1903-06-29

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 214) for the relief of Florence D. Graves.-Sir. Scott.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. PARMELEE moved that the fourth report of the Joint Committee of both Houses on the Printing of Parliament be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) moved for leave to introduce a Bill (No. 215) to amend the Criminal Code, 1S92. He said : This Bill contains
amendments which are exceedingly numerous and of some importance, but they are amendments to details of different sections of the Criminal Code ; there is no general principle at stake. I would, therefore, ask the permission of the House to introduce the Bill, and when we reach the second reading, or are in committee, I will undertake to explain the amendments.
Mr. CLARKE.: Does this Bill have any relation to a Bill proposed in the other House containing an amendment to the Criminal Code, introduced by Senator Lougheed ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I do not recollect the terms of his Bill, but I have not drawn my amendments with any reference whatever to the Bill referred to.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Does this Bill contain an amendment dealing with cigarettes?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It has a clause that deals with the question of cigarettes.


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

Mr. LENNOX.: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to direct the attention of the government to a despatch which appears in the ' Mail and Empire ' of June 27 :
Ottawa. June 26.-Mr. C. W. Coulter, K.C., of Cayuga, has been appointed county judge of Haldimand county in succession to the late Judge MacMillan. Mr. Coulter formerly represented Haldimand in the House of Commons.
We have discussed several times in the House the expediency of appointing judges in the county in which they are practising. I would ask the Minister of Justice if there is any intention of departing from this sound principle ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I propose to consider this matter in connection with certain alterations that are to be introduced to the Code in respect to county court judges. I will then express an opinion on the question.



PROVINCIAL AUTONOMY FOR THE NORTH-WEST TERRITORIES.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to move, with the consent of the right hon. gentleman, that the papers brought down relating to the granting of provincial autonomy in the North-west Territories be printed forthwith, and that rule 94 be suspended for that purpose.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 175) respecting the Century Life Insurance Com-pany.-Mr. Morrison.
On section: 1,
Mr. SCOTT moved that the following subsection be added to section 1 :
2.	Provided that the liability of any person who at the time of the passing of this Act may be indebted to the company by subscription l'or shares in the company or otherwise, shall not be affected by this Act ; and any such liability shall be held to be the same as if this Act had not been passed.
Mr. MORRISON.: AVould the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) please explain ?


Mr. SCOTT.: Mr. Chairman, I may say that there are a certain number of people who have subscribed for the shares of this Century Insurance Company who complain against the extension of time now being granted. They contend that they have subscribed under certain conditions and that if this extension is granted the conditions will be changed. I understand that they wisli not to complete the purchase of their shares and it has been pointed out to them by persons who are competent to speak that if an extension is not granted they will have no further trouble about the matter, but if the extension is granted they will be pursued in the courts and be compelled to complete the purchase of their shares. I brought this subject to the attention of the Banking and Commerce Committee when the Bill was being considered there, and it was contended then that even if the extension were not granted the liability of these people would remain the same and that action might be tit ken against them in the courts. The amendment which I introduce is to leave their liability what it is at the present time, whatever it might be if the extension were not granted, and it seems to me to be an amendment against which no objection should be taken.


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: As the hou. gentleman has said quite correctly, substantially the same amendment was considered by the committee. The sense of the committee was that it was not expedient or necessary to consider it seriously and the Bill was reported in the shape in which it is now. At that time it was considered that this was a question that was entirely a legal one, and one with which this House or this committee should not deal, that if there is any abuse the courts can be resorted to as the remedy of these shareholders is not taken away by the provisions of this Bill. I think the committee should take the same view as the Committee on Banking and Commerce did in this respect. I think my hon. friend has not shown that if this amendment is not put in anybody will be prejudiced or. in-Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
jured in any way. I rather think this is a matter for the courts altogether, that it is a legal question which it is not necessary for us to take into consideration. I would ask my hon. friend to withdraw his amendment. I do not see the force of it. Its adoption would only be encumbering the Bill, and in my opinion discriminating in this case very obviously.
Amendment negatived.
On section 2,


Mr. SPROULE.: I think this is a very bad principle. I do not think the company should have the right to determine what a paid up policy will amount to according to their own values. I think this should be determined according to the mortuary statistics, proportioning the amount with regard to the length of time that the policy holder is likely to live. If this is left entirely to the company the company will give little or no return.
Bill reported.



CANADIAN TRANSPORTATION AND STORAGE COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 176) to incorporate the Canadian Transportation and Storage Company-Mr. German.
David Henderson: I notice that this Bill has been called more than once and that the promoter of the Bill has not been present. This is a Bill of considerable importance, and I assume that there is no one in the House who can explain its provisions. I think we are making a serious mistake in putting legislation of this kind through the House day after day when members promoting the Bills do not take sufficient interest in them to be here and explain. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Mr. MCCARTHY.: The gentleman in charge of this Bill understood that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Bill was going on this afternoon, and he believed that this order would not be reached. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Henderson) thinks the Bill so important that he wants the member in charge of it to be present, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
On the Order being called :
House again in committee on Bill (No. 102) to enable the city of Winnipeg to utilize the Assiniboine River Water Power.-Mr. Puttee.

Mr. LaRIVIERE. The promoter of this Bill is not present, Mr. Speaker, and as I have given notice of two very important amendments, I ask that the Bill should stand.
Mr. SPEAKER.: The Bill stands.
Order allowed to stand.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 81) respecting the Brandon and South-western Railway.-Mr. Morrison.
Bill (No. 150) to incorporate the Columbia River Improvement Company.-Mr. Galli-her.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 211) respecting the Nicola, Kamloops and Similkameen Coal and Railway Company.-Mr. Gallilier.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. RUSSELL moved the second reading of Bill (No. 212) to incorporate the Alliance Bank of Canada.
David Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose, at this moment, to offer any opposition to the second reading of the Bill ; but I desire to intimate to the mover that at some subsequent day I shall move an amendment to the Bill which 1 think will possibly meet with the approbation of this House. To my mind, we are going too far in the incorporation of new banks. It strikes me that, as during the present session, we have granted some six new charters, besides two others on the list, possibly it is time to call a halt. There is a feeling throughout the country that our banks, in order to obtain profitable business have taken too many investments outside of this country, and it is a question whether we are right in allowing our banking institutions to stretch out into the United States too far, to invest in American securities and encourage by their doing so, the practice of speculation which is rife in this country, and which has caused such very material losses to our people. I do not charge the banks, in the first place, with anything of that kind ; but I do say that without the chartered banks these speculations cannot be carried on, and if we wish to strike a blow at these speculative operations that have caused so much loss, injury, suffering and sorrow to the people of this country during the present year, we must go back to the source of this trouble. If we can minimize it in any way, I think it is the duty of parliament to deal with the question. The purport of my amendment is to limit the investments of banks so that they will not be
able to assist brokers, loan companies and others who are engaged in this speculative business in obtaining the requisite money to carry on these operations. I believe that if we minimize the advances along that line, we shall minimize the injurious consequences of the investment of large amounts of money on call loans in the United States on American stocks. I will simply read the amendment I have to propose, so that the promoter may understand the position, and, having stated the course I intend to pursue. I shall allow the Bill, so far as I am concerned, to go to the Committee on Banking and Commerce where the matter can be dealt with. I am reminded by a question from the hon. member from East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) to say that I have u >
particular desire to interfere with the charter of this bank any more than that of any other. This is not a special matter in the case of this bank at all. The amendment 1 shall propose is as follows :
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Bank Act, the said bank shall not, either directly or indirectly, lend money or make advances upon the security of, or take as collateral security for any loan made by it, the bonds, stocks and other securities or obligations of any company or corporation or body corporate not incorporated by the parliament of Great Britain, or by the parliament of Canada or of a province of Canada, until the consent thereto by the shareholders of said bank shall have been obtained at a special meeting of the said bank specially called for that purpose.
Or I may propose the amendment without the latter clause.


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


[Stage Direction]
Mr. THOMSON (Grey)-by Mr. Sproule- asked :
1.	What is the amount expended in repairs on the steamer ' Bayfield ' In the past six years ?
2.	Has the steamer ' Bayfield ' been sold, and to whom ?
3.. How much was she sold for ?
4.	Was it by public or private sale ?
5.	What was the date of sale ?
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Raymond Prefontaine) :: 1.	$6,571.89.
2.	Yes, to John Harrisons & Sons.
3.	$3,250, the highest offer.
4.	The intended disposal of the 'Bayfield' was generally known in that section. The only favourable offer was accepted and the sale was confirmed bv council.
5.	14th March, 1003.


DREDGE 'SIR WILFRID LAURIER.'
[Stage Direction]
Mr. THOMSON (Grey)-by Mr. Sproule- asked ;
[Stage Direction]
Who was in charge of the dredge 'Sir Wilfrid Laurier,' when it went down in Lake Ontario ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: The Department of Public Works has no information regarding- the dredge named. The dredge was not the property of the government.


LOANS TO THE DOUKHOBORS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. WILSON-by Mr. Sproule-asked :
1.	What is the amount of the loan made to the Doukhobors, and what is the date of said loan ?
2.	Has any of said loan been repaid ? If so, how much ? What interest, if any, is charged on said loan ?
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: The total expenditure charged to the Doukhobor account is about $20,000, made in 1899. None of the advances have been repaid. The usual interest of five per cent will be charged in the case of the advances. It is the intention to make the amount a charge against the homesteads of the persons assisted.


BUOYS IN BAY OF QUINTE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. PORTER-by Mr. Alcorn-asked :
1.	What is the name of the person, or persons, employed to care for buoys in the Bay of Quints, from Deseronto to Murray canal, during the seasons of 1901, 1902 and 1903 ?
2.	What sums were paid for such service in each of the three years mentioned, with dates of such payments ?
3.	What was the arrangement, or regulation, governing the amount of such payments ?
4.	By whom were such arrangements made on the part of the department, in each of these three years ?
5.	Was there any correspondence between the government and any person, or persons, in regard to the employment of any particular person, or persons, for such service ? If so, who are the persons with whom such correspondence was held ?
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Raymond Prefontaine):: 1.	Samuel Davenport, from Casey's Point to upper dock on Big Island, including Deseronto. Allen McDonald from Mississauga Point to Nigger Island. Cornelius Mullens, from Nigger Island to Murray canal.
2.	Samuel Davenport, May it), 1901, $42.50; December 9, $42.50 ; May 14, 1902, $42.50 ; December, 4, 1902. $42.50 ; May, 1. 1903. $35. Tenders are invited and a new contract made for $70 per annum.
Allen McDonald, Mav 27, 1901, $25 ; January 8, (1902) for 1901. $25; May 14. 1901, $25 : January 16, 1903, taking up fall of 1902, $25. Bill not paid for spring of 1903.
Cornelius Mullens, May 10, 1901, (placing) $33 : January 8. 1902, taking up fall of 1901, $33 : July 19, 1901, (placing) $33 ;


Mr. THOMSON (North Grey).: December 17, 1902, $33. Account not yet paid for 1903.
3.	Tenders were publicly invited and contracts made by the department directly in each of the three years.
4.	By the department directly.
5.	No correspondence between the government relating to the employment of any particular persons for such service.


BELLEVILLE HARBOUR.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. PORTER-by Mr. Alcorn-asked :
1.	What are the boundaries of the harbour of the city of Belleville, under the Jurisdiction of the commissioners appointed by this government ?
2.	Has any body, or corporation, any jurisdiction over the area comprised within such boundaries, other than the harbour commissioners ? If so, what body or corporation ?
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Mr. Prefontaine) :: 1.	The boundaries as at present of the harbour of the city of Belleville are the same as established by statute in 1889-52 Victoria, chapter 35-when the harbour of Belleville was placed under a commission.
2.	Not that the department is aware of.


INSPECTOR OF BINDER TWINE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. WILSON-by Mr. Sproule-asked :
1.	When was the first inspector of binder twine appointed, and at what salary ?
2.	Will Mr. J. L. Haycock be employed the whole year inspecting binder twine ?
3.	Will his travelling expenses be paid by the government ?
The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright):: 1.	Mr. J. L. Haycock has been appointed inspector at the salary of $1,200.
2.	and 3. He will be employed the greater part of the year and his travelling expenses will be paid.


PUBLIC WORKS EMPLOYEES, TORONTO.
Mr. CLARKE asked :: 1.	What is the cause of the delay in paying the salaries of the employees of the Public Works Department stationed at Toronto ?
2.	Is there any reason, and if so, what is the reason, that the said employees are not paid at or about the same date each month as the employees of the other departments of the civil service ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland) :: *
1.	The present delay was due to the fact that there were no funds available.
2.	This department is not aware of the date on which employees of other departments are paid, but our employees at Toronto, are generally paid the first week of each month.


DAMAGE TO TORONTO ISLAND.
Edward Frederick Clarke: 
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	A sum of $14,000 has been placed in the main estimates for 1903-4 for the construction of groynes and protection work on that portion of the Toronto island.


DOMINION DAY ADJOURNMENT.
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I move :
That when the House adjourns on Tuesday next it stand adjourned until the Thursday following, the 2nd of July next.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What business will likely be taken up on Thursday afternoon ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: It is our intention to take up the Railway Commission Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 209) respecting certain aid for the extension of the Canadian Northern Railway (the Minister of Railways and Canals) read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,-Government guarantee of bonds.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: The existing lines of the Canadian Northern, outside of the portions we are now proposing to aid, will total up 924 miles according to the memorandum which they furnished me. The first line referred to in section 3, is from Port Arthur to the crossing of the Rainy river, 288 miles ; the second is from Stanley Junction to Gunflint, 67 miles ; Winnipeg to southerly southern boundary of Manitoba, 108 miles ; Beaver to Gladstone, 19 miles ; Gladstone to Winnipegosis, 125 miles ; Sifton Junction to Erwood, 177 miles ; Gilbert Plains branch, 27 miles ; Carman branch, 63 miles ; Neepawa Junction 'to Neepawa, 35 miles ; Emerson branch, 15 miles. There are encumberances to-day upon number 1, which would be 288 miles, of $20,000 per mile. On all the others $10,000 per mile. That is the situation and in addition to the mortgage which would secure the $13,000 per mile there is a second mortgage upon all these lines.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: On the rolling
stock ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, on the rolling stock as well. A portion of the rolling stock which they have now was obtained from one of these car trusts, but a very considerable portion of their rolling stock is owned by the company outright ?


John Graham Haggart: Outside of that ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Chairman,
I assume that the schedule of the Bill follows the terms of the resolutions ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, there. is one additional clause.


Robert Laird Borden: That is clause ten ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: And of course the schedule. I would have thought that perhaps it would have been better to have been a little more definite in the schedule which does not mention the length of line in each case, although that has been given by the hon. minister. Perhaps when we come to consider it we can make it a little more definite in that regard.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We might put the mileage opposite each line.


Robert Laird Borden: I would think it would be a very proper time for the hon. minister to give us some statement of the general policy of the government in regard to transportation west of Lake Superior and indeed from that to the Atlantic coast. We have asked that information in this House from time to time, but I do not think we have gathered very much thus far, except possibly the individual views of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals expressed outside of the House. We have not only this measure but another very important measure before the House at this time a measure which, as we supposed, was coming up for consideration this afternoon-I refer to the Bill to incorporate the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company-and in the meantime, from influential organs of public opinion which are supposed to be largely in the confidence of the government, we are receiving intimations that the government is likely to propose a policy in regard to the extension of the Intercolonial Railway to some point farther west. It seems to me that in considering the aid which we shall grant to so important a part of the transportation system of Canada as this road will undoubtedly be, it would be

useful to the House-indeed it is due to the House-to have some statement from the government, or from the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, as to what the policy of the government is in regard to the whole scheme of transportation and particularly in regard to transcontinental railways. It is asking the House to take something of a leap in the dark when we are desired to deal with this Bill without any information such as that which I have suggested. My hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals said, when the resolutions were being discussed in committee, that this line of some 720 miles in length which we are now being asked to assist would stand by itself separate and apart from any general scheme of transportation. I am inclined to take issue very strongly with the hon. minister in regard to that. I do not think this line should stand by itself. This is a very important line indeed; We have a system shown on the plan or on the map which the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals has laid on the Table to-day, and we see that this proposed system will extend very far indeed towards the Pacific coast. We know that, if not the same company, at all events the same gentlemen have obtained a charter to the Pacific coast, and it has been publicly announced on their behalf that their intention is eventually to extend their line to the Pacific coast and to own and control a transcontinental line. Well, it becomes very important indeed that the government should, at this stage, give the House its policy in regard to the whole system of transportation. Has the government made up its mind, or if not, when does it expect to make up its mind, as to whether or not it will leave this question of transcontinental railways entirely in the hands of private individuals or companies granting them for that purpose such assistance as may be thought reasonable ? Has the government under consideration the question of extending the Intercolonial Railway to any point farther west ? I do not think that I am asking too much of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals when I ask him to give the views of the government to the House in regard to that very important question at this stage. As I said before I do not think there is any more proper time for doing so than on this occasion when we are asked to deal by way of very substantial assistance with a line which must become part of a transcontinental system sooner or later.
_ The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS. Mr. Chairman, I do not blame my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) for making the request for information which he has made to the government in respect of the general question of transportation, but in doing so I do not admit that he would have been perfectly entitled to make Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
such a request though this proposition were not under the consideration of the committee. I cannot help regarding the question of aid to the Canadian Northern as a question which is not at all necessarily or otherwise connected with the matter with respect to which the hon. gentleman desires us to give him further knowledge. The hon. member of course is aware that proposals have been made to the government respecting the construction of another transcontinental line. If we cannot so describe the line of the Canadian Northern, at all events, there is one transcontinental line which will justify me in speaking of the proposals which are before the government as proposals respecting another transcontinental line. The present line of the Canadian Northern is one which was not projected, and which has not been aided from the standpoint of a line from the Pacific to the Atlantic. We have never had from the gentlemen who are interested in the Canadian Northern any request that they should be regarded as having in contemplating a line reaching from the Atlantic ocean at an early date, or as part of any scheme or plan which they say are to carx-y out in the immediate future. They came before the government a year ago and my hon. friend knows what transpired just before the session came to a close, when the right hon. Premier (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) stated that the government had a very important proposal before them. I do not know whether he referred to the Canadian Northern by name, but it was in reference to the Canadian Northern that he spoke. They were very anxious to get into the country which their charter authorized them to traverse, and the government were very anxious that they should do so, for the reasons that that country was beginning to fill up and is being looked to by new settlers as a very desirable country in which to settle and we felt that for the encouragement of settlement by people who had not gone through, and for the further encouragement of people who had gone through, it was essential that the line of the Canadian Northern by the route, plans of which had been submitted to the government and subsequently approved, should be constructed and that these gentlemen should at the earliest possible day enter upon the prosecution of their work.
We are urging the matter now because we feel that it is only fair to that company and it is only fair to the enterprise itself that it should be known parliament had given its sanction, so that they would be in a position to finance the project without any further delay. We regard it as vitally important that this road should be built with all possible speed, and to that end it is our purpose and intention to facilitate it, in every way in our power, of course, with the sanction and approval of parlia-

ment. That proposition therefore was one with which the government practically dealt with so far as the government could deal with it until parliament had passed its approval upon their proposals; and the government dealt with it before any question had come before us or had been submitted to us from any quarter by any other organization looking to the construction of a line from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Therefore this proposition which is before us to-day is in fact a separate and distinct proposition from the other. No one imagines for a moment that the building of this Canadian Northern line will exhaust the territory which we have available for settlement in our prairie region; no one will imagine for a moment that another line-if it shall be incorporated by parliament, and built, pursuing a more northerly route some miles distant from the most northerly line now located-no one will imagine for a moment that it will not go through a country which will be productive from every point of view. And as that line will likely, when it is taken up by the government, reach the Pacific and reach it as speedily ns possible, and will be an all Canadian route when it is constructed ; it is a separate and totally distinct proposition from that with which we have now to deal, and it is a proposition that is not in the slightest degree affected, as it appears to me, by the proposals which are now under the consideration of the committee.
I would be very glad indeed to inform my hon. friend (Mr. Borden) what decision the government had arrived at in respect to another transcontinental line, but when the submission is made to parliament by the government that submission must be a precise one; it must be a definite one; it must be one made with some detail; it must be one which has been well considered, and it would be premature, entirely premature, until all these various considerations have been passed on by the government and have been decided upon, that any statement should be made to parliament. I can say to my hon. friend (Mr. Borden) that we are as anxious as he is to be in a jiosition to announce to parliament whether we are going to ask parliament to take up the question of another transcontinental line at this session, or are going to defer it to a later period. Any member of the government would be as glad as my hon. friend, when a decision is reached, to present all the details which may bear upon so large a problem as that. We are just as keen as he is to reach a decision upon these matters. But that decision has not yet been reached and it would be impossible to make any announcement to parliament upon the subject now. I do not think that very many days will elapse before we will be able to take parliament fully into our confidence upon the subject, but in the meantime my hon. friend will have to rest content with the assurance, that the reason why the government is not giving him any more information to-day is not because we have information which we could give him and which we are withholding, but because we have not reached that point which we think it necessary to reach in order that we may put before the House and before the country, propositions which are well considered, which are practical, which are precise, which are definite, and which are such as we feel we can defend.


