to 12, and also by mass meetings held at various points in the province and also by the city council of the city of Winnipeg ;
And whereas, in spite of such protests and without sufficient change, the said contracts have been ratified by the legislature of Manitoba ;
And whereas, in order to carry Into effect the provisions of the said contract, It is necessary

that confirmatory legislation be obtained from the parliament of Canada ;
And whereas, an application is being made to the parliament of Canada for such legislation as aforesaid ;
And whereas, it is the opinion of this mass meeting assembled in the Winnipeg theatre this 15th day of March, that the said contracts are not in the interests of the province of Manitoba, inasmuch as the said contracts do not secure the building of any new additional railroads, and there is no positive assurance that they will bring about any reduction of rates, and inasmuch as they involve the province of Manitoba in a liability which, if called upon to pay, would seriously embarrass the financial position of the province; and that the contracts should not be ratified unless and until the electors of the province of Manitoba have had an opportunity of signifying their wishes at the polls with reference to the same ;
It is therefore resolved :
1.	That the Dominion government and the Dominion parliament be memorialized, asking them .to refuse to pass the proposed legislation ratifying the said contracts until the people of Manitoba have pronounced upon the said contracts as aforesaid ;
2.	It is recommended that delegations he sent to Ottawa to urge upon the Dominion parliament to accede to the wishes of the people of Manitoba, and to withhold their consent to the said bargains as aforesaid.
And there are further sections dealing with the delegation. The outcome of this meeting was the appointment of a citizens' committee, a large and representative committee, to keep track of the progress of this Bill, both in the province and at Ottawa. And I have here a telegram that was read before the Railway Committee, which I wish to have put along with the other evidence of the public opinion in the city of Winnipeg :
Winnipeg, Man., April 27th.
The following resolution was passed unanimously at a meeting of the citizens committee held to-day. ' Whereas the Canadian Northern mn-tract-was passed By the legislature on the strength of the premier's statements in and out of the House that the province, would have absolute control of rates and that if the province had not such control that the contract was bad and would not be passed. And whereas the Attorney General stated that all defects would be remedied in the mortgage and inserted a clause in the Act for that purpose which clause the railway company state to be useless and it is to be struck out and whereas an amendment is now proposed under which it is made clear that the province cannot control the rates and whereas such an amendment does away with the whole basis of the contract and leaves the province liable on a guarantee which they could not meet except by direct taxation, and a contract such as it would then be, has never been approved of or voted on either by the legislature or the people and would undoubtedly be rejected almost unanimously by the people if submitted to them and whereas the feeling in the city and the province so far as heard from with reference to the proposed amendments is unanimously against them, as there is nothing left of the contract but the liability of the province which will and
must end disastrously both for the province and Dominion. Therefore be it resolved that this citizens committee demand that the matter be referred hack to the legislature to be reconsidered by them.'
This, it will be observed was of very recent date-April 27th. The committee states that the people of Manitoba are almost unanimously opposed to these deals. I do not know that I would care to make any such broad assertion, but there is such widespread opposition as to make my plea at all events one of common sense, that an opportunity should be given to the people on direct reference irrespective of all other issues and parties, to say whether they are or are not favourable to these contracts. I think the evidence I have given makes it pretty clear that the opinion of the city of Winnipeg is decidedly against this contract. The city of Winnipeg is by no means all of Manitoba. It is from one-fifth to-one-sixth of the province in population. It is entitled also to this further consideration- that it is the seat of government, and is where the daily papers are published, and its people are thus in a better position to give due and speedy consideration to matters of this kind. These Acts were passed through the local legislature before the people in the rural districts had had an opportunity to thoroughly consider them. In a sparsely settled country like that, the people must depend for their general information upon the weekly issues of the daily papers, and ofttimes such news is eight or nine days old before it reaches the people. It must be remembered also that when these contracts w-ere first published the newspapers themselves bad not had time to consider them and give any decided opinion upon them. The press in Winnipeg and in Manitoba generally dealt with these contracts most fairly, and neither condemned nor approved them for partisan reasons

The
newspapers put the contracts before the people and reserved, If not comment, at least approval or condemnation, until such time as the contracts had been thoroughly looked into. But all this takes time, and so the people in the rural districts were not able to give an opinion In anything like as quick a time as the people of Winnipeg. I have here a batch of resolutions passed by public meetings and municipal councils, and forwarded to the delegates at Ottawa. I think that these are entitled to as much, if not more, consideration than are the expressions of opinion of the people of Winnipeg, because bon. members will understand that in a country like that, when a railway deal of any kind is proposed, and the promoters make offers and promises to the people which awake expectations of branch lines, railway shops, bridges, improvements or works of one kind or another, these things ai-e a great inducement, and people are apt not to look into the broad merits I of the proposition, but to look at its prospec-

tive value In the profit it may yield to their particular section. Some of the resolutions here are of identical wording, but X will only read the first one of these, and also others that weke drafted at the meetings at which they were passed, and which generally refer to some particular point. I have one here from Hnausa. This was a purely Icelandic meeting :
Copy of resolution passed at Hnausa, Man., on 22nd of March.
Moved by Tomas Bjornsson, seconded by S. Sigurbjornsson,
Whereas, at a mass meeting of the citizens of the city of Winnipeg, held in Selkirk Hall on Saturday, the 23rd day of February last, a resolution was almost unanimously passed protesting against the carrying out of the proposed contracts between the government of Manitoba and the Northern Pacific Railway Company ;
And, whereas, the said contracts have also been condemned by the Board of Trade of Winnipeg by a vote of 36 to 12, and also by mass meetings held at . various points in the province, and also by the City Council of the city of Winnipeg ;
And, whereas, in order to carry into effect the provisions of the said contract, it is necessary that confirmatory legislation be obtained from the parliament of Canada ;
And, whereas, an application is being made to the parliament of Canada for such legislation as aforesaid ;
And, whereas, it is the opinion of this mass meeting of Icelanders assembled at Hnausa this 22nd day of March, 1901, that the said contracts are not in the interests of the province of Manitoba, inasmuch as the said contracts do not secure the building of any new additional railroads, and there is no positive assurance that they will bring about any reduction of rates, and inasmuch as they involve the province of Manitoba in a liability, which, if called upon to pay, would seriously embarrass the financial position of the province ; and that the contracts should not be ratified unless and until the electors of the province of Manitoba have had an opportunity of signifying their wishes at the polls with reference to the same ;
It is therefore resolved :
That the Dominion government and the Dominion parliament be and they are hereby memorialized and asked to refuse to pass the proposed legislation ratifying the said contracts until the people of Manitoba have pronounced upon the said contracts as aforesaid.
(Signed) GUNNAR HELGASON, Chairman.



S. OELDLUPSON.

[Stage Direction]
Secretary.
I have one from the rural municipality of Kildonan :
Moved by Councilor Bredin, seconded by Councilor McKay,
That the resolutions accompanying letter of J. Arbuthnot, mayor of the city of Winnipeg, asking that the Dominion government and the Dominion parliament be memorialized asking them to refuse to pass the proposed legislation ratifying the contract between the local government and the Northern Pacific Railway Company he adopted.
Arthur W. Puttee: There was an amendment moved to tliis, of a negative character, but the motion carried.' Here is one from the municipality of Springfield :
Moved by G. Briercliffe, seconded by C. Chris-topherson, that the Dominion parliament be hereby memorialized, requesting them to refuse to pass the provincial legislation ratifying the contracts with the Northern Pacific and the Canadian Northern Railway Companies until the electors of Manitoba have had an opportunity of pronouncing their opinions on said contracts. -Carried.
It states that D. Munro, one of the councillors, was opposed to the motion. This is certified to by William Goodridge, secretary-treasurer of tbe municipality.
Here is a synopsis of resolutions passed at Russell and at Ilamiota, on March 30, 1901 : A large and influential meeting was decidedly in favour of the Dominion postponing legislation until the railway measures are further discussed. Ou the same date, at Hamiota, a large meeting passed a resolution in favour of postponing legislation until the people could consider it. It was passed with only one opposing it.
These are in the municipalities of Russell and Hamiota. At Shoal Lake, a considerable town on tbe Nortli-western. a meeting-passed the following resolution :
Whereas, the railway measures contained in Bills No. 14 and No. 15 recently passed by the Manitoba legislature, are little understood by the great majority of the people of the province; and whereas, they involve an immense liability; and whereas the benefits to be obtained in consideration of the liabilities thus assumed by the province are obscure ; and whereas, this legislation is not complete unless the Dominion parliament passes legislation favourable to the Bills; and whereas, the people have not yet been given an opportunity of endorsing the principle involved in such legislation;
Be it therefore resolved, that this meeting, representing a large and important district of north-western Manitoba, petition the Dominion parliament to defer action on these Bills until the province has had a better opportunity of discussing them and pronouncing upon the principles therein contained.
There are also notes of meetings held by tbe Icelandic settlements of tlie municipality of Argyle is reported from Baldur. The municipality of Sifton passed the following resolution :
Moved by J. D. Humphrey, seconded by H. Mclvor, that this council place itself on record as opposed to Acts passed by the Manitoba legislature in connection with deals re the Northern Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern Railway as not in the interest of the people of Manitoba. A copy of this resolution to he sent to the mayor of Winnipeg, to be forwarded to the Dominion government asking for the disallowance of said Acts.
This is certified to by W. J. Helliance, secretary-treasurer of the municipality of Sifton. These resolutions are important, inasmuch as they represent the opinion of municipal councils, and these councils are by no means composed of men of one party

stripe. In opposing these resolutions, they look purely to the effect, knowing as they do that the Bills were not understood, that the contracts had not been explained, and understanding, to some degree, the vastness of the issues involved. There is another one from the city of Winnipeg, passed at a meeting composed solely of Icelanders. The Icelandic population of the city of Winnipeg is considerable. The chairman writes at the bottom of this resolution ' carried unanimously.' Another resolution from the Icelanders of Gimli is signed by the chairman and secretary of the meeting. This is a constituency we have heard about in reference to the Bill that was passed this afternoon, for which my hon. friend from Selkirk (Hr. McCreary) has procured a railway line. Here is a copy of the resolution passed at Baldur, on March 27, 1900 :	.
Moved by Janies Strang, seconded by George Playfair : That in the opinion of this meeting, the proposed contract between the provincial government of Manitoba and the Northern Pacific and the Canadian Northern Railway Companies are not in the best interests of the province of Manitoba, as such contracts do not give positive assurance of a reduction of rates, while the immense amount of liability assumed by the province would be little short of financial ruin were the province called upon to pay it ; and that the contract should not be ratified until the people of Manitoba have had an opportunity of expressing their opinion at the polls ; it Is therefore resolved, that the Dominion government be and they are hereby memorialized and asked to refuse to pass the proposed legislation ratifying the said contracts until the electors of Manitoba have passed upon said contracts at the polls.
(Sgd.) JOHN HARROW,
Chairman.
CHRISTIAN JOHNSON, Secretary.
There is one that I will not read passed at Icelander River, on the 22nd of March, to the same effect as the others, signed and certified by the chairman and secretary of the meeting. I will only read those resolutions that were drafted at the meetings themselves, thinking that one reading of the printed resolution would be sufficient. Resolution passed at Grund, at a largely attended meeting, on March 26. 1901 :
Moved by S. Harrison, seconded by Arni Svein-sson, and carried unanimously, that in the opinion of this meeting, the proposed contracts between the provincial government of Manitoba and the Northern Pacific and the Canadian Northern Railway Companies are not in the best interests of our province, as such contracts do not give positive assurance of any reduction of rates, while the immense amount of liability assumed by the province would be nothing short of financial ruin were the province called upon to pay it ; and, in our opinion, the contract should not be ratified by the Dominion House of parliament until the people of Manitoba have had an opportunity of expressing their wishes on this most important question at the polls.
It is therefore resolved, that the Dominion government and the Dominion parliament be and they are hereby memorialized and asked to !
refuse to pass the proposed legislation ratifying the said contracts until the people of Manitoba have pronounced upon the said contracts as aforesaid.
Signed by the chairman and secretary. I have one from the town of Morden, in southwestern Manitoba, where a public meeting was called to discuss the matter of the railway deals shortly after they were passed. There it was moved by S. Farley, seconded by W. Duncan :
Whereas, the citizens of Morden and district, in a public meeting held March 25, 1901, having considered the railway legislation of the Manitoba legislature, as expressed in the contracts between the Northern Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern Railway Companies, and the Act ratifying the same ; and whereas, they feel convinced that said contracts will involve the province in a liability utterly disproportionate to its resources, which liability is positive and certain, but the benefits vague and doubtful; and whereas, such legislation will exhaust the credit power of the province and exclude it from the possibility of taking more favourable action almost certain to arise from the rapid evolution of the railroad problem now so largely engaging the public mind ;
Be it therefore resolved, that the Dominion government be asked to use its influence with parliament to prevent the passing of legislation ratifying the Bills until the people of Manitoba have been given an opportunity of expressing their approval or disapproval by their votes at the polls.
A note says that this was carried by a large majority I have one from the town of Selkirk, one of the most important towns in the province, about 24 miles north-east of Winnipeg, and it is noted as being carried unanimously. I have also one from the Icelandic citizens of the town of Selkirk. The Icelanders in Selkirk constitute a very large proportion of the population. The meeting at which these resolutions were passed were held in separate halls, but they were hold upon the same date. I do not wish to refer more than is necessary to newspaper comment, but, as I have stated before, all the newspapers most certainly treated these contracts very fairly when they were first published, and their position since then has been determined by the merits or demerits, as they have been discovered, in the contracts themselves. But, business knows no politics, and I wish to quote from the principal business publication of the west, the Winnipeg Commercial. No man who comes from the west or who knows this paper will charge it for one minute with having its opinions influenced in matters of this kind by political considerations. On March 2. the Winnipeg Commercial contained the following ;
The all-absorbing question in Manitoba is now the railway contract entered into between the provincial government and the Northern Pacific and the Canadian Northern Railway Companies. While much attention is being given to this matter throughout all Canada, here the most | intense interest is being taken in the question.

The first effect of the announcement made by Premier Roblin of the contract entered into with the railway companies was one of surprise. The boldness of the proposals and the enormous financial obligations which would be imposed upon the province by the final ratification of the contract were such as to bewilder thinking persons, who took the trouble to study out what the contract really meant. As soon as sufficient time had developed to permit of the careful study of the agreement, it became evident that there would be a very strong opposition to the acceptance of the proposals by the legislature. This opposition has developed rapidly, and is evidently gaining in strength from day to day, as the document is discussed and gone into by the people.
At a later part of the article the obligation that the province assumes under these contracts is noted :
The obligation assumed by the province we may briefly sum up as follows :-Northern Pacific lines, $7,000,000, or equivalent to the annual interest in that sum at, say, 4 per cent. Guarantee of the bonds of the Ontario and Rainy River section for 200 miles at $20,000 per mile, equal to $5,800,000. The annual interest charge will amount to $232,000 on the Rainy River section and the Northern Pacific rental, first ten years, will amount to $210,000 per year, or a total of $442,000 annual interest charge, which the province will be liable for. In addition to this, we have the liability of the province in connection with previous guarantees of bonds covering sections of the Canadian Northern system in Manitoba, which would bring the total annual liability of the provice for interest charges and rental of the Northern Pacific lines up to about $000,000, or a sum nearly equal to the total annual revenue of the province.
It must be seen from this statement of facts that the final ratification of these contracts will leave the province in a thoroughly impoverished condition financially for many years to come, so that no matter what favourable opportunities may arise in the future, the province will be effectually barred from taking advantage of them while this load of responsibility is hanging over us. It would probably make it impossible for the province to float bonds on a profitable basis for years, no matter how urgent may be the necessity for such action. It is also possible that our municipal securities would be adversely affected for a time. Of course, as the road became an established and paying enterprise this difficulty would be overcome ; but with almost a certainty that the province would be called upon to make good annual deficits during the first few years of the operation of the road, it is quite sure that our credit would be mo3t seriously affected in the world's money markets.
While there are many more important points which might be referred to, including several serious objections on other grounds which might be urged against the contract, these will not be touched upon at present. What is most urgent now' is time to thoroughly go into the matter. The country should have months to discuss and digest the contracts, and this should be done in a fair, independent and non-partisan spirit. We believe there is a disposition among the people to consider this matter as much as possible independent of party politics. In a question of such vital importance to the future of this province, we cannot afford to look at the matter through party spectacles. Premier Rob-Mr. PUTTEE.
iin has himself shown a disposition to take the people into his confidence, and he has asked for and declared that he is, ' wide open ' to receive suggestions and information upon the question. We believe he is honest in his opinions upon the question, and we furthermore believe he will gain the almost universal respect of the people of Manitoba by giving ample time to allow of the thorough discussion and crystallization of public opinion upon the most momentous matter which has yet come before the people of Manitoba. No harm can result from allowing the matter to stand even if it should go over to another session of the legislature. It is not a case in which delays will be dangerous, while to hurry the matter through would be an indication of weakness on the part of the government, and also an evidence of weakness in the contract itself.
The remarkable thing to me is, that, with all this advice, well meant and well directed, the government should have insisted and finally did insist on putting these measures through the local House without removing the very vital objections that were pointed out. I consider that the Winnipeg Commercial and the others from which I have quoted were justified in asking for time for a proper investigation and for proper consideration on behalf of the province. The strange thing is that the local government all the while promised that such consideration should be given, and that yet, in spite of the request on the one side and the granting of it on the other, they went ahead and put the Bills through the legislature just as rapidly as they possibly could do it Now, I have asked in my resolution that these Bills should not be allowed to become law until they have been referred by a direct reference to the people of Manitoba. I think this is as good a suggestion as we can get, because I believe that in all these matters the people themselves should have the final determination. The Bills that passed the Manitoba legislature are not ordinary legislative Acts. They are not Acts that can be amended next year, that can be revised, or that can be tampered with by any other government. Neither are they Acts that can be repealed by any other government. If the government allows this Bill to pass and the guarantee of Manitoba is at the back of these bonds, then, there is no such thing ns tampering with the legislation afterwards, and the whole thing would be done in spite of the protests of the people of the country. The future of the province w'ould be mortgaged to a tremendous extent without listening either in the legislature or in this House to the request of the people for an opportunity to express their voice on this question.


Mr. RICHARDSON (Lisgar).: Would the hon. gentleman tell the House, if a referendum has been taken on such questions in this country, or in Switzerland, or in other European countries.


Arthur W. Puttee: When I put this motion on the paper I thought it well to do so in

order that the opinion of the people might be obtained. In ease the Bill should go into committee, I have given notice of motion that it shall not become law until such time as it has been passed upon by the people of the province. At that stage,
I intend to deal with the question of the referendum, which is one of great interest to me.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Would the hon. gentleman not think that the fact that a plebiscite was taken on the temperance question in Canada, would form a proper precedent for the taking of a plebiscite now.


