1903-10-19

[Stage Direction]
Mr. WALTER SCOTT (West Assiniboia) moved for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Mounted Police Pension Act, 1899. He said : Mr. Speaker, in moving for leave to introduce this Bill at this time I recognize that unless the government agree to put it on the Order paper as a government Bill, it is absolutely impossible to make any progress with it. I may explain that the intent of the amendment is to put the noncommissioned officers and men of the mounted police force in the same position as regards the calculation of their pensions as the officers are put in by the measure adopted by the House last session. At the present time the pensions of the non-commissioned officers and men of the force are calculated upon their average pay for three years preceding their retirement. By the Officers' Pension Act put through last year, the officers' pensions are now calculated up-
Mr. CLANCY.: on their pay and allowances at the moment [DOT]of their retirement.


Mr. GOURLEY.: The same rule should apply to the men of the force.


Mr. SCOTT.: I think so. I think the House will agree that the non-commissioned officers and men should occupy the same position in that respect as the officers. It is entirely unnecessary for me or anybody else to praise the mounted police force. Their services are recognized


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: I rise to a point of order. This appears to be a Bill to amend the Pension Act of the Mounted Police Force. The hon. member has no right to introduce a Bill of that kind. It must be introduced by a member of the cabinet, by resolution and with the consent of the Crown.


Mr. SPEAKER.: It is difficult for me to decide just now whether this is a money Bill or not.


John Graham Haggart: It is, from the statement the hon. gentleman has made, to increase the pensions of the mounted police.


Thomas Walter Scott: What I am really doing is urging that the government should take up this proposition.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I understand that the hon. member is moving to increase the pensions ?


Thomas Walter Scott: That would certainly be the effect of the amendment.


The PRIME MINISTER.: As my hon. friend has already stated, the object he has in view is that the government should take charge of this Bill. The point taken by my hon. friend from South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) is certainly well taken. I may say to my hon. friend that at this late stage of the session it is impossible for us to take up any more legislation than we have ; but the point to which he has called the attention of the House is engaging the attention of the government at the present time.
The matter dropped.



CONTROL OF PUBLIC WORKS.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 269) respecting the management and control of public and other works. He said :	By the statutes which
we now have relating to the different departments, among others the Departments of Agriculture. Public Works, Marine and Fisheries and 'Secretary of State, it is provided that the Governor in Council may make regulations respecting the transfer of any duties from one department to another. It is intended to make this provision applicable to all the departments of the government.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. DEMERS (St. John and Iberville)- by Mr. Talbot-asked :
1.	Is it true the government paid for certain improvements to the car No. 001, belonging to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company ?
2.	If so, how much did the government pay for the flooring, curtains, bedding, tinting, carpets, sofas and other improvements ?
3.	For whom and by whom was that car so fitted up ?
4.	When and how were those expenditures authorized ?
5.	Has the government been informed that the said car is still in the possession of or used by the Honourable Joseph Israel Tarte, one of the members of this House ?
6.	Is it the intention of the government to reclaim the cost of the said improvements, either from the owner of the said car, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, or from the Honourable Mr. Tarte, who has the use of it ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland) :: 
MONTREAL HARBOUR-PERMANENT SHEDS. .
[Stage Direction]
Mr, BUREAU-by Mr. Talbot-asked :
1.	Have the plans been prepared outside of the Department of Public Works for the construction of permanent sheds in the port of Montreal, or for other works ?
2.	If so, to whom has the preparation of these plans been given ; and why has an engineer not a permanent member of the staff been employed ?
3.	What was the remuneration which this engineer was to receive ?
4.	What account has been filed ?
5.	What amount has he received ?
6.	What is the claim pending in the Department of. Public Works in reference to this work ?
7.	What was the total estimate of the cost of this work ?
8.	Have the harbour commissioners of Montreal, under whose control the port of Montreal is, been notified that the plans of the said permanent sheds were thus ordered ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	To Mr. H. E. Vautelet, by order of the then Minister of Public Works, who has left no record in the department of his reasons.

3.. No arrangements as to remuneration appear to hare been made.
4.	$49,343.40.
5.	Nothing has been paid Mr. Vautelet.
0.	Mr. Vautelet has filed a petition of right for $49,343.40.
7.	$2,565,400.
8.	The harbour commissioners have recently been informed that plans were prepared.


DREDGE ' W. S. FIELDING.'
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BUREAU-by Mr. Talbot-asked :
1.	Who has made the plans of the dredge ' W. S. Fielding,' now in course of construction at the Sorel shipyards- ?
2.	Wliat has been the cost of the preparation of the plans ?
3.	Why have they been prepared outside of the department, and by an engineer not belonging to the administration ?
4.	What was the total estimate of the cost of the said dredge ?
.5. At what exact date were the works commenced ?
6.	What expenses have been incurred on the same dredge up to 1st of November, 1902 ?
7.	What expenses have been incurred since ?
8.	What will the dredge cost when completed ?
9.	When will it be ready to commence work ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland) :: 1.	Mr. A. W. Robinson.
2.	Mr. Robinson is to receive 5 per cent on the total cost of dredge for preparation of plans and supervision ; up to date he has been paid- the sum of $9,000.
3.	By order of the then Minister of Public Works the preparation of the plans were entrusted to Mr. Robinson.
4.	$350,000.
5.	The 1st of June, 1901.
6 and 7. The total amount charged against the appropriation for dredge ' Fielding ' was, on the 1st of November, 1902, $204,456.42.
8.	About $520,000, less value of permanent plant and buildings remaining: in shipyard after completion of dredge.
9.	In the spring of 1905.


POSTAL NEWSPAPER BOXES.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. TAYLOR-by Mr. Lancaster-asked :
1.	By whom are the boxes for the reception of newspapers which are placed on the streets manufactured ? And were tenders asked for the supply of the same ?
2.	If tenders were asked, who were the tenderers ?
3.	Are any of the same being supplied by Fleury & Sons, of Aurora, Ontario ?
4.	Are the same being supplied by them under tender 1
5.	If any are being supplied by Fleury & Sons, what price is being paid for each ?
The POSTMASTER GENERAL- \(Hon. Sir William Mulock) :
1.	By Butterworth & Company, Ottawa, and J. Fleury's Sons, Aurora. Tenders were asked for.
Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.: 2.	Answered by reply to question 1.
3.	Yes.
4.	Answered by reply to question 1.
5.	$25 per box.


EXCISE TAXATION.
Mr. CLARKE asked :: What revenue per capita was derived from excise taxation for the fiscal years ending 30th June, 1896, and 30th June, 1903, respectively ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE (Hon. M. E. Bernier).: The revenue derived from excise taxation for the fiscal year ended 30tli June, 1896, was $7,836,407.26, and for the year ended 30th June, 1903, $11,940,702.77. As there is no definite information as to the population in 1896 and 1903, the excise revenue per capita for the^e two years cannot be accurately stated.


ST. ANDREWS RAPIDS.
Mr. McCREARY asked :: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to send an engineer at an early date to make a report upon the works done at St. Andrews rapids, in Manitoba ?
2.	Will that engineer have instructions and authority to report upon the advisability of such changes being made in the plans as to permit of the construction of a bridge, suitable for passenger and railway traffic ?
3.	Will such engineer have authority to report as to the possibility of creating a water power at this point ?
4.	In the event of the engineer reporting favourably for the construction of a bridge for passenger and rail-way traffic in connection with the works, is it the intention of the government to proceed at an early date in the construction of same ; and will the bridge be free of toils for passenger and vehicle traffic ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	On receipt of this report the matter will receive the prompt and earnest attention of the department.


ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PENITENTIARY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. GRANT-by Mr. Talbot-asked :
1.	Is the government aware that during the investigation held on the administration of the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary in 1898, under and by virtue of a royal commission, it was proved that certain persons had profited by the irregularities committed by certain officials of this institution, to the extent of several hundred dollars ?
2. If so. have these persons offered to reimburse, or have they reimbursed the sums of which they have so benefited out of public property ?
3.	If not. is it the intention of the government to take legal proceedings to force them to reimburse the value of the materials they so appropriated for their own use, or the value of the work performed for their benefit by the
'labourers paid out of public money?	.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: A report, which was the result of an investigation, was made and distributed to parliament.


STEAMER 'EUREKA.'
[Stage Direction]
Mr. GRANT-by Mr. Talbot-asked :
1.	Is the government aware that the steamer 'Eureka,' belonging to the Department of Public Works, has been put at the disposal, or rented to some inventor, for the purpose of making an experiment of some invention, purporting to prevent collisions between steamers at sea ?
2.	If so, to whom was said loan made, and upon the instructions of whom was it done ?
3.	What has been the amount of expenditure made by the department, or occasioned by said experiment?
4.	Is there any claim pending in the department in reference to work performed on said boat, at the request of the persons having the loan of the boat, for dockage, &c. ?
5.	For how many months, weeks or days was said steamer 'Eureka' kept at the expense of the government, not rendering the service assigned to her, whilst uncjer the control of said inventor?
6.	What amount was so expended by the department in keeping the boat at the disposal of the inventor?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	To Mr. A. Lacoste ; under instructions from late Minister of Public Works.
3.	$11,776.
4.	Yes.
5.	One hundred and thirteen days.
6.	Same as No. 3.


SUGAR ENTERED FOR HOME CONSUMPTION.
Mr. HENDERSON asked :: 1.	What was the total amount of sugar above No. 16 D.S. in colour, and of all refined sugars of whatever kinds, grades or standards, entered for home consumption during the year ending 30th June. 1903, and what was the amount of the duty paid thereon?
2.	What was the total amount of sugar, N.E.S., not above No. 16 D.S., in colour, entered for home consumption during the year ending 30th June, 1903, and what was the amount of the duty paid thereon?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. William Paterson) :: 1.	The total amount of sugar above No. 16 D.S. in colour, and of all refined sugars of whatever kinds, grades or standards, as originally entered for home consumption during the year ending 30th June, 1903. was 26,672,033 pounds ; and the amount of duty paid thereon $330,652.03.
2.	The total amount of sugar. N.E.S., not above No. 16 D.S. in colour (including sugar drainings or pnmpings drained in transit, melado or concentrated melado, tank bottoms and sugar concrete) entered for home consumption during the year ending 30t.h June, 1903, was 361,698,799 pounds ; and the amount of duty paid thereon $2,316,622.61.
It may be explained that as a general rule sugar is originally entered for consumption at the maximum rate for its class ; subject to refund afterwards upon test ascertained by the polariseope.


FRANKING CAMPAIGN LITERATURE,
Mr. DAVIS asked :: 1.	Is the government aware that several carloads of campaign literature have been shipped to Ottawa from the office of the Montreal 'Star,' and is being sent through the mails under the frank of George Taylor, M.P., and others?
2.	Does the post office receive any revenue from the same ?
3.	Is there no limit to the franking privilege of members?
4.	Can members of parliament send car-loads of literature through the mails free of charge?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock) :: 1.	The facts are as stated in the first part of the question.
2.	No.
3.	The only apparent limit appears to be the capacity of the cars and the other transportation facilities.
4.	I think I may say there is no limit except what I have given as answer to the third question.


Mr. TALBOT asked :: 1.	How many messengers and other sessional employees are occupied parcelling, stamping and addressing literature for Mr. George Taylor, M.P.?
2.	How many wagon loads of such literature have been drawn from stations to parliament buildings ?
'3. Who pays for these wagons ?
4.	If these messengers or other employees were not busy at this work, would they be available for other parliamentary or ordinary duties ?
5.	Have any additional employees been engaged for this purpose ?
6.	What is their salary ?


Mr. SPEAKER :: 1.	No sessional employees are so occupied except in the post office, where each envelope is stamped.
2.	No record has been kept of the number of wagon loads of mail matter brought to the House of Commons.
3.	The cartage in question is not paid for by the PTouse of Commons.
'4. Yes.
5.	and 6. No additional employees have been added to the House of Commons staff.


Mr. TALBOT asked :: 1.	Do the hundreds of mail bags now being used for the transmission of political literature, with the frank of Mr. George Taylor. M.P., and others, belong to the government Post Office Department?
2.	If so. by whose authority are the said mail bags used for the above purpose?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock) :: 1.	They belong to the government.
2.	By no one's authority. They are illegally in use.


CANADIAN SOUTH AFRICA CONSTABULARY -DISCHARGE.
Mr. HUGHES (Victoria) asked :: 1.	Is the government aware that the members ol the Canadian South African Constabulary had to purchase their discharge, if they wished of their own accord to leave that force? If so, why had they to so purchase their discharge?
2.	Is the government aware that those returning to Canada had to pay their own expenses home again? And if so, why?
3.	Is the government aware that these constabulary members were not duly attested as South African Constabulary in South Africa ?
4.	Is the government aware that these members did not take the oath of allegiance, nor were attested in Canada before leaving for South Africa?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. Sir Frederick Borden) :: 1.	The conditions under which men were invited to enlist, contain the following :
' A non-commissioned officer or man may be discharged at any time by order of the officer commanding the division with or without gratuity. Discharge may be purchased with consent of officer commanding division for $97.33 during first year, $73 during the second year, and $48.G6 during third year.'
2.	The conditions under which men were invited to enlist also provide for passage back to Canada only after a total of five years' service.
3.	No attestation in South Africa was necessary, that in Canada being sufficient.
4.	No ; on the contrary they did take the oath of allegiance and their enlistment in Canada has been held to be valid by the Department of Justice of Canada.


THE ALASKAN BOUNDARY.
John Graham Haggart: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to ask the government if there is any statement to make regarding the findings of the Alaskan commission ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: We have no official information, but it is expected that the award upon the reference will be made to-morrow by the commissioners.


NORTH-WEST TERRITORIES ACT.
[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 259) to amend the North-west Territories Act.-The Minister of Justice.
Mr. SCOTT moved to add the following clause to the Bill:
Notwithstanding anything in the North-west Territories Act, or any Act in amendment thereto, the legislative assembly may, by ordinance, repeal the provisions of sections 49, 51, 53, 55, 64, 88, 89 and 90 of the said North-west Territories Act as amended and re-enacted the said provisions or substitute other provisions in lieu thereof, but nothing in this section contained shall be construed as giving to the legislative assembly power to pass ordinances for the con-
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: constitution, organization or maintenance of courts of criminal jurisdiction, or respecting procedure in criminal matters.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The effect would be to confer on the North-west assembly power to regulate all matters connected with the civil jurisdiction of the province. That is to say, they may determine the sittings of the court, the places where the court is to sit, how often it is to sit ; they may provide for the sittings of the court in banc or with a single judge; provide for the division of the territory into judicial districts ; define the territorial jurisdiction of the judges, and so on-all matters relating to the civil organization of the court. I think it is a step in the right direction.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. SCOTT moved to add the following clause to the Bill:
Notwithstanding anything in the Northwest Territories Act, or any Act In amendment thereof, the legislative assembly may, by ordinance, repeal the provisions of sections 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 of chapteT 19 of the statutes of 1888, and section 18 of chapter 17 of the statutes of 1894, as that section is enacted by section 9 of chapter 28 of the statutes of 1897, and re-enact the said provisions or substitute other provisions in lieu thereof.
Seymour Eugene Gourley: This amendment seems objectionable, not necessarily in the subject-matter, but in that it gives a local legislature power to repeal sections of a statute passed by this parliament. There must surely be some more logical way to get it than that. It would hardly be dignified for us to confer that power.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I would draw to tlie attention of my hon. friend (Mr. Gourley) the fact that paragraph 4, now under consideration, has reference to the organization of the North-west council itself, as the other paragraph we have been discussing has reference to the organization of the courts. Now, if we repeal the provisions and merely give authority to the North-west council to make others, we leave an interregnum during which some embarrassing conditions might arise. By this amendment we, in effect, say that in all matters affecting the North-west assembly, that body shall have the right either to adopt what we have done or to repeal the enactments which we have passed, and substitute others. My bon. friend will see the difficulty of adopting any other course.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I see, but still it seems that there ought to be some other way than to give power to the local legislature to repeal our enactments.


The MINITSER OF JUSTICE.: It is a little off the line, but my hon. friend will see that It is not unconstitutional.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I take it for granted that we have the power to delegate our authority. It is not so much the thing Itself

as the mode of doing it that I call attention


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The difficulty that my hon. friend suggests occurred to my mind also, but it seems there is no relief. Suppose that these provisions were repealed. The North-west council may not sit for months yet. Should a by-election occur in the meantime, how is it to be provided for ? It seemed to me better to maintain the statute in these matters and simply give the legislature power to provide for the changes necessary.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Has the hon. minister's department considered this and come to the *conclusion that this is the only way in which it can be done ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is our view-this is the only way to avoid a hiatus.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Bill, as amended, reported; read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved that the House concur in the amendments made by the Senate to Bill (No. 243) to amend the Supreme and Exchequer Courts Act, the Exchequer Court Act, and the Act respecting the Judges of Provincial Courts. He said : There are two amendments to this Bill. As to the first of them, it relates to section 2 of the Bill as passed by this House. That section provided as follows :-
2. If any judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, or of the Exchequer Court of Canada, or of a Superior Court of any of the provinces of Canada resigns or has heretofore resigned his office as such judge to accept the office of lieutenant governor of a province, and if he serves or has served as 3uch lieutenant governor, and is not otherwise eligible for any retiring annuity as such judge, His Majesty may, at any time after tne expiration of the term of service of such judge as lieutenant governor, grant to such judge an annuity equal to two-thirds of the salary annexed to the judicial office which he held at the time of his resignation, to commence immediately upon the issue of such letters patent, and to continue thenceforth during his natural life.
This has been eliminated from the Bill.
John Graham Haggart: What is the practical effect of the amendment 1


The PRIME MINISTER.: At the present time, a judge can withdraw after fifteen years of service and is entitled to a pension. The present object of the Bill in addition to this was that, when a judge has reached a certain limit of age he should be entitled to a full pension. After fifteen years, he receives a pension of two-thirds of his salary, and after thirty years of service, he is
entitled to withdraw with a pension equal to his whole salary. The amendment under this clause was that if the judge was appointed lieutenant governor before he became entitled to his full pension, at the expiration of his term of five years as lieutenant governor, he would be entitled to his pension as a judge. This has been eliminated by the Senate, as it was thought to be an interference with the independence of the judiciary, and we concur.


John Graham Haggart: Are there any judges whom it affects ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I do not know of any now.


Mr. SPROULE.: I would draw the attention of the right hon. Prime Minister to the fact that this is a money Bill. The right belongs to this House to initiate, by resolution, and with the consent of the Crown, all Bills that provide for granting or using money belonging to the country, or imposing taxes or duties. In accordance with their rights, this House passed this Bill. The Bill was sent to the Senate, and has been by them amended. As I understand the constitutional rights of the two branches of the legislature, the Senate has no right to amend a money Bill, In amending this Bill, they have assumed a right which constitutionally they do not possess to amend a money Bill. I would ask the right hon. Prime Minister if he is not prepared, with his government, to defend the rights of the Commons, the elective chamber, which, undoubtedly has the right to deal with money Bills. When that question was being discussed in the other House, the first question raised was whether this was or was not a money Bill. I think that was completely settled by the authorities that was cited. First, it is a Bill dealing with pensions, which pensions are to be paid out of consolidated revenue. It provides for the using of a certain portion of the public revenue. It is. therefore, clearly a money Bill. The next question was raised, what is a money Bill. Edwin Gordon Blackmore's ' Procedure of the Legislative Council of South Australia,' nt pages 172 and 182, says :
A Bill introduced by a resolution of the House on the report of the Committee of the House, is a money Bill.
May says, speaking of this class of Bills ;
It follows accordingly that the Lords may not amend the provisions in Bills which they receive from the committees, dealing with the above mentioned subjects, so as to alter, whether by Increase or reduction, the amount of a vote or charge.
Todd says :
Money Bills are of three kinds : tax Bills, Bills of supply and Bills of appropriation.
Bourinot says, on page 585 of his second edition :
As a general rule, public Bills may originate in either House, but whenever they grant sup-

plies of any kind, or involve directly or indirectly the levying or appropriation of any tax upon the people, they must be initiated In the popular branch, in accordance with law and English constitutional practice. Section 53 of the British North America Act, 1867, expressly provides :
Bills for appropriating any part of the public revenue, or for imposing any tax or impost, shall originite in the House of Commons.
And a standing order of the House of Commons declares explicitly :
All aids and supplies granted to Her Majesty by the parliament of Canada are the sole gift of the House of Commons, and all Bills for granting such aids and supplies ought to begin with the House, as it is the undoubted right of the House to direct, limit, and appoint in all such Bills, the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations and qualifications of such grants, which are not alterable by the Senate.
But the iSenate alters them here by striking out one important clause, which provides for the appropriating of a certain amount of money. I draw the attention of the Prime Minister to this matter, and ask him if he is prepared to abandon the undoubted constitutional right of the House of Commons to control these Bills, and if he is prepared to accept the position taken by the Senate that they have a right to amend these money Bills.


The PRIME MINISTER.: There is no doubt that under our constitution as it has come down to us through the ages during which it has been formed, the granting of supplies in any form whatever is exclusively the privilege of the Commons, and all legislation, whether to levy or expend revenue, has to be originated in the Commons and cannot be altered in the upper chamber. But the question is :	What is a money
Bill ? if does not follow that every Bill which leaves this House which provides either for levying or expending revenue, is a money Bill. A money Bill has no special meaning in parliamentary language, and there is very little legislation which leaves this House which does not indirectly involve the granting of money, and in which therefore the privilege of the other branch of the legislature to exercise its powers of supervision could not be exercised if the hon. gentleman's doctrine were to prevail. The practice has been well understood, and we look to that to find a definition of a money Bill. A money Bill is, in its more restricted sense, a Supply Bill. Todd, which my hon. friend quoted a moment ago, gives an answer to the very question the hon. gentleman brings up, for Todd says on page 815 of the last edition of the first volume :
We will now proceed to consider the subject of money Bills, which are of three kinds, viz., tax Bills, Bills of supply, and Bills of appropriation. All these Bills have a peculiar form of preamble, which intimates that the revenue or grant of money is the peculiar gift of the House of Commons, and such Bills are invariably presented for the royal assent by the Speaker of the House of Commons.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is what is understood by a money Bill, it is a Bill presented by parliament for the royal assent. To ascertain its character you have only to refer to an appropriation Act of any one year, and you will find that our practice conforms exactly to the rule laid down by Todd, namely, that the Supply Bill, which is a money Bill in the sense affirmed a moment ago by my hon. friend from Grey (Mr. Sproule) is always preceded by a preamble which you do not find in any other Bills which go directly from the Table here to the Senate. But money Bills are presented by the Speaker, and here is the preamble which we find in* the beginning of every appropriation Act which is a money Bill :
Most Gracious Sovereign :
Whereas it appears from a message from His Excellency the Right Hon. Sir Gilbert John Elliott. Earl of Minto, Governor General of Canada, and the estimates accompanying the said message, that the sums hereinafter mentioned are required to defray certain expenses of the public service of Canada, not otherwise provided for, for the financial years ending respectively the 30th day of June. 1902, and the 30th day of June, 1903, and for other purposes connected with the public service :	may it
therefore please your Majesty

And so on. Here is the preamble which characterizes what is known in the restricted language of parliamentary law as a money Bill, to which no amendment can be offered by the Senate. But there are many Bills which are initiated here by the Crown and which ifche upper House has no power to introduce. We have in this question before us a grant or an appropriation of public money, but it is not a money Bill in the restricted sense to which I alluded, though it is on the border line between a money Bill and a Bill of a public character, it has always been allowed to the Senate-under such circumstances to offer an amendment; but it does not follow that because the Senate may offer such an amendment tile House of Commons are bound to accept it without inquiry or discussion. Perhaps it might be said that under such circumstances the Commons might exercise the right of refusing to accept the amendments of the Senate, not merely to reject an amendment, but to deny to the Senate the power to offer any amendment to this Bill. But that would be carrying the doctrine too far. We have innumerable precedents where legislation such as provided for in this Bill has been amended by the Senate. No longer ago than 1898 a Bill was introduced into this House : An Act further to amend the Act respecting the Judges of Provincial Courts, an Act which involved the expenditure of money, and it was reported from the Senate with several amendments iti which the Senate asked our concurrence. These amendments were considered by the House of Commons, some were accepted and others were rejected; at all events their

amendments were not deemed an invasion of the privileges of this House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did the clause of that Bill involve an expenditure of money directly connected with the revenue ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I could not say at this moment, because 1 have not had time to look into it, but there were Bills of this character, and I desire to make it perfectly clear that the point taken by my hon. friend is not absolute. May lays the practice down just as I have stated it, that the House may or may not, just as they please, consider the amendment of the Senate but that the Senate are not going beyond their privileges in offering amendments to Bills of this nature. This is what May says :
If otherwise unobjectionable, the Commons usually accept amendments by the Lords, which, though not strictly regular, do not materially infringe the privileges of the Commons; and they justify their conduct by an entry inserted in the 'Journal,' under direction from the Speaker, explaining the motives of the agreement, stating, for instance, that the amendments are verbal- further the intention of the House-carry out the intention of the Commons-make the provisions of the Bill uniform and consistent-are rendered necessary by several Acts recently passed-or that the amendment does not alter or otherwise affect any valuation or assessment of taxation.
But, May goes further, and I call tlie attention of my hon. friend to this authority"
Even when amendments by the Lords are an infringement of privilege, it is not the invariable practice of the Commons to assert their claim regarding amendments made to Bills that they have sent to the Lords, which dealt with the relief of the poor, or with municipal, county and local rates and assessments:	more especially
when those amendments affected charges upon the people incidentally only, and 'were made for the purpose of giving effect to the legislative intentions of the Commons. The difficulty also of separating those amendments from other legislative provisions or amendments, to which there was no objection, has frequently prompted their acceptance by the Commons.
Even if there is an infringement of the authority of the Commons by the lords, the Commons have sometimes accepted the amendments because they thought they were in the right direction, properly amending the legislation which they had sent to the House of Lords for their consideration. The position I take upon this is that the Senate in this matter have not abused their privilege. The Bill that is under consideration is not one of those money Bills which it is beyond their power to amend. Theyr have not violated any principle and even if there has been an infringement of the privileges of the Commons it is a case in which the Commons should not insist upon their rights.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I think this is an important matter and while I always listen with approval to my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) who is always industrious and thorough in his remarks he will excise me, I think, when I point out that the test of this matter is to determine whether it is a money Bill and what is the object of the Bill. I understand the object of the Bill is to settle the classes which shall enjoy a pension. I therefore do not regard it as a money Bill and the Senate have simply said :	We do not wish lieutenant
governors to be placed among those classes. Is it a money7 Bill or Bill which settles the classes who shall enjoy a pension ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It provides for a pension.	*


Seymour Eugene Gourley: The Bill itself provides for a pension. The Senate amendments simply7 says among those who enjoy a pension we do not wish to include lieutenant governors. It is really an amendment relieving tlie treasury to the extent that lieutenant governors are removed from the classes of people who shall enjoy a pension.


Mr. MACLEAN.: The Senate have no right to do that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That would not make it any more right.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: This is a case that comes to my mind. Suppose we sent up a Bill increasing the number of judges in tlie Supreme Court to ten. It would clearly, in so far as the revenue would be concerned, be a charge upon tlie revenue to provide for the salaries of ten judges. Cannot the Senate amend that Bill by reducing the number to eight or nine ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: They may take off taxes.


William Findlay Maclean: No, they may not.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I do not think that is the principle. I think there is a clearer principle than that. I have spoken of my learned and hon. friend from Grey (Mr. Sproule) as an hon. gentleman possessing an ecclesiastical mind. That is a very high compliment, but the hon. gentleman has not those nice distinctions that characterize tlie lay mind.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: As this class of Bill provides for spending so much of the consolidated revenue during tlie life of the individual, it ought to be regarded' as a money7 Bill and if tbe upper chamber have not the right either to increase or diminish the expenditure under any7 appropriation, proposed by the House of Commons then I respectfully submit that they cannot alter this Bill even by cutting off one of the provisions whereby7 money7 shall be given by the force of statute afterwards.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
The PRIME MINISTER.: I beg to move also that the third amendment lie concurred

in. I will explain what the amendment is. Section 3 of the Bill as passed by the House of Commons was as follows :
Every county court judge who has attained the age of eighty years shall be compulsorily retired; and to any judge who is so retired, or who. having attained the age of seventy-five years, resigns his office, and who in either case has continued in office for a period of twenty-five years or upwards. His Majesty may grant an annuity equal to the salary of the office held by him at the time of his retirement, or, if he has continued in office as such judge for a less period than twenty-five years, equal to two-thirds of such salary; provided that to any such judge who is so compulsorily retired, or who so resigns, there may be granted an annuity equal to the full salary of the office held by him at the time of his retirement or resignation, irrespective of the number of years he has continued in office.
I will now read the amendment made by the Senate and we will see where the change is :
Every county court judge who has attained the age of eighty years shall be compulsorily retired; and to any judge who is so retired, or who, having attained the age of seventy-five years, resigns his office, and in the latter case has continued in office for a period of twenty-five years or upwards, His Majesty may grant an annuity equal to the salary of the office held by him at the time of his retirement, or resignation; or if he 'has continued in office as such judge for a less period than twenty-five years and become afflicted with some permanent infirmity, disabling him from the due execution of his office, an annuity equal to two-thirds of such salary ; the annuity in either of the above cases to commence immediately after his retirement or resignation, and to continue thenceforth during his natural life.
The alteration takes place by the elimination of these words from onr section :
Provided that to any such judge who is so compulsorily retired, or who so resigns there may be granted, &c.
It was thought that such a provision might perhaps be an infringement of the independence of the judges. It was thought that if a judge were allowed to resign after fifteen years service, for instance, and be entitled to his pension it might lead to an *abuse that the government of the day -might ask a judge for his resignation as lie would come within the rule entitling him to a pension. The Senate have very properly substituted these words :
Or if he has continued in office as such judge for a less period than twenty-five years and become afflicted with some permanent infirmity.
I therefore beg to move that the Senate amendment be concurred in.


