1902-04-22

FIRST READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 123) to incorporate the Canada Eastern Railway Company.-Mr. Fraser.

Mr. M. K. COWAN (South Essex) moved :: That Bill No. 86 respecting the Red Deer Valley Railway and Coal Company be referred back to the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines for further consideration.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Explain.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Mr. Speaker, I was unfortunately absent from the city when this Bill came before the Railway Committee, and therefore no person had charge of it for the purpose of giving explanations. However, I quite readily appreciate that when a Ball has been fairly considered by the Railway Committee and has received fair treatment by that committee, very strong reasons indeed should be advanced for asking the House to refer it back. In] this particular case the Bill was defeated by a majority of one. There was an actual majority in the committee in favour of the Bill. There were members of the committee who were present during the entire discussion, who were familiar with its merits, but who happened to step outside of the Railway Committee room during the time the motion was being read and when they returned for the purpose of voting the objection was taken that they had not been in the Railway Committee when the motion was being read and the objection was sustained. This charter has been renewed upon previous occasions. Tbe promoters of the Bill only ask now that they shall receive an extension of time until the 1st of July, 1903, for the purpose of the commencement of construction and until the 1st of July, 1904, for its completion. All the time they ask is a year from next July. As an evidence of the good faith of the promoters I may say that they have started operations and have graded some eight or nine miles of the road at a cost of $25,000 or $30,000. Earlier in the life of the charter it was in the hands of some English capitalists who became financially embarrassed lin connection with other ventures and did not carry this work to a successful completion. When thex-c was a renewal of this charter, one of the conditions which was imposed upon the new incorporators, or the company, was that they should deposit $50,000 in cash in the hands of the Minister of Finance as an evidence of good faith. That $50,000 has been deposited in the bands of the Minister of Fin-



ance and it is in the hands of the Minister of Finance to-day. I think that under the circumstances, and in view of the technical objections that were taken to certain members of the Railway Committee voting, in view of the fact that these people have gone on with the bona fide construction of the road and have expended $25,000, or $30,000, in grading eight or nine miles of the road, in view of the fact that the incorporators have deposited $50,000 in cash in the hands of the Minister of Finance, and further, in view of the fact that they only ask an extension of time of a year from next July for the commencement of the work and of two years from next July to carry it to a successful completion, I do not think 1 am asking too much in asking the House to refer this Bill back to the Railway Committee that it may be considered upon its merits.


Mr. FRANK OLIVER (Alberta).: I think the hon. mover of the motion (Mr. Cowan) spoke very truly when he said, that there should be some substantial reason for referring a Bill back to a Standing Committee after that Bill has been fully discussed and decided upon by the committee. I do not agree with him that on this occasion the reason given is a substantial one. The Bill was discussed before the committee during the entire two hours of sitting. While the committee was at a loss for the lack of the presence of the hon. member (Mr. Cowan), the solicitors of the Bill were present, and another member of the House, certainly a very prominent member of the House assumed charge of the Bill for the occasion. There is no "question but that the committee was thoroughly aware of the merits of the Bill and there was no question as to the vote of the committee. To call in question the vote of the committee is to call in question the ruling of the chairman, which has not been done so far during this session of parliament. I think all the members of the Railway Committee will bear me out when I say, that the Chairman (Mr. Hyman) has been scrupulously correct in his rulings ; and on this occasion as on others.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Frank Oliver: If hon. members were not sufficiently interested' in the Bill to listen to the discussion of its merits but were ready to come in and cast a vote on a Bill the merits of which they do not understand because they did not listen to the discussion or did not consider it sufficiently important to warrant them spending their time listening to it; I submit that is not a reason why this House should refer the Bill back for the consideration of that committee. However, the hon. member who has charge of the Bill has seen fit to exercise his privilege to make this motion.
I believe that this motion raises the question of the merits of the Bill, and on that supposition I take the liberty of placing before the House some of the reasons Mr. COWAN.
why the Railway Committee rejected the Bill. It would almost seem from the statement of the hon. member (Mr. Cowan) that this was a much abused company ; that this was one of the very few railroad companies applying for charters in this Dominion who really meant business and who had not had fair treatment from the Railway Committee of this House. It may surprise the members of the House to know a little of the history of this company which begins as far back as the year 1888-and it does not begin with an Act of parliament, but with an Order in Council granting to the company, not then in existence, an area of 350,000 acres of the publie lands of Canada in order that the company might be brought into existence ; and be profitable I presume to the promoters. That Order in Council is dated November 28th, 1888, and recites :
On a report dated November in, 1888, from the Minister of the Interior, stating that representations had been made by Mr. J. Ick Evans, of Toronto, that he has succeeded in forming a company of English capitalists who have given notice of their intention to apply for an Act of incorporation under the name of the Red Deer Valley Railway and Coal Company for the purpose of building a railway from Cheadle Station, Alberta, to the coal mines found to exist in townships 28, 29 and 30, ranges 21, 22, 23 and 24 west of the 4th principal meridian, provided a bonus of 6,400 acres of land per mile of railway to be built, estimated at 55 miles, being about 352,000 acres, can be obtained, and he asks that such land grant shall consist of the odd and even numbered sections, exclusive of Hudson's Bay and school sections, in the following townships and parts of townships, as shown upon the annexed map.
The townships are then recited and file conclusion of the paragraph is : ' which would amount to about 358,400 acres.'
The minister is satisfied as to the financial ability of the parties who have offered to assist Mr. Evans in this undertaking, and as the proposed railway would not only give access to an excellent agricultural section of country, but would also enable the government to sell some of the coal lands in that district which otherwise might remain unproductive for a considerable time; he recommends that, subject to the approval of parliament a free grant of 6,400 acres of land per mile to aid in the construction of a railway from' Cheadle station, on the line of the Canadian Pacific Railway, to a point in or near township 29, range 23, west of the 4th meridian, be made to the company now seeking incorporation under the name of the ' Red Deer Valley Railway and Coal Company,' to consist of so much of the available lands in the townships hereinbefore enumerated as may be required to make up a subsidy to this company at the rate of 6,400 acres of land per mile for the whole length of railway found necessary to build in order to reach the coal fields above mentioned, such distance not to exceed iu any event fifty-five miles, and the location, gauge and grade of the railway to he subject to the approval of the Minister of Railways and Canals and with whom the contract must be arranged. You will notice Mr. Speaker, that tbe basis of tbe extraordinary action taken on that

occasion was the urgency of the necessity of the building of this road for the development of Certain coal mines, and to enable the government to sell its coal lands in this locality. The government was then satisfied of the financial ability of the man to whom the grant was made. That was on the 28tli of November, 1888, and to-day an hon. member comes to the House and asks that his Bill to give the company, not until the 1st of July 1903 but until the 1st of July, 1904 to finish this 55 miles of railroad, shall be again considered by the Railway Committee of this House. Now, if it was urgent in 18S8 that this railroad should be built, it is surely as urgent In 1902. I therefore say that when these parties ask for two years and some months time to build 55 miles of railroad over prairie country, they are giving poor evidence of their ability to build, even under the remarkably favourable conditions set forth in the Order in Council. For the information of hon. members of this House I may say, that the principal bulk of population which is interested in the building of this road, have been heartsickened by the action and attitude of this company. I speak of the people of the city of Calgary. At a meeting of the city council of the town of Calgary some months ago, a resolution was passed and forwarded here, asking parliament to reject any application for any further extension of this charter. The Calgary city council which represents the people principally interested in the development of that district have asked that the ground be cleared ; that this company be wiped out so that other people may come forward and have an opportunity to build the road. You may say that is an extreme position to take, but I would remind the House that this company holds absolutely locked up from settlement nearly half a million acres of land so that the country tributary to the city of Calgary cannot be developed until it pleases this company to open that land for settlement by the building of the railroad. Instead of this charter being a charter granted for the development and advancement of a part of the North-west Territories, it has been a dead weight upon that development. If even yet there was a prospect that the charter was in the hands of people who meant business, I presume the people of that district would be glad to have the company own it and build the road. At this late date, fourteen years after the original charter was granted, the company comes forward and asks for two years more time to build these 55 miles, making at least 16 years from the first inception of this company which then had satisfied the minister that it was competent to build.
I say it shows a lack of willingness or ability, either the one or the other, and it makes no difference to this parliament which. It is the duty of parliament to pro-1014
tect the public interest by preventing lands from being locked from settlement any longer at this time, when settlement is rushing into the country, and when those lands are in demand. The rush of settlement which took place into the North-west twenty years ago was turned back, and the progress of the country was hindered for twenty years, by the holding up of lands, just as in this case; and it is as necessary to-day that the lands should be opened to public settlement, or that the railroad should be built to afford advantages to the public and to give value to the lands as it was twenty years ago.
It is perhaps not necessary to follow the somewhat devious course of this company between the year 18S8 and the present time; but inasmuch as these people come before us now and say, ' Oh, we only want a little extension of time,' I will trespass on the time of the House enough to show that that has been their plea ever since 1888- that it has been extension after extension; that they were always able to build the road, but they never built it. In 1888 they got their first Order in Council, granting the land; in 1891 the order was revived and amended; in 1S93 it was revived and amended again; in 1894 once again; in 1895 again; and let me draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to a very peculiar provision in this revival of 1895. It relates to the control they should exercise not only over the lands but over the settlers who were on the lands, before the date of this Order in Council :
Each bona fids settler found on the land granted to the company at the time such land grant is earned who settled thereon before the 1st of January, 1891, shall have the right to retain the land occupied by him

Mark the generosity of this noble company-
- to the extent of 320 acres on' paying the company therefor at a price not exceeding in any case $2.50 per acre.
That is, the people who settled on the land before the company had an existence, when land was worth a dollar an acre, were to pay this company $2.50 an acre for It.
-and if he settled thereon after the 1st of January, 1891, he shall have the right to retain the land occupied by him to the extent of 160 acres -only if you please

-on paying the company therefor at the price ruling under the Dominion lands regulation in force at the time he went into occupation of the land.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the generous way in which this company proposed to deal with the settlers upon their tract. But particularly I draw your attention to the value which they placed upon this land grant. They have a grant of 358,000 acres, which they themselves value at a price varying from $2.50 to $3 per acre, amounting to a total value of from $750,000 to over $1,000,000 ; and they are not able to build 55 miles of railway on that

land grant, but want a further extension of time. They came again in 1898, and again in 1900. Their land grant was renewed by Order in Council dated 1900, and expires on the 1st of July, 1903. Now, Mr. Speaker, for the information of the House, I beg to say that X suggested to the Railway Committee that the extension of time to be given the company should coincide with the date limiting their land subsidy. But they said : ' No, we canpot build in that time ; it will not be of any use to us.' Then I said : ' If you cannot build within the time that enables you to earn your subsidy, you cannot build at all, and you do not want to build at all. It is simply a case of trying to hold up a land grant and of holding up the public until something turns up that will enable you to sell the charter to better advantage.' These were the reasons, as I understood, which caused the Railway Committee to reject the application of the company; and I submit that if this House has any regard for what is fair and right to the country at large, or to the people who are developing the country, they will support the action of the Railway Committee, and refuse to refer the Bill back.


Mr. JOHN CHARLTON (North Norfolk).: Mr. Speaker, it strikes me as somewhat singular that the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat should take the position he does with reference to this Bill. It struck me, from the remarks made by the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Cowan), that the request of this company for an extension of time for the completion of the road for two years from the 1st of next July, was a moderate and reasonable request. It seems from what my hon. friend says that a company has been in existence for the last fourteen years which has possessed the charter for the construction of the railway under consideration; but I am told that that company has ceased to exist, that there has been a reorganization of the company within the last year, and that one of the reasons why the company did not proceed with the construction of this railway was the impossibility of getting iron, which has been a difficulty in the way of many railway companies in America making extensions or improvements. Now, if this reorganized company, which I am told was not represented when the Bill was considered by the Railway Committee, has not for this reason received fair consideration by the committee, if the facts which it is necessary for the committee to have in their possession in order to arrive at a fair decision, have not been placed before them, I see no reason why the Bill should not be referred back. On the contrary, I think the refusal of this House to refer it back would be a high-handed act, an unjust and tyrannical act.


Mr. SPROULE.: Might I ask the hon. gentleman if they had not two solicitors there representing the company?


Frank Oliver: 


John Charlton: I am told that the parties upon which the company relied to place their case before the committee were absent. This company, I am told, has already proceeded to grade a portion of this road, and has, in fact, graded some seven or eight miles, and placed $50,000 in the hands of the Minister of Bfinance.


Frank Oliver: If the hon. gentleman will permit me, I will take the liberty of saying that the company has not graded seven or eight miles.


John Charlton: Very well, that is a question of veracity between the representatives of the company and my hon. friend. That is a matter for the committee to inquire into if the Bill is referred back, and that is an additional reason for referring it back.


Mr. PUTTEE.: Might I ask a question ? Is the hon. gentleman aware that all these matters were gone into by the Railway Committee ?


John Charlton: Probably they were, but I am dealing with what I believe to be certain facts in relation to this matter. My hon. friend says that his friends in Calgary want the ground clear, that they want this company obliterated. Very naturally. He is interested probably in some other company that wants to get hold of the charter and the land grant. Supposing he succeeds, suppose this House should refuse to refer this Bill back to the Railway Committee


Frank Oliver: I rise to a point of order. I wish to ask if the hon. gentleman is in order in imputing interested motives to me in my opposition to the Bill.


John Charlton: I was not imputing motives. I say that the hon. gentleman's friends are very anxious to have the deck clear and this company obliterated, and I am drawing an inference from that statement. Who is anxious for this, and what is the reason ? Can a company be formed in place of the present one which can finish the road any sooner ? Why, the new company would have to get a charter and could npt take the first step until another session. The present company, however, asks for two years from next July in which to build the road, and it is not in the bounds of reason to suppose that any other company can excel this one in celerity in giving to v this locality the railway accommodation it requires. Under the circumstances, the public interest cannot suffer by giving the extension asked. Any company that may succeed this one is prevented by physical means from completing the road any sooner than the time in which the present company pledges itself to complete it. The present company has given evidence of good faith by having performed certain work, by having put up money, and by asking for a limited period in which to complete the enterprise, and the fact that it could not get

iron last year, and consequently could not proceed with the work, points to the conclusion that justice will not be done if this Bill be not referred back to the committee.


Mr. CHARLES S. HYMAN (London).: I am not going to take up any time in discussing' the merits of the case, but as the circumstances under which the committee reported are somewhat peculiar, it is only fair that the hon. members should know them before voting. I have taken the ground in the House before now, and intend always to take the same ground, that unless there" are good substantial reasons, unless there are practically some new matters brought before us, it is the duty of the House to stand by the reports of its committees, especially a committee consisting of so large a representation as does the Railway Committee, over which I have the honour to preside. When the merits of the Bill were presented, there was a good representation of the Railway Committee present -seventy-one members. When the vote on the preamble was put, the preamble was carried by a vote 30 to 35. But there were two members of the committee who, to my knowledge, had been present during the greater part, if not during the whole of the discussion on the merits of the Bill, and who happened to leave the room just previous to the question being put. They returned as the vote was being taken, and their votes, in the first instance, were recorded, so that the vote stood 36 for the preamble to 35 against. The point of order was then raised, I think by my hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Oliver), that two members of the committee, who had voted, were not present when the motion was put by the Chair. I upheld the point of order, rightly or wrongly, and ordered the names of the two gentlemen to be struck from the record. The consequence was that the preamble was rejected by a majority of one, namely, 35 against, and 34 for, and the Bill was not reported. Under the circumstances, as there was an actual majority in the committee in favour of the preamble and as it was only on a technicality that the Bill was not reported, I think that another opportunity should be given the promoters to present their case before the Railway Committee.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not think that the hon. member who has just taken his seat could contend that the number of members present at the meeting of the Railway Committee referred to was not a fair proportion of the whole. There was seventy-one present, and seventy-one voted. After a very lengthy discussion pro and con, after the two lawyers representing the company had said everything they could to influence the committee in favour of the Bill, the Bill was defeated, and the adverse vote given was given largely on the history of that company as laid before that committee. As the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) has said, the object of granting a charter at all was to enable coal to be carried by rail to Calgary from the Red Deer country at the earliest possible date, and the House agreed to give a grant of 6,400 acres per mile, and a reasonable time for tlie accomplishment of the undertaking. Before that time expired, the company asked an extension which was granted. When that extension was about to expire, they asked a renewed extension. And so from year to year ever since, for the last sixteen years, we have been granting renewals of this railway charter, and nothing so far has been done. The appeals of the company were based nearly always on the ground that they were unable to raise the money required. The prime necessity for a railway in that district is to bring cheap fuel into Calgary, to which place, for many years back, coal has had to be drawn from the Red Deer country, some sixty miles. From time to time extensions were made of the period originally granted. Previous to 1897 several extensions had been given, and in 1897 the company was given an extension of two years to begin and four years to complete, but it neither began nor completed. In 1899, there was a further application made and a strong fight put up against it, but the company were given a further extension of one year to begin, during which they were to expend 15 per cent of the amount of capital stock on the construction of the road. Yet they expended nothing and none of the road is built yet. When the solicitor of the company was asked in the Railway Committee if the road was graded, he replied that he thought not, but that the company had got out plans and made specifications and done provisional surveys, which had cost it a great deal of money. He did not say, however, that they had built any part of the line, and as far as we know, none of it has been graded or built, and yet we are met again by a request for a further extension of time.


Mahlon K. Cowan: There are between eight and nine miles graded.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The solicitors of the company did not say so.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Yes, they did.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And the representative from the district did not say so, nor did the petition from the people or Calgary, who strongly urged that this company should not be given any further extension, on the ground that it was evidently holding the charter for no good purpose and had no intention of building the railway. For sixteen years this charter has been extended, and ever since the land grant was given, that grant has been kept for that company. At the time that land grant was given, the land undoubtedly was not worth a dollar an acre, but, at present, it is worth from

$4.50 to $5 an- acre. At 6,400 acres of land a mile, their land grant would amount to 352,000 acres of land; and, allowing $4.50 an acre, you get a total of $1,604,000, to build a railway 55 miles long that, we are told on good authority, can be built for less than half the money. Hut these people do not intend to build it. What did we see in the committee ? I ashed the solicitors several times who were the stockholders of this company, and they would not tell the committee. Why ? They gave only one name, that of Mr. Elias Rogers, of Toronto. We know who Mr. Rogers is in connection with some other affairs. We know that he is the moving spirit in the Crow's Nest Coal Company, which is bringing its coal a long distance into Calgary and selling it there to-day. . Is it supposable that these people will open up the coal lands of the Red Deer valley and bring this coal into Calgary to compete with their own from the Crow's Nest ? If they had given the names of the other stockholders, it would have disclosed beyond any question the inwardness of this company's holding up the construction of that railway and keeping this land grant in this way. It is easy for the House to see that they do not desire to build the railway, and never did.. This land grant is increasing in value very rapidly, and these men desire to retain it, and, to retain it they must keep this charter alive. The hon. member in introducing this motion gave ns an evidence of the bona tides of the company that they had deposited $50,000 with the government, and he declared that if they did not commence and go on with the line that money would be forfeited. But when we look at the law, we find that the money is not forfeited, but that if they do not do the work the money reverts to the company. So, even if they do not begin to build the railway,- and, so far as I can learn they do not desire to build a mile of it-there is not a dollar of that money in jeopardy. Coal is very plentiful in the vicinity of the land granted to this company, and the government are selling coal lands at $10 an acre, if they sell them at all. Before this Bill is referred back we should have much stronger reasons than those just given. There was a large attendance at the committee when their decision on this question was reached, and the matter was fully and fairly discussed. The company had their solicitors and their friends there to bring out the facts. But they dared not give the names of the stockholders of the company. They knew that if they did the committee would see the inwardness of the measure. This was the reason why the committee refused to renew it. Why should the company be allowed to hold land, away from homesteading and settlement for sixteen years, while the inrush of settlers is filling up the country and causing the rapid increase of values ? The road has not been bailt, and this corporation is still benefiting by holding up this ' Mr. SPROULE.
charter and preventing the development of a rival company to bring coal into Calgary as it ought to have been brought years ago. For these reasons the committee refused to renew the charter, and these reasons were good ones. I think the House would do a very improper thing if it referred the Bill back to the committee to have this charter extended.


Mr.   B.@: RUSSET,I, (Hants). I think that, at least it can be said that this Bill has had very bad luck before the Railway Committee. It seems to me also that my hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Oliver) is taking very narrow and technical ground when he says that, because it happened that a couple of hon. gentlemen who were in sympathy with it and who did not, technically speaking, hear the question put from the Chair, and so were not able to have their votes counted, this report should be accepted as the deliberate decision of the committee. But that is entirely in keeping with the general ground taken against this measure, which is an insistence upon the strictly legal and logical forfeiture of the rights that this company has under its charter. Now, it seems to me that we ought not to insist upon that forfeiture, but should give the parties interested in the Bill a fair opportunity of having their case fairly and fully heard and decided by a fair vote, and not by a snap vote of the committee before we impose upon them such serious results as the forfeiture of the rights they have acquired. This was the one case, it seems to me, in which reason was given why there should be an extension of the charter. We had extended charters over and over again without even the slightest evidence that money had been expended or deposited for the construction of the road. But in this case we had the facts that there had been at least a sum of $50,000 actually deposited in the treasury as evidence of good faith on the part of the company, and there was a great question whether that money was not actually forfeited under the terms of the statute. It seemed to me, therefore, that the company should have the chance to go on and earn their land grant by building the road. The hon. gentlemen who speak against this proposal are taking quite inconsistent ground. The hon. member for Alberta says the company cannot build the railway, while the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) represents that the company have an enormously valuable asset- an asset worth three or four millions of dollars. Both these things cannot be true.
If the company have these enormously valu- . able coal lands, it is clearly not reasonable to say that they cannot build the road if they desire to do so. But the argument which led the committee to take the action it did, which took the committee by storm in fact, was such a one as my hon. friend has made-but it was made far more powerfully by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson)-that there was something mys-

terious about this company and that they did not intend or desire to build the road, but had the sinister desire of preventing the road being built and the land being opened up. That, I say, carried the committee by storm. And no wonder, for it was presented most ably and powerfully by the hon. member for Halton. who spread the floor of the committee room' so to speak, with the brains of the lawyers in the case. The committee was misled by that spacious argument, of -Much there is not a single proof before the House, and never was any proof before the committee. This being so, I say it is fair and reasonable to say that we should give these people, who have only been in possession of this charter, as I understand, for two years, and who only ask two months more than the hon. member for Alberta was willing to concede to them when he addressed the committee, a chance to be heard.	*
I think it is only fair and reasonauie that we should, without undertaking to pass upon the merits of the measure, which we cannot pass upon intelligently here, give counsel for that company an opportunity of coming before the committee and proving if they can the facts which are so vehemently combatted by the hon. member for Alberta. This hon. gentleman says, first of all, that this road has not been commenced; and when I have been informed on what I regard as the most reliable authority that the road has been commenced, and when we were told that conclusive evidence could be produced before the committee, and had been before the government, to show that there had been a bona fide expenditure of $90,000, evidence which was sworn to, I do think that, under the circumstances, we are doing, a very herd thing and a very cruel thing if we do not, at all events, give this company an opportunity to be heard more deliberately before insisting upon the absolute forfeiture of the rights that they have acquired by an expenditure of $90,000, and by the deposit of $50,000. As to this deposit, there is a grave question asi to whether it can he demanded 'back, and I think it is extremely -doubtful, at all events l think it is rationally argueable, that under the terms of the statute they cannot recover back a single penny of the $50,000 wtoi-eh has been deposited as security for the construction' of the road. Under these circumstances I thiuk it would he unfair and unreasonable for us to say, as we are asked to say, that they shall not have another opportunity of having their case threshed out before the Railway Co-mmitee.