Arthur W. Puttee: I do not know that it would have anything to do with this question. Personally, I am favourable to the recognition of the principle of the referendum under our system. I have been told by one of the members of this parliament that I did not understand the constitution I was living under; that there was no such thing as a referendum arranged for under our parliamentary system. But I think that gentleman has given too much importance to what he thinks are the limita-' tions of this parliament. We have a perfect right to make a condition in passing a Bill that it must get the ratification of the people, or any other ratification before it becomes law. I have a few other points, Mr. Speaker, that I wish to refer too, but it is now six o'clock.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Arthur W. Puttee: It has not been my in-* tention, in speaking to this motion, to go into the merits of the Bill, but simply to show the state of the public mind with regard to it. I have given evidence of that this afternoon. So far as Manitoba is concerned this is not merely a legislative Act; it is not an Act that can be amended next session; it is not an Act that the next government can repeal or amend; but after it is made valid by this parliament, the Bill becomes a contract and the guarantee of Manitoba goes behind $17,000,000 worth of bonds, and for thirty years at least there is no reopening of the question. That is such a long time in the light of railway development in the west, that it is practically pledging the province for all time. Therefore, some extraordinary course is necessary. It is quite plain that if it were the law and custom in Manitoba to submit important matters like this to the referendum, such an Act would never have been passed. The legislature would not think of passing a law that it knew the people would not assent to. As a matter of fact the legislature should not do so. If such Bills as this were to go to the people before they became law, we never would have such pro-140
positions before our legislative bodies. This lias been the experience in places where they have the referendum. In North Dakota where they have had the referendum *incorporated in their law for some years, it has never been availed of. When we were discussing this matter in the west, we took the trouble to find out whether this was because of a defect in the Dakota referendum law, or whether it was placed on the statute books without any intention of enforcing it. The governor of North Dakota set the matter at rest by replying : Since this referendum law has been a part of our constitution we have had no charter-mongers, no railway speculators, no wildcat schemes submitted to our legislature. Formerly our time was occupied by speculative schemes of one kind or another, but since the referendum has been made part of the constitution, these people do not press their schemes on the legislature, and hence there is no necessity for having recourse to the referendum. I would also call attention to the fact that the province of Manitoba has no second Chamber, and that when an Act has passed the legislative assembly it becomes law if it receives the assent of the Governor in Council. Under our system of government we recognize the necessity of some kind of a check or revising power over any one House. I do not think myself that we have the best system that could be procured in that way. I do not think, for instance, that an appointive assembly should revise the work of an elective assembly. But, the fact of our having two Houses here, and some of the provinces having them, is a recognition of the principle, that a single House is not always to be trusted in matters of legislation. I would in all cases substitute the referendum for a second Chamber. I think it would be better, safer and more satisfactory if all our important legislation were necessarily submitted to a referendum vote of the people, who elect this body. TVe are here only as representatives ; our only business is to endeavour to carry out the will of the people who send us here. I do not believe there would be the least harm in having the present Bill referred strictly to a referendum vote of the people in whose name it is being enacted, namely, the people of Manitoba. I propose that because it seems to me altogether a preferable manner of ascertaining the real sentiment of the people to what an ordinary political general election is. Even if an election were held on this question, it would not be carried simply on the merits of the question itself, but ail the usual party considerations would creep in. The only way to get a proper expression of the people upon any one measure Is to submit that measure by itself for a direct answer, yes or no. as to whether it shall become law. Then, delay is a very important factor at the present time in this matter, because, as I have pointed out,



when these Bills were before the .Manitoba legislature, to every suggestion that was made, or every amendment that was proposed, the public were told that everything, would be provided for in the mortgage. It appears to me that even we in this House should go no further with this Bill until we have all the measure before us. There is to be a mortgage, which is to include a great deal more than the Act of the legislature includes. We are now dealing with a measure which is only half a measure ; we are dealing with a matter in regard to which we have not all the essential papers or documents. In the Railway Committee it was asked that before we proceeded any further the mortgage provided for in the Bill should be laid on the Table. It seems to me that is a more important part of the matter than the Bill which we have before us ; and if the measure were laid over until such time as a referendum vote could be had in the province of Manitoba, the mortgage could be prepared, and all the facts got before the people. With these explanations, I move my amendment.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Mr. Speaker, before the amendment is adopted, I wish to make a few remarks. I myself gave notice of a resolution to the effect that the Bill should not be passed until it was referred back to the legislature of Manitoba, because the Bill which this House has been asked to ratify is not the Bill that was passed by the local legislature. In fact, there are such important differences that I think it would be unwise, unpatriotic, and unfair of this House to force upon the people of Manitoba a contract which was not ratified, and would not be ratified by the legislature, and which must be wholly repugnant to at least three-fourths of the people of Manitoba. I do not want to speak at too great a length on this question ; but, I doubt if a more important issue has ever come before the Dominion of Canada. I doubt whether any more important question has ever been dealt with by this House ; and that statement should be a sufficient warrant to you, Sir, and to the members of this House, to demand that the fullest and most complete investigation of everything connected with it should be made before this House ratifies this great wrong, which by that ratification, must necessarily be inflicted upon the people of Manitoba. I regret very much that the House is not more full to-night, in order that the arguments which I may advance, however feebly, might be heard; because, although considerable discussion on this Bill occurred in the Railway Committee. still I am quite satisfied that a vast number of the members of this House know nothing about its provisions, and are not in a position to cast an intelligent vote on the question. In addition to that, since I came to Ottawa I have found, in my intercourse with members of this House, that the
view seems to be generally taken that they have nothing whatever to do with this Bill; that it is a question of provincial rights ; that the Manitoba legislature passed the Bill, and that it would not be fair for the parliament of Canada to refuse to ratify it. Indeed, I have heard from very high quarters in this House that this is a case of provincial rights, that Manitoba must be left to work out her own destiny in her own way, and that if she happens to have made a fool of herself, she should be left to take the consequences. I have scarcely found a baker's dozen of the members of this House on either side who have sought in any way to justify the deal. I have found the general impression to be that the deal is an atrocious one, that it is an abominable one, that it is an abominable deal, to use the words of the organ of the Minister of Public Works, as quoted by the hon. member for Winnipeg the other night. I have not found anybody of prominence in the city of Ottawa who is familiar with politics, to offer one word of defence for this measure. And since the transaction, a discussion was had in the Railway Committee, and after it had become absolutely clear that Manitoba is not getting one single thing in return for this vast liability which she is incurring, I have scarcely found anybody at all offer any defence of it whatever. To-night this parliament is called upon, in all solemnity, to ratify this deal. I doubt very gravely whether the hon. member who introduced the Bill, the hon. member for An-tigonish, has ever read it. I would put him the question.


Mr. McISAAC.: Yes, half a dozen times.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Well, I would like to hear the hon. gentleman tell ns later on what its provisions are. The point I want to make is that this House, under no circumstances, can get rid of its responsibility. It is not a case of provincial rights at all. I think I will be able to prove to the satisfaction of every reasonable man in this House that the Bill we are called on to ratify is in no sense the bargain made between this railway company and the people of Manitoba. I propose to show tonight, in the presence of the ministers-and I am sorry they are not all here-that if they put this Bill through, they are going to be a party to the gold-bricking of Manitoba. They are going to stand sponsor to a deal which is to be forced on the people of Manitoba, and which the people, as represented by the legislature, never agreed to for one moment, and never would. I want to warn the government that Manitoba, which is already saddled with a debt of about SC,000,000, is, in this connection, going to be burdened with a further liability of $17,000,000. I want to show that Manitoba has no resources whatever. You have taken all her lands and given them to railway companies or kept them for yourselves. She


Arthur W. Puttee: 
Robert Lorne Richardson: said mortgage securing said issue is to be in a form satisfactory to the Lieutenant Governor in Council-
It is important to mark this :
-and to be in similar terms so far as applicable to the mortgage set out in schedule B to chapter 57 of the statutes of Canada for the year 1899, together with such changes and additional clauses as may be necessitated by the terms of this agreement.
Hon. members will see that the reference here is to a mortgage set out in chapter 57 of the statutes of Canada, 1899. That is, these people, Mackenzie & Mann, made an agreement with the Manitoba government some years ago that they should have a guarantee on their railway system from the government of Manitoba of $8,000 a mile, and as security, they gave a first mortgage on all their roads and equipment and appurtenances. Now, the mortgage referred to here is to be in similar terms to that mortgage. My hon. friend from Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) has made this point and I wish to emphasize it, particularly as the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Blair) are present-that that mortgage should be laid on the Table of the House. The legislature of Manitoba was induced to vote for this contract only on the ground that all these things which were brought up by the board of trade would be provided for in the mortgage. Before we ratify this contract, we should see that mortgage. For the Manitoba legislature will come back at us and say : We only voted for the contract on the understanding that these things would all be provided for in the mortgage ; months have elapsed, and you, the parliament of Canada, ratified this deal without making sure that the things that we were promised were placed in the mortgage. I would like very much if the right hon. the premier-and 1 thank him for his attention-would give us some assurance that he would insist on seeing llmt the whole deal is before us.


The PRIME MINISTER.: To what does my hon. friend refer ?


Robert Lorne Richardson: The railway company gives to the government a first mortgage on its road, the Manitoba system and the Rainy River system. We are going to guarantee $20,000 a mile on the Rainy River Railway. And here is an important thing for the members of the government to remember-that on this very Rainy RiverRailway of 290 miles, we of this parliament granted aid two years ago to the extent of $6,400 a mile, and the government of Ontario granted aid to the extent of $4,000 a mile, making a total of $10,400 a mile.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Only for part of it.


Robert Lorne Richardson: The important part of it-290 miles. The part from

Fort Francis to Winnipeg is known as the Manitoba South-eastern, and on that the Manitoba government gavo a guarantee of bonds for $S,000 a mile, and the company had also 6,400 acres a mile which would bring them $3 an acre, making over $19,000 a mile, so that on this section they have public aid which would build the road two or three times over. On the Rainy River section there is this $10,400 a mile from the Dominion and from Ontario, and now comes Manitoba giving a guarantee of $20,000 a mile, so that the hvtal aid which the people of Canada are giving on this section is $30,400 a mile. X do not think there is anybody who would contend that that road would cost more than $18,000 a mile equipped. It is true that there are some heavy portions of it, but the average, I think, would not be $18,000 a mile. So, in ratifying this, we have to consider our responsibilities. I would like to call the attention of the minister to this question particularly. He will remember that when that aid was given the hou. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) and myself asked for conditions. We moved for running powers for limitation of the bonds and for control of rates. And this parliament of Canada has control of those rates and control of the running powers on that railway.
Surely, we ought not to allow that company to get $30,400 a mile for building that railway. and that is what they are going to get. That is why I say this legislation is so interwoven with this government that this House could very well pause and say, This is too important a1 matter to be allowed to be rushed through in this way. The point ,1 want to emphasize is that this is not a question of provincial rights, we cannot fold our arms and say, on your heads be the consequences in Manitoba, you are making fools of yourselves-that is the general opinion in this parliament-but you must be permitted to make fools of yourselves. I have liointed out that the ratification of that Bill was only made on the distinct printed agreement that the Lieutenant Governor in Council has power to make such conditions, though the same may be at variance with the contract, as was suggested by the Winnipeg Board of Trade. The Winnipeg Board of Trade appointed a committee to go very carefully into this matter, and they made these recommendations, and on the strength of a distinct agreement that they might be embodied in this contract, the legislature ratified it. But we are ratifying a deal that leaves that out altogether, we are ratifying a deal in which the Minister of Railways and Canals puts a distinct clause that notwithstanding anything in the contract, Canada is going to exercise the control of the rates which she possesses. Now, I am going to be able to satisfy this House that the people of that country never would have ratified the contract under any consideration had they not supposed that Manitoba
was receiving absolute control of the rates, and would be able to fix those rates from time to time.
Now, it was quite clear from the discussion in the Railway Committee and from the position which the Minister of Railways and Canals took in that committee, that the power which Canada has and which she exercises, she cannot remit to Manitoba. The premier was not in the Railway Committee at the time, and for his benefit I propose to make a statement of the case which was made by Mr. Nesbitt, the lawyer for the Committee of Public Safety, who^ has been down here. Under the British North America Act, the Dominion government has exclusive jurisdiction over Dominion railways and can regulate rates. Manitoba now seeks to take that power to herself, and I understand Mr. Nesbitt to take the position that even if you wished, you could not confer upon Manitoba that right. The power you have is conferred upon you by the British North America Act, passed by the Imperial government, and that power you cannot delegate to Manitoba. But Manitoba did not so understand it, Manitoba thought she was getting the absolute right to control these rates, and on that supposition the legislature passed the contract. But it has distinctly come out in this parliament that Manitoba cannot get that power, that the dominion parliament cannot give her that power. Inasmuch as the legislature passed that Act, believing Manitoba could get that power, if you should now ratify the Act, then Manitoba would have a right to hold you responsible and to say that you ratified the Act, knowing the position of affairs, and failed to refer it back to Manitoba. Now, I have a motion to make myself. Although I did not offer any 'protest at the time I was named by the Speaker as seconder to the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg that a plebiscite be taken. I propose to move later on that this Bill should be referred back to the legis-ture of Manitoba, giving them an opportunity to pronounce upon it. Now, I want to read extracts from the speech of Mr. Premier Roblin, for the benefit of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, who, I observe, is following my argument closely, and for whose ability as a lawyer I have very great respect. I want to read for his especial benefit an extract from Mr. ROblin's speech on this question, to show him exactly what the understanding was :
Extract from Mr. Roblin's speech at Ne-pawa, February 14th, 1901, as reported in the Morning Telegram of February 15th. The Morning Telegram is the organ of the local government. After the bargain was announced, the premier went up to Nepawa and made a speech in which he announced the terms :
The speaker (Mr. Rovin') was in the legislature at the time, ana although he supported ths

principle of competition, yet for reasons it was unnecessary to go into, he was compelled to oppose the contract by which the Northern Pacific Railway of the United States was to be introduced into Manitoba. The principle of government control of freight rates has been a plank of the platform of the party under Hugh John Macdonald.
In that respect he has not stated the case with perfect accuracy. The principle of Hugh John Macdonald's platform was not so much control of rates as it was a declaration in favour of the government ownership of railroads, and this is not government ownership of railroads that we are getting, we are merely leasing railroads and releasing them to sjpother company, on condition that if the railroad pays then the government will lose nothing, but if the railroad does not pay, the governnment makes up the difference. That is not government ownership of railroads. Mr. Roblin went on to say :
And it was now the speaker's duty and pleasure to finish the work that had been so ably begun. As far as Manitoba was concerned, he believed the transportation question was now solved. Government ownership of railways was but a means to an end, and that end was to secure control of rates, to secure fair and reasonable transportation charges, and one that the people could stand. This was what they had started to work at, and what had now been done.
You see, he says here. What they had started to work out was to secure a control of rates. Now we find out how much control they have got.
The ground had been looked over, and they found they were four or five hundred miles from a point where competition could be had, and where the benefits of competition could be got, and that was Lake Superior.
Then again, in the same speech, speaking of the consideration received by the province :
That means that the people of Manitoba will enjoy a privilege enjoyed by no other province in Canada or state in the United States, that the Lieutenant Governor in Council has the right and authority to make all tariffs from that time forward, until the contract is revoked.
Now, let me tell the Prime Minister and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries that the Minister of Railways and Canals has put iu this contract a condition that notwithstanding anything in this Bill, this parliament does not divest itself of any power, and discrimination can be prevented, and you can do exactly as you will. Now, if that is so, is it not clear to any reasonable man that Manitoba is not getting what the premier of the province told the people that she was getting And why is she not getting it ? Because we 'are taking it from 'her, and if we are going to take it from her. is it not our bounden duty as public men to say to the people of Manitoba : You have entered into a deal that you did not Mr. RICHARDSON (Lisgar).
quite understand, and it is perfectly clear from the contract itself that you did not understand it. In that contract was a provision that Manitoba should have power to make conditions, though they might be at variance with the contract, and we have taken that away.
Surely as honourable men it ought to be our duty to stay our hand for a few weeks and say to the people of Manitoba : We refer this back to you ; if you say, in the face of ay the developments, that you want that deal ratified and that you are willing to take the responsibility of it, then, we will ratify it for you. Then, I want to say, to-night, in all solemnity, that if we force this deal on the people of Manitoba we will have done an act that will reflect the greatest discredit upon the parliament of this country. No greater question has ever been considered by this parliament. No wonder the lion. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Blair), than whom there is no shrewder man in this House, should stand up, as he did the other day in the Railway Committee, and say : ' I want to warn you that if you pass this deal you are going to have a serious clash between the people of Manitoba and the people of the Dominion and a serious clash between the government of Manitoba and the government of the Dominion.' In the face of these words of the lion. Minister of Railways and Canals, who is charged, and specially charged, to consider this matter, are the members of this parliament, in this Dominion, to be brought into this House to-night to vote this deal down the throats of the people of Manitoba whether they want it or not V Surely, I make a reasonable request, surely I am within my rights in speaking to-night when I ask that you shall stay your hand and say to the people of Manitoba : 'We are willing to allow you to consider this question once more and if, in view of the developments in the Railway Committee and in view of the developments in parliament, you still want that deal to go through, then, and then only, on your heads be it.' I say the people of Manitoba have had no opportunity to consider and discuss this question as they have a right to discuss it. I would not plead, as I do to-night so strongly, did I not know that there is scarcely a man who sits in this parliament of Canada who will stand up and say that this is a good deal. I say that I have heard it denounced from Dan to Beerslieba as an abominable deal, ns a scandal, as a freak, as a thing that is going to ruin the people and the province of Manitoba. If that is so, and if the question is not one of provincial rights, then, I say that the members of this House are in duty bound to pause and consider before they attempt to force this deal upon the people of Manitoba. Now, I want to make a few quotations for the purpose of showing what the people of tlie'province of Manitoba expected to have had from what was ex-

plained to them by their representatives in the legislature and their representatives in the executive government.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Richardson, Lisgar) wanted me to put a contract on the Table. What contract does he refer to ?


Robert Lorne Richardson: No; under this contract there is to be a mortgage given to the province of Manitoba by the company. The province of Manitoba secures a mortgage on the Rainy River Railway. As the right lion, gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laur-ier) probably knows, this road runs down to Fort Francis on the Rainy River, then runs forty miles through the state of Minnesota, and then again over the river by an international bridge into Ontario from Minnesota. Now, for the vast guarantee which we are giving and which involves a liability of $17,500,000, Manitoba is to get a mortgage on the railway and there is a clause in the original contract which says that the Lieutenant Governor in Council is to be able to make conditions in the mortgage which may be at variance with the contract. The executive said to the legislature : ' We will get all these conditions placed in the mortgage or security that the company gives to the government.' The mortgage is one of the documents to this contract. We ought, at least, if we are bound to push this contract through, to protect the interests of the people of Manitoba. We ought to say to this company :	Place on the Table the
mortgage which you are going to give to the province of Manitoba for this liability which she is going to assume so that parliament may know whether the company is fulfilling the understanding which was arrived at between the legislature and the government and the company. I am glad to observe the interest that the right lion, premier is taking in the matter and I congratulate him upon it, because I know that he does not want to do any wrong act to the people of Manitoba. I fancy that if he thoroughly understands the gravity of this ease he will insist, as it is his duty to insist. that Manitoba shall understand exactly what the conditions of this deal are before it is finally ratified. Why should the bell be rung and lion, members be called in to vote a contract through without understanding absolutely what the conditions are ? Let me read what Premier Roblin said :
That means that the people of Manitoba -will enjoy a privilege enjoyed by no other province in Canada or state in the United States, that the Lieutenant Governor in Council has the right and authority to make all tariffs from that time .upward until the contract is revoked.
The Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Sir Louis Davies), I am sure, will be interested to know that it came out clearly and distinctly in the Railway Committee that notwithstanding any of these things, Manitoba has no more power than she ever had, that you cannot give her more power and that there is no way in which she can be seized of more power. If this is true, what becomes of Premier Roblin's statement ? We should not blind ourselves with the idea that we can justly, as honourable men, ratify a contract of that nature. We cannot do it. We are deceiving ourselves. It will be a lasting disgrace to the parliament of Canada if it is done, because it will be done in the face of the facts being plainly pointed out and laid before the people of Canada. Here is another utterance of Premier Roblin in the same speech :
The country might, he felt, look forward with confidence to the future, as this railway policy would be the inauguration of a new era of prosperity and growth, particularly in an agricultural sense that would be a wonder

I want the House specially to mark the language that the premier uses. He speaks to the legislature and the people of Manitoba of the wonderful revolution that is going to occur, of the marvels that are going to take place in the development of the country. Mark his language, and when the House understands that the province of Manitoba has not one iota now that it had not before it will see what a farce we are enacting in ratifying a contract of this description. He says :
The country might, he felt, look forward with confidence to the future, as this railway policy would be the inauguration of a new era of prosperity and growth, particularly in an agricultural sense, that would be a wonder and a marvel to other parts of Canada, because of confidence that would be established by the fact that the government, the people, controlled the rates, would be an encouragement to the farmers to increase the area of the land they cultivated, and their herds, and show the enterprise and development that a flourishing condition of things will warrant.
He was practically preaching a new gospel to the people of Manitoba, giving them to understand that when a deal like this went through it would be a land flowing with milk and honey. Manitoba is not going to be placed in any better position than she was iu prior to the making of this contract. I world like to get the attention of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals to this point. W.e have a provision, as he knows, in the Railway Act, allowing the Governor General in Council to fix the rates on Canadian railways. Let us consider for a moment this point.
On what basis are the rates to be fixed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council ? Is the company to be allowed working expenses and interest on capital invested ? Would you allow them bigli interest on stock, or would you allow them large profits ? Tlie point I want to make is :	That inasmuch as Canada has

already aided tUis road to the extent of $10,400 a mile, and Manitoba is now being gold-bricked into giving it $20,000 a mile, why should we not in all conscience exercise control of the rates. 1 remember how well that point was discussed by the member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) when that aid went through. If we gave that company all that aid and if we took power to control their rates, in the name of reason why should not the rates be controlled on that road, and why should we be asked to-night to vote a farcial bargain through, and lead Manitoba into a debt of over seventeen and a half million dollars, in order that Manitoba may get a control which she does not really get, but which we already have and which we ought now exercise ? It seems to me that my proposition is so fair, so plain, so reasonable, that I marvel there is not an outcry against this Bill. I say to hou. gentlemen:	You cannot fold your
arms and laugh it off and say, it is Manitoba's business, and if Manitoba wants to ruin herself, let her. That won't do. As serious men sent here by our constituents, we have to consider this point and if we have paid already, and paid almost the cost of the road to get control of the rates, why should we not exercise that control without allowing poor Manitoba to ruin herself in order to get a so-called control which does not amount to the snap of your fingers ? Here is an extract from an editorial in the Winnipeg Telegram, the organ of the local government, dated February 15 :
No matter how critically the contracts are examined, no interpretation can be put upon them which can take away from the people of Manitoba the control of the rates.
Let the Minister of Railways mark that. He stated in the Railway Committee with perfect frankness that no matter what Manitoba may do she gets no more control than she had before.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Manitoba may, if she chooses work with the company, but the government of Canada is in no way divested of its control and can interfere. That is what the Minister of Railways said. This paper continues :
The object of government ownership of railways, commissions, and all .other methods of public regulation is the control of the rates, and this the government has secured in the most direct form.
I claim that the government has secured nothing of the kind.
The rates are to he fixed by the Lieutenant
Governor in Council.
Here is an extract from another editorial in the same paper of February IS :
The government has no jurisdiction over Jnited States lines, and cannot determine their Mr. RICHARDSON (Lisgar).
rates, but there will always be competition up to the boundary, and within the province the government can make the rates what is pleases.
It came out in the Railway Committee the other day, that if the government makes a low rate In Manitoba and if a higher rate prevails in Ontario on the connecting system, the Dominion government can step in and raise the rates in Manitoba. We have the power to equalize the rates and we cannot divest ourselves of that power. If any complaint is made of discrimination, that the rates are higher in Ontario than in Manitoba, the Railway Committee of the Privy Council must take cognizance of that complaint and must raise the rates in Manitoba to be equal to the rates on the connections in Ontario and the North-west Territories. That being the case, Manitoba gets nothing. She assumes a liability of $17,500,000 in order that she may limit the rates to any figure she likes within her own province. She expects that the rates shall be higher in the Territories and in Ontario, in order that the company may earn sufficient money elsewhere to raise their general revenues, but if the parliament of Canada, through the Railway Committee of the Privy Council is going to step in and raise the rates in Manitoba, then Manitoba receives absolutely nothing for the $17,500,000 which she assumes. Is this parliament going to ratify this contract with its eyes open ? This newspaper continues :
This is all the safeguard that can possibly he asked. There is no loop-hole for the company. They would have no object whatever in charging higher rates on freight from any point in Ontario on their lines to the borders of Manitoba, for the simple reason that the higher rates would appear in their income, and would give the government an excuse to cut off other rates.
They have in mind that if the rates are high in Ontario and in the Territories, they will be earning so much money that tlie Manitoba government can Immediately cut the rates and consequently get some benefit from this enormous liability. But it came out in the Railway Committee the other day that the Dominion government could at once raise the rates in Manitoba, and consequently Manitoba does not receive the least consideration for tlie enormous liability she has assumed. The extracts which I am reading are short and I know they 'will not weary the House, because I wish to present the case as fairly and as clearly ns I can, in order that it might be understood, and I will endeavour to be as concise as possible Another editorial from the same paper of February 19, says :
We are convinced that the result of all the study and criticisms now being devoted to the bargin will be to confirm the people in their first judgment Nothing can possibly destroy the original impression that the government has actually secured control of the rates. This