John Graham Haggart: I do not know whether a county court judge comes within the same category as all the other judges who are treated of in the British North America Act. If he does. I doubt very much our power to provide for his compulsory retirement at all. If we have the power of retiring judges there is only one way under
Sir WILFRID LAURIER,
the British North America Act and under the general law of doing it, and I doubt very much the power of this House to compel the retirement of a county judge.


The PRIME MINISTER.: There is no doubt that this matter has been carefully inquired into; judges of the county court are not in the same category as judges of the Supreme Court, and we recognize this in this very Act. In this Act we have not taken the power to compulsorily retire judges of the Supreme Court; we cannot do that. The opinion offered to us by the Department of Justice is that this inability does not apply to the case of the county court judges, and that we have the power to retire them.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: On what does the Minister of Justice base tbe distinction between the Supreme Court and county court judges?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Upon the terms of the British North America Act.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am speaking off-hand now ; I have not had the matter brought to my attention for some weeks


Seymour Eugene Gourley: The minister will admit that we could not compulsory retire a Supreme Court judge.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Oh. no. We have always proceeded on the theory that there is a distinction between the position of high court judges and county court judges. In the Revised Statutes of Canada there is a provision that you may appoint a judge to examine into the conduct of a couty court judge, and thereupon proceed to remove him, the procedure differing in that respect from the procedure in the case of a high court judge, who can only he removed by Act of parliament except under the old provision of George III., which reserves to colonial governments the right to remove a judge under certain conditions. That is the theory upon which we have proceeded up to the present time, that the tenure of office of a county court judge is different from that of a high court judge. Tli-e British North America Act makes special reference to judges of the Superior Court and the Revised Statutes of Canada, proceeding on that assumption, makes provision for the investigation of the conduct and the removal of county court judges. My bon. friend will find in the Ontario reports, in re Sqiers, a very full discussion of this matter. One of the judges of Ontario, I think Vice-Chancellor Proudfoot, went into the subject very fully, and displayed a great deal of learning in bis exposition of the subject. He came to the conclusion that a county court judge was removable at will by the Governor General in Council.
<

1429&


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On amendment 3.
The PRIME MINISTER.: I move that the third amendment be concurred in. The third amendment is purely verbal; it is substituting the word ' resignation ' for the word ' retirement.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 265) respecting the Revised Statutes of Canada-(the Minister of Justice)- read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 2.
Seymour Eugene Gourley: I would like to call the attention of the Minister of Justice to the fact that our statutes of Canada are not creditable; the clauses of statutes dealing with the same subject are different in lang-guage in almost every instance. That is not right, because it puts a counsel or an individual who wants to understand a statute to the necessity of interpreting each line of every statute, whereas if we had statutes divided into classes, and the sections of statutes dealing with the same subject couched in exactly the same language, this would be avoided. There ought not to be a comma different. Any one who is familiar with the construction of statutes knows that it is one of the nicest occupations to which a man can giv'e his attention, requiring not only a clear comprehension of language, but also an appreciation of the niceties of grammatical construction and the construction of sentences. I may say that attention has been brought to this matter by Judge Wea-therby in Nova Scotia, a man of splendid intellect, although he is rather erratic ; he has one of the most perfectly analytical minds that you can meet with. It is a pleasure to hear him interpret a statute, I have been very often pained to hear him take one of our Dominion statutes and tear it all to pieces and express wonder if we have any law officer in Ottawa who knows anything about law or anything else. I must say that I concur in a great deal of what he says, and I believe we should attempt to do what they do in England, have every statute and every section of a statute dealing with the same subject couched in exactly the same language.


Mr. FRASER.: I am afraid that my hon. friend is giving too high praise to English statutes. I notice that the judges there speak quite sarcastically of the English statutes.
' Mr. GOURLEY. The late Lord Thring did a great deal to cure that. I am inclined to believe that there is more accuracy and nicety of expression in the English statutes than in our own, although the House will agree that I am not inclined to unduly praise the English.


Mr. GALLIHER.: The Americans are your friends.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: They do not pretend to accuracy of language there. I would suggest to the Minister of Justice that in these acts of incorporation which we are constantly passing, clauses conferring certain powers should be kept exactly the same in every case and that no man drafting an Act should be permitted to alter the language to the extent of a comma. Therefore I think this is a very important section, that we should have good draughtsmen ; we might have a very good lawyer who might not be a good draughtsman, as they are different gifts.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Absolutely.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: A man might be able to tear an Act to pieces but to have a Bill properly drafted requires the knack of using language to express an idea nicely. That is a gift, and if it does not appear in a statute it makes that statute hopeless of construction. I hope the Minister of Justice will impress on the commission the fact that the Acts of this parliament should be expressive of the very nicest intentions of parliament in the most apt English. I intend to assist the Minister of Justice as much as I can in having our statutes put in the fewest possible words. This habit of using many words is a loose, unscholarly habit. A man who is not a scholar is eternally using a lot of words when a few would be sufficient. If you make a long sentence in a statute, you only involve it. and you leave it doubtful how a court will interpret it. I saw a judge the other day take a section of a statute and re-write it to show the exact meaning of the language, and the meaning which the legislature evidently meant it to convey, and the two things were as different as night and day. The members of this House should be scholars enough to be able to express their meaning in the clearest and most concise language, so that no judge could have any doubt about it.
On section 12,


Mr. COCHRANE.: What does that clause mean ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is taken from a corresponding section of the Act respecting the Revised Statutes of Canada, which was passed in connection with the revision of 1886. If we were to distribute the Revised Statutes, as we now distribute the ordinary statutes, that would entail very large expenditure. The statutes are now distributed to the members of this parliament and the local legislatures and to all the magistrates.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: When will they be distributed ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There are 154 statutes for revision, of which 48 have

been revised. Each commissioner is given several statutes to revise, then they meet every three or four months and revise the work of each, and the whole is subject to the control of the chairman, the ex-chief justice of the Supreme Court, who is probably the most competent man in Canada. I hope that within the next year all the work will be done.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


LIBRARIANS OF PARLIAMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 2G7) respecting the Librarians of parliament, (the Minister of Justice) read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this not a money Bill ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Not in the strict sense of the word.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It provides for salaries to be paid out of consolidated revenue.


The PRIME MINISTER.: According to Todd the term ' Money Bill ' is very restricted. It applies only to-Bills which have a peculiar form of preamble and are presented by the Speaker at the bar of the House as coming from the Commons and being its gift. The Supply Bill is of that character. But there are other Bills, which are money Bills in a certain sense but not in that particular sense. I refer my friend to page 815 of Todd.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand the right lion, gentleman to hold that the Bill dealing with pensions for the North-west Mounted Police was a money Bill and could be introduced only by the government.


The PRIME MINISTER.: It is one of those Bills which affect public money and must originate from the Crown, and should be introduced by resolution assented to by His Excellency the Governor General.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why should it require the consent of the Crown ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Because it was found in England before this rule was introduced and is found in other legislatures, where there is no such rule, that any member of parliament might introduce a resolution for the expenditure of public money. My hon. friend knows that a member of parliament has to go to a minister in order to get an appropriation for a wharf, and it would be an easier matter for him to introduce a resolution in the House. It was to prevent such an abuse that it has been decided that, although the granting of money is a special privilege of parliament, still it cannot be exercised except on the initiative of the Crown.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If it must have the consent of the Crown because it disposes of the public revenue, every Bill which disposes Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.
of public revenues, and which must be introduced by a resolution and a declaration that it has the assent of the Crown, must be regarded as a money Bill.


The PRIME MINISTER.: This is not a money Bill in the sense that it cannot be amended by the Senate. There has been a rule that the House of Lords shall not amend a Supply Bill-it has to accept it entire or reject it entire. But there are other Bills which are, in a sense, money Bills, but not in the strict sense, though they provide for the appropriation of public money, and these Bills, it has been always held, maybe amended by the Lords. The rule was not very properly understood in the olden times, though I think it is clear now. But even under the circumstances, the Commons often would not insist on their privilege but would accept amendments of Bills of the class my hon. friend has in mind.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have at least the consolation of knowing that the present Speaker of the Senate ruled along the same lines that I have been contending for-that it was a money Bill.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Perhaps the Speaker of the Senate has an ecclesiastical mind.	-


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: The Prime Minister said a little while ago that a private member could not introduce a resolution asking for an appropriation for any special purpose. Could he not make a motion to the effect that it would be in the interest of Canada, for instance, to build a wharf at a certain place ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: He could introduce a merely academic motion.


Samuel Hughes: That is what I mean.
On section 2-salaries of present librarians,


Edward Cochrane: What are these gentlemen receiving now ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Their salary is $3,000 a year. They will rank hereafter as deputy heads. There are certain privileges of a purely social character connected with that rank.
Mr. HUGHES /Victoria).' It is possible, under this Act, for the salaries of these officers to reach the highest limit of the salaries of the deputy heads ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Except the salary of three deputy heads-Justice, Finance and Railways and Canals, who may go as high as $5,000.
Bill reported ; read the third time, and passed.


REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 268) respecting the registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (The Minister

of Justice), was read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1-rank and salary of registrar.
Seymour Eugene Gourley: What are you making Mr. Cameron's salary ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is to be $3,500 with annual increases of $100 up to a maximum of $4,000.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: He is an excellent officer and ought to be well paid.


John Graham Haggart: Whenever the salary of any lawyer attached to any court is up for consideration, you will always find some other lawyers to rise in this House and say something complimentary. What are the requirements of this position of registrar of the Supreme Court ? Why should we have an officer who is to be paid so large a sum ?


Mr. BELCOURT.: I have had considerable experience with that court, and may be in a position to say something in answer to the hon. member (Hon. Mr. Haggart). The registrar of the Supreme Court is not merely an officer of the court as that term is usually understood ; he is a judge. He is called upon, as registrar of the Supreme Court to sit in chambers, to hear and determine all applications of a rlhitine character-with reference to printing of cases or dispensing with printing, with reference to applications for costs, for leave to appeal, and so on. He sits almost every day.


Edward Cochrane: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Belcourt) allow me to ask him a question ? What is this officer's business ? What does he do outside of this ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I am only explaining what the nature of his business is, and try-inig to show that those duties are more than the duties of an ordinary clerk of an ordinary court. The salaries of prothonotaries and registrars of courts throughout the land are perhaps not equal to the salary provided for, except in one or two instances. The registrar of a court, as a rule, has no judicial duties to perform ; he is simply a cleric of process, signs papers in processes of court, but does not adjudicate upon matters. But the registrar of the Exchequer Court is really one of the judges of the court, hearing and determining applications in chambers. It is true there is an appeal from his decision to a judge and from the judge to the court. The fact remains, however. that the registrar performs judicial duties every day. He is also the custodian of the library, has the responsibility of the books there and


John Graham Haggart: We pay a librarian, whose salary I see is to be increased to a very handsome one.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: But the registrar has charge of and responsibility for a very large and very valuable library, probably
the best legal library in Canada. Such a duty does not devolve upon the clerk of an ordinary court. I think this is the only court in the land which has a large library, the responsibility for which rests upon the registrar.


John Graham Haggart: What has the librarian to do ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: He furnishes books and has charge of the routine of the library, but the responsibility for the care of the library rests upon the registrar. He has to make recommendations from time to time as to additions to the library. I think I am in the judgment of every member of this House when I say that the present registrar of the Supreme Court is a very deserving officer, and, I think, fully entitled to the remuneration provided under this Bill.


John Graham Haggart: He may be a very deserving officer, but is it requisite for the administration of justice that such a deserving officer and a person of such ability should hold this position ? I do not say anything derogatory of the individual who occupies the office. I do not even know' him. After all that, he says, his duties are not judicial, they are principally ministerial- applications for orders and things of that kind, which do not require a judicial mind at all. These applications do not require an intellect of the order that is required for the Supreme Court. You may have for registrar a gentleman of greater intelligence and ability than are needed for a registrar, but that is no reason why you should pay him so high a salary. We could get a man to fulfil what I might call these mechanical duties for a less salary. I have noticed continually in this country when you establish a court, that first of all we have the judges, a short time afterwards there is a library established, then soon after, three or four messengers, then a librarian, then a couple of officers of court, and every session demands for an increase of salary. There is no other country on the face of the globe that is so encumbered with a superfluity of the administration of justice. No other race but the Anglo-Saxon race would submit to it. They are improving it over in Great Britain, but on this side it is getting worse every year.


Edward Cochrane: I would like to ask the Minister of Justice if the Minister of Trade and Commerce was consulted in this matter, or the leader of the House. These gentlemen sit complacently by and see these increases voted for every man high and low. The salary has been increased all over. How the Minister of Trade and Commerce used to sympathize with the ratepayers when he was sitting on this side of the House. We were told that the poor ratepayers and the poor farmers were being bled white by the Conservative government. Now, this government is voting millions

upon millions, and every official in this country from Dan to Beersheba is, getting an increase of salary, and the hon. Minister of 'trade and Commerce is sitting there complacently, listening to the explanation given by the Deputy Minister of Justice about this official being a very judicial man and being responsible for the library. Now, how does he reconcile that with what he told the electors of what he was going to do after his friends got into power.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Keep your face straight.


Edward Cochrane: Well, I can't keep it any straighter than it is. I am speaking with conscientious motives, and if hon. gentlemen can smile under the present circumstances, why they can smile upon going to the gallows. They have broken every pledge they gave to the electors in reference to economy, and how they can smile at hearing these things told them is more than I can understand. I heard tell of a man who was going to the gallows, and he met a man running that way and asked him what he was running for and when he told him : Well, he said, you need not be in a hurry, there will be no fun until I get there. But this is a serious matter. Here are broken pledges. I am not accusing the Minister of Justice of breaking his pledges, because he was not in the House then, but he is just as much responsible for it as those hon. gentlemen, because he has become one of them. He is endorsing them while they are breaking every promise they ever made to the people. I challenge the hon. gentleman to point out to me one pledge they gave to the electors when they were in opposition that they have carried out since they have been in power. The Postmaster General


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Oh, spare me.
Mr. COCHRANE-used to tell us about the iniquities of the Conservative party, he used to tell us how humiliating it was for members of parliament to be sitting in the House with promises of office and emoluments in their pockets, and he even brought in a Bill condemning the practice. Is that hon. gentleman now carrying out the pledges that he made in opposition ? How many members of parliament have he and his friends appointed to office ? The Minister of Customs used to make the roof of this building tremble with his sonorous voice denouncing the extravagance of the Conservative party. Now he thinks it is all right. He thinks this gentleman is entitled to a large increase because he is responsible for the library, and because he has got a judicial mind. I don't care what kind of a mind he has got. We don't require a man with such a mind. A man with a very ordinary mind would be sufficient to do that work, and have plenty of time to lark around the country besides.


Edward Cochrane: 


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I always stand up for my hon. friend from East Northumberland (Mr. Cochrane) when he is condemning the government for breaking their pledges. His evident sincerity certainly convinces me, and I fancy it must convince bon. gentlemen opposite. But in the meantime we are discussing the salary of the registrar of the Supreme Court, and I desire to say that I think the policy of Canada has always been wrong in demeaning the public service of this country by paying insignificant salaries. The Supreme Court, if it is to be such a court as it ought to be and entitled to the respect of the people, must be a dignified tribunal, and everybody connected with it must be paid a sufficient salary to give dignity to the court. Every man in this country desires to see the Supreme Court possessed of a good library, with good officers to look after it, men competent by their legal intelligence to answer questions that may be asked them. When a man in a hurry goes into the library he wants to find a man there competent to give him assistance. The policy of paying everybody in the highest court in the country, salaries befitting the position, is one that I am sorry to say has not been followed in the past as it should be. These hon. gentlemen did not have these views when they were in opposition. We are setting them an example now of what an opposition should be in Canada,' and when you gentlemen get into our position, as you will in a short time, we hope-you will follow our good example. I know Mr. Cameron very well, he is a man of ability, he is a lawyer. He wrote a book some time ago, and it was so well written that it completely deceived me, because I thought X was reading the memoirs of an old member of parliament, but it turned out to be the mere creation of the imagination of our friend Mr. Cameron and a very bright little book it is. I go the full length of saying that that gentleman's salary as proposed here is not any too much for his abilities. X do not very often have the opportunity of finding myself in agreement with the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) but in this academic matter I am very happy to agree with him that Mr. Cameron is deserving of this additional salary. I want to say a word also in regard to Mr. Bligh, the librarian of the Supreme Court. I am bound to say that his salary is utterly insignificant and that he should not be required to live in Ottawa and maintain his family for the tu'penny ha'penny salary he is getting.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: What is his salary ?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: $1,200 or $1,300 a year.


Archibald Campbell: Do you call that a tu'penny ha'penny salary ?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: If you had a good kennel of dogs you would require more money a year to keep them than that. If you want

any politics the whole thing is to be blamed upon the Liberal party in this country who sat here for eighteen years and kept down the remuneration of the members of this House. The remuneration of the members ought either to be nothing or it ought to be more. It is an honourable proposition to come and serve your country freely and I will go in for that if you like, but when you come to discuss the question of indemnity and put it at $1,500 it demeans every man in this House by making him a cheap man. When I was coming up from Nova Scotia a short time ago I met a bright, intelligent young man from Massachusetts, a Harvard graduate who is taking a post graduate course in economics for the purpose of fitting himself for public life in the United States. He found out that I was a member of the House of Commons and in the course of the conversation he asked me what the indemnity of a member of the House was. I avoided the question. I refused to tell him because if I had I am persuaded he would have thought that I was coming to a fifth-class country debating society instead of to the parliament of my country. Therefore I am bound to say that everything is insignificant and mean in this country in reference to the remuneration paid to public men. If there is to be an indemnity it should be higher than it is. How can one of those civil servants who perhaps receives a salary of $4,000 or $5,000 a year have any respect for a member of parliament who is given $1,500 to put into his pocket. We should either abolish the indemnity or fix it, at an amount which will be creditable to the people of this country. However, if we are going to treat ourselves-; meanly I do not want to treat anybody else meanly and therefore I support this increase to Mr. Cameron.


Hon.   S@: It is rather invidious to discuss individual cases, but this officer, like a great many others in connection with the administration of justice, is well deserving of greater recognition at the hands of parliament than he receives now. I cannot help reminding my right lion, friend (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) how things have changed. Of course we have a great deal more money nowadays owing to the features of the national policy that have remained, but the principle surely is not affected by the exuberance of the condition of things. When I was Minister of Justice it was pointed out, that, under a very old law that had been left on the statute-book, the exceedingly small salary of the chief justice of British Columbia would be diminished by about $900 a year and owing to many considerations and many strong reasons a Bill was introduced to prevent such a result, the general feeling being that the judiciary all over Canada wasl very much underpaid. A modest Bill came before the House to readjust salaries, so that the incoming chief 448
Justice of British Columbia on the death of Sir Matthew Begby would not find that he had $900 less than the very small salary of is predecessor and my right lion, friend divided this House by opposing that measure and opposing it vehemently on the principle, that, while he quite agreed that the judiciary were not well paid, it was an outrageous thing to bring forward the case of an individual and to deal with it. He was opposed to even preventing an injustice being done in this case until the government were prepared to take up boldly the whole problem and deal with the different courts of the Dominion fairly and on the same principle. Of course at that time my right lion, friend knows we could not do it. We had not enough money to go around. But, to-day, every one knows that things have changed. Here we are going to pass invidious legislation. It is not the ease of the present incumbent of the; office receiving less than his predecessor, but this is only one of several cases in which the administration have taken up individual claims. In this very case in British Columbia, and I do not like to refer to it as I practise at the Bar in that province and my words may be misunderstood, it was proposed to increase the salary of the judge of the Vice Admiralty Court and to appoint the chief justice as judge of the Vice Admiralty Court. That would have left, the chief justice with the same income as Sir Matthew Begby had and a very small one it was, something like $5,000 a year. Chief Justice McColl died and this House will be surprised to know that the present chief justice is receiving less than Chief Justice McColl or Sir Matthew Begby because Mr. Justice Martin was appointed to be judge of the Vice Admiralty Court. So, the reduction of the salary of the chief justice actually took place. I think this is the only-case in Canada since the beginning of this movement in favour of increasing salaries in which a reduction of salary has actually taken place. While I do not begrudge a high officer like the registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada receiving a salary somewhat adequate to the position, I do object to such cases as that which I have mentioned standing, on the statute-books of our country. In a short time under this Bill the registrar of tills high court will rank ns far as salary goes very nearly as high as the chief justice of one of the provinces of Canada. While I.do not object to what is proposed under the Bill, I say that the case that was proposed years ago was far stronger, and if I were disposed to follow that line of argument I would be obliged to oppose this act of justice. The case as it was then put by the right hon. gentleman in insisting upon a readjustment of the salaries of the judges generally was far stronger than the present argument in favour of dealing with individual cases. I am surprised at the course which the govern-



ment have taken because I would have expected, in view of the opinion prevailing generally throughout the country that our judges are poorly paid, that a' more comprehensive measure would have been introduced and that instead of dealing with this officer only many of these cases-and I dare say there are many more such cases as that which I have mentioned-would have received due consideration.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend (Hon. Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper) unfortunately, has been away a good deal and he has not evidently been made aware of what has taken place in regard to the civil service.


Hon.   S@: I was dealing with the judiciary.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am speaking of the civil service. There was an agreement on both sides of the House that the salaries of the civil service, ought to be increased, but the Civil Service Act is rather a complicated one and Mr. Cameron has been left out of the provisions of the Bill which was passed by this House some time ago. We thought it only fair that the Bill should be supplemented by this one so as to include Mr. Cameron in the benefits of the disposition which we have made of the matter.
With regard to the judiciary, I think that we will have to take up the subject at some time and to take it up sooner rather than jater, and to increase the salaries which are not sufficient at lore-sent. The question is not without difficulty. Here is the opinion of the hon. member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) that we are cursed with too many judges.


Hon.   S@: That may be ; too many judges too poorly paid.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I do not know that we could get on with fewer judges than we have. It may be said, in one sense, that we have too many governments in Canada, but that is the consequence of our system. On the whole, it is a good system. It has its inconveniences, but we have federal courts and we have provincial courts, and I do not think we have too many judges. We must necessarily have a large number of judges in proportion to the population, but if we consider that the population is scattered over a very large extent of territory in Canada, I think my hon. friend from Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) will agree, on consideration, that it is impossible to have fewer judges than we have, although it may so happen that at some points there will be too many judges, at other points there may not be judges enough. That is a consequence of the condition of things that prevails at the present time, and which can be remedied only by the hand of time, when time shall have distributed population more


Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER.: equally over Canadian territory than it is at the present moment. On the whole, there are not too many courts, but we have this unavoidable feature of our system, that at some points the judges have too much to do while at other points they have not enough to do, and the question is always brought up when these questions are under discussion. The man who is able to devise a plan by which the work will he more equally divided between the judges will have brought about a systeiu which the government will be only too glad to adopt.
At one o'clock, committee took recess.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I wish to draw attention to one very ingenious feature of this Bill, and the same remark applies to the previous Bill. It provides that the party to whom it refers shall have the rank of a deputy head of a department, and that his salary shall be $3,500 per annum, with an annual increase of $100 up to the maximum of $-1,000. It practically provides that he shall get $4,000 from the start, not that he gets $3,500. How much does the present occupant of the position get ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is a raise of $800 at one jump.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Oh, no.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, for it goes on to say that for the purpose of determining his salary he shall be credited with his period of service, and shall hereafter be paid such salary as he would by length of service be entitled to. If you assume that he was entitled to it from the start and if you credit him with his length of service, lie is entitled to the maximum now, and the same thing applies in the case of the other Bill. It applies to the librarian and the assistant librarian of parliament also.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It applies in the same way as to the deputy head of a department under the Civil Service Act Amendment Act. If an officer had three years of service to liis credit when this Bill goes into effect he would commence at $3,800 and would then receive $100 for each year; if he had four years to his credit he would get $3,900, and If be had five years he would commence, as the hon. gentleman says, at $4,000. That is working exactly in the same way as in the case of the salaries of deputy heads of departments under the Civil Service Amendment Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How long would it take a deputy head, starting at $3,500 to reach the maximum ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Five years.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the time of these officers count from the date of the passing of this Act or from a previous date ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: As I understand the Act, it applies from the passing of this Act except, that where an officer has been a few years in office, it applies from the time of his appointment. The gentleman in question has been in office for five years, in which case he would now receive $4,000 a year. A new appointee would commence at $3,500, and his salary would raise $100 a year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seemed to me that the Act was so worded as to show that it was intended to conceal its purpose from the general public.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is drawn in the exact terms of the Civil Service Amendment Act as it applies to the deputy heads of departments, and it is intended to treat these gentlemen in exactly the same way as the deputy heads are treated.


John Graham Haggart: What will be his salary next year under this Act?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The salary of the registrar of the Supreme Court under this will be $4,000 a year.


John Graham Haggart: This is an increase of $800 at once. * I must protest against any such expenditure as that. Here is an officer of the Supreme Court, who has none of the qualifications of a judge, starting with a salary of $4,000 a year, nearly double the amount that a county court judge gets.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Some of them have other allowances.


John Graham Haggart: Some of them have not.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I think all of them.


John Graham Haggart: Not the juniors and some of the others. They get no allowances whatever and here is an officer of the court with a salary of $4,000 a year and a rise from last year of $800. There is no justification for such an increase.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Exactly the same as the deputy heads under the Civil Service Act amendment.


John Graham Haggart: What justification is there for a man who receives an ample salary getting an increase at once of $800 a year ? This will give him $4,000 a year as registrar of the Supreme Court-a clerk. It is a monstrous salary.


The PRIME MINISTER.: A monstrous salary for the position ?


John Graham Haggart: Yes, for the registrar of any court.
448J


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am afraid my hon. friend has not been here while the hon. member for Ottawa has been asking for an increase for the whole civil service.


John Graham Haggart: There are many of us who represent other opinions than those of the civil service. Any man representing the city of Ottawa would advocate an increase for the civil service.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The feature which seems to me to be entirely unreasonable is the giving of an increase of $800 in one year. I could understand an official getting an increase of $50 or $100 a year until he reached the maximum ; but these last three cases together amount to an aggregate increase of $2,400 to three employees in one year.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The salary of the registrar of the Supreme Court originally fixed by statute was $2,000. Afterwards that was increased to $3,200. The object of the present amendment is to add $300 to that, making it $3,500. Then it goes up by annual increments of $100 until it reaches the maximum of $4,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He gets $4,000 immediately, because you give him credit for his back time.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: His five years of service are taken into account, just as was done a moment ago in the case of the librarians. The hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) says it is absolutely unfair to pay the registrar of the Supreme Court such a salary as this. Why, the Master in Chambers at Osgoode Hail gets $4,000, though occupying a less important position. This gentleman sometimes sits as a judge, and there is an appeal from his judgment to the Supreme Court.


John Graham Haggart: If he takes any responsibility upon himself, he consults the judges of the Supreme Court before venturing an opinion.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is a matter entirely discretionary with him.


John Graham Haggart: Would the hon. Minister of Justice answer this question : What is the immediate effect of this Bill upon his salary ? What does he get this year ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: At the present time he gets $3,200. By this Act he will be entitled to an increase of his salary up to $4,000. He will get $3,500 now and an annual increment of $100 a year. The Minister of Agriculture directs my attention to the fact that he gets the benefit of his accrued services to the extent of five years. At that rate he gets $4,000. My hon. friend must remember that the salary is not an extraordinary one, in view of the fact that the province of Ontario pays $4,000 a year and

that the prothonotaries of Montreal and Quebec get $4,000 a year.


John Graham Haggart: But under this Bill it may be posible that this person will get $4,600 a year, because this Bill makes his salary $4,000 apart from $600 a year which he receives as editor and publisher of the Supreme Courts reports.


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: The payment to him as editor and publisher of the Supreme Court reports is not made by statute, but by Order in Council. I entertain no doubt that the statutory salary would supersede the salary paid to him by Order in Council. If the $600 is not voted each year in the appropriation Act, he does not get it ; but we will put a clause in the Bill to make that absolutely clear.