Mr. W. B. NORTHRUP (East Hastings).: In viewing a case such as this, one consideration will affect one mind and another consideration another mind. My main reason for objecting to this Bill being referred back is that at the present time an opportunity is afforded) this House such as may not rise again, to settle the question as to
the principle on which renewals of charters should he granted. I have felt for a long time, and I know hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House feel as I do, that we are not as careful as we should be in this House, in the first place, in giving grants of lands, and in the second place in renewing charters. I submit it is a reasonable proposition, that when a charter has been given and a public franchise has been entrusted to certain people, the duty devolves ou those who have received that franchise of carrying out its terms to the letter; and if they are unable to carry out those terms, and fail to do so, then, when they come to parliament and ask for a renewal of the charter, I submit the whole burden of proof should he on those who have received this public trust and have failed to execute it, of showing that there was some insurmountable obstacle that prevented them from doing what the House expected they would do when that charter was granted. We know that when a Bill such as this comes before the Railway Committee, the rule of the committee is to allow, as a matter of course, a renewal of any charter. In my opinion this is a question which should not be made political, it is too important to the people. While I think the present administration is doing wrong, and the former administration erred in the same way, I do not think -that at the present time one party can find fault with the other for having erred more than it has done itself. We have a charter which was granted some fourteen years ago, but according to the statement of an hon. member of this House, not a dollar's worth of work has been done since. It is true that statement has been challenged, and I was surprised to see that what I considered a well recognized rule, that a member's word should be accepted here, was nob observed with regard to this particular Bi-ll. When I And an hon. member in this House stating that of his own knowledge no work has been done, I am prepared to accept that statement, and am prepared to justify my voting on the ground that no work was done, and taking . it for granted that no work was done because an hon. member of the House has so declared.


Frank Oliver: If there is any doubt on the point I would like to say that to the best of my knowledge and belief, and according to the information that I have, no 1 substantial work whatever has been done 1 on that railway.
' Hon. Mr. TISDALE. In the committee it was asserted without contradiction, that , a certain number of miles had been con-[DOT] strueted.


Frank Oliver: I contradicted it at the | time.
- Hon. Mr. TISDALE. I was in the cora-r mittee, and it was asserted that a certain ) number of miles had been constructed, and

the statement was not challenged except that some gentlemen said it was done several years ago.


Frank Oliver: I answered in the committee what I have said just now.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It is only fair to state that the evidence before the committee last year was conclusive, that a certain amount of grading had been done; figures and statements were submitted by the engineer showing, I think, conclusively that a certain amount of grading had been done on some eight or nine miles of road.


William Barton Northrup: I was saying that when we find a charter granted some fourteen years ago to certain persons who are now before the House, and when we find the applicants and promoters unwilling to say who the present holders of the charter are-I now ask the hon. gentleman who has in charge this Bill if he is prepared to state who the present applicants for this charter are.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Do I understand the hon. gentleman wants the names of the directors or the promoters of the Bill ?


William Barton Northrup: The promoters of the Bill.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I can give them, though it strikes me that the question now before the committee is not on the merits of the Bill, but as to whether it should be sent back to the committee. I had no idea of discussing the merits of the Bill on this occasion. The information I have is that the original incorporators were Joseph Ick Evans, Daniel McFarlane, Joshua T. Johnston, Henry Percy. Withers, James W. Bain, James Bicknell, and now, associated with such of the original promoters as remain are Elias Rogers and Wm. Beith.


William Barton Northrup: I have been informed, and it has been stated on the floor of this House, that the original incorporators have handed over their interest in this charter to some other parties, and if I remember rightly, the present charter does not bear the names of the original incorporators at all. But these parties obtained a charter fourteen years ago when land was of little value, and now when other parties are coming before us and asking a renewal of the charter, it would be a fair principle to lay down that the parties coming to-day and asking for a renewal of the charter should be put in the same position as if they were applying for it for the first time; and if they were now applying for the first time, would it be contended for a moment that what was a fair and reasonable land grant fourteen years ago would be a fair and reasonable land grant to-day when prices have increased so much in the interval V That was the main abjection I have to this Bill being referred back. I think now this House should lay down the principle that Hon. Mr. TISDALE.
in future no renewal of any charter would be granted-I am not so unreasonable as to say that no renewal should ever be granted, but none should be granted unless, the burden of proof being on the applicants, they can satisfy this House that they originally applied in good faith, and that owing to Insurmountable obstacles they have been prevented from carrying out what they intended to do. Then there is another objection I would like to refer to. It was contended by the chairman of the committee that two gentlemen had voted, making a majority in favour of the Bill, but that owing to circumstances under which they had voted their names were struck off. I am sure there is no gentleman on this side of the House, who is not of the opinion that the chairman of that committee is a gentleman of absolute fairness and impartiality.
I am perfectly sure that if that hon. gentleman, as chairman of the committee, struck off the names of two members who had voted, it is abundantly clear that they had voted improperly. Then, we come down to the simple fact that when the vote was taken properly and legally there was a majority against the Bill. This House has laid down the principle that when a Bill comes from the railway committee it should be accepted by this House unless there are the best of reasons given to the contrary. The only reason given against the acceptance of the report of the committee is that there were some members of the committee who were absent when the question was put and who would have voted for the BUI. Who can tell but that, out of the seventy members of the railway committee, if they had all been present, perchance, a greater majority would have voted against the Bill,, because, if one member has the right to conjecture in one direction another member has the right to conjecture in the opposite direction. I believe we have no right to go beyond the report of the committee when it is presented here and whether the majority is small or whether it is large I submit that we are bound to take the report of the committee and stand by it. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cowan), it having been stated in the committee that the road could not be constructed in time to secure the land grant, if the road has any assurance that the land grant will be renewed to the company if the Bill is carried in this House ?


Mr. WALTER SCOTT (West Assiniboia).: Mi-. Speaker, I would like to state that since I have been a member of this House on not a single occasion has a motion of this kind been adopted and while there have been several occasions when similar motions have been made on not one has a Bill been sent back to the railway committee. Time and again, during last session, in this House, the rule was stated clearly and absolutely that the proper policy was not to complicate business by questioning the decisions which

came down to this House from tlie railway committee. I remember that on one occasion last session I was very much interested' in having a measure referred back to the railway committee and I was able to state, as other members interested in the Bill were able to state, that they had not been present in the railway committee through no fault of their own. On one occasion last session, and I believe on only one occasion, a meeting of the committee was called for 10.30 o'clock in place of the usual hour of 11 o'clock, and on that morning there was a Bill brought up in which several members were interested. When I arrived at the committee at the usual hour of 11 o'clock I found that the committee had been at work for half an hour and that this Bill had been already reported. I brought the fact to the attention of the House and notwithstanding the fact that I and others urged that there was new matter to be brought to the attention of the committee in respect to that Bill the rule was held to that the Bill should not be sent back after having been dealt with by the railway committee. In connection with the Bill now under discussion it has beeu pointed out that there was the very fullest discussion before the railway committee. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair), after we had been thrashing out the matter for an hour and three-quarters, stated that he thought more discussion had taken place than was necessary to give every member of the committee an opportunity of understanding the merits of the case. 1 may urge, and urge truthfully, that the Bill was given the very fullest discussion by the railway committee. If we have a rule, as we have, that rule ought to be adhered to in all cases and we should not make fish of one and flesh of another. Is this House going to take the position that when railway promoters are interested in having a Bill sent back the rule shall not be adhered to, but that when the public interest demands that a Bill be sent back the rule shall be adhered to ? On the merits of the Bill I may say that I am opposed, and resolutely opposed to it on the ground that it involves the voting of a land grant. It does not matter whether the land grant is large or small, I am opposed to an acre of public land being voted by this parliament, or being alienated to any railway company or to>any other company of that class. It has been stated during the past five or six years many times by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) and by other members of the government that no more public land should be alienated to railway companies. I may confide to hon. members on this side of the House and to the members of the government that during the general election campaign I went up and down the length and breadth of the district of Assiniboia claiming and receiving the support of the people on the ground that
since my friends had come into power there had not been an acre of land alienated to a railway com pany, and I further pledged myself, on the strength of the statements made by members of this government, and particularly by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals that so long as the Liberals were in power there would not be an acre of land alienated to a railway company. Therefore, to-day, the position I find myself in is that I am compelled by my pledges to vote against this application, because there is no question in my mind that a vote for this Bill is a vote to alienate something over 300,000 miles of land to this railway company. It has been contended, and it may be contended that this is not alienating land, that the land has already been alienated, but hon. gentlemen do not say that if we do not pass this Bill the land will be parted with. If we do not pass this Bill this railway company will not come into possession of the land. It will remain in the possession of the people of Canada. It is true (that a bargain was made fourteen years ago, by which these railway promoters, for a certain consideration, were granted this amount of land- 352,000 acres.


Lion. Mr. HAGGART.: Can the hon. gentleman inform me whether that land Is scheduled to this particular railway company ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes.


Thomas Walter Scott: That is a point upon which a little more stress should be laid. It may be asked: How did it come that under legislation passed by this parliament this area had been put under the control of this railway company, because they have not raised their finger to earn the land, further than the grading of possibly four, five or six miles of road, grading which, I believe, to-day has become useless, if it ever was in existence. So I say, the matter would bear a little investigation as to how, under any legislation that has been passed by this parliament, these railway promoters have been allowed to come into possession of this land because they have never carried out their part of the bargain. I was going to point out, referring to the contention to the contrary, that to vote for the Bill at the present time must be held to be a vote in favour of the alienation of this land. While the bargain was entered into fourteen years ago the time for the completion of that bargain has long since passed. There have been renewals of the charter time after time but the company have never done anything to earn the land until the present time and if we vote now to again extend the time for earning this land we are giving a vote to alienate the land which, to-day, is certainly worth more than $1,000,000. If this was a fair subsidy for building this 55 miles of railway 14 years ago, it must be held to be three times too much subsidy to vote for build-

ing the same road to-day. As a matter of fact it is an exorbitant and excessive subsidy to vote to build that 55 miles of railway to-day. which I venture to say, will not exceed in cost $500,000. To build a prairie road does not cost more than $10,000 per mile, and the building of these 55 miles would cost very little more than $500,000.
Mr. HEY1). What about the coal ?


Thomas Walter Scott: Figuring the cost of the road, of course, is not taking into consideration the value of the coal land. I do not believe any member of the House will contend that the building of this road will cost more than $500,000. I also venture to say that no member of this House will attempt to say that this land is not worth at least $1,000,000. Is this House going to say, that on account of some bargain which was made 14 years ago with regard to which the parties of one part have failed in their contract and lost every figment of their rights-is the House going to say that because of that we must vote a subsidy amounting to twice as much as the cost of the railway. It has been pointed out in favour of the promoters of this Bill, that they have made a deposit of $50,000 in the hands of the government. As I said before the committee, in view of the fact that they have got an area of land which to-day is worth not less than $1,000,000 it is not a matter of very great virtue on their part that they have put in the hands of the government $50,000. But. we find on looking at the Act, that to call that a deposit is not a proper description, because as a matter of fact the company are to-day entitled to go to the Minister of Finance and to claim and to receive that $50,000. This is the legislation which was brought to the attention of the committee very pertinently by my hon. friend from Halton.
If such deposit is so made, the Minister of Finance and the Receiver General shall publish notice thereof in the Canada 'Gazette,' and upon such publication this Act shall be taken to have come into force on the first of July, 1900.
The Minister of Finance and the Receiver General shall repay such deposit to the company, if (a) the chief engineer of the Department of Railways and Canals has certified that to his satisfaction twenty-five continuous miles of railway measuring from the point of commencement at or near the city of Calgary have been built, and the track has been laid thereon ; or (b)
This is the peculiar section to which I wish to call the particular attention of the House.
Or (b) If c-n the 1st July, 1901 (last year) the construction of the railway has not been begun and 15 per cent of the capital stock has not been spent th'ereon.
The construction of the railway had not been begun on the 1st of July last year and fifteen per cent of the capital stock had not been spent thereon. This condition has therefore not been fulfilled, and the promoters are entitled to go to the Minister of Mr. SCOTT.
Finance now and claim their $50,000, and I venture to say that if they do so they will be able to get back their money. Some doubt was thrown upon this phase of the question by the hon. geutleman who sits beside me (Mr. Russell). He was careful however not to state an absolute opinion, and I challenge any lawyer in this House to say that the interpretation which I have put upon this statute is not correct. I am not a lawyer, I never had a legal training, but I challenge any lawyer in the House to publicly assert that my interpretation of the language of the statute is not correct. For these reasons Mr. Speaker, I am resolutely opposed to the sending back of this Bill to the Railway Committee.


Mr. DAVID HENDERSON (Halton).: I would not have spoken had it not been for the statement of the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Russell) who charged me with having taken the committee by storm ; with having spoken too forcibly and thereby misled the committee. I believe Sir, that the arguments which I presetted were fair and moderate. I stated first, that the preamble should not be adopted because the city of Calgary which is deeply interested in this railway had petitioned against the Bill. We know that the country through which this line is proposed to run is alleged to contain coal suitable for domestic purposes and hence it is of great importance to Calgary that the road should be built. They saw no hope of getting this road from the existing company and they therefore asked that this charter should lapse in order that some other company might build the road. I also advanced the reason, that the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) did not approve of the preamble of the Bill. I was prepared to be guided to a very cousiderable extent by the representative of the constituency which was interested in the construction of this railway. Another reason I gave was that the charter was a very old one. It has been renewed over and over again, and I thought it was high time that it should come to an end. Again I stated-and this was perhaps the only argument which could in any way be supposed to mislead the committee, but I did not state it as a fact- I stated that it was common report and that according to the best information I had, the parties associated with the Crow's Nest Pass Coal Company were associated with this road. We know that Ellas Rogers, the only prominent name given to us is also associated with the Crow's Nest Coal Company. We had reason to infer that he was one of the .parties who was interested in this road and intereste d in the other coal company as well. I believed it was unfair to allow this charter to remain in the hands of a company which is also interested in developing another coal field. It may be that I was wrong in the information I obtained in this regard, but

I had very strong reasons to assume it, and 1 know that there are many members of this House who believe such to be the case, and that the construction of this road was delayed because the Crow's Nest people desire to press their coal on Calgary. Another reason I advanced against the adopting of the preamble was the policy of the government. I understood from the minister that it is now the policy of this government that no further land grants to railways will be given in the North-west Territories, and I believe it only fair that all railway companies should be dealt with on the same basis and that this land grant having lapsed, it should not be given to this company and refused to others. I thought as a matter of justice that that was the proper way to view the case. I do not think I misled the committee. I think these arguments were all reasonable and fair and I am quite sure that when the hon. gentleman (Mr. Russell) reviews what I said he will withdraw his charge. I did also state that practically the $50,000 was no guarantee at all for the reasons stated by the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott).
I agree with the policy laid down by the chairman of the Railway Committee, that a Bill should not be referred back unless some new evidence is before the House which did not appear before the committee. We have no new evidence before the House today. We are told by the member for Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) that the promoter of the Bill was not present. Is it to be supposed that 160 or 170 members are to be forced to await the convenience of the promoter of a Bill if he is not present. There were two legal gentlemen there to represent the promoters, and I think they did fairly well. They did everything that could be expected from solicitors, except perhaps to tell us who the real owners of this charter ware. It is alleged also that the votes of two members who were not present when the question was put were not counted. Well, there were about 100 other members who were not present when the question was put, and if we are going to take into consideration the votes of these two, we have just as much right to consider the votes of the other one hundred. The request to refer this Bill back is unreasonable. We must abide by the decision of those who were present and heard the question put. How do we know that these men actually knew what question was being put. They were outside the room, and for that matter another order than this one might have been the question on which the vote was being taken. They were fair and straightforward when the question was asked them, if they were present when the question was put and they said no ; and we followed the rule adopted in this House, and their votes were struck off. I think the chairman of the Railway Committee
was perfectly right, and I am sure the committee upheld him ; and it would be rather a censure upon him to-day were we to reverse his decision and declare that the Bill should be sent back. I have nothing further to say in this matter. I hold the same views that I held in the Railway Committee.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: I feel constrained to say a word or two on this question by reason of what has fallen from my hon. friend from East Assiniboia (Mr. Scott)' with reference to the past and present policy of the government with reference to giving land grants by way of subsidies to railways. My hon. friend has merely said what I have heretofore stated, not once only, but on divers occasions, authorized by the government as a whole, that this government did not purpose to continue the policy which had obtained in previous years and under the late administration, of giving the settlement lands of the country by way of bonus to aid in the construction of railways. We have declared that policy, and we are determined to adhere to it; and I was unable to see, when this question was before the Railway Committee, and I cast my vote for the Bill, wherein I had deviated in the slightest as a member of the government from the position I had taken when I declared its policy in that regard. I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that this is to-day an existing contract, and that the company who are asking for an extension of time are an existing company and will continue to be an existing company for a year from the 1st of July next. I cannot shut toy eyes to the fact that in time past, though it was 13 or 14 years ago, this company received from parliament a land grant in aid of their undertaking, and as an encouragement to them to carry it through. I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that not only on one or two or three occasions, but on six different occasions, parliament has revived that charter and has ratified and continued the land grant, and that the government has confirmed the Order in Council allocating the land when the road should be constructed. Is not this a totally different case from that of a new company coming to parliament and asking for a grant of land? I maintain that the two cases are as dissimilar as the two poles are asunder. We must recognize the binding character of the arrangement with this company in a moral and equitable sense, in a sense of fair-play and justice, if the company which is seeking the extension of time gives evidence that it is doing its best to carry out its undertaking. We are bound to remember that this company has had an assutance given to it by parliament; and if it is able to convince parliament that it is now in a position to carry this undertaking out, no man can truly say that it is a new departure to continue the charter,

as it lias already been continued from time to time. I therefore beg to assure my bon. friend that he can with safety go back to the people he represents and tell them that although we have continued this arrangement, we are simply carrying out the policy which parliament has always considered itself bound to carry out in a spirit of justice and equity-an arrangement made years ago, and ratified from time to time since.
Touching the question, then, with which this committee has to deal, I take it that it is within a very narrow compass-nay, in a nutshell; and what is it ? Has any sufficient cause been made to appear why this Bill should be sent back to the committee for further consideration? That is a question about which all of us, I think, iu'times past, I among the number, have held very strong views-that unless a clear case were made out, in which some injustice had been done, some withholding of the facts or misleading of the committee had taken place, or unless it appeared that the action of the committee was not really the action which the committee intended to take, we ought to regard the report which they lay on the Table as a final report, and sustain it. Are the circumstances which exist in the present case of such a character as to bring this Bill within the exceptions? I am bound to say that, in my opinion, it does come within one of the exceptions, and X will tell you why. There was a rule enforced-I will not say improperly-In the Railway Committee in respect to taking the vote which was never done before since I have been a member of this parliament. An exception was taken to the recording of the votes of two or three gentlemen which I never heard taken before in any meeting of that committee. Gentlemen who, to my own personal knowledge, had sat through the whole of the discussion, had listened to it, who had heard the same thing ad nauseam over and over again, and who happened to run out of the committee room just a moment or two before the vote was taken, found when they came back and voted, that they were strictly and technically subject to the enforcement of a rule which said that they ought to hear the motion put from the chair. Now, I want to ask the members of this House, who I believe are disposed to deal fairly in such a matter, is it treating the Bill or the parties interested in the Bill, fairly to rigidly enforce a rule in this case which has never been enforced before, which was not relied upon in any previous instance, and of which no member of the committee had really had any notice? The position seemed to me to be this. So far as the strict application of the rule which obtained in this House was concerned, it was a proper ruling on the part of the chairman. No person could say It was not. But we know that in the House members who have heard the discussion and are thoroughly


Hon. Mr. BLAIR.: familiar with the question, and have their minds made up, are notified of the time for the vote by the ringing of a bell if they are not in the chamber at the moment. We have not any such procedure in the Railway or any other Committee, and consequently gentlemen are placed at a great disadvantage if that rule is enforced. It has never been enforced before, but, time after time when the vote has been taken, gentlemen have come in at the last moment, and have participated in the vote and had their names recorded. That condition of things is exceptional, and justifies, to my mind, the return of this Bill to the Railway Committee.
My hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Oliver) initiated the opposition to this Bill, led it very strongly, but just before the vote was taken what was the attitude of my hon. friend ? It was that although he might be deviating somewhat from the wishes of his constituents, he was satisfied that his people would not seriously object to this charter being continued for another year, and he was prepared to support such an extension, but he would not listen to a proposal to allow an extension of fourteen months. He would not add two months to the time for construction. Until the very last moment, until he made his last speech-and my hon. friend made many forcible and argumentative speeches-his attitude was this. That this was a terrible business, that this grant of-land was a most indefensible grant, that the company were not entitled to any consideration, that they had been for fourteen years dawdling with the matter, but yet if they wouild only complete the road within a year, he would be willing to grant them that extension, but would not grant an extension for two months longer.


Frank Oliver: I rise to a point of order. Has the hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, the right to put words into my mouth, and to inform the House that these are what I have said.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The hon. gentleman has the right to contradict, if he is not quoted correctly, but any hon. member has the right to quote what has been said by a previous speaker, subject of course to correction, and if contradicted, he must accept the correction.


Frank Oliver: Under your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I will have to contradict the hon. gentleman.


Mr. LENNOX.: I rise to a point of order.
I understood you to have ruled, on a previous occasion, that what has transpired in a committee cannot be referred to in the House. If that be correct, the hon. Minister of Railways is not in order.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. member is mistaken. When there is no report before the House of what has been done in the com-

mittee, no allusion or reference can be made to what has taken place in that committee. But in this case, the committee has reported, and it is therefore perfectly in order to refer to what took place before it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I can assure my hon. friend from Alberta that I would be very sorry to misrepresent his attitude before the committee, but I am not doing so. I am not pretending to give the precise language he used, but simply its reasonable purport as accurately as possible. My hon. friend's attitude, as is known to the large number of members who were present in the committee, was such as I have described it. He recognized the reasonableness and fairness of allowing this company a year from the 1st July, 1903, to complete its undertaking, with its land grant and all the enormities which are attached to that condition, but he would not allow the company an extension of two months longer. It appeared to me that so long as that was all the difference there really was between the people in Calgary, who have such large interests in this question, and the promoters of this Bill, it was not sufficiently important to warrant the committee in refusing the extension required, and I was prepared to give the further two months and the committee were prepared to do so. I do not think that a very large principle is involved in an extension of two months. I do not see any other company clamouring for the privilege of constructing this road. The people want it, and it seems to me that they would get it more quickly if we should adopt this Bill, than they would otherwise.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The people petitioned against it.	*


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My hon. friend from Alberta, who represents the people of that locality, and who has consequently a more intimate knowledge of their state of mind, was convinced that they would be satisfied if a year's extension were given from the 1st of July next, but not if these extra two months were granted. The company, under its chartered powers to-day, is entitled to have until the 1st of July, 1903, to complete its undertaking. I do not know who the promoters are, or what are their means, and uiey may [DOT] go on and succeed in completing the construction of the line by the 1st July, 1903. But there may be obstacles, they may not be able to secure sufficient iron early m the season, and consequently the majority of the committee were willing-for it was a majority until the two names were struck out-to give them extra time in order that they might be sure of preserving their rights and carrying out the undertaking.
I do not think it is fair to say that there was not the fullest discussion of the question in the committee, and I do not rest my
judgment on that ground. I think that the committee were in full possession of all the facts, and I am sure that if the same procedure had been observed with reference to this Bill, as has been -with reference to other Bills the Bill would have been carried and this motion to-day would not have been made.	.