control is as absolute as if the government operated the lines itself.
Wliat does tlie Minister of Railways think of that statement, that the control of Manitoba over the rates is absolute. An editorial note in the same paper of February 20, says :
The government will fix the rates, not only on wheat, salt and coal, but on every kind of freight.
Here is another editorial from the same paper of February 21:
Rates on Rainy River District.
The question has evidently been raised in some minds whether the government will have control of rates between Manitoba points and points in the Rainy River districts. Certainly the government will be able to control these rates. The company could have no possible motive for even attempting to charge more than the standard of government rates for that class of transportation. If it raised the rates from some point in the Rainy River district to the borders of Manitoba the government would lower the rates within the province. If it made a large profit on the Rainy River branch there would be less need for a large income in other portions. In a fight of that kind the company would be certain to lose. It cannot make a cent of profit over and above fixed charges unless the people of Manitoba allow it to do so. To antagonize the people in a hopeless struggle would be the most senseless thing the company could do. The people have the situation in their hands.
Let me explain that there are forty miles of this railway running through the state of Minnesota. How is the government of Manitoba to control rates in the state of Minnesota ? Then, there is an international bridge connecting the state of Minnesota with the province of Ontario, which has been organized under the laws of the state of Minnesota ; and under this lease this company could charge exactly what it liked on that connecting link, and how could the government of Manitoba, or any Canadian government, control rates or working expenses there ? It may be said that the company will act in good faith. We do not know that, and it is our business to absolutely safeguard that point, and to see, even if the Manitoba government has not been wise in the matter, that the people of Manitoba are going to be protected. Here is another brief extract from the same paper on February 25 :
Is the principle of government control of rates the right principle ? The people of Manitoba have had experience of the other principle. Are they satisfied to have that other principle remain in force ? If the present opportunity is lost no other may be found within the life of this generation. This will be no excuse for accepting a positively bad bargain but this is not a bad bargain. The company gives up to the government all its right over rates.
The company may fancy that it is giving to the government of Manitoba all rights over rates, but the government of Canada
possesses the rights which it has always exercised, and it cannot divest itself of those rights. Here is an extract from a speech of Premier Roblin, before the Winnipeg Board of Trade, as reported in the organ of the Manitoba government, on February 27 :
They (the government) laid down the principle that the government should control the rates ; they adhered to it and eventually secured it for them. If it was not a desirable thing for the province to get control of the freight rates on wheat the contract was wrong.
This is-a very important statement of the premier. I will make it much clearer before I get through that Manitoba is not getting control of rates, aud cannot exercise complete control. I read again :
If it was improper for the people's representatives to reduce the tariffs for merchandise he admitted they had made a mistake. But he did not interpret the mandate received by those in office at the present time to be to that effect. Consequently when they had established or got the principle recognized by the corporations they undertook to secure that principle, protect it as far as possible, and much such assurances that it would be effective. If the government had left anything out, left anything undone that ought to have been done, in order to secure that, they would be only too glad to have suggestions on that subject.
Now, a committee of the board of trade was appointed to confer with Mr. Roblin and his government. That committee consisted of, I think, twelve of the ablest members of the board of trade. They were to go through the contract and make suggestions, and it was represented that the suggestions of the board of trade would be adopted. Consequently many members of the board of trade were willing to agree to the contract under the belief that their suggestions would be adopted ; but they were not adopted, and nothing of importance was done with regard to them. At the same meeting, Mr. Roblin referred to an alternative proposition which had been made about the same time by the Canadian Pacific Railway. It offered to give the government practically the same control of rates that was obtained in. this case ; that is, if any complaint were made with regard to rates, the matter was to be referred to the King's Bench, and evidence taken ; and unless the company could show that the rate which the government made was too low a rate, then that rate would prevail. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company offered certain specific reductions which would bring the rate on wheat from Manitoba to Lake Superior from 14 cents per hundred pounds down by a sliding scale, until in two or three years it reached 10 cents per hundred pounds. They also offered to build any reasonable extensions which the province might require to accommodate the people, and asked for no guarantee whatever. I think it was generally admitted that

the offer of the Canadian Pacific Kailway Company was just as valuable, probably more valuable than the offer of this company, because the Canadian Pacific Railway was willing to give these reductions, and asked for nothing in return. It was. of course, going to take over the Northern Pacific system on practically the same terms ; but there has been a strong feeling of hostility to the Canadian Pacific Railway in that country for many years, due very largely to the arrogant policy which that company pursued. I need not offer to hon. members any evidence of that feeling ; they see ebulitions of it in this House from time to time. The government took this view-and I am disposed to think that in so doing they accurately gauged public opinion-that if the bargain which the Canadian Pacific Railway offered was a better one. they dared not ask the legislature to ratify it. because to hand over any provincial franchise into the control of the Canadian Pacific Railway would raise a great outcry in the province. That was the argument used by the government and tlie legislature of Manitoba why the offer of the Canadian Pacific Railway should be rejected and that of the Canadian Northern Railway accepted. Let me continue reading the extract. I am not sure where I finished reading-


Edward Gawler Prior: Begin it again.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I do not like to hear remarks of that kind, because they would seem to imply that I am simply endeavouring to take up the time of the House, whereas I am, in all gravity and sincerity, trying to the best of my poor ability


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I hear again some of these hoarse laughs that were won't to resound in the committee whenever the interests of the people were advocated against the interests of a corporation. What difference does it make to these hon. gentlemen if Manitoba should sink deeper than the lost continent of Atlantas ? If Manitoba chooses to make a fool of herself, let her do so. They would rather take the side of the .corporation than that of the people, who are bound to be dragged down to provincial ruin if this deal be ratified. That is the position I take, and while I do not wish to be at all offensive, I think it but right that, in response to these interruptions, I should reiterate that I am trying, to the best of my limited ability, to present this case, and it is very gratifying to me to find that there are many members who are listening very earnestly to the argument I am making.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Go on.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I propose to go on in my own way, and I wish to say, in the mildest manner possible, that while I am not at all desirous of doing anything the House may disapprove of


Robert Lorne Richardson: Hon. Mr. PRIOR, I merely asked the hon. gentleman to read over again what he had read before. He said that he had read only a small portion, and 1 do not see why he should take up the time of the House by giving expression to his umbrage at an imaginary slight.


Robert Lorne Richardson: There was an imputation in that remark


Edward Gawler Prior: You are a little too touchy.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Perhaps I am, but I want the hon. member for Victoria, B.C., to understand that I am not the least bit angry and hope he will not misunderstand me. I merely wish to enter a very mild protest

	-


Edward Gawler Prior: Oh, go on with your work.


Robert Lorne Richardson: So I intend. I continue reading from Mr. Roblin's speech:
Having secured the lease of the Northern Pacific, the government made up their minds as to what they wanted from the Canadian Northern. They stated that they wanted absolute control of the freight rates. The Canadian Northern were not willing to give this without considerable argument.
That is what the First Minister of Manitoba said :
They (the company) wished to establish a fixed rate, say 10 cents on wheat, taking Brandon as a centre, and 20 per cent reduction on the tariff of the Canadian Pacific Railway, as it then existed. The government, however, would not accept that as what then appeared a reasonable rate might in five or ten years be an exorbitant one, therefore it was better to have absolute control.
These are the premier's own words. The Telegram, which is the organ of the government, on March 29th, gave this extract from the speech of the First Minister of the province at an entertainment given by the Young Men's Conservative Association :
The Dominion parliament had the power to do so (veto), hut he hoped and believed that they would not do so. The Dominion would not be justified in depriving the government of this opportunity to get control of freight rates, unless the Dominion was prepared to spend money to alleviate the freight rates disadvantage under which the province now suffered.
I would ask the attention of the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Sir Louis Davies) to this opinion of the Attorney General of the province. In the Telegram of March 9tli, Attorney General Campbell is reported as having said on tlie previous evening, in reply to Mr. Myers :
It is the intention of the government that the government will absolutely control the rates, and that rates will be fixed so that no one but the Lieutenant Governor in Council will be able to dispute them.
That was the position taken by the legal adviser of the Crown, the Attorney General.
4469 MAY 6, 1901 4470	
It is pretty clear wliat lie understood. I wish now to read from the Edmonton Bulletin, a paper, which, I believe, is owned by the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver). The opinion I am about to read is pretty significant, in view of the position which that hon. gentleman takes in favour of this contract. In the Edmonton Bulletin of February 25th, 1901, there appears this leading article : The Canadian Northern gives 3 cents a mile passenger rate over all its lines within the province, and hands over absolutely to the control of the province for a period of thirty years the freight rates from point to point within the province and between provincial points and Port Arthur. If these are the words of the hon. member- and he will no doubt contradict me if they are not-his view was that the province got absolute control over freight rates. The Bulletin continues : The Manitoba government, by assuming responsibility for the interest on the cost of the road, becomes entitled to fix the rates to be charged. This is fair to the investors, whose money built the railways, and who do not care where their interest comes from, so long as it comes ; and it is fair to the people of the province, who can claim rates to suit themselves, so long as the interest payments are kept up from whatever source. The control that has been secured in Manitoba must be secured in the Territories. I want to call especial attention to this : Manitoba has set the pace and the Territories will demand equal advantages when the time comes. What does that mean ? It means that Manitoba, having assumed a liability of seventeen and a half million dollars, to obtain the control of freight rates in Manitoba, the Territories must get similar control. Then, why should Manitoba be called on to assume an immense liability in order that, not only Manitoba, but the Territories as well should get low freight rates ? This accounts for the stand taken by the hon. member for Alberta in favour of this Bill. We can understand then why we hear no voice but the voice of acclaim in favour of this deal from all the members from the North-west Territories. Because if the dictum of the Edmonton Bulletin be true, if the Territories are going to get exactly the same rates as Manitoba, without paying a cent, then there is a great advantage to the Territories in this agreement. The House will clearly understand why the members of the Territories should fold their arms and say : Well, this is none of our funeral. Manitoba is assuming a liability of seventeen and a half million dollars, and if she gets low freight rates so do we. and therefore we say hurrah for the ratification of the Bill. 1 think that hon. members should bear this point very strongly in mind when they recognize that the voice of the North-west Territories	is in favour of the ratification of this deal. True, we might have expected them to show some patriotism ; true, we might have expected these hon. gentlemen to say-as I am confident most of them believe-that since this deal spells ruin to the province of Manitoba, and since Manitoba did not know- what she was doing when she agreed to it, we will come to her relief ; but their interest appears to blind them to every other consideration, and when they are led to believe that they will get the same rates without making any sacrifice, we are prepared to vote this measure through, cost what it may to a neighbouring province. Another brief extract from the Edmonton Bulletin and I will close the reading of extracts showing what was said with regard to the fixing of rates. This is from the Edmonton Bulletin of March 8th : The people of Manitoba have the game in their own hands, and it is for them to play it or to say that they do not want what they have been shouting for during the past fifteen years	 Mark the words

 -definite and permanent control of railway rates. Now, have they got or are they going to get definite and permanent control of rates ? I do not think that there is any member within the sound of my voice who believes that they are going to get anything of the kind. Now, not being a practised speaker, I have-always found some difficulty in arranging my speech consecutively. I am apt to follow one particular line away from an argument that I wish to pursue. I will ask the House therefore to go back to where I started. I was reading the contract that the House [DOT] might be fully seized of the facts before they passed judgment on this case, and I will now resume the reading of that contract : 6. The said bonds are to be made ready for issue and delivery and the government is to guarantee payment thereof. The said bonds with the said guarantee thereon duly signed on behalf of the government are to he deposited with the trustees of the mortgage securing the same, and when, but not before, the company's line from Port Arthur to the Rainy river has been constructed and opened for public traffic and a through train from Winnipeg has been run over the said line to Port Arthur, the said guaranteed bonds shall be certified and delivered by the trustees to the company or its order. Any overdue coupons on the bonds so delivered shall, before delivery, be cut off and cancelled. Provided always, that no bonds shall at any time be certified or delivered by the trustees as in this paragraph provided unless and until present oustanding bonds to an equal amount are from time to time delivered to the trustees in exchange therefor, so that there shall never be outstanding at one time a greater amount of bonds covering said line than at the rate of $20,000 per mile of said line between Port Arthur and Rainy river, not exceeding 200 miles. Provided also, that until the whole of the present outstanding bonds have been so received in exchange by the trustee, the rights and priorities of the present outstanding bonds actually received in exchange shall for the protection of



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 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.
Thus the company agree that it shall never charge higher rates than the rates fixed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. But now, when we come to the contract wnich we are ratifying, it is clearly understood that this parliament can exercise its control of rates ; and if the rates in Manitoba are lower than in Ontario or the North-west Territories, this parliament can direct the equalization of those rates notwithstanding anything that is here stipulated. If a railway commission for the Dominion is appointed-and we are given to understand that we shall have a railway commission-does any one suppose that that commission will allow a low rate in Manitoba and a high rate in Ontario or the North-west Territories. As was shown on the committee, they will call for the equalization of rates. Therefore, this clause of the contract falls :
9.	The company hereby consents to the passing of such legislation by the legislature of Manitoba as may be necessary to confer upon the Court of King's Bench for Manitoba full jurisdiction at the instance of the Attorney General of the province on behalf of the government, to decree specific performance and observance by the company of each and every of the terms of this agreement, and of the said lease and option, and the company hereby consents to and submits to the jurisdiction of the said court in that behalf.	i


Robert Lorne Richardson: 10.	Commencing when this agreement takes effect, the company shall reduce its passenger rates in Manitoba to not exceeding 3 cents per passenger per mile.
I am under the impression that we have a three-cent rate in Manitoba already. The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) nods his head and acquiesces in that opinion. He is a better authority than I am on that point, and so hon. members will see that this clause of the contract is practically of no value.
11.	The receipts and income of the company from operating the lines of railway included in the mortgage securing said guaranteed bonds and from all its lines in Manitoba, including the lines demised by said leases and option, shall be applied in the first place in payment of the working expenditure of said lines of railway, and in the second place in payment of the rentals under said lease and option and interest on bonds on said lines heretofore or hereafter guaranteed by the government or issued with the consent of the government.
They have to pay working expenses first, then rentals under the lease, and then interest on bonds.
Now. how are we going to control the working expenses on the forty miles iu Minnesota ? We have no control over that. Is there any member of this House who, if he makes a contract with anybody, does not stipulate in the bond exactly what can and cannot be done ? This forty miles in Minnesota begins under foreign control, and how are we to tell what the working expenses may be in a foreign country ? The company can do exactly as it likes there, and we can exercise no control. So, if they are able to charge what they like for working expenses, the House must see that the province of Manitoba has no chance of getting the rental paid. And that brings us back to the old proposition, that unless this parliament takes care absolutely to safeguard these bonds and to see that the company is going to be able to pay interest and rentals, then we are going to have repudiation. Manitoba cannot pay it. that is clear. Her expenditure yearly is greater than her revenue, and that being the case, she has got to go on borrowing, and after a while she will get to the end of her tether, and she will come down and ask this parliament, who forced this contract on her, to pay her liabilities.
And in consideration of said power given to the Lieutenant Governor in Council respecting | the fixing of rates, the government agrees that if the said receipts and income, after payment of said working expenditure, are not sufficient to pay said rentals and interest, the deficiency (if any) shall be borne by the government, and the company shall be relieved therefrom. Provided always, that the said deficiency (if any) shall be ascertained at the end of each period of two years, commencing from the 1st day of October. 1901, and any surplus in either year of any such period shall, as far as necessary, be I applied in reduction of any deficiency in the

other year of said period; but each period of two years shall for the purpose of this clause be treated apart from each other period.
They divide it into periods of two years, and if the road pays in any two-year periods, then they pay the rental ; but, if it loses, the goverhemnt pays the rental. If, however, there should be a large surplus in this two years period, and if the company should make far more money than would pay the working- expenses, rentals and interest on the bonds, then, they put the surplus into their pockets. But, if there are two lean years, the government has got to suffer, the government has got to pay any loss in the lean years. But, if there are two fat years all the company does is to pay the rentals, add to put the rest of the money in their pockets. That clause has been strongly objected to as a jug-handled clause. In fact, any legal gentleman who will go through that contract will find that it is a case of heads I win for the company, and tails you lose for the province.
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 railways in 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 time is not taken up in connection therewith there shall be Included reasonable remuneration for the time .aotually 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. Should any dispute arise between the government and the company as to working expenditure under this clause, the same shall be referred to the chief justice of the Court of King's Bench for Manitoba for the time being, who shall have full power to decide the same, and in so deciding he may take evidence or consult with experts, and use his own judgment in coming to a decision, and his decision shall be final and binding and without appeal. For the purposes of this clause the Minnesota and Manitoba Railway shall be deemed to be a line of railway included in the said mortgage securing said guaranteed bonds.
That might appear as if the Minnesota section were brought under the operation of this Act ; but, you will realize that you cannot make subject to the jurisdiction of any Canadian court a company which is organized in the United States, and whose operations are confined to the United States.
12. The provisions contained in existing legislation and agreements relating to the Northern Pacific and Manitoba Railway Company relating to running powers by other companies over the lines included in said lease and option are not to be abrogated by anything herein contained or by the terms or effect of the said lease and
option, but all such powers are to be preserved and may be exercised to the same extent with respect to the lines demised by said lease and option as if the said lease and option and this agreement had not been made, and as if the said lines were continued to be operated by the Northern Pacific and Manitoba Railway Company. The company may allow any other company except the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and any other company or companies running in the interests of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, running powers over any of the said lines at reasonable rates and tolls and upon such conditions as may be agreed upon.
13.	The company shall provide and maintain such equipment for its lines of railway as will reasonably provide for the requirements of the freight and passenger traffic of said lines, and should any dispute arise under this clause, the same shall be decided by the Railway Committee of the Privy Council of Canada.
14.	The company covenants with the government that its accounts shall be audited from time to time, and not less than once in each year, by an auditor appointed by the company with the approval of the government.
15.	The company will arrange for connection between its railway system from a point east of Sprague station and some line of railway now or hereafter connected with Duluth on Lake Superior.
The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bou-rassa) made a strong argument in the Railway Committee on that very point. The company under this contract must build a road from its Rainy River line down to Duluth, and later on the company may, for reasons of its own, choose to send all its freight by Duluth. Then, what becomes of control in the Dominion ? The Dominion may say : You must not send that freight over the American line of railway, we insist that it he sent over the Canadian railway ; and the company may say : Well, that makes quite a difference, and if you insist on that we shall be unable to carry out our contract with Manitoba. But, the hon. member for Labelle made that argument so well that I will not seek to repeat it, because he can do it much better than I can.
16.	Notwithstanding its present exemption from taxation the company covenants to pay to the government in each year after the year 1905 and up to the maturity of the bonds hereby agreed to he guaranteed, a sum to be fixed from time to time by the Lieutenant Governor in Council not exceeding 2 per cent of the gross earnings of the company from its lines in Manitoba covered by the mortgages securing bonds heretofore or hereafter guaranteed by the government. and from the lines included in said lease and option, and in consideration of the said payments the company and the lessors in said lease and option, their properties, incomes and franchises shall be exempt from such taxation as is provided for by section 18 of chapter 57 of the statutes of Manitoba of 1900, during the currency of the said bonds hereby agreed to be guaranteed. Provided, however, that any lands now exempt shall continue to he exempt from such taxation during the currency of said bonds.
17.	The company shall continue and maintain as its workshops at Winnipeg the workshops of the Northern Pacific and Manitoba Railway Com-

447G
pany, forming part of the premises demised by said lease and option; and the general offices of said company with respect to the operation of the lines covered by said mortgage securing said guaranteed bonds shall be at the city of Winnipeg.
18.	The company covenants that all controllable freight originating on or delivered to the lines covered by said mortgage securing said guaranteed bonds shall be carried over said lines as great a distance as possible on its way to its destination. Provided always, that the Railway Commissioner of the province of Manitoba may from time to time consent to freight being diverted.
19.	The company shall not nor shall any of the branch lines thereof (including the lines demised by the said lease and option) or any lines of railway leased by the company or under its control, be at any time amalgamated with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company or any of Its branch lines or with any branch lines leased by the Canadian Pacific Company or under its control. Any such attempted amalgamation, with any arrangement for making a common fund or pooling the earnings or receipts of the said two companies, railways, or any of their branch lines, or any railway lines or parts thereof leased by the said companies or either of them, shall be absolutely void. This provision, however, shall not extend to traffic or running arrangements made with the assent of the Governor in Council.
20.	The company hereby grants to the government the option to be exercised during the year A.D. 1929, of purchasing the then entire undertaking of the company, including all rights, franchises, powers, real and personal property connected therewith or appurtenant thereto for the then fair value thereof as a going concern. This option is not assignable by the government.
In witness whereof the parties hereto have duly executed these presents this 11th day of .February, 1901.
[Seal]	R. P. ROBLIN.
Railway Commissioner for Government.
[Seal C.N.R.Co.]