John Graham Haggart: Even then it is too much. I would suggest to the Minister of Finance that it would be better to have all these amounts put in the annual Appropriation Act. It seems strange that a registrar and a deputy head of a department should have a statutory right to their salaries, as have no other persons in the civil service.
Progress reported.


GENERAL INSPECTION ACT.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 266) further to amend the general Inspection Act, (The Minister of Trade and Commerce) read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1-appointments of chief weigh-master and assistants east of Manitoba.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many districts have we east of Manitoba ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: There are only two.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it intended to make others and to appoint weiglimasters in large cities like Toronto, Montreal and Quebec V


The PRIME MINISTER.: This has been asked for by the Board of Trade of Toronto and others. My hon. friend's question is answered by the section itself. The section reads :
The Governor in Council may appoint in and tor any inspection district east of the inspection district of Manitoba, a chief weighmaster, whose duties and powers shall be defined by Order in Council, and may also, in any place where inspection of grain is authorized under this Act, or where is situate any public terminal elevator appoint a weighmaster and such assistants as are necessary.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then at every place where there is an elevator you will appoint a weighmaster ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Not necessarily.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: For the purpose of carrying out this Act it would be essentially necessary, because tbe object is to bave an in-
Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK,
dependent weighmaster where the grain is handled. A great deal of this grain is taken out of the elevators at Owen Sound, Meaford, Midland, Collingwood and distributed to the millers. Would there be an independent weighmaster in each of these places ? I believe that would be the right thing to do, because we often find that in taking grain you are charged with more than it Is found to weigh when weighed over again. Hence arises disputes sometimes troublesome to settle and occasionally tbe purchaser has to pay for more grain than he has received. If an independent weighmaster were appointed, that would avoid difficulty.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The intention is to do what my hon. friend recommends.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am convinced, from experience, that in every locality where stuff is received from the public or sold by tbe public, we should have an independent weighmaster, sworn to do bis duty. A great deal of dissatisfaction exists because tbe people think they are not getting justice, and a great many disputes arise which cannot be satisfactorily settled. If we bad at every country town some person authorized to weigh cattle, grain and other products, there would be very few disputes.


Mr. ROSS (Ontario).: I think that the proposition of my hon. friend is theoretically correct, but it v^oukl entail a heavy tax. This Bill, however, is for tbe purpose of weighing grain at public terminals, and chiefly concerned the handling of grain by the railway people-grain brought from tbe west and bandied at tbe terminals such as Owen Sound, Goderich, Sarnia and other points. The Board of Trade of Toronto has asked for the appointment of such officers, who will be sworn to do justice between the parties, and I consider it a reasonable request.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not opposing this, because I think it right. Disputes would always be settled satisfactorily if we bad a weighmaster.


Archibald Campbell: It is proposed that Collingwood, Midland, Owen Sound and Port Huron should have weighmasters, and I presume Toronto. We could not bave one at every station.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You could give a man that duty to attend to, but let him attend to other duties as well. Allow him something for that work, but let him attend to bis other work also.


Archibald Campbell: You have not inspectors at these small places. The inspectors are at the terminal points. *


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What are the terminal points ?


Archibald Campbell: Toronto, Montreal, Halifax, St. John


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Suppose the grain never reaches one of these points. If I buy a carload of grain shipped from Owen Sound it never reaches


Archibald Campbell: It is weighed at Owen Sound.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If these inspectors are at every point where grain is given out, that is all right.	.
On section 114, powers and duties of weighmasters.


Archibald Campbell: There is a good deal of American corn, for instance, that comes into the terminals at Owen Sound, Port Huron and other places, and is consumed throughout Ontario. Then there is a good deal of grain such as rejected and No. 1 and No. 2, though Manitoba grain that probably is not inspected at all. This clause provides that all that grain will be weighed.
I would suggest that it would be as well to drop out the words ' inspected, subject to inspection or otherwise, or,' and leave it to read : ' The weighing of grain received into or shipped out of, from public terminal elevators.'


The PRIME MINISTER.: Let that stand in the meantime.
On section 3.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You have no penalties in this Act. Are they provided in the other Act ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes.
Section 114 reconsidered.


Archibald Campbell: On further considering ' the clause, I think that, as it stands it will cover the case. I want to provide that the weiglimaster shall be compelled to weigh all grain, tough, rejected or anything else that may be asked. I think that probably the section as it appears here will cover the case.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


RAILWAY SUBSIDIES.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee to consider certain proposed resolutions respecting the granting of the subsidies therein mentioned to certain railways :
On resolution 1,
The Governor in Council may grant a subsidy o£ $3,200 per mile towards the construction of each of the undermentioned lines of railway (not exceeding in any case the number cf miles hereinafter respectively stated) which shall not cost more on the average than $15,000 per mile for the mileage subsidized, and towards the construction of each of the said lines of railway, not exceeding the mileage hereinafter stated, which shall cost more on the average than $15,000 per mile for the mileage subsidized, a further subsidy beyond the sum of $3,200 per
mile of fifty per cent on so much of the average cost of the mileage subsidized as is in excess, of $15,000 per mile, such subsidy not exceeding in the whole the sum of $6,100 per mile.
John Graham Haggart: I would like to know if there is any change as between this and the law as it'was ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: No change.


John Graham Haggart: None whatever ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: None whatever.
To the Tilsonburg, Lake Erie and Pacific Railway Company, for a line of railway from the present terminus at Ingersoll to Woodstock, not exceeding nine miles, in lieu of subsidy granted by chapter 7 of 1899, item 26 of section 2.


John Graham Haggart: Would the lion. Finance Minister explain ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I lay on the Table copies of applications with respect to these subsidies, so that anybody who wishes may look at them.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The first 29 items are merely renewals. No practical change is made in them, and when there is any change I will explain it.
To the Toronto, Lindsay and Pembroke Railway Company, for a line of railway from Golden lake to Bancroft, not exceeding fifty-one miles ; in lieu of subsidy granted by chapter 7 of 1901, item 6, section 2.


William Findlay Maclean: Is this to make a new road from Ottawa to Toronto, practically ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is a revote.


Samuel Hughes: It is an extension of the line from Toronto north-westerly to meet the Pembroke and Golden Lake Railway. It will make a new road as far as Renfrew.
To the Strathroy and Western Counties Railway Company for a line of railway from a point at or near Caradoc station on the Canadian Pacific Railway to Strathroy and from Strathroy northerly to Forest, Thedford or Parkhlll, not exceeding in all thirty-one miles, in lieu of subsidies granted by chapter 7, of 1899. item 1 of section 2, and chapter 8 of 1900, item 2 of section 2, respectively.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I move to change that so that it will read as follows :
To the Strathroy and Western Counties Railway for a line of railway from a point it Lambeth to Strathroy via the villages Delaware, Mount Brydges and Caradoc station on the Canadian Pacific Railway, and from Strathroy northerly to Forest, Thedford or Parkhill, not exceeding in all thirty-one miles.


John Graham Haggart: Who applied for the change ?


Mr. CALVERT.: The company's solicitor applied to me for it recently-the solicitor of the Strathroy and Western Counties Railway Company.


Mr. HENDERSON.: The acting Minister of Railways told us there would be no change in the mileage. I am not very sure of the geography of this locality, but I think that a line from Mount Brydges to Caradoc must of necessity increase the mileage.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We could not change the mileage without bringing down a new resolution. If this is not sufficient to cover the ground, then they can only get the miles authorized, and the addition will have to be a matter for subsequent approval. It may be that an additional mileage would be necessary to cover all the points, but the mileage would be limited to the number which the House passes.


William Samuel Calvert: We are not asking for any more miles at the present time.


David Henderson: But the hon. gentleman is certainly asking for an increased subsidy, because he expects an additional mileage.


William Samuel Calvert: We are only asking for 31 miles, as we did in the first place, no more.


John Graham Haggart: What is the name of the road which starts from London, and who has control of that road ?


William Samuel Calvert: I think it is called the London and Port Stanley Road, or the London and St. Thomas.


John Graham Haggart: You say you start within a few miles of London. Is it the Grand Trunk who has control of that road ?


William Samuel Calvert: I am not sure.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. member must see that he is here changing a subsidy from a point starting on the Canadian Pacific Railway to a point starting on the Grand Trunk Railway, or transferring it from a branch line that was intended to be of assistance to the Canadian Pacific Railway and giving it to the Grand Trunk Railway.


William Samuel Calvert: This road from London to Lambeth is a private corporation. It does not belong to the Canadian Pacific Railway or to the Grand Trunk Railway, but it will connect with the Grand Trunk, that already has an entrance into the city of London. From Lambeth it will go to Delaware and thence to Mount Brydges, Where it will cross the Grand Trunk.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. member must know who controls or owns that road that is already built from Lambeth to London, of which this is an extension. Surely he should give us that information, or he should not ask for a subsidy. This is an extension of a road from Lambeth to London ; it is a subsidy that was granted from a point on the Canadian Pacific Railway. That was the initial point under the old subsidy Act. Now it is transferred to a Mr. CALVERT.
point called Lambeth, which is connected by an electric railway with London. I want to know what company owns the road from Lambeth to London, and who will get this subsidy ?


William Samuel Calvert: It is an electric road from Lambeth to London instead of a steam railway.


Samuel Hughes: Is this going to be an electric road ?


William Samuel Calvert: No, it is a steam road.


John Graham Haggart: Then you go by a steam railway to Lambeth and from Lambeth to London by an electric railway ?


William Samuel Calvert: That is often done. The company will simply have running rights.


Samuel Hughes: Is it the intention to use this as a steam road to get the subsidy and then to change into an electric road ?


William Samuel Calvert: No, the Intention is to use it as a steam road.


Samuel Hughes: Is this a Dominion or provincial charter ?


William Samuel Calvert: A Dominion charter.


John Graham Haggart: I suppose these subsidies are only to be given to steam railways ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Certainly, there is no subsidy given to an electric railway by any of these proposals.
Resolution, as amended, agreed to.
To the Montfort and Gatineau Colonization Railway Company to extend its railway from Arundel to a point in the municipality of the united townships of Preston and Hartwell, not exceeding thirty miles, in lieu of subsidy granted by chapter 8 of 1900, item 31 of section 2.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If the committee will b;e good enough to turn to resolution No. 41, which is a continuation of the same vote, we can take the two together, because both refer to the same subsidy exactly. We have put it into two parts, because one is a revote of the mileage and the other is the additional mileage. Resolution No. 41 is as follows :
To the Montfort ' and Gatineau Colonization Railway Company for the extension of its line of railway from Morin Flats to St. Jerome to connect with the Great Northern Railway, not exceeding twenty-two miles.


[Stage Direction]
Resolutions agreed to.
For a line of railway from JonquRres to La Baie Ha Ha, not exceeding twenty miles, in lieu of subsidy of twelve miles granted by chapter 7 of 1899, item 21 of section 2.
Hon, Mr. HAGGART. Where is this ?
The PRIME MINISTER.: 
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If lion, gentlemen will be good enough to turn to resolution No. 45 "they will find the same condition. The additional mileage Is given in resolution 45 which is as follows :
For a line of railway in extension of the line from Lime Ridge into the county of Megantic to the bridge over the St. Lawrence at or near Quebec, not exceeding thirty miles.


[Stage Direction]
Resolutions agreed to.
For a line of railway from Joliette to or near Lake Manan, a distance not exceeding sixty miles, being a revote and in lieu of subsidies granted by chapter 4 of 1897 and chapter 8 of 1900.
John Graham Haggart: Does this make any change or is it simply a revote ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Simply a revote.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Where is Joliette ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: It is in the county of Joliette, back from the St. Lawrence.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: On the north side ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes, on the north side.
For a line of railway from St. Eustache to St. Placide in the county of Two Mountains, not to exceed eighteen miles ; from St. Eustache to Sault au Recollet, twelve miles ; and from St. Placide to St. Andrews, eight miles, not exceeding in all thirty-eight miles, being a revote of subsidies granted by chapter 24 of 1887 and chapter 5 of 1892. respectively.


John Graham Haggart: These ought to be electric lines. I do not know whether they are or not.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, these are steam roads.
For a line of railway from Roberval westward towards James bay. not exceeding sixty miles, in lieu of subsidy granted by chapter 7 of 1901, item 25 of section 2.


John Graham Haggart: Will that not parallel the transcontinental' ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: No.


William Findlay Maclean: How many roads are we aiding in the direction of James bay by these subsidies ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I think three.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I would call the attention of the' committee to resolution No. 52, to be read in conjunction with that, because the one is an extension of the other.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I think it would be better to take them in order until we come to them.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They are two parts of the same road.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I know, but if we pass this when we come to No. 52 the hon. gentleman can state that this is complementary to tlfe previous item.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have no objection, but I thought the committee would like to have their attention called to the two items. They are related the one to the other.


John Graham Haggart: Yes, we want to know that.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I would like some information in reference to this railway from Roberval westward towards James bay. Is it an extension of the Lake St. John Railway ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: At Roberval the Lake St. John Railway goes to Chicoutimi. This goes directly north.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: This is part of the same system ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: What is the distance from Roberval to James bay ?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: It will be about 250 miles.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Between 250 and 300 miles.


William Findlay Maclean: This will be 100 miles altogther of this road ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes.
For a line of railway from Yamaska to Lot-biniSre, a distance not exceeding seventy miles, in lieu of the subsidy granted by chapter 7 of 1899. item 27 of section 2.


John Graham Haggart: Is this an increase ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: No, this is for an extension of the road already in exist-" ence between Montreal and Sorel and which follows the shore of the St. Lawrence. The road has been constructed as far as the River St. Francis, and this is for an extension to LotbiniSre. This is to accommodate the parishes along the St. Lawrence.


John Graham Haggart: - Is that the line between Doucet's Landing and Levis ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: The Doucet's Landing line is a line running north and south between Three Rivers and Artha-baska. This line follows the shore of the St. Lawrence.


John Graham Haggart: I mean from Doucet's Landing. I understand there is a road already between Montreal and Sorel.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: It has been extended from Sorel to a point opposite Three Rivers ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No, to LotbiniSre.


John Graham Haggart: Is this an extension of the road from Sorel to Levis ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend is partly correct, but not wholly so. The road has been extended from Sorel to the Rivei St. Francis. It has been graded between the River St. Francis and the River Nicolet, and from the River Nicolet to Dou-cet's Landing, but it has not been completed 1o Doucet's Landing yet.


John Graham Haggart: This is a part of tlie original South Shore Railway between Montreal and Levis ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes, that is it.


John Graham Haggart: Then, we will have this new road, we will have the Intercolonial, we have the Grand Trunk Railway, and how many more ? The Canada Atlantic Railway, I suppose, must have a terminus somewhere near Quebec ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: All of these railways will have terminals at the Quebec bridge, the Grand Trunk Railway, the Intercolonial Railway and the South Shore, but they all serve different sections of the country.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Where is Yamaska ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Sorel is on the Richelieu river ; the Yamaska is another river at some distance from Sorel in the county of Yamaska. The province of Quebec is a province of large rivers.


Samuel Hughes: Did not the Prime Minister, in advocating the purchase of the Drummond County Road, say that the road from Sorel to Levis had been abandoned ? I am not objecting to the construction of the road.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I said nothing of the kind ; the hon. gentleman is quite in error.


John Graham Haggart: I see that my friend Mr. Myers, of New York, is still interested in this piece of road from Sorel to I.evis and from Levis to Montreal.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Nobody knows yet.
To the Ottawa, Northern and Western Railway Company for that portion, of its line from a point at the east end of the Hull station yard of the Canadian Pacific Railway to a poinit of junction with the Interprovincial bridge approach in the city of Hull, not exceeding one mile; and for a line of railway to the boundary line of the city of Hull from a point on the Ottawa and Gatineau Railway, now the Ottawa, Northern and Western Railway, not exceeding i of a mile in lieu of any balance of mileage subsidized by chapter 7 of 1899, section 2, items 12 and 39 respectively, 11 miles.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I propose to substitute this vote for the one Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
which appears on the Order Paper. We intend to ask for only a mile and a quarter. It is a question of balance of subsidy due for railway constructed in the vicinity of Hull. We find, on examination, that the length of line constructed by the company exceeds the length for which subsidy has been paid to them by a mile and a quarter, and we propose to redraft this so as to include only the mile and a quarter.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How did you come to overlook this amount. It seems to be in connection with the bridge, and this also seems to give a connection with the Ottawa and Northern.


The SIINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is a small balance of the subsidy granted. We find by actual calculation that the subsidies paid fell short by the amount of a mile and a half of what was voted, and of the length of line which they built.


John Graham Haggart: Why was this not paid out under the other subsidy ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I presume it has lapsed.
14. To the International Railway Company of New Brunswick (formerly the Restigouche and Western Railway Company) for a line of railway from the western end. of the ten miles of Its railway, as already constructed from Caimpbellton towards a point on the St. John river between Grand Falls and Edmundston, not exceeding 67 miles, being a reyote, and in lieu of subsidies granted by chapter 4 of 1897, chapter 7 of 1899, item 42 of section 2 and chapter 8 of 1900, item 22 of section 2, 67 miles.
59. To the International Railway Company of New Brunswick for a line of railway, in addition to and in extension of the line of 67 miles mentioned in item 14 of this section, to a point on the St. John river between Grand Falls and Edmundston, not exceeding thirty-three miles, 33 miles.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If hon. gentlemen will take items No. 14 and No. 59 together they will find that they refer to the same railway.


John Graham Haggart: Have you considered whether this will be a shorter line for the new transcontinental railway to Campbellton than to Moncton ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This will intersect the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. It will run right across the country.


Mr. BELL.: Does this have the effect of reducing the mileage in this case ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Oh, no. The additional item (No. 59) to which I have referred, is in addition to the previous vote. I may say, generally, with regard to these votes, that they will be found to correspond almost exactly with the mileage. Where the difference has been very slight, a few miles, we have not put the additions in by special vote, but where the addition has been considerable, we have put in a separate vote to indicate it. So tbat the
-OCTOBER 19, 1903
revote substantially corresponds with the mileage previously voted. There may be a difference to the extent of three or four miles in one case, but not beyond that.


James Clancy: Has the work been actually commenced in every case of a revote, or is this just hanging out the sign ? Surely we should not vote subsidies year after year unless there has been some earnestness shown by the parties getting these subsidies in going on with the work. I would like to ask if work has actually been commenced in each case, and surveys and estimates of the cost made ?


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: I think in some cases the work has not actually commenced. But I do not think that should be a reason for refusing to subsidize a road. The work in many instances is slow,- the promoters having difficulty in getting the necessary capital. We have to be patient, and give them time. If the promoters have a reasonable hope of carrying on the work, we should not refuse the subsidy, if the enterprise on its merits deserves it.


James Clancy: Is there any limit, or is it the intention to vote and revote the subsidies for all time ? There ought to be some evidence of good faith on the part of the promoters. I am not now criticising the character of the scheme at all; but I think we should have some information as to the policy of the government in matters of that kind. I do not think the Minister of Finance would be prepared to say that this parliament should vote and revote these subsidies year after year as often as they lapse, unless something has occurred in the meantime.


Mr. EMMERSON.: What harm does it do to revote them ?


James Clancy: In the first place, this parliament should only vote subsidies to the most deserving cases, and they should be bona fide cases in which men propose to | go on with the work. Surely the hon. gentleman does not advocate our going on voting bonuses to parties who in many cases are endeavouring to sell them out. To vote and re vote these bonuses has a tendency to give these promoters opportunities of making money out of these schemes. I do not think it is standing in the way of any proper enterprise to say that no subsidy should be voted to a railway project unless it has life in it, or unless its promoters are prepared to go on with it. I can understand cases in which unforeseen circumstances might arise ; but I do not think the hon. gentleman should ask us to pass any one of these revotes without giving us reasons for the delay in going on with the work.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is not merely a question between the promoters and parliament. Even where the promoters might not exercise due diligence, as some might think, the community is interested in
the railway ; and if one company has failed, perhaps others associated in the enterprise might make it a success. We must not forget that these enterprises are for the benefit of those portions of the country through which they run, and the people residing and owning property there ; and if the promoters do not make satisfactory progress, that is no reason for refusing to grant aid, not merely to the promoters, but to the people of the country through which the railway runs. I am sure my hon. friend would not want to do that.


James Clancy: No, I am too good-natured for that. The hon. gentleman has made the best possible argument in support of my contention, in saying that the people are chiefly interested. Why should persons get a charter for a railway, and get a subsidy voted, and then hold back the enterprise year after year instead of giving the service to the people ? The Minister of Finance should not ask this House to revote a single subsidy where there has been ample time to go on with the work, without giving some reason why it has not gone on.


Henry Robert Emmerson: With respect to the railway described in this item, I may say that the first ten miles are completed, and the remainder are under construction. That is a line running from the Baie des Chaleurs to St. John river to connect with the Bangor and Aroostook Railway.


Samuel Hughes: I might point out further that a subsidy of $3,200 a mile will never tempt capitalists to build a railway unless there is good hope that the road when built will pay.
For a line of railway from Woodstock to the International boundary, not exceeding twenty-six -miles, being a revcte of the subsidy granted by chapter 4 of 1894.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This runs from Woodstock to Centreville and the American boundary. It is intended to tap the American trade and bring it down through Canadian territory.


John Graham Haggart: Is there an American line from; Centreville ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, not to Centreville. This will run through a rich part of the country which has no railway at present.


James Clancy: Why was that road not gone on with ? Why the .delay ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think there has been some difficulty about the financial arrangements ; but the work has been gone on with to some extent, and the parties now feel that it can be put through.


James Clancy: Has any portion of the road been built ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I understand that a portion of it has been graded.
To the St. John Valley Railway Company for a line of railway from a point on the Canadian

Pacific Railway at or near Welford or Westfield or between said two points to Gage town, net exceeding thirty miles, being a revote of the subsidy granted by chapter 4 ot 1887.


Mr. WILMOT.: It is very desirable that this vote should pass.


James Clancy: How many miles have been constructed ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No portion of it is under construction.


James Clancy: What are the prospects of its being constructed ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Although the corporation which has charge of this enterprise is not making rapid progress, the people would not like to see the subsidy abandoned but very much desire that it be renewed.


James Clancy: Would not the people rather have somebody else take it up who will go on with the work ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If there be any discontent with the existing company or any reason to believe that anybody else would do the work better, that impression has not reached the department.


Samuel Hughes: Why not simply make the vote for the line of railway without mentioning any company and give the money to any company who will build it ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If the matter were in doubt, that course might be pursued, but no objection has been raised to this company.


William Findlay Maclean: When parliament is asked to renew a subsidy, the people are entitled to an official explanation why the work has not been gone on with and what prospect there is of its being done.


Robert Duncan Wilmot: Could the hon. minister give any idea of the personnel of the St. John Valley Railway Company ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not think I have that information.


James Clancy: Might I ask the hon. minister how these subsidies come to be renewed ? There must have been pressure brought upon him-I do not say improper pressure-to renew them; and such being tiie case he ought to be in possession of the information as to the personnel of this particular company and its ability to do the work. If not, it is a mere piece of mockery to go through the form of voting the subsidy. The hon. gentleman should explain wliy these revotes are asked and what are the circumstances which entitle the parties to them ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I can only say that gentlemen from New Brunswick represented to me that this road would serve a very useful purpose and would open up a section of the province.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not think I could give a better reason. Even though the company be not making much progress, if the enterprise is in itself meritorious, we are doing, right in giving the subsidy.
Mr. HUGHES (Victoria. Is the charter Dominion or provincial 1


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Provincial.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is subsidized by the provincial government. I am not aware that the mind of the hon. gentleman from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) was at all disturbed with respect to similar votes in the first five or six resolutions, and we had no reason to think that it would be any more disturbed with respect to this or any other item for the province of New Brunswick than it was with respect to the items for Ontario. Now, this railway company is a recognized, institution. The demands of the district are certainly very strong. Of course, in the summer they can get along nicely with that great highway, the St. John river; but when the river is frozen over they have no communication with the outside world except with the old fashioned vehicles.


James Clancy: I am surprised that the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Em-merson) should have dealt in such small politics as to say that any lion, member in this House would make a distincton as between provinces in these matters. I certainly should not have thought of accusing the hon. gentleman ; but he himself has taken a good deal of trouble to make it plain to us that he is ready to deal in that style of politics. I hope that no other member in this House will be so small as to consider what province these votes are going to. If the scheme itself has merits, we need not inquire what particular province it is to benefit. Had I been in the House I would have raised the same question with regard to other subsidies that I ask in this case. I am disappointed in the information we have had, and I am afraid we shall have to insist upon better, whether the railway is one for Ontario. New Brunswick or any other province, for we have a right to information. A company that was voted a subsidy three or four years ago. not having earned that subsidy and desiring its renewal, would naturally be expected to place before the Minister of Finance a complete and detailed statement of the reasons for delay, the chances of going on, and the possibilities of carrying out the work in the future. If the prospects for the future were no better than they were when the subsidies were voted. I think the duty of the Minister of Finance would be to refuse a subsidy. Of course, it is a very ingenious argument to say that the people of the locality arejinxi-ons for this subsidy. But the people as a whole should be protected. There are persons so evil-minded as to say that these

things answer a good purpose in an election. I do not know whether any such idea ever occurred to the Minister of Finance-


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Never.


James Clancy: Of course, the hon. gentleman is innocent of these things, hut he may suspect that some people have them in mind. Perhaps the hon. gentleman had better be frank and tell the House that that is the reason lie decided to give this sub-isdy, and that he did not ask for any other reason.


William Findlay Maclean: When the ministers come beiore the House to put their estimates through, they come with accurate information and attended by their deputies. They are able, in case of a public work, for instance, to tell us what the expenditure has been to date, how the work is proceeding and what expenditure will be required for its completion. But we are asked to revote railway subsidies Without any explanation of what has been done or what it is proposed to do. It is high time we ceased to vote these subsidies unless we have definite explanations concerning them. All this is an instance of the reckless way in which millions of public money are voted by this House. I have made a rough estimate, and I find that subsidies are being voted for 1,500 miles of road. No explanations are given to us, not even encouragement held out to the people in the localities affected that these roads will be built. There is either a lack of earnestness, or something held in view that we do not know about. Certainly, no minister ought to propose in this House a vote of public money without an explanation as to how that money is to be applied. And, if the money has been voted before and not spent, we want to know why it was not expended before and whether it will be expended now.
To the Shediac and Coast Railway Company for a line of railway from Shediac to Shemogue and towards Cape Tormentine, in Westmoreland county, not exceeding thirty-eight miles, in lieu of subsidy granted by chapter S of 1900, item 25 of section 2.
Mr. CLANCY When was that subsidy voted ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In 1900.


James Clancy: This is in the riding of the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson). If you will permit me to ask a question without charging that the only reason why I ask it is that this railway is not in Ontario, I would request an explanation of this vote.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is considered a strong company. They have spent a good deal of money in surveys, but, as is well known, there have been difficulties in the way of financing such enterprises during the last two or three years. The company are in earliest. This is a section of country
that certainly is in need of a railway. It is a fishing section, and perhaps one of the richest agricultural sections of eastern New Brunswick. It is quite largely populated. The people raise large quantities of potatoes which they ship to Bermuda. They have to cart them to Shediac, where they are taken by the Intercolonial Railway. This long haul by road is a very great inconvenience, which would be overcome if the people bad a railway. I do not know that it would be a very promising investment, but certainly tlie railway would be of great convenience to the people living along that shore.
To the Mabou and Gulf Railway Company, Limited, for a line of railway from Mabou Coal Mines to a point at or near Glendyer, thence to Orangedale on the Intercolonial Railway, not exceeding thirty-four miles, a revote of subsidy granted by chapter 4 of 1894, and in substitution of the twenty-five miles subsidized thereby from Orangedale to Broad Cove.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I would call attention to resolution 62, under which a subsidy is proposed for an additional four miles of this road. This railway is connected with a large coal-mining district in Mabou in the county of Inverness.


James Clancy: Has the work been commenced ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I believe the company are now engaged in the construction of the road. It is a very substantial company, chiefly of Americans who are developing the coal mines at Mabou.


James Clancy: Does the hon. minister observe that this subsidy was granted in 1894 ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Not to the present company. The present company have only recently taken hold of it, and they are pushing forward the work energetically.