John Graham Haggart: The Minister of Railways has told us explicitly that the government has not yet come to a decision in reference to the Grand Trunk transcontinental railway. As my hon. friend (Mr. Borden) has pointed out, the Canadian Northern Railway people have announced that they intend not only to build to Edmonton but to reach the Pacific coast. In fact they shortened their route in order to make it available as the shortest possible transcontinental line. They also abandoned that portion of the I-Iudson Bay Railway and their western extension for the purpose of starting afresh at a point which would give them the shortest connection between Winnipeg and Edmonton. It is a well known fact that it is their intention to go to the coast. The government have these facts before them, and we have had the statement of the Prime Minister that he does not intend to subsidize a second transcontinental road across the continent. All this being so, the government must have considered how far they intend to go with the Grand Trunk Railway Pacific in their proposal to build a road across the continent. The hon. minister says that it may be the intention of the government to assist a road north of the proposed Canadian Northern Railway road which runs to Edmonton and thence to the coast. He says there is plenty of room in that country for another railway. Of course there is. But what the leader of the oj>po-sition wants to know is : did not the government consider all these things when they came to a decision to assist the Canadian Northern Railway 1 The government must have considered that. What would be the use of the Grand Trunk Railway or any other railway built by a private company from Quebec, to end in Winnipeg. It would not be worth anything to any company unless it had a western connection and a connection with the great lakes also. When they get to Winnipeg they must have connection with the fertile plains west and also with Lake Superior, and also, as I believe, in the near future, with the Hudson Bay, whence the wheat of that section of the country will be shipped to the markets of the world. All that must have been considered by the government when they came to a decision to assist the Canadian Northern Railway to Edmonton. Is this to be a road merely for the purpose of carrying immigrants and for taking out the grain

from that section of the country. Not at all. The assistance that is given to the Canadian Northern Railway must be in the light of its being a transcontinental road and before the government assisted it they must have come to a conclusion as to whether they were going to assist two roads to the Pacific coast or not. I should judge, from the statement of the hon. Minister of Railways, that the government have not come to a conclusion upon the subject-that they have not been able to make an arrangement between the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern. After the statement of the premier, they would not come to the House and ask for a subsidy for another transcontinental railway ; because it is well known that the Canadian Northern Railway intend building to the Pacific coast. That company is being assisted by this government to the extent of ,$13,000 per mile, not for the purpose merely of reaching Edmonton. Their ulterior object, as every man in this country knows, is to construct a transcontinental road. Therefore, I argue that the whole subject must have been well considered by the government, they must have come to some conclusion in reference to it, find they ought to be prepared to take the House into their confidence and state whether, in the event of the Canadian Northern Railway Company projecting their line to the Pacific coast, it is their intention to assist the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway from Quebec to Winnipeg. As I have said before, unless the Grand Trunk Railway Company have the right to build to the Pacific coast, and to extend colonization lines into different parts of the country, a line from Quebec to Winnipeg would be an entirely useless one. In view of the statement of the premier, the application of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, and the intention of the Canadian Northern Railway Company to build to the Pacific coast, surely the House and the country are entitled to more information than has been given by the Minister of Railways on this important subject.


Mr. KEMP.: I think the House is entitled to more information on this subject than has been given on many occasions. The hon. Minister of Railways says that the reason this Canadian Northern Railway system has never been treated as a transcontinental system is that its promoters have never informed the government that they had the ambition to build a transcontinental railway. It has been rumoured for more than a year past, to my knowledge, that they were ambitious to build through to the Pacific coast. When the lines which are now under construction are completed, for which the government are prepared to guarantee the interest, the Canadian Northern Railway Company will have an independent system by which they will be able to reach Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
the head waters of the lakes, and ship the products of the country to the markets of the world. In a sense, when they reach the head of the lakes, they reach tlie seaboard almost as much as would a railroad built from Winnipeg to Quebec, the only difference being that they reach fresh water instead of salt water; for the ports at the head of tlie lakes are open almost as many months of the year as the port of Quebec. To my mind it is ridiculous to say that the Canadian Northern Railway has not been considered in the light of a transcontinental railway. Can the government justify, before this House and the country, the bonus-ing of another railway paralleling the Canadian Northern Railway beyond Winnipeg V Are they of opinion that, with the Canadian Pacific Railway and its branches, and with the Canadian Northern Railway and its branches, there will be sufficient railway facilities in the north-west for some time to come 1 Then, what will be the object of building a line from Quebec to Winnipeg ? These are subjects which the government must have considered, and on which they ought to be able to give us some preliminary facts and figures. For my part, I feel that the time has arrived when the government should be in a position to say more to the House than they have said on the transportation question.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I want to refer to one statement the Minister of Railways made. He said it is premature to give the statement to the House. Well, this House has been sitting for over three months and a half, and we must be drawing within measurable distance of the end of the session ; surely the House ought to be in possession of the information soon, or otherwise not be expected to consider the subject during the present session. If the government cannot give the information now and yet purpose maturing their plans before this House is prorogued, then they must come down in the dying hours of the session with their decision, just as we have had resolutions regarding railways many times in the past. I think that is hardly fair to the House. In this instance the information is doubly important, because it has reference to a great through railway that ought to be considered as a whole, and not in piecemeal, as it is by these resolutions. We have had various rumours in the press of late, one being that the government have decided to build a line from Quebec to Winnipeg as a government line. If that be the case, I respectfully submit that the House and the country ought to know it. It has also been rumoured that the government have reached no conclusion, but that there is a diversity of opinion amongst the members of the cabinet on the subject. If that be so, let them state that they cannot reach a conclusion this session, and will not be prepared to submit any proposition to

the House during the present session ; and then they can go on and mature their plans. But it is due to the House and the country that we should have some information on the subject one way or the other at this stage of this session, so that we may know what is before us for the balance of the session.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I rise, Mr. Chairman, to emphasize the position taken by lion, gentlemen on this side of the House. It seems to me that it is the most reasonable proposition that could emanate from the opposition, to ask the hon. gentleman and his colleagues wliat they propose to do with regard to providing additional facilities for the solution of the transportation problem by giving aid for the construction of additional lines. The hon. Minister of Railways has said that the Mackenzie & Mann outfit was never looked upon as a transcontinental line.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I did not say that. What I said was that they had never approached the government from that point of view at all.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Of course, it would be an insult to the intelligence of the hon. minister to think, for one moment, that he was not fully aware of the efforts this company has been making during the past few years to improve its position, and the ultimate object which it has in view and which it hopes to attain by the legislation it has secured in this House for the promotion of the different sections of its line. He must be aware that when the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway scheme was first mooted, when notice was first given of the intention of its promoters to apply for incorporation, its eastern terminus was at Gravenhurst. Since then the Mackenzie & Mann Company have practically gained control of the Great Northern Railway, which gives them a line from Quebec to Montreal, and eventually to Ottawa ; and he also knows that they have charters which will extend their system from their present terminus to the Pacific coast. He must also be aware of the fact that in Ontario, they are making connection between their present terminus at Port Arthur with Sudbury, and finally Toronto. If such a scheme cannot be considered transcontinental, I would like to ask how the hon. minister can look upon the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway as a transcontinental scheme ? That scheme had first its eastern terminus at Gravenhurst, but by degrees it has extended it east to Montreal and then to Quebec and now down to Moncton. What claim has this new proposition to be considered transcontinental that is not possessed by that of Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann ? In my humble judgment these gentlemen have proved themselves practical railway builders, and their enterprise is certainly entitled to be considered as transcontinental
in its character. If that be the case, we should have a fuller explanation of the policy of the government than has been vouchsafed by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals. Does the hon. minister seriously think that the construction of a line from Quebec to Winnipeg will aid very materially in the solution of the transportation problem ? Would it not be wise for the government to make up their minds and put the opposition in possession of the conclusions they come to with regard to the solution of this problem before asking us to consent to a government guarantee or bonus, amounting to millions of dollars, in order to aid tlie construction of the Mackenzie & Mann lines ? The policy that ought to be adopted is the one that will at the earliest moment open up the prairie lands of the North-west; and as a complement of that policy are the additional facilities that should be provided at Port Arthur and Fort William and the harbours on tlie eastern side of Georgian bay. It is absurd to say that we are going to solve the problem of furnishing sufficient transportation facilities, if we content ourselves with guaranteeing the bonds or bonusing a road whose eastern terminus will be at Quebec and its western at Winnipeg. The construction of such a line is not necessary. We have the Intercolonial Railway running from Quebec to Montreal, which can be extended as far west as the government choose to take it. We have also the transcontinental line of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and we have tlie Grand Trunk Railway running from Quebec westward to North Bay. Why should not the government devise some plan for making use of tlie road already constructed north of Lake Superior, where the traffic is now very light ? Why not make an agreement with the Canadian Pacific Railway which would secure running rights over that section for the Grand Trunk Railway, the Canada Atlantic Railway, and if necessary, the Intercolonial Railway, so that these roads might get up to tlie North-west, while the Canadian Northern Railway system could at tlie same time come from Port Arthur eastward ? A proposition of that kind would meet the approval of the House, and the opposition have a right to complain of the meagreness of the information supplied by the government as to what the intention of the government really is.
I have noticed in the Toronto papers that an attempt is being made to promote tlie construction and operation by the government of a road between Quebec and Winnipeg. Will the hon. gentleman vouchsafe any information on that subject ? Is it tlie intention of the government to shelve the Grand Trunk Pacific scheme for this session, so far as giving any aid to it is concerned, or to construct a national road from Quebec to Winnipeg and operate it ?

We have had the most meagre information on these points, and it is only right that we should be furnished with such information as I have suggested before we proceed further with the consideration of this Bill.
Another point I would lay before the hon. minister is this : Provision is made further on in this Bill that the Mackenzie & Mann enterprise shall not be consolidated witli the Canadian Pacific Railway, that its proprietors shall not sell it out to the Canadian Pacific Railway, or pass it under the control of that company. Why is there a provision made to prevent the absorption of the Mackenzie & Mann system by the Canadian Pacific Railway ? Why is not a similar provision inserted respecting its absorption by the Grand Trunk Pacific or any other transcontinental line that may be constructed ? It certainly seems to me that we have not the information we have a right to expect, and I strongly support the position taken by my hon. leader, namely, that tlie government should give us more information than they have yet vouchsafed before asking us to proceed further with so important a measure. We ought certainly to have a more definite declaration from the government as to what their transportation schemes really are and how they hope to give the country a satisfactory solution of that most pressing problem now waiting to be solved. The way these schemes are presented to us is not at all satisfactory, and we have the right to expect better things of a government which claims to be before everything else a business administration. I hope that the government will give us additional information or tell us that they have no policy to lay before the House, and that the best thing they can give us is this proposition to aid the Mackenzie & Mann project in the Northwest.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have nothing to add to the statement I have already made to the committee. I stated in effect that the government had not matured its plans sufficiently to lay them before parliament. In that respect we lay ourselves open to any reflection which the hon. gentleman may choose to cast upon us, but not having matured our plans, it is a physical and moral impossibility for me to present them to the House. I hope my hon. friend now understands why I do not give him information tie asks.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I thank the hon. gentleman for this information. He is perfectly candid and frank, and I would ask him, in view of the statement he has just made, whether it would not be more reasonable to postpone further consideration of the Bill before us until the government have made up their minds and laid before parliament a completed scheme ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: 


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think not, and I will -tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) why. It is for the very reason that he himself stated to this committee-the absolute necessity of providing railway facilities for the people who are already living in the district to be traversed by the road and who are now going there. We want to afford these facilities at the earliest possible moment; we are under engagement to do it, and we are carrying out that engagement, so far as lies in our power, by asking parliament for the authority provided in this Bill. Whether there is any transcontinental railway determined upon so far as government action is concerned, or whether it is not, is not material, so far as the present proposal is concerned, in my opinion. I think this road should go forward with all possible despatch. I think that every day of delay counts, because I am sure the gentlemen who are concerned in this undertaking will require to finance it, and should have an opportunity to do so at a season when financial arrangements can be made. We should not be justified in delaying to ask parliament to take action until we had matured our plans with regard to other matters that may be before us.


Robert Laird Borden: We all remember very well that this project was before the House, or at least before the government, last session; and, if it is to be regarded in the light in which the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Blair) presents it to the House to-day, I should think the government should not care about mentioning the word ' delay ' in connection with it. I understood, certainly, from what took place at the end of last session, and from the comments which were made by the government press at the close of the session, that the government delayed doing last session what they are doing now for the very reason that this was a transcontinental scheme, and they proposed to have a policy with regard to it. If it is not to be regarded in .the light in which it is presented on this side of the House, why has there been delay for more than, a year in giving these railway facilities to the North-west Territories ? Why did not the government bring down .the proposition more than a year ago ? Why is it that now they present it to the House and still have no policy, though the question of policy must have been under consideration for a year at least ? Now, the government is face to face with one of two positions with regard to this matter. Either they did regard this line, a year ago, ns of so much importance in connection with the question of transcontinental transportation that they deemed it wise to do nothing until they could have a definite and specific policy with regard to that great question-they apparently did take that view of it a year ago, and therefore held their hands-or, on the other

hand, if they did not take that view a year ago, as I have said, there seemed to have been no good reason why there was a waste of at least a year in providing any facilities for this very important section of the Northwest Territories at a time, when, as the government knew, immigration was pouring in at a rapid rate, and was likely to increase in proportion during the present year. It seems to me that the delay that has taken place during the past year can only be because the government regarded it in the light in which we, on this side regard it now. What justification then, have the government to come down, three and a half months after the beginning of the present session, still telling parliament they have not matured a policy with regard to this great question ? I, for one, shall object strenuously to having a great question like this dealt with by parliament during the last ten days or fortnight of the session. As this is a matter which, in some shape or other, has been under consideration for at least a year, it would be treating, not only parliament but the country, unfairly, to ask that the people's representatives should consider it hurriedly, as such matters have to be considered in the closing days of a session. And I say that if the government are not prepared to deal with this question from the standpoint of a definite and specific policy of transcontinental railway connection, they ought to be so prepared, having had the question under consideration for at least a year. And, when the hon. gentleman speaks, as he does, of this line, comprising about seven hundred and thirty miles of railway, as! standing alone, standing by itself, something to be dealt with apart from the great general question, I do not agree with him. I believe that the people of the North-west now look, or at least they will in the future look, to the question of communication with the Pacific coast as of very great importance to them- perhaps as of as great importance to them as the question of transportation to the Atlantic coast. If our opportunities with regard to trade on the Pacific ocean and with the countries beyond the Pacific ocean are to any extent realized, it will be just as important to the constituents of my hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Oliver) that there should be means of communication, and good means of communication, from that portion of the country to the Pacific, as that there should be means of transportation to the Atlantic. I do not say it is of such importance now, but I say it is very likely to be of as much importance in the future. And, even at the present, it is of importance that that portion of the country should have the means of communication with the great province of British Columbia. For these reasons, I must dissent, notwithstanding the arguments of the Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair), from the position which he has taken in saying that this 600 miles of rail-176
way from Gilbert Plains to Edmonton can be regarded as standing by itself and not necessarily connected with a great scheme of transcontinental transportation.


Hon. Mr. TARTE.: The Minister of Railways and Canals provides in this Bill, section S, th#t it shall be unlawful for the Canadian Northern Railway to lease or sell any of its lines or any portion thereof to the Canadian Pacific Railway. Now, as we are aware, the Canadian Northern goes through the State of Minnesota, having a length in that state of about one hundred miles. If it is to be unlawful for the Canadian Northern Railway Company to amalgamate with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, a Canadian corporation, would it not be wise to make it unlawful also for them to amalgamate with an American corporation ? There have been efforts in the past, and there are efforts to-day, to divert our trade to American channels. It seems to me that it would be the part of wisdom for the government to say that the Canadian Northern shall not amalgamate with any American corporation that would divert our trade to American ports. That would be the easiest thing in the world. Any one who knows that part of the country will see, I hope, thei strength of the position I take. I fully recognize, with the hon. minister, that it is important to give additional means of transportation to our North-west friends. But, at the same time, it seems to me that we should never lose sight of the national fact, that we must not spare any efforts, we must not spare any means, to secure for ourselves the trade that we are building up in the west. So I would be very thankful indeed if the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals were in a position to offer us some information as to the point I am now raising.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think it must be plain that from the first moment the Canadian Northern acquired a charter from parliament authorizing it to build into the Northwestern country, the condition was annexed that they should not be allowed to amalgamate with the Canadian Pacific Railway. That was the feeling and temper of parliament at that time, and that feeling and temper were shown in the agreement that was entered into by the Canadian Northern with the Manitoba government. That stipulation is one of the clauses of that contract. It was thought well, seeing that had been the expressed desire of parliament, that it should be continued in the existing arrangement. I do not know that a clause of this sort is of much value, because it will always be open to parliament to allow the Canadian Northern to amalgamate with the Canadian Pacific Railway, and it could not make any agreement, that is to say, the company could not be amalgamated unless parliament did give them power. Whether or not



you have a clause of this kind in the present legislation or any other charter, they could not do it without. There is, however, something beyond that in the clause which says that they may not make pooling arrangements nor enter into an agreement whereby rates upon freights or passengers shall be pooled. That is in addition, and that has been thought a wise and prudent provision, and is contained I think in all other contracts and agreements that have been made by the Canadian Northern, as well with the provincial government of Manitoba as with ourselves. My hon. friend has stated that this road runs a hundred miles in the state of Minnesota. The fact is it is only about fifty miles. But why was that ? It was because it would have been necessary, when the road was being constructed, in order that it should continue through Canadian territory, to incur a very large expense to cross the lake within Canadian territory ; and it was one of the understandings at that time with the Canadian Northern when we gave them assistance to construct the Rainy river branch, that if, at any future time, it was considered desir-abie that the road should take a short cut and should be built across the Lake of the Woods, the company would, upon receiving assistance, make that change in the route. I presume they will be prepared to carry it out at any time with reasonable assistance.


John Graham Haggart: Is there an understanding of that kind with the company ?
The MINISTER Ui' RAILWAYS AND CANALS. There was an understanding of that kind. I was asked by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) why the same restriction should not apply to other companies. There are no other companies existing in that country at present, and if parliament chooses at any time to impose that restriction upon any company that is incorporated, it is quite free to do so. Whatever we might put in here, it would be necessary that legislation should be had by any other company chartered for the purpose of building through that country if it desired to make connection with the Canadian Northern.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I do not object to the clause stating that the Canadian Northern may not amalgamate with the Canadian Pacific Railway. I see the reason of that. The people of the west want competition, and they believe, rightly or wrongly, that there will be no arrangement with the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern, because there is such a clause in the Bill. I hope they are right. But the point to which I wish again to call the attention of the Minister, is that if it is made unlawful for the Canadian Northern in the present Bill to amalgamate with the Canadian


Hon. Mr. BLAIR.: Pacific Railway, it seems to me it should be made unlawful also to amalgamate with any American corporation.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They could not amalgamate without we gave them the power.


Joseph Israël Tarte: 
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think the hon. member must be aware of the fact that the traffic from our western country could not be diverted to the south and carried away by American railways without an amalgamation between an American railway and a Canadian road. It would be mere matter of shipment; and is the hon. gentleman prepared to say, is there any member of this parliament prepared to say, that we should put a clause in any charter we grant to a Canadian railway, that it should not be allowed to ship any of its products to the south of the boundary line, even though its products might be required there for consumption ? Would anybody have any reason to say that that would be wise legislation ? The only way, it strikes me, by which you could prevent the shipping of the products of the west via the United States railways to the sea, is by making it to the interest and advantage of Canadian railways to ship them otherwise.


Mr.   CLARICE@: How can that best be done ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: By constructing the shortest possible line to the ocean over Canadian territory. My hon. friend knows further that even if you pass legislation of that kind, you cannot say that the shipper shall not have a right to send his products whichever way he pleases to reach their destination. Let my hon. friend appeal to the representatives from the west, and ask them what they would think of a clause of that kind. They would say that their people would not sustain them if they voted for any such a proposition. You have to allow trade to follow the line of least resistance in reaching its destination. You cannot by legislation do otherwise. You can only make the inducement strong enough by making the Canadian route the shortest and best.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I beg to take the strongest possible objection to the statements of my hon. friend the Minister of. Railways and Canals. This is not a question for the west or for the east. It is a Canadian question in the broad sense. The west is not the only portion of Canada that is concerned in the measure that, is before parliament to-day. The west is not voting the money alone. This country is pledging its credit to an enterprise which is a national enterprise, and it is a national question with which parliament has to deal. Again I say it is not a question for the west exclusively, and to that view I have objected every time the point has been raised. Our ambition is to establish trade between the different provinces as far as it is possible to do so. The way of doing that, as the hon. minister has stated, is to provide communication. I do not ask that it shall be forbidden that any railway corporation shall ship to the other side of the line. That would be a preposterous proposition. Nobody thinks of it. I do not suggest that, but I suggest a clause concerning American railways similar to the one which is included concerning the Canadian Pacific Railway. I would like to prevent amalgamation with any of these American railways.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My hon. friend must see that amalgamation means a combination of two companies, not for the purposes of traffic, but as a corporate body-the amalgamation of two distinct corporate bodies into one corporate body with identical interests. What effect would that have upon shipping through the United States or anywhere else?