FREDERIC NICHOLLS,

[Stage Direction]
President.

[Stage Direction]
Secretary.
Signed, sealed and delivered in presence of Z. A.
Lash
That was the contract which the company-made with the government of Manitoba. [ now want to read the Act that was passed by the legislature of Manitoba ratifying this agreement, and. inasmuch as there are clauses in it which I shall refer to later on, I think it will he exceedingly desirable that hon. members who realize their responsibility on this question and who wish to cast an intelligent and patriotic vote shall follow me closely in regard to these clauses :

[Stage Direction]
His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the province of Manitoba, enacts as follows :-
1.	The Indenture, dated the eleventh day of February, 1901, set out in the schedule ' A ' to this Act, is hereby confirmed and is and shall
Robert Lorne Richardson: 
An hon. MEMBER.: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I hear that laugh again, but it does not amount to anything. The Prime Minister will he absolutely astonished to know that that clause that I have just read, and which gives to the Lieutenant Governor the power to put in any

provision that might he in the interest of the people ; that clause is left out of the Bill which we are called upon to pass tonight. How in the name of common simple justice can this parliament be asked to vote through a Bill destined to spell ruin for Manitoba, and which leaves out the very essence of the whole contract.


The PRIME MINISTER.: It is in the other contract. '


Robert Lorne Richardson: Which ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: It is in the Manitoba Act.


Robert Lorne Richardson: It might be in the Manitoba Act, but it is not in this Bill, and the company may come back and say that it is not the Act which the Dominion ratified, and that they are only controlled by the Dominion Act.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: Where are we ratifying any Act ?


Robert Lorne Richardson: The agreement made by the Manitoba government and this railway company cannot be carried into effect without the legislation we are passing here.


An hon. MEMBER.: Who said it could V


Robert Lorne Richardson: What do you want me to understand by that statement ? I say it cannot, and inasmuch as we are called upon to pass a law which makes the contract binding on Manitoba, we must be responsible for it. I see the premier shakes his head.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Certainly.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I had hoped I had convinced him by this time.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Not on this point.


Robert Lorne Richardson: 1 do not despair that I will convince the right hon. gentleman before I finish. On the suggestion of the Minister of Railways, the following was added to the Bill :
Nothing In this Act or in the indenture in the schedules hereto contained, or done in pursuance of this Act or of the said indenture shall first : (a) Divest or limit temporarily or otherwise the rights or powers under existing or future legislation of the parliament of Canada, of the government or the Governor General in Council, or of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, or of any commissioner or other authority respecting any matter or any obligation or duty.
We are not giving to Manitoba the Act they passed, but we distinctly declare that the Dominion of Canada is going to exercise its power as in the past.
(b) Place the Governor of Canada directly or indirectly under any liability, obligation or duty with respect to any bonds debentures stocks or securities of any kind or any interest thereon, or any payment mentioned in the said indenture Mr. RICHARDSON (Lisgar).
provided for or referred to or in any way arising therefrom. (c) Authorize the Canadian Northern Railway Company contrary to the meaning of the Railway Act to charge or demand any higher rates for the carriage of freight or passengers than those ^ heretofore or hereinafter fixed under the authority of existing or future legislation of the parliament of Canada, by the Governor General in Council or by the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, or by any commissioner or other authority.
I cannot see, for the life of me, that this is not inconsistent with the bargain contained in the agreement of the 11th of February, 1901. It is certainly not the contract which was made between the Manitoba legislature and the Canadian Northern Railway Company. By paragraph 5 of said agreement of the 11th of February, 1901 :
The said mortgage securing said issue is to be in a form satisfactory to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and to be in similar terms so far as applicable to the mortgage set out in schedule B to chapter 57 of the statutes of Canada for the year 1899 together with such changes and additional clauses as may be necessitated by the terms of such agreement.
You see again that is a strong argument in favour of the production of the contract. It is to be on terms similar to the mortgage which was executed in 1899 between the province of Manitoba and these same railway people. I have that mortgage here in the statutes, and may at a later stage read it to the House, in order that when we do get the mortgage in this case we may be able to see that it is in similar terms. Under the clause which I read, the Lieutenant Governor in Council was empowered to change any of the provisions of the bargain ; and, as I pointed out, there was a specific change made in the bargain between the parties. In Bill No. 103, as originally submitted to the parliament of Canada, section 2 provided for the inclusion of such specific change or any other change which the Lieutenant Governor in Council might deem necessary. The language was as follows :
The company may, in the mortgage securing the bonds mentioned in paragraph five of the said indenture, agree to such terms to amplify and carry out the provisions of the said indenture and such other term as the Lieutenant Governor in Council of the province of Manitoba may deem necessary in the public interests, though they may be at variance with any of the provisions of the said indenture.
That, of course, we are not ratifying. The parliament of Canada is not being asked to carry out the wishes of the legislature of Manitoba, as set forth in their legislation, but, on the contrary, is being asked to enable the railway company to enter into a bargain which has not been endorsed by the legislature of Manitoba. That point I have amplified.
Now, I would like to present in brief form the objections which are made to the agreement by a large section of the people of Manitoba, as represented by a delegation

which appeared here within the last week or two, the members of which were heard before the Railway Committee. That delegation has analysed these contracts, and has brought out in bold relief the main points of objection, and it is important that the House should be seized of these. The member for Winnipeg has, I think, submitted to the House evidence which ought to satisfy reasonable people that the great majority of the people of Manitoba are against the ratification of this deal. These are the points of objection made by the delegation to which I have referred :
The government of the province of Manitoba have agreed to lease from the Northern Pacific Railway Company their lines in that province for nine hundred and ninety-nine years at an annual rental charge of $210,000 for the first ten years, $225,000 for the second ten years, $275,000 for the third ten years, and $300,000 for the balance of the period. The province has also the option of purchase any time for $7,000,000.
By agreement (see Appendix ' A ') the government assigns this lease and option to the Canadian Northern Railway Company, guarantees the bonds, interests, and principal, on 290 miles of the latter company's lines in the province of Ontario, and permits a further issue of $2,000 a mile on their lines in Manitoba.
The province is therefore primarily liable for an annual charge of (1) $298,000 average annual rental; (2) $232,000 interest on bonds on Ontario section; (3) $153,920 interest on bonds formerly guaranteed by the province on Canadian Northern Railway lines in Manitoba ; making a total annual charge of $683,920, and a capital liability of $17,610,000.
These figures are alarmingly great, and while we believe the transportation problem in the province requires attention, the liability assumed under these contracts is entirely out of proportion to the benefits to be derived from them.
The total revenue of the province is about $900,000, and the expenditure approximately the same.
I think that is a mistake. My impression is that the total revenue of the province barely exceeds $700,000, and the expenditure is approximately the same. Indeed, it is generally greater, there being usually a deficit.
It will be seen, therefore, that an additional annual charge, part or all of which we may be called upon to pay-and under certain conditions the railway company are relieved from repayment-is a dangerous experiment, and a risk our young province has no right to take.
The right of municipalities to bonus enterprises by popular vote was some years ago abolished by the legislature, because of the serious results already experienced by several municipalities, yet the legislature, without giving an opportunity for expression by the people, proposes to bonus a railway enterprise by a guarantee of bonds. Is it not fair to ask that the province be given reasonable time to consider a proposition involving a liability of over $400 on each farmer in Manitoba ?
The consideration named in clause 8 of the contract is problematical, indefinite and unsatisfactory to the people. ' Control of rates ' is a 141
vague term and may mean much, little or no benefit to the province. In the first place the government, every year, face a fixed charge of over $600,000, a circumstance in itself to influence rates, then crop conditions, good or bad times, competition and many other things might operate, so that the government before they can control rates are themselves controlled by circumstances that may render them powerless. In view of the very substantial assistance given we think it reasonable to demand that maximum rates should be named.
The contracts were first made public February 16th, and ratified by the legislature March 13th inst.-just twenty-five days. The conditions in the country do not justify this haste. We speak for a vast majority of the province when we urge upon parliament the importance of delay. If the contract is good, delay cannot injure it, if it is bad delay by parliament will do our young province infinite service.
The* provincial securities and guaranteed bonds already afloat amount in round figures to $5,000,000. This sum should not be increased unless it is absolutely certain that corresponding benefits would follow. This proposal will increase our liability to about $20,000,000, a sum certainly alarming considering that our total population does not exceed 300,000. We hope for the contrary, but it seems reasonable to expect that this enormous liability will injuriously affect every security-local or provincial-which may in the future be offered for sale.
No provision is made for future railway extension. Many sections of the province are still suffering for want of railway facilities. These sections are liable for their share of the liability and should be considered in the contracts.
That is the point I sought to make at the outset. We do not ask much ; we merely ask you to vote the question hack to Manitoba, in view of the changed conditions, and in view of the definite statement that Manitoba is not getting what she thought she was getting. It is only fair to say to Manitoba, we will give you another chance to think it over, and then if you ratify it, it will be reasonable to allow it to go. So far as I am concerned, I would then withdraw any opposition I have to the ratification now. No provision is made for future railway extension. Many sections of the province are still suffering for want of railway facilities, and these sections are liable for their share and should be considered in the contract.
In this contract there is no provision made for railway extension, but in the offer submitted by the Canadian Pacific Railway there was provision for a number of desirable railway extensions in the province :
There is no provision in the contract governing rates on construction material. As the construction company and the railway company are practically the same, the rate should be fixed so that construction material would not be hauled at a loss. *
Two other offers were made to the government by responsible corporations, which offers carried with them specific and satisfactory reduction in rates, one imposed no liability, and the other a much less onerous amount. In view of these facts, we think tt is reasonable



to claim that delay in ratifying the Canadian Northern contract might open up a way to a satisfactory settlement of the transportation problem, and perhaps save us from a perilous position.
In this connection we might observe that even after the lease and contracts were made public, responsible parties have offered to build and equip a line of railway equal in length and of the same standard as the Northern Pacific for the sum of $3,500,000 or $10,000 per mile, just half the sum at which the value is fixed in the agreement.
That is the important point, but notwithstanding the fact that Manitoba is paying to the Northern Pacific Railway $7,01)0,000, a responsible company has offered to duplicate these lines for just half that amount. Let me read a letter sent to the Tribune and addressed to the Winnipeg Telegraiy. the local government organ :
To the Editor of the Tribune.
Dear Sir,

Will you kindly give space in the Tribune to the inclosed letter which I have forwarded to the Telegram :
To the Editor of the Telegram.
Sir,-In your issue of the 23rd I notice you state as follows :-
' It is observable that those who are criticising -the government's solution of the railway problem have no suggestions to offer as to what course should be taken by the government.'
As I have been hauled into this controversy somewhat against my will, I looked upon this as a challenge. I wish to say I am friendly to the present government, and would dislike very much to see a change at the present moment. There are members supporting the ratification of this contract with the Canadian Northern whom I have known from their boyhood, and I cannot point to a single discreditable transaction by them, and while I criticise the contract I want to do it in the utmost fairness, with all possible consideration to the men who are personal friends of mine. I think our principal difference is, they are more sanguine in the possibilities in the future than I am and they have less knowledge of the cost of railway construction than I have.
I will just mention a few points that will grow more difficult to explain as the business men of the country have time to look into them. We will consider the question of the purchase of -the railway from the Northern Pacific. I looked up a railway manual and found that the Northern Pacific cost about $21,000 a mile when they had 250 miles built; that is for rolling stock and everything, excepting the big Manitoba Hotel. I must confess I cannot account for $3,000 a mile of this cost. I do not think it was ever put in the road, because neither the iron on that road, nor the roiling stock would indicate any such cost. I have gone into the cost of roads all over this prairie country, and I find the highest cost was the Northern Pacific up to the date of building 250 miles, and the lowest was the Pipestone branch, which did not, cost $6,000 a mile. We" know that the rolling stock on these branches is worth very little, many of the cars and engines being small and old, and it is a question whether it is better to run these old, light engines into the lake and drown them, or to continue doing business with them. As to the cost of rolling stock, Mr. RICHARDSON (Lisgar).
$500 Cl- $600 a mile will obtain the rolling stock of many of the branch lines in Manitoba, and with the average branch line such as the Northern Pacific in Manitoba we have ample evidence to show, a nice profit can he made in this prairie country at $10,000 a mile.
I offer to-day to put up a quarter of a million dollars security with the provincial government, in any hands that they may name, satisfactory to us, that I will build the line mile for mile, with station and roiling stock, for the 350 miles of railroad owned by the Northern Pacific in Manitoba for $10,000 a mile. I will have this road ready for hauling out the wheat crop next fall, and I am sure the country does not require a road to haul wheat before that; for although there are many roads running into this country, there is little wheat to haul now. I will build it in every particular as good as the Northern Pacific, only if I enter into the contract in the near future I would require the privilege of putting in sawn ties, which I cannot obtain from the saw-mills, as it would be impossible to take out new ties this season. That would amount to $3,500,000 for the road that the government propose to pay $7,000,000 or 100 per cent more than the cost of a new road.
Here is a man in Manitoba, Captain William Robinson, worth from half a million to a million dollars, who offers to put up with the government $250,000 as security that lie will duplicate this line of railway for just one-half what the province is paying. The House will understand the great desirability of getting a road as cheaply as possible because the company has to earn the interest on the amount invested by the government, and if not the government must make up the deficiency. If, therefore, the capitalization is limited to three million and a half instead of seven million dollars, it must be clear that it would be very much easier to make up tlie interest.
I will not read the balance of Mr. Robinson's letter although he goes into the question very fully, but I merely wanted to make his offer clear. I now continue to give the objections offered by the Citizens Committee :
As further evidence of excessive capitalization, we may mention that Mr. Mellen, president of the Northern Pacific Railway Company, agreed ito enter into a partnership arrangement, putting in the same property at $5,265,000, and this sum is $1,000,000 in excess of the cost, as shown by the railway manual.
The premier of Manitoba agreed to amend the contract, by making It clear that the Canadian Northern Railway should not be relieved of any deficit until the grain rate to Port Arthur had been reduced below 10 cents per 100 pounds, and a greater reduction than 15 per cent below present rates on merchandise, but the amending Aot is so worded that the company will be relieved of any deficit if either one or the other of these reductions is made. If, for instance, a reduction of 16 per cent is made on merchandise, the wheat rate might remain as at present (14 cents) and the company he relieved foom any deficit.
The consideration to the provinoe is provided in clause 8 of the contract. Premier Roblin and Attorney General Campbell have insisted in and out of the House that it gives .the power

to fix freight rates to cover only working expenses and fixed charges. There is no doubt their supporters were influenced by these explanations. Eminent counsel doubt the right of the Dominion parliament to delegate to the government of Manitoba power to fix rates, and even if such power exists, the wording of the clause limits the reduction by requiring not only that the working expenses and fixed charges be provided for, but that the interests of the company shall be conslderd; thus clearly providing for a dividend on the stock of the company-notwithstanding the interpretation of the Attorney General that ' this clause means only that the government shall be courteous.'
Clause 11 of the contract provides that time shall be divided into two-year periods, and that the profits of one period shall not be liable for the profits of another. This is a most unfair arrangement, as all the profits are to be enjoyed by one of the partners to the agreement, and all the losses borne by the other. Clause 11 also attempts to define the meaning of the term ' working expenses.' In our view the definition is absurdly favourable to the company. Everything short of double tracking may be charged to working expenses, and as it is provided that sidings shall not be deemed double tracks, the inference is that sidings, ballasting, station houses, indeed everything but double tracks will be charged to expense account, rendering it reasonably certain that funds will be so used which should be set aside to pay interest and rental charges. We might add that the light rails now on the line will in the very near future be replaced by heavier ones; there is nothing in this contract to prevent the company charging this item also to working expenses.
Clause 14 provides that an auditor shall be appointed by the company with the approval of the government. In our opinion the auditor should be a permanent official, and should hold office during the pleasure of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, and should make sworn returns.
Under the contract the government will not be represented on the railway board. It is fair to demand that when the province furnishes practically all the credit, that it should hold, in trust at least, 51 per cent of the railwav stock.
I tliink that is a reasonable proposition.
Why should the province of Manitoba be obliged at so great a risk and cost to again purchase from Canadian Northern Railway Company the right to fix the rates, when the parliament of Canada has already secured this right in the interests of the people of Canada in consideration of financial assistance granted to the company ?
That is exactly the point I made.
Surely it is not necessary to again buy this right to make the bargain between the company and the parliament of Canada effective.
J. H. BROCK, Winnipeg.
D. W. BOLE, Winnipeg.
A. C. FRASER, Brandon.
EDW. BROWN, Portage la Prairie.
WM. ROBINSON, Selkirk.
I might add that John Arbuthnot, mayor of Winnipeg, was one of the delegation who appeared before the Railway Committee and presented the case. Now, I just want to complete this argument by pointing out, 141*
especially to members of the government, one of the phases of the legal aspect of this question. I may say that opinions were obtained with regard to the contract and the Bill from some of the ablest lawyers in Canada, and I would like to read their opinion, as it is very short:
The transaction intended and provided for by the two documents of the 15th of January and 11th of February, 1901, would in substance seem to be as follows :-
The lessors in the first instrument are four railway companies in Manitoba, one at least being a Dominion corporation, and all the roads owned by them having been declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada, and all, we understand, being now under lease to and operated by a foreign corporation, the Northern Pacific Railway, which is a party to the agreement. These roads are all leased by this indenture to the province of Manitoba for 999 years at an annual rental commencing at $210,000 and amounting to 5300,000 after the first 30 years.
The government is to receive possession on the 1st of April next, and thenceforth to operate them and exercise all the powers and franchises of the lessors, paying the rent for them to the Northern Pacific Railway Company.
The value of the demised premises is fixed at $7,000,000, for which the lessess are to be entitled to purchase during the term.
By the second document this lease and option or right to purchase are transferred to a railway company incorporated by the Dominion, which agrees to pay the rent and perform all the covenants entered into by the government. Bonds to the extent of $20,000 a mile on 290 miles of the company's road in Ontario are to be issued, and guaranteed by the Manitoba government, secured by mortgage, subject to the company's right to pay under the option and give a first mortgage on the demised premises to raise the $7,000,000 purchase money, but such bonds are not to be delivered until the 290 miles mentioned have been completed, which is to be by the 1st of October, 1901, such bonds to replace the bonds already issued to the extent of such last mentioned bonds.
In consideration of this guarantee of the bonds and transfer of the lease and option, the company agrees that up to 30th June, 1930, the Lieutenant Governor in Council is to fix the freight rates to and from any points in Manitoba to Port Arthur and back, and from and to all points in Manitoba, the company is not to charge more, and the passenger rates are to be reduced to 3 cents per mile. The receipts are to go-first, to pay operating expenses ; next, to the rentals ; and last, to interest ; the government to bear the deficiency, if any. All companies except the Canadian Pacific may get running powers over the lines, but any amalgamation with or control by that company is prohibited. After 1905, the company is to pay the government an amount not exceeding 2 per cent of gross earnings instead of taxes, during the currency of the guaranteed bonds.
It seems obvious that this arrangement, 90 far as it is embodied in either document, cannot be carried into effect without the sanction both of the Dominion parliament and of the provincial legislature

I would call particular attention to that point.
-and the parties aware, as we suppose, of this necessity have carefully provided in each in-

strument that such legislation, If possible, shall be procured.
Until this has been obtained we think neither document can be made effective

So, it is quite clear that, unless we put this Bill through to-night Manitoba has a chance of escape.
-and we assume that the provision for the province taking over the roads on the 1st of April must have been made in anticipation of the requisite authority being secured before that date. We regard the transaction as a whole, and no portion of it can in our view be carried out effectually and safely until the whole has been ratified by both legislatures.
This is important :
It must not be understood that we think it clear that even with such legislation the proposed transaction can in all respects be made valid.
That would coincide with the views expressed in committee by the Minister of Railways and Canals that this is liable to give rise to a great flash of authority.
On the contrary, we think the arrangement by which the province of Manitoba is to obtain power to limit rates for a fixed period on parts of a Dominion railway in Ontario is at least open to doubt, and in other details the whole transaction appears to us to suggest difficulties and questions which may be found under our constitution to render the transaction as a whole impracticable.
The point they make is that Manitoba takes power under this contract not only to fix rates in Manitoba but to fix rates in Ontario. Now the question arises should this Dominion government ratify any legislation giving Manitoba the assumed power to control rates in the province of Ontario.
Several questions have been asked by telegram, which, with our answers thereto, trans-mlitted in the same way, were as follows :-
1.	Can the Canadian Northern under existing legislation by contract transfer to province as proposed by agreement the right for Lieutenant Governor in Council to fix rates ? No.
2.	If not, can such agreement be made binding by provincial legislation alone ? No.
3.	Can provincial legislature without assistance from Dominion parliament authorize the courts to direct specific performance of agreement as to freight rates, as contemplated by section nine of contract ? If the foregoing answers are right, specific performance would not be decreed.
4.	If province parted with guaranteed bonds but failed in obtaining Dominion legislation ratifying rate agreement, would province be liable to innocent holders of bonds without having any power to fix rates ? Yes.
5.	If the Dominion parliament ratified entire contract except as to rates, and company used its best endeavour as in paragraph four to obtain legislation ratifying rates but failed, would there be any breach of covenant by company ? Might province be compelled to carry out its part of contract, receiving only as consideration the reduction in passenger rates (clause ten) and right to tax (clause sixteen) ? No.
We were subsequently asked whether this answer applied to both parts of the question, to which we replied :


Robert Lorne Richardson: The answer to question 5 is as intended. We thought there would be no breach of covenant by company, and that the province could not be compelled to carry out the contract if part only ratified. Both contracts expressly provide for both Dominion and provincial legislation being obtained to ratify them, and we regarded such legislation as a condition precedent to their becoming operative.
6.	Subsection 10, section 92, British North American Act, provides provinces shall have no authority to legislate respecting Dominion railways. Can the Dominion change this, or would any change in British North America Act require consent of all provinces and Imperial parliament as well as Dominion ? No.
7.	Clause 5 provides for mortgage in form satisfactory to Lieutenant Governor in Council. Can governor insist on this mortgage in any way altering provisions of contract, or is^ his right of approval limited to a mortgage strictly in accordance with the contract, but secruing by necessary provisions the carrying out of the terms of the contract by the company ? The mortgage must conform to the contract.
That is why I want the contract laicl on the Table. Here is the opinion of eminent counsel that the mortgage must conform to the contract. So we must have the mortgage before we can put this through.
8.	Do Canadian Northern and Rainy River Railways by Clause 6 of Railway Subsidies Act surrender to Dominion government control over all rates, both local and through? Yes, but these railways were already subject to the provisions in that respect of the Dominion Railway Act.
9.	Has province itself power to take control over Minnesota Railway? No.
The province cannot take control over the Minnesota Railway, and that ought to vitiate any contract, because if we cannot control that important link of forty miles, we have not got a through line at all.
10.	Can Dominion legislation provide for control of rates by province of Minnesota Railway without American legislation? No.
11.	Would it be safe for Manitoba to take control, as proposed, without providing it should only be conditional on ratification by Dominion and American legislation as to rates? No.