Frank Oliver: Of course I have already spoken, but as there is a question of fact between myself and the hon. minister, if I am in order, I would like to have the opportunity of putting myself right.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Question.


Mr. A. B. INGRAM (East Elgin).: I was present when this Bill was before the Railway Committee, and I voted as did the hon. member foa- Alberta (Mr. Oliver). The position which my hon. friend took in the committee, I understood, was simply this. Wheu the Bill was up in the first instance, it looked very much as if it were going to be passed.
I understood the hon. member for Alberta to say that he was opposed to the preamble of the Bill, and if it came to a question of voting for the Bill he would oppose the preamble, but as an alternative he would agree to one year's extension of time.
The hon. Minister of Railways has found considerable fault with (the ruling of the Chairman.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No.


Andrew B. Ingram: He thought that the rule should uot have been put into effect. Well,
I approve of its being enforced. It may have worked hard in this particular case, but it will tend to prevent a practice which has often been resorted to. I know of instances when, just as the vote in the committee was about to be taken, hon. members were rushed in and called upon to vote, although they had not the first knowledge of the merits of the Bill before the committee nor the first idea of the nature of the discussion. By the decision in this instance, we have good ground for believing that in the future the Railway Committee will not be packed, just as the question is put, by persons who are interested in promoting the legislaton before it.
The hon. Minister of Railways has made rather a peculiar statement. He wants the people to understand that the government are opposed to giving large grants of land. But their conduct with regard to this Bill is hardily consistent with that policy. When a railway charter is granted, accompanied by large tracts of land bonuses, those who obtain the charter know perfectly well that, in order to earn the grant, they must comply with the conditions of their incorporation. And if they fail to build the road in the time provided, they are perfectly aware that their grant lapses. As a matter of fact, their charter becomes null and void. What then

must follow '! Should their charter be revived ? It follows that the government are necessarily responsible for its revival. The government passed an Order in Council in 1898 and passed it again in 1900, and notwithstanding what the minister has said regarding the policy of the government, it must assume full responsibility for the revival of that Order in Council granting that large tract of land. I am opposed to granting the large tract of land which is given these people by their charter. The idea of 55 miles of railway through a prairie country, which will cost at the most only a few thousand dollars a mile to build, being bonused by this enormous land grant of 6,400 acres per mile. That may have been a justifiable bargain fourteen years ago. My hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Fraser), who interjects a remark, will not. pretend to say that it is a proper bargain today.


Mr. FRASER.: If this contract is existing up to the present time I think we would be justified in keeping it on.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then if the people who get this legislation violate an agreement, and that agreement becomes extinct because it has not been revived, then they have no right to the land, and the moment you revive it you must assume the responsibility of granting it. So the hon. gentleman's statement does not seem to me consistent. As to the question of referring the Bill back to the committee, I think perhaps there may be something in the contention that it should be referred back. I know it was a very close vote. I kept a strict account of the gentlemen who voted, and I am somewhat doubtful as to whether that vote was correctly taken that day. I know that certain gentlemen in that committee whose names are somewhat similar misunderstood the names when they were read out. and in one or two instances said, No and Yes. I am bound to say, however, that I was closer to those gentlemen on that occasion than the secretary, and I am not sure whether I kept a correct record or not, and I do not know whether the secretary then even took a proper record. For that reason I have no objection to the Bill going back to the committee. But as far as the land grant is concerned, I shall certainly oppose it in committee as I opposed it here.


Frank Oliver: Have I the privilege of putting myself right ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. gentleman has a right to make a personal explanation, and of setting himself right if he has been misunderstood.


Frank Oliver: My attitude, when I stated that I was instructed by the city council of Calgary to oppose the Bill, was not changed by the course I took when I suggested that the committee be allowed a year. I said distinctly to the committee that I was taking long chances as between myself and Mr. INGRAM.
the people of Calgary, ana I held out no prospect that the attitude I then assumed would be satisfactory to the people of Calgary. If I may go as far as to explain what the Minister of Railways and Canals said in regard to the terms of the grant, I think he intimated that I had been willing to extend the time a year, and was unreasonable because I was not willing to extend it longer. I was willing to extend it a year because that was the period mentioned in the Order in Council granting the land. I was willing to extend the charter to a term equal to the Order in Council granting the land, which was all the people had a right to. To extend the charter further was to bring up the question of extending the land grant, and giving them a leverage at any rate, to get an extension of that land grant. I made the proposition to ascertain for the information of the committee, the bona tides of the company. If the company were not willing to build within the year then they were not a bona fide company.


Mr. WADE.: Is it not a fact that the hon. gentleman moved an amendment to the Bill limiting the time till the 1st of July, 1903 ; and. that subsequently an amendment was moved extending the time to the 1st of October, 1903, and a discussion took place on those two amendments ?


Frank Oliver: I proposed such a motion and another gentleman proposed an amendment. but neither motion nor amendment were in order, and neither was put.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: Upon the principles which have been laid down by the right hon. gentleman who leads the House, and from the statement made by the Minister of Railways and Canals this afternoon, it does not seem to me there is the slightest ground for sending this back to the committee. The Minister of Railways and Canals has stated that there was tiie fullest possible discussion of this matter in the committee, therefore, so far as that is concerned there does not exist the slightest reason for sending this matter back to the committee. The right hon. gentleman who leads this House has laid down the principle again and again that when the committee sanctions a Bill this House should sustain the committee, and that the matter should not be reconsidered.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Unless cause is shown.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend says that the leader of the House qualified his statement that way. Well, let us see what cause is shown. The matter of counting votes in the committee Is, I submit, a matter entirely for the committee itself' to regulate, it is not a matter in which this House is justified in interfering. The vote in the committee, if it is desirable to discuss in this House the manner in which the vote is taken, was taken exactly in the same way as the votes are taken' in this

House. Hon. gentlemen have talked about the unfairness of excluding members of the committee from voting, because they did not happen to be present when the question was put. Exactly the same argument anight be made in this House. Hon. gentlemen here listen day after day to debates, and yet they cannot vote unless they are actually here when the question is put from the Chair. The Railway Committee enforced exactly the same rule that is enforced in this House. I venture to say that if you are going to refer this matter back to the Railway Committee simply because you are of opinion that the chairman of that committee did not do his duty, you are doing something which should not be undertaken bv this House. I think that the rule followed by the chairman of the committee was a fair and proper one and that we have no cause to find fault 'with it. But, if there were cause to find fault with it, that is a matter to be dealt with by the committee itself. The time of the House should not be taken up in discussing for two hours a matter which is really a question of the internal regulation of the Railway Committee, so far as any real question presents itself. For, surely no one will say that the fact that this measure was defeated by a majority of one is a valid reason for sending it back to the committee. It goes without saying that that is no reason at all. The only question is whether the chairman of the committee did his duty. I think he did, and that he properly counted the vote. That being so, I see no reason to refer this measure back to the committee. If it is referred back, it will be quoted in the future as a pi'ecedent for taking up the time of the House day after day with a discussion of matters that properly appertain to the Railway Committee itself and that should be dealt with by that committee alone.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. [DOT] Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: It seems to me that my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) in the argument he has just offered has not shown the logical qualities of mind which he usually displays. I think I can show conclusively even to himself that the reasons he has urged why this Bill should not be referred to the committee are not adequate and binding. My hon. friend has stated the rule which-of course, I do not claim to have created it-I have observed ever since I first assumed the position I have the honour to occupy. That rule is invariably to maintain the decision of a committee unless adequate cause is shown for different action. The hon. gentleman says that adequate cause has not been shown in this case. We have'the report of the committee, which is stated to have been carried by a majority of one, rejecting this Bill. When this discussion commenced, I must say_ my mind was very strong in favour of rejecting the motion. But an argument has beeu
brought forward, which, it seems to me, puts upon the question an entirely different complexion. The chairman of the committee, the hon. member for London (Mr. Hyman) has risen in his place, and, speaking not as a member of the House, but as chairman of the committee, has stated that, though he reported the Bill as he was bound to do, in his opinion the vote upon it was a snap vote, and that the committee should 'be seized again of the question and have an opportunity of adjudicating upon it. The chairman's fairness is recognized upon all sides, upon the Conservative as well as upon the Liberal side; and, of course, his opinion must carry great weight. This is the argument to which I would invite the attention of my hon. friend. But I would go further. Suppose that it had happened in the case of this Bill instead of meeting this adverse vote in the Railway Committee it had met it in the Committee of the Whole House, what would have taken place ? The following day, probably, the promoter would have asked the House to reconsider its determination, and the House would have reconsidered and either reaffirmed or negatived it. More than once a Bill defeated in Committee of the Whole has been brought forward by the promoters who has asked the House to' reinstate it upon the Ordei- paper. Shall we be told that a proceeding so simple, so just, so fair, shall not be allowed because this vote took place not on the floor of this House,, but in the Railway Committee 1 This position is so strong that my hon. friend anticipating it, has tried to force himself into another position. He says it is for the committee to rectify the error if an error has been made. But the committee has no power to deal With it. The jurisdiction of the committee has been exhausted, and it cannot agam deal with the question unless the report is sent back to it by this House. I submit that in a deliberative assembly no * more than in a Court of Justice a mere snap vote should not finally settle a matter. Sharp practice should mot prevail. I do not make any imputation against anybody. But, if certain members wlio were anxious to vote upon the question, who had attended the discussion but happened to be called away had been pi-esent when the vote was taken, the report would have been different from what it is. It seems to me that it would be an act of injustice not to allow the promoters of the Bill to have it go before the Committee of Railways and Canals and have its merits threshed out. As to the merits of the Bill, I have nothing to say. That is a matter which does mot come before the House, and will have to be dealt with by the comniittee. If the committee come before us with a report favourable to the Bill, it will be time to discuss the merits of the measure. Up to the present time the question is one of procedure only. It is asked, and I think with good reason that the promoters shall have an opportunity of discussing the merits

before tlie committee. My hon. friend from East Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) has said that if this carried it will be the first time such a vote has ever been carried in the House. The hon. gentleman is quite right. But I would say also that this is the first time when a .proposal of this kind has been supported by the chairman of the committee whose report was under discussion, and that is to me, sound and good reason why it should carry.


Mr. N. BOYD (Macdonald).: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Nathaniel Boyd: Hon. members can 1 Oh ' as much as they please. I have a right to speak, I have something to say, and 1 propose to say it regardless of what may be said upon the other side. A great deal has been said about what took place in the Railway Committee. Some two hours were spent in discussing the measure and seventy-one men were there and voted upon it. And the exception that was raised, that some members did not hear the question put, notwithstanding what was said here, was raised in the committee. And the decision of the chairman was such as from his position he was compelled to give. Now the point is this, and it has been shown here and the hon. gentleman wlho is the promoter of the Bill has not brought forward anything to the contrary-that this is a new company practically that has charge of this Bill, and that they are coming here, fourteen years after the time a charter was originally granted, to get that enormous amount of land which, since then, has greatly increased in value. And what caused that increase 7 The. settlers who have gone into that country and settled round about that land have made it valuable after these fourteen years, and now a new company, because practically it is a new company, are coming here aud asking for a land grant from this government, notwithstanding the policy and the doctrine which has been laid down and announced up and down this country by hon. gentlemen opposite. The vote you are going to give here to-day, and no doubt we will see that you take a vote, will mean that any man who votes to send this Bill back to the Railway Committee votes for giving that land to this railway company. If you vote to send this Bill back you will repudiate the declaration of your leaders and of all those who sought the votes of the people on the pledge that no more land would be given to railway companies. If the suggestion of the hon. member for Guys-borough (Mr. Fraser) is good, this company may come back fifty years from now and ask for land which is worth from $25 to $50 an acre more, and get a charter from this government. While railways have been a help to that country, they have also been a curse in some respects. Who are the men who held them up to the scorn of the country but hon. gentlemen who are now


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: sitting on the Treasury benches opposite? The right hon. leader of the government knows well that he and other leaders of the Liberal party, when he sat on this side of the House, condemned the action of the government of that day, notwithstanding the fact that they had some just cause that time, 14, 10 or some 20 years ago, to give the land which had no value, but, when you, by your vote to-day, as you shall vote, send that Bill back to the Railway Committee, and if you do, you will come back to this House


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Order.


Nathaniel Boyd: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, from deviating slightly from the rule. When hon. gentlemen come back to this House and give to this new company this enormous amount of land which the settlers have made valuable to the extent of five, six or ten dollars an acre by occupying the land around it, they will do something which the people of this country will condemn.


Mr. A. C. BELL (Pietou).: Mr. Speaker, in reference to the argument as to the proper course of procedure in the matter now before the House, that is, as to whether or not this 'question should be referred back to the Railway Committee, the right hon. gentleman who leads the House (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has laid down the proposition that nothing can be considered in this House-I am referring to a past utterance of his-except what appears upon the record as it comes before parliament. In this case, I am sorry to say, he is violating the very good apd sound constitutional practice which he enunciated to parliament and which will be evident from a few words I will read from a past utterance of the right hon. gentleman :
The rule which is invariably followed on the floor of this House is that the House maintains the decisions of committees unless adequate cause be shown to the contrary, and unless cause be shown on the record.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bell) is referring to a previous debate.


Adam Carr Bell: I unquestionably am. The right hon. gentleman referred to a previous debate.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. gentleman (Sir. Bell) may discuss the point of order.


Adam Carr Bell: I am referring to exactly the same precedents that have been referred to by the right hon. gentleman and by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) on the occasion to which I have referred, and which arose in connection with a precisely similar motion to have a report referred back to a committee. The right hon. gentleman laid down the rule and supported it by his vote, that the House could take no cognizance of anything

whatever except it appears on the record that came from the committee. He specifically debarred himself, or any one else, from using such arguments as he has used to-day, when he objected to the statement of any hon. gentleman toeing taken, and characterized it as the ipsi dixit of this hon. gentleman or that hon. gentleman, saying that it was a matter of statements being made pro and con, and which could not be considered at all. He practically shut this House out from the consideration of anything that did not appear on the record. I maintain that if this is the case, the right hon. gentleman is entirely precluded by his own action, by his own sound constitutional statement, which I was very glad to accept upon that occasion as being authoritative, from making such an argument as he has addressed to the House to-day.


Mr. H. J. LOGAN (Cumberland).: Mr. Speaker, I would not have spoken at all except for the statement of the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) that any hon. member who votes for sending this Bill back to the Railway Committee endorses the principle of giving land grants to railway companies. I am distinctly opposed to the government giving a single acre of Canadian farm land to any railway company and tying up that land in connection with a railway enterprise or a railway charter. I am going to support the motion to send this Bill back to the committee simply because a rule was enforced which never had been enforced before, at least, not in the last six years. I think I have been in that committee at every session which has been held in the last six years, and I have never seen that rule enforced before. In fact, I think the rules have been rather loosely enforced on some occasions. I can remember that on many occasions when votes were taken hon. members have simply come to the door of the Railway Committee room and said ' yes ' or ' no,' and their votes have been recorded. This is the first time in six years that this question has been raised. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) has endeavoured to make it appear that the case is similar to one which might arise in this House. Now, I say that in this House every hon member knows if he does not come into the House* before the question is put by the Speaker, he loses his opportunity of voting, but in the Railway Committee, for six years past, we have had members coming into the committee any time when the vote is being polled, and recording their votes.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The same practice has been followed for twenty years.


Hance James Logan: The hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, for a long time chairman of the Railway Committee, says that the same state of affairs has existed for the last twenty years. As far as farm land 102
grants are concerned, I am opposed to them. But, as far as the present circumstances are concerned, it is sufficient to know that there has been a rule enforced which has not been enforced before, that members have been taken by surprise, that this has been a snap vote, and therefore the Bill should be reported back to the committee. I trust myself that no land will be granted.
House divided on the motion (Mr. Cowan).
YEAS :
Messieurs
Angers,
Archambault,
Beland.
Bernier,
Blair,
Bourbonnais,
Brown,
Brunet,
Bureau,
Calvert,
Carbonneau, Champagne,
Charlton,
Copp,
Cowan,
Culbert,
Demers (Levis),
Demers (St. John), Dugas,
Emmerson,
Ethier,
Farquharson,
Fielding,
Fisher,
Fitzpatrick,
Flint,
Fraser,
Geoffrion,
Gibson,
Girard,
Gould,
Guthrie,
Harwood,
Holmes,.
Horsey,
Hughes (King's, P.E.I.), Hyman,
Ingram,
Johnston (Cape Breton), Johnston (Lambton), Kidd,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Laurier (L'Assomption), Lavergne,
LeBlanc,
Lemieux,
Logan,
Lovell,
Loy,
Macdonald,
Mackie,
MacLaren (Huntingdon), McCarthy,
McColl,
McCool,
McCormick,
McIntosh,
Mclsaac,
McLennan,
Madore,
Marcil (Bonaventure), Matheson,
Maxwell,
Meigs,
Monet,
Morrison,
Murray,
Parmalee,
Paterson,
Prefontaine,
Pringle,
Reid (Restigouche), Riley,
Ross (Rimouski),
Ross (Victoria, N.S.), Russell,
Simmons,
Sutherland (Essex), Sutherland (Oxford), Talbot,
Tarte,
Thompson,
, Tisdale,
Tolmie,
Turgeon,
Wade,
Wright.-87.
NAYS :
Avery,
Bell,
Birkett,
Blain,
Borden (Halifax). Bourassa,
Boyd,
Brock,
Broder,
Bruce,
Cargill,
Clare,
Clarke,
Cochrane,
Messieurs
Lavell,
Legris,
Lennox,
Lewis,
McCreary,
McEwen,
McGowan,
Monk,
Morin,
Northrup,
Oliver,
Osier,
Puttee,
Richardson,



Earle,
Ganong,
Gllmour,
Gourley,
Hackett,
Henderson,
Heyd,
Johnston (Cardwell), Kaulbaeh,
Kemp,
Lancaster,
Lang,
LaRiviSre,
Robinson (Elgin), Roche (Marquette), Rosamond,
Scott, *
Sherritt,
Smith (Vancouver), Sproule,
Stewart,
Taylor,
Tolton,
Wilmot,
Wilson-53.
Motion (Mr. Cowan) agreed to.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE-EXPENDITURE ON GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS.

John Graham Haggart: I beg to move, seconded by Hon. Mr. Tisdale :
That the Committee on Public Accounts be empowered to make inquiries into the nature of the expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway and Prince Edward Island Railways from the year 1895 up to the present date.
In proposing this motion, I may say that it is an appeal from the decision of the Public Accounts Committee


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) says that this motion is an appeal from a decision of the Public Accounts Committee. I call attention to the fact that the notice he has given does not read at all in that way. His motion has no reference at all to anything that has taken place in the Public Accounts Committee. It reads :
Mr. HAGGART-Gives notice that on- Monday next he will move, when notices are called, that the Committee on Public Accounts be empowered to make inquiries into any expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway and Prince Edward Island Railways from' tho year 1895 to the present date.
This is a substantive motion, and there is no reference in it to anything which may have taken place in the Public Accounts Committee.
motion he should have given notice, and it would appear on the Order paper, but if he wants to have an appeal from the decision of the Public Accounts Committee, which I do not think he has a right to, I call attention to the fact that he has not given notice of such a motion.


John Graham Haggart: Surely I can characterize my motion as I like. I said it was an appeal from the report of the Public Accounts Committee, and as such I am de-, 'barred from bringing it forward in any other manner than when the motions are called. I contend that I am perfectly in order.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Under rule 31 two day's notice has to be given of a motion. Then such a motion would go on the Order paper in the place assigned for notices of motion. That procedure has not been followed in this case. Two day's notice has been given, but the motion does not appear on the Order paper. It is out of place to proceed with the discussion of this motion now. I call the attention of hon. gentlemen to the fact, that following the practice laid down by Sir James Edgar in 1896, I decided that all motions for an appeal from the decisions of the Public Accounts Committee, or for concurrence in reports of the committee, instead of being put on the Order paper with the other notices of motion, should be brought up when motions are called. But this is quite a different, motion. Let us look at the procedure. At the beginning of this session a motion was made for the formation of the Public Accounts Committee, and later on a motion was made to refer to that committee the report of the Auditor General and the public accounts for the last fiscal year. The committee has a right to proceed with the examination of that Auditor General's Report, and those public accounts, but a substantive motion such as this now. made by the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) is not in order when motions are called.



CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT ACT, 1898.

[Stage Direction]
. Hon. Mr. HAGGART. The right hon. gentleman has not read the report.
The PRIME MINISTER.: But I have read the notice of motion, and the hon. gentleman in the opening words of his speech tells us that under cover of his motion he intends to appeal from the decision of the Public Accounts Committee. He has given no notice of that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He is merely giving a reason why he is moving the motion.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Then, if this is a substantive motion it must go on the Order paper and cannot come up at this stage. In either case the hon. gentleman is out of order. If he moves a substantive Mr. LOGAN.
The MINISTER OP FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 124) to amend the Civil Service Retirement Act, 1898. He said : This Bill proposes to make a very slight amendment in the Act in question. The Civil Service Retirement Act takes the place of the Superannuation Act in the case of new officials, or of such old officials as have elected to come under its operation. A certain sum of money is deducted annually from the salary of the official, which with interest is placed in a fund created for the benefit of the official, to be paid by the government upon his retirement or upon his death. Sections 8 and 9 of the Act of 1898 describe the manner in which this payment shall be made. [DOT] Section 8 reads :

8.	On the retirement or dismissal of any person, the amount to his credit in the retirement fund shall be payable to him : Provided always, that if he is, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, unfit to manage his own affairs, such amount miay be dealt with for the benefit of such person, or of his wife or children or other next of kin, in such manner as the Governor in Council determines.
Section 9 reads :
9.	If a person dies while in the Civil Service, the amount to his credit in the retirement fund shall be paid to his legal representatives.
It will be seen that if a man dies in the service the provision is, that the money shall be paid to his legal representatives, and hence it would be necessary that there should be letters of administration taken out and considerable expense incurred. It too often happens, I am afraid, that the civil servant at the time of his death has very little property on which to administer, and it has been thought better that instead of obliging the family to take out letters of administration, that, as respects this small sum to his credit in the hands of the government, it may be paid to such person as the Treasury Board would indicate. It is a change which I think will commend itself to the judgment of the House.