Joseph Israël Tarte: What I fear is the amalgamation of this Canadian Northern with some American corporation which will divert our trade.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are always liable to that.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The hon. minister says we are always liable to that, but that is not
an answer, in my opinion. Parliament is called upon to give a large guarantee after having given a large amount of money to Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann. Is it not reasonable that the Canadian people should have by law the assurance that this corporation which is being helped with Canadian money be not amalgamated with an American corporation ? I think I am right in that. It is not a question of shipping. It is out of the question to ask our railways not to ship goods to the other side of the line. That is not what I mean at all. 1 mean to say that we should insert a clause concerning American railways similar to the one which we have in this Bill-clause a- concerning the Canadian Pacific Railway. I shall not insist any more upon the point now. I have raised the question. Parliament is seized of it, and it is for the House to decide.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Mr. Chairman, I think everybody will sympathize with the desire of the hon. member (Hon. Mr. Tarte) that the trade of the west should go through Canadian channels, but I think we will all agree with the remark of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) that the only way that the trade of the west can be got to go through Canadian channels is by making Canadian channels the most advantageous channels for that trade to go through. You are not going to force 100,000,000 bushels of wheat by a route that is disadvantageous from the commercial standpoint by a clause in this Act of parliament. So far as the general question which my hon. friend has raised is concerned, I fear that he has lost sight of the history of this transaction. When the question of aid to what was called the Ontario and Rainy River Railway, or what is now the Canadian Northern Railway, from Winnipeg to Port Arthur was under consideration by the government, and later by this House, the question of these 40, 50 or 60 miles going through American territory was then considered, and the question as to whether we should compel that railway company to build across the Lake of the Woods was fully dealt with at that time. It was considered by the government, and I think also by the House at a later date, that the excessive expense which would be caused to the company by compelling them to build across the Lake of the Woods could not be justified and that the desire of the company to get down to Port Arthur, to a Canadian port, and assist in transporting the grain of the west ought to be facilitated by allowing them to go around by the cheapest and shortest route. There is nothing any more dangerous in the Canadian Northern running around 40 or 50 or 60 miles through the State of Minnesota on their way to Port Arthur than there is in the Canadian Pacific Railway running through the state of Maine to get to St. .Tohn, and

nobody has ever suggested that special legislation" should be brought in to compel the Canadian Pacific Railway not to divert any portion of its traffic as it runs through the state of Maine on its way to a Canadian port. We know that that is impracticable legislation. The real fact is that the lines which the Canadian Northern own in the province of Manitoba were originally built by the Northern Pacific Railway, and that as matters stood at that time and before the building of this line from Winnipeg to Port Arthur, the trade did go through American channels. It went by the Northern Pacific to the port of Duluth, and the government had in mind in assisting the Canadian Northern the changing of that condition of affairs, and as a result of what has been done for this railway a very considerable amount of business has been done by the Canadian Northern and enormous quantities of grain have been taken to Port Arthur which fotherwise 'would have (been shipped by way of the port of Duluth.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Would the hon. Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) say where that grain goes now from Port Arthur ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: That is another point. That is a point which is important, but it is a point which my hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) will readily admit cannot be dealt with here. That must be dealt with in another way. What I desired to point out was that the building of this railway was for the purpose of overcoming that which was taking place at that time, and which is being counteracted to a great extent by the construction of the Canadian Northern. Would my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tarte) suppose that when the Canadian Northern, as a business corporation, is expending $1,000,000 at Port Arthur for the purpose of building up a storage system there that will enable it to handle the grain, it would destroy that investment absolutely by making some arrangement out of which it would get no financial advantage, and as a result of which its traffic would be handed over to the control of somebody else ? The proposition is preposterous. What we must do in the consideration of this whole question from beginning to end is to endeavour to make our arrangements of such a character and to improve our transportation in such a way that Canadian channels will be more advantageous than the American, and I think that the development of the Canadian Northern Railway, if it is attentively considered, will be found to be one of the most effective instruments in earying that into effect in so far as it has gone up to the present time, and instead of the product of the prairies going, to a considerable degree, by way of the Northern Pacific through American channels, as in former years, through the inauguration of this system it will go through Canadian channels. It seems to me that the objection Hon. Mr. SIFTON.
which has been raised is an artificial one, and cannot be considered to have any force or effect upon the proposition as it is now before the committee.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Kindly look at the map which is placed before us. Here is Port Arthur and here is Duluth. We are all aware that Mr. Hill's system centres at Duluth. I suppose that Duluth has the most magnificent elevators in the world. Mr. Hill owns the greatest part of them and other people own the balance. There is nothing easier than for Mr. Hill to buy the Canadian Northern and divert all the trade from the west to that port. My hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Sifton) says that it is preposterous to suppose that Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann would destroy the fine property-and it is a fine property I am glad to say-that they have built at Port Arthur. Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann will not live for all time; men pass pretty quickly; we are not going to be so long on this side of the big ocean, and Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann will go as we all will go. We are not dealing today with men; we are dealing with the future and we are dealing with a broad situation. My hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Clarke) has said that Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann have a charter to the Pacific ocean. So they have, and more than that they have made arrangements with the government of British Columbia to go on with their work. They are energetic men; there are no better builders of railways than these men are.


Robert Laird Borden: Hear, hear.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Whatever our opinion may be of their different schemes we must admit that they have shown a great deal of ability and energy.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That is right.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I believe that I am not far from the mark when I say that these gentlemen intend to build their railway to the coast and they will come to us again; there is no fear as to that. They cannot build that without the credit of this parliament and they will come to this parliament. Having these facts before our eyes it seems to me that it would be the part of prudence to take our precautions. The Minister of the Interior says : You did not take such precautions when the Canadian Pacific Railway was built. The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Sifton) is younger than I am, and I might call his attention to the fact that most of the newspaper men in Quebec, although we were government supporters, objected very very strongly to that part of the Canadian Pacific Railway scheme. My hon. friends on the treasury benches only have to look at the debates which took place then to find that there was in the province of Quebec especially, a very strong

opposition to that part of the scheme. However, if we believe that the government of the day were not right in allowing the Canadian Pacific Railway to pass through the state of Maine, then we should not repeat that mistake. We cannot prevent the Canadian Northern Railway from passing through Minnesota; we all grant that; it is done. If an error has been made we cannot prevent it, but what I suggest-and I suggest it in a friendly way and in the interest of the country at large-what I suggest is that we shall not allow a Canadian corporation that we are all glad to help, to amalgamate with an American corporation. The Canadian North-west is developing and will develop more and more. Our national interest is to unite the different provinces by the bonds of common interests, and we are now in a position to offer the best route, provided we take means to see that our trade is not diverted from our own country. Here is a Canadian corporation which is seeking the aid and credit of this parliament, and I ask that a clause be inserted to prevent amalgamation. I do not know if this suggestion has been made before, but I believe that Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann would consent to it. However, we are not here to please corporations or contractors. Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann have not only a charter to go to the Pacific ocean but they have also a charter to the port of Quebec. When my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Sifton) cited the example of the late government concerning the Canadian Pacific Railway, he lost sight of the fact that we are discussing now the possibility of pledging the credit of the country, or of giving aid to another transcontinental railway in Canadian territory exclusively. Most of the members of this House, I take it, are insisting on having an all-Canadian route, and evidently that is of importance. Those who have followed the events of the past few years will remember that In a little wrangle that took place between the Canadian Pacific Railway and my former colleague the Minister of Railways, the port of St. John was threatened with being abandoned and the port of Boston was to be adopted. If there had not been a strong public sentiment in favour of having the Canadian Pacific Railway located at a Canadian port nobody could tell what might have taken place. Railway corporations have not very big hearts; they are the properties of hundreds and thousands of people ; directors change often, and so we are not dealing with men but we are dealing with a problem and in my humble opinion that problem should be solved in the interests of Canada. It is for that reason that I urge tlie government to take into consideration the point that I have submitted.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is a universal sentiment in this House adverse to the idea of any portion of our railroads falling into the
hands and under the control of American railway interests. There is no question as to that. The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) has that feeling in common with everybody, and we would all regret to know that any of our large and important railway undertakings had been, acquired in the interest of any railway corporation across the border. Why ? Because we would fear that Canadian interests would be jeopardized. My hon. friend has that fear and he thinks that a little clause in this Bill would probably prevent it in the case of the Canadian Northern Railway. It is because I cannot see that by any possibility we could prevent such a state of things occurring that I am against putting arty such clause in the Bill.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Might I ask just for information : Does the minister believe that if there was a clause concerning American railways similar to that which prevents the Canadian Pacific Railway from amalgamating with the Canadian Northern Railway, that this company could amalgamate with an American company ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have tried to answer the question before and to tell my hon. friend that a clause in the Bill such as he suggests would be just about as good as no clause at all; it would be no worse, it would be no better. They cannot under any circumstances amalgamate with an American railway unless they get power from this parliament to do it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: What is the use of saying that they cannot do a thing and shall not do a thing when they have no power to do it unless parliament says they may do it.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I know of a Canadian railway that has been refused permission to cross the American frontier, and it has had to amalgamate with an American railway.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: True. We have in this parliament countenanced and legalized an amalgamation of two or three railways in particular, down in the Niagara district. But any legislation of this parliament would be helpless if men of capital acquired a controlling interest in the stock of any of our railway companies. The management would at once fall into their hands. Is any one in this parliament prepared to say that we ought to pass an Act declaring that none of the owners of shares in any of these corporations can assign their shares to any one ? Because the moment you assign or transfer the stock to any one, that moment you give up the control.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is there any value in clause eight of this Bill ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is this value as between these two Canadian railways, that It Is notice to .them that they shall not amalgamate. But the most valuable part of the clause is not that they shall not amalgamate, but that they shall not enter into any agreement whereby rates shall be pooled.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If we are going to have the Grand Trunk Pacific, why not have a similar provision in this Bill with respect to it ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Because it is not in existence.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It is seeking an act of incorporation now.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: And when the Grand Trunk Pacific or any other company which is seeking legislation at our hands, asks for power to amalgamate with the Canadian Northern, then, if parliament has the feeling that it ought not to be done, it will not be done; and if parliament has the feeling that it ought to be done, it will be done, even though there may be a clause in the charter saying that the company shall not do it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Then, if the argument of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals is consistent, the position we should take is this, that if it is an advantage to Canada to have an additional transcontinental railway, and if we think it should uot amalgamate with the Canadian Pacific, then we should have a similar provision respecting the proposed Grand Trunk Pacific ; and if there is no such provision in this Bill, it should be in the Act of incorporation of the Grand Trunk Pacific which is before the House. I cannot see why the Canadian Northern should be prohibited from amalgamating with the Canadian Pacific Railway, and not be prohibited from amalgamating with the proposed Grand Trunk Pacific. Why should not the same rule be applied to both ? If the people of the west are to have the advantage of competition, why should we not render it impossible for the Canadian Northern to amalgamate with any other line ?


Mr. DAVIS.: One reason is that the Grand Trunk Pacific, if it ever materializes, will be subject to the railway commission which is to be appointed, whereas the Canadian Pacific Railway cannot be, under the arrangement which was made years ago.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I understand, then, that this parliament is powerless to pass any legislation to prevent the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk Pacific from amalgamating. Is that the position we are in ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: 


Thomas Osborne Davis: No, not at all. I want to say that it appears to me we talk a good deal of nonsense in regard to American railways. When any Canadian company is organized, and receives a charter from this parliament to operate a railway, it becomes subject to the Railway Act of this Dominion, and therefore it does not make much difference whose money builds the road-it is a Canadian road subject to Canadian laws. How are you going to xirevent the stock of any corporation passing into the hands of Americans if they choose to buy it ? The stock is sold in the open market, and anybody who likes to buy it ean get control. The safeguard for the people of this country is that the road is a Canadian road under Canadian laws, and it does not matter who owns the stock. The difference between the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Pacific Railway is this. The Grand Trunk Pacific has not yet materialized; we do not know whether it is going to be built or not; but the Canadian Pacific Railway enjoys a monopoly under legislation of this parliament passed years ago, and we can have no control over the rates on its main line; whereas the Grand Trunk Pacific, if it is ever built, will be subject to the Railway Act, and the railway commission will have control over its rates. So that we do not want the Canadian Northern to amalgamate with the Canadian Pacific Railway because we have no control, whereas we do not care whether it amalgamates with the other or not, because we have control.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Then it seems to me that clause eight is only put in for effect, and that it is practically of little or no value. If it is an advantage to have two lines through that country, and a greater advantage to have three lines, why not make provision now, when incorporating another transcontinental line, to prevent it amalgamating with this road 1


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We do not legislate in that way.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Probably not. It seems to me, however, that if this discussion has done nothing else, it has elicited the fact that the idea of aiding the Grand Trunk Pacific this session, at any rate, is at an end. The legislation which we are about to pass is legislation which was foreshadowed about fourteen months ago, in an announcement made by the premier respecting aid to this road. We are crystallizing into law a policy announced fourteen months ago; and the government have not progressed one step in the solution of the transportation problem since that time. I had the pleasure of being in the North-west last fall, and I can appreciate, from the point of view of the people living there, the importance of giving aid to this road. No-

body is opposing tlie granting of this aid; but we are objecting to tbe meagre information given by the government respecting their policy on this great transportation problem. There is no doubt that the roads the government are assisting by this Bill will be profitable almost from the moment they are completed, because they will pass through a most fertile country. Why does the government not elaborate its policy, and give further assistance to carry this road to the Pacific coast ? Let us have two transcontinental roads before we commence agitating for a third. I think that is a reasonable proposition, which ought to commend itself to the government. At any rate,
I am satisfied from the statements made by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals and by the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) that this clause eight is of no practical value at all; and, that if the Canadian Northern and the Canadian Pacific wish to come together, they can do so, so that a few years hence we may wake up to find that instead of having two transcontinental lines we have only one.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: Just a word on that point. Does the hon. gentleman know that two railway companies incorporated by this parliament cannot amalgamate without special authority ? My own view is that the first three lines of this clause have practically very little legal effect. They may stand as a declaration of the policy of parliament; but inasmuch as no two railway companies can amalgamate, as has been pointed out by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, without a special Act of parliament, that lack of power would be just the same as if these two clauses were not there. As pointed out by the Minister of Railways and Canals, the important part of the clause is that which forbids any traffic arrangement except such as may be approved by the Governor in Council. So that, as a matter of fact, the views of the hon. gentleman and our views are practically the same. There is not much to dispute.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Are we not appointing a railway commission to regulate rates, and would they not have power to do that ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Although this clause would have no legal value, I do not agree that it has no practical value. It has this practical value, that it is formally one of the conditions on which this aid is granted ; and if at any other time, one of these companies should come forward with a proposal to amalgamate, they would be met with the statement :	You knew at
the beginning that you received this aid on this condition. If parliament should see fit to waive that condition, of course this clause would have no legal effect, but it
is there as a notice of the desire and the intention of parliament and a declaration of the policy of parliament.


Joseph Israël Tarte: That is just what I have in mind. It may be that this clause has no legal value now, but if parliament makes it a clear condition, that condition will have just the effect which my hon. friend the Minister of Finance has stated.
I am asking parliament to declare that an amalgamation cannot be made with American railways any more than with the Canadian Pacific Railway. It seems; to me that if there be any reason for inserting this clause with regard to the Canadian Pacific Railway, we should make it equally applicable to American corporations who may have designs on this Canadian railway. Such corporation will be aware of the fact that this parliament has pledged itself not to allow of any amalgamation. It will act as a warning, even if it has no legal value. We are about unanimous in granting the aid we are asked to give, and it seems to me that such a condition, as the one I am urging, should not be opposed, especially, in view of the fact that we are providing against amalgamation with the Canadian Pacific Railway. Mr. Hill's system is more to be feared than the Canadian Pacific Railway. If we fear the Canadian Pacific Railway to such an extent that we insert this clause, we should not hesitate in applying the same clause to American railways.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And the Grand Trunk Railway.


Joseph Israël Tarte: That is a horse of another colour. That is another question altogether. Perhaps we are -not proceeding on right lines at all. I am not sure that we are. My hon. friend from Saskatchewan (Sir. Davis) has just stated to the House what is in the minds of many people. He has led us to fear that our railways, which we are helping every year by *nillions, may some day be bought up by foreign corporations and managed in their interests. What he says is perfectly true. We cannot prevent a corporation placing its stocks and bonds in the markets of the world. Some two years ago, it was very well known to those who follow those matters closely, that Mr. Hill and other American capitalists were very seriously contemplating purchasing a majority of the Canadian Pacific Railway stock. "They tried to do so to the best of their ability, but as the Canadian Pacific Railway stock is scattered all over the world, it is very difficult to obtain control of it. The stock of a corporation like the Canadian Northern is. however, not so difficult a proposition. There is a good deal therefore in the argument of my hon. friend from Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis). We are helping railways, we are pledging the credit of the country in their behalf, we are pledg-


Thomas Osborne Davis: Supposing the stock of those railways passed into the hands of Americans to-morrow, would they not still be Canadian railways subject to Canadian laws, just as they are to-day ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: There is nothing more easy than for a railway company to carry its trade either to American or Canadian ports. Transportation from west to east means through-rates. Suppose Mr. Hill bought the majority of the stock in the Canadian Pacific Railway, the maritime provinces and even the port of Montreal would not see much of the western trade. He would naturally divert as much as he could to his own ports and railways.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: What line does Mr. Hill own into New York or Boston ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: He has connections with other American lines.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: What lines does he own ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: He has very fine lines to Duluth and St. Paul.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Might I ask the hon. gentleman another question ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: My hon. friend can speak when I am through. Here is the port of Duluth and near it is the Canadian port of tort William, here is Buffalo and here is Port Colborne-Buffalo on the one side and Port Colborne on the other. Mr. Hill has his organization on the lakes as on the land, and to-day he is carrying his trade to American channels. Not one pound of freight under his control goes through Canadian channels. Suppose he bought the Canadian Northern to-morrow, he would divert the traffic over that road to the American ports where all bis interests are centred. No one can doubt that. We are subsidizing railways right and left, we are prepared to give to anybody who wants to build railways, without making sure that the trade will be developed through Canadian channels. That is u mistake. I am not here to Hon. Mr. TARTE.
give advice to the government, and probably it would not be accepted, if I did ; but I hold such strong views on that point that I must express them. This country is growing, and it is bound to grow very fast, from east to west. Let us, then, keep this growing trade to ourselves. That is not asking too much, surely. We are not legislating for to-day. We are only six millions to-day ; but at the rate at which immigrants are coming in to the west and into all the provinces, we may be ten millions within a very few years indeed. I say again, let us manage our national business to-day in such a way that we shall not be reproached by those who come after us with having been imprudent.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not wish to dissent from the ruling you gave befofe six o'clock, Mr. Chairman, though I feel like disagreeing with it to some extent. But before section 1 is adopted, I desire to ask tlie hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) a question. There is an impression throughout the country that the government have not settled their policy on the subject of transportation. Certainly, so far as this House is concerned we have no information. To give the House hope of being enlightened, and to satisfy the country as far as possible in the meantime,
I would like to ask the hon. minister if he hopes to be able at an early day to put the House in possession of the facts as to what the government policy is with regard to transcontinental lines ?


Peter Macdonald: Unless I am overruled by the committee, I must stand by the ruling I have made. I invite discussion of that rule, and, if I am overruled, I must submit with the best grace I can.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I respectfully submit, Mr. Chairman, that I am neither discussing nor infringing the rule of the Chair. But I submit also that I have a right to ask a question, and I intend to avail myself of that right when any Bill is before this House.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have no objection, if you will allow me, Mr. Chairman, to answer the bon. gentleman's (Mr. Sproule) question. It is the very strong hope and expectation of the government that, within a very few days, we shall be able to make an announcement to the country on the subject referred to.


Mr. WILSON.: I would like to ask the hon. minister if he sustains your ruling and is going to proscribe the discussion of the whole Bill in the committee ? I happened not to be in the House when the second reading was proposed, and so had not an opportunity to give my views upon it. I presume that if you, Mr. Chairman, adhere closely to your ruling, I shall be obliged to move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again, in order to have an opportunity to speak.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: 1 would point out to my kou. friend (Mr. Wilson) that we are now discussing the first clause and that clause contains the provision for the guarantee of the bonds of this road which is the essential feature of the whole matter. That affords pretty broad scope. I think there is no question but that the ruling of the Chair is correct, but that ruling would not preclude a discussion of all ^hat is covered by the first clause-and it covers the essence of the whole matter.


Uriah Wilson: Then the kou. minister (Hon. Mr. Fielding) does not object to a general discussion?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Within the limits of section 1.


Uriah Wilson: There is this to say-that a member of this House who speaks but seldom, is more apt to stray beyond the real question than one who speaks every day. I represent a rural constituency, one that is opposed to anything like bonusing a railway. My constituents feel that the time has come when it should stop. We have already bonused railways, I think, to the extent of $300,000,000, and ifr we


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: How many railways has the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wilson) in his riding ?


Uriah Wilson: I am very glad the hon. minister (Hon. Mr. Blair) has asked that question. For, on a previous occasion when I was discussing this point, I was twitted by the hon. Minister of Finance with the suggestion that I had in my constituency all the railways that were wanted. At that
time, we had 2i miles of railway that had been bonused. But since hon. gentlemen opposite came into power, who were pledged against bonuses, they have added six or seven miles of bonused railway. These are the only roads in my constituency that have been bonused.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is not an answer to my question.


Uriah Wilson: What does the hon. minister wish to know ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: How many railways has the hon. gentleman In his riding ?


Uriah Wilson: 
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Is that bonused ?


Uriah Wilson: No, Sir.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Not bonused by Canada ?


Uriah Wilson: No, if the hon. minister thinks it was, will he tell me when ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am asking the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wilson).