C. ROBINSON, GEO. F. SHEPLEY, A. B. AYLESWORTH, H. ALLAN NESBITT.

[Stage Direction]
These four gentlemen are the most eminent legal authorities at least in the province of Ontario. Now, I forgot to say at the outset, in justification of these remarks, that when the Bill was introduced in the House the hon. minister without portfolio, (Hon. Mr. Sutherland), who is chairman of the Railway Committee, made this statement :
I think the Bill might well be referred to the committee, with a distinct understanding that in voting for the second reading no member is committing himself to the principle or to the subject-matter of that Bill.
So that while it merely went to the Railway Committee by consent, it was on the distinct understanding that we could dis-

cuss the merits of the Bill when it came up for the committee stage. I was going to say a word as to what led to this bargain. Public men who have taken an interest in Manitoba affairs during the last ten or fifteen years will recollect the agitation we had over the question of Manitoba railway monopoly. By a clause in the contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway, that company was given a monopoly of the carrying trade of the west, and the building of railways south from the main line was prohibited. Of course there was a different interpretation placed upon that clause, and it was contended by the then government, which was Conservative, that it applied to what we now call old Manitoba. Sir John A. Macdonald made the historic remark that ' we cannot check Manitoba,' meaning no doubt that the old province of Manitoba had the right to charter railways running south from the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway within the boundaries of the province. That agitation was continued for years, until the province finally came to the verge of rebellion, when we saw a large body of men armed with clubs and revolvers, sworn in as special policemen-I myself happened to constitute one of them- who went up to Fort Whyte in order to force a crossing by the Manitoba system over the Canadian Pacific Railway. It was then that the Dominion government, under the leadership of the late Sir John A. Macdonald. capitulated, and made an agreement by which this government purchased from the Canadian Pacific Railway the right to allow railways to be chartered south from the main line to connect with American railway systems. In connection with that concession the Dominion of Canada paid a vast sum of money, amounting to millions of dollars. Manitoba immediately proceeded to construct a railway of its own, the Red River Valley Railway, running from Winnipeg on the west side of the Red river and connecting with the Northern Pacific system at the boundary. Now the Dominion having contributed a vast sum of money to get that privilege, a privilege which many considered was a right, it must seem desirable that we should hesitate before we dispose of this competing railway system that we introduced into that country. We introduced it at a cost of some $700,000 or $800,000, the road only cost some $3,500,000. and I rend you a statement from one of the wealthiest men in Manitoba who offered to put up $250,000 to duplicate this 350 miles of railway which has cost this country a vast sum of money, and which we are now purchasing from the Northern Pacific for $7,000.000. That being a most improvident bargain, it seems to me we ought to hesitate before we consummate it. Manitoba did not get the relief which she expected under these circumstances, there was still an agitation for amelioration of railway transportation. That agitation led to the
adoption by the Hon. Hugh John Macdonald, in the recent appeal to the country of the policy of government ownership of railroads. Upon that platform Mr. Macdonald was returned by a considerable majority. Notwithstanding that out of a legislature of forty members, Mr. Greeuway held thirty-three when they went to the country. On the policy of government ownership of railways, Mr. Greenway was wiped out and Mr. Macdonald came back with a majority pledged to carry out a policy of government ownership of railroads. Now, we hear statements made from time to time that we are getting government ownership of x'ailroads under this bargain. I think I have presented facts and figures to the House to-night which must convince all hon. members that we are not getting government ownership of railroads. It is quite true that Manitoba is leasing these railroads from the Northern Pacific, but she immediately turns round and releases them to the Canadian Northern railroad. If the Canadian Northeni is able to make these roads pay, then the Canadian Northern will pay rent to the Manitoba government: but if the Canadian Northern is not able to make these railroads pay it will pay no rent. Here let me remind the House that in the year 1900 a statement was presented, and it'is now a sworn document in the archives of this parliament, that this Northern Pacific lost $180,000 on its Manitoba lines, in operating expenses during the year 1900.
Then, I ask the House how on earth, if it loses $180,000 a year on working expenses, to say nothing of interest on bonds, will it be able to pay the rental which Manitoba will require from the company ? It cannot possibly do it. It is bound to lose money. If it loses money the company does not suffer, but the province of Manitoba has to make up the deficit, whatever it may be. Is that government ownership of railways ? No wonder the president of the labour party in the city of Winnipeg should say that instead of this being government ownership of railways it is government ownership of railway debts. These facts which I have laid before the House make the argument that it is not government ownership of railways, that is being carried out. Mr. Hugh John Macdonald, as you all know, after remaining premier of that province for a short time, resigned to contest a seat for this parliament, and being defeated, he was out of the premiership. Another premier was brought into power and another policy adopted, so that it cannot be said that the province of Manitoba pronounced, in the recent elections, in favour of the-policy adopted by the Roblin government. Nor can it be said, in view of the fact that this is a new deal, in view of the fact that this is something the people never heard of before, that if the legislature or government of Manitoba had understood its real effect they would
[Stage Direction]
ever have thought for a minute of entering into a contract of this nature. In fact, in my opinion, while the people of the west are, I believe, three or four to one, in favour of the government ownership of railways, if you ratify this deal you will put the government ownership of railways beyond the pale of possibility for a great many years to come, if not in perpetuity, and that is why I say that this agreement should not be perpetrated. Let me say that any man who has read the newspapers impartially and who has followed the trend of public opinion in that country, must be convinced that public opinion is against it. Take such papers as the Montreal Gazette and others that I might mention. Even Conservative papers regard the deal with great aversion. The Montreal Gazette has continued to warn parliament that it would be a great injury to the people of Manitoba if this deal were ratified. Now, I would like to refer, in conclusion, to the point I made earlier in the remarks which I have addressed to the House, and it is that we cannot divest ourselves of responsibility in this matter. Mr. Lash, the eminent counsel who appeared for the railway company before the committee, made it perfectly clear that the legislation that we are asked for is creative legislation. It is creative legislation; it is not merely the ratification of an arrangement which has been arrived at by the province of Manitoba and the railway company. No matter how we may view this matter, we must understand one and all that we are responsible for this deal. I reiterate what I said so earnestly in my opening remarks, that the responsibility rests upon us. and that point has been made so clearly that I do not think there is any possibility of avoiding conviction upon it. We must take all the responsibility, if we force through this legislation creating a condition of affairs in Manitoba that is bound in the course of years, as the hou. Minister of Railways and Canals has said, to lead to a serious clash between the government of Manitoba and the government of the Dominion. Does the parliament of Canada desire that a serious clash should occur between these two parliaments ? Has parliament not had sufficient trouble already with Manitoba affairs to at least be very careful as to what course it may take to create trouble at the present time ? I plead to-night not to crush the deal altogether-I do not ask this House to wipe it off the slate-but to stay its hand, even if it be for a few weeks, and allow Manitoba to say, what, under the changed condition of affairs, it desires to have done. I have laid the facts before the House to show what the legislature of Manitoba thought it was acquiring when it made this deal. I have read from the words of the premier, from the mouth of the Attorney General, from the editorial utterances of their organ, and from other sources, extracts which must convince any reason-Mr. RICHARDSON (Lisgar).
able man that Manitoba understood, and understood clearly and distinctly, that it was obtaining absolute power to control rates in that province. I have shown from the record that Manitoba distinctly and clearly believed that if that contract were ratified the province for all time to come should have within its own hands the absolute power to control rates. I think it has. been clearly demonstrated that Manitoba gets nothing of the kind. I think if Manitoba at the present time understood that it was not going to receive this great boon the members of the legislature would not have hesitated one moment to repudiate the deal and in the name of the people of Manitoba and in the name of the legislature of Manitoba, I plead with this parliament to-night, and ask it that it shall allow Manitoba to say for itself what it desires under the changed condition of things. On the head of parliament, and on the head of the government, be it if it ratifies that deal without seeing that the mortgage is placed on the Table, because, as I read the contract, the contract and mortgage and the indenture go hand in hand, they must be read together, rind we have a right to know what the conditions in that mortgage are going to be. I ask that we shall stay our hand. Why should we rush through a matter like this, involving a liability of over $17,000,000 ? Is there any occasion for any great rush ? Surely, it is a reasonable demand that we should allow Manitoba to decide this matter for herself under the altered conditions, and I sincerely hope that the request that I prefer to-night that our hand shall be stayed and that at least the mortgage shall be laid on the Table of the House, shall be conceded.
Frank Oliver: I did not at first wish to take any part in the debate, because I was willing to consider that this was very largely a domestic question, concerning the province of Manitoba. But, those who have opposed the deal have seen fit to assert that it is not a domestic question and have insisted that the members of this House, irrespective of the part of the country they represent, should judge the deal upon its merits. There may be something to be said on behalf of that argument. I have taken the advice given, I have even given some little attention to the deal, and I take the opportunity of discussing it, to some extent, according to my poor ability, upon its merits, and at the same time discussing some of the arguments that have linen made against it.
I would like to point out to the House that both in the Railway Committee and here, we have this contract denounced, in what certainly must be called unmeasured terms, and we have been instructed that the House is responsible for it in all its iniquity. But we are not asked to kill the bargain by our votes. If the bargain is half
4493 MAY 6, 1901 4494	
as bad as it is said to be, and if we are re sponsible for that badness, we have only one duty in the matter and that is to cast a unanimous vote against such an iniquitous transaction. I say that when Those who are opposed to the deal see fit to use such extreme language in denouncing it and then are afraid to follow up that language by the action for which it calls ; it argues insincerity on their part or lack of knowledge or both. The question, it seems to me, hinges on this : Have the railway rates in Manitoba been too high in the past or have they not V If the railway rates paid by the province of Manitoba in past years have been too high, then 1 claim that it may be fairly argued that this bargain is a good bargain. If the railway rates in Manitoba have not been too high in the past, then I am bound to admit that this bargain is a very bad bargain, is deserving of all that has been said against it, and I think this House will be doing less than its duty if it does not vote to destroy it. How are we going to arrive at a conclusion on this subject ? How are we going to make up our minds as to whether the railways rates in the province of Manitoba in past years have been too high or have not been too high ? What member of this House is sufficiently expert in railway matters to give an answer to this question ? I do not pretend to be, but I will bring as evidence a gentleman who I think will be admitted to have a more intimate knowledge of all railroad questions than any other in this Dominion, and a man who certainly places the interest of the railway company with which he is connected over and above -and far over and above-the interest of any province in this Dominion, or the interest of this Dominion as a whole. This is an authority which will surely be accepted as to whether the railway rates in the province of Manitoba are capable of being reduced or not, and still leave profitable earnings to the railway companies operating in that province : When the bargain between the Roblin government and the Canadian Northern Railway was announced, the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway submitted to the Roblin government a rival or competitive offer, which was not accepted and which was thereafter published in the newspapers and became common property. This offer as submitted involved a reduction of railway rates and it involved the payment of considerable sums of money, and the sole and only condition of the payment of this money and of the reduction in these rates was. that the bargain with the Canadian Northern Railway should be declared off. Now I say, that if it is worth so much money to the Canadian Pacific Railway to keep out the competition of the Canadian Northern Railway, it is worth just that much anyway to the people of Manitoba to get the competition of the Canadian Northern Railway. What was the offer of the	Canadian Pacific Railway Company ? The offer was this : We will give you a reduction of 4 cents per hundred pounds upon grain shipped to Lake Superior ; we will give you a reduction of 50 cents per ton on coal brought into the country from Lake Superior ; we will give you a reduction of $2.40 a ton on salt brought into the country ; we will reduce the local rates throughout the province of Manitoba 15 per cent ; we will take over the Northern Pacific lines which you have leased at the price which [DOT] you have paid for them, and we will give you an additional cash bonus of $10,000 a year for each of the first ten years, a cash bonus of $20,000 a year for each of the succeeding ten years, and a cash bonus of $25,000 for each year of the third term of ten years. In addition we will pay the salary of a railway expert at $5,000 per annum, who shall judge as between the province and ourselves in these matters, and we will build certain specified lines of railways without bonus. Now, I have gone to the trouble of compiling a statement of what these payments in cash and these reductions in rates actually meant to the people of the province of Manitoba. One cent reduction per 100 lbs. of grain is $6,000 on each million bushels. Let us see how many million bushels the province has for export each year so that we may understand what this reduction is. According to the Manitoba crop returns, the crop of Manitoba was estimated in the year 1900 at 23,000,000 bushels, and that was a very poor crop. In 1899 the yield was 54 million bushels ; in 1898, 47 million bushels ; in 1897, 31 million bushels ; in 1896, 29 million bushels, and in 1895, 59 million bushels. It is therefore reasonable to suppose that the average yearly export of grain from Manitoba, according to the present acreage under cultivation, is no less than 25 million bushels, and a reduction of 4 cents per 100 pounds on 25 million bushels is a reduction of $600,000 a year to the people of Manitoba. I estimate the importation of salt at 4,000 tons per year, and a reduction of $2.40 a ton would be a gain to the province of $10,000 a year on the article of salt. On coal I estimate an increase of 40,000 tons, a reduction of 50 cents a ton. which makes $20,000. I take the bonuses that were agreed to be paid on account of the Northern Pacific rentals ana divide them by the term of thirty years, for which this estimate runs, and it means that the Canadian Pacific Railway was willing to pay to the province of Manitoba, over and above the rental agreed to be paid by that province, a matter of $18,333 a year in cash, for the advantage of using the Northern Pacific line. They were to pay a salary of $5,000 a year. And estimating the number of miles of rail-wav branches which they agreed to build without bonus, and estimating the Dominion and provincial bonuses to which those lines 1 would be entitled, I find that their contribu-
[DOT]1495	COMMONS	4496
tions direct to tlie province on that account, or which they would give up in connection with the building of those branches, would amount to $8,266 in cash per year for the thirty years. The offer of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to the province of Manitoba, according to the estimate which I have given-and I claim that it is within the mark-meant $761,000 a year in cold cash to the people of that province. Then, I say if it was worth $761,000 to the Canadian Pacific Railway to retain a monopoly of the traffic of the province of Manitoba, it is worth $761,000 to the people of Manitoba to get the commutation they desire. I say further, if the Canadian Pacific Railway Company can afford to reduce their grain rates 1 cents per hundred pounds, and still pay interest oil a capitalization of from $30,000 to $58,000 per mile, the Canadian Northern Railway can surely carry grain at the same rqte and pay interest on an average capitalization of less than $15,000 a mile. The Canadian Pacific Railway offer was a business offer by business men for business reasons, and the fact that the offer was made without consideration to carry grain from the province of Manitoba at 10 cents per hundred pounds instead of 14 cents, which they are getting now, is evidence that this is a higher rate than the work can be done profitably for ; and if the Canadian Pacific Railway can do it for that, so can the Canadian Northern.
The changes have been rung on the possible clash of authority between the Dominion and tlie province in regard to the control of rates. There have been many reasons given why the province could not control the rates. The reasons were different oil every occasion, and the last reason is no better than the first. The last reason why the province cannot control the rates is because if it did and secured low rates within the province, shippers outside the province would be entitled to the relief which the Railway Committee of the Privy Council could afford. Ret me deal, in the first place, with the understanding had by the people of Manitoba in regard to this control of rates. It was stated specifically before the Railway Committee, and it has been stated specifically here to-night, that the people of Manitoba had been deceived in this matter-that they thought they were getting a control of rates which they did not get. The word used in the Railway Committee was. that the province had been ' gold-bricked.' Let me read from the speech of the Attorney General of the province, on the second reading of the Bill in the Manitoba legislature. If there is one member of the government who is more entitled than another to state what the law is. it is the Attorney General : and if there is one occasion more than another upon which his statement is authoritative, it is on the second reading of a Bill. If the people of Manitoba do not know the law to be as it is, then the Mr. OLIVER.
people of Manitoba have not paid attention to the statements made by their authorized legal authority. I will not trouble you by reading the whole of his statement on this subject; one or two sentences will do. Dealing with this very question of discriminatory rates, he says :
The sections that deal with this matter state that there shall be no discrimination, no special rates, and no secret special rates; and there are other restrictions.
He is telling the legislature in these words what are the provisions of the Railway Act on the very point to which'so much attention has been drawn. He says :
Now, if the contract we propose to make were a discriminatory contract, it would 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.
He points out to the legislature that there is no ground for the exercise of the authority of the Railway Company of the Privy Council in regard to the rates which are fixed under this bargain with the railway company, because they are not discriminatory. Therefore, the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, while it might have the power certainly has not the right to interfere with these rates ; and every word that has been uttered as to the absolute right of the province to fix rates in that regard, is absolutely true. But, the contention was raised in the Railway Committee, and it has been raised again here, that it is not a case of discrimination between individuals within the province, but a discrimination between individuals within the province and individuals outside the province. That is to say, when the people of the province of Manitoba fix the rates upon their produce at a certain low figure, the people outside the province, who have paid nothing towards this bargain, will claim to be entitled to have their freight carried at the same figure, and will be entitled to invoke the authority of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council to compel the railway company to raise its rate against the people of Manitoba. That argument is based on a supposition which is so utterly fallacious that I am astonished at any person setting it up as an argument. It is based on the supposition that the Railway Committee of the Privy Council does, as a matter of fact, to-day prevent discrimination in railway rates between localities. It is because of the discriminations in railway rates which exist to-day against the people of the province of Manitoba and other districts of the west, which have existed for years, which have not been prevented and which never will be prevented by the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, that the people of Manitoba have gone into this bargain for the purpose of getting rates equal to those given to people in other parts of this country, and to people in similar circumstances in the neighbouring country. If

It is a fact, and it is-it was stated by tlie lion, member for Saskatchewan (.Mr. Davis) here some days ago-that it costs S$ cents a bushel to carry grain at the present time from Winnipeg to Lake Superior, less than 450 miles, while grain is carried from the city of Chicago to the city of Montreal, a distance of nearly 1,000 miles, nearly 400 of which is by rail, for 4i cents per bushel- If that state of affairs exists, as it undoubtedly does, why does not the Railway Committee of the Privy Council remove it ? Because it considers that the conditions are such that there is no discrimination within the meaning of the Act. In other words, different conditions prevailing in different localities justify a difference in rates. That being the case, the House will agree tluu if there is any reason that will permit a discrimination in rates betweeen one locality and another, that reason exists in favour of the locality which has paid its good money as the price for lower rates, as compared with another which has not paid. The people of Manitoba, having pledged their credit or paid their money for the express purpose of securing lower rates, are entitled to those lower rates, and the Railway Committee of the Privy Council has no right to prevent their getting the benefit of those rates so long as that committee permits discrimination arising from different conditions throughout this country.
The idea has been put forward that the people of the North-west hope to share in the benefits of these reduced rates without paying anything. Speaking for a section of the North-west, I beg to say that no idea could be further from their minds. We understand thoroughly well that when the people of Manitoba pay their money to get a certain reduction in rates, they are entitled to that reduction, and that we who do not pay are not entitled to it. But what we do think is this, that Manitoba, having taken certain action, which, we believe, will result beneficially, has set an example to other parts of tlie country. I admit that we in the North-west have an interest in this Canadian Northern Railway. We are interested in the carrying out of this bargain, because we know that the only chance the Northwest Territories have of getting railway competition and adequate railway development is through the extension of this Canadian Northern system. Many years ago we hoped that the Manitoba North-western would give us railway development and competition, but that road to-day belongs to the Canadian Pacific Railway and is simply another link in the chain of monopoly. The North-west Central was proposed many years ago to give the North-west Territories railway accommodation and development, but that road has become another link in the chain of monopoly and furnishes no opposition. Our only chance, therefore, lies in the continuation of the Canadian Northern scheme. Therefore, we wish well to
that scheme, but that is altogether different from expecting to share in the advantage of a reduction of rates for which we are not paying anything. We do not ask for any benefits to the securing of which we do not contribute. And in this matter of discrimination, it is the Territories which will suffer, if there be any suffering. It is not the eastern provinces which will suffer. How many members present were in the Railway Committee when the . able argument was made that if the farmers of Manitoba receive certain reduced rates on their grain, the farmers of Ontario living along that line of railway, would claim a right to a similar reduction. But how many bushels of grain are raised in Ontario, or will ever be raised, along the line of that proposed railway, for export ? I venture to say that for every bushel of grain raised in the province of Ontario along the line of the Rainy River Railway, between Lake Superior and Lake of the Woods, there will be 10,000 raised in the North-west Territories. That shows the proportion of interest of two different sections of the country in this matter. If there is any section to be injured by discrimination in rates, it is the North-west Territories, but let not the House understand that the Territories consider that to give Manitoba the advantage of a reduction in rates, for which she has paid, is discrimination calling for the interference of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council.
Another point in' regard to which a very strong appeal was made to this House is in regard to the mortgage to be given in connection with this bargain. That mortgage should be laid on the Table so that the House could see really what it is. Who is going to sign that mortgage ? Who is giving the consideration for it ? Is it this parliament or government ? No, it is the government of Manitoba, and does anybody suppose that it is competent for this House to say what sort of mortgage the government of Manitoba will accept ? Surely such a proposition is not made seriously.
Surely no one can seriously propose that we should make a football of this matter and refer it back again to the people of Manitoba for further consideration. The question is certainly an important one, but it is to deal with just such questions that parliaments are elected and governments constituted. The legislature of Manitoba and this parliament were elected to deal with just such questions, and I for one hope that this parliament is not going to be so childish as to say that because a certain question is an important one. we will not consider it. but refer it back to the province, and then have the province refer it back to us. so that nothing will be done. We are here to decide these questions upon our responsibility, and if we cannot decide them, we are not fit for the position we hold.