Mr. E. F. CLARKE (West Toronto).: I had a communication recently from one of my constituents who had been in the civil service for many years and who resigned his position voluntarily to enter commercial life. He had been paying into the superannuation fund during all the years he was in the service, and having honourably retired from the service he asks that the sum he contributed in this way should be refunded to him. Will there be any provision made in the amending Act of the minister to cover such cases ? It seems to me that it is a hardship to a man who has served faithfully in the public service and-has contributed for years to the superannuation fund, if that money is retained by the government. I think the sum contributed by him during the years he has been in the public service should be returned to him. If he were dismissed from the service, it would be returned.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Only in
certain cases.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am advised that in the case of a civil servant being dismissed from the service, the money he has paid into the superannuation fund is returned to him. I would ask the minister if the case I mention is provided for in the Bill ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The Bill which I have presented to the House deals with the Civil Service Retirement Act. My hon. friend's question relates to the old Civil Service Superannuation Act, which is a different measure. It is to a certain extent a hardship when a man has contributed for a number of years to the super-1021
annuation fund and dies in the service, that his savings are not paid to his family, or, if he retires voluntarily, that they are not paid to himself. But that was a principle of the old Superannuation Act, that a man had to live in order to get the benefit of the Act. A man might have paid into the superannuation fund for many years, and, shortly before the time when he might have retired from the service and received a pension, he passed away ; and under the old Act his family could not receive a penny. My hon. friend is slightly inaccurate when he says that a man who is dismissed from the service has his contribution paid back to him. That is true only in a limited sense. It was provided for in the Act which we introduced in 1897 or 1898 to deal with persons who had been dismissed from the service for political partisanship. It was felt that, as those gentlemen were not guilty of malfeasance, though they had taken a course that was erroneous, they were punished sufficiently by their dismissal, and ought not to lose the money which they had paid into the superannuation fund. Therefore, a special Act was passed which, though not applied to them in terms, was distinctly stated to be intended to apply to them. In no other case has the money been refunded. Under the new system, in case of a man's death the money is recognized as belonging to his family and is paid, to them ; or, if he retires from the service, the money will be paid to himself, or, if he is unfit to manage his affairs, to members of his family. There have undoubtedly been cases of apparent hardship under the old Superannuation Act, but I am afraid it will be difficult to make any change in the light of the hon. gentleman's suggestion.


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

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE moved that the House go into committee to-morrow to
consider the following proposed resolution
That it is expedient to amend chapter 41 of the statutes of 1901, and to provide that the salaries of the police magistrate at Dawson and the police magistrate at White Horse shall he $4,000 per annum.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE moved that the House go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution :
That it is expedient to amend the Act respecting the judges of provincial courts and to provide as follows : -
1. That the salary of the third judge of the territorial court of the Yukon Territory shall be $5,000 per annum.
[Stage Direction]
2. That a judge of a county court resigning at any time after becoming disabled by permanent infirmity or resigning after twenty-five years' service, may be granted a pension equal to two-thirds of his annual salary ; provided that if he has served less than five years, his pension shall not exceed one-third of his annual salary.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE moved that the House go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution :
That it is expedient to provide that the salary of the registrar of the Exchequer Court shall be $2,400 per annum.
Motion agreed to.

John Charlton: Mr. Speaker, before the House proceeds with Orders of the Day, I wish to give notice that I propose to-morrow, Deo vo-lente, to move upon going into supply the following motion :
This House is of the opinion that British supremacy should be maintained and firmly established in South Africa ; to which end Canada has cheerfully contributed men and money. Having in view the effect of a policy magnanimity and mercy at the cecesslon of Canada, and at the close of the civil war in the United States, and for other reasons, this House is also of the opinion that a like policy of magnanimity and mercy may properly be extended to a brave foe now opposing British arms, and that in the interests of peace, and of future tranquillity, harmony and homogeneity, it is expedient to offer universal amnesty, as a condition of peace and submission to British control, to all persons in arms against British authority, in Cape Colony, Natal, the Orange Free State, the Transvaal, and all other portions of the British dominions in South Africa; and upon this opinion, respectfully presented, with the prayerful hope that it may aid in securing a favourable and honourable settlement of South African hostilities and difficulties, this House invokes the considerate judgment of His Gracious Majesty the King.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN.

Adam Carr Bell: Before the Orders of the Day are proceeded with, I would like to call the attention of the right hon. premier to the fact that a return which was ordered by the House on the 26th of February has hot yet been brought down. It is a return showing the total number of employees of the various departments who have been dismissed; and the motion was amended by adding the words,
' not already brought down.'


The PRIME MINISTER.: I will take a note of it.


Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.: 



SUPPLY-PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved that the House again go into Committee of Supply.
John Graham Haggart: Mr. Speaker, before the House goes into Committee of Supply I wish to move ;
That the Committee of Public Accounts be empowered to make inquiries into any expenditure on the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railways from the year 1895 to the present date.
My reason for introducing this resolution is this. In making inquiries into the expenditures for the years of which tlhe public accounts have been referred to the committee, it is found that there are many incidents connected with the accounts which it is impossible to inquire into fully without going beyond those years. For instance, in connection with the purchase of locomotives on the Intercolonial Railway, an inquiry was made before the committee as to the weight of the locomotives. We found out the weight and then wanted to know the condition of the road over which the locomotives passed, but we were debarred from inquiry into that particular question on the ground that it might embody an Inquiry into expenditure beyond the year referred to the committee. But the Public Accounts Committee, which is purely inquisitorial, is not bound by the rules which apply to the courts of law, but has the fullest opportunity of putting questions in any shape or form, leading or otherwise, and may even inquire into a person's private concerns, if thought necessary. But this rule has been disregarded, and disregarded for the first time in our parliamentary history.
Before that committee, we had a party wlho had been in the employ of the government, but had left it in order- to enter into a contract for the supply of material to the government, and the question was put to him :	What was the contract you made
with the sub-contractor ? A minister of the Crown immediately rose and told the witness he had no right to answer.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Is the hon. gentleman referring to something I said ?


John Graham Haggart: Not at all, the
Minister of Finance was there at the time, and he interjected the remark that the witness had no right to answer the question.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I did not say he had no right to answer it, but that he was not obliged to answer it.


John Graham Haggart: The chairman ruled that the witness need not answer, and that is the first time such a ruling was

ever made in our Public Accounts Committee. According to tbe practice, both in the British parliament and this, up t" the present, the Public Accounts Committee is given the fullest right to inquire into any particulars with reference to the accounts, even though that should involve divulging a private transaction. Not only that, but a witness may be compelled to give evidence, even though he thereby would admit that he was guilty of crime. And the courts in England are always very careful not to allow any such admissions to be taken as evidence against the witness, because he only made them under compulsion.
But we have changed all that in the Public Accounts Committee this session. Objection was made to a certain question on the ground that it had to deal with the accounts of another year than that which had been referred to the committee. I am therefore compelled to ask the House for the power to inquire beyond the particular year the accounts .for which were referred, to the committee. Never before has the right to do so been questioned, either in England or in Canada. We had no object in inquiring into anything which was not incidental to the accounts of the year as to which we were authorized by this House to inquire, but the moment we put the question we were met with the reply that it might involve an inquiry into the expenditure of something which was done in the past or between the end of the last fiscal year and the present date. The committee was equally arbitrary in another instance. Even when a member of parliament states upon bis word of honour the reasons why he wishes to subpoena a witness to give evidence, his request was refused, and we are only allowed to bring the witnesses before the committee which the government think proper.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Might I ask my hon. friend, if he will allow me :	Did my hon. friend
desire to have the House pass an order to the effect that the accounts of the Intercolonial Railway for the past five years shall he inquired into by the Public Accounts Committee ?


John Graham Haggart: Yes.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Does he pretend that the motion to go into Committee of Supply is a proper occasion upon which to ask the House to consider and pass such a motion as he now makes ?


John Graham Haggart: I took what I thought was the proper course. There is a report from the committee to the House, and there is no motion to adopt the report. The motion to adopt the report was never moved by the chairman, or I would have moved an amendment, so that there was no other course left me than the one I took. I thought I had followed the regular practice, but according to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I did not. Then there was nothing left for me but to move the motion on the order to go into Committee of Supply. I adopted the form which was adopted on previous occasions, and I was following strictly the procedure when I made my motion.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANADS.: After you found you were on the wrong track, why did you pursue another wrong course ?


John Graham Haggart: I followed the precedents set from time immemorial, and to-day I hear for the first time that the course I took was irregular.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


John Graham Haggart: As I stated before six o'clock, I was inquiring in the committee into the position of the Intercolonial Railway and trying to show that locomotives had been purchased before the road was ready for them to run upon it because of their weight and unfitness for the road and the tragic. I asked one of the witnesses before tlie committee what was the weight of the locomotive, and he told me the weight. I asked him if this locomotive had run between Point Levis and Montreal, and he replied in the negative. Then I asked the question what state the bridges were in on the Drummond Railway, which had been lately purchased by the government, and whether tenders had been asked for the building of new bridges or whether any contracts for that purpose were out. I was met by the opposition of the Minister of Railways and the chairman of the committee, who said that we had no business to inquire into anything that occurred or might have occurred since the public accounts bad closed at tbe end of June last, or into the reference in the Auditor General's Report. I remember the latitude given to the committee when I was a member of the government. I remember Sir John Thompson's statement to this House and to the country, that if anything was to be inquired into with regard to the public accounts or anything that might reflect on any minister, or anything which it might be thought necessary in the public interests to inquire into, the greatest latitude would be given by tbe government. Tbe ruling of the committee in my case may have been correct, and this matter may have been something which had occurred after the date covered by the reference to the committee. But immediately, for the purpose of setting myself right, I moved that the committee should apply to the House for power to make inquiries into these matters from 1895 up to the present moment. The committee

rejected tlie motion. I moved that the report of the committee be immediately sent to the House. It appears, under your ruling, Mr. Speaker-to which I how as everything that is correct and proper-that in my ignorance I moved a resolution which has not the effect of gaining the object which I sought. I would like to know any other means within the rules of the House by which I could possibly reach that object and send this back to the committee. There is no other course left me but the one that I am now taking, and that is to seek the authority of the House to inquire into these questions. Surely, in She Public Accounts Committee, which is an inquisitorial committee, as I said before, aud which is designed to afford every lion, member the power to inquire to the fullest extent into every expenditure made by the government, I was within my rights when I asked for the power to inquire into everything that would be incident to an expenditure which was under discussion. But I am met by a member of the government, who states that I have no right to discuss any of these questions, who refuses me the right to summon witnesses; and, for the first time in the history of this parliament or of that parliament from which we derive our rules, a minister tells the witness that he has no right to answer a question. ' Don't answer the question, you have no right to answer.' And the witness is justified, because it will be divulging something which is his own private affair.
The MINISTER Off RAILWAYS AND CANALS. Will the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) allow me to ask him a question ?


John Graham Haggart: Yes.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Does the hon. gentleman refer to something which transpired when the committee was investigating the Public Works accounts ?


John Graham Haggart: Yes.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Did not the Minister of Finance correct my hon. friend this afternoon by asking whether the position lie took was not this-that it was the privilege of the witness not to answer the question-not that he had no right to answer it, but that it was a private matter and that it was the privilege of the witness to decline to answer ?


John Graham Haggart: That is a nice technical distinction between telling a witness : You are not to answer, and the statement that I made, that he was told he need not answer. It show's an amount of ingenuity that would do credit to a police court lawyer. Fancy the Minister of Railways and Canals getting up before this House and drawing such a distinction as that. When Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
the witness was asked the question he was warned by a minister of the Crown-and two of them were there at the time-* You need not answer the question, it is your privilege to answer it if you like.' That was done again and again in my hearing. I never heard of such a proceeding before. The committee was fully empowered to inquire into the question, no matter whether it affected the witness' private business or not. I never heard of such a limitation upon a committee of inquiry. As I said before six o'clock, even if it involved the criminal action, it is obligatory upon the witness to answer, unless he is excused by the committee. But the chairman rules that witnesses need not answer questions, as if he had the power to do so. No power devolves upon the chairman but to keep order. It is for the committee itself to decide whether a witness shall or shall not answer a question. The idea of a chairman of a committee ruling upon a question like that is new to me


Duncan Cameron Fraser: May I ask the hon. gentleman one question ? Was not he the member who asked me as chairman of the committee to say whether or not the witness was bound to answer ?


John Graham Haggart: Not that I am aware of.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Most certainly.


John Graham Haggart: It is possible. I will not make a statement in direct contradiction of the hon. gentleman. But I have here the evidence of the committee as it is reported to the House :
Q. What I want to know is whether there were any tenders asked for or contracts awarded for the purpose of building any bridge on the Drummond section of the Intercolonial Railway this year ?
A. Shall I answer that, Mr. Chairman-
That is the appeal of the witness to the chairman.
The CHAIRMAN-I think that if he refers to this year, the effect of the question would be to make an inquiry before this committee we are authorized to do.
We are authorized by parliament to inquire into the public accounts.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Is that the matter the hon. gentleman was discussing ?


John Graham Haggart: Yes.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: The hon. gentleman will excuse me-it was the other question.


John Graham Haggart: No, I am discussing the powers exercised by the chairman, and I have shown by the report of the evidence how the witness appealed to the chairman and how the chairman assumed to decide the matter. I say the chairman has no such power. The proceedings before that committee are the most perfect farce that ever was enacted before any committee of

this House. Fancy the Minister of Railways getting up and stating virtually that your only power in making inquiries before that committee is to learn whether the money was paid for the particular service named or not. The question of policy, the question of expediency-all this he refuses the committee the right to inquire into. Therefore, there is no other course left for me, desiring as I do to maintain the power and the dignity of this House and to see that the committees are properly conducted, but the course I have taken. I have endeavoured to get this question before the House in a manner which I thought proper. It is late in the session, and there is no remedy open to me except the one I am taking. I only ask that the Public Accounts Committee be instructed to make inquiries from 1895 up to the present moment into any matters which they think pertinent to the subject submitted to them. It has been done a dozen of times in the past in the Public Accounts Committee. There is no reason why they should not do it again, and especially for the reasons which I have stated this evening. Therefore, Mr. Speaker,
I beg to move :
That all the words after ' that ' be struck out, and the following substituted therefor :
That the Committee on Public Accounts be empowered to make inquiries into any expenses on the Intercolonial Railway and Prince Edward Island Railways from the year 1895 to the present date.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Before recess I asked my hon. friend from South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Hag-gart) if he would seriously say that he desired that this committee, at this stage, should be empowered to make the investigation which he proposes, and he answered that he, did. If he had not answered the question in that way, if he had not said that he desired that this authority should be conferred upon the committee, I should have been constrained to believe, from the conduct of the hon. gentleman in this House and his conduct before the committee, that this was the last thing that he desired to have done. Is there a gentleman in this House who believes, after what the hon. gentleman has said here to-night, that there could be a more impossible method, a more unreasonable method, of achieving the object which he alleges he has in view, than to move this resolution on going into Committee of Supply ? If the ho-n. gentleman had wished to appear before parliament and the country as seeking to make an investigation which he was precluded from making by the action of the government, if _ he had desired to pose before the country in an attitude which would have enabled some one to draw political inferences against the government, he would have pursued precisely the opposite course to that he has pursued. I cannot understand how an hon. gentleman of his
experience, who has been a long time a member of parliament, and has been a minister of the Crown, could imagine that such a course of procedure would impose upon tihe credulity of the most credulous man in this parliament. The hon. gentleman knows that there was another method which he could have pursued before that committee; if he desired such an investigation into the accounts of the Intercolonial Railway there was a course toe could have taken, but that course he has studiously abstained from taking. The hon. gentleman could have moved a substantive motion, which would have been reached in due course, and to facilitate which the Prime Minister would have afforded him every opportunity. He could have put in the Orders a resolution to the effect that he desired that the committee should he instructed and empowered to hold an inquiry into the accounts of the Intercolonial Railway prior to or, if he liked, subsequent to the year the committee was considering. That would have been a proper and legitimate course for 'the hon. gentleman to take if he wished to attain the object he professes to have in view. And the subject could have been dealt with on its merits without blocking the proceedings on a motion to go into Committee of Supply. Why has the hon. gentleman not seen fit to do that ? Because he has preferred to resort to a little cheap tactics which he thinks is going to impose upon somebody who does not understand the matter. He has been pursuing an investigation before the Railway Committee for weeks and months, and has not got anywhere. He has not found out anything, he has not accomplished anything. But he lias a grievance, and bis chief grievance is that he has .not got any grievance. It is absurd for the toon, gentleman to suppose that this parliament cannot understand the position as well as he does himself. He knows better than to imagine that there has been any disposition on the, part of any member of that committee, or of any minister of the Crown, to prevent any legitimate inquiry that the toon, gentleman desires to make. He has been spending weeks in pursuing the inquiry, and what lias he achieved ? Every subject he has investigated, the more he has probed into it, the more defensible the transaction has become. He 'is simply in this weak and lamentable position, that he has not got anywhere, and he hopes to be able to go before the country with the pretension that he would have discovered something against this government if the Minister of Railways and Canals had not blocked him in the inquiry, and toad not prevented him from investigating the accounts of the railway. That is the attitude the hon. gentleman is in, and he will pardon me if I say that he occupies to-day a very flat, and a very weak, and an entirely indefensible position from any point of view.

Let me tell the House What took place be- I fore the Committee on Public Accounts. The hon. gentleman asked the committee to sustain him in a motion that all the accounts of the Intercolonial Railway should be referred to this committee, both past and future ; not alone the accounts of this year, but the accounts of the last four or live years; not alone the accounts of the past four or five years, that was not sufficient for his purpose, tart he wanted to reach out into the future, and he wanted to know what was going to be done in the future. Imagine the hon. gentleman asking the Committee on Public Accounts to take up transactions that are pending and unfinished during the current year. The hon. gentleman has had a long experience in parliament. but I will venture to say that he cannot lay his finger upon any Instance in which so insane a proposition was ever submitted to the committee. Well, Sir, what took place when the hon. gentleman moved this motion ? There is not an hpn. gentleman upon that committee who is present here to-night but who will know that I am making an entirely accurate statement when I say that I think the committee did not exhibit tbe slightest disposition- to preclude him from looking into the accounts and into the transactions of past years, and that it was not disposed to limit the inquiry in the present year. There had been particulars, abstracts and papers brought down covering the whole time of my administration of the Intercolonial Railway. However, I said that if there were any particular directions in which he wanted to have the accounts of past years laid before the committee if he would tell us in what they were, if he would indicate in some way what he desired, and the particular inquiry he desired to pursue, I would facilitate him In every way and would not offer the slightest objection to his motion passing.


John Graham Haggart: Is not the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Blair) drawing upon his imagination, when he says he made that statement ?


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My hon. friend was present at the committee, and he must have heard what I am now stating.


John Graham Haggart: I never heard it.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I will be borne out by an hon. gentlemen on his own side of the House, and I appeal to that hon. gentleman, who I know has closely and intelligently followed the proceedings before the committee-I refer to the hon. gentleman from Hamilton (Mr. Barker)-to say if I did not unhesitatingly offer, if the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart) would indicate the particular line of inquiry he wanted to pursue that I would support his motion to ask this House to give authority to the com-Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
mittee to deal with these accounts and have these accounts referred to it. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Haggart), in answer to that offer, took this course ; the hon. gentleman said that his object was to get at the transactions connected with the purchasing of locomotives by the government. He said that during the past few years we had purchased a number of very large locomotives, that we had put them on the Intercolonial Railway, and he had asked one witness a question in reply to which that witness had said that there is one portion of the railway, the Drummond County Railway, upon which these locomotives could not lie run because they were too heavy for the bridges upon that line. The hon. gentleman said that he wanted to have an opportunity of seeing whether, in the year now running, we were entering into any contracts, or arranging for contracts to Increase the strength of these bridges or changing them so that they could carry heavier locomotives. He did not inquire as far as the locomotives were concerned that were purchased before the year, the accounts of which we are now investigating, had been entered upon. My hon. friend said that he wanted to be able to show that the locomotives that we bought were too heavy to be run on the Intercolonial Railway this year. I said to my hon. friend that as far as the present year was concerned, I did not think it was a proper' subject to refer to the committee, but that so far as past years were concerned, the accounts of which we were investigating, I was perfectly willing that the accounts respecting these years should be gone into ; but let him say that that was the particular thing he wanted to inquire into and we would ask the House to authorize the committee to have these accounts laid before it. My hon. friend did not act upon that suggestion, and why ? Because he wanted to be able to come to parliament, make a speech which would find its way into ' Hansard ' and be published in the opposition press throughout the country to the effect that we were stifling investigation and preventing a proper Inquiry. But later, when my hon. friend had made another speech and when some remarks had been made by hon. members who asked me if I could not make a statement as to the present year, I said ' yes.' I made a statement, and the - statement I made covered all the ground. I stated that in so far as entering into, or authorizing any contracts to be entered into with respect to bridges upon the Drummond County Railway was concerned, we had not either made any contracts nor were we proposing to make any contracts at present. I said that the statement which my hon. friend was making to the effect that we had bought the Drummond County Railway as a railway which was capable of carrying locomotives of this kind was not a correct statement, because when we bought the Drummond County

Railway it was stated that we acquired it as a road which, with the expenditure we had made provision to make upon it, would be up to the standard of the Intercolonial Railway, and I maintain that the Drummond County is a railway up to the standard of the Intercolonial Railway. I affirmed and sustained my proposition by saying that immediately we had adopted the policy in 1898 of putting on heavier rolling, stock and locomotives, then we had to ask parliament to make provision for increasing the capacity and strength of the bridges all over the line of the Intercolonial Railway. We are doing that to-day. I said to my hon. friend that although we ha<j entered into no contracts the present year for the purpose of strengthening the bridges on the Drummond County Railway, we would be obliged in the near future to do that in order to have our road from one end of it to the other strong enough, so far as bridges are concerned, to carry the heaviest locomotives and trains we have placed on the railway. My hon. friend got an answer to his question. We did not hear anything more about it until my hon. friend asked for the adoption of a resolution, and he renews the request here to-day.