Uriah Wilson: I can tell the hon. gentleman how it was bonused. I think he gave us an answer to that question himself. They were given a loan of $15,000,000 I believe. That was taken over at confederation at $25,000,000, and has been running ever since. I presume it represents about $100,000,000 that they owe now, and I guess, always will owe. Now, it is just this way :	I object to a few men getting
together, millionaires or others, forming a company, and coming to the government, and asking for a bonus for their benefit. I think that is unfair and undesirable. Besides that, we have the authority of the best railway men in this country and the United States for saying that where railways are required it is not necessary to bonus them, because where there is business for railways they will be built, money will be found to build them. Besides that, these gentlemen on the treasury benches, when they came into office, were strongly opposed to bonusing railways. I remember distinctly a letter that was written by the present Minister of Trade and Commerce, in which he distinctly said that the policy of the Liberal party was against bonuses, and I think they got a good many votes all over Ontario on the strength of that. But since they have come into power, I think they have voted about $26,000,000 in bonuses, and I think they have paid out about

$11,000,000. The people in my section of the country think it is time this should come to an end. We have various farmers' institutes, or farmers' associations, in my riding which have been passing resolutions lately, and I think they sent one of their resolutions to the government asking that no more bonuses should be given to railways. They met on the 20th of June and also passed a resolution opposing any guarantees being given to railways. The feeling is that if it is a good thing the railway company will own it, but if it is a bad thing, we shall have to take it ourselves. I wish to say that X am entirely opposed to this way of doing things. Again, I see no provision in the Bill as to what is to become of the money when the railway promoters go to London to sell the bonds. These bonds are guaranteed by the government, and no doubt will sell well. Now I see no provision in the Bill as to what is to become of that money. I think it is a reasonable presumption that the railway men will control that as they like, that is to say, if this Bill is to be our guide. 1 do not think they should be allowed to do that, X think if we guarantee their bonds, the money should go into the hands of the government and should be paid out on progress estimates then we would be sure that the money would go into the building of the road. But if it goes into their hands -I am not going to say they will make an improper use of it-but they will have an opportunity of doing it if they like. Therefore, I wish to record my voice against this kind of aid to railways. Let the people who want to build railways furnish the money to build them. If it is thought that we must have railways and we cannot get them built in any other way, we had better build them ourselves and own them, rather than give bonuses like this. There is another trouble I see. The whole of this indebtedness is coming due at one time, at the end of fifty years. Now is it probable that this railway is going to put away a portion of its earnings every year to pay that large sum when it comes due ? I think if we are going to do this at all, there should be a Slinking fund so that they will pay so much a year, and you would have provided when the fifty years was up that money would be paid, and the government would not lie called upon to pay it.


John Graham Haggart: Before the clause is adopted, I wish to make a few remarks in reference to some observations made by the Minister of Railways and the Minister of the Interior, in the discussion which occurred upon this first clause. I think I am perfectly in order, because I am considering that portion of the road which is being given in security, besides the portion which is intended to be built. The Minister of Railways stated, and I was glad to hear him make the observation, that the government Mr. WILSON.
had reserved the power of compelling the Northern Railway, if necessary, to rebuild that portion of the road which passes through the state of Minnesota, and to make it pass entirely through Canadian territory.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I said there was an understanding they would do that.


John Graham Haggart: I understood from the Minister of Railways that there was an understanding in that direction. I am with those who believe that that road, or any transcontinental road, should be a xiurely Canadian road. The Minister of the Interior said that it was unnecessary to compel this road, which had a more facile means of communication than passing through Minnesota, to go to the large expense of passing entirely through Canadian territory. He instanced the road that passes through the state of Maine to St. John. Let me remind the Minister of Railways and the Minister of the Interior of a fact which has been brought out in discussion lately, that where the path of communication, for either exports or imports, passes through a foreign country, that foreign country virtually controls the political existence of the country to which the road belongs. In all cases where it is possible. I think our railroads should pass exclusively through Canadian territory. The question arose lately in reference to the Bagdad Railway passing through Asia Minor to India, and the principle was laid down by the greatest thinkers that the country which controls the path of commerce controls the country where it originates. Therefore, w# should insist that this road should pass if possible through Canadian territory. The Minister of Railways said, oh, what is the difference ? What is to prevent American capitalists from purchasing the majority of the stock in a Canadian railway ? The purchase by a foreign corporation of a Canadian road does not give them the absolute control of the bonds. There are many means of control. For instance, we might insist that the majority of the directors of any railroad in Canada should be British subjects. That alone is sufficient to give us the control of our road, though the majority of the stock might be held by Americans. The minister says, well, what is the object of anything of that kind ? What is the object of a provision in an Act of parliament to prevent the Grand Trunk Railway or the Canadian Pacific Railway from obtaining control of this road ? He says such a provision is useless in an Act of parliament. Before there could be an amalgamation with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway or any other railway, they would have to get authority from this parliament, not only before the owners could sell the road, but before they could transfer its control. Then

what is the use of putting that into an Act of parliament ? No use whatever. It is only a matter of show, only a matter of deceiving the public. The Minister of Finance said that this was a notification to the public generally, or to the people who invested in this road, that at no time would the Canadian parliament authorize a transfer of the Canadian Northern Railway to the Canadian Pacific Railway. But the parliament of Canada can at any time change that decision, and give authority to this road to sell or transfer any corporate powers that it possesses, or to amalgamate with the Grand Trunk Railway or the Canadian Pacific Railway. Then a provision of this kind is useless in the Bill, it is only for the purpose of deceiving the public, the people of Canada who are investing their money in this undertaking. Then the Minister of Railways says that they can virtually obtain control of it. If they can virtually obtain control of it, what is the use of putting _ a provision of this kind In the Act V If they can get a majority of the stock and can get control of the institution, what is the use of making a provision of this kind ? There is no use whatever of putting it into an Act of parliament. Then, provisions of this kind are useless, because'the parliament of Canada can at any future time by legislation give to the Grand Trunk Railway Company, or the Canadian Pacific Railway, or any other railway, authority to amalgamate with this particular road. As to American roads, the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals instanced some roads which the Americans at the present time have control of and which the parliament of Canada gave them control of. If they have obtained control from the parliament of Canada, parliament ought never to have consented to anything of the kind. The only legislation I am aware of that has been passed by the parliament of Canada is in reference to the bridge at Niagara Falls and to the electric road from Detroit to Niagara Falls, which has been given power to amalgamate with a Canadian electric railway company. It was wrong to allow them to do anything of the kind. The parliament of Canada should be very careful to prevent any American railway getting control of any corporate railway company in the Dominion of Canada. It is against the policy of the country. I warned the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals in the Railway Committee in reference to that particular subject. I warned him against giving power to any American railway to obtain control or to obtain corporate powers over a railway in the Dominion of Canada. One provision which should be embodied in the general Railway Act and in the charter given to any railway company in this country should be that a majority of the directors of the road should be British subjects.
Then, in reference to the general policy of the government we have not heard anything
from the hon. Minister of Railways or the Minister of the Interior. The hon. Minister of Railways states that upon a subsequent day shortly the policy of the government will be declared in reference to transportation and in reference to these transcontinental lines. But, here is a subject which peculiarly interests the people of the country. We are granting a subsidy to a transcontinental line. The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals and the hon. Minister of the Interior may say that the government have not considered their policy in reference to that. They should have considered it. They should have been prepared, when they brought down a motion for the purpose of assisting a transcontinental line, as I say this is, to state their whole policy in reference to transportation and in reference to transcontinental lines, and in reference as well to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, whose Bill is at present before this House. In connection with this Canadian Northern project they should have considered their policy in reference to the Grand Trunk Pacific as well as in reference to the question of the subsidy if it ever comes before this House. If we are to judge from the observations of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, we must conclude that this is abandoned for jthe present. Then, they should state the policy of the government as to whether they intend to abandon it or as to whether they intend to consider it in reference to the Canadian Northern. The jjarliament of Canada and the people of this country, when they are asked to subsidize 600 miles of road, or virtually to build it, because the amount of the subsidy is within $5,000 per mile of the cost as estimated by the department of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, are entitled to a statement from the government as to What their policy is in reference to the transcontinental system of roads and in reference to transportation from the North-west to this section of the country.


Mr. WRIGHT.: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) one question before he sits down. He says that we should have in the Railway Act a provision that the majority of the directors of a railway in Canada should be British subjects. Take the case of the Kingston and Pembroke Railway. Mr. Flower, of New York, owns most of the stock. He appoints directors here in Canada, who are Canadians, to run the road and do ail the work. These are British subjects ; still, Sir. Flower runs the road to suit himself, because if these parties that he hired here did not do as he told them to do, they would be dismissed. I cannot see that there will be any particular advantage in having a provision of that kind incorporated in the Railway Act.


John Graham Haggart: I can tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wrightl my opinion in reference to the matter. When a corporation

which has its entity in a foreign country and which, by the laws of this country, is enabled to obtain control of a railway in this country, and where you interfere with laws given to a foreign corporation, it becomes the corporate powers or rights which our laws give to a foreign corporation, it becomes then a question between Great Britain and the United States how far the investment in the entity or corporation which they receive from the American company is interfered with by legislation in lessening their interest or affecting it in any manner, and that is a strong reason why no corporation which has its power or entity in a foreign country should be allowed to obtain corporate powers over a railway in this Dominion of Canada.


Aaron Abel Wright: I recognize fully what the hon. gentleman would like to protect, and I believe these interests should be protected. All I say is that I cannot see how he is going to protect it in the way he mentions.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman must see that the entity or corporate powers which are given to a foreign company are entirely different from the corporate powers which we give to a similar institution in this country. If the corporate powers which are obtained in New Jersey or in New York give more extensive or greater powers than are given to a corporation in this country, the greater powers which they had obtained from New Jersey or New York state would be the governing or ruling powers over the corporation which had been obtained here, thus giving them an opportunity of obtaining wider powers than the powers which this parliament gave to the corporation or entity over which they have control.


Mr. BARKER.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Wright) asks what advantage it would be if a director should be resident in this country. It seems to me that answer is a very simple one. A director who is a resident of this country would be held directly responsible to the courts of this country for any illegal act he did, while a director who lived in New York could escape the jurisdiction of the courts.


Albert Edward Kemp: Mr. Chairman, I do not rise for the purpose of obstructing this Bill in any sense. I think that, perhaps, seeing that these people were promised aid at the last session of the House, this Bill might go through with perhaps some amendments to it. I wish to refer to what was said this afternoon in regard to the traffic gathered by this railway west of Fort William or Port Arthur being diverted to American channels and American ports. I would like to draw the attention of the committee-I suppose the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals knows more about it than I do-to the fact that since the removal of canal tolls Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
this season and up to within a week ago more grain has gone over the St. Lawrence route than went down by that route during the whole of last season. I have the utmost confidence in the St. Lawrence route and in the fact that in future the great bulk of grain produced in the North-west Territories will find its way out by way of the St. Lawrence route. The reason that the grain has not been going down so much as we think it should have gone has been a lack of Canadian bottoms plying on the lakes. These ships, we are glad to know, are being built, and this year probably there will be twice the number operating that were operated last year. I think we may depend upon it that in future the outlet for the grain of the North-west Territories during the season of open navigation will be through the St. Lawrence route. I believe we will cope successfully with Buffalo and New York, and even now that is taking place. I wish in this connection to ask the Minister of Railways-and I ask the question because of so many rumours in reference to this line of railway being built by either the government or by a private corporation, from the city of Quebec to Winnipeg-I ask if the minister has any data or any surveys of this country at present in regard to the country through which this railway will pass ? Is it a country of mountains or an agricultural country ; is it fertile or is it barren ? Whether the government builds the road or whether it is built by a private corporation, it will be necessary for us to know what this railroad will cost approximately before entering into such a gigantic enterprise.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My hon. friend (Mr. Kemp) will realize that he is speaking outside of the subject.


Albert Edward Kemp: I am just asking a question.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The government could not carry on any surveys or make any explorations unless money were furnished it by parliament for that purpose, and parliament has not supplied the means to provide for such an undertaking. It does not follow, however, that there has not been a survey- and exploration between Winnipeg and Quebec. I believe that for some time past surveyors representing not one but more railway companies have been traversing various sections of that country. It goes without saying that the government would not strike one blow in the way of construction -no matter if it should determine upon the policy of construction-until it had taken all necessary and proper means to satisfy itself that the country was one through which a railway could be advantageously constructed, and also as to the character of the country from a railway construction point of view.


Albert Edward Kemp: Whether the government builds the road or whether it is built by a private corporation these necessary steps would have to be taken.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The necessary steps would have to be taken by some one.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: I am still in some doubt, Sir, whether the measure before us is being discussed as a transcontinental road or not. I understood that hon. gentlemen opposite at the beginning of this debate rather insinuated that they did not think the government had .made a sufficient announcement upon that point, but latterly, however, they have been discussing it as a transcontinental road. That being so, I am rather at a loss to understand why these gentlemen have not placed upon the Order paper the same kind of resolutions which they deem so essential in regard to that Bill which I had the honour to introduce into this House. If it is essential that a transcontinental road before being subsidized or aided by this government should require to have stipulated in its Bill, a clause that the directors and officers should be British subjects, I am amazed that that amendment is not now on the Order paper in connection with this Bill. If it is necessary that a transcontinental railway, whether it be an all-Canadian road or otherwise should find an outlet for its freight only through a Canadian port, I am also surprised that these hon. gentlemen who were suggesting that it was so essential in respect to another railway should not deem it as essential with regard to this railway. We had a very lengthy discussion in respect to another railway all of which pointed to the necessity of its being an all-Canadian road, or otherwise forsooth the Canadian parliament should not grant one dollar of aid. It was also suggested that rather than grant aid to that railway if it went to any other but a Canadian port, it should take a circuitous route and go 100 or 150 miles out of its way to reach a Canadian port, and thus transport its freight that additional mileage, and of course at an additional cost to our producers, or else it was not worthy of aid at the hands of the Canadian parliament. As 1 understand it these absolutely essential things for the other railway are not now suggested with regard to this railway. I did not agree with these propositions at the time; I do not agree] with them now. I believe that if we are to export successfully the products of this country, they must be borne to the sea-board by the shortest route in the shortest possible time and in the cheapest possible way. But Sir, I direct attention to the fact that we have none of these motions upon the Order paper to-day which were deemed to be so necessary before aid should be granted to the other railway. We have no stipulation that the terminus of this road must be a
Canadian port and that the freight originating on this line must be exiiorted through a Canadian port. Not only that, but we were told that any railway that is entitled to aid from this parliament should have a clause inserted in its subsidy Bill, or in some other Bill connected with it, that they should build the sections of the railway simultaneously and under the direction of the parliament of Canada. If that be true in respect to one railway, why is it not true in respect to another railway ? Why should not the rule apply to one railway as well as to another ? I am not objecting to the aid given to this Canadian Northern Railway, nor am I protesting against it in any way, but it is well known that their charters extend from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and yet in view of this transcontinental aspect of the line, some hon. gentlemen do not seem to think that the rules they apply to another suggested transcontinental railway should apply to this. I call attention to this simply because of the unparalleled length of the discussion that has taken place with respect to the Bill pertaining to another railway. Not only that, but when this other railway was not seeking aid so far as the parliament of Canada is advised, though there might be newspaper rumours to the effect that they might hope for aid or possibly that they might apply for aid-but only when they are simply asking for a charter, we are told by notices of motion and by lengthy speeches in the House


Peter Macdonald: The hon. gentleman is altogether outside of this section. He is discussing a matter that is fiot before the committee. I hope the hon. gentleman will come down to a discussion of the question before the House.
Mr. McCarthy. Yes


David Henderson: 1 think your point of order is well taken, Mr. Chairman. I have no doubt that the hon. gentleman (Mr. McCarthy) thought that it was the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Bill that was before the House.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: I submit, Mr. Chairman, that my remarks are as germane, if not more germane, to the question before the Chair than the interruption of the hon. gentleman from Halton (Mr. Henderson). I do not know that I occupy unduly the attention of the House in respect to matters which are not germane, but I do know that on several occasions I have heard debates in this House which were not so germane to the question before the Chair than the argument which I am attempting to direct the attention of the House to. However, whether it be the question that is before the House or not, the issue is a question of giving material aid to the road which is under discussion, and. the question also arises whether it is to be a transcontinental road or not. It

is contended on one side that it is to be a transcontinental road, and it is known that charters are possessed by that company that will make it a transcontinental road. Whether or not it is the intention of th'e government to assist to make it a transcontinental road is another question. I do not for a moment question your ruling, Mr. Chairman; I abide by it. I was not in the House when the direct question was put, but I think I heard the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Kemp) discussing whether the directors should be British subjects or not and having taken my cue from him, if it is a wrong cue, I apologize.


Albert Edward Kemp: I do not think I referred to that subject. I was referring to Canadian ships on the lakes.
Mr. McCarthy. I apologize. It was the hon. gentleman from Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) who made the suggestion. Having discussed that question, and having been ruled out of order, I wish to say that if it is considered necessary in respect to one road to have a clause directing that any of tlie freight originating in Canada should be exported through or by a Canadian port, it is just as essential in this case as in any other. I am not saying that it is essential or to our advantage to have such a clause, but I call the attention of the House to a proposition which is on the Order paper with respect to another railway. I would also point out that it is just as essential in this case as in others that the president of the road should be a British subject. We have been told that the proper place to protect ourselves in respect to all these questions is in a Bill granting relief. I simply point out that if it is sought not to discriminate in favour of one railway as against another, these provisions which have been urged so persistently in respect to one railway should be dropped if they are not urged against another.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I wish to ask the hon. minister if it is intended that the government shall raise the funds to be paid out through these trustees, and if so, on what principle ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Of course, it is quite impossible for any person to say just what machinery the government would be advised by the Department of Justice is the wisest to adopt when the work is being undertaken. I have no doubt in my own mind that the government would not contemplate for a moment the idea of handing these' bonds over in a body to be dealt with by the company. What I am sure the government will see the necessity of doing, when they come to deal with the matter, will be to furnish the bonds as the progress of the work will justify-no faster than that. The proposals made by the company to the financiers will cover the whole issue, and they Mr. McCarthy.
will have an understanding with them that the money is to be supplied just as the bonds are supplied. I have not had any consultation with the Canadian Northern people on this branch of the subject at all, but it will be dealt with in a business like way, I apprehend.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I presume, then, it is understood that the bonds will all sell at par, and that you would not issue all the bonds at once, otherwise they would draw interest from the time they were issued, although they might not be used till some time afterwards.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It has been suggested by the hon. member for Lennox (Mr. Wilson) that these bonds will be pledged, and that the company will receive all the money and be free to do what they please with it. I would point out that the Bill provides that the time and manner of the issue of the sureties shall be such as the Governor in Council approves of, and the hon. gentlemen may trust that the government will see that the money is placed either in the Dominion treasury or under the control of the government in some way, certainly not under the control of the company.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would it not be well to make provision for the repayment of the
loan at the expiration of the time ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The government will consider all that. There is no doubt that there will be a certain length of time during which it will not be expected that the company will make any large contribution towards ,a sinking fund; but the time might come when they would be in a position to do so; and that is one of the things to which the government will give its attention and arrange on the most satisfactory terms and conditions that may be settled upon.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is to satisfy ourselves on these points that we desire to get the information, because I have no doubt that under the Bill the government have the power to take these safeguards; but unless they intimate that they intend to take them, they might be overlooked or neglected.


Uriah Wilson: I do not see why that clause should not be in the Bill, and I am surprised that the Minister of Railways and Canals should say that there is any discretion in that company in regard to that matter, and that they could sell the bonds from time to time as they were called for.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I did not suggest that. I said that no doubt the company will make its arrangements with the financial men in regard to the whole issue, and receive the money from those people as they required it.


Uriah Wilson: I would still prefer a, clause in the Bill to regulate the issue of the bonds rather than leave it in the hands of the Governor in Council.
On section 2-security by first lien on lines aided.


Robert Laird Borden: Is the Minister of Railways and Canals in a position to give the House any more definite information as to the terms and conditions of the mortgage, which ought really to he before the House at this stage, in order to give us a thorough appreciation of what the terms of the arrangement between the government and the company really are.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, I am not able to make any fuller statement than I made the other day, when the hou. gentleman had the assurance that the matter he referred to would be considered by the Department of Justice when it came to address itself to the preparation of these securities.


Robert Laird Borden: It leaves the matter in certainly a very indefinite condition. I am quite sure that when a similar proposition was before the legislature of Manitoba, the mortgage which was given the government of that province was placed before the House at the same time, so that the House, in considering the proposal of the government, had before it the proposal as a whole and knew exactly what was proposed to be done. This arrangement might take a dozen different forms, some of which might be regarded by the House as entirely satisfactory, so far as the security would go, and there might he other forms which might not commend themselves to the House. As it is, we are just taking a leap in the dark regarding this matter of security; and while it is quite true that the aid of the Department of Justice will be invoked, nevertheless, where the terms of the mortgage involve so much that is of the highest importance, it seems to me a matter of very great regret that the hon. Minister of Railways is not able either to place before the House the document which the government proposes to take or to give us any information whatever on the question of what the terms of the proposed mortgage shall be.
On section 3-lien to rank after existing charges on all property of the company,


John Graham Haggart: I understood from the hon. minister the other day that if default were made in the payment of the interest, the government would be in a position to exercise the power, under its mortgage of taking possession of the road. How is the government to exercise that power unless by payment to the bondholders of the full amount of their bonds ? Suppose there should be a default in the payment of the interest before the whole of the bonds
become due, how will the hon. gentleman exercise the power of taking possession of the road ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: In what form or to what extent the powers which belong to the government, as guarantors of the interest, shall be exercised, in case of default, is a matter which must he entirely in the discretion of the Governor General in Council. It is not intended that the government should tie its hands as regards the exercise of these powers. On the contrary the intention is to secure to the government all the rights which would belong to any one, under similar circumstances, in case the company made default in the payment of interest. I do not by this wish to suggest the government would consider that, in the early life of a road, it would be just and equitable to enforce its rights, whatever they may be, and I do not think that parliament would consider such drastic action as proper or fair treatment or that the company should not allow a reasonable opportunity to get its road into operation or establish its business before being treated as a defaulter. But that is a matter within the discretion of the government, subject always to the control of parliament.