James Clancy: I imagine that one of the difficulties was that the former company held the charter and the subsidy until they could get their terms for disposing of both to the company that took it up. No doubt there is something in that, but after all it is not an isolated state of things. The hon. gentleman will agree that there ought to be some reasonable prospects on tlie part of those asking for the subsidy that the work will pay. The Minister of Finance is unable at present to give us that assurance. This business of exploiting the country in that way with the money of the people is one which we should not encourage, and I doubt whether parliament is in any case bound to make a revote to a new company, because the original promoters are bound to be bene* fited to some extent.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is a revote of the mileage of the road for that district, but it is not a revote to tlie same company. Whatever my hon. friend may

suspect in other cases, he w ould be wrong in this case, because I happen to know that the old company lias no connection with the new one. This is a new company and a different name ; I do not think they even received the old charter. I think the one died and the other has come up as an entirely new venture.
19. To the Nova Scotia Eastern Railway Company, Limited, lor a line of railway from New Glasgow to Cross Roads, Country Harbour, thence to the town of Guysborough, and thence to the strait of Canso; with a branch from Cross Roads, country Harbour, aforesaid, down the Country Harbour river to the deep waters thereof, not exceeding 116 miles ; in lieu of the subsidies of 40 and 80 miles granted by chapter 7 *of 1901, items 4 and 1, respectively, of section 2. ,	63. To the Nova Scotia Eastern Railway Com-
' pany, Limited, for a line of railway from Dartmouth through the Musquodoboit valley to a point at or near Melrose to connect there with the railway mentioned in item 19 of this section, not exceeding 120 miles.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The resolutions 19 and 03 should be read together.
These are two roads which are now being *consolidated into one company. The one starts from Dartmouth, on Halifax harbour, traverses the valley of the Musquodoboit river through the county of Halifax, thence into the county of Guysborough and, passing a point called Melrose, goes to Guysborough and Mulgrave. Then there is a crossroad which leaves the town of New Glasgow and crosses this other railway at Melrose and goes on to Country Harbour. This enterprise serves the counties of Halifax, Guysborough and Pictou and runs close to Antigonish, if it does not touch it. It covers a large portion [DOT]of the eastern section of Nova Scotia, which is at present without railway communication.


John Graham Haggart: Is there any portion of this road built or being built ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: The surveys have all been made and the people are at work on it now. There is a subsidy granted by the Nova Scotia government and a contract made with this company. The company is composed largely of Canadians : Mr. Fitzpatrick, of New Glasgow ; Mr. Stratton, the Provincial Secretary of Ontario ; and Mr. McCormick, a member of this House. It is an excellent company. They have made all their financial arrangements and completed their surveys. The Nova Scotia government granted a subsidy of $5,000 a mile over the whole railway.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is the hon. member for *Guysborough in the company himself ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: No, I am not.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Is the Sir. Stratton the hon. gentleman from Guysborough refers to the gentleman of the name who is mixed up with the Gamey affair ?


Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: 


Duncan Cameron Fraser: The Hon. Sir. Stratton, Provincial Secretary of Ontario, is associated with these gentlemen that I have named.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: At what point has construction commenced on this road ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Between New Glasgow and Country Harbour.
For a line of railway from Debert 3tation on the Intercolonial Railway to Debert Coal Mine, not exceeding 4% miles, in lieu of the subsidy granted by chapter 8 of 1900, item 29 of section 2.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is in the county of Colchester. It is a new coal mine which is being opened up now.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: A short line like this should receive a larger subsidy. In Nova Scotia, unfortunately, the coal already discovered is north of the Cotoequid Mountains; this mine in the county of Colchester is south of the Cobequid Mountains, and if we could once discover a coal mine there it would give to the southern part of the province a great advantage in giving us cheaper coal. What is the use of giving a company that is struggling to open a coal mine a little subsidy of $3,200 a mile to build a railway ? You might as well send them down a pound of candy, If this parliament wants to command the respect of the people of Canada it ought to make a little vote like this at least $6,000. I supported a vote of $13,000 a mile for Mackenzie & Mann to *build railways in the territories, at least we are giving them a guarantee of $13,000 a mile, and I would take that in preference to this. Down in Nova Scotia we have not the commercial development to make railways pay. What is the good of a coal mine that is ten miles away from a railway ? I want to say that no railways in Canada should be more than eight miles apart, no man should be more than four miles away from a railway. If we who are members of parliament had to go four miles away to catch a train for Montreal we would think it a hardship. We want to have the trade brought to our doors. That is only a question of travel, but suppose one had sheep or cattle or other agricultural products to ship, and we had to go four males away to ship those products. Yet members stand up in this House in opposition to the building of railways ! If the members of this House want railways at their doors, what do you think of the case of a man in Nova Scotia, or in any other province, who has to go 20 miles to a railway ? The thing is preposterous. You oannot expect a great province like Nova Scotia to be developed unless you give it ample railway facilities. If $3,200 a mile is not enough, give $6,000 a mile ; and if $6,000 is not enough, make it $12,000 a mile. We want railway development, because, if we have railway development, we will have commercial development, and we will pay back tenfold every cent of money you hare given us, but we

want, in tlie first instance, the hand of assistance. This coal company have entered upon a large enterprise in a locality about which there is some doubt as to the financial outcome, and if we help this company we should grant aid to the extent of $6,000 or $8,000 a mile, and not the petty sum of $3,200.


Samuel Hughes: If my hon. friend (Mr. Gourley) will read the first paragraph, he will see that these people can get $6,400 a mile.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Yes, if the cost exceeds $15,000 a mile. You tell me to spend $10 and then you will give me one dollar.


Samuel Hughes: Would the company take $6,400 per mile rather than a guarantee of $13,000 per mile of their bonds ?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I think they would rather take the guarantee. In this case, as this vote is intended to develop a large coal interest in that part of the country, I think it should be an exceptional vote, and I think the vote should be raised to double the amount.
For a line of railway from a point on the Joggins Railway near River Hebert Railway bridge to the village of Minudie, not exceeding six miles, being a revote, and in substitution of subsidy granted by chapter 4 of 1894.


John Graham Haggart: Is this the original
Joggins Railway ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is not the Joggins Railway. It is for a line from a point on the Joggins Railway.


James Clancy: Is this being voted to any company, or being voted generally ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is being voted generally for a line of railway.


James Clancy: And up to the present time no person has taken it up ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Apparently not.


James Clancy: Is there any prospect of the road being built ?


Mr. LOGAN.: Perhaps my hon. friend the Minister of Finance will allow me to answer the question as I am familiar with the circumstances of the case. I think that about the year 1885 a subsidy was voted for this same line of railway, but the coal development in Nova Scotia was not then in a flourishing condition. Within the last two or three years a number of lines have been opened up. The River Hebert mines are being operated by some Montreal capitalists known as the Minudie Coal Company, by the Strathcona Coal Company, and by seme American capitalists known as the Jubilee Coal Company. They are getting out a large quantity of coal, and the purpose of this railway is to give them an outlet on the water at Minudie.


James Clancy: Is there a charter for the road ?


Hance James Logan: Yes, a charter has been obtained for the road, and these companies are all in active operation, but are seriously handicapped by the fact that they have not proper communication with deep water.


John Graham Haggart: This is to a point on the Joggins Railway.


Hance James Logan: No, from a point on the Joggins Railway to Minudie.
To the Middleton and Victoria Beach Railway Company, Limited, for a line of railway from Victoria Beach to Middleton, not exceeding forty-one miles, in lieu of subsidies granted by chapter 8 of 1900, section 2, item 28, and chapter 7 of 1901, section 2, item 21.


James Clancy: We want some explanation of this.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This road starts from Middleton, in the Annapolis valley, and follows the Annapolis river down the Granville shore to Victoria Beach, which was the objective point of the original designs for railway construction in western Nova Scotia. At present this railway is being amalgamated-I do not know whether legislative proceedings have been taken-with the Mackenzie & Mann system of railways in the western part of Nova Scotia. It was originally undertaken by another company, but I understand that it is to be consolidated with the Mackenzie & Mann system. It will run through some of the finest farminig land, I think I may say. in the world, because the Annapolis valley is the garden of the world.


John Graham Haggart: Is this part of the road projected to Yarmouth ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, we will come to that later.
To the Halifax and South-western Railway Company for the following lines of railway:-
(a.) for a line of railway from a point at or near Halifax to a point on the Central Railway at or near Mahone hay, not exceeding sixty-eight miles.
(b.) for a line of railway from a point on the Central Railway at or near Bridgewater towards Barrington Passage, not exceeding 77 miles.
(c.) for a line of railway from a point at or near New Germany on the Central Railway to a point at or near Caledonia, not exceeding 22 miles.
(d.) for a line of railway from a point at or near Caledonia to Liverpool, not exceeding 29 miles.
The subsidies to the said lines of railway being granted in lieu of the subsidies granted by chapter 7 of 1899, items 17, 18, 35 and 36 of section 2, by chapter 8 of 1900, items 26 and 40 of section 2. and also chapter 7 of 1901, items 5 and 23 of section 2, respectively.
To the Halifax and South-western Railway Company for a line of railway to Barrington Passage, in addition to and in continuation of the 77 miles mentioned in items 23 (b) of this section, not exceeding 35 miles.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Subject to the addition of 35 miles, the vote for which you have just read, Mr. Chairman, these votes are a consolidation of a number of votes which have been given in past years for railway lines in the western section of Nova Scotia, westward of Halifax, running through the western part of Halifax county and the counties of Lunenburg, Queen's, Shelburne and Yarm'outh. These roads have been chartered in times past by various companies, and subsidies have been granted fron>
time to time to different companies. These various companies have not made very great progress. One of th'em built some part of one of these roads, but they were not able to carry it out. During the last year a consolidation of all these interests was effected by a company promoted by Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann. They have made a contract with the government of Nova Scotia for the greater part of this enterprise on, the basis of a loan which the government of Nova Scotia are making to them on the credit of the road.


John Graham Haggart: How much is the loan ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Thirteen thousand per mile. Of course, they have proceeded on the assumption that they would get revotes of the Dominion subsidies. There are practically two lines, although there is a point at which they join. The main line will run from Halifax through the western part of that county, and through Lunenburg to Mahone bay. There it will form connection with the Central Railway of Nova Scotia, which is already owned by Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann and their associates. It will use the Central Railway for a few miles, until it reaches Bridgewater. It then runs down the south shore of Nova Scotia to Barrington Passage, where it meets a road built from Yarmouth eastward. For the present this road is in different hands, but it is reasonable to expect that it will come into the possession of Messrs. Mackenzie & Maun. This vote, therefore, is to secure a road by the south shore of Nova Scotia from Halifax, passing through the western portion of that county, through Lunenburg, Queen's and Shelburne as far as Barrington, where it will meet a road already in existence running into Yarmouth. From Middleton, in the county of Annapolis, to Lunenburg the Central road has been in operation fcr a number of years. The second part of the new scheme leaves the Central road at New Germany, and runs to Caledonia. About 22 miles have been constructed, but not completed, under the charter known as the Hervey charter. That road has now been acquired by Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann, who are pushing it down to the town of Liverpool. This is a revote of various amounts for railways through these counties, with the addition of 35 miles necessary to complete the whole enterprise.


William Stevens Fielding: 


John Graham Haggart: How do they intend to get into Halifax ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They have no terminal facilities at Halifax as yet, but I presume they will approach the government and try to make arrangements for using the government facilities; but there is no understanding on that point yet.


James Clancy: Has the province of Nova Scotia given any subsidy ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They
have given a loan of $13,000 per mile to most of the line with a provision, I think, that in the event of the loan being repaid, the usual subsidy be deducted. For the present there is no subsidy, but if the enterprise is successful and the railway can repay the loan, then they may repay the loan less the subsidy.
Mr. IvAULBACH. Permit me to say, Mr. Chairman, that I am pleased that the government has fully realized how essential the completion of the work on this railway so long delayed, is to the people residing in the near vicinity of this road, running from New Germany to Caledonia.
Northern Queen's-part of the country represented by my hon. friend the acting minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Fielding)-has come into prominence as an agricultural and mining centre, the latter so far being only in its infancy. The same may be said of Northern Lunenburg, taking in Pleasant river, Ninevah, Hemp-ford, Ohio, and New Germany, places through which this road passes, abounding in farm, forest and mineral resources; interspersed with lakes and streams, presenting a perfect panorama, and unsurpassed in any part of Canada, and it is not confined I may say to this section alone, for after leaving New Germany-a railway centre-as well as a land of promise, and passing eastward we enter a still more beautiful country with rich and varied resources. I refer to Foster Settlement, New Burn, Woodstock and New Ross, admirably adapted for agriculture, with forests, lakes and streams and thickly settled by a progressive people but without the advantages of a railway, and in this connection I must here state, that I will never feel satisfied until I can see a road built from New Germany passing through this country to New Ross, and down the valley of the Gold river, connecting with the Halifax and South-western Railway at Chester Basin, now under construction, for the purpose of giving these places the same facilities as their neighbours. There was a railway subsidy granted east from New Germany some years ago but for some reason unknown to myself it lapsed, which was unfair to these people.
In connection with construction work between New Germany and Caledonia I desire to again bring to the notice of the acting Minister of Railways and Canals and the government, that there are (quite a number

of claims held by parties against the railway company for labour and material supplied on construction, and 1 would here ask what provision has been made for the liquidation or payment of these claims ? I contend the government have the right-nay they have the power, and they should exercise it-to see that provision is made for the payment of all such legitimate claims, and to see that they are deducted from the cash subsidies due by the government to the company, notwithstanding the company having sub-let the work of construction to others. In any case I hold the government should arrange for the payment of these bills.
The work of construction and the material supplied on the road represents the true value of the road, and the labourers and the party suppliers, as I view it, are really creditors in every sense of the term, and should have the first lien on the road for their bills, and anything short of this would be viewed by a reasonable mind as unjust.
We find the grocer or trader who supplied stores, and other commodities, to the labourers and sub-contractors during construction, remaining unpaid, as well as parties who furnished sleepers, mechanics who furnished cut stone, and numerous other commodities, remaining unpaid. I would ask, are they not to be recognized as creditors, and their claims paid before one dollar is paid over to the company, or the president of the road, by the government, in the way of subsidies ?
The law recognizes every mechanic and labourer employed in the construction' of a ship as having an equitable lien on the vessel until all bills are paid, and in default of payment they can distrain or replevin the ship at will, the customs refuse a register and prevent her sailing until every bona fide claim is actually paid, or as an equivalent, a voucher shown of the claim being settled.
I contend that if claims such as I have described hold good against a ship, the same is applicable to a railway; the two are analogous, and the parties claiming bills for work performed and material furnished to this railway company, their contractors or sub-contractors, come under the same category, are creditors in every sense of the term, and entitled to the payment of all claims.
It has always been the policy of the Ontario government to withhold all subsidies for railway construction until all wages of workmen, in fact, every employee and supplier of material on construction have been fully paid, and I sincerely hope the same policy will hold and be observed by the government as respects the road from New Germany to Caledonia.
The advantage in this case as respects the New Germany and Caledonia road is that the federal and provincial governments have the matter of subsidies entirely in their
own hands, in so far as the payment is concerned, and I here appeal most earnestly, on behalf of the creditors, that the government pay not a dollar to the company for construction, neither to the promoters nor contractors, nor any person else on this road, until a public notice is given by posters, and in all the county newspapers of Lunenburg and Queen's, asking that all bills unpaid be sent to an agent or adjuster, appointed by the government to receive such claims, and they to decide upon the merits or demerits of the same. The payments should be made by the government.
I may be told the government are dealing only with the present company, and have nothing to do with the original contractors. This would be unjust, as the road would really this day have no value had it not been for the hard labour bestowed by the operatives and the material and supplies, such as sleepers and cut stone, furnished by traders. Should these parties, as creditors, now be told that their claims cannot be recognized, when the government have it in their power to pay them 1 I would consider it unjust. I know of some poor farmers and labourers who have had to sacrifice the little they possessed, and their families suffer, in consequence of the delay in payment of bills. I sincerely hope the government will realize the importance of this situation as respects these people, and see that the bills are paid after the manner I suggest.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We have been so long in Ottawa this session that some of us may be pardoned for being a little rusty on what is going on in our provinces. I am glad to say to my hon. friend (hat what he suggests has actually been done and that arrangements are being perfected at the present moment to carry it into effect. There is a full understanding between the Nova Scotia government and myself that the governments at Ottawa and Halifax will have to co-operate in the construction of these roads and that we shall jointly see that whoever undertakes to carry out the new enterprise, will have to provide for the paymeut of the honest claims of the workmen under the old contractors. I am glad to be able to assure the hon. gentleman that in carrying out this arrangement a commissioner was appointed by the local government some time ago. He is at this moment holding investigations in order to obtain correct statements of the amounts of money due, and I am satisfied that in every case in which a claim can be substantiated to the satisfaction of the commissioner, the money will be paid.


Mr. KATJLBACH.: I am glad to hear the statement of the hon. acting minister. If he had only given me an inkling that such was taking place, he would have saved me the necessity of occupying the time of the House.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: What amount of construction has been done on this southwestern Railway ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The portion of the road from New Germany, in the county represented by my hon. friend, down to Caledonia was graded and the bridges built, but the rails were not laid. The new company is now laying the rails. The portion from Halifax towards Mahone Bay has been under construction, and considerable progress in that heavy section has been made. Workmen are now employed working westward from Bridgewater in the county of Lunenburg and on other sections. There is now more evidence of good faith in pushing on the work than has ever been shown before, to the great satisfaction of the people along the line ?


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I am pleased to hear the statement made by the acting minister. May I ask him if they have fully settled on the location of that portion of the road near Fort Medway, whether it is to go east or west of Mill Village ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We have not yet been called upon to approve officially of any of the plans of this road, because until the subsidy is granted, we are not in a position to demand any plans from the new company for approval, and, we have not taken any formal action in regard to the location of the road. My impression, however, is that the line that commends itself to the people goes below Mill Village towards Port Medway.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I think that would be a mistake, because there is a valuable industry in the shape of a pulp mill two miles above Mill Village, which would be a source of traffic to this road which would not be the case if it went below that point.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That matter I know has been engaging the attention of the engineers. All questions relating to location of roads are full of difficulties of that character. I think there is no finality in the location ; but the engineers have rather come to the conclusion that a line below Mill Village would be more in the general interest than one above. I am aware of tlie pulp mill industry to which my hon. friend refers, and will endeavour in some way to see that it gets proper accommodation.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Has this road been located towards Barrington ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not think there is any difference of opinion about the location of the Barrington end.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Do I understand that a connection will be made with the pulp mill ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That remains to be seen. We may be able to do Mr. KAULBACH.
something in the way of providing communication by means of the river.


John Graham Haggart: Have contracts yet been entered into with the different companies 1


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, some contracts were entered into and some construction took place ; but these contracts have all expired, and the subsidies lapsed. Therefore they have to be revoted. There has been no payment of subsidies to this company for this purpose.


John Graham Haggart: Has there beeu any payment to other companies for this portion of the road ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, none whatever. They never got to the point of earning the subsidy.
To the Inverness Railway and Coal Company, formerly the Inverness and Richmond Railway Company, Limited, for eight miles of railway between Point Tupper and Broad Cove; and for a line of railway not exceeding thirty-seven miles from Cheticamp to a point on the line already built between Broad Cove and Point Tupper, being a revote and in substitution of the subsidy granted by chapter 4 of 1897.
Hon.' Mr. HAGGART. What is the change ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is ft road known as the Inverness and Richmond road, now called the Inverness Railway and Coal Company, running from Port Hastings on the Strait of Canso up to Broad Cove. A portion of the road is built, up to that point, and this revote is for the portion from the terminus up to Cheticamp. It also provides a rearrangement of the mileage, without any addition, which will afford a shipping point on the Strait of Canso.


Mr. ROCHE (Halifax).: I believe this road was originally surveyed from Broad Cove to a place called Chimney Corner and from there to Cheticamp. Is it proposed to extend the same railway from Broad Cove to Chimney Corner and thence to Cheticamp, or is it proposed to build it by way of Mar-garee Forks ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is a question of location which I am not able to answer.
For a line of railway from a point at O'- near Wolfville on the Dominion Atlantic Railway to the government pier on the basin of Minas, not exceeding one mile, in lieu of the subsidy granted by chapter 7 of 1901, section 2, item 19.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is an extension from the Dominion Atlantic Railway down to the public wharf at Wolf-ville. There is a corresponding vote for the other side of the bay, which will be reached later on.


James Clancy: For wliat purpose is this to lie constructed down to the wharf ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is a public wharf at Wolfville. Steamers cross

the bay from Parrsborough to Wolfville, and it is proposed to make an extension on one side and on the other so that passengers may be brought direct to the wharf instead of having to travel some distance.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this a public wharf ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, it
is a government pier.
To the Nicola, Kamloops and Similkameen Coal and Railway Company for a line of railway from a point at or near Spence's Bridge on the Canadian Pacific Railway to Nicola lake, not exceeding forty-five miles, being a revote of subsidies granted by chapter 5 of 1892 and chapter 4 of 1894.


James Clancy: Why is this not proceeded with ?


William Alfred Galliher: The company now applying for this subsidy is not the original company. It has got a charter, and I understand it will get a provincial subsidy. I am informed that it is going right ahead. It goes through a good district, and will open up the Nicola valley which at present has no railway communications, also the coal deposits at the foot ofNicola lake.


James Clancy: Did the original company dispose of its charter to the other ?


William Alfred Galliher: No, the new company applied and procured a new charter and a Dominion charter.


John Graham Haggart: What has become of the old company ?


William Alfred Galliher: It is defunct.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the company which proposes to build this railway own the coal mine ?


William Alfred Galliher: I am not positive, but I believe it does.


Samuel Hughes: Did not the original charter run from near Kamloops to Nicola valley ?


William Alfred Galliher: This is to run right up to Kamloops as well. It goes from Spence's bridge to Nicola, and will go eventually to Kamloops.


Samuel Hughes: The vote does not say anything about running to Kamloops. I think the old charter ran from Kamloops.


William Alfred Galliher: So does this, but the vote is only for forty-five miles of that road.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not wish to be understood as objecting to a coal company getting a subsidy. I do not know any good reason why a coal company should not have some assistance in building a railway.


John Graham Haggart: The grant was originally given the Nicola Valley Railway Company, which failed to carry out its undertaking, and the petitions for this com-1 449
pany asked that it be given the powers conferred by the charter to the old company, and that the subsidy granted to the old company should be continued to it. This is giving to a new company a grant which was given to a former company.
For a line of railway from Winnipeg Beach or Teulon to a point on Icelandic river by way of Gimli, not exceeding thirty-five miles, in lieu of subsidy granted by chapter 7 of 1901, section 2, item 26.


Mr. McCREARY.: The only reason for delay in the construction of this road, 1 may tell the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy), has been the scarcity of labour, it has been absolutely impossible for the railway company to get labour. It might surprise hon. members to know that although we were told that probably 400 miles would be built on the Canadian Northern Railway this year, there will not be more than 100 built. Some of their teams are standing in the stables without men to manage them.


William Findlay Maclean: How will you manage to build the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway 7


Samuel Hughes: There is no objection to this grant.


James Clancy: Have we a map showing that this road is not paralleling some other road, and that we are not giving grants to companies which may amalgamate ?


Samuel Hughes: A year or two ago, when the charter was being considered, the Canadian Pacific Railway were obliged to construct up to Winnipeg beach, a few miles north of Selkirk. The Canadian Pa-cfic Railway then had the option either of running from this place or Winnipeg beach, up north to the Icelandic settlement. 1 think the member was anxious to have them forced to build part of that road at once. This, I presume, is an extension of the Canadian Pacific Railway charter along the west shore of Lake Winnipeg.


William Forsythe McCreary: They were obliged to build this road before going on with the road to Lake Manitoba. The reason they did not is because they could not get labour.


William Findlay Maclean: If what the hon. gentleman says be true, there is no prospect of the National Transcontinental Railway being built within the next twenty years. Some step will have to be taken. I do not know what they may be, because there is a scarcity of labour all over this country. The statement made by the hon. gentleman is well worthy the consideration of the government, and they ought to be prepared to do something in order to realize their prophecy that we will have a new transcontinental railway within five years.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is a subsidy for the Canadian Pacific Railway ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


Henry Robert Emmerson: We have heard from an hon. member, who is a director of that



company, that lie entirely objects to anything of this kind. I thought then that he was expressinig the opinion of the company.


John Graham Haggart: Has the Canadian Pacific Railway applied for this subsidy V


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, but they have applied for several others.


John Graham Haggart: This session ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes. This application came from the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary), who thought there was a misunderstanding with regard to the previous vote. I do not think I have any application from the Canadian Pacific Railway for it.


John Graham Haggart: This is a subsidy forced upon the railway company without any application at all.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They are uot obliged to take it.


William Forsythe McCreary: If any other company will build the road, the Canadian Pacific Railway will not get it.


James Clancy: Is there only one charter over that territory ?


William Forsythe McCreary: I am not sure whether the Canadian Northern has a charter thews or not.


Samuel Hughes: They have not.


James Clancy: Is there just one charter covering the territory ?
Mr. HUGHE'S (Victoria). There is no charter covering the railway along the lake shore to Gimli. There is a charter extending up the middle of the tract of land lying between Lake Manitoba and Lake Winni-pegosis on the west and Lake Manitoba on the east.


William Forsythe McCreary: Is there uot a local charter passed last year ?


Samuel Hughes: I do not know about that. .


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is an extraordinary thing. When the granting of these subsidies was first begun, one of the principles laid down was that a subsidy should be given only when a company had satisfied the government that they were possessed, not only of the desire, but of the financial ability to build the road if they were aided, but that they were unable to build it without aid. But the minister tells us that no company has applied for this subsidy. And he tells us that the company holding the charter is the Canadian Pacific Railway, which is well able to build, and they have not asked for a dollar. He says that the hon. member for the riding has asked the government to assist in building the railway, and he is handing it over. I presume, as a free gift to the Canadian Pacific Railway. In many other parts of the country


Henry Robert Emmerson: where companies desire to build roads, they have not been able to get the assistance of the government. But in this case we are so lavish with our money that we are ready to give it to a company whether they ask for it or not.


William Forsythe McCreary: I did not know that we were here legislating for any particular corporation. There are 5,000 people in that section who have been settled there for twenty-five years on the promise made in this parliament that they should have a railway to enable them to ship their wood, and so clear their land. That promise has never been carried out. On behalf of these people I asked that a sum of money should be offered to any company that would give the desired railway accommodation. I am not speaking for the Canadian Northern Railway, the Canadian Pacific Railway, or any other corporation.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That was not the principle upon which these subsidies were begun. As I say, the object of a subsidy was to assist a weak corporation to build a railway that it could 'build with a subsidy, but it could not build without a subsidy. It is uot contended that this road is to be built by a weak corporation requiring assistance. The corporation that is expected to build it is known to be strong. We have not even an application from this company for the subsidy.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We have not any offer from the company to build it. It is not certain, I suppose, that they will build the road for the subsidy, but it seems reasonably certain that thej will not build it without it. The fact that a company has not applied for a subsidy does not prove that one ought not to be offered. My hod. friend from North Grey (Mr. Sproule) has confused the conditions. The principle is that before you enter into o' contract with a company to build a road and receive the subsidy, you should have reasonable assurance that they are acting in good faith and have the resources to build the road. But it has not been said before that you shall not grant a subsidy until some company has shown itself able and willing to earn it-. Again and again subsidies have been voted in order to try to find a company to build a road.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I say that the principle when we commenced the granting of railway subsidies was laid down in this House, and it was that when a company was prepared to build a road, but needed assistance, that assistance could be given.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That was as respects the making of the contract, but not as to the granting of the subsidy.


James Clancy: What is the general understanding under which subsidies like this are granted ? Does the first company com-

lng and showing evidence of good faith and ability to build the road receive the bonus ? Or, as between companies, does the government make a choice 1


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The government must be trusted wiith discretion, inasmuch as the object is to get the road built. We hold out the subsidy hoping that it will induce somebody to build the road. But the government must have discretion in selecting the company. In this case we do not expect to be obliged to select from half a dozen companies all ready to build the road. I fancy this road will be built by the Canadian Pacific Railway and nobody else.
To the Edmonton, Yukon and Pacific Railway Company for a line of railway from the town of South Edmonton. N.W.T., to North Edmonton, and thence westerly towards the Yellow Head Pass, a distance not exceeding fifty miles, in lieu of subsidy granted by chapter 7 of 1899. section 2. item 41.


William Findlay Maclean: Does this parallel the Grand Trunk Pacific ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No.


William Findlay Maclean: Is it an earnest effort to try to get into the Yukon from some point of connection with the Canadian system of railways ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman will have to ask the company as to their earnestness.


William Findlay Maclean: Is this to go rather to the Pacific than to the Yukon ? And if so, will it parallel the Grand Trunk Pacific ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No. I think the Grand Trunk Pacific leaving Edmonton will turn to the north, and my recollection is that this road runs west and south.


John Graham Haggart: This must be a road that is going to the Pacific too, through the Yellow Head pass.


Samuel Hughes: The charter is through to the Pacific ocean.


John Graham Haggart: I suppose this is an extension of the Mackenzie & Mann system that runs from Winnipeg to Edmonton.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Very likely, because I see the application is signed by Mr. Lash.


Samuel Hughes: The road is built from Strathcona, or South Edmonton, to Edmonton. It is to extend from the city of Edmonton westerly and south-westerly through the Yellow Head pass to Butte Inlet or Port Simpson.


Mr. OLIVER.: I think it would be well if some of the words in this resolution were changed. There are no such places as South Edmonton and North Edmonton. There is the town of Strathcona and the town of Edmonton. I would respectfully suggest 449J
that the wording be changed so as to make it read ' Strathcona ' and ' Edmonton.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has not this piece of railway already received a subsidy. ? Is this granting another subsidy to a road already subsidized ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This road has not been subsidized. I have not inquired into it especially, but I am sure that had it been subsidized my officials would have pointed out that fact to me.