Many arguments have been made to throw discredit upon this arrangement, and no doubt many others will be made. But, probably the poorest argument that has been put forward is that the conditions have been changed since the Bill came before this House, that is to say, that the people of Manitoba, through their legislature, voted for one thing, and that we are ratifying another. This contention is made because certain amendments have been placed in the Bill by the Railway Committee. I think X heard my hon. friend from Lisgar appeal to the House and implore the House not to commit such a breach of faith with the people of Manitoba as to pass this Act with these amendments, when the people of Manitoba were not cognizant of such conditions when the Act was passed. I am sorry my hon. friend is not in the House at the moment. I was going to recall to his memory how, a few weeks ago, he and I put up a somewhat unequal fight in this House to express more clearly, as we thought, or to explain, a statute which had been passed by parliament many years ago. And he and X argued, and I am sure we argued honestly if not ably, that it was quite within the right, as it was the duty of parliament under the circumstances, to give proper interpretation of that Act. I was astonished to find that on this occasion when an Act has not been passed, when certainly it cannot be contended that any material alteration has been made in the bargain as passed by the Manitoba legislature, that we are accused of a breach of faith and of misleading and gold-bricking the people of Manitoba, if we make what we consider necessary and desirable amendments. If these amendments that have been made or suggested, do as a matter of fact, change in any degree the tenor, or substance, or purport. of that Act, then, they should not be made. But, when, as a matter of fact, they set forth the law as it was, as it is, and as it is going to be. simply for the information of all and sundry who may or may not be interested, so that there shall be no question hs to what is meant and what is understood-so long as that is the purport and tenor of these amendments, I say that there is no ground of complaint as to their being introduced and no ground of complaint that the people of Manitoba have been deceived, and no reason for referring this Bill back to the local legislature of the province again.
The provincial legislature of Manitoba has dealt with this bargain. It has been said that the provincial legislature dealt hurriedly, that it dealt ignorantly with this contract, but that is a matter which the people of Manitoba can settle with their legislature and with their provincial government. I think it comes with rather ill grace from representatives of that province to insinuate that the local legislature and provincial government did not understand their duty and did not understand what they were doing Mr. OLIVER.
when dealing with this very important question. Is it because they are merely members of a local legislature that they are supposed not to know what they are doing, or that they are not equal to their responsibilities ? Surely, in this House we cannot hold such an argument, with so many members of our government and of this House who have served a long apprenticeship as members of the various local legislatures, and who were probably as competent men in their local legislatures or leading provincial governments as they are to-day in this House.
The arguments that have been made against the details of the Bill are arguments which should properly be addressed to the legislature of Manitoba, but I submit that they are not proper for the consideration of this House. This House, in the nature of things, cannot be aware of all the details of fact and circumstances necessary to give an intelligent judgment on these matters of detail. But, on the larger question, I am prepared to say that, if this House believes the bargain to be an improper one, if it believe it to be an immoral and ruinous bargain, it would be the duty of the House to refuse to sanction it. But that has not been shown. The very wildness of the assertions that have been made have been belied by the attitude of those who made them. So long as it has not been clearly proven that there is something outrageous or destructive in this bargain, so long as it only stands before us as a simple ratification of a contract made between a railway company and the province of Manitoba, so long, I claim we are entitled to give our consent to that bargain, our responsibility ending there. Suppose that two railway companies came here and asked for legislation with regard to their amalgamation. We might fairly take the ground for public reasons that they should not be allowed to amalgamate. But what would be thought of the House refusing to ratify such a bargain because one of the parties had not made as good a bargain as it ought, or did not understand what kind of bargain it was making. That is the argument that has been addressed to us here. We are bound to suppose that the legislature of Manitoba understood their responsibilities, and understood what they were doing when they passed upon this bargain. It is our duty to pass on our part of the bargain on our responsibility, and knowing what we are doing.
As to whether the legislature of Manitoba had a mandate on this question from the people. It has been said that the present government of Manitoba appealed to the people on the policy of government ownership of railways. I do not represent a constituency in Manitoba, but let me suggest what appeared to me to be the policy upon which that party appealed to the province. It was a policy of reduced rates on

railways. Wliat difference does it make to the people of Manitoba whether a fad under this name or a fad under that name is carried out ? What they want is a reduction of rates. You can call it by any name you please, but it was on that policy the government was elected, as I understand. What farmer or business man in Manitoba would refuse to accept a reduction in rates Which would be a benefit to him and would improve his business, on the ground that it did not come under this form or under that ? I say that the policy endorsed by the people of Manitoba was the policy of grappling with the railway question looking to a reduction of the rates. I am not here to say that this bargain is an ideal one. It is a great question. We cannot tell how it will work out until it has been worked out. But I say this-that the government of Manitoba was carrying out the mandate it had received from the people of Manitoba in the late election when it undertook this bargain.
For these reasons I support this Bill ; not because we have not responsibility with regard to it, not because I do not care whether it is a good bargain or not, but because we have responsibilities with regard to it. and because, to my mind, at any rate, it is a legitimate attempt at bringing about a better condition of affairs in regard to railway rates and the railway question generally in the western country, at grappling with the greatest and most pressing question in that country.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: It was not my intention to speak on the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee). In fact I would have preferred to express my views on the motion of the hon. member for Disgar (Mr. Richardson). As this is a very broad subject which involves much more than a local question, and as several members of the House are absent, I would like the government to consent to an adjournment of the debate.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I would not like to adjourn before we reach the usual hour of adjournment.
before parliament for a long time, and perhaps during its existence. I must say that I have been much surprised to see the disposition, first of the committee and then of the House, to dispose so lightly of a matter which is characterized in such a wray by the Minister of Railways and Canals, when so many questions, not only affecting the province of Manitoba but all the provinces of Canada, are involved. It is not my intention to treat this motion from a legal point of view ; but there are some questions of great importance to be considered before we pass this new legislation which, we may say, is unprecedented in the annals of this country. Much argument has been advanced before the committee as to the power of the Federal government to divest itself of authority in favour of provincial governments in respect to legislation on railway matters. Of course, not being a legal man, I do not propose to say how far, by this Bill as it originated in the House of Assembly of Manitoba, it was proposed that the Federal government should divest itself of the power it possesses. In my opinion I think the government of Canada has no power to divest itself of any authority in railway matters, or in any other matters over which it is given jurisdiction by the British North America Act; any more than a provincial government can divest itself of power in favour of the Federal government over matters concerning which exclusive jurisdiction is given to the provinces by the same Act. Therefore, I do not propose to inquire whether this Bill is an abandonment by the Federal government in favour of Manitoba of its powers over the proposed railways dealt with by this Bill. I will say only that I think every member of this House who gives any consideration to this question will admit that the Bill proposes to give to a provincial legislature powers in railway matters which no provincial legislature has so far enjoyed under our constitution. Therefore, I say that, although there may be no violation of the letter of the law. a point which I leave to the legal authorities, the spirit of the constitution is violated by the introduction of this Bill.
Now it is said that the province of Manitoba is the only party interested in this matter, and, therefore, we have no right to discuss the merits of this Bill, that we incur no responsibility in voting for or against it. Well. I think that is a preposterous idea. Knowing that this Bill will be decided by a vote in this parliament, and therefore that the agreement will be concluded or annulled by our decision, I do not see how any one can say that we incur no responsibility. I think we incur as much responsibility in voting on this Bill as a juror does when he pronounces for or against the acquittal of an accused person. Therefore. I say we have to study this question in view of these two issues, the legal issue and the issue of


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Do I understand the government wants the two motions to be disposed of to-night ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Then I will just deal with a certain portion of the question which I think has been raised more especially by the arguments that have been advanced by the hon. member for Lisgar. I can agree with very little that has been said by the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) upon this matter. First of all, I cannot agree that this is only a legal question. I agree entirely with the opinion of the Minister of Railways and Canals who told us in committee, where this Bill was discussed during several sittings, that this was the most important railway question that had come

of lowering tlie rates and therefore the people of Manitoba would be the gainers. The point that was admitted by the Minister of Railways and Canals to be the probable cause of friction between the Federal government and the provincial government w.'i s not raised in the province of Manitoba, and it was discarded by the Toronto Globe. That point is, that the Manitoba government having assumed the control of these rates for the benefit of the people of that province, they might in disregard of the interests of Ontario and Quebec or the interests of the transcontinental railway, adopt discriminating rates which would cause the whole trade coming from the west to pass over United States railways. In that event, the position of the Federal government would be either to leave as a dead letter that power of interference which is vested in it by the British North America Act (and which is repeated in the amendment suggested by the Minister of Railways and Canals) or, to interfere. And would the Federal government interfere in the way of lowering the rates in Manitoba? No. The only possible remedy would be to raise the rates in Manitoba and therefore force the Manitoba people to send their produce by Canadian railways. If the government of Manitoba have the right to ask us to give them the power to establish low railway rates for the people of Manitoba, then the people of Quebec, Ontario and the maritime provinces who have contributed towards the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway have a right to say that the government of the little province of Manitoba shall not be permitted to divest the wrhole trade of the North-west through American channels. I would hail with pleasure Canadian competition against the Canadian Pacific Railway. I am no slave of the Canadian Pacific Railway. I owe nothing to the Canadian Pacific Railway, but I say, not as the representative of one province, but as a representative of the Canadian people in this Federal parliament, that we have no right to place ourselves in the position of depriving one province of the advantages we have given it, or else, allowing that province to discriminate against the rest of Canada in favour of American transportation lines. We are expending millions on our harbours, canals and railways, are we now for the sake of provincial autonomy, which is not at stake, to give to a little province, where the spirit of discrimination against the rest of the country has been developed for years; are we going to give to that province power to take the whole of the Northwest trade for which we in Ontario, Quebec and the maritime provinces have expended over $100,000,000 of tlfe money of the people. and allow them to hand that trade over to the American railways ? We know that the people of Manitoba have no special antipathy against such a policy. We know Mr. BOURASSA.
that when the Greeuway government was in power the question was raised of the provincial government favouring the opening of a railway to Duluth. That question was discussed in the press of Canada and it was discussed in) La Patrie, just as this legislation has been discussed in La Patrie.
I have quoted the Toronto Globe to show that one of the leading organs of the government presented the question in the way that the government of Manitoba presented it; rather favourable.
The Globe had to admit that it was a very dangerous bargain, a bargain which might involve the ruin of the province, yet it said the people of Manitoba had been looking so long for the complete control of their rates, that it was no wonder they paid a high price for it. But if it had been said at that time that the Minister of Railways and Canals should come and ask the Federal government to amend that legislation, not by giving up the jurisdiction which this government has under the British North America Act, and which cannot be taken away from it ; but by asserting in that very Bill that the control of rates by the Manitoba government would be for all time to come under the jurisdiction of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, I say the Toronto Globe would not have assented to that legislation. Especially, I reassert, those men, either in the legislature or outside of the legislature of Manitoba, who have gone the length of approving this legislation only on the understanding that it would be surrounded by certain conditions, would never have consented to it had they known that the Federal government proposed to deprive the government of Manitoba of the power of altering the conditions of the agreement.
La Patrie, which is one of the organs of the government, also discussed that question, and its language was much stronger than that of the Toronto Globe. On the 22nd of February last, just a week after ' Mr. Roblin had announced his policy, La Patrie come out with an editorial, which I will read, translating it from the French into English. The title itself shows the spirit of the article :



GIGANTIC ABOMINATION.

[Stage Direction]
The arrangements made by the government of Manitoba with Messrs. Mann & Mackenzie deserve much more than a passing notice. It is in fact one of the most audacious deeds which our country has witnessed so far. Here is a little province, hardly capable of paying its ordinary. expenditure, which takes the responsibility of obligations involving a dozen of millions of dollars. We do not know what has been the attitude of the Lieutenant Governor, but we know what it should have been, and what it should be. Mr. Roblin should be forced to dissolve the legislature, and to ask the opinion of the electorate on this bargain, this scandalous bargain; for it is useless and even dangerous not to call things by their" names. There is evidently in this operation an enor-

mous scandal. The powerful capitalists, Messrs. Hill,, Morgan, &c., who were preparing to invade British Columbia, have their hands in this astonishing transaction which we are now witnessing. The public protest sent by a certain number of business men in Manitoba, which will be found in our columns, states nothing but the truth; but it does not state the whole truth, because the whole truth is not known. The province of Manitoba is incapable of bearing the burden which an incapable or corrupt government has just placed upon its shoulders. What will happen ? To-morrow or sometimes in the future they will come back to the federal exchequer, and ask us, the older provinces, to pay the damage. We see clearly, very clearly, through this gigantic abomination.
A piece of legislation which has been so termed by one of the organs of the government should attract the attention of the members of the government, now that we have to deal with the transaction which two months ago was so clearly seen through. With regard to the question of provincial rights, on the 18th of March La Patrie said again :
The parliament of Canada will be called on to pronounce upon this famous operation. We may find, to-morrow, if the province of Manitoba is incapable to face these heavy obligations which it has just contracted, that the Federal government will have to pay the damages. We know how prospectuses are prepared for the European market. If the parliament of Canada ratifies the Roblin deal, the prospectus that will be thrown to the world to announce the enterprise will contain in very big letters the statement that the parliament and the government of the Dominion have been brought into the bargain. Later on, if the interest on the debentures has not been paid, the bearers of those debentures will come back to us, and we shall be forced to put our hands in our pockets. The old provinces and the Dominion would be bound to face the situation.
Now, are we to be told that we have no business with this matter ? I could quote six articles of La Patrie denouncing this bargain as one of the most scandalous public deeds since confederation, stating that the parliament of Canada would have to pronounce upon it, and that we would see that the jumping-jacks of Manitoba would jump before long. It has been repeated time and again, and it is my deep conviction, that the moment the province of Manitoba realizes the result of this legislation, we shall be called upon to come to its assistance. Fifteen years ago the cry was to build the Canadian Pacific Railway. Men like Mr. Blake and Mr. Mackenzie said yes, the Canadian) Pacific Railway should be built, but pause a little and let us see how it should be built. INto, the cry was, build the Canadian Pacific Railway as quickly as possible. What was the result ? We have been told time and again that the Canadian Pacific Railway has been built, not for the benefit of the people of the North-west, but in such a way that half the people of the North-west are clamouring for other communications. Later on, when the Northern Pacific came to the frontier of
Manitoba, who had to pay for the abolition of the monopoly which had been given to the Canadian Pacific Railway ? We had to pay for it in the neighbourhood of $7,000,000. if I am not mistaken ; and now we are called upon to empower the legislature of Manitoba to assume a debt which some place at $7,000,000, which La Patrie places at $12,000,000, and which the lion, member for Lisgar (Mr. Richardson) places at $17,000,000. I have not yet heard one man defend the scheme as a good financial scheme. We have been simply told that this is not our business. But every time the province of Manitoba has been in a bad fix, we have had to come to its relief ; and I say it is our business, when called on to ratify this contract, to see whether or not it is a good one, because if the contract is bad we shall have to pay the damages. Therefore I say, as one of the representatives of the older provinces, and as a member of the Federal parliament, it is my duty to enter my protest first and my vote afterwards against a bargain which nobody has the courage to defend, but which is simply concealed under the pretense of standing for provincial autonomy. Sir, when a provincial government will stand for the maintenance of its rights, there will be no man readier than I am to defend its rights ; but when a provincial government enters into a bargain which has been termed by one of the leading organs of the government as a scandalous abomination, the only argument advanced in favour of a vote for this scandalous transaction is that we have no right to prevent Manitoba from ruining herself. But I know from past experience that should Manitoba ruin herself, we will be called on for the second or third time, to advance the money to get that province out of the hole. It is, therefore, my duty, as a Federal representative, and as representing a constituency in one of the older provinces, to vote against such an infamous piece of legislation. If it could be proved that this is a good bargain, that there is no danger of the province of Manitoba coming back to us for relief, I would say, let that province have the legislation it wants ; but even with the precautions taken by the Minister of Railways and Canals, I see very little chance of our preserving our rights. It is all very well in theory to say that we reserve the right of controlling the rates and of seeing that the administration of that railway is conducted on business lines ; but the hen. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) himself has told us that when the Dominion government has had to deal with private companies, it has never exercised that right. We hear every day complaints about the Railway Committee Of the Privy Council not daring to force the Canadian Pacific Railway or any other railway company to adopt rates satisfactory 'to the people. I ask then if the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, or the Dominion government, or parliament, do not dare to exercise their rights, when dealing
*4511
[Stage Direction]
with private individuals or corporations, how can they be expected to exercise those rights when dealing with a body politic, a government responsible to a whole province, and able to raise an agitation against Federal interference ? And more especially, when dealing with the province that has been preached for the last fifteen years on the principle of non-federal interference. We all remember the agitation in that province for the building of the Northern Pacific. Although at that time the Dominion government and the Canadian Pacific Railway were linked hand in hand, yet the Dominion government had to give way to the demands of the province when threatened with a rebellion. When the passions of the people are aroused, the mere text of the law will not prevent popular sentiment making its way. Not one of those men, who stand up for this Bill, will pretend that the government of Canada, which dares not interfere with private corporations in the matter of rates, will ever dare interfere with the government of Manitoba. Once we have given Manitoba the power of controlling rates, that government will exercise it to the detriment of the other provinces ; and if the Dominion government should ln-terefere, it could only do so by breaking the very principle upon which we are asked to accept this contract.
What is the use of standing here on the principle of provincial autonomy ? Either the Minister of Railways was sincere or he was not when he put a clause in the Bill retaining to the Railway Committee of the Privy Council the right to interfere and prevent discrimination. I have no doubt he was sincere, but then what will happen ? Manitoba has forced this measure upon this government in order to get lower rates. Do hon. members believe that, in dealing with the rates, the Manitoba government will have any regard for outsiders ? No, being a political administration and not the directors of a private company, and wanting to gain votes, they will make rates favourable to the people of Manitoba, and will not have the slightest regard for the interest of the people in other sections. They cannot lower their freight rates without discriminating against other parts of the country, served by this line. It is obvious that the company, with the absurd powers left to it, will endeavour to get back on that part of their line outside of Manitoba what they lose in Manitoba. So that the government of Canada will be placed in the position of either allowing that absurd state of things to continue, or else, by interfering, violate the very principle upon which we are asked to carry this piece of legislation.
In order to avoid a little agitation now, we are opening the door to a much stronger agitation in the future. There is a great tendency in this parliament to leave to our successors the burdens we ought to shoulder ourselves. The cry is:	' Let us have
Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: peace, let us avoid agitation, let us satisfy the passions! of the moment! ' That appears to be the general policy ; but I venture to express the opinion that our duty is to enlighten the minds of the people and refuse to adopt any mistaken legislation. Nine-tenths of the members of this House condemn this legislation, but a great number on the other side will vote for it because they do not want to censure their friends in Manitoba, and members on this side will follow their example because they do not want to injure the chances of their friends in that province. But when (we have to deal with a question of this kind, which may involve the peace of this country, which may imperil the good relations which should exist between the Federal and the provincial government, we should put ourselves a little above party and deal with it on its merits. We are here not only to gain popularity, but to combat for what is right. We are bound to legislate not simply for the time-being and to gain votes, but to build up and promote peace in the country. Every day we are called on to deal with legislation for the purpose of developing the transport facilities of Canada. We are the owners of a big railway, we have built our own canals, we are deepening our channels, we are constituting ourselves a railway company and a navigation company and canal owners, and now we are legislating to take away from our railways and canals our transport facilities and transfer them to the American canals and railways. We are voting millions to secure the output of grain through Canadian ports, not only from our own Northwest, but from the American North-west as well. In the discussion on the relative merits of two Canadian ports, there was not one voice raised against the policy of having Canadian transportation at least done on Canadian soil. At least Canadian transportation should be done upon Canadian soil, and we should take from American transportation as much as we can. And now, after forty years of that policy, after the efforts of every parliament have been engaged in that way, we are opening the door to the destruction of all that work in order to satisfy a temporary agitation. Sir, it is not said, and I do not ask for my part, that this parliament should reject this legislation altogether. I do not say that the principle of provincial ownership of railways should never be sanctioned; but I do say that until we have reached the point where the Canadian government can control railways under its own authority, the least we can do is not to impair our future power in that way, and not to give the provincial governments powers which have not been contemplated by the makers of our confederation and for which they have not the proper machinery; but in regard to which they are bound to come to us to help them, and in so doing