John Graham Haggart: Was not the resolution moved in the committee before the hon. gentleman made that statement ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, never ; it was at the very same meeting.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. minister forgets. He made the statement at the next meeting.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not forget anything about it. I recollect very well that the discussion which I have related here took place on the precise occasion, on which the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) moved that resolution. Now, Sir, my hon. friend, although he refuses to accept the reasonable suggestion which was made by me at the committee, now asks this House, as an amendment to the motion that we go into Committee of Supply, to authorize the Public Accounts Committee to make an inquiry into any expenditure upon the Intercolonial Railway and on the Prince Edward Island Railway from the year 1895 to the present day. I ask in all reason whether it is possible to conceive of a more unreasonable motion than that which the hon. gentleman has asked his friends on the other side to support, and is at the same time, of course, asking the House generally to entertain. What was it that my hon. friend stated in parliament three or four days ago ? He made the statement, and he repeated it on Friday last, that the inquiry before the Public Accounts Committee into railway affairs would no doubt
terminate on Monday, and when we did not finish the investigation yesterday by reason of the fact that there were a few witnesses who had been summoned, my hon. friend stated that he then expected the inquiry would be concluded on Wednesday. He has asked the right hon. leader of the government to have the railway estimates deferred until this committee had made its final report, and yet in the face of a statement that this inquiry is at an end, and everybody knows it is at an end who has been attending the committee, he comes to this parliament and seriously and deliberately asks us to subscribe to a resolution which would transfer to the jurisdiction of that committee and impose the duty upon that committee of investigating every one of the Intercolonial Railway accounts from 1895 down to the present day. I do not think that the motion is one that will commend itself to any considerable portion of the hon. gentleman's friends. I do not think that the members on the one side or the other of this 9 House can afford to commit themselves to any such proposition as that. It is not reasonable. If the hon. gentleman had any particular point, or item, or class of account which he wanted to investigate, he would not be obliged to come here to get the authority of the House to make his inquiries, because the committee would at once have allowed him to make any investigation that could be considered fair and reasonable. But the hon. gentleman has chosen to take another course. If he had not asserted so strongly to the contrary, every one would have concluded that he took this course because he knew it was futile, because he knew it could not result in anything, and because he himself wished to have his motion defeated.


Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: If this motion is defeated, as I am afraid it will, the House of Commons of Canada will not have spent a very useful day. What, between granting mountains of coal to people who have to build a small railway, and refusing to allow an investigation into that most advantageous concern, the Intercolonial Railway, which has been defended with so much wrath and with so much irritation by the Minister of Railways that he could scarcely command his language ; the Commons of Canada will have spent a most unprofitable day indeed, so far as the interests of the people are concerned. If the representatives of the people desire to throw some light on the administration of the Intercolonial Railway, which during the last five years has proven to be a miserable concern for the public, why should we be debarred from so doing ? Does the Minister of Railways think that the people of Canada will not uphold us in our effort to find out why it is that for the past five years the Intercolonial Railway has become a sink hole, into which has disappeared-most of the time uselessly-the money of the Canadian

people ? The Minister of Railways seemed to be in a state of frenzy. So furious was be that he could hot control his language, and in his rage he qualified the act of his colleagues of the Privy Council as the act of an insane man. Why was the Minister of Railways so furious ? Is there something dark in the administration of the Intercolonial Railway that he will not allow us to investigate. Is it because, as was stated last election, the minister judged fit to go to the United States to get his engines and cars built, instead of spending the money in Canada and encouraging our industries ? If that be the reason-and I have no doubt it is one of the reasons-it explains to us why the Minister of Railways should combat with so much violence the reasonable demand made by my hon. friend (Mr. Haggart). If there be nothing wrong in the administration of the government railways, surely the minister should have been glad to let light in upon it, and surely he [DOT] should have been glad that we should try to find out why the Intercolonial Railway has been a losing concern for the past five years. But, when we come to examine the *reasons given by the Minister of Railways against this motion, we are still more surprised. The members of this House who are not altogether governed by party exigencies. and who look into questions a little upon their merits, will be surprised to know that the minister based his criticism of the ex-minister (Hon. Mr. Haggart) upon the opportuneness of the time the hon. gentleman had chosen to move his motion. That was a weak ground of opposition, indeed. We know that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Haggart) tried in good faith to bring forward his motion this afternoon at a time when it was reasonably to be expected that the motion would be in order. You yourself, Mr. Speaker, were not perfectly sure on that point, for you took the trouble to investigate authority before pronouncing yourself. And when the ex-minister (Hon. Mr. Haggart) presented his motion to the House, the right hon. the Prime Minister himself rose and took a technical objection. And in view of that, the Minister of Railways has the audacity-I cannot qualify his conduct otherwise-to say that my hon. friend (Mr. Haggart) should have given the ordinary notice of motion. He has the audacity to make that statement when there is not a single member of this House who is not aware that we have only one day more reserved for the consideration of such motions, and that if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Haggart) had done as the Minister of Railways suggests, there could not possibly be a consideration of the motion this year. Every one of us knows that the list of motions on the Order paper cannot possibly be disposed of this session, and I myself, who am interested in a motion that will be the first to be called, entertain the gravest doubt that we will be able to finish the dis-Mr. MONK.
cussion of it. That is the absurd reason given by the Minister of Railways why this motion should not be presented now, and in his violent language he takes my hon. friend (Mr. Haggart) to task ; and calls upon the people to cry shame upon him because he did not do what, on the face of it, would be an absurdity if he had done. Is it not as clear as the sun at noon-day, that the Minister of Railways does no.t want this motion submitted in any shape or in any form to the consideration of this House ? That is how I understand his tactics. I do not hesitate to say, Sir, as one of the members of the Public Accounts Committee, that that committee is a most unsatisfactory one, important as it is, by reason of the difficulties which are thrown in our way when we seek to make an investigation of the public accounts of this country. In view of this, is it surprising that my hon. friend (Mr. Haggart) should avail himself of his constitutionl privilege as a British subject to air his grievances when this House is moved into a Committee of Supply? And it is because he avails himself of that constitutional privilege that he calls down upon himself the malediction-there is no other expression for it-of the Minister of Railways. But, Sir, the attitude of our irate and domineering friend, the minister, submitted to no doubt in his own province, where he learned to whip his followers into obedience ; the attitude which he takes today is very different from his attitude of last session, when the member for Hants (Mr. Russell) on going into Supply brought before the House, not a grievance, bht a motion congratulating the government upon having given preferential trade to Great Britain. I did not hear the Minister of Railways make any complaint then ; I did not hear him call the hon. member for Hants an insane man. Oh no, he thought the member for Hants was perfectly right in doing what he condemns the ex-Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Haggart) for doing to-day. Sir, the people of the country know that we are trying to throwT light upon the administration of a public concern in which we have sunk over $60,000,000, and which, under the management of the present Minister of Railways, has repaid us in nothing but deficits, and it seems to me a most natural course on the part of the members of this House in the interest of the people at large to find out the reason by an investigation running-back 5, 6, 10 years, if necessary. We are here to investigate these matters-how it is that the money has been spent upon that railway, and why it is that, when the other railways of this country for the most part are paying and remunerative concerns, this one, which is the national railway, is a source of loss to the country. Speaking for myself individually, and representing as I do a constituency where there are a large number of workmen, of people who pay

the taxes like my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals, I would bo very glad to find out why it is that during the past five years, while the other railways of this country got their ears and engines in Canada, we have been obliged-shameful confession of weakness-to go to the neighbouring republic and spend there vast sums of money, instead of patriotically spending that money in our own country and helping our own labouring men. Although I have not followed attentively the work of the committee, particularly in regard to the incident referred to by my hon. friend, if it be true that the Minister of Railways and Canals-the irate man, the furious man, the angel of justice-has gone to the United States to purchase locomotives for a railway over which these locomotives could not go, and with bridges not strong enough to bear them, then we have a complete solution of the whole difficulty, and I can well understand why the Minister of Railways and Canals has laboured so extraordinarily to block this investigaion.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Mr. Speaker, having been present at the meeting of the committee In question, and there being some conflict between the hon. gentleman opposite and the Minister of Railways and Canals, I thought it would be only , right that I should say a few words as to what took place in the committee in my hearing. But, Sir, being of a somewhat timid and retiring nature, the explosion which I have listened to has really knocked all my ideas out of my head. The hon. gentleman opposite has been complaining because the Minister of Railways and Canals has been excited. I hope nis friends will be able to congratulate themselves that they have in their ranks a gentleman who can always control himself, and can use the choicest language: X believe the hon. gentleman belongs to my noble profession, which accounts for his calmness in debate. That is the reason why he can use the choice language which he has applied to the hou. Minister of Railways and Canals, because we have a saying in our profession that when your cause is bad, always abuse the attorney on the other side.
Now, I do not see for my own part why there should be any warmth indulged in on this occasion. I listened to the discussion before the committee, and I left it with full conviction that the hon. gentleman who has moved this amendment not only had no cause fdr complaint, but that he left the committee feeling assured that he had not any. He seemed to wish to work up a grievance. He wanted a resolution passed by the committee that they should report to this House and ask for power to investigate beyond the year for which they were authorized to investigate, and he was told by the Minister of Railways and Canals : ' If you will
point out any one transaction in connection with the administration of the affairs of the Intercolonial Railway concerning which you will say, as a member of the House, that you have reason to believe that any wrong has taken place, I am prepared to support your resolution ; or, further than that, if you will state any line of accounts or of dealings in connection with the railway concerning which you will pledge your word as a member of the House that any wrong has been done, in your judgment or belief, that shall be investigated, and every paper shall be brought down.' Could anything more than that be said ? But the hon. gentleman flatly and distinctly refused to make any such charge. He said he had a perfect right to have everything brought down for the purpose of investigating, to find out whether anything was wrong or not-in other words, had a right to go on a fishing expedition to see if he could find out anything that was wrong or that was not wrong, or anything that could not be explained or that could be explained.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I would like to ask my hon. friend if I did not say further than that, that if he wished any branch of the accounts of the Intercolonial Railway to be investigated, let him indicate what they were, even if he did not make any charge at all, and I would consent to the authority to have the accounts brought down ?


Fletcher Bath Wade: That is certainly my recollection of what took place in the committee.


John Graham Haggart: I would ask the hon. gentleman if he heard this further, that the Finance Minister said, in reference to the remarks of the Minister of Railways and Canals, ' and get the authority of parliament to do so.' Did you hear that ?


Fletcher Bath Wade: I will answer the hon. gentleman, that I heard both the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Railways and Canals say that it was necessary to get the authority of parliament to have the investigation.


John Graham Haggart: Hear, hear ; hear, hear.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Do not make a noise too soon. But they both distinctly said they would join with the hon. gentleman in assisting in getting that authority from parliament for the investigation ; and when that offer was made by the Minister of Railways and Canals and the Minister of Finance, and when hon. gentlemen opposite refused to take advantage of it, when I say we might fairly be justified in assuming that they did not want the investigation at all, but simply wished to fire off some cheap fireworks. Now, the position that was taken by some of us who were not very deeply concerned in this matter was this,

that when the committee was instructed to investigate the accounts for a particular year, if it was necessary to go beyond that year, some reason should be put before the committee and before this House why that should be done. I submit that is the practice that has been pursued by this House and by every other parliament of the empire. We were told by one of the hon. gentleman's friends that in the year 1892 a certain investigation had been ordered by the House without rhyme or reason ; but when we came to investigate the proceedings for that year-and we did not investigate all of them-we found that in each ; case there had been directions to investigate specific matters, and reasons had been given for those investigations. So in this case I say that if the hon. gentleman or any other hon. gentleman is in a position to come before this House and ask for an investigation into the accounts of the Intercolonial Railway, and to state that he has reason to believe that any transaction in connection with it has been wrong, I for one will support him in his demand for an investigation, and will assist him to the best of my ability.


Hon. Mr. HAG  GART@: And that was the statement of the Minister of Railways and Canals, too.


Fletcher Bath Wade: I do not think I understand the hon. gentleman.


John Graham Haggart: I am saying that your statement is perfectly correct, and in accord, with the statement of the Minister of Railways before the committee.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Then what is the trouble ?


John Graham Haggart: I agree with the hon. gentleman.


Fletcher Bath Wade: If we are quite willing to investigate anything that may be charged or alleged on the other side, is not that enough ? Does the hon. gentleman suppose for one moment that we purposed goiug into an investigation of all the accounts of the Intercolonial Railway from 1895 to the present, when there is not one man on the other side who has the courage to stand up and formulate anything, even in the nature of a charge, against the administration ?
It is all very well for my hon. friend to talk about buying locomotives in the United States. Why not buy them in the United States if you have to do so ? Has he any charge to make in that connection ? If he has, let him make it, but let him not make these silly insinuations.
Then iny hon. friend talks about the Intercolonial Railway not paying. Did he worry very much about its not paying under the former administration ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I did.


Fletcher Bath Wade: We were operating very little more than one-half the railway then Mr. WADE.
that we have now, and the deficit was considerably more than what it is now. Will he compare the service we have now with that we had them ? I think not. He would be ashamed to see the service we had under the former administration on the Intercolonial Railway at present, and yet he is not allowing any credit to this government


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not know if all the members from the province of Quebec will agree with the hon. gentleman on that point.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Would the hon. gentleman himself agree with me ? He would be ashamed to see the service on the Intercolonial Railway now, which existed during the time the late government was in power. He complains that the Intercolonial Railway does not pay. Let me put this question to him frankly. Is he prepared, as one of the leaders of the opposition, to demand that the government shall put that road upon a paying basis and exact the same rates as are charged by the other com mercial roads ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am prepared to expect that -the government should place that railway on a paying basis, and it can be made to pay.


Fletcher Bath Wade: My hon. friend is a lawyer, and I dare say a far better lawyer thau I am, but I -shall not allow him to evade my question in that simple manner. The question I put is not whether the government should make the Intercolonial Railway a paying road, because that is a very vague question indeed, tout I ask my hon. friend whether he, as one of the leaders of the opposition, demands that the government shall exact the same freight -rates on the Intercolonial Railway as are exacted upon the commercial roads in the Dominion ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If that be my hon. friend's question, I -reply that it is not necessary that they should. All that is required is to manage the road in a proper manner.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Does that answer appeal to any man within the sound of my voice, who knows anything about railroading ? Does any one sup-pose that you can run a railway and not charge the ordinary commercial rates, and run it successfully in competition with other railways that do charge these ordinary rates ? Surely my hon. friend does not intend to' impose upon this House to that extent.


Mr. BRODER.: You are paying no interest on your capital and ought to be able to do it.


Fletcher Bath Wade: I do not think that anybody suggested that we were paying interest on our capital. Nobody spoke about that. I asked whether my hon. friend wanted the rates increased so as to equal the rates charged by commercial roads. In addition

I would ask further :	Do hon. gentlemen
opposite want the service curtailed ? Do they want a cheaper service ? Will they make some specific charge ? I remember in the days when we were going into confederation, we were told what an advantage it would be to us In the maritime provinces to have the Intercolonial Railway built. We were told how cheaply it would cary passengers and freight between the maritime and the upper provinces and what a great advantage that would be to us. If these statements were all wrong, if it is in the interest of the Dominion that that road should (be put upon a strictly commercial basis, let these hon. gentlemen say so and let us fight it out on that line.
But/ I ask what has that to do with the matter of investigating the accounts of the Intercolonial Railway from 1895 to the present. It is simply an attempt on the part of these gentlemen to throw dust in the eyes of the people, but they will not succeed in the slightest degree. The time has gone by for that. If there is anything the opposition have to charge against 'the management of the Intercolonial Railway, if they will formulate anything in the nature of a charge, I am prepared to support them to the fullest extent of my ability in obtaining a proper investigation. But they do not want any Investigation, they simply want to make this proposition here in order to appear before the country as people who tried to do something and were prevented.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Wade) followed the same line here that he did in the committee, a line, which, in my judgment, is entirely wrong. Both he and the Minister of Finance took the ground that the members of the Public Accounts Committee had no right to ask that a witness be called before that committee, nor had they any right to go back beyond the year for which the Puiblic Accounts and the Auditor General's Report were referred to the committee, unless they are prepared to make a charge in that committee, on their responsibility as members of parliament. If the hon. gentleman knows anything about parliamentary practice, he must know that such a charge can only be made in this House and not in the committee. Both the Minister of Railways and the Minister of Finance also took the ground that this was a fishing inquiry, which should not be allowed. But what is the Public Accounts Committee for, but for fishing inquiries. All the accounts of the year are sent to that committee, and we are instructed to examine them in order to ascertain if the public money has -been properly expended. And the committee has the power to subpmna witnesses, to examine them under oath, and compel them to give evidence. In that committee we are doing the duty which the House imposed upon us, when the House referred to us the Public Accounts and the
Auditor General's Report .for the purpose of investigation. Of necessity therefore our inquiries are in the nature of fishing inquiries. We do not start by making charges. That is not the function of the Public Accounts Committee. What we desire is to inquire into all expenditure-to carry on a fishing expedition, and that is particularly the duty of the committee. We do not make a charge, because that committee is not the place to make them. The committee is not for the purpose of inquiring into charges. There is no charge made when the House sends the accounts to the Public Accounts Committee and tells us go into them. But we were not allowed to call a witness we required. The first obstruction we met with was the refusal of the majority of the committee to allow us to call witnesses. Why was our request refused ? No doubt because some.-thing might be brought out which would enable us to carry the investigation further and show up wrong-doing. That is the only presumption which we can draw. Why did the majority of the committee not allow Mr. Archibald, the engineer of the road, to go before it ? Was there anything to conceal ? So far as my memory goes, that was the first time the Public Accounts Committee was refused the right to call before it any witness it desired, in order to get any light on the question under consideration. If there was nothing to hide, there could have been no object in refusing to allow Mr. Archibald to go before the committee. And we have the right therefore to presume that there was some wrong-doing behind, which these hon. gentlemen did not desire to be brought to light. What right has the committee to sumrfion witnesses ? Exactly the same right as the House of Commons. It is laid down unmistakably that the Public Accounts Committee has the right to summon any witness required to give information with regard to any item under consideration. Then, when we brought witnesses before the committee and asked questions designed to bring out information Which we deemed it to be in the public interest to make known, they told the witnesses that they need not answer the question. The hon. gentleman was like a lawyer instructing his client. Is this the duty of a member of the committee ? He abandons his place and becomes a counsel for the witness rather than a member of the committee. But there is the rule that governs witnesses brought before this House and the same rule applies to witnesses before the committee.
A witness who neglects or refuses to obey the order of the House will be sent for in the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms. Any person refusing to obey this or any other order may be declared guilty of contempt of the House and brought before it in custody that he may be dealt with according to its will and pleasure. And the same applies to a committee of

the House, only the course is for the committee to report to the House, and the House has the right to take action. Then they refused to allow the inquiry to go beyond the year of the public accounts that were referred to us. What has been the course for years with regard to such a matter ? The course has been to refer the question to the House and for the House to give the committee the necessary power. Here is a case, to be found at page 350 of the Journals of the House of Commons for 1S91:
Mr. Sprou'le, from the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, presented to the House the fifth report of the said committee, which was read as followeth :-
The following resolution as a recommendation :
Resolved, that all accounts for salaries and extra services or otherwise with the Post Office Department in regard to the following persons, namely : J. G Poston, A. C. McDonald, M. P. Wright, K. A. LeSueur, Miss Kate E. Falconer, Miss J. Craig, Miss A. Graham and A. E. Meig-hen, together with all cheques given in payment of such accounts, and any and all cheques, vouchers, receipts and other papers in any way relating to their respective services, for the fiscal year 1887-88 and 1888-89 ; and all the cheques, accounts and receipts for payments of every kind in connection with the Emerson, Deloraine and Gretna immigration stations in the North-west, for the financial years 1886-87, 1888 and 1889, be produced forthwith for the use of the Public Accounts Committee.
And in another case we went back nine years. The House never refused a request of this kind. But here the committee refuses to go into the inquiry except for one year, and when we desire to report it to the House and ask the authority of the House to enter upon the whole inquiry, we are refused. And when we attempt in this House to revive the question and to get the necessary authority of the House, every subterfuge is resorted to, the hon. gentleman's motion is ruled out of order


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I would remind the hon. gentleman that the word ' subterfuge,' as applied to the action of any member of the House, is not a proper word.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: All I can say is that every effort of ingenuity that the hon. gentleman could suggest is made use of to prevent us getting this question before the House, to prevent us, in fact, from properly discharging our duties as members of that committee. If there is nothing to hide, why are we refused this right ? Why are witnesses told not to answer questions ? Why is not the engineer of the road brought before us ? Why cannot wo get the information that the Public Accounts Committee has the right to get ? Why all this attempt to prevent information being made public, if there is nothing to hide ? The only conclusion that wrn can come to is that there is something to hide, and that this is the reason why we find ministers going be-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: yond their duty and refusing to allow the committee of this House to perform the duty assigned to it by this House of Commons.


Mr. ERASER.: There is no need of quarrelling about this matter, but there is need of knowing where we stand. Reference was made to myself, and I wish to state just how this matter came up, and what I think about it. I thought, and I still think, that the committee has only a delegated power, that, like any other committee of parliament, it is to do certain things which are named by this House, and beyond that it has no power to go.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: May I ask the hon. gentleman if it is not the fact that from time to time the House sends further instructions to the committee ?


Austin Levi Fraser: Decidedly.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is what we want.


Austin Levi Fraser: This House has power to order a committee to inquire into the public acounts from confederation down to the present time, if it sees fit to do so. But that is not the question. My point is that there were certain things referred to that committee. Beyond the things thus referred to it, the committee had no power to go. It was absurd to ask that committee of its own power to inquire into a single dollar outside the book of the Auditor General and the public accounts that were referred to us. That was my decision. And the only way we could get further instructions was for the committee to come back to the House and ask for those instructions.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is what we are doing.


Austin Levi Fraser: This is the right place to get those instructions. But, I stated in committee as chairman, when the point was raised, that I did not propose, for one, that this parliament should be able to snub us for going beyond the powers they gave. Now, what has been asked here ? I venture to make the statement-and I have looked over all the votes and proceedings from confederation down to the present time, but if I have overlooked anything I should be glad to be corrected-that never was it proposed that accounts from one year to another relating in a general way to one or to all departments should be submitted [DOT] to the Public Accounts Committee. Let me give some cases showing what I mean. The whole point at issue here is whether the House should 'give general instructions to the committee to inquire into all the accounts of the Intercolonial Railway from 1S96 down to the present time, or whether certain specific accounts are to be submitted to the committee. Now, for example :
Mr. Wallace, from the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, presented to the

House the fourth report of the said committee, which was read, as followeth :-
The following resolution as a recommendation :-
Resolved that in regard to the sum of $600, charged in the public accounts for 1885 and 1886, as paid to one Fournier, as caretaker of the immigration office at Emerson, it being al-ledged that said Fournier was not such caretaker, and that the office in question then and since has continued under the management of one Tetu, your committee recommend that they be empowered to investigate all amounts paid to or through said Tdtu, or in connection with any office or public service under his charge.
There is a specific charge and a specific statement of accounts. Will any hon. members say that this House would ever in order to get at that question of account of $600 paid to one Fournier, adopt a resolution that the public accounts for the year 1895-96, in connection with the Department of the Interior, under which this immigration branch is carried on, were to be investigated by the committee ? That would be as sensible a resolution as the one before us. Now anybody can see a very good reason. There is not a lawyer or a layman here but can see that the reason why you must be specific is that it saves time, and you will not have to go to a lot of useless expenditure in getting witnesses about a matter that is not specific. Here is another :
On motion of Mr. Somerville :
That all accounts in the Department of the Interior for salaries paid and for extra work done during the years from 1884 to July 1, 1896, inclusive, together with all the cheques and other vouchers for payment of the s ame, be produced forthwith before the Select Standing Committee.	*
There is a specific thing. Then I find another one here by the hon. gentleman himself. On motion of Mr. Sproule it was ordered :
That all accounts for salaries and express services or otherwise with the Post Office Department in regard to the following persons, namely : J. G. Poston, A. C. Macdonald, M. P. Wright, E. A. LeSueur, Miss Kate E. Falconer, Miss J. Craig, Miss A. Graham and A. E. Meig-hen,, together with all cheques given In payment of such accounts, and any and all cheques, vouchers, receipts and other papers In any way relating to their respective services, for the fiscal years 1887-8, and 1S8S-9 ; and all the cheques, accounts and receipts for payments of every kind, he produced forthwith for the use of the Public Accounts Committee.
That is the hon. gentleman's own resolution. He must have been very far astray or his motion would have been this :	Resolved
that all accounts in connection with the Post Office Department for the fiscal years named be forthwith produced and handed into the committee. But he did not do that then, he could not do it, and he knew it, because parliament would never have permitted it. Parliament understands that you go on one year at a time with your accounts. Now after giving five successive years in the Public Accounts Committee, after considering five sets of accounts for five years, all the hon. member has to do is to rise and move that the whole accounts for the last five years be submitted to that committee again in addition to the work they are doing this year.