Frank Oliver: This refers to a piece of road that is built from Strathcona to Edmonton.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Without getting a subsidy ?


Frank Oliver: It has earned a subsidy, but I do not know whether it got it or not.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: They would be entitled to the subsidy when they had built ten miles of the road and not before. Not having built that much, this is given them as a renewal of the subsidy.
To the St. John Valley and Riviere du Loap Railway Company for a line of railway from Fredericton, N.B.. to Woodstock, not exceeding fifty-nine miles, in lieu of the subsidy granted by chapter 7 of 1899, item 5 of section 2.


James Clancy: Is that an extension of the Riviere du Loup Railway ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No. From Fredericton to Woodstock it is an entirely different line.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The company are composed of very good men, Mr. Manchester, Mr. Howard Troop, and several other gentlemen of equal prominence and financial ability in the city of St. John, are interested in this company. They have made a full survey, in fact, I think they have done some work. They propose now going on, as I am informed by their solicitor, and pushing the work through. If a revote of this subsidy is given them, they will be in a position to push the work through.


James Clancy: How far does that line run from the Canadian Pacific Railway ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is a great convenience to a section of country which is now without railway facilities, it is on the western side of tbe St. John river, following down the banks of the river. The Canadian Pacific Railway is on the eastern or northern side, some distance from the river.


James Clancy: What is the distance between them ?


Mr. GIBSON.: Twelve miles.


James Clancy: One would naturally ask what necessity there is for the road. I understand that it runs near the American boundary.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It runs from Woodstock to Fredericton on what is known as the southern side or western side of the St. John river, and along the banks of the river. The Canadian Pacific Railway is on the eastern side of the St. John river, but some distance back of it, with hills between.


Samuel Hughes: The member for Sunbury (Mr. Wilmot), who is not in his seat at present, explained the necessity of this road to me, and pointed out that the company was a fine corporation, and the road would be a great benefit to a large section of that province.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This company is composed of some of the best men in the country-like Mr. James Manchester, a gentleman who communicated with me on the subject, and Mr. W. H. Thorne, a particularly worthy citizen of St. John, although wrong in his politics, and other gentlemen, very eminent citizens of St. John. This application is one of the best before us as regards the men who are behind it.


John Graham Haggart: There is a road at the present time from Fredericton to Woodstock. Will this road be any shorter ? Although it is on the other side of the river, it starts from the same point. Will the distance be any shorter by the new road ?


Samuel Hughes: There is a distance of 30 miles between the two roads according to the map.


John Graham Haggart: The map of the country is all wrong.


William Gibson: This Canadian Pacific Railway road is 65 miles long. It runs along on the east side, and is from 5 to 20 miles from the valley route. This road will serve another part of the country altogether, and is badly needed by the people along the valley of the St. John river. It is a fine, country along the route.


James Clancy: How far will this be from the proposed Grand Trunk Pacific ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: The Grand Trunk Pacific will be on the eastern side of the St. John river, this will be on the western side.


Mr. RICHARDSON.: Before we take up the new subsidies, I wish to make a few observations. We have been passing subdies for railways which come under the purview of the parliament of Canada for which subsidies have been granted and for which revotes are asked to-day.	*


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Richardson) allow me to read the item ?
For a line of railway from Hawkesbury, Ontario, to South Indian, not exceeding thirty-five miles, in lieu of subsidy granted by chapter 7 of 1899, item 22 of section 2.
Mr. ODANCY-


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This has been placed under the wrong heading. This is a revote in lieu of another subsidy and item 31 would therefore be the first of the new votes.


James Clancy: We want some information about this. Surely the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fielding) does not expect the chairman to declare this carried until we have some explanation of the item. It is intolerable that we should be expected to run through the items in this manner. The committee is entitled to some information.
The) MINISTER OF FINANCE. This is a revote of a subsidy granted in 1899 to connect Hawkesbury with the Canada Atlantic at South Indian. I am advised that the road passes through a very fine part of the country.


James Clancy: If it is a revote what is the reason for the delay ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I cannot tell that.


Samuel Hughes: The intention is to make a cut-off from the Canada Atlantic Railway to connect with the Great Northern at Hawkesbury.


John Graham Haggart: They have a road from Hawkesbury to the Canada Atlantic Railway already subsidized by this parliament.


The PRIME MINISTER.: At the present time there is a bridge across the Ottawa river at Hawkesbury. There is a road connecting with the Canada Atlantic Railway by way of Vankleek Hill. This is another line proposed from South Indian to Hawkesbury. It serves a large portion and shortens the connection between the Canada Atlantic and Hawkesbury by some thirty miles.


John Graham Haggart: There is a road from Hawkesbury connecting with the Canada Atlantic Railway at Glen Robertson. That is intended of course to go southerly towards Montreal, while this, as I understand, is intended to give a more northerly connection between Hawkesbury and South Indian thus shortening the route to Ottawa.


The PRIME MINISTER.: That is it.


Samuel Hughes: The distance be-ween Hawkesbury and South Indian via Glen Robertson is a great deal more than the distance between Hawkesbury and South Indian via this cut-off.


Mr. CHRISTIE.: This will shorten the present connection between Hawkesbury and the Canada Atlantic Railway by about 28 miles.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I am sure that I will be happy to support this vote.


Robert Lorne Richardson: As it is almost six o'clock I will reserve my remarks until after recess.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.

After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
To the Tilsonburg, Lake Erie and Pacific Railway Company for a line of railway from Woodstock northerly to a point on the Grand Trunk Railway at Berlin, or from Ingersoll to Stratford, or to any point on. the Grand Trunk Railway between these places, not exceeding thirty-live miles, being in addition to, and continuation of the nine miles mentioned in item one of this section. [DOT]


Robert Lorne Richardson: I think it oportune at this point to offer a few remarks on the policy of subsidizing railways in the older provinces of Canada. We have just gone through a list of railways which are applying for renewals of subsidies, which I presume, in many cases, have lapsed, covering mileage of some 1,500 miles, aggregating in cost something like $6,000,000. We now come to the consideration of subsidies for new lines of railways, making a total mileage of some 4,000 miles, and aggregating in cost to this country in subsidies from $16,000,000 to $20,000,000. It is not necessary to make any remarks on the large amount that is here involved, but we may notice that this is altogether outside and independent of the huge scheme we are facing of building a transcontinental railway. In face of this, I think it is time that we should call a halt and consider whether it is in the best interests of this country that the policy which has been pursued in the past should be continued. Occasionally when we ask the question why we should continue the policy of subsidizing railways in the older provinces, we are sometimes told in reply : Well that has been the policy in the past ; it has been in vogue for a great number of years, and we suppose it will have to go on. If there was ever a time when we should call a halt, in order to give this question a full, and further consideration before we go further, this is the time. It is questionable whether it is good policy to build a railway anywhere that cannot be built without a government subsidy. It may be a fair proposition that any railway which requires a government subsidy in order that it may be built is not required by the business of the country, or in the interests of the country, and probably would not be a paying enterprise. At this time capital Is seeking investment in any enterprise that will pay reasonably well in this country, and where there is really business to be done and a commercial need for the railway, there will be no need to go asking the various governments, federal, provincial and municipal, for subsidies to build railways. Any scheme of that kind that has a fair proposition to place before the capitalists of this country, is one which if brought under the consideration of men capable of looking into it, will not lack necessary capital for its construction. It may be argued that railways in the older provinces cannot be built without government subsidies ; I thinik it is a question whether they should be built at all or not. I know that it is said that this is the old policy. It does not follow that because it is a policy that has obtained in the past that with the changed conditions of the country, with the growth and development of the country it should still continue. It was perhaps necessary to build railways when the country was new, in order to open up the country, and it may be that in opening up new territories and new sections of this country, the policy of subsidizing may still be a wise policy, but in the older provinces, which are already supplied with the necessary transportation facilities, there is no call for further building of railways ; or if they are built, they should be built on such a sound business basis as would invite capital of its own accord to seek investment in them. It is not a sufficient defence to say that for many years we have subsidized railways. The changing conditions in this country remind us of a line of Lowell's that ' new occasions teach new duties,' and we might fairly consider whether it is not a proper time to depart from the old policy which has obtained in the past. The enormous amount involved in the subsidies we are asked to vote on this occasion, will only be added to from year after year ; a new batch will come up next year. The business of railway promoting has become a distinct profession, and men enter upon it, not for the benefit of the country, and not even in the Interests of capitalists, but as charter mongers, or promoters of railways in order that they may pull out of any scheme all they are able to get and leave the scheme to sink or float. We have had some notable examples of that in this country ; railways have been exploited by the promoters, who secured subsidies from the federal, provincial and municipal governments, pulled all the money they could out of them, and then allowed the railways to become bankrupt enterprises, not needed by the country, and with not sufficient business tributary to them to make them paying enterprises. In this connection, respecting railways to which subsidies have been granted and those to which subsidies will be granted in the future, I think it well to call the attention of the government to the fact that the interests of the workingmen, the men who put their labour, time and money into schemes of this kinid, should be protected in every way. We have had examples during this session of parliament in which men have supplied materials, &c., for the building of railways and in one or two instances have been left without pay, while the men who exploited the railways made all they could out of them and went away, you might say, with the government subsidies in their pockets. I think it would be a good policy for the government to call a halt and grant no more subsidies to railways, at least in the older provinces, until they have had

fuller and freer consideration, by a full parliament during the next session. A large number of the members have now gone to their homes, and the parliamentary representation of the country is at present very much depleted. A subject of the importance of tins one should not be dealt with at this late period of the session, but should have a full and fair consideration. These estimates ought to be brought down for the opinion of the House earlier in the session. It is not fair to parliament to ask them to consider the expenditure of such enormous sums of money in the dying hours of the session, in order that they may be rushed through without that full discussion which all subjects of this kind should receive. I believe that the good common sense of this country is largely opposed to subsidy granting. I know that in the section which I represent. among the farmers, public opinion is opposed to the granting of subsidies even for railways that may be constructed through the country in which they are living, and I speak as representing them. The burdens of this country ought to be lightened, and not so enormously increased as they are being. It is a question whether the best interests of the country are considered or the interests of the government. It is government patronage which requires these enormous subsidies more than the requirements of the country. These railways are, perhaps, being exploited more for that purpose than for the benefit they will be to the country at large.
While I am on this subject I might refer for a moment to the question of giving charters to railways. We have now had a railway commission appointed which we may presume will be of a non-political character. It would be but fair that every company seeking a charter to build a railway should have their project submitted to that railway commission, and thoroughly examined by them before parliament meets, in order to see whether such a railway would be in the interests of the country, whether it was demanded by the requirements of the country, and whether there would be business tributary to it sufficient to make it pay. We might then have good, solid legislation along this line, and not have railway enterprises such as have been brought before this House during this and the last session. I do not intend to occupy the House any longer, but I throw out these few suggestions in the interest of my own constituency, and I believe that in doing so, I represent largely the good common sense of this country.


David Henderson: This afternoon we somewhat hurriedly passed some thirty resolutions granting subsidies to railways, all of which, however, are revotes, renewing grants which had been made in former years, perhaps chiefly under the direction of the present government, but some of


Robert Lorne Richardson: them extending back beyond their advent to power. Possibly the same exception could not be taken to the renewal of subsidies that can be taken to new subsidies. No doubt in many cases men have entered into large financial obligations under promises from the government of the day that they would be aided- in the enterprises in which they had interested themselves, and consequently it might seem unfair for the government to refuse now to carry out in good faith what was promised to railway incorporators in days gone by, and on which they proceeded to invest their own money and the money of the shareholders they had secured throughout the country. Therefore, it may fairly be argued that the passing of these revotes is justifiable, and could not well be refused by the House. But when we come to the new subsidies, I think we can look at the matter in a very different light. It has been well said by the hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Richardson) that it is time that we called a halt in the granting of railway subsidies. Many of these railways which We are about to deal with pass through well settled sections of the country, and therefore ought to be selfsustaining. I fail to see that the country at large is called upon to supplement what the promoters of these railways may be able themselves to put into the enterprises in order to make them paying speculations. Some of them I have no doubt have merit.
I do not for a moment say that we should in every instance refuse a subsidy to a railway. I think there are meritorious cases- roads which may be strictly called colonization roads, going into and opening up new sections of country. But to my mind the great bulk of them are roads which have no claims, and for which no subsidy should be granted by the government. It has now come to this, that you cannot build a mile of railway in this country' without coming to the government for assistance. In this list of subsidies which we are to deal with to-night, we have railways down to one mile in length, two and a half miles, three miles, four miles. Surely it is not necessary for the promoters of these schemes to come to the government for assistance. These short lines of railway do not lead into new districts; they cannot be classed as colonization roads. One of them is referred to as a road leading to a wharf. Surely it is not necessary for the government of this country to be called upon to use the public money to assist enterprises of that kind. Therefore, whilst there may be meritorious cases to which aid may be granted, I think the great bulk of these cases which we are about to deal with should not receive aid. 1 think the principle of subsidizing railways should not be continued to the same extent as in the past. I think the time has arrived in this country when most railways can be constructed and made to pay without the intervention of the government. I therefore
14349 [DOT]

desire to place on record my protest against tlie passing of these resolutions. I do not suppose for moment that will prevail. The government have apparently adopted this policy, and have gone very far. afield in widening it. It seems to me that they might have narrowed it down to cases of real merit. In saying this, I lrnow I am voicing the sentiments of my constituents. The feeling is very strong, not only in the county I represent, but I believe throughout western Ontario. Some may say that it is a rather selfish view and that western Ontario, having been well provided with railways, should not complain if other sections of the country are aided in the same way. I do not say that every case is lacking in merit; but I think that the government should exercise a great deal more judgment in the promises they are making to the promoters of railways, and that the number should be very much limited. I hope and trust that the government will take this view of the matter, and will consider the sentiments of the people of this country. If they do that, I am quite sure that a good many of these resolutions which we have before us to-night will not receive the endorsation of the committee.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Richardson) has in a general way protested against the granting of railway subsidies for the older parts of the country-I suppose having in mind particularly the older parts of Ontario. I hold in my hand a petition from a number of the electors of the county of Grey asking for the construction of a railway through that county. The hon. member for Haltou (Mr. Henderson) also protests against the granting of subsidies. These two gentlemen have the distinguished honour of representing constituencies which have been eminently served by railways, and those railways have received pretty liberal public aid. I am not aware that these gentlemen ever recorded their opposition to the construction of any railways projected through or calculated to assist their particular constituencies; but their constituents having got all they think they can profitably use, their representatives arise in this House and protest against other constituencies receiving as equitable a measure of treatment. My hon. friend from Halton probably thinks he is discharging his full duty by uttering a general protest against these subsidies. May I be permitted to point out to him a much more effective way of recording his objection ? If he is sincere, and I am sure he is, let him at the right time, before these subsidies are granted, arise in his place and point out by a distinct motion which subsidies in this list he objects to, and let him challenge the vote of this House, and place upon record by -yeas and nays the views of those who are either against or for these
subsidies. We then will know where we stand. There is scarcely a subsidy we have passed which has not been supported mord or less by hon. gentlemen opposite, and I venture to say that of those which are to come we will see the same liberal action on the part of members of the opposition. Until they by their votes challenge a particular subsidy, they cannot escape responsibility by entering a general protest against all subsidies. There is only one way in which my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) can put himself properly on record, and I now await with great interest to see whether he will take that proceeding- there is only one way in which he and his friends can put themselves on record and that is by recording their votes.


David Henderson: I am certainly grateful to the hon. Postmaster General for the fatherly advice he has given me-I might almost call it a lecture. But after an experience of fifteen sessions in this House, I am inclined to doubt that I require the special counsel which the hon. gentleman has offered. I have my own opinion on the question. I am quite willing to name the resolutions I object to and which I consider have no merit, and I will undertake to move a resolution, if the hon. gentleman will second and support it. That is the position I take.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: A very safe position.


David Henderson: If the hon. gentleman will support my resolution, I will be happy to vote with him. I fear, however, that I shall be obliged to limit very materially the number of resolutions condemning these subsidies, if I desire to get the hon. gentleman's support. With regard to the mode of entering my protest, I know of no stronger way in which a member of this House can declare himself than by making a speech. It is an old saying that an hon. member can very easily explain away a vote, but he cannot explain away a speech. I think the Postmaster General will agree with me on that point and perhaps regret having made some of the speeches he did in this House, particularly not later than Saturday last, which he will have a great deal more difficulty in explaining away than if he had given a vote. I consider that I have given the strongest protest I can against this wholesale granting of subsidies, even though I may not have the privilege of voting for a resolution condemning it. The hon. gentleman knows1 that all the resolutions I could move here would be voted down by himself and his friends, and it would be useless for me to propose resolutions which would: not have the slightest chance of being accepted by the majority of this House.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman, for once in his life, manifests a desire to become an humble follower

of the Postmaster General. I was not aware until this moment that he was ever prepared to take his views on public matters from any one on this side. He now says he is prepared to propose a motion to strike out all of these* subsidies, if I will second it. But I am not of his opinion. I am in favour of these subsidies and am prepared by my vote to support them. If my hon. friend is opposed to them, let him make his motion. He does not require to seek me for a seconder. He has his friends, let him see if he can get a corporal's guard of his own people to support him. He would like to go before the people and point out that he had made a protest against these subsidies, but he dare not call for a vote on any of them. He asks what is the use of proposing a motion which will be voted down. Since when did the hon. gentleman become so modest ? We have had vote after vote during these last seven months, called for by hon. gentlemen opposite, although they knew perfectly well that their propositions would be defeated. They regarded the taking of the yeas and nays as the proper way to place on record their views for or against any policy. How comes it now that my hon. friend changes his views and tactics ? I tell him and every member of the opposition that each one of them is responsible for every one of these subsidy votes unless he challenges a division. Let each man stand up and record his vote for or against. They cannot escape responsibility under cover of a general disapproval. They cannot escape responsibility to their own constituents by simply giving utterance to an idle protest. Let them place themselves on record. Let them come out like men. Fancy my hon. friend apologizing to the people of Halton for - not presenting a motion because the Postmaster General would not second it ! Would he not be asked whether he was sent to parliament to do what the Postmaster General approved ? He would be told that he was elected to oppose the Postmaster General. Yet to-night, under cover of a plea of that kind, he seeks to escape the responsibility which devolves upon him, as upon every other individual member of this House. I repeat that until he challenges by his vote any subsidy submitted to this House, he will be held responsible for having granted it.


David Henderson: The hon. gentleman has suggested that I wished to take him as my leader. I desire to disclaim any impeachment of that kind. What I did say was that I should become the leader of the Postmaster General, and I hope that before this debate closes I may find in him an humble follower.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Try me.


David Henderson: I repeat again that the protest I have made is the strongest I can possibly make. The Postmaster General


William Mulock: has instanced cases in which we on this side have challenged the policy of the government by moving resolutions. That I consider to be a very good plan, because it does not require every member to stand up in his place and enter a protest against the government policy when all of one mind, that can be done much more quickly by voting on the question. I do not know what is the policy of hon. gentlemen on this side on the question of railway subsidies. I do not know if they have any general policy, nor do I know whether hon. gentlemen opposite have such a policy. Perhaps there is not on that side behind the Postmaster General a united opinion. If he would test his own followers, he would find hon. gentlemen behind him who would much rather that we on this side did not move resolutions condemning these railway subsidies. If we did, some of his followers would be compelled to give a vote which they would much prefer not giving at this time. I desire to say nothing further. I desired merely to give expression to the sentiments of my constituents. My constituents know my sentiments and I know theirs, and so far as I am able, both by voice and by vote, if a vote should be taken, I am prepared without hesitation to put myself on record in favour of what I believe to be the sentiments of the people I represent.


Mr. BROOK.: As one of the corporal's guard, to which the hon. the Postmaster General alluded in his somewhat magniloquent manner, also I am prepared to make a general protest.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Hear, hear.


William Rees Brock: And I base that general protest upon the minute of council passed by these hon. gentlemen themselves appointing a responsible commission to investigate and pass upon the great transportation questions of this country. We should not touch the question of bonusing a single mile of new railway that should come within the purview of that commission until that commission has reported. And, as to any railways that do not come within the purview of that commission we have no right to deal with them at all. Our business here is to legislate with regard to matters for the general benefit of Canada, and local matters we should leave to local authority. Instead of that, we find ourselves called upon to deal with a variety of schemes about which even the government themselves know nothing. They are asked questions as to when charters were granted, why granted, to whom granted, and the hon. gentleman in charge of this measure knew nothing at all about these matters. And I do not think that the Postmaster General (Hon Sir William Mu-lock), with all due respect to him, knew any more. The government, so far as railway matters are concerned, is going merely

at haphazard. I may be mistaken, and they may know more than they appear to know; but I do not believe that the government really know anything about the schemes they have placed before us. We have heard to-day of one railway that was projected in the province of New Brunswick on one sidle of a river. It turned out that there was another railway a short distance away on the other side of the river. And the members of the government did not know how many miles these railways would be apart and did not know where the new railway was going.
I take the government to task upon their dealing with these questions after the appointment of a transportation commission. They have talked a great deal about that commission. Why should not all these questions be placed before them for consideration ? But the course we are now taking is that we appoint respectable gentlemen as a commission and then give them nothing to do. During to-day's sitting, before six o'clock, we had passed, I believe $6,000,000 of railway subsidies; and we are asked to pass now somewhere in the neighbourhood of $7,000,000 more. This government have become so accustomed to dealing in large figures that $13,000,000 is a mere bagatelle to them. But I am sure that the country Is taking a very different view of it. And if the government wish to make the im-presssion they desire to make, they should be prepared, when proposing to give $3,200 a mile for a certain length of railway, to give full information as to what that money Is being granted for and why the road should be built. Without such information, we do not know but that instead of subsidizing a railway we are subsidizing a constituency. We know very well that most of the votes this morning were revotes, some of them eight and' ten years old. Do you mean to tell me that you are subsidizing railways in such cases as these ? I make the general statement, as my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) made it. that in many cases these are subsidies to constituencies and not to railways. These railways were subsidized years ago and never built, yet these subsidies are renewed. And the Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock) endeavoured to terrorize members into voting for these subsidies. ' Challenge the vote,' he said. What does that mean ? It means that members should place the government in a position to say : These miserable fellows in opposition are opposing a vote of $3,200 a mile for a railway to run through this constituency; they are opposing the spending of that money in the constituency; but the government is quite willing that that money should be spent : Glorify the government! Why, it is mere child's play to deal with him in this matter, because we know his style of argument. Usually he is strong; but this evening he is remarkably weak. I think he was not himself at all in arguing this railway question.
Now, the government are face to face with another difficulty, a difficulty which they must feel. How are government debentures going in the financial market at the present day. Are governments, even endorsers of railway bonds, able to raise all the money they want ? And great railway systems, when they want to raise money, instead of paying 3 per cent, are they not obliged to go to New York and Great Britain and pay 54 per cent ? And this country is going to spend $100,000,000 or $150,000,000 upon a railway and then rent it at 3 per cent for fifty years, when very likely we shall have to pay 5 per cent or 6 per cent for the money with which to build it. I do not think I am misleading the House or the country when I make the statement that the government are face to face with a very serious financial difficulty, and they are running their heads against it more and more every day. Take these votes that we are now passing-$13,000,000 of subsidies to railways. We are not going to give these people cash; you are going to give them the credit of the country, and they will go into the financial market and raise money upon that credit. Of course, you say $13,000,000 is only a small matter. But you have several times $13,000,000 that you are guaranteeing, and you have millions coming due that you have to provide for. I think it time to call a halt, as the hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Richardson) says. We are here to criticise, but the government are here to act. Their actions at the present time are not creditable to themselves as managers of the financial affairs of this country. They have debts to meet, yet they are going on increasing their indebtedness for the sake of subsidizing constituencies and pleasing gentlemen who are going back for re-election. It is very, very serious; and I wish to say to this House through you, Mr. Chairman, that, as a business man, one not brought up to politics or in the atmosphere of politics, that I feel very seriously the position that the government are rushing this country into at the present time. I know that it is unpopular to go to the people, as we expect to have to go, and have it said that we have opposed the expenditure of money in their county. But I say that that is the most contemptible'kind of politics. And I am astonished that a gentleman occupying the position before this country that the Postmaster General does, should be willing to make the reply he did to the hon. member for South Grey and the hon. member for Halton. Their remarks are such as have been called for, loudly called for. by the people for years past. The evidence that such words needed to be spoken is seen in the very votes that we have been passing. These subsidies were voted years ago, yet the promoters of these railways have not been able to raise the money^ over and above the subsidies, to

build roads. I know that from the province of British Columbia, and from what some Reform politicians at one time called the shreds and patches of confederation,' the cry comes for money. And we have eyer been willing to grant that money, so long as it was to be spent solely in the public interest, to build up every part of the Dominion, including these shreds and patches. I do not call them that, for we on this side have always had sympathy with every part of the Dominion, from end to end. We are even in full sympathy with this ' rolling back of the map,' spoken of the other day by the opening up of the northern regions of Canada, if it can be shown that there is anything practical in what the government propose.
But why need they be afraid to put it off till the end of the session ? Why not have (the surveys made and bring down a busC ness system, not mountains of information, by which we are absolutely humbugged ? We want information by prominent engineers. By our course with regard to these transportation systems, we are making ourselves a laughing stock from one end of the country to the other in the financial markets of the world ; we are making ourselves ridiculous by proposing schemes without knowing anything about them, floating them on the market to the detriment of a great many schemes that would ibe beneficial to this country. Each one of these schemes has a certain bearing upon the others. If we go to the financial markets of the old country, or of this country, or of New York, and they ask ns : What are you going to do with this eighty millions of money ? Why, we are going to build a railway from Moncton through to Quebec, and from Quebec to Winnipeg, on a line 200 or 300 miles north of civilization. Well, that is a big scheme, what kind of information have you to go upon ? Well, the Premier of the Dominion of Canada, a gentleman for whom we all have great respect, says tbait he has mountains of information, and lie has brought them down. We find them in a little pamphlet that is perfectly ridiculous. Under these circumstances, I join with my hon. friends from South Grey (Mr. Richardson) and from Halton (Mr. Henderson) in appealing to the government on the general principle. The Postmaster General says : I bring down a vote for so much money that is going to Centre Toronto, and if you dare to vote against it I will leave you in the hands of your constituents. Mr. Chairman, he dares the wrong man.
I will vote against anything that I consider is wrong. I may make mistakes, no doubt I have made a great many, but there is one mistake I won't make, I will not lay before the great financiers of Great Britain, of Canada and of the United States such a scheme as has been propounded by the government without one single particle of information. I say here advisedly that there Mr. BROCK.
is not one member of the government who knows anything at all about that country, not one who has any information from a man that does know anything about building a railway with a grade of four-tenths of one per cent per mile, and with this magnb fieent want of curves. All the grades and curves are in the imagination of the government, who want to discover something to save them from the contempt of this whole country. What have they done ? They have never, since they have been in power, done anything but to go back on thdir records. The Postmaster General knows they have no policy, and those hon. gentlemen whom they took to their bosoms seven years ago have finally become disgusted with them, and they know it. Therefore, I contend that when the Postmaster General gets up to lecture an old member of this House like my hon. friend from Halton, lie makes one of the mistakes of his life. The hon. member for Halton is known to this House and to this country as a safe man. He has advocated no wild cat schemes in this country, but, as an old and prominent business man, he lias asked the government to halt.
Now, with the old votes revoted and the new votes we are asked to pass, we are entering upon an expenditure ol' several millions of dollars. I have looked through these items and I do not see a vote for the Quebec bridge-another very important matter that should be discussed by this House. We are led up to these things little by little, not all at once ; we get them in small homeopathic doses, which gradually approach to allopathic doses ; and I think that by the time we get the big bonuses all through, the country will not put up with it. But the great mistake, I contend, is made in the Railway Committee of this House. We are all at fault on both sides. We give charters to individuals to whom we would not lend a dollar bill ; we give charters to a number of people because some genial member from British Columbia or somewhere else comes forward and jollies us into giving the charter. Now, that is altogether wrong. I contend that this great transportation commission that was heralded with such flourish of trumpets by the Finance Minister should pass upon every one of these charters before they come before the Railway Committee and see whether they are for the general advantage of Canada. Then again these charters should not be granted unless there is some reasonable financial ability behind them to carry them out. Before granting a charter we want to know what bonuses are being granted by the Dominion, by the provincial government and by the municipalities. These are matters so serious that I make no apology in taking up the time of the House in discussing them, even in these last days of the session. These are matters that should be discussed from one end of this country to

the other. It is generally thought that politics is a very different thing from business. When we come here to transact the business of the country we should do it upon the same principles of honour that we transact our private business. I contend that the same principles of justice and right should guide us in the conduct of the affairs of the country as should guide us in the conduct of our individual affairs. What is there more important than drawing upon the revenues of this country, in taking money out of the pockets of the people and using it for public purposes '? In such a serious matter we should exercise the same prudent business principles, the same ideas of rectitude, that we desire to use in the conduct of our private business. We should not be deterred from so doing by the threats of the Postmaster General or anybody else, that we are flying in the face of our constituents if we vote against this or that railway subsidy. I say we must rise above that kind of consideration if we are going to fulfil the national destiny which has been so graphically described by the Prime Minister. I desire to place myself on record along with my hon. friends from South Grey and from Halton, on the general principle which they have* advocated. Let us once settle down upon some safe and just general principle, and we cannot go far astray in details. But when we attempt to do what is fair and just, and dare to express our opinions on the floor of this House, are we to be told by the Postmaster General that we are opposing the interests of our constituents in holding back railway subsidies from them 1 If I thought for one moment that I was sent here to advocate subsidies or anything else for my constituents that were coming out of the pockets of the rest of the people, I would not remain here. I think there is nothing so contemptible as to be continually scheming to get something for your constituents at the expense of other people. I contend there is too much of that kind of thing going on. We have voted this afternoon subsidies, I believe, covering in the vicinity of 4,000 miles of railway. Besides that, I am given to understand that we have got to make arrangements about the Quebec bridge. We have not got that before us yet, but I wish to include that in the protest I am making. Whatever is going to be done must be dione above board, and in the face of the whole country. It must not be done seemingly for one interest when it is in reality for another. Mr. Chairman, I may not have another privilege of addressing you here. I wish now to enter my protest generally against the policy of this government, against the system upon which railway bonuses are granted, upon which bridges are built, railways are built and harbours are subsidized from one end of this country to the other. We are within a few days of the end of the session, when in all probability hon. gentlemen opposite are preparing to appeal to the country
for support or for condemnation, and I desire to take this last opportunity of placing my views on record.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Brock) addresses his remarks to a criticism of what he describes as the general system of bonusing. The general system of bonusing is not the question before the committee. The subject before the committee relates to a number of separate propositions to grant aid to certain railways, some in existence and some not yet in existence. He joins with the hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Richardson) and the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) in protesting against these subsidies. May I ask the hon. gentleman if he objects to all of the subsidies that are proposed here ?