put us In tlie position where we are at once the legislative power giving them the rights which they do not possess, and also the executive power ruling over another executive power which is entirely outside of us and beyond our jurisdiction in every other matter. We are making this a most absurd position legally, financially, and politically, and when we try to avoid our responsibility by saying that the people of Manitoba want it, we are simply taking a side issue in order to avoid facing the question itself. Suppose that to-morrow the legislature of the province of Quebec were to adopt a Bill to authorize the Superior Court judge in Hull to take charge of the administration of justice in the county of Carleton and were to ask us to ratify it- they would represent that it was for the benefit of the people of Quebec, and that this was a matter under provincial authority. Under a particular provision of our constitution the Dominion government has the power to appoint the judges, while the provincial authority has the right to arrange the judicial districts of the province. Suppose the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario were to enter into such a bargain, we would never sanction it. because it would be an absurd thing to bring two provinces together in this way which are so different in their constitution. It is no more absurd to give one province legal jurisdiction in the territory of another than to give a provincial government a right to control railway rates outside of its own boundaries, or even within its own boundaries injuriously affecting the interests of others. And even if it is objected that in this case we keep our control, I say that we do not keep it in effect, or that we can keep it only by breaking the only principle upon which, I think, we can base our granting of that legislation.
I cannot vote for the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg-not that I am opposed to the principle of the referendum, but because we should not on a matter of special legislation adopt that principle. I am prepared, however, to vote for the motion of the hon. member for Lisgar. In doing so, I am simply following the course to which I will not say I was inspired by the articles of La Patrie, but that came to my mind when I read those articles. We do 'not repulse the legislation or say that we will not adopt it, but we say to the people : You adopted the bargain, you adopted it for such and such a reason and because you thought it would give you such and such advantages; but it having come before us we cannot grant it as it is; we make the amendments that we think proper, and send it to you to see if you will concur in them. I say that, to my mind, the whole thing is wrong- there should be no such legislation. I would rather vote against the whole thing as I* indicated in committee. But, if we are to pass over the objections which are so 142
serious, and if we are to adopt this Bill, at least let us not adopt it after only two or three hours discussion and without knowing what are the real intentions of the people whom we want to please so far that we are ready to break the spirit of our constitution to please them. And when we are told by their representatives, and not only their representatives here but their local representatives, that they have adopted this only with such and such intentions, I do not see that we are doing very much to please them when we impose on them conditions which they did not contemplate and which they refuse to execute. Let us send back this legislation, if we cannot do better. If the government does not press the vote upon the whole of this legislation, which I think it would not be wise to do, and if there is time under the rule regarding notice, I will propose an amendment to clause 3 which has already been amended by the Railway Committee at the proposal of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals. The clause that was added to by the minister provided :
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

Then there are subsections a, b and c, the last of which says :
-authorize the Canadian Northern Company to charge or demand

And there at the instance of the Minister of Railways and Canals were inserted the words ' any discriminating rate for the carriage of freight or passengers or to allow or make any secret or special tolls, rebates, drawbacks or concessions.' I would move, on the third reading that after the words ' discriminating rate ' the words he 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.' The object is to cover the point I have just stated, that if we are called upon to legislate in favour of the province of Manitoba, we should not forget the rights of the other provinces and the rights of the large transportation companies, in case the province of Manitoba should, as seems to me very probable, to discriminate in favour of American railways. I wish to be well understood on this point. I do not mean to check competition between, for instance, the' Canadian Northern and the Canadian Pacific. Let these fight each other as much as they please and the people will benefit by it. But I am strongly opposed, in case it would be favourable to the people of their own province, to the provincial government sending their traffic to the south, which they could do easily, because a part of this line Is through the state of Minnesota and it has easy connections with lines in the United States. We must provide that, not only in



case of a company or individual coming to the railway company of the Privy Council, shall that committee interfere to stop discrimination ; but supposing, for example, the province of Ontario, having subsidized part of this line, were to come and tell the government of Canada : ' We have contributed to the building of these railroads because we were told by the law that they were under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal parliament. Now, if the Federal government propose to give to the Manitoba government jurisdiction over these railways, the Manitoba government may legislate in a manner antagonistic to our interests. We want to be protected against discrimination.' Of course. I do not think this government can divest itself of any of its powers in these matters. When the Minister of Railways and Canals proposed these amendments, he said he wanted the people of Manitoba to understand their position. Well, if they are given to understand that the provincial government cannot discriminate against individuals. let them he told also that they cannot discriminate against whole provinces. Therefore, I hope the government will not press a vote upon this matter so as to prevent me from moving an amendment when we go into committee.
Amendment (Mr. Puttee) negatived.


Robert Lorne Richardson: As I announced iii the remarks I addressed to the House a short time ago, I have given notice of an amendment to move on going into committee that we should refer this back to the legislature of Manitoba. I was much pleased at the position which the member for Labelle took upon the question. While you, Mr. Speaker, named me as seconder of the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg to have this question referred to the people of Manitoba for a plebiscite, I did not offer any objection to that in order that the discussion might go on. Still, I agree with the member for Labelle that the proper course is to have this referred hack in the first place to the legislature of Manitoba. I intended to offer a few remarks in support of that motion, but it is getting late now. However, I wanted to say to the Prime Minister that the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) has telegraphed that he desires to participate in this discussion. He would he here to-night but for illness in his family, so I understood from himself, and I think it would be only fair that we should adjourn at this stage so as to give him an opportunity to be heard in the House. For my part I would acquiesce in that suggestion. The suggestion is not made with any desire to delay the discussion, as I learn from the premier that he intends to have the discussion go on from day to day until we reach a conclusion. Of course I know that no matter what position any member of the House may take, the government have control of the matter and Mr. BOTJRASSA.
can force a division. It seems to me the request I make is an exceedingly reasonable one, and I would suggest that we adjourn until Wednesday, although I have no definite statement from the member for North Norfolk when he will be here by that day. I would again ask the right hon. the Prime Minister to agree to this reasonable request, and I think those who act with me will acquiesce in it.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The government lias no position upo'n this question, it is a question upon which every member of the House is free to vote as he jileases. The only object the government has at this period of the session is to reach prorogation, we must clear the Order paper. We cannot take two stages on this Bill to-night, according to the rules of the House, but I would expect before we separate to clear the paper of all the amendments that have been proposed to this Bill.


Robert Lorne Richardson: You mean all the amendments on going into committee ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Then I apprehend that the right hon. gentleman will he willing, as soon as my motion on going into committee is disposed of, to adjourn the House. If that is the case I will not offer any extended remarks on the motion.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The hon. gentleman will agree with me that we should clear the paper of amendments and advance the Bill a stage, and leave it for the third reading.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Then he desires that the committee stage should be taken, and that any amendments that are to be offered should he discussed and the Bill reported to the House to-night for third reading ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Certainly.


Robert Lorne Richardson: The right hon. gentleman will see that if that is done it will preclude the member for Norfolk from discussing the amendments which might be brought in.


The PRIME MINISTER.: He can speak on the third reading.


Robert Lorne Richardson: But the premier will see that there are some amendments proposed which the member for Norfolk would like to discuss, which we are offering to-night, and that I do not suppose, in view of the understanding, that the government intends-


The PRIME MINISTER.: The government has no understanding.


Robert Lorne Richardson: It is not, after all, a very serious matter to ask that this Bill he delayed until Wednesday. If might then go through in a very short time.

Then, I understand, it is the intention of the premier to adhere to his resolution that the Bill must go through to-night.


The PRIME MINISTER.: What I want to do is to insist that this Bill shall have a stage to-day. We have given the day to it, let us have a stage.


Robert Lorne Richardson: What stage?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Oh, I am going to have my say quietly-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I have no desire-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Order.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I have no desire to obstruct or be offensive. I want to be as courteous and kindly as I know how. If I am wrong I will quietly admit it, but I have my rights as a member, and I want to have them understood. I do not want to offend anybody's ear, and if hon. gentlemen will keep quiet we will get down to business. Would it be a stage if the House were to go into committee ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: It will be a stage if we get the Bill reported for the third reading.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Well, we know exactly now where we are at.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Question, question.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I have no intention of wearying the House, and no desire to be offensive or to put myself into juxtaposition with the House. However, as hon. members will understand, I take a veiy earnest and a very deep interest in this matter, and I propose to do what I consider to be my duty. The motion which I moved, and which the hon. member for Labelle has announced his concurrence in, was that there should be a clause inserted in the Bill that it should not become law until it has been referred back to the legislature of Manitoba. I think, Sir, I made it reasonably clear in my remarks, which I addressed to the House on the amendment of my hon. friend from Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee), that the people of Manitoba should at least have an opportunity of pronouncing on that Bill before it becomes law. It would probably be superfluous for me to go over the arguments which I addressed' to the House to show that the legislature of Manitoba acquiesced in a bargain which was not the bargain that this House is called upon to ratify to-night. I may say that I agree with the position that the hon. member for Labelle has taken. This Bill could not become law or be placed upon the statute-book without this government agreeing to it, 142*
and the government must take the responsibility. The government may say that this is a matter of provincial rights, and that it does not care to raise a row in Manitoba because of any interference in the matter. It may say that it will leave the matter entirely to Manitoba. I think I made it abundantly clear that this is not a matter of provincial rights at all, that without the concurrence of this House this contract cannot become law. This abominable bargain, or, to use the expression of La Patrie, this abomination, cannot be forced upon the people of Manitoba. Now, I say that it is clearly understood that this government must take the responsibility. I believe, as I said in the remarks which I addressed to the House, that there are to be found very few members .of this House who believe that this is a provident bargain, or who believe that it is one that ought to be forced on the people of Manitoba. That being the case, it is as well that the responsibility for this legislation should be placed to-night so that when repudiation comes, if Manitoba is unable to pay its debts, it will be clearly understood how this legislation came to be forced on that province. I would like very much to have had this Bill delayed at least for one sitting in order that another motion, of which I gave notice, might have been discussed. I gave notice to-day of a resolution to strike out clause 3 of this Bill, and to allow this House to declare, as far as it can be declared, that this House divests itself of any authority and that Manitoba should have the right to control rates, as the legislature thought it had when it ratified the deal which was placed before it. The reason why I gave notice of that motion was, that I thought if we were to fasten this Bill upon Manitoba, we ought at least to be perfectly fair with the province, and give it what it thought it was getting when the legislature of Manitoba passed upon that deal. It would be superfluous at this stage to continue the debate to any particular extent, owing to the very full explanations into which I entered upon the motion of my hon. friend from Winnipeg, but I have given notice of a motion, on going into committee, which I will read now, because I will have an opportunity of discussing these matters later on. I would have liked very much if the right hon. gentleman who leads the House could have seen it desirable to have acquiesced in the suggestion for delay which I have made, but the right hon, gentleman did not do so, and I will have to content myself by reading the motion. The hon. member for Labelle will probably second it. and we will have an opportunity of discussing it in Committee of the Whole when we reach that stage. I beg, therefore to move my motion.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Would the hon. member (Mr. Richardson, Lisgar) be kind enough to read his motion ?


Robert Lorne Richardson: Yes :
On the motion to go into committee or on the third reading of Bill (No. 103) ' An Act relating to an agreement between the government of Manitoba and the Canadian Northern Railway Company respecting certain railways -
In view of the fact that the bargain which is the subject-matter of the legislation at present proposed to the parliament of Canada is not the bargain authorized by the legislature of Manitoba, it Is the opinion of the House that the present proposed legislation be not passed and that the same be held over until the terms thereof shall have been submitted to the legislature of the province of Manitoba for consideration and endorsation by that legislature.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I would suggest to the hon. member (Mr. Richardson, Lisgar) that he take out the words on the motion to go into committee,' and I think it would be in order to move the motion now. I do not think anybody will have any objection.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend lias given notice of his motion, ' to go into committee or on the third reading.' If we would allow this Bill to go through, he can move his motion on the third reading, and then have his discussion with the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) upon it. He gains everything by adopting this course. He will have a House fresh to hear the discussion, instead of taking up a matter of such importance at this late hour.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I apprehend that there are other hon. members who want to speak on this motion.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes, and they can speak on the third reading.


Robert Lorne Richardson: They can speak on it now.


The PRIME MINISTER.: When the Bill agaiin comes before the House, the hon. gentleman can have the full discussion that he wants to have on his motion on the third reading.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I quite see that, but I am not yet convinced that my duty does not call on me to have a full discussion of my amendment at this stage. I would have acquiesced if the right hon. gentleman had agreed to defer the Bill until the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) would express his views on it.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Richardson, Lisgar) can move his amendment at the next sitting, and the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) can make his speech on it if he is here.


Robert Lorne Richardson: The right hon. gentleman has misunderstood me to some extent. I did not ask to have the Bill deferred to give the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) an opportunity to speak on this particular motion, but to give him an opportunity of discussing the amendments which we have given notice will be moved | Mr. SPEAKER.
in committee. If the right hon. gentleman had conceded that point I was willing to oiler no further opposition.


Arthur W. Puttee: It seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable request that we should not go through the committee stage to-night, so that the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), who spoke very strongly on this Bill in the Railway Committee, should have an opportunity of expressing his views to the House. The only member of the government who has spoken on this question has told us that this Bill involves one of the most important questions that lias arisen since confederation, and that it should be carefully considered. In view of that, I am surprised that the Bill should be rushed through without our being afforded an opportunity of hearing the opinion of the law officers of the Crown. The hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) is the only member of this House who attempted to justify the bargain. I believe that if a private opinion of the members of this House were expressed, not one-tenth of the members would support it. The member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) is prepared to defend this Bill on its merits, to say that it has not been altered by the Dominion parliament at all, and lo assert that the control of rates can lie with the province of Manitoba or with any other party that is willing to buy that right for a consideration. I can admire the hon. gentleman's audacity in going so far, but he failed to justify his statements by the quotations he made. He told us that the Attorney General of Manitoba said in the legislature, that the Manitoba government would not have control of the rates, but on looking up the files of the government organs I find that both the premier and Attorney General of Manitoba repeated emphatically that the whole object of the bargain was to secure the control of the rates. There has been a supplement of the local government organ in Winnipeg distributed freely among the members of this House, but it does not give t he whole of the speeches that it pretends to. It only gives the conclusion of the Attorney's speech. The Attorney General begau his speech on Friday and he finished it on Monday, and it is only his Monday speech that is published in this supplement. On Friday the Attorney General said :
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 disturb them.
The Attorney General preached absolute control, and that no power was entitled to interfere with these rates but the Lieutenant Governor. Andj yet the Attorney General has been quoted in this House by the hon. member for Alberta to show that he ] said that this parliament would retain the | first control. The Attorney General further , said :

The board of trade reported that the government should make provision for passenger rates. Mr. Campbell said that they had not been able to, 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 not only the suggestions of the board of trade, but all other suggestions that would be of material benefit to the province. Of course, they would have to use their own judgment, and so forth.
That was the meaning of the Attorney General's speech on Friday afternoon, and he finished that speech on Monday. In the supplement which has been distributed freely in Ottawa, the Monday's part of his speech has been given in a form from which I imagine the hon. member for Alberta has drawn his conclusion that the Attorney General did not say that there was absolute control within the power of the province. There is no doubt that the premier of the province all along recommended the bargain because it gave absolute control of rates to the province; and the . only thing that makes the motion that has been moved by my hon. friend from Lisgar of any effect is the question whether we have changed the Act at all, or whether we have put any construction upon it or imposed any conditions which the Manitoba legislature did not do. Our amendment to section 3 of the Bill, which is now7 before the House, stating specifically on the initiative of the Minister of Railways, that this government retains to itself all control of rates, and that there shall be no discrimination, was evidently inserted, as the Minister of Railways told us it was, because there might still be some people in Manitoba who imagined that they were claiming the control of rates. If there is any alteration in the contract, then the motion now7 before us is a good one, because we are passing some other proposition altogether, and are not doing w7hat the legislature of Manitoba asked us to do. It was a surprise to every member of the Railway Committee to find the legal counsel of the railway company making suggestions to amend the Act, and the counsel of the province of Manitoba immediately accepting those suggestions before they were made, and before he could possibly have known their import. I submit that if we cannot alter the law as it w7as passed by the legislature of Manitoba, most certainly the counsel representing the executive committee of that government cannot do so. I do not propose, Mr. Speaker, to go very fully into this matter, because it was very fully dealt with by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) on the previous motion; but lam just going to quote a few7 remarks of the premier of Manitoba in which he did say many times that this bargain meant the absolute control of rates in that province. The proposed contracts were first announced on the 14th of February, by the premier at a banquet at Neepawa, and the next day the Winnipeg Telegraph, the organ of the local government, heads its editorial column with this very emphatic statement :
Splendid bargain. Control of rates has been secured to the people of Manitoba.
That is the first sentence in the editorial column.
That was the message of Premier Roblin last night, enthusiastically endorsed by every member of the cabinet. No matter how critically the contracts can be examined, no interpretation can be put upon them which will take away from the people of Manitoba the control of rates.
Now, I ask the hon. member for Alberta, or any other lion, gentleman who has contradicted the statement that these acts were put through the Manitoba legislature on the direct assurance of the premier and the Attorney General that absolute control of rates w7ould be obtained, what can be learned by this last sentence V Since this Bill has been before the Railway Committee every lawyer who has spoken, and every man who has analysed the matter, has come to the conclusion that the province of Manitoba has not control of rates, but that we must control rates and cannot divest ourselves of that power, and the Minister of Railways has himself suggested the insertion of clause 3, which is already in the Railway Act, so that there might be no doubt on that point. But there was no other consideration on the part of Manitoba , than the absolute control of rates; and if we cut that away or state that it was never there, then I claim that the amendment now proposed is the right one. The article goes on to say :
The object of government ownership, of railway commissions and of all other public methods of regulation is the control of rates, and this the government has secured in the most direct form. The rates are to be fixed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
The premier, in opening his speech that night, mentioned that his government had heen elected among other things on a government ownership platform, and he had said then that the only object in their wanting government ownership was to get absolute control of rates. It is said we are not far enough advanced to entrust the ownership and management of our railways to any government, and to that extent government ownership is impracticable; hut if we have not government ownership, we have absolute control of rates, and therefore we have got that wltnout the trouble we would have incurred otherwise- there is very little doubt that this was the meaning of the premier's statement at that time. His own paper the next morning contained probably the most emphatic deliverance given on that point. It absolutely settles the question whether the people of Manitoba were told that they were getting control of rates in this deal.