John Graham Haggart: Will the hon. gentleman look at the journals for 1891, page 355 :
On motion of Mr. Wallace, seconded by Mr. Rooine, ordered : That all accounts and payments for equipment and supplies for the Printing Bureau, also, the accounts, vouchers, and cheques for the following payments for the years 1888-9 be referred1.	,


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Very well, I will take that instance to prove my case, I am very much obliged to the hon. gentleman.


Fletcher Bath Wade: He only read half of it.


John Graham Haggart: With your permission, I will read the whole of it.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Here it is :
That all accounts and payments for equipment and supplies for the Printing Bureau.
That would be the same as saying here that all accounts and payments for equipment and supplies for the engines, or for any particular year, which would be perfectly legitimate.	-


John Graham Haggart: For the Intercolonial Railway.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Excuse me, the equipment and supplies for the Printing Bureau is a particular building, and you can get at it any time ; it is not the whole supply for the department throughout :
Also, the accounts, vouchers and cheques for the following payments, as found in the report of the Auditor General on appropriation accounts, for the following years : 1888-89, J. L. McDougall, $26.60 ; J. B. Lynch, $70.55 ; J. Gorman, $26.90 ; F. Hayter, $73.95 ; 1887-88, J. L. McDougall, $103.65; James Patterson, $50.00 ; F. Havtor, $222.35 ; 1886-87, J. L. McDougall, $50.78 ; F. Hayter, $218.15 ; 1885-86, J. L. Mc-Dougall, $17.75 ; John Gormau, $86.67, be produced forthwith.
Where is there anything like that in the hon. gentleman's resolution ? I appeal to him as a man of very great ability, as I consider him-where is the similarity ? I would not be so particular if the hon. gentleman had not mentioned the names of the parties, hut if he would say all accounts, as the minister offered him, in connection with so many locomotives of such a year.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman is too fair now to do anything wrong. The statement was made that I only read half the resolution. It is the first part of the resolution which says that every account in reference to the Printing Bureau should be referred to the committee. Besides that, it says also the following ac- -counts.	-


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Nobody denies that.


John Graham Haggart: The inference was that I concealed a portion of it.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I do not know what is the matter with the hon. gentleman opposite. X never saw him so peppery in my life.


John Graham Haggart: I do not like to be accused of garbling anything.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I cannot understand it, they are not themselves at all. The hon. member for Lanark cannot sit still. His motion is circular and ambidextrous, vaulting and changing. Let us look at this as reasonable men ought to :
All accounts and payments tor equipment and supplies for the Printing Bureau-


John Graham Haggart: For the two years.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: There is no year mentioned at all.


John Graham Haggart: I beg your pardon, immediately afterwards you will find it is for 1888-9.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I will read the words relating to the Printing Bureau again, and these are the only words :
That all accounts and payments for equipment and supplies for the Printing Bureau, also the accounts, vouchers and cheques for the following payments.
That is all, there is nothing about the Printing Bureau.


John Graham Haggart: Read the whole of it.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: When I was a boy X was considered a fairly good reader. Let me read it again :


Some hon. MEMBERS: Spell it for him.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: It is not fair for any hon. gentleman to call in another reader.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Spell it.


Mr. BROOK.: You are wrong.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: No, no. Now, I will read it again for the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hag-gart), after he has satisfied himself by the cool headed reading of the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) that he or I, one or the other, is correct. Does the hon. gentleman want me to read it again ?


John Graham Haggart: Yes.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: After the trip the hon. gentleman made to have himself reassured by the cool headed, clear brained member for Hamilton he will be satisfied that I am right.


John Graham Haggart: No.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Well, I will read it again.
That all accounts and payments for equipment and supplies for the Printing Bureau ;
Semi-colon.


John Graham Haggart: Also, the accounts, vouchers and cheques for the foilwing payments, as found in the report of the Auditor General on appropriation accounts, for the following years : 1888-89, J. L. MoDugaSl, $26.60 ; J. 13. Lynch, $70.55 ; J. Gorman, $26.90 ; F. Hayter, $73.95 :
Colon.
1887-88, J. L. McDougall, $103.65-; James Patterson, $50.00 ; F. Hayter, $222.35 :
Colon.
1886-87, J. L. McDougall, $50.78 ; F. Hayter, $218.15 ;
Colon.
1885-86, J. L. McDougal!, $17.75 ; John Gorman. $85.67, be produced forthwith

Mind you.
-be produced forthwith* for .the use of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, in accordance with the recommendation contained in the seventh report of the said committee.
There is not a word there except that the accounts and payments for equipment and supplies for the Printing Bureau-and if the year is not mentioned it must mean the year-be produced also with the accounts I have named.


John Graham Haggart: You say it is confined to the year 1891. What was the need of a resolution calling for the production of the accounts for the year ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Probably the hon. gentleman and some of his friends were refusing to bring them down, and we had to move that resolution. I care not what the reason may be ; I am quoting the words of that resolution and I am explaining them as any English words ought to be explained. I will leave it to any hon. gentleman if they do not mean exactly what I say. There is not a word about the year. What foolish people there were here in 1891. I was here, and I was one of the idiotic members that thought that ought to be done. We had not learned then that we could go over a whole series of years, bring down all the papers and submit to the poor overworked Public Accounts Committee the accounts of the Dominion of Canada, amounting to $40,000,000 or $50,000,000 a year, for the last five or six years. The ban. gentleman will not deny that his resolution is untenable. He might have added to the resolution that the public accounts relating to every dollar of payments from 1885 to the present time should be inquired into. You cannot draw the line in one case and not in the other, and consequently you might as well go back to 1890. I know we will he a long time here, but I am afraid our grand-children would be here if we were to underbake to go Into all these accounts from that time to the present. I have mentioned a case only to show how wrong the thing is. I do not think hon. gentlemen opposite, if they wisely consider the matter, would desire that a resolution should be adopted for the first time deviating from anything we ever did

in parliament or tliat ever happened in any other parliament. I make the statement subject to correction by those who are better students tiffin X am, and who may have studied it more closely, that there has never been a resolution like this introduced into any parliament in Canada, and I am certain that no such legislation was ever introduced into the parliament of Great Britain, because we have been following the British parliament as closely as possible in this respect. If, in the committee, you name a certain account, or any number of accounts and say, first, X believe there is- something wrong about this, or, secondly, I desire that we shall inquire into this to ascertain whether there is anything wrong or not, the lion. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Blair) says that you shall have any specific account that you name. Does not the hon. gentleman (Mr. Haggart) know that that is reasonable, that it is fair and just ? Does he desire that we shall establish in this parliament a precedent that no parliament has adopted ? Had we not better keep to the land marks that have been found useful in the past ? For myself-I may be wrong and I speak subject to correction-I say that X do not think so lightly of the chairman's position as that it implies that he is simply to keep order. I did not accept that when the point was raised as to contracts made since the report of the Auditor General was published and the accounts to be paid in this present year, showing what amount of money was to be expended this year. I had to decide that was not within the scope of our reference, and I think X was right.


John Graham Haggart: You were right in that.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I did not think it was within the scope of our reference, and I do not think that hon. gentleman opposite will say that I drove any partisan ruling to the length of excluding anything which it was the right of the committee to inquire into. I have read this and I submit to hon. gentlemen opposite that we ought not to pass the resolution which the hon. gentleman has made here. I am sorry that the midland leader of the opposition is not here. I really was amused, and I was no more amused than I think were some hon. gentlemen opposite. We may make mistakes in parliament. We may sometimes get a little worked up, we may perhaps make statements with a good deal more emphasis than is necessary, but it was to me the most laughable scene that I have ever witnessed when, with twice the energy, twice the exertion and ten times the hard saying that were necessary, we saw that hon. gentleman calling in fault the Minister of Railways and Canals, reading him a lecture in tones that were so stentorian-as loud as my own, and that is saying a good deal-that they could be heard in any part of Ottawa. If we rebuke, let us 103
rebuke decently after the manner and method as proposed by the apostle.


Mr SAMUEL BARKER (Hamilton).: I think the question before the House is one simply of principle. The Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) chose not to treat the question as one of principle, but rather sought, I think, to enter into a discussion here, to-night, as to whether the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart), or other hon. members of the committee had succeeded in the Public Accounts Committee in proving anything at all after all their labours. I do not propose to follow the minister in that line ; I do not think it has anything to do with the question before the House. The Minister of Railways will probably hear a good deal about what is passing in the committee before this session is brought to an end. Let me say to the hon. gentleman from Annapolis (Mr. Wade) that while he professes to be so precise and accurate, he gave utterance to a most extraordinary statement when he said that the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart) left the committee perfectly satisfied with what took place. Nothing could be more contrary to the fact than that statement. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Wade) must know that immediately on the committee refusing to pass the resolution, the hon. member (Mr. Haggart) asked that the proceedings be reported so that he could bring the question before the House. A moment afterwards the hon. gentleman (Mr. Haggart) suggested that we should divide the committee on the question, aud the chairman ruled that it was too late, because the resolution had been carried to report the matter to the House. The hon. member for Lanark then said : I will bring it before the House in its present shape. In face of that, how can the hon. gentleman for Annapolis say that the hon. gentleman from Lanark left the committee perfectly satisfied. I merely mention that to show how an hon. gentleman can either misconceive or forget what took place in the committee.
Now, Sir, the Minister of Railways undoubtedly did say that if the member for Lanark would point out any particular subjects he would consent to investigating them. The Minister of Railways and Canals said that once ; he said it twice ; I think he said it a third time ; but every time he said that, the Minister of Finance, who was at his elbow, added : ' upon the order of the House.' It is quite true that the Minister of Railways was very generous, but his language was qualified by the words of the Minister of Finance, and we who were about the table heard the qualification and the member for Gusborough (Mr. Fraser) heard it also. Although the member for Gusborough now tells us that we ought to be content with what the hon. Minister of Railways promised, we have to take the lan-



guage of the Minister of Railways as qualified by the Minister of Finance. Even without that qualification, it was not our duty to accept the proposition made by the hon. Minister of Railways. We were there investigating-practically	auditing-the accounts of the Intercolonial Railway for the year in question, and it was not for us to leave to the Minister of Railways to decide *whether we should investigate any subject out of that year or not. If we had the right we did not require his consent, but when the minister refused his consent the resolution was moved in the committee to request authority from the House for us to go outside the accounts of the particular year in question. The question now before the House is, whether it is reasonable to give the committee authority to investigate beyond the accounts of this particular year. On that subject I propose to say a few words. We do not ask to go into all the dealings of the government during the last five years ; we simply ask authority to look into the administration of the Intercolonial Railway during the period of years in which the Minister of Railways has been pursuing a particular policy. There is hardly a single item in the whole accounts now under investigation that is not closely related to certain other expenditures in almost every year since the present government has been in power ; there is hardly an item in the present accounts that is not affected' by expenditure that is going on to-day. That is shown by the very question upon which this whole trouble arose in the committee. The enormous amount of money which the minister has expended for heavy locomotives was under consideration, and. the member for Lanark in trying to show that that expenditure was unwise and improvident, proceeded to examine the witness as to the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars two years ago for these heavy locomotives, and as to the fact that they could not yet be used between Quebec and Montreal, because the bridges on the Drummond County road are not strong enough to carry them. Is not that connected with tire wise or unwise expenditure of money in 1900 ? Surely it is proper criticism to show that the Minister of Railways had bought these locomotives two years before fie could Use them. Take almost any item hi the accounts and the same principle is involved. Take the expenditure in the city of St. John, N.B. Year after year for several years the Minister of Railways has incurred enormous expenditure there, amounting to about ,000,000, and you cannot today properly discuss one dollar of that whole expenditure without reference to every dollar which has been spent in St. John. An elevator has been built, and surely it is a question as to the expenditure in 1900, whether that elevator lias been properly built or not. Why, Sir. the Minister of Railways has charged in 1900 some $17,000 for marsh Mr. BARKER.
land that he bought in St. John to build sidings upon ; he charged to that year $10,000 for material with which he proposed to lay twelve or thirteen miles of sidings, but to this hour there is only one mile of siding built, although $16,000, in addition to the $17,000 for land, was expended in 1900. Surely in criticising that expenditure we should have the right to go into the question as to whether the minister has even this year got these sidings laid. The minister admits, I believe, that he has only laid one mile, and are we not entitled, as of right to ask by what authority he spent over $00,000 in 1900 for sidings that are not in existence to this very hour. Is it reasonable to say that the committee can investigate railway accounts which run from year to year, and that we must be confined to the actual dollars and cents that are spent between the 30th June, 1900, and the 30th of June, 1901, without having power to inquire into the hundreds of thousands of dollars which have been spent before and after ? That is the position we are in. We want to know if the House will consent to that state of affairs. When a witness is under examination and we are asking him questions about the expenditure in 1900, we want the power to ask him such questions as will show whether that expenditure was reasonable or not. We send for a witness from Moncton ; we have him before us ; we enter into his examination. In the course of that examination some facts are developed which lead directly to an inquiry into what has been done* before or since. Immediately the hon. gentleman says : ' You have gone out of the year ; you must apply to the House for permission to ask that question.' What is the good of such an investigation ? The hon. gentleman says:
' Tell us what you wish to go into, and I will let you go into it.' The question is not what the minister will let us do ; the question is what we should have the power to do.
Let me put another case. In 1900 the hon. gentleman brought down an estimate and got the authority of this House to spend $39,000 at Sydney. How much did the hon. gentleman spend ? He spent something like $137,000 on his authority to spend $39,000. He charged $41,000 of that to another item, and he came down in 1901 and got the authority of the House for $57,000 of what had been spent a year before. There is thus an expenditure in 1900 with authority extending over two years. Are we to be confined to just the particular year, or must we on every occasion come down to this House and explain all the circumstances, and ask the authority to ask a particular question of a particular witness; and must we let that witness stand over until the next meeting of the committee until we get that authority ? We are not seeking a general sweeping power to go into all the proceedings of the government. We are asking authority

to investigate the accounts in connection with a particular railway, the government railway, for the period during which it has been administered by the hon. Minister of Railways, and to see whether the dollars and cents that were spent in 1900 were properly spent, having due regard to what has happened before and since.
Now, I say that is a perfectly reasonable proposition to make to the House. I say the House ought to grant such a power, and unless they do the whole inquiry of the Public Accounts Committee, so far as it is an attempt to inquire into the administration of the railway, is a palpable farce. It cannot be otherwise. A witness comes before us. After a great deal of labour we get perhaps particular facts. Those facts lead up to further expenditures. We are stopped unless the minister chooses to say,
' You can go on.' Now, that is not right. Surely, that is not a reasonable position for a committee to be in. Why should the government object to our going back to these matters ? Has there been any attempt made on the part of the committee to unwarrantably use their position ? I think the Minister of Railways will say that the committee have been perfectly fair to him- every member of it without exception. We have not sought unreasonably to investigate his proceedings. There has not been one subject brought before the committee that we were not warranted in probing to the bottom, and I think it is not right, either in regard to the railway or to any other subject that has been brought up, that we should be subject to the interruptions and the objections to which we have been subjected.
I wish to refer to another case which has been alluded to on both sides of the House- a similar question as regards a witness who was called in relation to the accounts of the Minister of Public Works, and which illustrates the kind of objections we have met with in the committee. Mr. Rochester was an employee of the Public Works Department-


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend will allow me to call him to order. The motion before the House is strictly confined to the expenditure on railways, and I think my hon. friend will admit himself that it is not in order to go into anything outside of that.


Mr. BARKER.: I do not wish to pursue the matter if I am not in order; but it was referred to on both sides of the House.


The PRIME MINISTER.: If it was, 1 will not press my objection.


Samuel Barker: Mr. Rochester is an employee of the Public Works Department. He was engaged at $200 a month on the construction of the Yukon telegraph. He kept the books of Mr. Cbarleson. While he was so employed he conceived the idea 103i
that he could sell telegraph poles to the government at a certain price. He continued to keep the books for the government, but he dropped his salary temporarily, and he was given by Sir. Cbarleson a contract to supply poles to the government at $2 each. As soon as he had completed that contract he resumed his salary, and a little later on he was given a higher position at a considerably increased salary. Sir. Rochester had no transactions in the Yukon either with the government or anybody else as a trader except that one contract to supply poles to the government. He admitted that he had no other transactions and was not going to have. This gentleman was before the committee and was asked what the poles had cost him. The instant that question was put two ministers said: 'You are not obliged to answer that question.' The chief of his own department, the Minister of Public Works, was present, and this witness was cautioned that he was not obliged to answer a question that a member of this House chose to ask. I do not know what the Prime Minister will say about that. It does seem to me a most extraordinary position that an employee in the public service should be cautioned in the Public Accounts Committee that he need not answer a question. Why, Sir, what was the position of that gentleman ? At the time he proposed to Mr. Charleson to supply poles to the government he was a servant of the government. He knew he could obtain the poles for less than $2 apiece, and instead of telling the government, his employer, that they could get poles at less than $2 apiece, he droped his salary for four months and entered into a contract with the government. Now, I think the man should have been obliged to answer that question. I think it was a most improper thing to warn him against answering it. The man himself did not refuse to answer until he received the hint from two ministers that he need not answer it. That does not indicate a desire on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite to have that full inquiry into the public accounts that we on our side of the House think the public interest demands.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. Israel Tarte).: Let me say only one word in reference to the Rochester incident. My hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) was not in the committee the first time the question was put to Mr. Rochester. Without any hint or intervention from any one of us, Mr. Rochester, when the question was put to him first, declined to answer. He was sustained in his refusal by the chairman, and in my opinion, very properly.
Here are the facts. Mr. Rochester was engaged by Mr. Charleson to go up the Yukon as a conductor of work. He was a man of long experience in lumbering and in the bush. Mr. Charleson made an ar-


Samuel Barker: He went back immediately afterwards.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Certainly, there was no reason why he should not. But during the time he was contractor, he did not get a dollar from the Department of Public Works. He then farmed out ihis contract to a man named Johnson, and in the committee he was asked how much he gave Johnson for the poles, and declined to answer. The first time the question was put, Mr. Rochester declined, without any hint or notification from anybody. When I interfered-and I do not deny that I interfered and told Mr. Rochester he was not bound to answer, It was simply to remind one of the members of the committee that the witness had rights which could not be taken from him. I take it that Mr. Rochester was perfectly in his right in declining to answer. My department gives out every year many contracts.
. Will any one say that a contractor is obliged to tell me or any committee of the House how much he pays for his material or for any sub-contract he may farm out ? I have been for years a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and I never heard before a question of that kind put. When contractors are awarded contracts, they pay for their materials, men and labour or they pay their sub-contractors just what they see fit. It is no one's particular business what they pay. If my hon. friend had attempted to prove that $2 was too high a price, he might have sought for evidence to show at what prices the poles could have been obtained. But he did not attempt to do that. He could not do it, and Mr. Rochester was perfectly right in declining td say how much he had paid for his men and materials or sub-contracts. The ex-Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Hag-gart) was .several years the head of a large department, and I would ask him if ever, on any occasion, he compelled a contractor to say how much he was paying for his material, men or sub-contracts. Such a question is never put. No one has any right to put it. We were paying $3 a pole, and Mr. Rochester furnished us the poles at a dollar each less. If there is any crime in


Hon. Mr. TARTE.: that, I am' responsible for it. But I submit that Mr. Rochester was perfectly right in declining to say how much he paid his sub-contractors. Whether he has made or lost money nobody has anyright to know.


William Barton Northrup: 
Mr. T. B. FLINT (Yarmouth).: As a member of the committee before which substantially this resolution was proposed, and as one who did not support the resolution, I desire to make one or two observations. The hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) I think, gave away the whole case in the observations he made. If I understood him correctly, he based the argument in favour of ftie large and comprehensive resolution now before the House upon a principle which would naturally call for at least all the accounts of the previous year. The hon. gentleman, although drawing into the arena of the discussion a large number of irrelevant facts which threw no light upon the question, made the argument upon the supposition that, during the discussion of accounts of the past year actually referred to the committee, arose items which required for their explanation some of the accounts of the previous years, therefore a resolution of this kind ought to be permitted. In other words, if it was necessary to have the light of the previous accounts on those of the present year, therefore, we ought to have all the accounts of the Intercolonial Railway for a period of five or six years. I think that the offer made by the Minister of Railways and Canals and concurred in by the committee that If any particular account were required by the committee, if the hon. gentlemen conducting the investigation deemed any account necessary to throw light upon the subject before the committee, those accounts would be laid before the committee without hesitation. The ground has been changed entirely by the resolution asking this House to dump upon

the table of tlie Public Accounts Committee all the accounts of the Intercolonial Railway covering a period of five or six years. The hon. gentleman stated that there was a question of principle and a question of reasonableness. On the ground of reasonableness, I would base the whole argument against the passage of the resolution now before the House. It is unreasonable because of the period of the session at which we have arrived. It is unreasonable on account of the vast number and complexity of the accounts upon which the committee would have to enter. It is unreasonable because not even a prima facie case has been made out by the Investigation so far conducted why these accounts should be produced. As to principle, I do not see any fundamental question of principle except the principle of procedure that has been involved, and upon that hon. gentlemen have lost all claim, for, though the records of the House for years have been investigated, no case of a demand parallel with this has been found. If papers are referred to the committee it is always upon the recommendation of the committee that accounts relating to special sums are needed. Hon. gentlemen opposite have mentioned a large number of matters and some of them quite out of order, I think. They have brought forward their own recollection of evidence which will be laid before the committee in a few days as the words were taken down. This is not fair to the House, for no matter how honestly they may intend, they may unintentionally give a prejudiced view of that evidence-and I must say that in one or two instances my own recollection differed from the version given by the hon. gentlemen. Take the case of the Rochester contract, The ground upon which the committee declined to enter into a consideration of the . witness' private affairs was upon the strictly legal ground that the question asked and the facts it was intended to educe were not relevant to the inquiry before the committee. No committee, no court, no person with the slightest ideas of justice, in a matter of that kind, would for a moment permit valuable time to be taken up with evidence that was absolutely irrelevant to the inquiry.