John Graham Haggart: I am aware that the hon. minister would not care to exercise the power of taking possession of the road or any of the powers which the bond-holders might exercise upon a simple default. But the trouble is this : Here is a default in the payment by the company of interest to the government. The bond-holders, however, are paid their interest by the government, and they may not choose to part with the bonds. They may prefer to keep possession of them until the end of the fifty years, and the government will have to pay the interest during all that time. How can the government exercise any right to take possession of the property or exercise the control which would belong to the owners of the bonds ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Where there is default, the government must have the right, according to the terms of the mortgage, of taking possession of the property.


John Graham Haggart: But the bond-holders are in possession of the bonds, and the government can only exercise its rights on the understanding that it pays the shareholders the interest and the total amount of the bonds at the end of the fifty years.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Default in the payment of interest would be a ground upon which the government would claim the right to take possession of the property, if it chose to do so, and operate the road.


John Graham Haggart: I understand that the government are going to put in the

5G32
mortgage the right to exercise the power of taking possession at any time the company is in default, just as the bond-holders would do.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Quite so. But I am not going to say that we will arbitrarily stipulate that that power must be exercised in one, two or three years. The government will reserve the power to do so according to the arrangements stipulated in the mortgage.


Robert Laird Borden: What the hon. member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) suggests has a good deal of force in it. It will be a complicated matter to work out if the mortgage be taken in the form first suggested by the hon. Minister of Railways. There would be no difficulty, however, if you simply take a mortgage, which would protect the government in case it should be called on to pay out any moneys under its guarantee. It would be simple to provide that the government, having paid six or twelve or eighteen months interest, would be in a position to foreclose the road.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It would not be necessary to have two mortgages for that purpose. One would be sufficient.


Robert Laird Borden: I have never suggested two mortgages. I have always suggested that, inasmuch as the proposed bond-holders, mortgage would give the bonds no additional value, because they are guaranteed by the government, the only necessity for a mortgage is to indemnify the government against its guarantee.


Mr. FRASER.: And to prevent any other lieu.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: I make the suggestion because I know that some questions of a similar nature arose on a former occasion, and the government could not exercise its power until the whole amount fell due.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We will take good care that that is not the condition in this case.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In what position would the government be, in the event of the company making default under its agreement with Manitoba ? The Manitoba mortgage covers the whole line, and not only the portion it subsidized. Supposing the Canadian Northern defaulted to Manitoba .under then' agreement, what position would the present government be in with regard to the sscurities then ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: When that event occurs, my hon. friend may be sure that we shall direct our immediate attention to it. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) understands me-I do not wish to express an opinion upon that Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
point without having had an opportunity to consider it. It does not alter the case here, because we take our second security on the other portions of the line as an additional security. A very large proportion of their mileage is subject to only $10,000 per mile indebtedness, and we take additional security on that.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not suppose there would be very much difficulty in ascertaining what would take place in the case suggested, if there should be a default, and the mortgage to His Majesty in the right of the Manitoba government should be foreclosed. That being a prior lien upon the line mentioned, foreclosure of that mortgage would cut out the second charge of this government upon those lines, but upon those lines only, leaving His Majesty in right of the government of Canada with a prior lien


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I can understand that the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) wished to know what we would do in such a case -whether we would take over the property, and so on. I could not answer that now.


Robert Laird Borden: Whether the government would buy in at a foreclosure sale-I suppose that would depend on circumstances.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I could not answer that question now.


Haughton Lennox: I understand the hou. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) to be directing his attention not to the question of what the government would do if that contingency arises, but what steps they were taking now to protect themselves and the people in case of a difficulty arising with regard to the Manitoba mortgage.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The only thing that occurs to me is that possibly, parliament might give us power to raise sufficient money, when the contingency arose, to buy the lines in.


Haughton Lennox: What I understand the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) to direct his attention to is not what the government would do when the difficulty arises, but what precaution the government proposes to take now in getting this security to protect themselves in case the railway company should default in regard to that prior claim. Now, it is unfortunate, I think that the government have not brought down to the House some general outline, at all events, of the scheme they propose as a matter of security to the government. There have been several pertinent remarks from this side of the House, and I understand that what we want, so far as we can, is to have an assurance from the minister that proper steps will be taken, so that, if the

default happens in the payment of interest or anything of that kind, there may be the means in the hands of the country to protect the interest of the people. The hon. minister, a few minutes ago, gave a reply which was in this line-that he did not assume that the government would like to tie its hands by saying they would immediately act upon default. That I can well understand. X do not think that this House would want them to act hurriedly in case of some slight delay in the payment of interest. But what I understand we would like to have the government keep in mind in completing this transaction is that the necessary stipulations be put in the document drawn up, so that the government may be in a position, in case of default, to secure themselves and the people they represent. It is not necessary that these stipulations and provisions should be immediately exercised, but there should be such terms in the mortgage as to enable the government to control the situation when it arises, if it does arise. If that is done, we shall have no ground to complain with regard to the government, but if it is not done, we shall have great ground to complain. And, if we on this side fail to call the attention of the government to this point at the present time, the people will have great ground of complaint against us. I think it is to be regretted that this document, in outline, at all events, has not been submitted to parliament. But as it has not been, the duty will much more rest upon the minister and upon the government to see to it that there are such stipulations in it as will enable the government to control the situation in case of default.
Now, I would like to direct attention to another point, and that is with regard to what the hon. minister said a few minutes ago about payments-that he would not expect the railway company, within a few years, to be able to do anything towards reducing this indebtedness. That I would anticipate. I understand from the intention expressed by the minister that the railway company are not to be called upon to pay the bonds to the parties advancing the money for fifty years. Yet, it is not inconsistent with that provision that protection should be afforded, either by a deposit with the government or some other way, that there shall be some reduction of the indebtedness far short of fifty years. I think it is very desirable that that should be provided for, beginning within a reasonable number of years so that there shall be a regular and continual reduction of the indebtedness and, at the end of fifty years, it shall be substantially reduced.
On section 4,
The kind of securities to be guaranteed as aforesaid and the forms thereof, and the form and terms of the mortgage securing them, and the time and manner of the issue of the securi-177
ties, and the form and manner of guarantee, shall be such as the Governor in Council approves of.


Robert Laird Borden: Can the hon. minister state whether or not there is to be any provision in the mortgage for a sinking fund at any time ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am not in a position to state definitely that there will be. I have already stated to the committee that that is a matter which is being considered. Hon. members are aware that in nearly all these great and successful railway undertakings the jjlan adopted is to retire the bonds as rapidly as possible, and make an issue of perpetual guaranteed stock. We all know from experience of railway corporations that the original debt or bond issue which has been incurred is not repaid. It stands against the property. The reason for not repaying it is not that the company might not be able to repay it, might not constitute a sinking fund which would in time wipe out the debt, but because demands-legitimate demands- are ever arising for the extension in all directions of the railway, the enlargement of its works, the increase of its capital expenditure. Instead of retiring the bonds, the company uses the means which would go to the retirement of those securities in the construction of new works and the carrying out of necessary improvements which are incidental to the work of every great railroad. I think that the government, perhaps, will not insist on a sinking fund, for the reason I have stated. It may be that when we get down to details it will be agreeable to both parties that guaranteed stock should be issued, and, retire all the bonds by the expiration of the fifty years. That may be agreed upon as being the best method of concluding the arrangement. All these things require to be canvassed and discussed fully, but we have first to get the authority of parliament in order to know that we could go on with the undertaking and give the guarantees which are necessary in the first instance. So I would not wish to be understood as making any more precise or definite statement on that subject. The committee may rest assured that no course will be taken except such as will absolutely guarantee the country from any possible loss on any securities which we take.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is because the information is meagre that we have endeavoured to ascertain what is the understanding between the government and the company. It seems to me there has been no agreement reached in regard to details at all.


Samuel Barker: I would like to ask the minister whether he proposes, under this clause, to ask the House to authorize the government to guarantee the interest in per-



petuity upon any debentures that are issued ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, not at all.


Samuel Barker: Well, you have power under this clause.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, we take it that, we are limited as to the term for which our guarantee is to continue ; it cannot exceed fifty years. But it does include a guarantee of the principle as well as the interest, of course. But if it should ultimately transpire, when the arrangement is concluded that an issue of guaranteed stock is to be substituted for these bonds, to retire the bonds at maturity, that guaranteed stock would not be covered by any government guarantee. It would only be a new guarantee the same as the stock issued by the Canadian Pacific Railway, and which is authorized to be issued by various other companies, some of which have received their authority during the present session.


Mr. BROCK.: No matter what view the government may take, or we may take of it, we know the view that a company such as is being formed will take of this. While they are able to borrow the money of this country at three per cent they are not at all likely to borrow money at four per cent to take up these bonds. The transaction that we are going into is one that will last for fifty years. That should be well understood at the present time, because other corporations are coming to the government, this matter is going to be extended, and it should be well considered. When you are loaning money for fifty years to this company at three per cent, yon cannot well refuse a loan under similar circumstances to other institutions probably for a much larger sum. This country is going to become the banker at this very low rate of interest, I might almost say for all time to come, not only for this institution but for similar ones organized for the purpose of opening up the North-west, and for that great system of transportation which the government have had under consideration ; so that this loan may develop into an enormous sum. The government should consider that they are loaning money on terms which will incite others to come and ask for the same advantage. It is not like that kind of security that you can take to a bank or financial center and raise money upon it. This company has got to finance these bonds, not only through the present good times, but through all kinds of times that we may have during the next fifty years, probably many more years.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman surely understands that the government are not responsible for financing these bonds.


Samuel Barker: 


William Rees Brock: You are, because without your endorsation these bonds could not lie financed.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is true, but this is a totally different proposition to saying that the government are bound to see that these bonds are financed at a rate which means three per cent interest only. That means that the bonds must necessarily sell at par, I hope they may, it would be much to the advantage of the company that they should. Of course, if the bonds were being issued by the government itself, if we were making a loan and were issuing these bonds bearing three per cent interest, undoubtedly they would be good at par. But whether in an indirect way we guarantee the company holding these endorsed securities, is a matter to which I do not feel free to state with confidence for a moment.


William Rees Brock: The government surely consider that when they endorse a bond they are responsible for it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Undoubtedly.


William Rees Brock: And the bond to all intents and purposes is their own bond, and if that bond can be negotiated in the markets of the world at three per cent, it is not at ail likely that an individual company will think for a moment of taking these bonds up, because they won't be able to go into the market and raise money at the same rate. Therefore I wish to impress upon the House and the country that what the government are doing at the present time is lending money, they are lending their credit, which is the same thing, to this company to build this road, and that the security' they hold is the road itself, a road which I believe will be built for a few thousand dollars more than the government are guaranteeing. Under these circumstances I think the government should do as bankers would do. They not only want to know that they are going.to get their interest, but they, want to know how these bonds are going to be financed, they want to know the aranngements that are being made by this company for financing the bonds ; because the company do not pretend that they can pay this interest from the very date of the bonds, they have got to carry them for some little time. So the government should be assured that they are at once going to commence to pay interest upon them, and the company are going to finance them in such a way that the government will not be called upon, at any rate until the company have developed the new resources of the railroad, in such a way as to make this a good investment.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think myself that this government may very properly interest itself in this direction-I have had it in my mind for

a long time-as to the manner in which these bonds will be disposed of, not because we would be responsible for any more than we guarantee, because we are really not obliged to pay any more than the face of the bonds on maturity. We would naturally desire, in the interest of the undertaking itself, and in the interest of our security, that the bonds should realize the highest possible amount so that all that money should go into the undertaking. The larger the amount that goes into the undertaking, the better the security will be. I can say to my hon. friend that this matter will not be lost sight of by the government, and that we shall look after the manner in which these bonds are financed.


William Rees Brock: I may point out that it is possible that several hundred miles of this road might be built, and then the company might collapse, they might meet with great trouble in the financial market and might not be able to continue it. The government should, under these circumstances, say that they should have enough on hand to go on and finish the undertaking, because an unfinished undertaking is worthless. I think we are entering upon an expenditure that is likely to become very serious indeed, and that the government cannot take too many securities. We on this side of the House are very desirous that no stumbling block should be placed in the way of this company carrying out their undertaking, because we believe it to be largely in the interest of the country. Personally I have the greatest possible objection to piecemeal legislation and piecemeal railways. I think all this should have been done as part of that great plan of transportation that was suggested three years ago, and that we should have had our commissioners at work by this time, and this whole thing should have been thrown upon their shoulders. As it is at present, the government are taking upon their shoulders a good deal of the work that this commission should have had to do. But by the time they have appointed their commissioners and these have got to work, the government will have committed itself to such an extraordinary undertaking that the commissioners will find their hands tied by the time they get into office. I think that the government, on their own behalf as well as in the interest of this country, cannot take too many securities at the present time that this enterprise they have entered upon shall be so conducted as to make it safe for the country.


Haughton Lennox: I would like to bring the hon. minister's attention to the question of a sinking fund. The answer which the hon. minister gave to the hon. leader of the opposition makes it pretty clear that at the present time the government have no intention of requiring that anything should be done in the way of a reduction of this debt 1771
within the period of fifty years. The hon. minister says that at the end of fifty years there will be no renewal of the security by the government, that the railway will have to pay this debt off by negotiating other bonds. He says that the government will then be free of it and that the railway company will have to carry on the indebtedness. That is all very well if it works out in that way, but whether it does or does not depends upon the position of the railway company at that time. If the government take the position in arranging the security that there is to be no sinking fund in the meantime, they are leaving it to chance as to whether they can get rid of the security at the end of fifty years. They will be confronted with this position that in the event that the railway company cannot then negotiate the security without the endorsement and guarantee of the government-and they are very likely not to be able to negotiate the security unless the government will endorse it from the fact that parties loaning money will look for a guarantee from the government-if the railway company cannot then negotiate the security without the aid of the government, the government will either have to again guarantee the security or else they will have to take the railway property into their own hands. I think that is a very unwise position in which to leave us. At the end of fifty years and long before fifty years have expired, we ought to be getting into the position that our liability will be less and less. We have control of this in the beginning and now is the time to make provision for the contingency which I speak of. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that there are other railways which will expect the same thing from us and which will be entitled to receive it. I am,not objecting to aid being given to this company if proper security is taken, but what I wish to impress upon the government is that there is a necessity in this case, having regard to the circumstances that we will be incurring other liabilities for other railways and in proportion as we increase our liabilities the credit of Canada will decrease, that something should be done within the period of fifty years, and beginning within a period of a few years-say twenty-five years-in the way of a reduction of this indebtedness. Otherwise, the government have no guarantee whatever that this money will be forthcoming without the aid of the government at the end of fifty years. I want to call the attention of the hon. minister and of the committee to the danger that threatens us in dealing with this matter. It would hardly have taken as long to prepare a document as it has taken us to discuss this measure by reason of the vague way in which it is brought before us. I believe this committee was resting upon the implied assurance of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals that there

would be a decrease in the liability by means of a sinking fu*d or something of that kind and that that idea prevailed amongst hon. members. Until the hon. leader of the opposition got up and pointedly put the question to the hon. minister I believe this committee were quite prepared to believe that we were going to have a provision when the arrangement was carried out that would secure us in the line I have mentioned by having a sinking fund to diminish our liability from year to year. I do not mean that the hon. minister wished to mislead the committee, but he was allowing it to go in silence after I had asserted the fact and only for that pointed question we would probably all have gone away with the understanding that the government had undertaken that there would be a sinking fund. I think we must ask the hon. minister to make as definite a statement as possible as to what will be done in the way of securing us in the document. that will be drawn up.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am surprised to hear the remarks which my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) has made. I do not think my hon. friend realizes that this country has any future at all. I do not think he has the slightest conception of the magnificent territory through which this road is to pass. I do not think he realizes that the road will be one of the most profitable railways on this continent, which it will be by reason of the fact that it passes through a splendid fertile belt capable of almost continuous settlement from Winnipeg right up to Edmonton, to which point we are carrying the line. Almost the whole of the country for many miles on both sides of the line is susceptible of settlement. The hon. gentleman cannot have the slightest conception of the value which this property will acquire in a very few years to come. He talks about our requiring a sinking fund for our protection. It may be, on consideration, possibly desirable to provide for a sinking fund, but it may be infinitely better that the surplus earnings of the road should be expended upon the road in increasing the accommodation given to the public and in increasing the facilities that the public will require. I would not undertake to give the committee any assurance that we would insist upon the diversion of any portion of these earnings instead of ensuring their expenditure upon the undertaking itself. I think my hon. friend will, on reflection, see that it will be tying the hands of the government to an unreasonable degree, and that it would possibly be doing an irreparable injury to this great undertaking if we were to provide that the surplus earnings of the undertaking should be expended in the manner he suggests.


Haughton Lennox: 


Haughton Lennox: I am glad the hou. minister has waxed eloquent over the enormous resources of this country ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Do not believe it ?


Haughton Lennox: I will tell the hon. minister in a moment if he will allow me, whether I believe or not. It may be that I have for a moment been forgetful of the resources and the promise of this country, and of the prospect that this country will occupy a position greater than any of us can dream of at the present time. Those who are accustomed to wealth ari apt to forget it. Belonging to the Consei vative party, the one party that has always believed in the future' of this country, that has always believed in the west, that has always believed in the great advantage of a transcontinental railway, I say, belonging to such a party, basking in the wealth of knowledge which the Conservative has possessed in the past, it is not surprising that I have for a moment forgotten the affluence with which we are surrounded, but, the hon. gentleman, belonging to the party which in the old days had a poverty of appreciation in that regard, which believed that country would never support one, let alone three or four transcontinental railways, belonging to a party which has suddenly come to realize what this country can produce, I think, he is carried away and that he is like a man who has suddenly come into a fortune. If I had not so much respect for the hon. gentleman I would suggest that he had almost lost his head. He gave us a very reasonable picture when he supposes that this railway is going to be a paying enterprise, that it will be a success, that there will be the best kind of trade for it to do, that there will be a vast amount of commerce for it to transport. This is all the more reason why the company should, while they are piling up money from year to year, as I hope and believe they will, liquidate this indebtedness. As they go along and wish to make extensions^ adding to their rolling stock and equipment in various ways, they can do so, and being in good credit they can finance in such a way as to form a sinking fund and at the same time carry out their enterprise with success. I do not question the stability or success of this enterprise, but we are entering upon a career in which we may be called upon from time to time to make similar grants, and I do not want that the country should be adding to its liabilities from year to year without end making no provision for curtailing them. In five, in ten or in fifteen years as we incur increasing liabilities, I want that we shall have coming into the treasury something from the earlier grants which we have made, so that our indebtedness shall not climb up to an extent

which would uot be sanctioned by a prudent people such as the Canadian people are.


Robert Laird Borden: There should be. some provision in the Bill, that a copy of the mortgage and a copy of all the securities mentioned in section 4 should be laid on the Table of the House within ten or fifteen days of the opening of next session.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Does the hon. gentleman think it necessary to put that in the Bill ?


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps not, if we have the assurance of the minister that it will be done.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I will be very happy to do it.


Robert Laird Borden: It is a very unbusinesslike way of dealing with the matter, but still it is better than nothing to be able to look at these documents. The hon. gentleman hardly realizes the extent of his lack of knowledge with regard to this matter. He does not know the nature of the terms of the mortgage; nor the date at which the powers will be exercised by the government ; nor whether there is to be a sinking fund, nor whether the government will reserve the power to pay these bonds before they are due, nor whether the government are going to reserve power to own and operate the railway in case of default. As a matter of fact, the minister does not seem to have any knowledge as to what the very important terms of the contract are to be.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am surprised that the hou. gentleman calls such a mass of material before him meagre.


Robert Laird Borden: 1 would not call it a ' mass ' of material.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I know that my hon. friend is afflicted with the disease which seems to have affected a good many; of his friends; that is, the old story of saying that the minister does not know anything. I think we have managed to show that we have some knowledge of what we are doing and that we are conducting matters in a fairly businesslike way; so much so that my hon. friend has very little ground for successful criticism.


Robert Laird Borden: I am only measuring the hon. gentleman's knowledge by what he has stated himself.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman would be quite ready to make the same observation if he were to ask me for a further array of impossible things. The hon. gentleman does not suppose that the government has nothing else to do during the session, but
sit down and work out the minutiae of all these matters.


Samuel Barker: What about the Yukon contract ? Youi were able to do that.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The Yukon contract was not drawn during a session of parliament.


Samuel Barker: No; it was drawn a week before parliament.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think it was more than a week, but at all events it was not during a session of parliament. It is quite impossible for the; ministry to give attention to these details during the session of parliament. I think you will find that when we come to deal with the matter we will be able to work it out satisfactorily to the country, even though our friends opposite may not admit it is satisfactory to them. I have no hesitation, however, in stating to the hon. gentleman and to the committee, that copies of the securities and papers will be brought down within the first fifteen days of the opening of the next session. If it escapes our attention and if the hon. gentleman calls attention to it my hon. friend will bring them down immediately.	v
On section 7,-running powers to other lines.