That means that the people of Manitoba will enjoy a privilege enjoyed by no other province in Canada.
The hon. member for Labelle argued that if we cannot give discriminatory rates to individuals, we cannot give them to a province, but we have the most explicit statement by the First Minister of Manitoba that the Lieutenant Governor in Council would have absolute control of the rates. I do not know that there could be any plainer statement. The gentlemen who initiated this bargain and put it through, informed us that the Lieutenant Governor in Council has the right to make all tariffs from that time forward until the contract is revoked-that is for thirty years. That is what they promised the people of Manitoba in return for their guarantee of $17,000,000 of bonds. I do not know whether these gentlemen had considered the Railway Act of Canada or the authority of this parliament under that Act. If they had, they would have come to the conclusion that they were evading it. If they had not, then they were simply misleading the people.
The position of the hon. member for Alberta and of those who deny that we have altered the contract which was passed through the legislature of Manitoba, was not what it was represented to be to the members of that legislature and the people of the province.
A strong point of the hon. member for Alberta was that because the Canadian Pacific Railway came along and offered to buy out this deal altogether-offered so much in reduced rates and taxes and in foregoing the asking of bonuses on lines to be constructed -practically offered Manitoba a very large sum if the Manitoba government would not enter into this deal, therefore, that offer represented what the deal was worth to the people of Manitoba, and what it would save them. I do not think that that is a proper ground to take. The Canadian Pacific Railway simply wanted to head off this deal and have an absolute monopoly. It could see that its competitors were getting stronger, that the ratification of this deal would make one of tlidm stronger, and it also saw an opportunity to buy out all opposition and was willing to pay a very good sum. But if this measure becomes law, the province of Manitoba will find that it will not gain anything like the sum offered by the Canadian Pacific Railway. It will find that if the people get lower rates they will have to pay very dearly for them. If the rates in Manitoba are reduced below the carrying price, the province will have to make up the deficit and the people of the Territories will want the same rates. You cannot discriminate on the one line of railway between different points. You cannot have higher tariff on the one side of a provincial line than on the other. And despite the statement of the hon. member for Al-Mr. PUTTEE.
berta, you will find deputations coming down from the Territories to the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, demanding that the rates be equalized, and the rates will have to be equalized either by reducing them in the Territories or raising them in Manitoba. We can easily foresee a conflict between the government of Manitoba and the government of the Dominion on that very point. Unfortunately, Manitoba has the worst end of the stick, and will have no remedy but to put up the rates, and still go on paying the interest on the bonds.
There is one other point to which I draw attention. A good deal of legal opinion was obtained from the railway lawyers of the country on these deals, and, to refute some of these opinions, the organ of the local government got some opinions itself, and this one signed by Walter Barwick. His opinion on clause 8, I think, is worthy of the attention of this House in the light of our being, as we were practically told that if we refused to pass this legislation we should be vetoing the action of Manitoba. There was no such suggestion from Manitoba, and their counsel has explained that to them most satisfactorily for he says that if similar legislation to that passed by the legislature of Manitoba is passed in the Dominion parliament nothing more will be required to make the contract, including clause 8 fully efficient and to enable the transaction to be carried out. This gentleman, being the adviser of the government tells them that similar legislation must be passed by the parliament of Canada. I submit that that is entirely different from vetoing or disallowing an Act. It seems to me that the case that was made out before the Railway Committee is supported by this opinion and that the legislation of this parliament goes almost to the extent of the creative. At all events, in acting in this matter we must take the responsibility and that responsibility seems to me to involve the duty of thorough investigation into the clauses of this agreement; and, if they are not right, if there is conflict between the two authorities, if the people of Manitoba have not the Act that they expected, then we should send it back to the legislature. I am sorry that there is an intention to force the Bill through the committee stage to-night. I have been surprised to see that in the Railway Committee and in this House we have had no expression of opinion from the members of the government or from other members of the House who are certainly more familiar with railway matters than I am, or from members representing Manitoba constituencies. It seems to me that we are deluding ourselves with the idea that this is no concern of ours. But I cannot understand that the government can be without responsibility if the statement made by the Minister of Railways in the Railway Committee is to be accepted. After that statement, I cannot see how the hon. gentleman can leave the matter to go

through without a word. It is clear that it is not known what the effect of this agreement will be. The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals stated that the principle included in the Bill has never been before this parliament since it was1 a parliament. It being so serious a matter, I can quite understand why he should be careful. He is in a position where he cannot allow his authority to be taken away, nor can he allow an Act to go through that will bring a clash between his authority as chairman of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council and that of the province. Of course, we know that the motion that is now submitted will not have the support that the motion should have, but I am quite willing to support it. I believe that the motion that I submitted to the House even if it would not get the support even that this one would, is the best solution to the difficulty. This is not, as the hon. member for Alberta, says, simply a matter of trying to shirk responsibility. We should not deal with this matter iu committee until we have some assurance as to what it is we are asked to pass. It lias been pointed out already this evening that the mortgage which is referred to in this Act is more than an ordinary mortgage, because the government refused to amend the Act but declared that they would cover all desirable amendments in the mortgage. In fact, if there is any virtue in this bargain, it is to be found in the mortgage which not merely becomes part of the Bill but is to govern. It is of greater importance than the Bill itself. And we have no indications as yet what its terms are to be. To that extent we are passing this Bill in the dark. I shall have much pleasure in supporting the motion of the hon. member for Lisgar.


Mr. .TABEL ROBINSON (West Eigin).: I think this question had better be disposed of this evening or this morning rather ; it will be only a waste of time to prolong this discussion further. Every gentleman in the House has made up his mind how he will vote on this question. I am not a representative of Manitoba or of the North-west, but I have a good deal of sympathy with the people of Manitoba. They are about the centre of this Dominion, and their interests should be watched over by this Dominion government. If the people of Manitoba have made a mistake, as it has been shown that they have, and are likely to be injured by the Act of their legislature, when they come to the Dominion parliament and ask en-dorsation of what they have done. I think this Dominion parliament should be very careful what they do about it. I do not suppose, from the discussion that has taken place, that there will be very many who will vote for the hon. member for Lisgar's resolution, but I intend to vote for it. I think the resolution is a very fair one. No one will be injured by postponing this matter for at least a few months, and I think it would be wise for us to allow it to go back to the legislature of Manitoba. But to prolong this discussion, thinking we will get more members to believe as we do, will be useless. I think it will be better to have this vote taken to-night ; we would only lose more time and gain nothing by delaying a vote. I think hon. members have already said more than was necessary to say on the question. It seems to me that any man ought to be able to say in half an hour all that can be said upon it.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I do not want to offer any obstruction at this stage ; but, I must express my surprise at the announcement of the Prime Minister, that the government do not take any position as a government on this Bill. It is surprising to find that during the whole of this discussion the Minister of Railways and Canals has been absent from his seat, in view of the position he took in the committee, where he stated that this was the most important railway question that had ever come before the parliament of Canada since confederation. Now, while this discussion is going on in this House, when suggestions are made and opinions are asked, we find that the member of the government who has care of the railway legislation, who is called upon to advise parliament in relation to it, who is charged with the duty of maintaining the rights of the people in railway matters, is absent from his seat. More than that, no member of the government has given his opinion on the matter. I regret to observe that although the government say they do not take any responsibility on this question, as a matter of fact they do take responsibility for it, because they propose to force this measure through, and they resist an adjournment which is proposed in order to allow absent members to express their opinion upon it. Why is it that the government do not openly assume responsibility ? Is it because they are still of the opinion that La Patrie was, that this is the most abominable bargain that was ever entered into by any government ? If they are of that opinion, how is it that when they are asked by men who have no desire to obstruct, to define their position, to say how far they consider these amendments are in accordance with the terms made by the government of Manitoba, no answer is' vouchsafed us ? Now we find that after the government organ has denounced this bargain in eight leading articles for one month and a half, the government have no responsibility, nothing to say, no directions to give parliament. Sir, the scandalous transaction is not confined to Manitoba, but it is in this House. The matter had been kept upon the ground where it was discussed for about fifteen days. After the announcement made by the Prime Minister of Manitoba, papers of all

shades of opinion in all the provinces took up the question and discussed it on the merits, as well as on the various constitutional points ; and then the discussion grew more acute every day ; the government organs and the opposition organs took the strongest ground possible upon the question, but still the government have no policy ! Here the leaders of the two great parties are called upon to vote upon the question. We are told that there is no polities in this question, that it is only a question of business. Why, Sir, the whole thing is a question of politics, and instead of being a question of open politics, it is a question of hidden politics. It is a question of hidden interests that are not revealed. How is it that La Patrie was so outspoken a month ago, and that now we cannot get any member of the government to express an opinion upon it ? For a month and a half we have been promised revelations, we have been told by one government organ that the powerful syndicate of Hill and Morgan was at the back of this arrangement ; but now we have no information, no opinion from the government. Is it because the syndicate was so powerful as to shut our mouths ? Is it because the truth that was going to come out is now too big to be given to the people? Well, Sir, I do not think that either the leader of the government or the leader of the opposition are gaining anything by this little game. They may gain a little advantage in Manitoba for the present, but they do not gain any moral advantage before the people. The people are prepared to forgive many things in their public men, they are prepared to forgive mistakes, acts of bad policy, but they are not prepared to forgive moral cowardice, and unfortunately we see too much of that very often in this House.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I must ask the hon. member to withdraw that expression, that he has seen too much moral cowardice in this House.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: All right, I will withdraw the expression with pleasure, because I always desire to obey your ruling, and to maintain the discussion on a proper footing. But, I will keep my own opinion just the same. If I am out of order in calling this moral cowardice, I will try to find another word, but my tongue is not so supple in English as in French, and so I will employ a sentence. I will say that it is strange to find the government in that position, that a great public question has come before us involving the interpretation of the constitution, involving the relations of the Federal government with the provincial government, involving the future of the transportation problem of Canada, involving the financial future of one province, involving the direct interests of the federal-for the time will come when that province will Mr. BOURASSA
be unable to fulfil its obligations, and It will come to this government for aid-yet, Sir, a question like this is treated by hon. gentlemen on both sides as of less interest than the simplest private Bill. Why, if a private Bill incorporating an ordinary railroad company were before this House, involving only a tithe of the political and financial problems which this legislation involves, we would have the opinions of half the ministers and of the leader of the opposition. How is that none of these hon. gentlemen spoke on the second reading of the Bill ? It was because they wanted to get details. Let the Bill go into committee, they said, let it be threshed out, then when we are in the possession of all the details, the House will pronounce itself.
The committee devoted three or four sittings to the consideration of the question. Strong expressions of opinion have been given by ministers of the Crown and by leaders of both parties. We have been told that this is the most important question that has been discussed for a long time and certainly the most important question that has been discussed this session. We have been told that we should deal very carefully with the matter. We have been given evidence that this legislation has been adopted by the people of Manitoba under certain conditions and that these conditions, having been found improper, we have been asked by a representative of the government to alter them. Now, when we are asking the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals to complete the opinion that he gave in the Railway Committee, we see that the hon. gentleman is not in his seat. How is it that an opinion that was proper to be given in the Railway Committee where there is no ' Hansard,' where the words uttered by members are not taken down is not repeated here when parliament is called upon to pass upon this legislation and to adopt or reject the decision of the Railway Committee ? How is it that the hon. minister who said in the Railway Committee that if the committee passed this legislation it might and probably would bring about a clash between the Federal government and the provinces is absent and we cannot get an expression from the representatives of the government or from the leader of the opposition ? But, we are told that this Bill must pass to-night. We are told that no more time should be given to this legislation.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No such statement as that has been made. There was no attempt made to force it at all.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. I think the hon. minister was not here when the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) was before the House. I got up at 11.30, and I said that I had an amendment which certainly was not an obstructive amend-

ment, which was an amendment that should be discussed which I wanted to move in committee and that if the government were ready to take the vote upon the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg we could adjourn until to-morrow or any day so that we could discuss the motion of the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Richardson), give a day to it and then take a vote in committee. Mr. Speaker, we have been told, I repeat, and I insist upon this point, that this is the most important railway question that we have dealt with for thirty' years, and we are told now that three days discussion is too long for this question. Small Bills of the merest local importance are discussed for hours. When we are in Committee of Supply members will get up and discuss for half an hour or three-quarters of an hour the price of nails, or screws, or something of that kind involving an expenditure of $10 or $15. A big discussion will take place and inflamed speeches will be made on an expenditure of that kind. Time will be given to questions of no importance whatever, but when a question, which, according to the declaration Oif a representative of the government. is the most important that we have had to deal with for years, two days discussion, or three days discussion is too much -a question which has been denounced by one of the leading organs of the government as the most scandalous that has to be dealt with. The truth was to come out, but the truth does not come out. I suppose I must refrain from using words which I would like to use, but I will say what the attitude, not only of the government but of parliament, inspires me. It reminds me of the worst phases of the Congress of the United States at a time when some railway Bills could be passed without any discussion and without any consideration, because the proper amount of lobbying work had been done. I do not say that lobbying work has been done in this matter, hut, here is a question which has been presented to the public under the darkest colours ; and the way it is treated in this House by the leaders of both parties is not of such a character as to inspire respect for parliament or respect for their representatives by the people of Canada. The people have been told for two months that their greatest interests were involved in this legislation, that the future of this country might be involved and now, when we are asking an expression of opinion from a member of the government who gave expression to the sentiments to which I have referred in the Railway Committee, he is absent. We are told that the Bill must pass and we are told that nobody assumes any responsibility. How is it that the men who stood up in the Railway Committee against the Bill, are now absent ? How is it that men who had the intention
of speaking on the second reading and who were told by another minister of the government that if they reserved their speeches for the time when the Bill was in committee or for the third reading that their letting the Bill pass its second reading without any discussion would not imply any consent on their part to the principle of the Bill, are now all gone ? Because three or four members ask for the opinion of the government they are called obstructionists. It is not my intention nor is it in my power to offer any obstruction to this Bill. I do not represent the interests of the province of Manitoba, but I represent the interests of the people of Canada, and I have a right in that capacity to ask how it is that the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals is not here to-night. How is it that we have no expression of opinion from the leaders of both parties ? How is it that this legislation which has been painted in such dark colours by the leading organ of the government is to be rushed through the House without argument or discussion ? I am not going to detain the House any longer, but I protest most strongly against the way this Bill has been dealt with in the House and in the committee. The truth has not come out, but, the truth will come out one of these days and perhaps some of the majority, some of those who are going to vote, although they know it is a bad bargain, though they have been told that it is a bad bargain, but who will vote because this man or that man voted for the Bill and who will shelter themselves under the lame excuse that they are respectful of provincial autonomy, even to the point of voting for legislation that they say is backed up by the capital of an American syndicate, the most powerful syndicate that the world has ever known, will discover their mistake. Let not the people of Canada remain in the dark that surrounds this huge transaction, this huge bargain which has been denounced by the government organs and by some of the opposition organs. Some of the Conservative newspapers have also denounced this bargain, the Hamilton Spectator and others. I am not going to lengthen my remarks, but, in taking my seat I repeat that as a representative of the people and as a representative of the province of Quebec I protest most strongly against the way in which this question has been dealt with in the Railway Committee and in the House of Commons.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I think this mock heroic has gone far enough. These hon. gentlemen who have spoken think they have all the intelligence and all the honesty in this House. I am able, I hope, to give an intelligent vote, but I will not sit silently here to listen to the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) and the hon. member for Lisgar (Sir. Richardson) claiming all the honesty of this parliament to themselves.

Mr. BOtIRASSA. I did not assume anything. I simply go to La Patrie and state that after these articles we should have the truth.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: The hon. gentleman seems to be unable to form a judgment unless he can base it on something that has appeared in a newspaper. I submit that a member of this House ought to be able to form a judgment for himself. It is not the first time that the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bour-assa) has found himself in a wretched position upon questions before this House. When he stands up here and tries to monopolize all the honour and all the wisdom of this House, I would suggest to him that he might perhaps add modesty to his characteristic of volubility. First of all, the question for us is : Has this parliament power to pass this legislation. I emphatically assert that there is no question of our right to do so. I suppose that members of the government, like others, think that when a very small minority is protesting, enough has been said on the question, and that the business of the House should proceed.


Samuel Hughes: I suppose it was only discussed a few minutes in the Railway Committee ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: It was discussed for three days there.


Some hon. MEMBER.: For four days.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I beg pardon, for four days. These gentlemen think that because they assume all the knowledge about the question, that their statements must be taken as a matter of fact, and that they must be answered in this House. Well, after all, there are certain statements made by certain gentlemen which do not merit a reply. I do not assume that I possess all the knowledge of this House, nor do I pride myself on my intellect as the member for Labelle does, but I do humbly and modestly submit that this parliament has the power to pass this legislation. Honest men will differ upon the merits of this question, but let us differ without being vain and without being puffed up with the idea of our own superior knowledge. Let us present our arguments without assuming that every man who agrees with us is honest, and that every man who disagrees with us is dishonest. This parliament is the place for hon. gentlemen to express their views modestly and firmly, and to leave to their fellow members and to the country, to decide whether they are right or not. It may be a question for us to consider whether after all certain gentlemen in this House possess so much brain power as these gentlemen themselves think. The member for Labelle hinted that there was some power outside.
I know of no such power. I have my simple duty^ to perform as a member of parliament, and if the province of Manitoba saw fit to Mr. FRASER.
enter into this contract, I assume that the province knew just as much about it as the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) or the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Richardson). I assume that the Manitoba legislature, fresh from the people, knew exactly what was in the best interests of the people of that province.


Edward Frederick Clarke: May I ask the hon. gentle man if there has been any protest from any members of the Manitoba legislature who voted for this measure, since then, against the ratification of the contract ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I know of no protest either from those who voted in favour of it or those who voted against it. I repeat, that I am justified in assuming that the members of the Manitoba legislature knew just las much about this question as does the member for Labelle.


Mr. COWAN.: Oh, no.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I may be wrong, but that is my opinion. But, Sir, beyond all this, there is a serious question. Our confederation is now in the successful process of its development. I do not want that to-day or to-morrow, certain persons who feel agrieved at provincial legislation, should be continuously appealing to this parliament to ask us to declare that the legislature did not know what it was doing. I know something of the construction of the republic to the south of us, and I know that year after year the struggle between the states and the federal authority went on until at last it had to be settled by the shedding of the blood of hundreds of thousands of her best citizens. I am not anxious that this Federal parliament should be continuously asked to decide whether a provincial legislature, acting within the purview of its rights, passed wise or unwise legislation. We have enough to do in this parliament without considering these questions. I claim no more honesty than others, but I do claim that the great majority of members in this House have no right to be subjected to such lectures as we have had from the member for Labelle to-night. I assume that Manitoba has the right to pass that legislation.


Samuel Hughes: ' Manitobar.'


Duncan Cameron Fraser: No. * Manitoba.' I will insist on my own pronunciation as against the pronunciation of any hon. gentleman who sets his up against mine. Manitoba had a right to pass this legislation, and for my part I am willing to supplement it by legislation here. I do not see the consequences that are going to flow, as represented by the gentlemen who speak on the opposition side. I am willing that the judges and those interested shall decide, and I am willing to give them that opportunity. Surely the hon. gentleman will permit me to do that without being branded as either lacking in intelligence or patriotism, or the

ordinary honesty in which they live and move and have their being. They may combat that position by argument, but let them not assume that we must await the return of one hon. member of this House in order to get proper light on this question, in addition to what they have given. I am here to discuss questions, and to vote on them, in order that I may get home as quickly as possible. I regret that the hon. member is absent, but I do not sigh for his return ; for, having heard him express his views in the committee, I do not know that he would have added anything new to the able, fair and inexhaustible arguments the hon. gentlemen themselves have given. Now, my position on the question is this, that Manitoba has seen fit to enter into certain contracts with a company subject to the action of this parliament. That company have come here and asked us to permit them to do so. I see no difference between giving the power to the company beforehand and giving it now after we know the facts. Hon. gentlemen say that the bargain i's a bad one. I am not going to discuss that at any length. I submit that the whole question is a problematical one at most, and I am not going to assume that two or three gentlemen in this House are possessed of all the wisdom on that question. I am still going to have my opinion, that we should leave it to the parliament of Manitoba. Do hon. gentlemen think they are going to advance the position they have taken or the pledges they have given by not permitting this measure to take its proper stage this evening ? Let us do that and then let them discuss on the third reading, if they see fit, the further developments they may be permitted to make. But, I trust that in the discussion of this question we will assume that all the wisdom is not contained in one head, and that we may honestly differ on the question without it being hinted by gentlemen on the other side that we must be wrong, not only in our intellectual appreciation of the question, but in some dark way which they have not explained. I will vote for the motion because I think there is no legal disability on the part of this parliament to pass the measure, and because Manitoba is the best judge of the question. I cannot see that there is the danger before us which the hon. gentleman has pointed out.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I realize that I have not a right to speak on this question again ; but, I was going to say. in response to a statement which the hon. gentleman made, that when we took the second reading of the Bill, and referred it to the committee, it was on the distinct understanding that the House was not in any way committed to it. If we advanced it a stage now. the House would be committed to the principle of the Bill, and for that reason I would like to have the hon. member for North Norfolk here.
House divided on amendment of Mr. Richardson (Lisgar) :
YEAS : Messieurs
Bourassa,	Richardson (Lisgar),
Monet,	Robinson (Elgin), and
Puttee,	Smith (Vancouver).-6.
 NAYS : Messieurs
Alcorn,	Lancaster,
Bell (Addington),	LaRiviSre,
Birkett,	Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),
Blain,	Laurier (L'Assomption).
Borden (Halifax),	Lavergne,
Borden (King's),	LeBlane,
Boyd,	Lefurgey,
Broder,	Lennox,
Brown,	Logan,
Bureau,	Loy,
Calvert,	Mackie,
Cargill,	McCreary,
Carscallen,	McGugan,
Champagne,	Mclsaac,
Clarke,	McKinnon,
Cochrane,	McLennan,
Cowan.	Marcil (Bagot),
Davies (Sir Louis),	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Davis,	Matkeson,
DSchene,	Oliver.
Delisle.	Paterson,
Demers (St. John),	Prior, Reid (Ristigouche),
Fielding,	
Fisher,	Richardson (Grey),
Flint,	Roche (Marquette),
Fowler,	Ross (Rimouski),
Fraser,	Ross (Victoria),
Gallery,	Schell,
Ganong,	Scott,
Geoffrion,	Smith (Wentworth),
Gibson,	Sutherland (Oxford),
Gilmour,	Talbot,
Girard,	Tarte,
Halliday,	Tolmie,
Hughes (Victoria),	Toltcn,
Hyman,	Tucker,
Johnston (Cape Breton), Turgeon,	
Johnston (Lambton), Ward.	
Kendall,	Wilson, and
Kidd,	Wright.-80.
Amendment negative ; main motion agreed to. and House went into committee on the Bill.
Progress reported.
On motion of the Prime Minister, House adjourned at 2.30 a.m. Tuesday.

Tuesday, May 7, 1901.