Samuel Barker: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to say that the witness Rochester distictly gave as his answer that it was his own private business.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Which was true.


Thomas Barnard Flint: It was his private business. That was his reason for not answering the question. But that would not necessarily have been sufficient if the question had been relevant to the inquiry. Very frequently evidence may be relevant, but it may be excluded on account of some higher principle. However undesirable evidence may Mr. FLINT.
appear from the standpoint of the witness, if it is held that the question is relevant and admissible upon general principles, his private feelings and private interests must give way. But the. fact that the evidence was absolutely irrelevant, the fact that even if it had brought out what the hon. gentleman expected, the information would have had no bearing upon the inquiry or upon the result of it, was the reason for refusing to press the question. In fact, all the evidence the hon. gentleman required wjis before the committee-first, that Rochester had a contract, second that under it the poles were got for a less price than the government had been previously paying, and, third, that the gentleman had admitted that he had made a profit out of the contract. The amount of the profit, the price he gave for the poles, the details of his contract with another person, were irrelevant and improper to be introduced before the committee, because they could not have the slightest effect upon the inquiry. But that was not so much the point under consideration as the desirability of passing the resolution of the hon. gentleman from South Lanark (Mr. Haggart). It is solely on the ground of reasonableness and convenience that I object to the passage of this resolution. It would be impossible for any committee to discharge the great functions assigned to it by the House if we should act upon the principle laid down by the hon. gentleman in the case of the Public Accounts Committee, that all the accounts covering a large period of years and for all the sums expended	by	the	department
should be laid before the committee. The committee is not formed for any such purpose ; the committee has not the time nor the powers, the physical powers at any rate, to enter into such an investigation. But if a prima facie case is shown of some wrong doing, or some gross mismanagement, or some negligence which demanded further inquiry, then every person would feel impelled by a sense of public duty to insist upon the accounts bearing upon these points being laid before the committee. But the hon. gentleman appears to be seeking for a grievance, and for that purpose he has brought forward this resolution. I would call attention to a phase of the question which perhaps hon. gentlemen have not considered. The resolution is brought forward no doubt with a desire to ascertain facts beneficial to the public ; and in a secondary sense, every one supposes that the facts are sought for in the view that they might possibly throw some discredit on the administration of the Intercolonial Railway, show mismanagement in that regard, and expenses of an unreasonable character. What would follow ? Hon. gentlemen holding another view, hon. gentlemen having reason to believe that past expenses upon the Intercolonial Railway, while the Conservative party were in power, might also be dis-

cussed, the motion would be amended by adding that all accounts from 1890 be also laid before that committee. I ask bon. gentlemen where would the committee be, where would the House of Commons be, if they acceded to such a demand ? Legislation would practically be blocked, it would be impossible for any gentleman to give the necessary time to make an investigation covering so long a period. If it was shown before this committee that the accounts of the Intercolonial Railway were of such importance that a long and thorough examination of the policy and management of the railway, covering a period of ten or fifteen years, was required, there is a much better way to accomplish that end by means of a special committee of experts, with counsel on both sides, taking the whole summer and autumn to investigate and report. But to shovel upon the Table of the Public Accounts Committee this enormous mass of accounts without any definite object in view, except to fish for some evidence of mismanagement, would be an injustice to the committee, an injustice to the House, and unfair to the administration of that great public work.


Haughton Lennox: It seems to me that after all that has been said hon. gentlemen opposite fail to understand the duty we owe to those whom we represent. The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Flint) speaks of a royal commission as being more suitable than the Committee of Public Accounts to make this investigation. Now, I assume that the public understand this matter in an entirely different light. They, are told that we have the Auditor General, a gentleman who is to a large extent removed from the arena and influence of politics, and who is in the first instance responsible to the people for the proper audit of the accounts of the Dominion. After he has audited those accounts, as I understand the matter, the Public Accounts Committee, if they are an instrument of parliament for any purpose, have a subsequent duty to perform regarding these accounts ; they have to make an investigation more thorough and more searching than that of the Auditor General, in order to instruct the people of the exact position of affairs, and to show whether they have been administered honesty and judiciously. I understand the function of a government to be, not to block the inquiry in any way, but, whilst endeavouring to show that they have done what is right, at the same time to afford every facility for a reasonable investigation of those accounts. It has been said, and I think very justly, that no great attempt is made by those supporting the government to investigate these accounts or to facilitate the investigation. In' fact any one who attends the Public Accounts Committee must be struck by the anxiety of more than one gentleman supporting the government, not to facilitate the investigation, but in the direction of burking the investigation so far as they possibly can. The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat speaks of a fishing inquiry. The hon. gentleman from Annapolis (Mr. AVade) seems to repudiate the idea that this is in any sense a fishing investigation. AVhile I do not adopt the phrase ' fishing inquiry,' I do say that it is an investigation for the purpose of finding out the state of the accounts. AVe are not discharging our duty if we assume that they are correct ; we are not bound, in the discharge of our duty, to assume that the ministers are dishonest, but we are bound to call upon the ministry to furnish sufficient evidence that these accounts are correct and honest, and in investigating that matter we are bound to ask the government for, and the government is bound to furnish us with, every reasonable evidence to satisfy us and the public in that regard. Now the hon. member for Annapolis, who comes forward occasionally and adds his weight to the argument, told us incidentally in connection with a fishing inquiry that we had no bait. I do not know what he means by that, I do not know what kind of bait would be proper with which to angle the hon. gentleman from Annapolis. I do not know what kind of bait is required in order to draw forth the information we want. I understand that when we formulate a request for information in a matter, that ought to be sufficient, and hon. gentlemen representing the administration should be the last to throw an obstacle in our way. But to-night we are met with the contention of hon. members opposite that we have no precedent for anything of this kind. I have not been able to remain in the House during all the time the discussion has been going on, and I do not know to what extent quotations have been made. But I will refer the House to a precedent. In 1886, on the 19th of March, we had a motion by Mr. Davies, and it was ordered, that:
The items of the expenses for the year 1S84 on the Dalhousie Branch of the Intercolonial Railway, contained on page 259, part II of the public accounts of that year, were referred to the Select Standing Committee on1 Public Accounts.
That is one precedent that seems to be fairly analogous to the one that we are dealing with now. This was a motion concerning the expenditure in the year 1884 ; and in 1S97, on the 19th of May, we find that, on motion of Mr. Lister, it was ordered:
That all accounts for timber, lumber, &c., furnished to the government for use on the Welland canal, from and including the year 1885 together with all advertisements and notices inviting tenders, the tenders received, and all contracts entered into for such timber, &c., together with all letters from officials of the government to the department relating to the same, and copies of all returns to the House respecting the same matter, be referred to the

Select Standing Cmmittee on Public Accounts for examination and investigation.
Notv, to-night we have heard a reference made to the examination of Mr. Rochester. I was in the committee at the time that Mr. Rochester was under examination, and although I am almost as modest and bashful as the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade), I did feel called upon to intervene at the time and I have a very clear recollection of what took place. The hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Tarte) has spoken to-night. When we made the statement in reference to Mr. Rochester that he was a gentleman in the employment of the government, and when we ventured to say that he was a servant of Canada, he (Mr. Tarte) repudiated it and said that he was not a servant of Canada. We said that he was a servant of Canada and that therefore he was obliged to furnish us with a correct and clear statement of all the transactions in which he had been mixed up as far as the government was concerned of which he was a servant. We said that at all events he was a servant of the administration. He was hired and paid a regular salary by the administration. During that time, and the government seemed to have allowed him to do so, he went into a little speculation on his own account. In the course of that speculation he entered transactions in the government accounts and he also entered in the same accounts what he was pleased to term his private affairs. He was not alert on that point. He was asked some questions by the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Ilaggart) and by the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) in the committee and he was not evidently prepared to take the position that they were private affairs. But, what do we find ? We find that the ministers of the Crown, men whom he was supposed to serve in their capacity as representing the people of Canada, telling him not to answer. They said : You are not compelled to answer those questions ; those are your private affairs. I submit that when we come to this stage of public life in Canada, when we have ministers of the Crown, whose accounts are under investigation, professing that they have nothing to fear, that they desire a full and fair investigation, suggesting to a witness not to answer, when a man working for them, who, in keeping his accounts mixes his private accounts with his public accounts, who acts upon that suggestion and refuses to answer, we have a disgraceful state of things in the Dominion of Canada. But, we went a good deal further than that. I raised the question before the chairman of the committee and the hon. Minister of Public Works, who intervened and prevented the question from being answered, undertook tq defend his course. I should say that I had claimed that if an objection was taken it could only be taken by the witness, and could not be suggested by any member of Mr. LENNOX.
parliament, or by any member of the committee, and much less could it be suggested by any hon. gentleman whose accounts were under investigation. I submit that the intervention of the Crown was unfair. The hon. Minister of Public Works got up to defend it and among the other arguments he used was this : He said that if a witness is being cross-examined and the judge thinks it is unfair, it is the duty of the judge to interfere. Why, Sir. Speaker, are hon. gentlemen not driven to desperation for an argument in a case of that kind ? I ask the House who are the judges in this matter. The hon. Minister of Public Works and the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, are on trial in this investigation and the committee are their judges and should decide whether a witness should answer the question or not. I submit that if we are to have responsible government in this country at all, if it is true that the members who are sent to parliament are charged with the duty of investigating these accounts, it is also true that the people have a right to know whether or not public accounts are honest. If that is true, then, it must come to this sooner or later that whenever a responsible member of parliament, whether he is on the opposition or the government side, shall ask that further evidence be given in an investigation of the public accounts it must be granted. So, I submit to the administration that unless they are going before the people to admit beyond all question and cavil that they have something to fear and that they do fear the result, unless they are prepared to take that alternative, they have no other course open to them than to grant an investigation into this matter.


Charles Smith Hyman: Roche (Halifax), Sifton,
Galliher,
Malouin,
Gallery,
Bruneau,
Douglas,
Copp,
Maxwell,
Mr. TAYLOR Cornwall
Hale,
McLaren (Perth), Seagram,
Alcorn,
Lavelle, . Birkett,.
Halliday,
Culbert,
Porter,
The hon. member (Mr. Pringle) has not voted.
for


Mr. PRINGLE.: I am paired with the hon. the Minister of Justice. If I were not paired, I would have voted for the amendment.
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Harbours and rivers-Yukon Territory. $50 -000.
Frederick Debartzch Monk: Who is the engineer in charge ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: The engineer now is Mr. Paul Mercier. He was last year with Mr. Tachfi. He is going up again to finish the work we began last year and the year before.
Dredging, $619,000.
be obliged to hire some dredges. My hon. friend would be surprised at the list of demands made upon my department for dredging. The water is falling in all parts of the lakes and rivers, and trade is expanding. It is the part of my department in which I receive the greatest number of demands. I hope that by next year we shall be sufficiently equipped to do our own work. The two or three new dredges which we are building now I hope will enable us to do the work ourselves, and at a cheaper rate than we have done it at in the past.


Mr. LEFURGEY.: I -would like to know if this vote contemplates dredging around the piers at Cape Tormentine for the convenience of the winter boats ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, the order was given three or four days ago for a dredge to go and do the work at Cape Tormentine, which is a very necessary work indeed.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I notice that for Quebec and Ontario the same amount is asked for this year for dredging by contract that was asked for last year, and yet we are spending a great deal of money for the purpose of providing ourselves with dredging plant.


Mr. WILSON.: We should have some explanation of this very large item. The word 1 plant ' is mentioned in the estimates several times. It would seem as if we needed to build a great many dredges to require all this plant.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: The word 1 plant ' means a new dredge; not plant to build a dredge.


Andrew B. Ingram: Does the minister entertain the same views as he did a while ago ? Suppose we allow some of these items to pass without discussion, will the minister hold next session that we have no right to inquire into the expenditure ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I never held these views.


Andrew B. Ingram: But the hou. gentleman a short time ago, because we allowed an item to pass without discussion, said that we had no right to re-open the discussion upon it. If the hon. gentleman holds that view now, we want to know it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I never heard that view.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Have we now a sufficieut supply of dredging plant to do our own dredging, or are these items for dredging to be done by contract ? I believe myself that we ought to be able to provide ourselves with sufficient dredges; but if we do that we should not need to have any dredging done by other people.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC W'ORKS. I am sorry to say that for this year I shall Mr. HYMAN.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This $75,000 is not for contract work. It is to pay the wages and the working expenses of our own dredges. It will also include some outside dredges.


Mr. McCREARY.: Before the item for dredging in Manitoba passes, I would like to say that I observe with pleasure that the minister has added $4,000 to the vote. I presume that is to improve the dredge ' Sir Hector ' at the mouth of the Red river. That dredge was constructed I think about 1882. It is in a very bad state at the present time. The coal barge is out of repair, and things are in rather a deplorable condition. It may be news to some of the members present that we have in the province of Manitoba some very large lakes, like Lake Winnipeg, which is in extent in Canada next to Lake Superior, also Lake Manitoba and Lake Winnipegosis. Then, there are the rivers running into those lakes. Recently there has been established on the shore of Lake Manitoba very important gypsum works, and there are other industries on Lake Winnipeg, and we feel seriously the need of more dredging to be done on those lakes and rivers to enable steamers to get about. I would like the minister, in the supplementary estimates, to include enough to put the dredge 'Sir Hector' into proper shape and to provide a new coal barge. A very strong petition was sent in from the Board of Trade of Winnipeg asking that a snag boat be put on the Red river in order to clear the river of trees and stumps and boulders from Lake Winnipeg to the boundary line. There are im-

portant stone quarries oil the shores of * Lake Winnipeg, which could be made available for both Manitoba and Dakota if the river were navigable to vessels drawing five or ten feet of water ; but these vessels cannot get up the river unless it is cleared of these obstacles. Some dredging should also be done on Lake Manitoba, part of which is in my county, and in which there are no harbours. The Northern Pacific built a branch line to Delta on Lake Manitoba, and built a wharf there 1,800 feet long ; but vessels are unprotected on account of there being no harbour. I think the minister would do well to put a little more into his estimates this year and more next year for the purpose of dredging these lakes and rivers.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I fully recognize the importance of the representation which the hou. gentleman has made to me both this year and last yeai\
I hope my colleagues will allow me an amount in the estimates for building a snag boat, and I trust that next season that will be in working order.


Fletcher Bath Wade: I would like to ask the minister if the fact has been brought to his attention that during the recent extraordinary floods on La Haye river an enormous amount of silt has been brought down and forms an obstruction to navigation over a considerable area, and particularly at the anchorage where vessels go to load lumber, and if it is his intention to do anything to remove it. I understand that some dredging of the river is in contemplation as soon as the dredge which is now being built is completed.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have given instructions that some means be taken to remove the accumulation to which my hon. friend has referred, and I hope they will be successful. With the powerful new dredge which we are building at Sorel for the maritime provinces, and which I hope will be ready for the next season, I expect to give a satisfaction that we could not possibly give hitherto. That dredge, if I may say so, will be, I hope the most complete and most perfect in the world, as we have taken advantage of all the progress that has been made in the building of dredges. This dredge is being built on Canadian soil by Canadian hands and with Canadian material; we imported only one man from England, and I hope it will prove that we can build dredges and ships in Canada just as well as they can be built on the other side of the line or on the other side of the ocean.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We only want to coufine our remarks to the general principles of the administration of the department. I would suggest that my hon. friend have his office open at stated hours, when we could interview him and complain of the wants of
different localities. We want to get through the estimates as quickly as possible.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am not adverse to being criticised, because L fully recognize that complaints lead to very good results sometimes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to have some dredging done in my county. I presume the minister will be able to receive my complaint an regard to that matter.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I received a few days ago a petition from Judge Davidson for dredging in my hon. friend's county. My hon. friend asked for part of it last year, and this year, at the request of Judge Davidson, I will do the rest.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am perfectly satisfied.


Nathaniel Boyd: Before the item passes, I wish to draw the attention of the hon. minister to the promise he made last year that he would have some dredging done on the west shore of Lake Manitoba. The hon. minister also promised that a wharf would be built.
I understood that he had an engineer examining that work, but that is all that has been done. I would like to ask him what he proposes to do. A great deal of fishing is done on the lake, and there are settlers, such as the Icelanders and some half-breeds, located at various points, to whom it would be a great accommodation if other means were provided them of getting their supplies across than the one vessel that is now on the lake. Heretofore they have had to put up a staging in the shape of wharfs for themselves.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Unfortunately we have no dredge available.
I have tried to buy the dredge of Mr. Le-moine, used for the cut we made to regulate the water, but have not been able to do so on account of some difficulty in getting a deed. But I think I will be shortly able to get that dredge. My hon. friend last year called my intention to the importance of this dredging, and I said I would do it, and I now give a reason why I have been unable to do it. If in a week or two we have a dredge I will have the work done.
Dredging-British Columbia, $30,000.


Mr. EARLE.: Is any portion of this to be applied to the dredging of Victoria harbour.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We are using the new suction dredge that used to work on the Fraser river, now in Victoria harbour.


Thomas Earle: The hon. minister only applies this to the filling of the flats and not to the general dredging of the harbour. Just previous to the last election, he pledged himself to do work for the filling of the flats,
! but the harbour has been silting up for 1 | years, and representations have been made

to the department over and over again to have dredging done in the harbour. As the tonnage of the harbour is very large, it would be only right that some portion of this vote should be applied to the general dredging of Victoria harbour.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I wish to correct my hon. friend. It was after the elections that I pledged myself.


Thomas Earle: My memory is very good, and I know that just before the elections the cry was : Elect Riley and get the dredge. If you elect Riley, you willl have the dredge.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: You will have both the dredge and Riley.


Thomas Earle: No doubt we will have the dredge, but I want to call attention to the fact that the general dredging of the harbour requires to be done besides special work.
St. Maurice district-Improvements to boom works to facilitate the floating and storage of logs, &c., $50,000 ; slides and booms generally, $5,000.


Mr. MORIN.: As I understand it, the government builds the booms and repairs them, does the government charge the lumbermen for the floating of logs through the slides and for holding the logs in the booms ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, and we made out of these St. Maurice booms and slides $21,000 last year. It is one of the rare works that bring 'us financial results. We are earning more money than we are expending.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Does the hon. minister charge so much per 1,000 feet or so much per piece ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: So much per log on saw-logs and so much per cord on pulp wood.


Uriah Wilson: How much money is invested in these booms and slides at thisj particular place where you have such large profits V


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Those booms were in existence, some of them, before confederation. We have expended about one quarter of a million dollars on them but the trade is increasing very rapidly. It is a part of the country where the trade is expanding every year. Large manufacturing establishments are being erected there.


Uriah Wilson: Speaking in a general way, have these booms and slides been paying concerns ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: On the St. Maurice they did not pay up to the last ten years, but during the past eight or ten years they have been paying. On the Gatineau they are also paying.


Thomas Earle: 


Uriah Wilson: Before that did they pay running expenses ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot say.


William Rees Brock: When you say that you earn more than you expend, did you spend $50,000 and earn $71,000 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Our earnings are more considerable than our working expenses. This is capital expenditure.


William Rees Brock: And you are merely earning over your working expenses ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Quite so.


William Rees Brock: But nothing on the investment.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Why not let the lumbermen build their own booms and slides ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: These works were built before confederation and have been going on since. In some parts of the St. Maurice there is good navigation just as on the Gatineau. Navigation has to be protected against the lumber, and we are simply going on with what we found when we came to office.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Slides and booms do not impede navigation.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Take the Ottawa river and the Gatineau. If the logs were allowed to go free, these rivers would be filled and steamers could not run at all. You have to build booms and slides to keep the logs in a certain direction and leave a space for boats.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: That is all right, but the government could very easily compel the lumbermen to build the booms, and slides.
I am not in the habit of ihaving anything to do with the slides and booms. And I do not see exactly where the navigation comes in on the Gatineau river. You go about two miles to one rapid and fifty yards to another, and a little further on you come to another power. I do not see any navigation about it, unless you use bark canoes.


Mr. BOURASSA.: There is a feature about this question of slides and booms which should not be forgotten, and that is the interest of the settlers in the valleys of the rivers where these slides and booms are maintained by the government. I think the policy of the government should not only be continued but extended, because, when the slides and booms are left in the hands of private companies, they are apt to manage them in such a way that small operators cannot come in and buy timber from the settlers. My own constituents have had experience of that kind. The re-

suit is that there is a great desire that the government should establish slides and booms on all the rivers, not only on account of the navigation-that is only one side of it-but on account of the fact that the booms and slides,which left in private hands, are used for the promotion of private interests. Of course, they cannot refuse passage to other people, but in the practical management they give all the advantage to their own company. This may be natural enough, but it has the effect of depriving others practically of the use of these rivers for timber purposes. In the case of government booms, there is a government officer in charge and he seeks to do justice to all. Thus, not only do all the lumber companies get justice, but the settlers have the advantage of competition in the buying of their timber, their pulp wood especially. That is why I say that, instead of merely maintaining this policy, I hope the government will extend it. Moreover, this is not a case of additional cost to the government, for, on such rivers as the Gatineau and the St. Maurice, the fees pay the expenses, and I hope that the same will be found true on the Rouge and the du LiSvre also.
Public Works-chargeable to income-roads and bridges-Ottawa-Maria Street bridge over the Rideau canal, reconstruction1, $5,000.


Andrew B. Ingram: Will the minister please explain this item ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That money is asked to complete the approaches to the magnificent bridge erected at Maria street to help toward making Ottawa the Washington of the North.


Andrew B. Ingram: What does the hon. minister mean by ' approaches ' ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The grading of the approaches at both ends.


Andrew B. Ingram: The street ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: And the earth works.


Andrew B. Ingram: I understood that the money we voted last year was to be the last to be expended. Did the Canada Atlantic Railway pay their share ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: What will be the total cost of the Maria street bridge ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS ? It will cost in the neighbourhood of $110,000, including the share of the Canada Atlantic Railway.


Andrew B. Ingram: AY hat proportion did the Canada Atlantic Railway pay ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Their share was $17,000.


Andrew B. Ingram: I do not know whether, upon this item, we are free to discuss this
matter of making Ottawa the Washington of the North. But I know that the public money has been used to beautify certain streets. I am not aware who has the say as to which streets shall be improved, but if report is true, the men who are acting as commissioners and directing the expenditure of this money have large interests on certain streets that are improved under their direction. If that is true, if the members of this commission have property on certain streets and have the power to direct this expenditure of public money to improve those streets, I think affairs are conducted in the wrong way. There should be some person above these men, or in some other way they should be deprived of the power to say where this money should be expended.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The matter to which the hon. gentleman refers does not touch these estimates. The grant to the Ottawa Improvement Commission is fixed by statute, and I have given notice of a Bill touching that subject, which will bring up the whole subject. What the hon. gentleman speaks of is a fair matter for discussion, but It does not touch these estimates in any way.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then, what compels us to spend this large amount of money that has been voted for this bridge ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In 1885 there was an arrangement made between the city of Ottawa and the Department of Public Works by which the government undertook certain works, including the Maria street bridge. I am merely carrying out the policy that was agreed upon years ago.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will this finish the bridge ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, it is completed now.