Samuel Barker: This clause provides that the Governor in Council may grant running powers over some portions of this line in favour of other railway companies and upon terms considered equitable. If this railway company wishes to get some terms of relief from the position it may be in, it will be very easy to get somebody to suggest that running powers would be very desirable in favour of a particular railway, and the government may give certain concessions on such terms as are expedient and equitable, in consideration of the running powers being allowed. In that way, in the time of difficulty this company might induce the government-I do not mean to say that the present government could be induced to do anything that might be improper, but there might be another government not sp careful of the country's interests as the present one, and they might be induced as a consideration for granting runnibg powers over a portion of this line to do something that would interfere with the security of the country for the guarantee they have given. For example, if this country had advanced a million dollars or two million dollars, the government could make a stipulation that in consideration of their allowing running powers for a short distance upon the line, the country should wipe out all that liability. I would suggest to the minister, in the interest of the country, that he should add to this section some such words as these. ' But without impairment of the security of the government ' or any

words of that kind that will protect the country against the release of any rights which it has under the guarantee.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am unable to grasp the possibilities or the probabilities that my hon. friends foresees may possibly occur which would affect prejudicially the value of the government security in operating under that clause. I confess that I cannot see how it could possibly arise.


Samuel Barker: I would suggest one or two ways in which it could arise. The owners of this subsidized road might ask the government, in consideration of running powers being granted on one part of the line, to release or discharge the lieu or mortgage on the other parts. If the contracting party which gets running powers has to pay something to this company for the running powers, that is one thing ; but if the government has power to release the securities, that is another thing. I think it would be reasonable to say that whatever terms might be made for granting running powers, those terms should not be such as would result in an impairment of the value of the security under which this guarantee is granted.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is nothing which the hon. gentleman has suggested, nor which I think he can suggest, which would have the effect under this clause of impairing the value of the security which the government would have power to give without the authority of parliament. My hon. friend might almost as well say that we ought to have a clause in this Bill providing that the government should not some morning declare that the mortgage was paid and had ceased to be a security of costs. The one case is as sup-posable as the other. No government could do it. A government cannot extinguish any claim which is due, or discharge any security without payment. If it attempted to do it, the claim would be nevertheless enforced. Parliamentary authority is required ; my hon. friend must admit that.


Samuel Barker: There is not a word here regarding parliamentary authority.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, because my hon. friend is contemplating that running powers would be given to some other company which offered as a condition to this company to consent that one-half the claim of the government against them should be cancelled. Where can power be found to reside in the government to extinguish any portion of that claim other than by actual payment ? When this clause speaks about equitable terms, it means that the company which requires the right to use these tracks shall pay in an equitable way and according to equitable conditions-not that the company which gives this mortgage to us shall receive from


Samuel Barker: the government or from anybody satisfaction for their security, but that they shall receive from the company which gets the right to run over their tracks proper consideration for the privilege they obtain.


Samuel Barker: The clause provides, not that this company shall grant running powers, but that the Governor in Council may grant running powers on terms that may be considered equitable. The consideration of the grant will pass as between the government and this railway company, and in consideration of the government doing that, they may release the company which is guaranteed from any liability which they have against them.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My hon. friend must know that even without that clause, under the ordinary clause found in the Railway Act to-day, and which has been there for years, the Governor 'in Council, through the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, has the right to grant running powers to one company over another company's lines on terms that may be considered equitable. Strike this clause out, and the general law would still hold it. The only reason it is here, is that it may appear in the terms of the agreement as one of the conditions of the guarantee, giving it a contractual character, in addition to the ordinary legal sanction which is found in the Railway Act. Does the hon. gentleman want to leave the Railway Act without any provision of that kind ? Because if he has any warrant for his anxiety on that point, he cannot permit the Railway Act to continue with that clause in it.


Robert Laird Borden: The difficulty of my hon. friend from Hamilton arises because in one of the clauses you give the Governor in Council power to deal with the securities, and'in this clause, though from another standpoint, you give the Governor in Council power to deal with the question of granting running powers over portions of the railway, and you have these words added, ' upon terms considered equitable.' My hon. friend is not arguing that the government can without statutory authority do anything to impair the security, but he is arguing that the terms you are using here might carry the action of the government to that extent.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Does the hon. gentleman think it would ?


Robert Laird Borden: The Governor in Council, under section 7, might inadvertently place the country in such a position that the powers otherwise exercisable under this guarantee would be stayed for a time.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: How is it possible to conceive that a company, which owned this railway subject to guarantee, and which was asked

to give to an outside company permission to run over its tracks, should pay that other company ? Would not the contribution he from the other company to that company ? Then, how Is any contribution which is to be made by the new company going possibly to work an impairment of the security which the government holds under this guarantee ?


Robert Laird Borden: What 1 imagine my hon. friend from Hamilton has in mind, and what has occurred to myself, is that powers might be granted, under the very comprehensive expression used here, that would not be prejudiced by any encumbrance that might be placed on the road, and the government might find itself, by reason of the powers created by section 7, in a position not to enforce its security for a certain time at least. I am not prepared to say at the moment whether or not that result might be accomplished under section 7, but I can see enough in it to justify my hon. friend from Hamilton in bringing it to the notice of the government. There is another thing in section 7 which strikes me as rather peculiar, that is, that it seems to retain in the Governor in Council a power which the Bill at present before the House purports to vest in another body.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think the words ' Governor in Council ' might just as well be struck out.


Robert Laird Borden: I would think so, otherwise you are creating two bodies of equal authority to deal with that particular matter. The scope of the Railway Commission Bill before the House is that all such powers shall no longer be exercised by the Governor in Council, but by the hoard of Railway Commissioners.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The Railway Committee of the Privy Council can do it, but I have no objection to strike the words out.


Robert Laird Borden: That would remove perhaps to a considerable extent the force of what my hon. friend from Hamilton has suggested, because the Raihvay Committee of the Privy Council has not under the terms of a Railway Act, nor has the Board of Railway Commissioners under the Bill now before the House, any authority to in any way impair the security created by this measure.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS moved that the words ' the Governor in Council or' and the word 'also' be struck out of section 7.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
On section 8,
It shall be unlawful for the Canadian Northern Railway Company to lease or sell any of its lines or any portion thereof to the Canadian
Pacific Railway Company, or to amalgamate with the said company, or enter into any agreement with the said company whereby rates upon freight or passengers shall be pooled ; but this provision shall not extend to traffic or running arrangements made with the assent of the Governor in Council.


Robert Laird Borden: There was a great deal of discussion on this clause when we were dealing with clause 1. Whether the first part of the clause has any legal effect or not, whether it is to be regarded as a formal notice or otherwise, it seems to me that no reason has been advanced for the insertion of this provision, so far as the Canadian Pacific Railway is concerned, which would not be equally potent with regard to any other railway company. Although I followed pretty closely the remarks of the hon. Minister of Railways and the hon. Minister of the Interior, I was not able to gather from them any reason which would justify the existence of this clause, so far as the Canadian Pacific Railway is concerned, which would not equally justify its existence so far as every other railway company is concerned. I would be glad if the hon. minister would say a word on that point.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There are two branches of this clause, concerning each of which a different line of observations might properly be made. The first portion is that which refers to the sale or amalgamating of the Canadian Northern with the Canadian Pacific Railway. This clause, in a different form but in precisely the same spirit and with precisely the same purpose, seems to have been adopted in almost all the legislation of a general character which has been passed both in this parliament and the provincial legislature of Manitoba. It is in conformity, therefore, with the previously expressed desire of parliament that this provision is inserted. I have no doubt that such a provision has been always made because it was felt that the Canadian Pacific Railway, which is a very powerful corporation financially, might conceive that it would be desirable to acquire the Canadian Northern and control it, and if in no other way that control could be secured, it might desire to control it by means of the acquisition of the Canadian Northern stock. Parliament did not leave that an open question for a later parliament to determine, but, so far as an Act of parliament could have any effect upon the actions of succeeding parliaments. this parliament has made it one of the conditions of the charter that the Canadian Northern should not pass its property over to the Canadian Pacific Railway. This no doubt was due to the strong western feeling that there should be two distinct railway corporate interests serving that country, and that they should not be allowed to unite to the disadvantage of the shippers in that territory, and to avoid such

ii possibility, parliament was asked to include that restrictive clause in any legislation it might pass. The same feeling does not exist with regard to any other possible combination. The North-west will have two great roads when this road is completed, and will thus have the benefit of competition, and there is no necessity for passing legislation which would anticipate something that may never happen. I cannot see any reason why the Canadian Northern should not amalgamate with any other company except the Canadian Pacific Railway nor why any other company should not amalgamate with the Canadian Northern. There would be nothing detrimental to the public interest, should either event take place, and should any such proposal arise in the future, we will be able to deal with it. It is wise always to legislate no further than the reasonable needs of the moment require, and it is not wise to endeavour to provide for too remote a period in the future. It would not be wise for us to say now that we should not allow the Canadian Northern to amalgamate with any other company or any other company to amalgamate with it.


William Rees Brock: Why not ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Why should we ? Why should not the Canadian Northern have the privilege of adding to the strength of its road by uniting with another system ? Why should it not have the privilege of uniting with the Grand Trunk Railway if it wanted to do so ? At all events, it is a very proper thing for parliament to wait until the time comes when the companies exist and those companies want to have an amalgamation. When that time comes parliament will have the power to decide it; it cannot be done without the decision of parliaments What is the use, then, of our projecting ourselves into the future to deal with a ease that may never arise, and with which, if it should arise, we must deal according to the ideas and temper of parliament when the case is before it. Therefore, in my judgment, there is no reason why we should deal with this question now. When that request is made, it will be for the parliament of that time to deal with it. There is another phase' 6} this case which has value and importance in connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway. And that is the clause which says that it shall be unlawful for this company to enter into any agreement with the Canadian Pacific Railway! Company whereby rates upon freight or passengers shall be pooled. Such an arrangement would be equivalent in practice to an amalgamation ; and the object is to prevent that, so that there shall be the fullest advantage to the public which can accrue from competition. Now, we could not say properly-it would be a very great mistake in legislating for us to say-that under no terms should the Can-Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
adian Northern be allowed to make a pooling arrangement with any other road. It might be necessary for them to make pooling arrangements with companies. They run alongside the Canadian Pacific Railway and reach practically the same destination. Therefore, it is very much in the public interest to forbid pooling with that company. But I can conceive of companies existing in Canada with which it would be very much to the advantage of the Canadian Northern to have a pooling agreement, say, after the traffic had left their line and was being carried to its destination by land. It would be very desirable to make a pooling arrangement, subject to the approval of the constituted authorities, which would sit in judgment on such an arrangement. It would be a great advantage to the shippers. So we could not use that general language with regard to pooling arrangements, and it would not be wise for us to say that the company should not make such an arrangement with any other companies. It would tie their hands In carrying on the business of the company.


Peter Macdonald: Carried.


Joseph Israël Tarte: On division.
On section 9,
Any moneys paid by the government of Canada under the guarantee herein provided for shall be held to be paid in discharge of the liability of the government but not in discharge of the liability of the company under the securities so guaranteed or under the mortgage securing them, and the moneys so paid shall be held to be still secured by the said securities and mortgage, and the governmnt shall be subrogated in all the rights of the holders of the securities the interest upon or the principal of which has been paid by the government, and the government shall in respect of all moneys so paid be in all respects in the position of security holders in respect of whose securities default has been made in payment to the extent of the moneys paid by the government.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think the word ' the ' before the words ' interest upon or the principal of which has been paid ' should be struck out.


Samuel Barker: It is all right there.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is better expunged.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: You want a comma after ' security.'


Peter Macdonald: Shall the amendment be adopted ? Carried.


Samuel Barker: I suppose it is quite clear that under this section, however great the payments of the government may be upon these securities, and however long the government may have to wait for the return of the money, the government gets no interest, but simply has the position of the holder of a coupon which bears no interest. If the government advanced say $2,000,000 in the

course of a few years in taking up coupons, they could not recover interest. I want to know exactly wliat the intention of the government is, because it seems to me quite clear that however large these payments, or however long the government must wait, it gets no interest upon its money.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman's (Mr. Barker's) inference, assuming that this section covers all that the government would stipulate and include within the mortgage terms, is correct-there is no provision here for the payment of interest upon interest.


Samuel Barker: I mean it does not give the government the right to it, if they wish to claim it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This clause does not pointedly contemplate that, but this clause by no means exhausts the power of the government in defining the terms and conditions upon which the line may be guaranteed.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. minister lias again used the expression that the government are not charging interest upon interest. I should think it would be unnecessary to point out that, though this is interest as between the bondholders and the company, it is not interest as between the company and the government. The government must pay this interest and, as between the government and the company, it then becomes principal. Has the hon. minister anything to say to the committee as to the terms of the mortgage in this respect ? Will it be dealt with in the proposed mortgage ? Is it the intention of the government to pay large sums under this without having the right, if they desire to exercise it, to recover interest, at the rate expressed in the agreement, from the company while these sums remain unpaid ? Of course, it may be a very serious matter. The government may pay $250,000 or $275,000 per annum four or five years and this might remain for five or ten years longer unpaid. Therefore, it is a matter of some moment to consider, either now or hereafter. I do not know whether or not the hon. minister has made up his mind and is able to offer the committee any information with regard to it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I can only say that this is a question that, with many others, must arise in working out the details, and it will have to be considered and dealt with by the government.


William Rees Brock: The government, I believe, occasionally have to borrow money from the banks, for which they pay five per cent. They may borrow money at five per cent to take up some of these three per cent securities. To get money to pay the three per cent, they may be obliged to pay five per
cent. The government should obtain the power to charge what the money costs.
The MINISTER) OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS. That is a very proper subject for consideration.


Samuel Barker: There is another reason why I would call the attention of the Minister of Railways to this point. It is usual on these railway mortgages to provide that on default no proceeding shall be taken by the trustees except upon demand of 66 or 75 per cent of the bondholders. Therefore I think the government, after advancing $1,000,000 at any rate, should be in a position to enforce the mortgage under the ordinary form of a trust mortgage, unless it can obtain the consent of two-thirds or three-fourths of the bondholders, who may be quite willing to leave the government out of this money, and leave them out for many years. It is necessary for that reason that the government should protect itself, and I have no doubt that the minister will see to it.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I would ask the minister if he has considered the proposition that was thrown out here when we were considering the resolutions, in reference to providing for the government being able at any time to take over the road and everything in connection with it, and to provide means whereby the value of the road and that sort of thing might be ascertained. I may say there is a feeling in our country at least that the time is coming when it will be necessary for the government to take over any undertakings of this kind, and we should at this time provide the machinery for so doing. I understand that the government at all times have power, by exercising what the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) calls the principle of eminent domain, to take over any railway. In this case, I think provision should be made in the Bill so that if the government wish at any time to take over this road, they may have the means of arriving at a valuation of the same, and taking possession. That was discussed a while ago on section 8 of the Bill with reference to an amalgamation with the Canadian Pacific Railway. This will be a further safeguard, because the government would have it in their hands at any time, if anything should happen such as the hon. member for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) mentioned the other day, to take the road over and run it as a government property.


William Rees Brock: Any suggestion of that kind, if adopted at the present time, would interfere seriously with the floating of these bonds that you are guaranteeing. I think it would have a serious effect if the government took power to assume possession of this road. Are the government going to be the debtors, and have these bonds issued to bond-holders, holding them for fifty

years from the government of Canada ? I think the government would place themselves in a very invidious position, particularly in view of the fact that there is a scheme for a transcontinental railway at the present time. You are going to have one part of the road tied up under one set of conditions, and you don't know whether a future parliament would be able, under these conditions, to take over another portion of the road and to make it continuous to the Pacific. The fewer conditions you put in the better.


Thomas Osborne Davis: If the country's credit is good, and we guarantee the interest at 3 per cent on these bonds, the credit of the country is all right, and it does not make much difference what conditions we are putting in the Bill. The bondholders will look to the government that guaranteed the principal and interest, and it won't make any difference whether you put that in or not.


The MINISTER OE RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My hon. friend from Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) perhaps misapprehends the tenor of the remarks made by the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Brock). The hon. member for Toronto sees a difficulty which I must confess impresses my own mind at the moment. He is proposing a measure of which it will be open to the government to avail itself in fifty or one hundred years from now, when the company might be desirous of floating securities in substitution of those which have been guaranteed by the government. The power is one not confined by any statutory limitations. It would be open to the government at any time to avail itself of the opportunities and the special means of ascertaining the value of the property, if it wished to take it over. Now I must say to my hon. friend from Saskatchewan that that proposition has not been considered, and I am not in a position to make any statement as to what vfould be the action of the government upon it. But I would suggest to the hon. member that we are now dealing with what perhaps will be for all time but a fraction of a considerable railway system, we are dealing with six or seven hundred miles out of an existing sixteen hundred miles, when these lines are built, and out of, possibly, 3,000 miles, when their branches and extensions in all directions are built. To take power under this clause to acquire (500 or 700 miles would not be a useful power, nor one of which it would be proper in future for us to avail ourselves. If we were submitting, to parliament a general scheme of assistance to a completed line from one side of the continent to the other, we might consider the advisability of stipulating that the government should at any time avail itself at its option of taking that property over. But the same reason does not apply, it appears to me, to the case of a few miles of Mr. BROCK.
railway such as we are now dealing with. In making this remark I do not profess to indicate what would be the conclusion at which my colleagues would arrive. I propose to ask the committee to rise, when this last section is passed, and ask leave to sit again, in order to dispose of one sectiou which has been left standing. I may say to the hon. gentleman that I will take this subject up with my colleagues in the meantime. But I may intimate to him. what strikes me at the moment, that it is not likely to meet with approval,.


Thomas Osborne Davis: There is a strong feeling in our part of the country that something of this kind should be done. There is a possibility that we may have to acquire all the roads in the country, and when we are giving a large amount of aid to an undertaking of this kind, it is only right that provision should be put in the Bill whereby the government may take over the road if they see fit. If that time never arrives, the power will never be exercised, but it is just as well to have the power.


William Rees Brock: It should be distinctly understock that the power should only be exercised in case of a national road from the Atlantic to the Pacific, not merely a small portion of a transcontinental road. If at any time the government should make up their minds to aid a transcontinental road, or to acquire various roads that together would make a continuous road to the Pacific, this might be a useful power. But the government of Canada should not take power to spend the money of Canada to acquire a portion of a railroad, a railroad in Manitoba for instance, it should be a national road of a national character.


Robert Laird Borden: I want to point out to the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals that I think the words ' Governor in Council' at the end of section 8 should perhaps be stricken out and that the words which appear at the commencement of section 7 should be substituted. Does the hon. gentleman follow what I mean ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Strike out the words * Governor in Council ' and substitute the words ' any authority created by parliament for that purpose.' Is the idea really to leave that matter to the discretion of parliament ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think this would be supplementary. Would that not be the view of the hon. gentleman ?


Robert Laird Borden: Supplementary to what ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Supplementary to the power of revision, or to the consent of the Railway

Committee of the Privy Council, or of the railway commission. X do not think it would repeal or rescind the application of the Railway Act in any way. This is more in the nature of a contractual arrangement. It does not alter the Railway Act in any respect. I think it would simply mean that the supervision and authority of parliament which might be exercised over the railway might be exercised by the Governor in Council in the manner mentioned here.


Robert Laird Borden: Without much consideration, I would hardly be inclined to adopt that view of it. However, the hon. gentleman will perhaps have an opportunity of looking at this section and of giving it his consideration, and I will do the same.
The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS moved that the committee rise.


John Graham Haggart: Before the committee rises, I would like to say that the schedule is not passed. I want to draw the hon. minister's attention to the fact that this does not comprise the whole of the road, that the part between Winnipeg and Gladstone is not covered as well as that portion which is in Minnesota, in fact, all the lines that were acquired from the Northern Pacific are not included. I would ask the hon. minister if any portion of the roads mentioned in this schedule are comprised in the agreement with the Manitoba government ?


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think all that are in Manitoba, at least, are. I will ascertain about that.


John Graham Haggart: The purpose of my question is to point out the necessity of controlling freights by the Dominion parliament on that particular portion of the railway between Winnipeg and Gladstone which is left out of the mortgage altogether and out of the control that the government get over this road as well as the portion which passes through the State of Minnesota, I think that portion in the state of Minnesota is under security to the Manitoba government and I would like, when the hon. minister asks the House to again consider the Bill, that he will point out the particular portion of this road contained in this schedule that the Manitoba government have a lien on.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yon say from Winnipeg to Gladstone.


John Graham Haggart: It would be from Winnipeg to Beaver.
Progress reported.


SETTLEMENT OR RAILWAY LABOUR DISPUTES.
[Stage Direction]
House proceeded to consider amendments by the Senate to Bill (No. 17) to aid in the
settlement of railway labour disputes.-The Postmaster General.
Robert Laird Borden: What are the amendments ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).: Section 6 of the Bill has been amended by the Senate by striking out the words ' not exceeding ten days,' and inserting in lieu thereof * within such time as the minister may fix.' Section 6 is a section providing for filling vacancies on the conciliation committee. There is no objection to that amendment. I move that the amendment be concurred in. In section 7, fourth line, the Senate suggests the insertion of the words ' and the Prince Edward Island Railway.' The government also concur in that amendment. In the original section 7 the Prince Edward Island Railway was treated as part of the Intercolonial Railway, but it has always been treated in our accounts under a separate head, and the amendment of the Senate is to make it clear that the Prince Edward Island Railway will be in the same position as the Intercolonial Railway.