William Rees Brock: I think I was pretty plain.
I believe that every subsidy that comes before the House should first of all come before the transportation commission appointed by the right lion, leader of the government.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: This is a very large committee. This is a Committee of the Whole House and supersedes all the other committees in Canada in dealing with these propositions at this stage. The hon. gentleman dare not answer that question categorically. He knows that he himself has been pressing the government to grant aid to a railway this session. He knows that he has a mandate from the city of Toronto to use his best endeavours to promote the granting of a subsidy to the James Bay Railway and other railways to aid the city of Toronto. The hon. gentleman will not deny that.


William Rees Brock: I mean to say that I have no such mandate, and that I have made no such demand. I will always support the granting of a bonus to a railway through a new country, but I would never ask for a bonus for Toronto to secure the building of a railway into that city-never. The city of Toronto got a charter to build a railway. Their experts went up into the James Bay country, through which hon. gentlemen opposite talk of building a transcontinental railway, they found it an impossible country to build through and they dropped it. I know the threat. You need not be at all alarmed about that. I am prepared to say that I would oppose the granting of a subsidy for any railway to be built from Toronto up to the line of the Canadian Pacific Railway.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman stated in this House on a certain occasion that he was one of a commission appointed by the city council to-consider the scheme of constructing a railway from Toronto to James bay or in that vicinity. He made a mistake on that occasion, because he gave this House to understand that the commission's report was adverse to that scheme. A delegation com-

posed of the city council and the leading citizens of Toronto to a very large number came down to Ottawa-interviewed the government and presented the correct version of what occurred


William Rees Brock: I


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not want to misrepresent the hon. gentleman, and he will correct me if I do. We were told by this committee composed of the mayor and the leading representatives of the city, the persons who were voicing the views of the city of Toronto, that the events in connection with the commission were not such as the hon. gentleman's recollection led him to think them to be, but that when the commission had presented their report to the city council, the city council were so enamoured of the proposition which had been made that they directed that steps should be taken to obtain an Act of incorporation and to proceed with the scheme of building the James Bay Railway. That is the statement which was made to the government by the mayor and the city council and the leading citizens in the city of Toronto.


William Rees Brock: Why was it not built ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: That -delegation was heard about six months ago.


William Rees Brock: This was three or four years ago.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: We cannot build a railway in six weeks. They pressed upon the government the advisability of aiding a railway from the city of Toronto northerly to intersect the Canadian Pacific Railway in the vicinity of Sudbury. That request from the hon. gentleman's constituents was made to this government, we have given effect to that view, and I ask the hon. gentleman if it is not fair that he should either join with us in supporting that proposition or put himself on record against it ?


William Rees Brock: I put myself most positively on record against it.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Against that proposal ?


William Rees Brock: Against the proposal to build to James bay.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I am speaking of the scheme before the committee. There is a proposition before the hen. gentleman and he may vote for or against it, and that is to build a railway which may be called the James Bay Railway, but which is to aid a railway to be -constructed from the city of Toronto proceeding northerly to Sudbury, and a few miles north of it, perhaps a dozen or twenty miles north. It is in the direction of a line which will ultimately connect with the [DOT]Grand Trunk Pacific. Is the hon. gentleman for or against the granting of a subsidy to Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
the James Bay Railway or to some other railway from Toronto either to intersect the Canadian Pacific Railway in the vicinity of Sudbury, or to be continued northerly until it meets the Grand Trunk Pacific V Would the hon. gentleman kindly give me his opinion on that question ?


William Rees Brock: Go on and make your speech and I will reply.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Very well. Of course, if the hon. gentleman says that he does not again seek to represent the city of Toronto, that he has no regard for public opinion in Toronto, it does not matter.


William Rees Brock: I did not say anything of the kind.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I am asking whether we are to take the views of those citizens who came here claiming to represent the opinions of the people of Toronto, or whether we are to take his views.


William Rees Brock: You can please yourself. You have your choice.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman has told us his opinion of the proposition that is now before the committee. This is not a fague scheme. It is definite. It is not dealing with an abstract proposition. It is not dealing with a system, but it is dealing with a project to construct a railway from Toronto to Sudbury. .


William Rees Brock: The scheme is not before me.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I will refer the hon. gentleman to item No. 39.


Samuel Hughes: It is time to take it up when we come to it.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (reading) :: To the James Bay Railway Company for a line of railway from Toronto, via the east side of Lake Simcoe. Parry Sound and Sudbury, towards James bay, not exceeding 265 miles, in lieu of two subsidies granted by chapter 8 of 1900, of 35 and 20 miles respectively, from Parry Sound towards James bay.


Samuel Hughes: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. The hon. Postmaster General is discussing a specific item which is on the paper, but which we have not yet reached, and concerning which the hon. Minister of Finance has made no explanation. I would like your ruling.


Peter Macdonald: When the committee commenced deliberations after dinner, I stated that we were now entering upon the consideration of new subsidies, and that the hon. member who rose before six o'clock to engage in a general discussion upon them would be at liberty to do so. I regard this as a general discussion upon the principle of granting subsidies, and I take it that if any particular item is referred to

it is simply referred to as an illustration of the general principle.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Then, Mr. Chairman, prosecuting this inquiry a little further, permit me to say that the city of Toronto has expressed a desire that the government shall aid the Irondale and Bancroft Railway in the extension of its line westward. Is the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) in favour of our listening to the prayer of the city of Toronto in that respect ? There are some others of a like nature that are in the interests of the city of Toronto, and which the city pointedly asked for. I think the city is interested in what is known as the Pembroke Railway, a railway that will ultimately connect the Pembroke Railway with the Toronto system. Toronto is also interested in what is known as the Bobcaygeon and Pontypool Railway, and Toronto is interested in several of these railways under consideration.


William Rees Brock: In what way is the city of Toronto interested ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: They will help to bring traffic to the city of Toronto.


William Rees Brock: Financially they are not interested in the building of these roads.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: They are desirous of having these roads prosecuted and built, and thus you will see that a very considerable portion, probably one-tenth of the mileage which is to be aided, is in respect of railways that are centering in Toronto or leading towards Toronto, and yet we have an hon. gentleman representing one of the ridings of that city making a general protest against subsidies. Are we not entitled to know where he stands in regard to those particular subsidies for which his constituency is asking ?


William Rees Brock: Just where I stand iy regard to all other subsidies for railways which are not in the new sections of the country.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I suppose he will then be in the same position as the other members whose constituencies are sufficiently served with railways and who have become virtuous and economical; until his city is so situated, I presume he will support these particular subsidies. 1 will say to him that the government is in favour of the subsidies that are here mentioned and if the hon. gentleman is against these subsidies it is his duty in fairness, and in vindication of that declaration of courage which he says he possesses, to put himself on record, yes or no, for or against these particular subsidies. Until he has done that I say that he has failed to take the only effective course of putting himself on record. He will not find any support for such a resolution on his side of the House. The hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) for example, would differ from him. The hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Gour-ley) would differ from him; he is an enterprising gentleman, and so we could run the gamut of the members and they would all vote for the subsidies that are given to help their own constituencies. Perhaps they will not vote for others, but the country is entitled to know where they stand on each proposal. We are not discussing an abstract proposition here, but a particular proposal, to do or not to do something; it is not a mere academical discussion, but a question of contributing public moneys towards certain public enterprises. Each one of these proposals is separate and distinct from the others and it is quite competent for the hon. gentleman to support some and to vote against others. But the country is entitled to know which, if any, of these the hon. gentleman favours or opposes. Toronto particularly is entitled to know from him frankly and fairly whether he is supporting or opposing this scheme, and I will ask him now whether he will take the responsibility on behalf of the city of Toronto of standing up here in this House and requesting the government to strike out all the subsidies for which the city of Toronto has asked.


William Rees Brock: 4 think that nothing more contemptible has ever been performed in this country than the speech which has just been made by the Postmaster General. He asks are all the subsidies in which Toronto has any interest whatever to be struck out. What do you mean ? Toronto is interested in every subsidy that is granted to every railway from the North Pole to the American line. Toronto is cosmopolitan but Toronto is not prepared to advise the government or to advise itself to vote for subsidies for railways not only those in which Toronto has no interest, but simply those in which political knavery alone has an interest. The hon. Postmaster General is not doing himself any credit by the way in which he is attacking me in this matter. He knows what my opinion is in regard to the granting of subsidies and I have stated my opinion very positively to my constituents, that no grant of subsidies ought to be made in the thickly settled parts of this country. But when a grant is made to a railway in British Columbia, Toronto has to pay her share and a very large share it is. Do I object ? No, I do not object to building railways through the sparsely settled districts and Toronto is ready to pay her share, but Toronto has not asked, at least not officially, to build a railway from Toronto north to Lake Simcoe. The hon. Postmaster General thinks that in a very clever and politic way he is going to force me into a corner. He is much mistaken; the country know him and know the petty means and petty kind of politics to which he is willing to descend in the effort to place a political opponent in a corner. I

am not afraid of any corner into which hon. gentlemen opposite can shove. I went into Centre Toronto in the face of a very large adverse majority and of every influence that every member of the two governments, federal and provincial, could bring against me. X had a gentleman opposing me on the platform with a judgeship in his pocket, but the electors turned his majority into a majority for myself. The threat of the hon. Postmaster General has no influence with me at all, and I would be very glad indeed if he dared to come into Centre Toronto and meet me there. 'I will meet him and every argument he can advance in Centre Toronto in any constituency of Toronto. I do not go into York because I suppose that I would have to pose as a farmer there, but even so I would not be very much afraid of him. notwithstanding several great advantages which he possesses, financially and otherwise, tin the attempt he has made this afternoon to corner me he has made a mistake. I stand where I stood before my constituents and say that I oppose subsidies to railways through thickly settled districts, but that I will support subsidies given to railways to open up new territories for Canada.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the Postmaster General was hardly fair to the hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Richardson). He challenged the hon. member for South Grey to oppose his individual resolutions because there was an application or petition from Grey asking that a railway should be subsidized that was calculated to help that district. The hon. member for South Grey, as he had a perfect right to do, took exception to certain features of the government's policy. He complained of the lateness in the sqsison of the bringing down of these resolutions. There are seventy-eight resolutions here, although there are not seventy-eight railways being subsidized, and the hon. member bad a right to criticise the general policy without attacking any particular resolution. The contention of the hon. Postmaster General was that the hon. member for South Grey, or the hon. member for Halton, or the hon. member for Centre Toronto, had no right to oppose this in a general way, but could only successfully oppose the government's policy in this regard by opposing every individual resolution. The Postmaster General opposed the hon. member for South Grey because he said there was an application from his own county and answered him by saying that it is the case with him as with many others, after a constituency has been liberally supplied by railway subsidies, then the people of that constituency oppose other subsidies. Is that the case with the county of Grey, one of the largest and best settled districts in the province, with 78.000 inhabitants ? Is it a fact that it was liberally subsidized by this parliament ? All the subsidies which that county ever got from this parliament


William Rees Brock: covered only twenty-eight miles of railway, at the rate of 83,200 a mile.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Where did the rest come from ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: From the municipalities aud the provincial government, chiefly from the municipalities. There were only two short sections subsidized by this parliament in that county ; 13J miles from Owen Sound to Hepworth, and 14 or 15 miles of the Grand Trunk Railway from the county line of Simcoe to Meaford, which was built before confederation. Although the county of Grey is a large county, there is only one railway running through it, and two others touch it ; so that it has not been liberally supplied with railways, and it would not be unfair if the people of that county asked for a little additional aid. The hon. gentleman complained because the hon. member for South Grey took the position he did. That hon. gentleman represents an agricultural constituency, and I respectfully submit that it was eminently his duty to voice the sentiment of his constituents on this subject. His constituents are farmers. If you take up the ' Farmers Sun ' for the past year, which fairly voices the sentiments of the agriculturists of this country, you will find that it has distinctly and consistently opposed the subsidizing of railways by the government. It is ti-ue, there is an application from the county of Grey for a subsidy for a railway-the very next item which we are to take up ; and I can only say that while in the main the people of the country are opposed to railway subsidies, it is a fact that certain localities have not yet been very liberally supplied with railways, and are quite willing to receive assistance from the government to build them ; and it would not be unnatural or unreasonable for the people of the county of Grey to entertain the same views as the people of other sections of the country that are not yet supplied* I may say that I intimated to the government that I was in favour of assistance being granted to that railway. I did so because I know the conditions and circumstances, and I believe it is proper that assistance should be given, in view of the fact that we are assisting railways all over the country, and that the county of Grey has not yet a good supply. Were I to voice the sentiments of the people of Ontario today, I would oppose entirely the granting of railway subsidies ; but I have never gone that far. I believe we ought to discriminate. I believe there are localities for which the government would be justified in subsidizing railways. But in many cases subsidies are given for localities which are already more than supplied. I have always held that the newer sections of the country and localities not already supplied with the conveniences of railways might properly receive government aid for the purpose of obtaining railway facilities. I have endeavoured to discriminate to that extent.

The Postmaster General contended that every member of the opposition who does not by a resolution and vote oppose every item he objects to. tacitly acquiesces in it. That is not a fact. Is an opposition expected to challenge every item in the estimates and have a vote upon it. If so, parliament instead of sitting six months, would sit twelve months in the year. That is not the duty of the opposition. Its duty is to crystallize its policy in an abstract resolution if you like, and vote on that. That conveys the policy of the opposition just as forcibly as though they opposed every single item to which they objected.


James Clancy: I cannot let this opportunity pass without calling the attention of the courageous Postmaster General to some of his attitudes in the past. The hon. gentleman has taken the very opposite courses on more than one occasion in this House. He is very courageous now when he wants to challenge the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) to tell just the precise number of miles of railway construction to which he is opposed. There was a time when the hon. gentleman and his leader had grave fears that the money voted for railway subsidies was stolen and went into an election fund. I want to ask the hon. gentleman if he will vote for a resolution that was proposed in this House in 1894, when a large batch of railway subsidies came down ? Did he ever protest against any railway grant ? The hon. gentleman, I am sure, will give a deaf ear to a suggestion of that kind. Does the lfon. gentleman lay down a course of conduct for this side of the House which he himself refused to pursue in opposition ? Does the hon. gentleman think that a fair or manly game of politics ?	1 do not think he will say that
it is. There is nothing more idle than for an hon. member on either side of the House to get up and challenge the other side to do what he himself refused over and over again to do. But that is what the Postmaster General does. I am coming now to the hon. gentleman's nightmare about the possible pillage of the public treasury by those who received railway subsidies in the past ; and, if he has not become more honest himself or if he does not regard others as more honest, if I propose the same resolution to-night, I would have his support. If it was a good proposition then, it is an equally good proposition now. This is the resolution that was proposed in this House by no less a person than the Prime Minister, and that was supported energetically by the Postmaster Gerferal with the ability he displays when he is wrong, though I will assume he was right on that occasion.
Mr. Laurier moved that the said resolutions he not now read the second time, but that they he referred hack to committee to consider the following amendment :-
That within four days after the opening of each session, the Minister of Railways shall lay
upon the Table of the House, copies of all agreements made by any of the companies with the government together with a statement of all payments made by the government up to date, for subsidies earned by any of the said companies, and the Orders in Council authorizing such payments.
That within a month after the payment to any company of any portion of the subsidies, the president and manager of said company shall furnish to the Auditor General a statement under oath showing if the whole of the subsidies so paid to the company have been applied in the manner herein intended, and that a similar statement shall be supplied by every contractor of the company who is to receive or has received the payment out Of any such subsidies or out of the proceeds thereof, and that, within four days after the opening of each session, the Auditor General shall lay all such statements upon the Table of the House.
That all such documents thus laid upon the Table of the House shall be referred to the Committee on Public Accounts to be by them investigated in the same manner as the public accounts.
That every officer and director of the said companies and every person having a contract with any of the companies for the performance of any work, the doing of anything, or the furnishing of any goods, effects, or materials, and having or expecting to have any claim or demand against the company by reason of such contract, who either directly or indirectly, by himself or by any person on his behalf, subscribes, furnishes or gives, or premises to subscribe, furnish or give, any money or other valuable consideration for the purpose of promoting the election of any candidate to a legislature or to parliament, or with the intent in any way of influencing or affecting the result of a provincial or Dominion election-is guilty of a misdemeanour and liable to a fine of not less than one hundred dollars and not exceeding one thousand dollars ; unless the value of the amount or thing paid, offered, given, loaned, promised, received or subscribed, as the case may be, exceed the last mentioned sum, in which case the fine may be raised to a sum not exceeding such value, and also to a term of imprisonment not exceeding one year and not less than one month, and in default of payment of such fine, to imprisonment for a further term not exceeding six months.
My hon. friend the Postmaster General supported that in a very vigorous speech. I ask him now if he is prepared to characterize as a farce both the motion of the Prime Minister and my hon. friend's speech in support of it ? Would he support such a resolution now ? The hon. gentleman will not answer.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: When the hon. gentleman takes his seat I will answer.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman would scarcely repeat the farce he acted on that occasion. He then pretended to believe and sought to make his friends believe, inside and outside of this House, that the money which was voted for railway subsidies during that period was diverted in part to other purposes, that a portion of it went into the hands of individuals for the purpose of controlling the elections and securing the

return of government candidates. Will' he say that the danger is less great now than it was then ? If not, I shall be curious to ascertain whether he would be prepared to support such a resolution coming from this side now ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I did not hear the whole resolution. I tried to listen to it, but could not catch it all. The hon. gentleman asked me if I would endorse its leading principle, namely, that companies or directors should be prevented from using government bonuses or aid for election purposes. That is the point the hon. gentleman puts.


James Clancy: The point I put is the resolution.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I did not hear the whole of the resolution. When he came to that part of it, he asked me if I would vote for such a resolution. All I have to say is that since that time we have enacted a statute which covers that groan . by making It penal for directors to contribute to election funds.


James Clancy: That is not all. The hon. gentleman has, when he likes, very acute hearing. And he must remember in any case what resolution he voted for.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I voted for so many.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman voted for so many absurd resolutions that he is now trying, not to remember them, but to forget them. One part of that resolution declared that the accounts should be audited by the Public Accounts Committee and investigated in every case.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: What was the view of the government of that day on that point ?


James Clancy: The view was that the hon. gentleman had moved an absurd resolution.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Then surely my hon. friend would not ask me to do an absurd thing and vote for an absurd resolution ?


James Clancy: I ask him to recall his absurdity or repeat it. I am not saying that the resolution should have been moved, but I am pointing to the part which the hon. gentleman then played. If my memory serves me right, a resolution was passed at the Liberal convention, held in this city in 1893. declaring that no bonuses or subsidies should be granted to railways.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There never was any such resolution passed.


James Clancy: I am speaking subject to correction. I think there were speeches made in that direction. But resolutions never did bind these hon. gentlemen. The very resolution I have just read does not bind him in any way, and I only read it for Mr. CLANCY.
the purpose of calling his attention to the absurd course he took in the past. It was then urged that it would be very dangerous to mix up railway matters with the Criminal Code, and the then Minister of Justice pointed out that the resolution was an absurd one. Coming to the general railway resolutions before us, I desire to say that we have reached a time in the history of Canada when we may well consider whether we are to continue a policy of granting aid to every railway in Canada, long or short, no matter what the conditions may be. There is no hon. gentleman on either side who will not say that we are living under very different conditions now to those existing twenty years ago, and therefore a policy which might have been pursued in the past to advantage might be an unwise policy today. I am not prepared to say that it was at any time a proper policy to vote aid indiscriminately to every railway, whether meritorious or not. There may be some cases in which, in a growing country such as this, it would be very proper to give aid to railways, but the general principle ought to be just the other way. We should only provide for the exceptional cases, and not lay down a broad policy which, as my hon. friend from Ilalton (Mr. Henderson) has pointed out, can have but this result, that not one mile of railway will ever be built without a subsidy. In my judgment, that is going entirely too far. I think we have come to the time when we may well call a halt, and treat the subsidizing of railways as the exception and not-the rule. I have no doubt that some of the grants proposed in these resolutions will aid colonization roads and accomplish a very good purpose. I have not less doubt that there are other cases that are not sufficiently meritorious to justify us in assisting them from the public treasury. When the hon. gentleman tells us that we must point out the particular railway we are opposed to, and not only that, but how much we are opposed to it, he is laying down a rule that he would not follow himself ; and if any one shows a lack of courage, it is one who lays down for others a rule which he would shrink from having applied to his own conduct.


Hon.   S@: I listened with some astonishment to the Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mu-lock) in his cross-examination of the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr, Brock). I notice that his cross-examination took place in the absence of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright). Those who recollect the days of other Liberal leaders and other Liberal principles, I think, will share my astonishment at that cross-examination. Should the Postmaster General ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce such questions, or summon to his chamber Hon. Edward Blake, and subject him to a similar cross-examination, the answers they would give would be

very interesting, I am sure, to the whole committee. If he should ask Mr. Blake what he thought of this policy of government subsidies to local railways, that gentleman would tell him-if he has not entirely gone back on his old principles-that they were absolutely unconstitutional, that it was contrary to the British North America Act to spend a dollar of federal money on local railways. And lion, gentlemen who followed Mr. Blake at that time agreed with him to a man; and they are recorded in the journals of this House as agreeing to that principle which he put in the form of a resolution and proposed as the Liberal view. That would be Mr. Blake's opinion. The right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce has never recanted, so far as I am aware-except by his silence now giving consent to the government proposition-the very terse description he gave of this sort of policy. When dealing with votes for railway subsidies brought down by the government of the day, though for a good deal smaller amount than these, he stated that each and every one of these votes was a bribe to the constituencies, that these railway subsidies were mere rat holes for public money. I think that would have been a very interesting addition to the examination of the Postmaster General. And, perhaps, before these resolutions are carried we may be able to carry on the system of the Postmaster General and have the privilege of cross-examining the Minister of Trade and Commerce on the subject and see whether he maintains his former attitude. And this reminiscence is rather interesting too for another reason. I think a large number of gentlemen on this side of the House still favour the principle that was put in force by the Conservative government and bitterly opposed at the outset by the Liberal party. JIany of these subsidies are for railways in districts already supplied with railway accommodation, and so not of such a nature as those proposed when the principle was introduced. It is interesting to observe these gentlemen coming down with such magnificent figures and such generosity, after the years that have elapsed and the work that has been done. I think there is a great deal of room for criticism in regard to the carrying out of that policy in certain portions of the province of Ontario. But I am sure that in other provinces on the Atlantic and the Pacific, the quarrel with the government will be-and I am frank to say it-that they have 'not been sufficiently generous. I do not think the people there would be opposed to this principle if it were applied properly. And, I think the contrast between the policy of the Liberal government and the policy of the Conservative government is that, under the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite, the. outlying portions of the Dominion do not receive the consideration they should receive, consideration that, under the pre-450
sent policy, appears to be given to the older and more settled parts of the country.


John William Bell: I think it might not be amiss to call attention to the fact that there is a good deal of justification for the discussion that has taken place in connection with these railway subsidies. I entirely sympathize and agree with the opinion expressed by my hon. colleague (Hon. Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper) that, so far as some of the smaller and less developed provinces and parts of the Dominion are concerned, there is, to my mind, a demand for some system of railway subsidies. There can be no question about the value of railway construction, and there can be no question that many parts of the country are not supplied with railway facilities as they should be. Nor can there be any question as to the value to these localities and to Canada as a whole from the legitimate and proper expanding of our railway system. But while I believe, that, I believe also that there are objections to the mode in which these subsidies are voted. For instance, we are to-night voting subsidies to a sum the magnitude of which many hon. members do not seem to realize. Take $3,200 a mile as a basis, and allow five per cent additional for the fact that a larger sum is promised to such roads as cost over $15,000 a mile. The mileage here subsidized is 3,928 miles. At $3,200 a mile, this would be $12,569,600. Add to that five per cent, as I have suggested, $628,480, and you find that the total subsidies now before us is $13,198,080.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Does that include revotes ?