Andrew B. Ingram: How did the hon. minister arrive at the proportion to be paid by the Canada Atlantic Railway ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We asked for tenders, and then we made a division of the cost, based upon the additional length of the bridge rendered necessary by the fact that the Canada Atlantic Railway tracks had been put under it. We tried to make the fairest possible division.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Two or three years ago, I asked the Minister of Public Works for $200 toward the building of a bridge in my county. The minister replied that we did not give a cent toward bridges. But here I find $5,000 for a bridge in Ottawa, $16,000 for the Portage du Fort bridge, and so on.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend will, perhaps, remember that this Portage du Fort bridge was an interprovincial bridge built long ago by the

Federal government. I am only rebuilding a work that was constructed by my predecessors. My hon. friend will admit, and lion, members generally will agree, that the federal government's duty is not to build small bridges all over the land. That is not our duty, that is not our right; it belongs to the municipal councils and the provincial governments.
Telegraph lines, land and cable lines, Gull of St. Lawrence. To repair and improve roadways and increase operating facilities generally to the eastward of Godbout, $1,000.


Mr. GANONG.: I would like to ask the minister if he has still in mind the necessity for a telegraph line in the county of Charlotte, to which I have frequently called his attention. I think the minister will admit that I have been fairly persistent in bringing to his attention the question of public works in the county of Charlotte. I see there is no item in the main estimates covering that amount, and I would like to know if the hon. gentleman will have an item in the supplementaries to cover telegraphic communication between Deer Island, Campbobello and the city of Eastport?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot say what the supplementary estimates will contain, I might, after they have been discussed in council.


Gilbert White Ganong: 
Gilbert White Ganong: I am glad to hear that statement from the minister, it will be a great relief to the minds of some people in my county who have heard contrary statements.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Could the minister tell me how far the telegraph is extended below Quebec, and to what place ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Our telegraph system has now reached Belle Isle.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Do you know the distance ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think between Quebec and Belle Isle the distance is about 800 miles.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Telegraph lines, British Columbia, $5,000.


Thomas Earle: A short line of telegraph is asked for from the terminus of the Skeena river line down a few miles to a place called Aberdeen. Is there any provision made for the construction of that this year V It is a short distance from the canneries, and my information is that if they had a few miles of telegraph there it would be a great convenience.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have made arrangements to build that small piece of line, which will cost in the neighbourhood of $1,500 or $2,000.
Surveys and inspections, $25,000.


Mr. HACKETT.: These surveys are supposed to be general all over Canada, and this amount is to cover them ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Edward Hackett: I would ask the minister if he has received a petition from the people of Percival River, in West Prince, asking for a survey preliminary to building a pier at that place ; and also if he has received a petition from the people of Victoria West, in West Prince, for the same purpose. They simply ask for surveys, they are not asking for an appropriation of money at present. They desire to have the site surveyed and to have the approval of the department before commencing any work there. Those petitions came, onej from the people of Percival River, lots 9 and 10, and the other from Victoria West, lot 13 ; will the minister have those surveys made, and have reports from his engineers in connection with the propriety of building those works ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not remember having received a petition from the Percival River people ; doubtless one has been sent if the hon. gentleman says so, but I cannot carry in my mind all the details. As to Victoria West, I remember having received a petition. There will be no objection whatever to make these two surveys. My chief engineer is within the sound of my voice now, and I will instruct him to make the surveys.
National Art Gallery, Ottawa, including the purchase of paintings on the advice of a committee of artists, $4,000.


Thomas Earle: I have not visited the art gallery this year, but I have been told by some who have seen it that it is in a most filthy and miserable condition, and is hardly worthy of the name of an art gallery.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS I fully recognize that it should be in a better condition. Up to last year I only had $2,000 for that so-called national gallery. Hon. gentlemen on both sides will admit that we should have a decent place for that purpose. Last year we improved it a little

and I hope it will be improved still more with the limited means at my disposal.
Telegraph line between Prince Edward Island and the mainland, $2,000.


Edward Hackett: Just one word. I am not criticising this item at all, but I want to impress upon the hon. Minister of Public Works that promise that he made the other evening when this matter was so ably discussed by the hon. member for King's (Mr. Hughes) and the hon. member for Prince (Mr. Lefurgey), that he will see that some relief is afforded the people of Prince Edward Island in connection with this telegraph business. I would simply remind him of his promise and express the hope that relief will be afforded.
Telegraph line, Ashcroft to Dawson, $87,500.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I want to ask the hon. minister in reference to these telegraph lines, whether they are to remain under the control of the Department of Public Works, or, as it is in England, pass to the control of the Post Office department.


The MINISTER OE PUBLIC WORKS.: So far these works have been under the control of the Department of Public Works for the excellent reason that the Department of Public Works has built them and for the excellent reason that this country is not situated as England is. We have telegraph lines in this country for the purposes of trade and navigation especially. These are my humble views. It may be that they are not shared by everybody.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Are they the views of the government ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: So far the question has not been discussed, except in the newspapers.


Mr. BENNETT.: I may remind the hon. gentleman that the Toronto ' Globe ' took the stand that these telegraph lines ought to be handed over to the Postmaster General. However, we will understand that for the coming year the hon. Minister of Public Works is in control of the lines and will hold on in his department.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not see why, having built these lines in a successful manner, we should not keep them in charge. While I should attach weight to the opinion of an important paper like the ' Globe,' as an old newspaper man I think I am as well informed as the ' Globe ' is on this question.


Andrew B. Ingram: You have possession now, anyway.


Thomas Earle: In regard to the Dawson line, I would like to ask the hon. minister whether there would be any possible reduction in the rates for telegraphing ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I would like to be able to say that we will reduce the rates, but I cannot hold out any hope just now. The line is an expensive one. I think it will be less expensive next year than it was last year, because, as my hon. friend (Mr. Earle) knows, the first year of the working of a line like that is a most expensive one. It is a very difficult country indeed. When I tell the committee that during last winter we had at times as much as 27 feet of snow on the lines, it will be seen that it is no small matter to be able to keep such lines open. 1 cannot extend any hope just now. Perhaps I am not feee to say everything that I would be free to say later on. I intend trying to convince my friends to extend the line in certain directions which will make it pay better and give better accommodation. I am negotiating with the Canadian Pacific Railway with the view of extending the line without too much cost. I do not know whether there will be any result or not.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What has been the total revenue of the telegraph lines in the direction of the Yukon during the past year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In one minute I can give the information to my hon. friend.


Thomas Earle: Can you give the length of line that is constructed ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have in the Yukon 2,100 odd miles, I think.


Thomas Earle: From the coast ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, from Ashcroft, and including the Port Simpson line-2,100 miles in round numbers.


Thomas Earle: Can you give the cost and the number of messages handled ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not the information under my hand, but I am going to ask for a supplementary vote and all the information will be brought down.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Then I will not insist if all the information will be brought down.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will bring down all the information when I ask for more money.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Then, I will supplement my question. I would like to have the total revenue from the North-west lines, including the Yukon, and the total capital expended on those lines to date. Would the hon. minister make a note of it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.
Salaries and travelling expenses of inspectors of ports, and travelling expenses of other officers on inspection and preventive service.

Customs Laboratory-To meet expenditure in connection with the testing of sugar, molasses, &c., including pay of officers appointed or employed for that purpose.
Board of Customs-To meet expenditure in connection therewith, including $800 salary of Commissioner of Customs as chairman of the board.
Salaries of officers appointed or employed for compiling statistical returns of imports and exports, $121,500.
The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Wm. Paterson.) I explained the other night briefly when the committee rose that the $5,000 extra that is asked for is made up in this way : One of these officers who was formerly paid out of the inside vote was transferred to the outside vote, and an additional special officer has been appointed at $1,000 salary whose expenses are $700. That, with a few increases which are required, makes up the extra amount.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman promised to give some information about the port of St. Thomas. I would like to have it.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I asked for the information ; in fact, I knew about it. I suppose it is information in a general way which the hon. gentleman requires ; otherwise, he would have to tell us more particularly what he wants. He asked for information in reference to the collector at the port of St. Thomas. Unfortunately there were, upon inspection, Irregularities found in the conduct of that office of such a nature that while no loss has accrued to the department, everything having been paid up, yet the service of the officer were dispensed with and another officer has been placed in charge.


Andrew B. Ingram: Have the bondsmen made good the shortage ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Yes. Shortly after I took office I found that private bonds were given, and when any loss occurred very great pressure was brought to bear from the bondsmen who in some cases represented that it would be ruinous to proceed against them. I thought the better plan was to adopt the system followed by mercantile institutions, and so arrangements were made with the four Canadian guarantee companies to guarantee our officers. Now, when we appoint a new officer, the guarantee company that takes the risks for that province is notified, and from that 'moment they become security. In the particular case referred to there was no loss to the country.


Andrew B. Ingram: Was he guaranteed by a guarantee company ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Yes.


David Henderson: What rate is paid to' the guarantee companies ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: 


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: We get a special rate,. but I cannot remember it just at the moment. The percentage, whatever It be, is deducted from the salary of the officer.


David Henderson: Does not the minister think that it would be better for the government to guarantee their own officers? My idea is that the losses are very small Indeed, and if the government carried the risk they could afford to do so at a reduction of about one-half the rate which the officers now pay to the guarantee companies. I think that suggestion is worth being considered by the minister.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I have an idea that such a system is adopted by the Post Office Department, in part. We have found our present system satisfactory and the officers do not complain. I think myself that the officer would prefer to go to a guarantee company rather than to ask a friend to go guarantee for him. I am Very happy to say that considering the number of officers we have, the loss is comparatively small; but the fact that the guarantee company is interested makes an officer more cautious if he were disposed to be lax in his methods.


David Henderson: The Postmaster General has in part adopted the plan which I suggest, and I know that under that system the postmasters are not called on to pay as much as they formerly did. Even in 'that case, I believe the Postmaster General 'collects more than necessary to meet the losses because the defalcations are so few.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I think the rate of the guarantee company is 40 cents on the hundred dollars.
Mr. HUGHES (King's, P.E.I.) I thiuk it would toe injudicious for the government to guarantee their own officers, because in case tof defalcations great pressure would undoubtedly be brought to bear on the government to deal leniently with the offenders. When the officer knows that he has to deal with a company which conducts its business on business principles, it has a very deterrent effect.


David Henderson: I do not approve of personal bonds, but I fail to see why all this money should toe handed over to the guarantee company to enable that company to make a fortune. To my mind the government could conduct this business itself, and charge a far less percentage to their officers.
Miscellaneous, $35,000.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: That increase of $5,000 is absolutely necessary for printing and stationary. In connection with the new statistical branch there is a great deal of cost for printing, but I trust the country appreciates the benefit that is de-

rived from it. I consider it to be a great benefit to the country to have the statistical information promptly furnished as it is now.
Expenses of maintenance of revenue cruisers and preventive service, $30,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: In connection with this vote, although it may not be quite relevant, I wish to ask what is to be the policy of the government this summer in reference to admitting American tugs to coast in Canadian waters ? On the 27th of February, I asked the minister :	What tugs of American register were permitted to ply in Canadian waters in the coasting trade last year; and he replied:	None were so permitted. I
accepted the answer of the minister at the time, although I knew it was incorrect. The minister had evidently been misinformed.-' Surely those tugs must have been permitted with the consent of the minister. I can tell the minister the names of the tugs and the concerns who own them.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: How many of them ?


William Humphrey Bennett: I had three reported to me, at all events. Of my own personal knowledge I know of one, because I saw the boat repeatedly. These tugs are of American register but are owned by powerful friends of the government, and they are permitted to come in and coast in contravention of the law, while at the same time a Canadian tug cannot cross the border line and do business on the American side. If the government are going to sit in council and immediately after the close of the session, or when parliament is in session, are going to say to their party friends,
You can bring your American registered tugs into Canada and engage in coasting,' let it be known, so that ali can be placed on the same footing. But do not make invidious distinctions by simply selecting the friends of the government. You hit your own party friends on the Georgian Bay last year in this respect, because Jchere are Liberals up there who are owners of tugs. The result was that there were days when Canadian tugs were tied up at the docks while American tugs were plying on the waters of the Georgian Bay. I say, with all deference, that the minister was incorrect iu the answer lie gave, because I know he was. I ask the minister if it is going to be the policy of the department to allow these American tugs to come in there and do business. I say that it is unfair to men who have spent tlie best parts of their lives in working up from subordinate positions until they obtained certificates a's masters or mates or engineers, that they should be obliged to walk around the streets with their hands in their pockets for the want of work, simply because American tugs are allowed to come in and take the bread out of their mouths. I ask the minister if it is his policy to allow this to go on again this year.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I say i. it was not our policy last year to allow it, and our policy has not changed. It is contrary to the coasting law for American vessels to come in and trade between Canadian ports, and the answer I gave to the hon. gentleman, which he thinks is incorrect, is the only answer which I can give him. I do not think a permit could be given without the knowledge of my department, and I asked my commissioner particularly and got the answer from him. I do not think there is any deputy in the government better informed or more reliable, and that is the answer I must adhere to. I answered the question frankly. I said a permit had been given to a scow which, had a sand pump to come in ; but our policy is not to allow American vessels to violate the coasting law. It was not our policy last year, and will not be this year. If there has been anything done in that respect, it has been done without any permission from the department, and if the hon. gentleman will give me any information as to the violation of the law that has come under our notice, I shall be very much obliged indeed. We have just issued a new circular. It was reported that certain Canadian vessels would take a tow of logs from a Canadian port and tow them out to American waters, and there drop the tow and allow it to be taken up by an American vessel, which would tow it part of the way and then another Canadian vessel would bring it in. We had an exhaustive inquiry made into the matter, and it may be that it is something of this kind to which the hon. gentleman has reference. Last year there were no permits issued. The year before that I think there was one granted in an exceptional case- a case in which a saw-mill was being removed from Michigan to Sarnia. The circular which we have issued states that if a foreign vessel comes in to take a tow of logs, there must be an export entry with the clearance, and the vessel must, of course, clear for an American port. She would not be allowed to receive a clearance for a Canadian port. So that if there was an evasion of the law last year, we have taken steps which we think will prevent anything of that kind this year. As I said before, if the hon. gentleman will give me any information of any evasion that has taken place that we have not detected, I shall be only too glad to receive it.


William Humphrey Bennett: I can assure the minister that there can be no doubt that there was an American tug last year plying on the Georgian Bay between Canadian ports. I can give him privately the name of the tug and the name of the owner. I had the information from a captain who, on clearing a Canadian tug had handed to him by mistake the clearance which the customs officer intended for the American tug. It stated that under instructions from the Department



of Customs the tug was permitted to clear from that port, and that tug was a tug of American register, and every one knows it.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Was she clearing to another Canadian port ?


William Humphrey Bennett: Yes, from a Canadian port on the Georgian Bay to another Canadian port on the Georgian Bay. I have seen the tug myself repeatedly. It is a matter of common notoriety, and I was told that there were others up the lakes, although I have no personal knowledge of them. However, as the minister has stated that there will be no such permits issued this year, that will be an assurance to the tug owners of the Georgian Bay.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I do not wish the hon. gentleman to misunderstand me. He asked me what the policy of the government was. I would not wish the Governor in Council not to have power in an odd case to grant a permit where Canadian interests would not be damaged, such as in the case of the erection of a sugar refinery in the county of Bothwell, where it was necessary, if the work was to go on, to have a scow with a sand pump. We would make inquiries whether there was any such vessel to be had in Canada. If we found that there was, we would not give the permit ; but in the case where Canadian interests can be served and no appreciable harm can be done to any Canadian interest, we are warranted in granting a permit, and I would not wish my hon. friend to take my pledge in any other sense. I do not know that there will be any permit granted this year, but if under exceptional circumstances one is granted, I do not wish to be charged with having misunderstood ?ny hon. friend. But the policy of the government is that the work between Canadian ports shall be done by a Canadian marine. We want to build up a Canadian marine. The hon. gentleman stated fairly that under the coasting laws of the United States our vessels are not permitted to do anything of that kind between their ports, and we propose to maintain the same policy in Canada. It is our duty to do so ; it is the law of the land.


Mr. McGOWAN.: I would like the minister to explain the importations of linseed oil into this country. We imported from Great Britain 735,900 gallons, of which the total value was $427,270, or the average price per gallon was 58 cents. From France we imported 536 gallons, total value $307, average price per gallon 574 cents. From the United States we imported 21,562 gallons, total value $8,925, average, 41i cents. But when I take the market quotations of raw linseed oil on the Chicago market, from July 1st, 1900, to June 30th, 1901, I find that the price per gallon, by the car load, was 76 cents in July, 7o cents in August, and the lowest was 67 cents. And the


William Humphrey Bennett: average price for the twelve months per imperial gallon was 73-35 cents, and per wine gallon, 61 13 cents. These figures are taken from the Chicago ' Paint, Oil and Drug Review,' and are therefore authoritative. It seems extraordinary that American oil should have passed through the customs in this country at 41i cents per gallon, and paid the duty on that valuation, when the average price in Chicago was 73 35 cents per imperial gallon and 61-33 cents per wine gallon.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Will my hon. friend let me have the figures, and I will make inquiries.


John McGowan: Certainly. Taking the customs valuation, let us see how much advantage Great Britain got under the preferential tariff. I find that in 100 gallons from the United States, the average cost of which was 41-25 cents per gallon, or $41.25 per 100 gallons, the duty paid was $10.32. On tlie same quantity from Great Britain the duty paid was $9.67, thus leaving only 65 cents on 100 gallons in favour of Great Britain. It seems to me that there is something extraordinary about these figures.	*


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: If my hon. friend will call around to the office,
I would like to discuss this matter with him. If any oil is undervalued, it is our duty to see that such undervaluation be put a stop to.


John McGowan: And the hon. minister must remember that the American oil is of a higher elass than the English oil, and ought to be worth more. There is certainly no reason why the customs value of American oil should be only 41i cents when the average price in the Chicago market on carload lots is 73 4 cents.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I understood that the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) wanted to make some remarks about coal oil when these items were up.


Nathaniel Boyd: When the Minister of Inland Revenue's estimates were under discussion, the inspection of coal oil at Port Arthur was brought to his attention, and he said that it was not his officers iwho were responsible for the oil that had passed in at that port, but the officers of the Customs Department. What I wanted to know was, how it came that this inferior oil was allowed to pass, and to pass in such a large quantity, and what precautions have been taken to provide against a recurrence of this thing ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I was not in the House when the discussion to which my hon. friend refers took place, but the matter was brought to my attention afterwards. It appears that a cargo of coal oil was brought to the North-west which caused a good deal of inconvenience. We

ascertained that it reached Fort William in a tank vessel and we immediately corresponded with our officer there, because it is the duty of the customs officers to apply the test as fixed by the Governor in Council. Our officers have been supplied with the instruments, and it is their duty to apply the test to imported oil. This was American oil, and I have a report from my officer at Fort William to the effect that the oil passed above the flash and the gravity test.
I had a conversation with those interested in the oil business, and they are quite concerned over the matter, and are at a loss to explain further than to say that in all manufactured articles it is possible there may be a miss once in a while. I am told that they have made every effort to prevent such a thing occurring again. My officer is not to blame, because the oil passed the test, and exceeded what is required, both in gravity and plank.


Nathaniel Boyd: That is all we can hold the Minister of Customs responsible for, except on the general policy of the government, and that we discussed when the items of the Minister of Inland Revenue were being put through. If what the hon. minister states about his officer is correct, it will be absolutely necessary for either the Inland Revenue Department or the Customs to see that instruments are obtained which will give a more perfect test. The information I have is that the same class of oil was sent broadcast throughout Dakota and Minnesota, in the adjoining territory. But, as I say, I do not wish, at this hour, and after the explanation given by the minister, to go further into the discussion at the present time.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I will add that a special circular has been sent since this took place to all the customs ports at which oil is received, directing the officers to be exceedingly particular in the test. I do not seek to weaken the statement already made that the officer did make the test, but this is to remind them that it is a matter which we wish them to be very particular about.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) The instruments may be very correct, but the officers may require particular training to use them efficiently. There are a good many officers who though you place the instrument in their hands do not know how to use them.


Arthur W. Puttee: I am surprised that the minister has informed us that this shipment of oil passed the test. To my mind, the officers are simply wasting their time in making tests of oil if such oil as this could pass. Since this subject was discussed before, I have learned on good authority that that particular shipment to this country was entirely a mistake, that they had no expectation that such oil was coming in and 104 i
that such oil was never sent before. But if such oil passed the test, what is the use of making tests at all ?


William Forsythe McCreary: Might there not have been some adulteration of the oil between the time it passed at Port Arthur and the time it reached the consumer ? Hon. members may think we make too much of this question of coal oil, but I would remind them that it was a vitally important question with us up in the west. We have to use coal oil in many of the small towns and in practically all the farm houses, for we have not the electricity to the same extent that we have in the older provinces. In the recent election in Lisgar, during three or four weeks, at almost every meeting one of the most important questions discussed was that of the quality of the coal oil. Unfortunately, I was not in a position to give the information that most of the farmers desired. I would suggest to the hon. minister that he should supplement the test at Port Arthur. It seems to me strange that this one shipment of oil should be the only shipment that was wrong. This oil seems to have got into every village, every hamlet and every house on the prairie. I submit to the minister that ,he should see to it that further examination is made. I understand that there is on the statute-book a law with regard to the adulteration of food under which a public officer can take samples of food offered for sale to see if they are all right. I know that under municipal law we have a system of that kind. The officer can take a loaf of bread out of the bakers' cart or a quart of milk from the milkman and submit them to a test to see that they are what the law calls for. I do not see why the same rule should not be carried out with regard to coal oil. The minister whose duty it is to look after such things should have a law passed, if there is not one already, under which his officers could go to any wholesale or retail dealer, take a sample and test it to see whether the oil that is supplied by him has been adulterated, and impose a penalty if it is found that the dealer has been imposing upon the public.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I conferred with the Deputy Minister of Inland Revenue, who understands the technical part of this matter better than we do in our department. I understand that instructions have been sent to their analyst in Winnipeg to have samples advanced. The deputy minister has been looking for that report every day. I was not able to see him to-day and do not know whether the report has been received or not. No doubt, there will be something in the supplementary estimates, either under Inland Revenue or Customs, on which this question can be further discussed, and we shall then probably, be in a position to give more information. I do not pretend to any technical

knowledge of the subject, but, In conversation with a man in the oil business, I was informed that it is possible that the weather might have affected the oil to a certain extent.


William Forsythe McCreary: Wind.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: 
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That item was dealt with in an earlier discussion on civil government. The hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggant) asked me to let it stand, as he desired to discuss some overrulings of the Treasury Board. But, in conversation with him since he told me that he did not wish the item to be longer held.
Superannuation'-extra allowance to Mr. Wallace, ex-postmaster at Victoria, B.C., $240.
Authorized by statute, probable amount required, $328,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is the usual vote for superannuation. The only vote we are asked to make is $240, which is the old item for the ex-postmaster of Victoria. The remainder of the item is fixed by statute. As the House knows, it is a matter which we cannot control.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of the Minister of Finance, the House adjourned at 12.30 a.m. Wednesday.

Wednesday, April 23, 1902.