Samuel Barker: Which lieutenant governor would be selected then.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: If the dispute were in Prince Edward Island it would be proper that the lieutenant governor of that province would choose. The original section fourteen provided that witnesses might be summoned by the board to give evidence, and the Senate amendment makes it that the chairman of the board shall have power. I propose to move that the following answer be 'sent to the Senate :
That this amendment be amended by striking the words ' the chairman of ' for the reason that it is Inexpedient to leave it in the discretion of any one member of the board to determine who should be summoned as a witness, but the question should be determined by the board or the majority thereof.
In section fourteen also, the Senate declare that witnesses shall be entitled to their witness fees, whereas the original section does not give us a legal right to fees. It has been pointed out to me by the representatives of the railway employees that in many instances they are paid by their unions or by the men for taking an interest in these matters, and they do not wish to have it made possible that the men should get double pay for attending as witnesses. They think that such a thing might not expedite proceedings, and the men themselves have requested that they be not put in that position.


William Rees Brock: I think it better that the men should be paid by the country than that they should be paid by one of the parties to the suit in whose interest they are appearing.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Under the original Bill it is quite in order for the board to use its discretion in the matter. In a parliamentary committee for instance a witness has no right to his witness fees unless the committee says he should be paid them, and the same principle can be applied here. I move :
That the fourth amendment be disagreed to for the following reason : Because many of the witnesses may be' properly remunerated for their attendance as witnesses other than by payment by the board, and it would be inexpedient to make it possible for witnesses to be over remunerated for their attendance as witnesses ; and therefore it is more in the public interest that it be in the discretion of the board to determine in what cases persons should be paid for,their attendance as witnesses.


Robert Laird Borden: In what section is that discretion conferred on the board.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It is not necessary to confer by express language upon the board the right to recommend. The board would have that right of recommendation, and under clause twenty-four if it were necessary to do so, the Minister of Labour might pass the necessary regulations applying to such a subject.


Robert Laird Borden: I would be inclined to differ from my hon. friend with - regard to that. This board is the creature of a statute and has no implied powers outside of the four corners of that statute.
The TOSTMAjSTER .GENERAL. Section twenty-four would give that power to the minister.


Robert Laird Borden: I have a great deal of doubt that such would be the case. I would not agree with the Postmaster General unless he would contend that section twenty-four is wide enough to allow him to practically construct a new Act out of this. That section confers upon the minister power to make certain regulations, but I do not think that it gives him power to provide for the payment of money.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: That money would have to be voted by parliament and the vote would determine how it would be applied. The board would, under that authority, have the power to pay witnesses if there was a vote for that purpose.


Robert Laird Borden: It might be covered by the vote of parliament, but I do not think it would come under section twenty-four.


Samuel Barker: If under the Bill as it stands the board could allow witness fees, they could also allow counsel fees and solicitors costs under section eighteen.


William Rees Brock: 


Robert Laird Borden: Exactly.
Amendments read the second time.
The POSTMASTER GENERAL moved that the first, second, and fifth amendments be agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The POSTMASTER GENERAL moved :: That the third amendment of the Senate to the said Bill be amended by leaving out the words ' the chairman of ' in the said amendment, because it is inexpedient to leave it in the discretion of any one member of the board to determine who may be summoned as witnesses, but the question should be determined by the beard or a majority thereof.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax), in the usual course, in any legal proceeding-and this is to all intents and purposes a legal proceeding-either parly has the right to summon any witness he sees fit. It is an everyday procedure to go to the registrar or clerk of the court and get a subpoena for any witness you require, and it would hardly appear to me that the amendment proposed by the Senate Is an unreasonable one. It would rather seem to be with a view of convenience. Otherwise you must have the formal meeting of the board before either party shall have the right to subpoena a witness. It seems to me you add a good deal of red tape to the procedure of the committee when you decline to adopt the amendment which the Senate has sent down to us. Particularly is that the case, in view of the fact that by the further amendment which is suggested, witnesses are to go without any witness fees. If they are to do that, it would hardly seem necessary to call three members of the board to authorize a witness to be summoned.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The amendment of the Senate is not adding to the convenience of the machinery, but rather putting an additional block upon it, taking from a majority of the board and vesting in the chairman alone the right to say who shall and who shall not be summoned. Practically it would be left in his hands in most cases, but it is not advisable to exclude the jurisdiction of the other two. The board in the first place would have to meet to organize and choose their umpire. So that I do not think in the practical working of it out, any trouble would arise from this power being given to the majority of the board.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The POSTMASTER GENERAL moved :: That the fourth amendment be disagreed to for the following reason : Because many of the witnesses may be properly remunerated for their attendance as witnesses other than by payment by the board, and it would be inexpedient to make it possible for witnesses to be over-remunerated for their attendance as wit-

565S
nesses, and therefore it is more in the public interest that it be in the discretion of the hoard to determine in what cases persons should be paid for their attendance as witnesses.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The POSTMASTER GENERAL moved that a Message he sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours therewith.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved third reading of Bill (No. 201) to provide for further advances to the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal. He said :	In moving the third reading of
the Bill, I will answer a question which was put by the hon. leader of the opposition with respect to loans that have been made from time to time to several harbours. I find that advances by way of loans were made to the Quebec Harbour Commissioners to the amount of $3,748,519.62. The interest on this loan is very largely in arrear. Advances were made to the Three Rivers Harbour Commissioners to the amount of $81,760.97, and interest on this loan is also in arrear. Advances were made to the Montreal Harbour Commissioners to the amount of $3,450,000, and there are no arrears of interest with respect to this loan. These are the only advances made by way of loan to any of the harbours mentioned by my hon. friend.
Motion agreed to, Bill read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock) moved second reading of Bill (No. 208) to amend the Post Office Act.
Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would be good enough to explain the Bill.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: So much of the Bill is in detail that it would perhaps be better understood if it were taken up clause by clause in committee. The first section deals with railway mail clerks, and it alters their status. Under the law at present in force and which has been in force for many years, third-class railway mail clerks are paid, on appointment $480 ; after two years service, $520 ; after five years, $560 ; after ten years, $640; In the second class they are paid on appointment, $600 ; after two years, $640 ; after five years, $720 ; after ten years $800. First class clerks are paid on appointment $720 ; after two years, $800 ; after five years $880 : after ten years, $960, which is the maximum. In addition to these payments, they also receive what is called mileage, being half a cent of train run during certain hours, and one cent a mile during certain other hours. It happens that under the existing law the increase of salary of a railway mail clJrk is very slow, and his promotion from class to class is equally slow, and depends, not wholly on length of service or efficiency, but also on the chance of there being a vacancy above him. Under the Bill I am introducing it is proposed to give all railway mail clerks who are deserving annual increases, abolishing classes. They will enter the probationary period of six months at $400 a year. The pay for the probationary period to-day is I believe, at $300 a year. After a mail clerk has been in the service not more than six months probationary period and has shown capacity and is likely to be deserving of apodntment, he will be confirmed in his appointment. He then receives $500 a year and thereafter an annual increase of $30 until he attains a maximum of $1,200 a year, in addition to which he receives mileage. That is to say, a railway clerk will have a minimum salary of $500 a year and a maximum salary of $1,200 a year, together with mileage.


John Graham Haggart: You abolish the classes?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Y'es, so that they all may get their annual increase and reach the maximum. This maximum is $240 more than it was under the old Act. The railway clerks calling is a very hazardous and labourous one. He has to run many risks and is frequently the victim of a railway accident, in which he very often receives injury and sometimes loses his life. Parliament has on several occasions in the last few years given a compassionate allowance to the widows and orphans of railway mail clerks where deaths have ensued. It happens not unfrequently that mail clerks are in accidents from which they appear to emerge with safety, but which nevertheless make them the victims later on of nervous diseases which shorten their lives. I think $1,200 is not unreasonable. The mileage varies, depending on the run. It is not quite possible to give an estimate, but I think it would amount, on an average, to $300 or $400 a year, but it is not all clear gain. When a man is travelling, even officially, on a railway car, he is put to more expense than if he were living in his own home.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Does the hon. the minister intend to increase the salaries of first class railway mail clerks who are now in receipt of the maximum ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: They will get an increase at the rate of $50 a year up to $1,200.
Mr. LEMIEUX, What is the maximum now ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: $900, but only a small proportion can obtain the maximum. Many are detained in the third class where the maximum is $640. The majority of mail clerks' to-day are not receiving more than $800. As there seems to be a disposition to go into details, perhaps we had better go into committee.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the hon. gentleman want to get out of committee tonight ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I am iu no hurry.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax), We expected to have the Railway Commission Bill.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I shall leave the Bill in committee after we make some progress.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not want it to be understood that we will go out of committee to-night.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon.
On section 1, subsection (a)-railway mail clerks, appointment and salary.
Mr.   CLARICE@: Are we to understand that this provision is to apply only to persons who are hereafter appoiuted ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No, the hon. gentleman will see by subsection (f) that it applies to the present clerks.


Mr. FOWLER.: Take the case of a clerk who is getting the maximum of $960 under the present law, will he be given $1,200 at once ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No, the Bill provides that he will be eligible for au increase of $50 each year until the maximum of $1,200 is reached, but no increase shall be granted, except in the case of a railway mail clerk over sixty years of age, unless the clerk, within a period of twelve months, passes a satisfactory case examination.


George William Fowler: In other departments of the service, I understand that the maximum of a first class clerk is $1,500.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There are different salaries for different classes of first class clerks. The salaries are not the same for the inside and the outside service. I am only now dealing with tin) railway mail clerks.


George William Fowler: I understand that, but I am within my right when I refer to these other officials in the hon. gentleman's department. As I understand it, wheh you come to make up the superannuation, it is made up from the salaries and not from the mileage allowance. Is that not true ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It is on the fixed salary.


Mr. LEMIEUX (Gaspg).: 


George William Fowler: The reason the railway mail clerks do not receive as high a maximum as the clerks in the service is that their salary is augmented by the mileage. This mileage is not taken into account in making up the superannuation, so that the railway mail clerk who has reached the maximum receives considerably less than a first class clerk who receives $1,500-and those who have not reached the maximum, proportionately still less. This seems to me an unjust discrimination against the railway mail clerks. Their service, as the hon. minister lias stated, is very hazardous, they are exposed to much greater risks than those safely seated in their offices. If there is to be any discrimination, it seems to me, in all justice and fair play, it should be in favour of the railway mail clerks. You could take into account a railway mail clerk's mileage for three, four or five years preceding superannuation. There must be some record of how that mileage is paid. My hon. friend from Yale and Cariboo (Mr. Galliher) shakes his head. It seems to me it would be a very easy matter to strike an average for the years preceding in counting the superannuation of the railway mail clerks. I wish to call the special attention of the minister to this matter. As he has introduced a Bill to increase the salaries of these officials -and very properly, because I believe that the salaries of most of the civil servants of this country should be increased, for they were fixed many years ago, when the cost of living was nothing like what it is at the present time, and I believe there should be a readjustment all round-it seems to me he should take advantage of the present occasion and remove an unjust discrimination against the railway mail clerks in this matter.


Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).: I am sorry that this Bill does not extend much further than it does. There are the letter carriers in the different cities who are just like beasts of burden, carrying large mails in all weathers, and sometimes having to take a hand-cart to carry the postal matter they must deliver. Another class that should be considered are the clerks in the inside service, who work night and day at very small salaries. If you deal with one part of the service, you should take a wider view and deal with the whole service. If we have surplus funds, as the hon. Minister of Finance has informed us that we have, there is no way in the world in which our money can be so wisely and so justly spent as in improving the position of the civil service of the Dominion.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: My hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Ross) has evidently not read the Bill, for it deals with a large number of the post office officials, including the letter carriers.


William Ross: What clause ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It is in the Bill, and we shall reach the clause in due course.


John Graham Haggart: Could the minister tell what is the mileage allowance on the average for the railway mail clerk ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I could not say exactly, but it would average $300 or $100.


John Graham Haggart: I desired the information for the benefit of my hon. friend from King's, N.B. (Mr. Fowler), who thinks the superannuation of railway mail clerks is not sufficient. He must remember that at appointment they get wages largely in excess of the ordinary clerk going into the department. The ordinary clerk entering the service receives $400, but the railway mail clerk commences with $400 and mileage of, perhaps, $400.


George William Fowler: But that does not help them very much when it comes to the time for superannuation, which may be twenty-five or thirty years afterwards, when he has got ail this money expended. This superannuation allowance is for the comforts of his declining years, when he has worn himself out in the service of the country. I do not know whether any representations have or have not been made to the minister by the railway mail clerks ; but I have been requested to bring this matter before the committee when the Bill was before the committee, and I have done so. I think it is a ease that requires fair treatment, and, at present, the railway mail clerks are discriminated against.


Mr. GALLIHER.: The reason why I shook my head when the hon. member (Mr. Fowler) was making a statement was not that I did not wish to see the railway mail clerks receive a larger superannuation allowance, but what struck me at the time was that you must base this superannuation on some fixed sum.


George William Fowler: Why ?


William Alfred Galliher: For the reason that the amount earned in mileage may be different every year. It is different every year with a different class.


George William Fowler: Well !


William Alfred Galliher: One railway mail clerk may have a run on which he will make a good deal more than another will make on his run.


George William Fowler: Why can you not strike an average ?


William Alfred Galliher: Why should you strike an average ?


George William Fowler: Why not ?


William Alfred Galliher: Suppose you have two railway mail clerks, one putting in more
time than the other and travelling more. Why should his time be averaged up to help out one who does not do so much ?


George William Fowler: You do not need to strike an average as between two railway mail clerks, but strike an average for each railway mail clerk, mileage for two, three or five years preceding the time of his superannuation. Treat him irrespective of everybody else, and you will find that it will practically average about the same.


William Alfred Galliher: If it could be worked out, I should certainly be willing that it should toe done. I quite agree with what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler) says upon tlie subject generally, but it struck me that there was this difficulty in the way, and that is why I shook my head.


George William Fowler: Suppose you were superannuating a railway mail clerk. You take the average mileage he had made for the five years preceding superannuation and base your calculations upon that. Suppose he has earned an average of $300 a year for five years. If you have a clerk who is receiving $1,200 of salary, the maximum amount, you get $1,500 on which to base his superannuation allowance.


William Alfred Galliher: I would be inclined to agree with the hon. member if it could be worked out.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is another point to be remembered in this superannuation question. If these gentlemen do not receive a superannuation based upon their mileage they are not taxed upon their mileage. Deductions are only made from salaries, and superannuations are based upon salaries from which deductions are made. If the railway mail clerks were to be superannuated on a higher basis, of course these extra payments would have to be treated as additions to salaries, and deductions made accordingly.


George William Fowler: That is quite reasonable, of course.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: At all events, the whole question of superannuation is one for consideration in a superannuation Act. This Bill does not deal with superannuations at all, there is a civil service Superannuation Act that deals with this matter. It would not be proper in a Bill of this kind to deal with superannuations.


Mr. KAULBACH.: I beg to draw the attention of the Postmaster General to another matter in connection with the mail service, and that is the country postmasters.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Would not that come up more conveniently on the estimates. ? There ate many interesting subjects connected with the post office, and that is one of them, but it is hardly germane to the question of railway mail clerks.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Nevertheless, perhaps the minister will pardon me for a' minute. I know there are a number of small postmasters in my county, and I am sure there are many in other counties similarly situated, who are receiving very small amounts indeed. They are supposed to be in their offices from morning until night, compelled sometimes to remain until ten or eleven o'clock waiting for some persons to come in for their mail matter. Why, the cost of the oil they burn is more than the amount they receive from the government. When the Postmaster General is making his provisions for the railway mail clerks, I think he might well consider the country postmasters and the small amount they receive at the present time.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I think the Postmaster General is doing tardy justice to one of the most useful class of officers in the public service. The increase he is giving them is not at all too much, indeed I think the House would endorse his action in making the increase still greater. There is a good deal in what has been said by the hon. member for King's (Mr. Fowler) respecting the superannuation allowance that should be given to these men when they retire from the public service. I would also like to suggest to the Postmaster General the advisability "of providing some scheme of insurance for these men. He has drawn attention to the fact that in many instances accidents have occurred to these men while in the discharge of duty by which they have been incapacitated. A reasonable provision in the form of an accident insurance would be a very valuable protection to them. I brought this matter up two or three years ago, and I would like to ask the minister if he has given the subject consideration. These are a most deserving body of public officials, and worthy of his special attention.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I have thought of a good many things in connection with the railway mail service, some of which I have disposed of. I have been for a long time contemplating some provision by which the government should decree by statute the payment of a bonus, or a compassionate allowance to the family of a railway mail clerk losing his life in the service, or to himself in case of accident. I am not aware that parliament has ever paid a compassionate allowance to the family of a railway mail clerk who has lost his life in the service, until the present government invited parliament to do so, when parliament unanimously agreed to the proposition. It has been our policy ever since coming into power to give a compassionate allowance of $2,000, a fixed sum, to the dependents of a railway mail clerk who has lost his life in the service. But we have not deemed it wise to put that policy into an Act of parliament for this reason :	A


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: railway mail clerk may or may not have a cause of action against the company in case, of accident, or his family a cause of action against the company in case of his death. So that if by law he was entitled to a certain indemnity from the government, that fact would doubtless be taken into consideration in any suit against the railway company for damages. Therefore, it has been deemed wiser to leave the matter in the discretion of the government to deal with each case as it comes up. In the case of an accident to a railway mail clerk in the service, the invariable practice has been to allow him his full pay while incapacitated, and I recall one clerk receiving pay for several years, having been injured in an accident. That practice of giving an indemnity has worked well. I do not think any government would treat such cases otherwise than generously, so I think we had better leave that matter as it stands at present.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I made the proposition of an accident insurance as a matter of business, so that all the railway mail clerks in the service might be assured of securing a reasonable sum in case of accident. If he lost his life his dependents would be entitled to a fixed sum. In that way these men would be reasonably sure of the protection to themselves and their families to which they are entitled in view of the arduous character of the employment in which they are engaged. I would suggest that they contribute annually a small sum as part of the premium, so that $2,000 or $3,000 might be paid to them in case of accident.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Practically, without taxing them at all, we have adopted a system of giving a gratuity to their dependents in case of loss of life. That is an insurance without any assessment. If he desires any additional insurance, he can easily get it, considering that he is not obliged to contribute anything to the gratuity of $2,000 which we have been giving.


Mr. TAYLOR.: What about accidents where he may not lose his life.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: We carry them on with full pay.


George Taylor: There is another matter to which I wish to draw the attention of the minister, and bring up now instead of waiting for the estimates, when I may not be present. I hold in my hand an envelope marked ' form No. two, instructions to masters of vessels arriving from foreign ports.' These instructions read as follows -
By the Act of Congress approved March 2, 1S95. on and after July 1, 1895, you are required. immediately upon landing, and before entering your vessel at the custom house, to mail to the auditor for the treasury depart-

ment, Washington, a true copy of the manifest of your vessel.
Then, on another part of the envelope, it says :
Collectors of customs and boarding officers will supply masters of vessels with these envelopes, and instruct them in the requirements of the law.
Further it says :
Any master using this envelope to mail manifest will not be required to pay postage.
That has been the law heretofore, but this year the officials of the American government, when they furnish these envelopes, insist upon postage being paid.
Instructions to American customs officials insist upon payment of postage.
Whenever the captain of a Canadian vessel entering a United States port, mails a manifest to Washington as required by law, he is obliged to pay postage. If any American coming into Canada is required to send a document to the Minister of Customs otto any department of the government, the document comes postage free. I think this is a matter that the lion. Postmaster General ought to look into immediately because captains of vessels find it very inconve'u-ient every time they go into a United States port as in the case of ferries running to the United States four or five times a day, when mailing a manifest to be obliged to pay postage. Parties may come from the United States carrying their pockets full of, envelopes and they can mail them to any department at Ottawa free. This is a matter that was brought to my attention a day or two ago, and I promised to bring it to the attention of the lion. Postmaster General. I will send this envelope over to him.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: We have not much jurisdiction there, I am afraid. This is a case beyond the territory of Canada. This appears to be a general instruction to all masters. It does not apply merely to the masters of Canadian vessels or to British subjects. It is apparently a general regulation throughout the United States, applicable to American citizens as well as to British subjects.


George Taylor: No, it applies simply to vessels going into the United States from a foreign country. They force our captains to mail a letter to Washington to give Information and they make them pay the postage on it while we allow the captains of their vessels to mail their letters free to any department.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There, is a printed regulation which says :
Any master using this envelope to mail manifest will not be required to pay postage.


George Taylor: That is striken out this year. The hon. Postmaster General will 178
see a circle around it, and there is a written statement that postage is insisted on.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: If it is struck out it does not appear to be limited to Canadian or foreign masters. It is struck out as regards all masters.