John William Bell: Including everything. Here is a sum that we are voting in the course of one evening; and it is more than one-third of a sum which my hon. friend the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) declared not so many years ago was too large to be expended upon all the services of Canada. The time is not remote when the hon. gentleman pronounced $38,000,000 an extravagant sum to be expended on the services of Canada in every direction, and here to-night he and other hon. gentlemen who sympathized with him at that time, many of them associated with the government, are cheerfully and, apparently with a great deal of pleasure and satisfaction, as evidenced by their laughter, voting more than one-third of that sum for railway construction alone, and that in a direction which they cannot fail to remember, they uniformly condemned when in opposition. I do not mean to say that the views of these gentlemen were right when they condemned that course. It seems that they themselves have come to the conclusion that they were mistaken. They have set themselves with great assiduity to reverse their position upon all subjects upon which they expressed themselves. Their conduct during the years they have had a chance to show how they



would really act must convince us tliat tlieir opinions when in opposition do not now meet with their approval. Their conduct now is entirely at variance with those opinions. But we cannot hope that any government or opposition will be altogether wise. The most that we can hope for is that they shall do their best to govern the country honestly and well, and that the opposition will criticise as honestly and capably as they can the conduct of the government in power. Therefore, I do not think there is great profit to be derived from pointing out the fact that the course hon. gentlemen opposite are entering upon with such satisfaction is at variance with their opinions of the past. But at the time when we were to vote railway subsidies to the amount of over $13,000,000, there was an opportunity for the government to consider whether or not this was a proper system and the proper way to aid in the construction of such railway works as are still necessary.
Now to my mind it is a very grave question whether the country gives a sufficient amount of attention to this large portion of our national outlay. It seems to me doubtful if the government has fully and carefully considered whether in following the old method in which the example has been set to them by their predecessors, they are not perhaps continuing a method which might be superseded by a better one. To my mind the great purpose of railway subsidies is the economical construction of railways in portions of the country where they are wanted, and the point that ought to be kept clearly in view is whether any return for the large outlay which the country is asked to make can be expected ; and secondly, whether the localities in which the expenditures are being made will get as much benefit under this system as they might under a different one. Now there was an opportunity at this time, in view of the large extent of these subsidies, to have given a careful consideration to this matter. I think it is to be regretted that there is not evidence to show that the government has studied this subject. I am of the opinion that the government of Canada, instead of subsidizing by a cash bonus, roads at random, in great numbers, which are pressed upon their attention by interested corporations or even by prominent supporters, should have introduced a different method altogether, should have inquired carefully into these several propositions, and only given their support to such railway propositions as conveyed to them a reasonable assurance that they were likely to be carried out successfully at an early period, to all the rest turning for the time being a deaf ear.
I would further suggest that it would be to the advantage of the country if, instead of aiding these selected and favoured railways by a cash subsidy, the government should give their aid in the form of a guar-Mr. BELL.
antee upon a certain percentage of the bonds of the corporations which came to them and asked for support. That system has been to a certain extent adopted this year in the very extensive bonuses which have been promised to the Mackenzie & Mann system in the west, and those which are promised to the Grand Trunk Pacific. In these cases the government have entered upon that course ; instead of giving the cash subsidy we have given a guarantee. To my mind the great point to be kept in view is what the burden upon the country is going to be that will be created by carrying out these railway propositions. If it can be proved, or if it appeared to the satisfaction of the government, that the capital required to complete these railways would be lessened by a government guarantee as compared with the system of giving a cash subsidy in aid of these roads, then I think it would be better for the country and better for the localities in which these roads are built that the former principle should be substituted. The great purpose that ought to be kept in view is to bring the cost of these public works down to the lowest possible point, and in that way the burden which they subsequently impose upon the locality for which they are constructed and which must be met from the tolls collected by these roads, would be reduced to the lowest point. The result would be that we would derive the benefit of railway construction at the least possible cost, and upon the most advantageous terms. Now here was a great opportunity, because we are spending a very large amount of money, we are bonusing nearly eighty different lines of road over every part of Canada; and here was a great opportunity for the government to give this matter full consideration, and if they were satisfied that a better system could be discovered, to have introduced that system. There is not, I regret to say, any evidence before us to show that the government has bestowed any great amount of study upon this question. Therefore, to my mind, they have lost a valuable opportunity for giving very full and careful consideration to this matter.
Then again there is this to be said. This vote, aggregating over $13,000,000, is introduced at a time of the session when it cannot receive the discussion which this kind of expenditure, with the burden which it is imposing upon the country, would seem to warrant. These resolutions might have been much better introduced at an earlier period of the session, when they could have been fully and carefully discussed. There is no question to-day of more importance to this country than that of railway construction. We know' that we have to build in the course of a few years to come, a great many miles of road all over Canada. We know we must do that, therefore, it is to my mind, most important that if we are'not proceeding upon the best possible course

we should turn from that course and adopt a better one at the earliest moment.! It is idle to expect this time to engage in a discussion extending over a week or two weeks of time that might be required in order to thresh this subject out thoroughly, to collect all the necessary information, and to arrive at a satisfactory and final decision upon this question. I say we cannot hope to have that at this stage of the session ; therefore, I regret that these resolutions have been brought down at so late a period.
That brings to my mind what is perhaps the strongest objection, from all points of view, to such resolutions as we have before us to-day. I regretted very much the tone and substance of the speech made by the. Postmaster General to-night. I regretted it, because I saw a manifest disposition on his part to make prominent a feature in this discussion that to my mind is not creditable to this parliament, and that is his assumption that members of parliament in voting upon these resolutions are not free agents, that they are not giving to this subject their best judgment, their independent judgment ; that they are voting, on the other hand, entirely in the fear of their constituents in every case in which the constituents of any member are interested parties. That may well be the case. To be perfectly frank, in these railway subsidies there are votes in which my constituents are interested, and which I would, if necessity required, support with my vote. In respect of these matters, I feel that I have a mandate here to support these particular resolutions. Every other gentleman in this House whose constituents are interested in a particular vote, must feel the same stress. I do not like to see that, in this matter, the government are relying upon what can be called nothing else than log-rolling on a gigantic scale, in depending for support of hon. gentlemen in this House because each one of them is interested in one or more of the resolutions. It is practically organizing a log-rolling operation on a wholesale system for the government of the day to bring in seventy or eighty resolutions and rely for their passage upon the fact that individual members of the House on both sides are interested in one or more of these resolutions, and therefore, will vote for the whole lot because each one is interested in one or more. It is not seemly to make that idea prominent, and to my mind it is not fair. It is not to the advantage of the people that the independence of members of the House should be lost from the fact that their constituencies are interested in one or more of these resolutions. To my mind, if these resolutions cannot receive tne sanction of the independent judgment of individual members, then that is a great reason why they should not be introduced at all. They should not be brought down in batches and voted through simply because individual members cannot oppose some of them and 450J
therefore have to accept them all. There is a further serious objection. There can be no question that, to a certain extent, while the objects for which these votes are made,, while the purpose for which this money is being asked and received is laudable, nevertheless in the mode, and manner, and selection of these subsidies, the government in giving to the several corporations interested has a direct opportunity for the exercise of political interference in favour of the government. For instance, to-night we have nearly eighty railway resolutions brought down in one session ; at the last session of parliament not one was introduced.
There cannot be any one in this House who would argue that there was absolutely no necessity for these railways last year and an overpowering necessity this year. It is perfectly clear that the voting of money in this particular fashion places it in the hands of the government of the day to bestow great largesses upon great corporations and people at such times as they think they can bestow those largesses to the best advantage to themselves. This to my mind gives an opportunity to the government of the day to exercise enormous political influence and therefore it is not to the advantage of the country that it should be done in that way. It may be to the advantage of this government but it is not to the advantage of the country. One may say that if the country were entirely opposed to that 'mode of doing business, it would show it, in the manner in which it would receive these votes or proposals and that until there is such a body of independent opinion among the electors who are not favourable to the exercise of political pressure by the government in this fashion we may expect to see things go on as they are going. But, that does not make the matter right. If by this system of giving subsidies at such times and in such a way and under such modes as the government of the day adopts, leads to political influence being exerted on a great scale, I believe that every hon. gentleman will agree with me in saying that it is a bad thing, that it is not in the interests of the people of the country, that it is not in the interest of the government and that it will not have a tendency to strengthen the parliament of Canada. Generally speaking we must be favourable to the development of our railway system and I am prepared to support the government of the day in extending our railway system. I maintain that there are large portions even of the older provinces where we must have a great and rapid extension of the railway system if we are going to have a rapidly developing population and a rapid increase in wealth but I think it is an unfortunate thing that successive governments should bestow large sums of money in the form of subsidies when the individual members of those governments while sitting on the opposite side of the House had previously opposed

them all through. If expenditures that are wrong in the view of successive oppositions are going to be right in the . view of successive governments, then I say that there can be no question in the mind of any reasonable man that our system is not such a system as we should adopt in a country like this. For that reason X would like very much if the government of the day had introduced these resolutions at an earlier period of the session and if they had brought them down and submitted them to parliament at such a time and with such information as to make parliament feel that a strong case might be made out for a better system of expenditure, one which would be more absolutely free from all suspicion of the desire to exert political influence. I would have welcomed it. I believe it would not be a difficult matter for parliament to devise a method by which we would have the most important work of railway construction carried on more successfully and more economically than it is to-day and at the same time eliminate from the work of carrying on railway construction those objectionable features from which this system should be altogether free. We do not want to have it in the mouths of successive oppositions in this House to say that the ministers of successive governments have been promoting their own ends by the aid of this system, either as individual members of the government or as a party. This is not attaining to the highest possible plane of statesmanship or politics in this country that we can attain to, and in the meantime it will always remain an open question as to whether the governments which do make these large expenditures in the hope of personal advantage are not therein deceived. I am pleased to see that the government is not going to lose sight of the important work of railway construction but it seems to me that I might also express my regret that this enormous expenditure has not been submitted to us at a time when we could discuss it fully with some possibility of arriving at a decision on the subject and with a chance of discovering perhaps some better way in which this expenditure could be made.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: There can be no objection, as we are now in committee, that each of these items should be discussed on its merits and there is no reason for alleging that the committee should rise until there has been an ample opportunity given for that to be done. I only rose to point out to the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Bell) that if the committee approve of all these subsidies and) they should be granted it is not only improbable, but it is not possible that the $13,000,000 which he says they will cost will have to be paid in any one year. Perhaps they will not be paid in one, two, three or four years. Long lines of railway will take some time to construct and as he knows it is only as ' Mr. BELL.
construction proceeds that they are to be paid. Therefore, he must not look upon it in the light of our incurring a liability which during any given financial year will amount to $13,000,000 and which will have to be defrayed. We must proceed in a businesslike way in developing the country and we are all anxious to see it developed, but, we must at the same time have regard to the revenues of the country and to the ability of the country to carry out these undertakings. There may be schemes other than those proposed which would be in the interest of the country, but you might not be able to accomplish everything in one year. Hon. gentlemen opposite say that some years ago, before the Liberal party came into power, some members of that party took exception to an expenditure of $38,000,000 and said it was time to cry a halt and that there should be economy practised. That is quite true and there was a reason for it. In those days the revenues of the country were not paying the ordinary expenditure and all the works on capital account that were being entered into were being undertaken with borrowed money. Therefore, under these circumstances it was a wise and prudent thing to say that we should be careful, and that we should not proceed as they were proceeding at that time. But what are the conditions now ? Hon. gentlemen opposite know what the position was then and they know what it is now. There have been a great many millions of expenditure made, but the revenue that came in and the revenue that came in under a lower rate of taxation than prevailed in those days


Seymour Eugene Gourley: No, no.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: A lower rate of taxation than prevailed in those days has sufficed not only to pay the ordinary expenditure of the government, but it has paid the capital expenditure of government and left a surplus ever and above. Therefore, I would feel, such being the condition of things, when trade was stagnant and population not increasing, when the revenue was not sufficient to meet the ordinary expenditures of government, not to speak of doing nothing else, that it was desirable to call a halt, but now, under the changed conditions, when, under a lower rate of taxation, you have a revenue enough not only to pay your ordinary expenditure, but as I have said, to pay all of your capital expenditure, your bonuses for iron and, for railway construction, your expenditure on capital account for canals and other works and something over that besides, hon. gentlemen will see, that, this being the state of things, this government while they are making generous [DOT]expenditures, or rather proposing to parliament that the country is in a position to make generous expenditures, can do that without alarm on sound business principles and that it is a wise principle for

parliament to proceed upon having regard for the resources of the country. They have regard to the development of the country, and they submit their opinions for the judgment of this committee ; they believe in the development of the country in the directions that are indicated that they can do this out of the revenue of the country without entailing burdens on the people, and if our friends opposite will consider the operations of the last few years they will arrive at the same conclusions as we do, and, therefore, I would ask them to look upon the expenditure proposed by the government in the light of the present condition of the country and of its prospective development and advancement. I think they will agree with the government, that while wq are making these expenditures, looking towards the development, nevertheless we are proceeding in a wise, prudent, businesslike way, having regard to the needs and improvements of this country. As to whether the country is in a position to do this or not, for my own part I believe that the country can well afford to do it. I believe the country can meet the obligations parliament is assuming through the legislation of this session without unduly increasing the burdens of the people, and will be able to carry out the great schemes of development that parliament has so far sanctioned or may still sanction.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: The junior member for Piet ju (Hon. Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper) said there was a political stress upon members of this House. I agree with that, but I do not agree that the political stress is on this side of the House; the political stress is on the other side of the House. I am a supporter of subsidies. Ever since I entered this parliament and long before, I was a supporter of subsidies, because the Conservative party of this country adopted it as their policy to develop this country by encouraging the building of railways by subsidies. All that I have to complain of is that you gentlemen who adopted that policy along with all the Conservative policies, do not come frankly into this House and confess that you stole that policy. I think you should clothe yourselves with sackcloth and ashes and make a frank, open confession that you have stolen our policy on railways, as you have stolen the national policy and the bounty on iron. If you should frankly acknowledge this, you would escape the censures which people are now passing on you. The repentant sinner who turns in his way is always welcomed by good men, but it is on open and frank confession that he is forgiven. The same generosity would be extended to you here, but you insist upon stirring up ill-will in this House by claiming that you have adopted a policy and that it is your policy. I undertake to say that every dollar of money voted for subsidies in Colchester will inure
to my support, because the electors will say : This is the policy of the Liberal-Conservative party which the Liberals dared not change when they came into power. If the Minister of Finance will give me two or three more subsidies I will get every vote in Colchester, Liberal or Conservative, because the Conservatives will claim for me, and the Liberals will admit it, that by advocating the policy of subsidies I am pursuing the old policy of the Conservative party, which the Liberals have been compelled by public opinion to adopt after attacking it for 18 years. I regard their conduct in doing that as the only satisfactory feature in their whole course. I congratulate them on being strong enough to admit that they were wrong. Some one should move in this House, for the sake of the history of this present generation, to strike out from tbe ' Hansard ' of this country the speeches of gentlemen opposite for the 18 years from 1878 to 1896, because if these speeches are permitted to remain intact they will form the basis for the historian to write the history of this generation, and I am bound to say if he happens in his search for information to light upon the speech of the Minister of Customs, he will decide that in this day and generation we were incompetent imbeciles, because the speeches he made during these 18 years, instead of aiding the progress of Canada, instead of inspiring the young people of this country and creating a feeling favourable to tbe growth of Canada, were intended to cripple the people of this country, especially in the matter of railways. The Conservative party made Canada; they found four little scattei

ed provinces; they united them; then they built tbe Intercolonial, which was the first link between the provinces; then they acquired British Columbia and the west, and pursued their great policy by building the Canadian Pacific Railway. But these were only preliminary steps, and the Conservative party, when they had consolidated Canada into one country went forward and said : We shall have a policy of railway development. They followed that policy continuously in the face of the most determined and unreasonable opposition that was ever offered to a political party in any country, and you gentlemen were the men responsible for that opposition. I in my bumble way down in the country, was supporting railway development, supporting these subsidies when Sir Charles Tupper and Sir John A. Macdonald were advocating them, and the Conservative party also supported them. All I can say is that as you gentlemen have adopted our policy I am bound to go on and support that policy. My bon. friend who sits beside me (Hon. Mr. Ilaggart), when be was Minister of Railways again and again introduced railway subsidies, but he was met and fought step by step as if he were an enemy of the country instead of being one of its great developers and one of its

143S0
great builders. When we pursued a different course in this parliament, I think it is ungenerous for gentlemen to get up and pursue the course that they have done. I for one will say that I support railway subsidies all over the country. Look at the map ! I said a short time ago that we had not commenced the development of Canada.
I said that we had a long fringe of development from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Look at that map ! A little fringe of railways from the Atlantic to the Pacific. But the whole country is as absolutely undeveloped as when the Indians possessed it. There is the evidence that my knowledge was accurate; it is as utterly undeveloped as when the Indians roamed over it, except for a little fringe from ocean to ocean. It is our duty to go forward, developing year by year a vast system of railways, and that is in pursuance of the Conservative policy. I congratulate you, gentlemen, on pursuing that policy. Why do you not be more honest and frank and say : We adopted the Conservative policy of granting railway subsidies; our policy in opposing railway subsidies was all wrong. If you do, there will be no contention on our side. Why don't you tell the truth. You do not tell the truth, and therefore you provoke opposition. I say this because I am anxious to get on with the business of the country. I congratulate the Prime Minister upon having one very frank member of his cabinet; that is the Minister of Trade and Commerce. As soon as the iron bounties were called the Minister of Trade and Commerce gets up and goes out. I think he acted fairly in that ; I am inclined now to believe that the Minister of Trade and Commerce believed in his contentions at the time he made them. I say that the Postmaster General and the Minister of Customs did not believe a word they said ; they were evidently acting a part during these 18 years; they knew they were deceiving the people; they absolutely knew that for IS years, but the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I am now commencing to believe, honestly believed the nonsense he talked, honestly believed that bounties were an improper policy to pursue in this country. Therefore, whenever the Minister of Finance undertakes to move his resolutions, the old gentleman hobbles out. greatly to his credit. I congratulate the Prime Minister on having one honest, trusty, faithful counsellor on whom he can rely. Even though the doctrines he preached are economically false, he believes them and will stick to them. If the Postmaster General and the Minister of Customs had gone out when these railway resolutions were introduced they would have done themselves a great compliment. They would have shown to us that they disapproved of this railway policy and believed in the policy they had preached for eighteen years. But by sitting here they openly flaunt their indecency, because, after having opposed railway subsidies in every shape Mr. GOURLEY.
and form for eighteen years, they now have the courage not only to support them, but to revile the gentlemen who pursued an honest course. We have the ignoble sight of the notorious sinner reviling the honest patriarch, the representative of truth and right in this country.


Mr. PUTTEE.: Before this discussion is concluded, I wish to enter my protest against this whole bonusing system. I do not agree with the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Gourley), who thinks the country can be built up by bolstering up private interests of one kind and another. A number of gentlemen who spoke to-day have stated that they would gladly support the bonusing system in those parts of the country which are not settled, but would object to it in the more settled parts of the Dominion ; but I cannot find that principle included in the resolutions now before us. They seem to cover the whole country; they seem to make practically no difference between one province and another. In fact, the well-settled districts seem to be more favoured than the unsettled districts ; and when we come down to bonusing railways of one mile in length, it seems to me that we carry the system to an absolute absurdity. There are here about eighty propositions, which I imagine include nearly all the propositions for railway construction in the country at the present time. It would appear to me to be very reasonable to suppose that this system, developed as it has been, actually retards the construction of railways where they are necessary. Where it is decided by a railway company that a line should be constructed as a business proposition, it is not constructed until such time as political influence can be brought to bear to obtain a subsidy ; and therefore the construction of necessary lines is prevented. Now, I do not wish to discuss this matter at any length. I have protested against other bonusing Bills and I protest against this. I think the system is wrong. I look for a better system. It is useless for us to support in bulk or in detail a system that we would rather see abolished, and the country as a whole is opposed to this system. When a proposition is put before us in this way, affecting, as it does, almost every section of the country, it is not to be supposed that you can get a general sentiment expressed against it; but if the principle of bonusing railways could be put before the people of Canada, irrespective of any particular Bill, I do not think any of us could have any doubt what the verdict would be. I therefore oppose this bonusing Bill, not only in bulk, but in detail.


Mr. BLAIN.: Where is this road to commence and where is it to finish ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is an extension of the road referred to in the first item. A portion of the subsidy is revoted, and this is for an extension as described.


OCTOBEII 19. 1903
Richard Blain: That does not answer the question. According to the resolution, it this subsidy is granted, the promoters of the railway will have the right to commence it at Ingersoll and take it to the city of Stratford, a distance of 35 miles. That is one proposition. But if they do not choose to do that, they have the right to commence it at Woodstock and take It to Berlin, which may be a distance of 35 miles ; or they would have the right to commence at either Ingersoll or Woodstock and stop at any point between Berlin and Stratford. I object to this method of granting subsidies, without specifying the starting point or the ending point. It gives the promoters a chance to hold up the different municipalities for bonuses. Can the minister not specify where this company will have the right to commence the road and where they will have the right to finish it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS.: I may say, for the information of the committee, that this company have a charter to build from Port Burwell, on Lake Erie, to Collingwocid, on the Georgian bay. They represent that this would be a short and good road for bringing coal from Port Bur-well to the various centres throughout the province of Ontario where there are large manufacturing industries, and for bringing grain from Collingwood to Port Burwell. A portion of the road has been subsidized in the past, and is now running from Port Burwell to Ingersoll. That portion of the subsidy which has not been earned, for about nine miles from Ingersoll to Woodstock, is revoted. The company say that they have not decided which is the best line to take to the Grand Trunk, whether by Stratford or by Berlin, continuing north to Collingwood. The subsidy has been petitioned for by almost all the growing towns throughout that part of Ontario, and the government thought that as that portion of the road from the lake to Ingersoll had been built and was in operation, it might b& well to give the company this slight encouragement. While it will serve local needs to some extent, it is expected to be of more value as a through line.


Samuel Hughes: Is this the road with which the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr; Charlton) is associated ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS.: I think he is now very considerably associated with the road.


Samuel Hughes: Well, we had better pass that.


Richard Blain: Would the Minister of Railways and Canals be good enough to tell the committee whether the petitions ask for a road from Ingersoll to Stratford or from AAroodstock to Berlin ? If this resolution be carried, this railway will have the right to construct the road from AVoodstock to Berlin, or from Ingersoll to Stratford. It is only fair that the company should state
from what point it intends to start, and where it intends to go, rather than have this choice, because this option will enable it to work the municipalities for subsidies by threatening to go in whatever direction it will obtain the largest subsidies. Did the citizens of Stratford petition the government to subsidize a road from Ingersoll to Stratford, and did the citizens of Berlin petition the government to subsidize a road from Woodstock to Berlin 1 The A1INISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. My recollection is that the petitions were in favour of the scheme in a general way. The municipalities to which my hon. friend refers are all very well supplied with railways, and they will get the advantage of this line, no matter in which section of the county it may run. The object is not so much to have a local road as to have coal distributed cheaply to the various manufacturing centres, for it is a matter of very material importance to the manufacturers throughout that section of the country to have their coal delivered as cheaply as possible. Then there is a great deal of the produce of the country originating on the Grand Trunk Railway and the Great AVestern which will be taken by this line, and in that way there will be competing rates from this lake port. The people will find a market they can serve and even have water during a part of the year from Port Burwell to Montreal. These are representations which were made by the company to the municipalities supporting it. As either of these two options will be through the same counties and municipalities, I do not think there will be much danger of any competition with regard to municipal bonuses. That is a matter any way about which we in this House need not have any particular care. If the municipalities are so anxious to have this road and think it will be so great a benefit that they are willing to vote assistance, that is then-own business. But my hon. friend knows that in Ontario the people must be strongly in favour of a public enterprise of this description before they will grant it any bonus. It must be almost the unanimous wish of the electors of any village, town, township or county before any enterpiise of this description will get municipal aid.


John Graham Haggart: This is a road which has been in existence for some time from Port Burwell to Ingersoll.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS.: It is just completed this year to Ingersoll.


Hon.   A@: Yes, this is intended to be a through road from Port Burwell to Collingwood. You give the option to this road, but it ought to have its plan and it ought to have decided on its route. These parties must know what route they intend to take, and their object must be, in having this option, to go to the different municipalities and say :	' If
you do not give us sufficient bonus and per-

haps right of way or other conditions, we will take it to the other place.' You are giving this company the opportunity of holding up these municipalities for the purpose of getting bonuses. Here is an old road which was built from Port Burwell a number of years ago, now completed to the town of Ingersoll. The company propose to go to Collingwood. Surely they know the route. Why do they not come here and ask for a bonus from one particular point to another and not be allowed the opportunity of holding up the different towns and municipalities along tv., line by saying :	' The
government have given us the option of going anyway we like between these two different points, and we will go in that direction which will give us the largest bonuses.'


William Rees Brock: I would like very much if possible to have a change made and the original plan adopted. That is grant a bonus in a comprehensive way when you are about it for a railway from Lake Erie to Collingwood. I want to square myself with the Postmaster General and show him that I am not so narrow minded as to oppose all kinds of bonuses. But if we are going to give a bonus, it should be for some comprehensive scheme and not a little patch work such as this. This will be a bonus hunting road. We know who is behind this road, and in that respect it is unlike most of those other schemes that come before us.
I believe that the promoters deserve well of the government and that it would be well to give a bonus of so much a mile right straight through from Ingersoll to Collingwood. In my opinion the country would support such a vote. I agree with the Minister of Public Works that the building of this road will have the effect of laying coal down in the central part of Ontario much cheaper than at present. It will bring coal directly across Lake Erie to Port Burwell and from Port Burwell it would be quite reasonable that we should build this road to a port on the Georgian bay. It has a charter to Collingwood. Then why not at once instead of aiding it in a half hearted way, give it a subsidy from Ingersoll to Collingwood. I would be very sorry that it should go past my hon. friend's home and town, but even if the road should run directly through Ingersoll to Collingwood and not touch at some of the other towns, they are well supplied with railway facilities by the Grand Trunk Railway, the Canadian Pacific Railway, and the Canada Southern. Let this road run through to Collingwood. If a scheme of that kind were to be adopted, this parliament would be justified in granting a bonus all the way and I would ask that that change be made now if possible.


Samuel Hughes: Is this road going to Collingwood, or is it not proposed to change it, and instead of going to Collingwood to make the terminus at some other [DOT]


John Graham Haggart: point ? I understand that, if they go from Woodstock the chances are they will run on to Collingwood, but if they run from Berlin they will go on to the shores of Lake Huron.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I understand-and I go simply by their own representations-that their terminus is Collingwood. My hon. friend (Mr. Brock) will see that, while I live in Woodstock and my interests are there to a great extent, I am not selfish in this matter. Their present subsidy takes them to Woodstock, but they represented to the government that it might be in the public interest as well as in the interest of the company that they should go north by Stratford, as being a somewhat shorter and, perhaps, a better route. I quite agree with that, because, if it is a good enterprise, the shorter the line they can make and the better the grades from Lake Erie to Georgian bay, the better it would be in the interests of the whole country. Therefore, I did not object nor do I now, to their proposal to change their course. If they run ten miles from the town I live in and where my; interests lie, I am sure the hon. gentleman will exonerate me from any personal interest or feeling. If I had told them that they had already intimated that it was their intention to go through Woodstock, that they had been subsidized to that point, and I would not agree to a change, I might then be accused of selfishness. But I frankly told them that, if it were in the general interest and in the interest of the company to go the other way I was satisfied. I can see the force of what the hon. gentleman says that it would be a good thing if encouragement were of fered to the whole scheme from water to water. But the hon. gentleman must remember that this is a very large country, and there are a great many districts that have no railway facilities. And I must say that I, for one, have always supported with a better heart the granting of assistance to a road that was opening up a new section of the country than to one running through a territory already fairly provided with railway facilities. But I am satisfied that, no matter which cf these routes the company take, if they can go on delivering coal at the prices at which they are now delivering it, it would be of as great advantage to the manufacturers of Woodstock as though the road ran directly through the town. If I remember well, they got a subsidy from Port Burwell to Tilsonburg, where they connected with the Michigan Central and with a branch of the Grand Trunk. Then they came back to seeurei powers to connect with the Canadian Pacific Railway. The great roads are interested in lending their assistance and endorsing this proposition, because, as represented to me, they are interested in getting coal for their own use at this point. They are a long distance from the coal fields, and can bring it better in this way

than by a route upon which we spent considerable money-bringing coal by boat to Port Dover and connecting with a branch of the Grand Trunk. But the navigation was not found very satisfactory. If the ideas of the present company are successful, the road will be one of great advantage to the whole of that district of Ontario. If it is (merely a local road I should not be here advocating a subsidy for it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is no denying the importance of the road, if it is completed, and I agree with the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) that, if the whole road were subsidized, it would be better, as we should have it completed at au earlier date. But if we cannot get a subsidy for the whole, it is at least well to get a subsidy for a portion of it.


William Rees Brock: Why not for the whole ? There is an overflowing treasury.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I admit we should be better pleased to have all subsidized, but, if the government see proper to subsidize only a part, that will still be useful. But I want to endorse what the hon. member of Peel (Mr. Blain) said, that the proposition now, so far as I can see, will lead to the holding up of the municipalities. I do not say that I object to the change of route. If you build to Woodstock, you build along side of two other railways ; but, if you go to Stratford, you will go through a section that has no railway just now. It is true, you are not very far from a railway in either case, but the route to Stratford will do more to afford facilities to a new section than will Woodstock. But it is a wrong principle to give a railway company power to hold up the municipalities. We all know what railway corporations are-they 'have neither souls nor bowels of compassion. They take every dollar they can get, and play one municipality off against the other for all they are worth. They should not be allowed an opportunity to do so. This company should not be allowed an opportunity to do so. This company should choose as direct a route as possible to Collingwood and receive a subsidy for that road.


William Rees Brock: If it would be in order I would like to move an amendment:
That all the words after ' Ingersoll ' be struck out and the following be substituted : * to Collingwood, crossing the Canadian Pacific Railway and Grand Trunk Railway in the most convenient -places and in the most direct way.'


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I take it that that amendment; is in order, because it does not propose to increase the amount of the subsidy as I understand it. There is no person here that I know of representing the company. My hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) I had expected to see in the House. I had the information as to this road from him. The solicitor of the company was here at one
time during the session. I fear that the amendment of my hon. friend (Mr. Brock) would defeat the object the company have in view. Personally, I would have no particular objection tq the amount, but I fear the company could not secure the payment of the subsidy uuder this wording. I think that every hon. gentleman who has had experience in these matters knows of the difficulties that companies have under the wording of the resolutions, even after they have earned their money, in getting payment through the Auditor General. I doubt very much whether that is definite enough. I would have no particular objection to a change, speaking for myself, but I cannot speak for the company. I know they have built the road now as far as Ingersoll. I know the manager of the road, and it has always been represented to me that they had good financial backing. That is proved by the fact that they have completed a somewhat expensive road and equipped it from the lake as far north as Ingersoll. I did not make any particular inquiry with regard to it. I think the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) is financially interested in it. They represented to me that if they built as far as the Grand Trunk they would then he able to supply the Grand Trunk system with a lot of coal. I would be afraid, in changing this without consultation with the solicitor, that we might defeat the object we have in view.


William Rees Brock: My suggestion was to give them a free hand, but with the distinct understanding that they were to make for Collingwood, and not build to Collingwood. because that is going to be a very different road from the road that is now laid out. A through road of that kind with the prospect of a subsidy is much easier to finance than these little patches of eight or nine miles at a time. If the government could see its way to grant a bonus to this road from Ingersoll through to Collingwood, it would be a great benefit to that country. If it passed by Guelph, or Galt, or Berlin, where there are large factories, it could carry large quantities of coal to these towns. But that should be done with the understanding that the promoters should build it to Collingwood.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not think the resolution as drawn could carry out that object.