George Taylor: If the hon. Postmaster General will read the printed matter he will see that it only refers to foreign vessels coming in.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No, it only refers to vessels arriving. It says :
' Masters of vessels arriving from foreign ports,' applying to American as well as foreign ships. We all understand why letters written to the government at Ottawa come free. That is the law of Canada.
On subsection (b), section 1-examination of mail clerks.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is it the intention of the Postmaster General to continue this yearly case examination in the case of a man vyho has been ten, twenty or thirty years in the service ? I find in subsection (h) of this section that :
The railway mail clerks over sixty years of age shall not be required to pass the case examination.
Surely, after a man has been in the service fifteen or twenty years he should not be obliged to continue the case examination until he is sixty years of age. I think if the hon. minister provided that after a man had been twenty years in the service he should not be required to pass the case examination it would work better than making a limit of sixty years of age as is done iu subsection (h). I make that suggestion.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I suppose the hon. gentleman is familiar with the nature of the case examination ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: Yes.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Railway mail clerks will often continue on the same run for a long term of years, but they are liable to be shifted from place to place and if a man were shifted it would be most essential that he should understand the case examination for the route to which he has been transferred. Notwithstanding that there are constant changes in the running of trains and stage routes, the establishment of additional offices and so on, and it is necessary for a man to keep up with the case work. It is. as necessary for him to know his case examination next year as it is this as there are so many changes in routes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I make the suggestion because of the. provision in subsection (h) which says that at sixty the case examination should stop. Why, if it is necessary, that a man should keep up his case work, should he stop at sixty ? Are they sup erannuated then ? I would suppose that



when a railway mail clerk lias been in the service for twenty years and has passed the yearly case examination that you might drop it then.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: At the age of sixty years a railway mail clerk is given a latitude that perhaps is not given to him in earlier life. During the earlier period of his life he is getting his increase of !>50 a year. It is right, as his salary is increased that he should pass his case examination showing that he was deserving of it. If we did not have this case examination men might claim their increases and not give good service. It is of the greatest importance that railway mail clerks should understand their case work. It means that they shall understand as they are sorting the mails on the trains as they go at the rate of thirty or forty miles an hour what bags to put the letters in and what stations to put them off at. Bags are put on containing letters and correspondence for a great many different places. The railway mail clerk must Open a mail bag when he receives it on the train and distribute the contents into various other bags and see that this mail matter goes to its proper destination. If he does not do so, if he is not familiar with the case work, he will put the mail matter into the wrong bags and the letters will be misdelivered.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It is just possible that this case examination may work out a hardship in case a man were sent to a different route than that upon which he had been running immediately before the case examination was held. Because of this arbitrary provision in subsection (li) the examination would cease at the age of sixty. I think if a man has been in the service for twenty years he should be relieved from a further annual examination. However, if the Postmaster General insists that this is a better plan we must defer to his judgment.


Robert Laird Borden: If a railway mail clerk passes his examinations regularly for five years, why would it not be sufficient to provide that he shall only be required to pass his examination upon a ehange of route.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There are changes every year in connection with every route.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If a man continues on one road for a long time and he becomes quite familiar with the offices, he may be put to great disadvantage if he is changed several times in a year.
On subsection (d), section 1-age and qualifications.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Why is he required to pass a qualifying examination ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The Civil Service Act requires it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: 


Edward Frederick Clarke: Are the provisions of the Civil Service Act adhered to in every branch of the post office service ? I think they are more honoured in the breach than in the observance.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not think so. *


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is there any particular object in insisting that appointees to the railway mail service shall be required to pass a qualifying examination ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: These are rather high class officers and I do not think it is wise to change the Civil Service Act in regard to them.
On subsection (f)-present clerks may come under this Act.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Why should he have to advise the Postmaster General of his desire to come under this Act ?
.The POSTMASTER GENERAL. He may prefer to remain under the old Act.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Cannot the Postmaster General suggest some other reason.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Suppose a railway mail clerk has a salary of $800, the maximum of the second class, and he thinks he ought to be made a first-class clerk, if he did get that promotion he would be immediately entitled to $960, and he may prefer to remain under the old law, which would give him on promotion an increase of $160 at once.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If he got an increase of $160 under the existing law and he wished to come under the provisions of this Act would he be entitled to an increase of $50 per annum V


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: He can make his choice. A large number of clerks in the third class think they ought to be made second, and a large number of the second think they ought to be made first-class, and so on. They all have their expectations. They may wish to take their chances, and I do not propose to deprive them of that chance.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is there any time limit under the present law when they get promotion ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It is a matter of discretion with the minister.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: When a vacancy happens by death or otherwise.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Then a man would have to wait until another was removed to a higher sphere.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Something like that.


Robert Laird Borden: There does not seem to be a limit of time as to when the notice shall he given. He can wait a year or two and then come in.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I let him take advantage of all the benefits he can get out of the old Act and out of this Act.


William Alfred Galliher: In connection with subsection ' g,' I would like to ask the lion. Postmaster General a question. I take it that persons coming under the provisions of the Act would start at their present salary, whatever that may be, and that time already served would not count upon the subsequent increase of $50. When would they get their first increase ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: One year from the date on which the last increase was received.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: A man may not have received an increase for years.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Do you propose to give him $50 for each year that Re has been without an ipcrease ?


William Alfred Galliher: I should think that would be a fair interpretation of it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Does the hon. Postmaster General propose, in the case of a man who has been three or four years without an increase, that he shall receive three or four times the $50 ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No, I do not propose that. I propose just what the Bill says, that if a railway mail clerk has not had an increase for a year or longer, he becomes eligible for an increase. If when this Act comes into force a man has not had an increase for a year, he would be eligible for an increase at once.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Then we are to understand that all the railway mail clerks will get increases under the provisions of this Act if they have not received an increase within a year before the 1st of July ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: They will be eligible for an increase at the expiration of one year from the date when they received the last increase.	-


Edward Frederick Clarke: And the case examination will have nothing to do with that increase ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not say that. They have to pass the case examination. The increases do not all date from the 1st of July. Suppose a man had an increase six months ago, he would not get another increase until six months from now. I think the case examination is held in the fall of the year, and any man who passed the case examination last fall would be entitled to an increase without having to pass another case examination within the year.
[DOT]	178*


Edward Frederick Clarke: If the men are thoroughly qualified, would it not be a hardship, after doing this tardy justice, to retain this $50 for six or twelve months from now V Because I understand from what the hon. gentleman says that they are not entitled to the statutory increase of $50 unless they first pass the examination.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not think the hon. gentleman understands the Bill. He complains of tardy justice. I am amending the law. which has been on the statute-book for many years, and the law requires Jhe railway mail clerk to pass an annual case examination. That has been passed by all the clerks of the current year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But unless they signify their desire to come under this Act, they cannot count their time until that is done.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: That is within their own control.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And I gather that they must pass the examination afterwards before they can get an increase. The Bill so reads.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Look at
subsection ' b ' of section 1.


Robert Laird Borden: The Bill says ' unless the clerk within a period of twelve months passes a satisfactory case examination.' If you said ' has passed,' it would have a different meaning perhaps. Where do you date the period of twelve months from 7


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The Bill speaks of a man getting the increase within a year from the date of the last increase; and section ' b ' says that if he has within that year passed a satisfactory case examination, he is entitled to the increase.


Robert Laird Borden: However much the hon. Postmaster General thinks the statute means that, I cannot so construe it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I take it further that the clause means that if the clerk passes his examination within the twelve months beginning the 1st of July next, his increase will date from the 1st of July, the day after to-morrow.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I have explained that it means that the increase dates from the period of the last increase.


Robert Laird Borden: The minister may perhaps construe the section to mean what he thinks it means, but I venture to say that if it ever comes to be tested in a court of law, it will be found to mean something very different.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The increase is contingent on two things. One is that the man has to pass the case examination; the other is that he has to notify the minister of his desire to come under this Act. He may not have received an increase for three years,

so that you cannot count a year from the time that he received his last increase.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: You are finding diflieulties where they do not exist.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: All I desire is to understand it. It does seem to me that if he received the maximum of his class some years ago, he could not get an increase unless promoted, and if not promoted he would not get an increase for some years.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I think in that case it may he held that one year has elapsed.


Mr.   CLARICE@: I submit with the greatest possible respect that if more than twelve months had elapsed since he got an increase, he is entitled to an increase on the first of July, and he has a period of twelve months to pass his case examination.


William Alfred Galliher: 1 think it means this. He is entitled to an increase, if at any time up to the time of granting'this increase or within twelve months following, he has passed his case examination.


Edward Frederick Clarke: No, he is entitled to an increase, first of all, if more than twelve months have elapsed since he got an increase, and then he is given twelve months to pass an examination.


Robert Laird Borden: The clause seems to have been drafted in such a way that it is almost impossible to understand it. I see what my hon. friend from Yale means, namely, that if the clerk passes an annual examination he is entitled to the increase. Perhaps you might be able to take that meaning out of the clause, but it would be very much simpler if you would say that a clerk shall be entitled to the increase if within a period of twelve months next preceding the date of his increase, shall have passed the examination. *


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There is no object in repeating it.


Robert Laird Borden: This is new language. Because a certain expression has been used in the previous section, it does not necessarily follow that something entirely different shall receive the same construction.
On subsection (j) section one-mileage allowance,


William Alfred Galliher: This seems to me an opportune time to call the attention of the hon. the Postmaster General to a request that has been made to me. It frequently happens that in winter times trains are storm bound or an accident occurs, and a train may be detained anywhere from one to ten or twelve hours. During that time the mail clerk is there and he has to get Mr. SPROULE.
I his meals and pay for them. He receives no extra remuneration or mileage, and yet he is on service during those hours, and I have been asked to put his case before the Postmaster General in order that an allowance may be made to him of twenty-five cents an hour or whatever sum might be deemed fair to be allowed for detentions of that nature.	.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There is a good deal of merit in that suggestion and I shall take it into consideration. It will be necessary to consult my officers, and if I think it advisable to take any action, it might be possible to make provision in the supplementaries.
On section 2,
Section 4 of chapter 28 of the statutes of 1902 is amended by striking out the word ' six ' in the second line and substituting therefor the word ' three,' and by inserting in the eleventh line after the words ' responsible nature ' the words ' or in recognition of special efficiency and good conduct.'


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: This has to do with letter carriers. It is provided in the Act that the letter carriers serve a probationary period of six months during which they are in grade A. This cuts down the first probationary period from six to three months.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That only helps the new comers.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The section of the Act of 1902 provided that the letter carriers who were doing work of a specially responsible and onerous character might be put in grade E, which means a daily pay of $2.25. This amendment enables us to put into class, not only men performing duties of a special class, but also letter carriers who have shown especial efficiency and good conduct. Under the existing Act the promotion to grade E depends upon the nature of the work performed. If the letter carrier were serving a bank or were on some route that was especially laborious, he could be promoted. But, under this clause, a letter carrier who has a good record, without regard to the duties of his present route, can be put into grade E. Under this law a man could be promoted to grade E because of his past services.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Would it not be a graceful act upon the part of the minister to put all the letter carriers who are now in grade D into grade E where they could receive $2.25 a day instead of $2 a day ? The memorials and petitions and representations sent to the Postmaster General have been numerous:	These men are a verj- efficient
body of public servants and are a very poorly paid class.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: They are much better paid than when I took office.


JUI7E 29, 1903
Edward Frederick Clarke: I am not aware that that is the case. The hon. minister is making amendments affecting those appointed sinoe lie came into office, but he has left those in office when he came in exactly where they were.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No. no.


Edward Frederick Clarke: These men are now receiving $2 a day and the hon. minister is proposing, under this section, to widen the scope of the law, so that, if they can get the recommendation of the local superintendent they may be increased from $2 to $2.25 per day. It would be a graceful act for the Postmaster General, in view of the circumstances presented to him, increase of cost of living since he came into office, and so on, to give these men this pittance of 25 cents a day more. These men have appealed again and again to the Postmaster General. They will be satisfied with this increase, I am sure, and would redouble their diligence if that were possible to give a more efficient service. After all the extent to which the exchequer of the country would be affected would be very small, and this is a faithful body of public servants. As the hon. minister is widening the conditions under which they may receive this extra quarter of a dollar a day he should give it to all those who have reached the grade D.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I wish my hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) had pleaded as eloquently in years gone by for these officials. He had an opportunity years ago to render a service to these people; but he makes his appeal only at this tardy day, when he sees that justice is being done there. As he speaks of letter carriers, 1 think I may say that I am quite as sympathetic as my hon. friend, and I think I am proving that in a practical way. Let me show, for the information of the committee, what is the present remuneration of the letter carriers. Under the Act we passed last session the letter carriers not in grade E could receive a maximum of $2 a day. As soon as this Bill goes through, every letter carrier who has a good record-and none others should be entitled to special consideration-may receive $2.25 a day. He will be in receipt, at that time' of the following sums :	For
313 days-although he has two weeks leave of absence, he is paid for full 313 working days-$626. There is also a provision in the Act of last session giving an extra reward to a letter carrier who has rendered good service during the year, of ten days extra holidays or, at his option $20. The letter carrier could therefore receive $2 for every working day, and also a $20 bonus or $046. Besides his two weeks holidays lie has the ordinary holidays observed throughout the country or portions of it. Also he is allowed uniforms, winter and summer of various kinds, which would mean
a saving to a letter carrier of about $50 a year. This would make $696. If the letter carrier gets his *extra 25 cents per day which the Bill contemplates, that would mean $78 making a total of>
$774 a year. And tlieir services, do not, I think exceed eight hours per day. My hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) shakes his head. But I know what I am saying; they do not average more than eight hours a day. There is no necessity for my hon. friend to challenge the accuracy of that statement. I have it from the officials. And in many instances, their hours do not amount to anything like eight hours a day. Now, $774 is not bad pay for a letter carrier. I do not think that amount is realised, year in and year out, by many of the working people who, in one form or another, contribute to make up the pay of the letter carriers. At all events, whether more or less than workingmen, it is a great deal more than the letter carriers have heretofore obtained. Deducting the $50 for uniforms, it means practically $100 increase on a salary of $600.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will the hon. Postmaster General please figure it out how the rate of those who reach the maximum cla'ss has been increased by $100 per year ? How many weeks' holidays did the men get prior to the hon. gentleman (Hon. Sir Wm. Mu-lock) coming into office ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Three weeks.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That has been cut down to two weeks-away goes $14.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not understand the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Clarke's) reasoning under the old law they could get $600 and no more. Under this law they get more than I had first calculated. I said they received $100 more than under the old law, but they get $626 in wages and $20 bonus and $78 of increased pay under this clause, making a total of $724-practically an increase of $125 a year on a salary of $600. I think the letter carriers will be of the opinion that this is a substantial increase.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Did they get uniforms before the hon. gentleman came into office ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I am not counting that in the comparative statement.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Does the hon. gentleman say that the letter carriers' position has improved by $125 since he came into office.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I say that under this Bill the letter carrier who gets the benefit of this Bill will have improved his pay by $124.	.


Edward Frederick Clarke: May I ask the hon. minister how many letter carriers in all the divisions of Canada earned $646 in salary last year ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not think the application of the law has been in force a year yet.


Edward Frederick Clarke: But the law the hon. gentleman sp&ke about gave them $2 a day that is $626-


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: And the bonus.


Edward Frederick Clarke: A bonus of $20-that is 10 days at $2 a day. May I ask the Postmaster General how many men in any city of Canada earned $640 last year ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I have explained to the hon. gentleman that the Act was only passed last year. The hon. gentleman himself was a party to having an option of six months granted them in which to elect to come in. It was left optional with the letter carriers to come in or remain out; some came in and some did not. Those that came in will get the benefit of this Act. I think when the time has arrived it will appear that they have gained a good deal more under the new law than they would under the old.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How many postmen have come in under the new Act ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I am not able to say.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will the hon. gentleman say that six men in the Toronto division have come in under the new Act ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes ; more than six.


Edward Frederick Clarke: More than six who have reached the maximum of $600 a year before the new Act was passed ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I think so.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will get the information before the committee reports the Bill, and also as concerns Montreal.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I will get the information, and keep the Bill in committee for another sitting.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is it not a fact that those who came in under the provisions of the Act passed last year, lose all their pay in case of sickness ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Was that the case under the old law ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman is familiar with both the old law and the new.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I would like to know how many men, who were receiving $600 a year when the new law came into force, have Mr. CLARKE.
taken advantage of it in each division of the postal service.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I will get the information for the hon. gentleman.
Mi-. KEMP. How many years does a letter carrier have to remain in the service before he reaches the maximum ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL .: Under the old law, between eight and nine years ; under the Act of last session, he can attain the maximum in a little over four years.


David Henderson: I think this is perhaps an opportune time to bring again to the attention of the minister the very small allowances made to country postmasters.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: That has been up two or three times.


David Henderson: So has the question of giving an increased duty on vegetables. I am not aware that the hon. gentleman ever cast a vote in this House to assist the market gardeners or the postmasters throughout his riding. I have drawn the attention of the Postmaster General to that question, I dare say, two or three times ; I am not aware that the hon. member for West York (Mr. Campbell) ever drew attention to it, or cared a button whether the postmasters in his riding got a salary at all or not.


Archibald Campbell: You do not know what the member for West York has been doing.


David Henderson: No ; but we do know something that he did in his riding. What he has been doing behind the scenes, certainly we know not. But leaving that matter aside, I certainly think that while we are making such ample provision for the letter carriers in the city of Toronto for working eight hours a day-and I am not complaining of the amount they are receiving-I think some further provision should be made for country postmasters. It is a crying shame that throughout the rural districts men, and women too, nave to give their services practically for nothing, for sums ranging from $12 up to $30 and $40 a year. Yet in order that the public service may be carried on, people have to give their time voluntarily for these insignificant sums. It is true that in some sections of the country these small pittances are added to by the people themselves who receive mail matter, in order to maintain an office. That should not be the case. Whilst the letter carriers in the cities are being considered, I desire to make an appeal on behalf of the rural postmasters. There is no doubt that many of them are entirely underpaid, and I do not think the Postmaster General could do a better service, something for which he would receive more gratitude from the people, than by giving a better compensation to these men who are performing this service practically for nothing.


Mr. LOGAN.: I desire to add one word to what has been said by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson). It seems to me this matter can well be considered by the Postmaster General, though I am aware that it would involve probably a considerable increase to the expenditure of the department. Still, it is not right that the country postmasters should be expected to attend to an office for the paltry sum of $12 per annum. There is a case in my own constituency where a daily mail runs through a district passing the post office in the morning and once again in the afternoon. That necessitates the postmaster's house being kept open, and-he or his wife must be there to attend to that mail, even though no mail is left or taken. Certainly some provision should be made for better remuneration for country postmasters, and I strongly urge their case upon the attention of the minister.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. I must remind the Postmaster General of a deputation that came ail the way from Manitoba on this very subject. The postmasters in Manitoba are underpaid, and there is a strong feeling out there that something should be done in their favour. If my memory does not fail, I believe the Postmaster General promised these men that he would give their request his most favourable consideration. I do not know what that amounts to, I see nothing in this Bill to help them, and unless we get the promise of another Bill on this subject, I am afraid that our friends from Manitoba will have no occasion to thank the Postmaster General for the kind reception he gave them when they came here.


Mr. MONK.: I would like to say in respect to what has just fallen from the lips of the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. La-Riviere) that very great complaint exists thoughout my own constituency and other constituencies similarly situated near Montreal in regard to the pay of country postmasters. They have, perhaps, not so much to do in the winter, but in summer all these places around Montreal are resorted to by the citizens of Montreal, and a very great increase of work falls upon the country postmasters, and I think it would be the duty of the department to give them some extra allowance for this. In pegard to the (juestion raised a moment ago by my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Clarke), I would like to know if, when the hon. Postmaster General brings down the information in respect to the letter carriers and the salaries they have reached in the city of Toronto, he will be kind enough to do the same thing in regard to the letter carriers of the city of Montreal, because I have had the same Inquiry, I presume, from Montreal as my hon. friend has had from Toronto, so that we can advert to the question when we get the information from the hon. minister.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand that it does not require a statutory provision to increase the salaries of postmasters and that it is done by regulation ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: That is correct.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then, it is not necessary to deal with it in connection with this Bill, but I would like to say a word in regard to what has been said about country postmasters. Of late years I have not had much to do with recommending their appointment, but I know that when our friends were in power we were obliged in some cases to raise money outside to pay these country postmasters over and above what they got from the department. They are about the poorest paid class of officers under the Crown in any part of the country.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I understand from the hon. Postmaster General that we may revert to this clause and discuss it again before the Bill has passed through the committee stage.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes, I have no objection to your discussing any of the clauses.


Edward Frederick Clarke: We cannot discuss it intelligently until we have got the information which the hon. gentleman has promised to bring down. It is understood that we can go back to this clause when the hon. minister brings down the information V


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes.


William Ross: Country postmasters in-Nova Scotia were paid much higher salaries before confederation than they are receiving now. The salary which a great many of them receive now is no salary at all. It is too mean to be considered a salary^
On section 3,


Edward Frederick Clarke: That is to extend tlitf time ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I am informed that now that the letter carriers understand better the new law many of them wish to avail themselves of it and come in under it. They have drawn my attention to the matter and this is to give them an opportunity.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I think this is very commendable. As a result of coming in under it they wall have their salaries increased from .$100 to $150 a year ?
On section 4,


Edward Frederick Clarke: What does that mean 7
The POSTMASTER GENERAL Under j the Civil Serivec Act every one had to serve a probationary period of six months be-

fore he was confirmed in his appointment. Being a probationer he was neither made permanent nor could he enter upon the full amount of his official salary. The object of this section is to get over that by allowing three months only to count and the other three months would go on and be considered as part of his permanent appointment, so that he will be able to ante-date the increase by three months.
On section 5,


Edward Frederick Clarke: What does that mean ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The Auditor General took exception that owing to the particular status of certain letter carriers they missed certain promotions and this is to enable them to get over some difficulties which stand in their way.


Edward Frederick Clarke: These are additional plums that the hon. gentleman is passing out to letter carriers.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: These are advantages to them.
Progress reported.
On motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 12.30 a.m. Tuesday.

Tuesday, June 30, 1903.