Richard Blain: I understood the acting Minister of Railways to say that the aim of the promoters is to construct it from Ingersoll to Collingwood, with a view of serving that manufacturing section of Ontario with cheaper coal. Now one proposition is to take the line from Ingersoll to Stratford. I want to ask the hon. gentleman if, when it gets to Stratford, it will be as near to Collingwood as when it gets to Ingersoll.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend means Berlin or Stratford.


Richard Blain: Is Ingersoll closer to Collingwood than Stratford is ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am not prepared to say, but looking at the map, there is very little difference. By bearing east in the first place they are going in the direction of Collingwood. If they went due north instead of going to Stratford, they would have to bear east to some other point to reach Collingwood. It would not make any difference in the total mileage.


Richard Blain: Ingersoll is nearer to Collingwood than Stratford. If the aim of the promoters of this road is to run a line from Ingersoll to Collingwood, then they are going out of their way when they go to Stratford. A line from Ingersoll to Collingwood in anything like a direct line would not touch Stratford at all. I want to ask the acting Minister of Railways another question with regard to coal. We ail know that a line of railway was subsidized by this government from Port Dover through the central part of Ontario with a view of bringing soft coal from the United States across in boats, connecting at Port Dover with a line of railway running through the province of Ontario to reach these manufacturing points. If I am correctly informed, that venture has proved a dead failure. They have not been able to bring coal across the lake and make connections at Port Dover and serve the central part of Ontario in that way. Now if that be the case, how is it possible to bring coal across Lake Erie to Port Burwell and serve the central part of Ontario with this road, when they cannot do it with the other ? This road has been constructed for many years from Port Bur-well up to Ingersoll, and for a much longer time from Port Burwell to Tilsonburg. Til-sonburg is connected with railways running through all that section of Ontario. What amount of coal has been brought over across Lake Erie to Port Burwell and along this line of railway to Tilsonburg, and then distributed to manufacturers in that part of Ontario ? If my information is correct, 1 think very little.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend is somewhat mistaken. The road was only completed this season to Ingersoll. My hon. friend must know that the improvements to the harbour are not completed yet. To do this business properly this company had to have a harbour on this side of the lake, they had to put on large boats to establish the coal trade. He asks me to say whether they have made a success of the coal trade. 1 am only able to give the reasons that were given to me. First, the water is not deep enough, not-withstandinig that over $100,000 have been spent on that port; secondly, the coal mines are controlled by the American railways. The coal this road will bring would come from another district altogether. They would not ship their coal in that way, but Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
they send it round by Buffalo. For some time they did carry coal that way for the use of the railroad companies. They are supplying coal at Port Burwell from a different district on the other side from that which it was originally intended to connect with the Grand Trunk at Port Dover.


David Henderson: The wording of this resolution is not such as to meet my approval, even were I in favour of subsidizing a road through this country. This is one of the roads that I would not consider meritorious. It runs through a rich agricultural country from Lake Erie to Georgian bay, and passes through large manufacturing towns. If any railway can be constructed and made self-sustaining without government aid, it is surely this road. The country through which this road passes would be able to afford abundance of traffic and enable its promoters to pay dividends. However, we have already, in a resolution that we have adopted, granted a subsidy to this road from Ingersoll to Woodstock. That we have disposed of. That is not before us now. Now, we are asked to grant a further subsidy :
For a line of railway from Woodstock northerly to a point on the Grand Trunk Railway at Berlin.
That is one proposition. The other proposition is to go back to Ingersoll and grant a subsidy :
From Ingersoll to Stratford, or to any point on the Grand Trunk Railway between these places.
Or between Stratford and Berlin. It seems to me that a roving commission like this is not altogether what I may call fair-play. This company will be able to go to the city of Stratford, and say : We have a subsidy granted from Ingersoll to Stratford. If you elect a representative in North Perth to support the government the road will be conducted along that route, because we understand from the hon. Postmaster General (Hon. Sir Wm. Mulock), in his categorical examination of my hon. friend from Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock), that the purport of these bonuses is largely to secure political support. If the city of Stratford does not concede what the promoter, the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) desires, or what the government desires, and if they do not grant a municipal bonus the company are in a position to go elsewhere. They may say : We will go to Woodstock and see what they are prepared to do. If Woodstock gives a good municipal bonus in support of this road they will run the road from Ingersoll to Woodstock and thence to Berlin, providing that Berlin will grant a bonus and representati- es in favour of the government are elected in North and South Waterloo. The roving commission that this subsidy gives to this company is such as is utterly unfair to the various counties through which the road passes, because it

simply places power in the hands of the company which no railway company should be given. We have gone as far as Woodstock with the subsidy. The road is built to Ingersoll. Let the road continue from Iu-gersoll to Woodstock. I think that is the proper route. Then from Woodstock let it go north to Berlin, passing possibly through Galt, and on north from Berlin through a section of the country that is not now supplied with railway facilities, towards Collingwood. If you subsidize this road allowing it to be constructed from Ingersoll to Stratford, and' thence from Stratford northward, you are simply paralleling another road which runs to the Georgian bay. You can get on a railway train at Stratford and. go direct to Wiarton or Owen Sound. Why should we subsidize a road paralleling that existing road ? Surely the government are not so pTofuse of money that they can afford to subsidize one railway to parallel another through a well settled country such as the counties of Perth, Huron, Bruce and Grey. I do not think it is called for. I think the other is the proper route.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If you go ihe other way, you are paralleling the two roads to Woodstock direct.


David Henderson: I admit that, but it would only be for a distance of about nine miles. These two roads are practically through roads. Any one living near these two roads may see the trains go past upon them at a very high rate of speed. They make stops at large places. These two roads are not local roads, and as far as the distance between Woodstock and Berlin is concerned, they are practically through roads. The conditions are the same as those in the Niagara peninsula. When you I go across the Niagara peninsula you are bound to parallel other roads, because the peninsula is so narrow. Still if you want to reach the United States you have to parallel roads, but in this case you would only be obliged to parallel existing roads for a distance of about nine miles. The moment you strike Woodstock you have an opportunity of going north towards Berlin.
I dare say you will pass through such towns as Berlin, Hespeler, Galt and Waterloo, and thence on to Collingwood, so that the road will go through a country which abounds in manufacturing towns which would require the coal that the railway could supply them with. I think this bonus ought to be limited to one route, and that no roving commission should be granted. I do not think it is fair that the different municipalities should be placed in opposition to one another, or that one should be held up against the other, so that whichever bids .the highest in the shape of a municipal bonus will get the road, or that the constituency which elects a representative of a certain stripe of politics will get the road. I think that the government should lay down a certain line. Let this committee amend
this resolution in the way which I suggest.
It would be an absurd thing to parallel a road which already runs to the Georgian bay rather than going to Woodstock, where we have already given a bonus, because we have already granted a subsidy from Ingersoll to Woodstock. Bet us continue the road from Woodstock north and go through the important towns to which I have referred on the way to the Georgian bay.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It would appear that my hon. friend (Mr. Henderson) does not understand the geography of the country very well, because he says that if you go from Stratford north to the Georgian bay you would be paralleling another road. You are not paralleling another road. There is no road being paralleled by going from Stratford, but if you go to Woodstock and then back to Galt, you would make a snake fence of it and'render the project impracticable. The proposition would be neither feasible nor useful. I understand that my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Brock) desires, with the permission of the committee, to withdraw the resolution that he proposed.


William Rees Brock: I withdraw the resolution.


The MINISTER OE PUBLIC WORKS.: I am very much in sympathy with my hon. friend from Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) in the general sentiments that he expresses, and I shall make representations to the company by telegram acquainting them with the views which have been expressed, so that we may amend the resolution before the third reading. I can assure the committee that there is no localism about this matter. It was on the representations of the company, who had obtained a charter from In-gersoll to Woodstock, that the route was described in the way in which it appears here. As the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) points out, the hon. member for Holton (Mr. Henderson) is rather mistaken as to the conditions which at present exist. There are turn first-class roads between Woodstock and Ingersoll. Besides that, there is a first-class electric road, the cars upon which go up and down every half hour, so that there is no object from the local standpoint in adopting the route which is here proposed. I think the idea of the company was that they should be in a position to adopt whichever their survey showed to be the better route. I had no idea whatever that there was any desire on the part of the company to hold up the municipalities, because these municipalities are so well supplied with railways that they could not. as a matter of fact, be held up. It never occurred to me that there was any such idea in the mind of anybody. These counties are so well supplied with railway facilities that it would be impossible to get anything like a unanimous vote in the eom-nninitv on the question. The resolution was only drawn in this way because the company asked it with the view of selecting the

best and shortest route as disclosed by tbe survey.


Samuel Hughes: That portion of the road between Ingersoll and Tilsonburg would not be immediately paralleling any line, excepting for a few miles.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: You mean from Ingersoll to Stratford.


Samuel Hughes: Yes, from In-gersoll to Stratford.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is a splendid country there.


Samuel Hughes: There is a good country there, and if it ran directly from Stratford to Collingwood it would not parallel any road. But I do not think that a road to Woodstock should be bonused as there are already three roads there.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This has been voted for some years.


Samuel Hughes: Then to go from Woodstock to either Galt or Guelph, as has been said, would be to make a snake fence of it. I can certainly see very serious objection to the way this bonus is given; it is encouraging each town to vote a bonus to the railway. I think the minister should either hold this over, or word it so as to remove the objectionable features.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I beg to move that all the words after the word ' from ' in the second line be struck out and the following be substituted therefor
' Ingersoll towards Collingwood in the most direct and practicable route not exceeding 35 miles.'
I think that gives a starting point with the other objective point at Collingwood.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We might let this stand until we hear from * the company any objections they may have to that wording; personally I have no objection to it.
To the Irondale, Bancroft and Ottawa Railway Company for a line of railway from the present terminus of its railway, near Bancroft, easterly to a point at or near Renfrew, not exceeding seventy-five miles.


Tbe POSTMASTER GENERAL.: With reference to tliis resolution with respect to tbe Irondale and Bancroft road I would say that *this aid has been pressed upon this government by a number of municipalities, including the city of Toronto, the town of Lindsay, the Board of Trade of the city of Ottawa. the Board of Trade of Lindsay, and the Board of Trade of Renfrew. Various other municipalities have pressed this upon the government, but as some sort of objection to it seeems to be manifested I would suggest that it stand over till to-morrow. I may inform my hon. friend from Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) that my object in doing this with reference to this and tbe James bay resolution, which is farther down on the Order I Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
Paper, is that perhaps my hon. friend would like to take advantage of the presence here to-morrow of a deputation from the Toronto city council. Perhaps he desires to consult them with regard to these two subsidies. I can assure him that they have been pressed upon us very strongly by the city of Toronto. If tbe bon. gentleman desires it I would suggest that they stand over until that deputation arrives.


Samuel Hughes: Anything the city of Toronto could have to say about this would be well said, and I am sure that tbe hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) will not object to it because it is carrying out Ills policy of opening up a new district and when completed it will give to the city of Toronto another through line to the city of Ottawa. This road was pressed forward for a number of years by Mr. Pusey, who came in here giving his time and energy to this project and he fought an up hill fight such as few men in Canada have fought and succeeded in building the road a considerable distance. Mi-. Howland is now managing tbe road to tbe best of bis ability. It opens up a country which is somewhat rugged but one which I am sure will be in a few years rich in mining. The famous corundum mines were opened up owing to the fact of this railway bringing settlers to the region. I would like to see this vote passed.


John Graham Haggart: The objection to this proposed vote would be that it is diverting the line from the route originally intended. Mr. Pusey did not intend to go to Renfrew but to make connection with the road from Brockville to Westport. It was his intention to work down in that direction and as evidence of that he commenced to build a bridge from Brockville across the St. Lawi'ence. You will see there one or two of tbe piers partly built and there should be some serious reason why the road is being diverted from its original line towards Renfrew.


Samuel Hughes: The original intention was to build the road to Ottawa. It starts from ICinmount and runs through Irondale and Bancroft, so that this is returning to the original intention. Some years later when the Brockville and Westport railway got into difficulties, Mr. Pusey abandoned the original route and intended to divert the road to connect with the Brockville and Westport, intending to cross the St. Lawrence at Brockville and to have a through route to the west.' I know his intentions because I had the privilege of being consulted by him in every move he made. That scheme has been dropped for a number of years past and the intention has been to make a connection with Ottawa, in other words to go back to the original intention of the projector of the railway.


Mr. WRIGHT.: This road has been built a distance of forty-five or fifty miles and

bus received and earned government aid. It has now been bonused by the Ontario government for a distance of seventy-five miles at $3,000 a mile, and we expect to get assistance from this government and then the road will be completed because financial arrangements have been made with the Knickerbocker Company of New York to complete it. With reference to the possibilities of this road you must understand that with the Madawaska river near where the York branch unites there is situated one of the finest corundum mines in the world. They are spending this year nearly a quarter of a million dollars and this mine will practically control the corundum market of the world. For the information of the House I would like to lay upon the Table a picture of this Corundum mine, also a cut of the buildings, which are now being erected and which along with the machinery will cost as I said a quarter of a million dollars.
I would also like to submit a sample of the corundum crystal which perhaps none of you have ever seen and also some of the manufactured article. It is an abrasive mineral and the samples which 1 show you embrace the finest and also the coarsest grades, from No. 12 to No. 200. We expect that they will do an immense business in corundum which is wanted in every iron manufacturing establishment in the world. The company are now shipping their produce all over Canada, carloads are being sent to the great manufactories in the United States and the corundum is also being shipped in great quantities to Great Britain and other countries of Europe. The great difficulty hitherto has been that the road was so far from any railway that the cost of shipping these goods has been almost prohibitive. But you must bear in mind that this corundum mine is not the only mine in this country that this railway will open up.
If you go about twenty-five miles further down the Madawaska, you come to the finest molybdenite mine in the world. This mineral is so extensive that one of the farmers has actually fenced his whole farm with it. It is used in the manufacture of the very highest grade of steel. This mine, which is already started, will be put in such a shape that this material can be shipped, and it will be of inestimable value to this country. In the same vicinity there have been opened up magnificent iron ' mines of . the highest grade of ore for the manufacture of steel. So you have these two elements lying side by side. The difficulty at present is that the ore has to be drawn thirty or forty miles, and it is almost impossible to do it. If this road is built, it will be possible to ship that ore. Twelve miles still further down the river, in the township of Brougham, you come to the Ontario Graphite Company's mine, one of the finest mines in the Dominion of Canada. This company has already spent about $75,000 in opening up this mine. Only last week
they shipped a carload of manufactured goods to Berlin in Germany. Those who visited the Pan-American Exposition must have seen the magnificent exhibit of this company there. Theirs is the only mine of its kind now being operated anywhere in the Dominion of Canada. The material is of the highest grade. The Ontario government has purchased the exhibit which was at the Pan-American for the purpose of sending it to the St. Louis Expositiofi^ next year. In view of the prospects of this railway in opening up all these magnificent mines, I cannot understand why anybody should oppose this grant.


William Rees Brock: In reply to the remarks of the Postmaster General in regard to this Bancroft Railway, I would like the House to understand that I am not an opponent of granting assistance to every railway, but I am oposed to granting public money to undesirable railways. Not only do I support a grant to this particular railway, but I have put a large amount of money into it myself. That money has been sunk for several years, and I shall not get a cent of it back again. Therefore I am not selfish in supporting or opposing any particular railway. With regard to the veiled threat which the hon. gentleman has thrown across to me, that I may meet some citizens of Toronto who are coming here, and may delight his heart by getting up a wrangle with them, he need not be alarmed. They know my opinions. I may not be a municipal officer coming down here to urge the interests of any railway company ; I represent the city of Toronto, and I am positively opposed to the granting of subsidies to railways through well settled parts of the country, particularly when those railways are going to parallel others. I have supported one from a harbour on Lake Erie, where we are spending a, large amount of money, for the purpose of having coal brought into this country more cheaply than it is now. But the Postmaster General need not fancy for one moment that I object to meet people with whom I have lived all my life, even though it should be in a committee on a matter of this kind. I am anxious to promote the welfare of this country, and I believe that in opposinig the granting of bonuses in the omnibus way in which they are being put through this House, I am acting in the best interests of this country.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not think that the delegation from the city of Toronto are coming here to-morrow in the interests of any railway company, as the hon. gentleman seems to suggest. The only reason that I know of why they are coming is contained in a telegram which I received from the head of the city, stating that they were coming down to urge the government and parliament to acquiesee in an amendment made by the Senate to the Railway Commission Bill.


William Rees Brock: Why should you invite me to meet them on that account ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: 1 do not ask the hon. gentleman to take any course. But when in the early part of this discussion he expressed himself so strongly against railway bonuses generally, I told him that he would not oppose certain bonuses in this list, and now I am sustained in that view. I understand that he acquiesces in the bonus to the Bancroft Railway. I told him that I thought he would consider that a good bonus.


William Rees Brock: X want to use common sense.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: X am glad to hear it ; and since the hon. gentleman expresses himself in favour of this bonus, X have no desire to postpone the consideration of it. We put it in the list because this was pressed upon us as a meritorious enterprise. The road will open up a country rich not only in minerals, but in agriculture, and will ultimately connect the west with the Ottawa district. The bonus has been pressed on the government by the city of Toronto, the city of Ottawa, the town of Lindsay, the town of Renfrew, and all the municipalities through which the line will pass. Several deputations from these municipalities have waited on the government, and have represented that the railway will open up and develop valuable resources in the district to be served. So that it would seem to be a very useful road, and I am glad to know that our action in aiding it has the unanimous approval apparently of hon. gentlemen of this committee.
To the Nepigon Railway Company, for a line of railway from Lake Superior to Lake Nepigon, and from a point on the north shore of Lake Nepigon northerly, not exceeding eighty miles.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Where is that railway expected to go ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is proposed to be built from Lake Superior to Lake Nepigon, about forty miles Then, I understand that Lake Nepigon is about 100 miles long; and I believe the idea is to connect the lake with a through line.


Samuel Hughes: Will the minister explain where the Grand Trunk Pacific is to come in ? Only a short time ago we saw some' gentlemen down here doing some engineering, and the next day we saw an item to the effect that the Grand Trunk Pacific was going to run a branch to Nepigon bay. This railway is to go there too. Is it the intention to have two railways from Nepigon north ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This would hardly serve that purpose. There is a large territory there which has no railway at all.


William Mulock: 


Samuel Hughes: It never will have.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend is mistaken. There is a splendid country there, with plenty of resources. I am not able to tell you the location of the Grand Trunk Pacific, but I hope that some day or other there will be one or two roads running through there, and this may connect with it.


Samuel Hughes: Is there a charter for this road across Lake Nepigon ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I think the scheme is to build from Lake Superior to Lake Nepigon, and then from Lake Nepigon about 40 miles north.


Samuel Hughes: Is not the charter for a continuous railway?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: Why not build around the lake. To build a road up to Lake Nepigon and then take a canoe or steamer across the lake, and then build a railway on, would be nonsense. A road that will go around the lake will have to keep a slight distance to the west, and there you would get a very good valley.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The
road will be forty miles to Lake Nepigon, and I think it is eighty miles from the south to the north of Lake Nepigon. Then the road will be forty miles nox-th from Lake Nepigon, or eighty miles of railway or thereabouts plus the navigable waters of the lake, which will furnish communications between the outside world and the Grand Trunk Pacific in the course of construction, and provide means of getting in supplies and material. Perhaps later on the owners may connect the two pieces.


James Clancy: Is this to be a colonization road ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: For the present it will certainly be, pure and simple, because after building from Lake Superior to Lake Nepigon. they propose to use the lake, which is between 90 and 100 miles long. It is represented that * there ai'e large pulpwood limits there, and it is intended to establish there pulp and fishing industries. The parties are putting their own money into it, and are prepared to build next season if they receive assistance.


James Clancy: I understand that the object is to construct a road from a point on the Canadian Pacific Railway to Lake Nepigon, but I understand that that road has also a subsidy from the Ontario gov-ei-nment for the first ten miles. Then they are supposed to navigate Lake Nepigon for the purpose of bringing up pulpwood and other material down, and it is to be a colonization road as well.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Those are the representations made to me.


William Rees Brock: It can only be a summer road. In the winter time the lake is not navigable.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: The road will be used in the winter time for taking in supplies and you can drive across the lake.
To the Manitoulin and North Shore Railway Company for a line of railway from Little Current. on its present line, to Sudbury and thenoe towards the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, not exceeding thirty miles, in lieu of the subsidy of twenty-one miles granted by chapter 7 of 1899, item 38 of section 2.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: This is a revote of 21 miles and nine miles new. It is to run into the nickel mines and will connect with the Canadian Pacific Railway.


James Clancy: Is that ultimately supposed to go to James' bay ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: No, the Manitoulin and North Shore line runs south of the Canadian Pacific Railway across the Manitoulin islands. Its charter carries it back to Ontario.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this part of the Clergue system of railway, bonused already by the Ontario government and for which we voted a bonus before ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is part of the railway that was to go down to Manitoulin across to Tobermory and further down by Wiarton and from Wiarton to Meaford. I said some years ago that I never believed it was seriously intended to build the Manitoulin part of it. However, Mr. Clergue was ingenious enough to get nearly all southwestern Ontario to join with him in an application for a subsidy to build this railway, and the bonuses he got he used in order to build back -into the woods to his own pulp lands and mines. I would be much better pleased if this had been spent for the purpose of building the Manitoulin part down to Tobermory and from there by way of Wiarton to Meaford. That would have given us a short road across that section to the Soo, to the Canadian Pacific Railway, but I imagine this must be dropped. Who is behind this now ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend is somewhat mistaken as to the roads. Mr. Clergue and those associated with him had two charters-one the Manitoulin and North Shore and the other the Algoma Central. They were granted subsidies by parliament for both roads, but there are some twenty-one miles on which the subsidies are still good for another year, granted to the Manitoulin and North Shore Company. The subsidy Mr. Clergue used
on the Algoma Central, which he built up to the mines and north towards the Canadian Pacific Railway. That was a different organization, although under the control of Mr. Clergue and his associates.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: ' But this road was to go to Little Current and from therel to extend on to the Canadian Pacific Railway.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: However, there are two separate oragniza-tions. Mr. Clergue has built more of the Algoma Central-a hundred and odd miles- and of this only twelve or thirteen miles starting from Sudbury and running out into the mining country ; and this nine miles extension is in a different direction and was not subsidized before. We will admit that the enterprises with which Mr. Clergue was associated are not at the moment successful. Still, many of us would regard them as great undertakings, and we all must admit that he has succeeded in spending a great deal of money in that district. No doubt those enterprises are in difficulties by all reports, but I have still confidence that many of these industries will be established and become successful. And he represents that he has still the expectation

	.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Who represents ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Mr. Clergue. He is, so far as I know the representative of these railway propositions. He says he has financial arrangements pending to put these roads through, if he is given the support. He has done wonderful things in the past, and it seems to me we might take the risk of this small renewal. We want to see the road built, there is no doubt about that. A great deal of money has been spent in that district, and, for my par,t, I have still confidence that many of the industries will be carried on there. And I hope that Mr. Clergue will reap some reward for the work he has done and the enterprise he has shown. The first investors in some of these industries may lose. We shall be sorry if that is the case, but I believe that the country will be developed and many of these enterprises will be successful in the end.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I believe that too. But I must say that I think Mr. Clergue is considerable of a fakir in railway promoting. That is my opinion from the experience we have had of -him so far. He is an able man no doubt. He has started many industries which, if continued, will be of a most valuable character, and I am sure every one will be glad to see him rewarded for his enterprise. But I think his greatest cause of failure is that, as soon as he starts one, enterprise, instead of prosecuting it to successful end, he branches out into something else in which he sees millions, follows "it a certain distance, starts something else and so on. With re-

gard to bis railway schemes, let me give the committee an idea of them. He got western Ontario to support his scheme for a bonus. He was going to build from Mea-ford up to Tobermory, reach Manitoulin, cross to Little Current, thence to the north shore and so north. This scheme his friends used two or three times during the elections. In North Grey he had the announcement made in the ' Monitor ' calling for the building of the whole road. I had left Ottawa, but a short time before, and, up to that time, he had not his plans filed with the, government when the statement was made" that he was calling for tenders for the construction of the road. I wrote to Ottawa to ask if he had his plans filed then, and the answer I received was that no maps or plans had been filed. Yet, though he had not laid his plans before the government or received their consent, be called for tenders for the building of the whole road, seeking to convince the people that the road was to be built at once. After the election was) over, of course, there was a quietus for a time. There was a protest, the sitting member was unseated and a new election was called. Then, the same game was gone over with. It served the same purpose two or three times, and I do not know how many more times it will be used. I am satisfied there was no serious intention of commencing the road. Yet, Mr. Clergue sent out surveyors, of two different routes. Those people who wanted the road to go by the north route were told to support the government candidate and they would get what they wanted ; and those who wanted the south route were told the same thing. We would not have complained so much about all this had he gone on and built the railway. But the aim seems to be the same as from the first. He mapped out a large scheme to secure support from a large number of municipalities, including towns and cities, so as to secure a bonus to enable him to complete that portion of the railway back into his mining and pulpwood areas, and he has used that for the purpose of building' back in that direction. I do not say this is objectionable, for even the building of that road would be valuable ; but he has led a lot of people into the belief that he seriously intended to build the Manitoulin and North Shore, which I do not think he ever did. Now, we are proposing to give him a little help, for his railway back into the mining district. If he seriously intends to build it and will prosecute it,
I do not say that it is objectionable, because it would do good to the locality.


Samuel Hughes: Would not this pass near the Spanish River Pulp Company, and their large works going on at the present time ?


Mr. DYMENT.: Yes, they have a mile and a half built from the Canadian Pacific Mr. SPROULE.
Railway to the Spanish River Pulp Company.


William Rees Brock: I desire to make a suggestion. It is hardly likely that we can pass all these items to-night. When charters are applied for large maps are brought before the Railway Committee, showing where the road is to be built, the location of parallel roads, and so on. Would it be possible for the department, in view of these bonuses, to have these maps laid before the Committee of the Whole ? In that way we could have a better idea of the situation than we can have from the small maps. For myself, I am very much at sea without this information, and I think a great many of us are in the same position.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Of course the charters of some of the roads to be subsidized were passed, not this session, but years ago. The maps may not be available. But, any that are available I will endeavour to bring down.


David Henderson: Surely there must be something very wrong in the wording of this resolution. It is not intelligible to me. It says :
To the Manitoulin and North Shore Railway Company for a line of railway from Little Current, on its present line, to Sudbury, and thence towards the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
When you are at Sudbury you are on the main line.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have just had my attention drawn to that. It does seem somewhat unintelligible.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is being asked for by the solicitor of the company, and, I suppose, it is put in as he worded it. It would be as well, perhaps, to have it looked into to learn what the explanation is. Would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Henderson) have any objection to this being passed, with the understanding that it would be explained or amended on the third reading ?


David Henderson: I object to the passing of it on general principles.


Thp MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: But now that the hon. gentleman's conscience is eased, and he knows that these votes are going through anyway, I would suggest that it is hardly worth while holding over a small item like this when we can pass it with the understanding that on the third reading it can be passed or explained.


David Henderson: That is, give the government a roving commission to change the resolution, and they might make it apply to a railway to run to the moon. I would not like to say I would vote for a subsidy and leave it to the government


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Very well, let the item stand!


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: What the Minister of Public Works means is that when the Bill comes to its final stage in committee, we can make the correction, That is what my hon. friend proposes, not that the government should make it.
To the Thunder Bay, Nepigon and St. Joe Railway Company for a line of railway from Port Arthur north-easterly, not exceeding fifty miles.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This road will pass through a good farming district. I think Mr. Burke, of Port Arthur, is the leading promoter. We have telegrams from a number of representative persons in that neighbourhood asking for this subsidy. I have an application from the Board of Trade of Port Arthur in support of this subsidy.


Samuel Hughes: 
David Henderson: What subsidy or bonus has the provincial government given to this road ?


Albert Edward Dyment: $2,000 a mile.


James Clancy: $2,000 in cash subsidy is given for the first 10 miles and a land grant of 5,000 acres per mile for the whole distance of 225 miles. Is this subsidy to be applied on the first 10 miles, for which the cash subsidy is given by the province of Ontario ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The information furnished to me does not state the number of miles. It states the government of Ontario have granted a subsidy, and I presume that our subsidy will cover the same mileage as far as it goes.


James Clancy: 
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am afraid we cannot agree to abandon any part of that excellent scheme.
Some resolutions reported.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved the adjournment of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would the hon. Minister
of Finance tell us what business we will take up to-morrow ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There are some Bills and orders standing on the Paper which we desire to take up which will not likely occupy much time, and then we will proceed with the railway subsidies.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would the hon. minister state when we may expect the resolution in regard to the Quebec bridge ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend will find that on the notice paper in the morning. It was sent upstairs some time ago, and it will appear in the Votes
and Proceedings in the morning.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Have the government any further information to convey to the House relating to the Alaskan boundary ? It was announced that they would likely come to' a decision this afternoon or tomorrow.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: While it is Tuesday in London, it is hardly Tuesday here. We have no official information to give to my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12 o'clock midnight.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, October 20, 1903.