1903-05-27

QUESTIONS.


Mr. CLARKE asked :: 1.	Was the Official Guide of the Intercolonial Railway of Canada and Prince Edward Island Railway, of 1902 and 1903, the title page of which .states that it was issued by authority of the Minister of Railways and Canals, and the introduction of which appears over the name of D. Pottinger, general manager of the Intercolonial Railway, compiled and issued by any department of the government railways ? And if .so, by what department ? Or if not, by whom was it compiled and issued ?
2.	How many copies of said Official Guide were printed ?
3.	What was the cost of printing said Official Guide ?
4.	What was the total amount received for advertisements in said Official Guide ?
5.	What sum, if any, was received by the government railway, or by the government in any other way in connection with the publication of said Official Guide?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: 1.	The Official Guide was issued under the authority of the Minister of Railways and Canals, but was not issued by any department of the government railways.
2.	It is understood that 5,000 copies were issued, but at no expense to the government.
3.	It was not printed at the expense of the government, therefore cannot say what it cost.
4.	The government received nothing in cash, but it is thought that the traffic of the government railways must have benefited.
5.	It is not possible to state wlmt amount the government railways benefited by the circulation! of this guide book, but there is no doubt the guide hook is a convenience to the travelling public.


Mr. SPROULE.: 



MEDICAL EXAMINERS OF IMMIGRANTS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CASGRAIN-by Mr. Clarke-asked :
1.	Has one Doctor Ellis been employed by the government as port physician, or medical examiner of immigrants landing at Quebec, during the years 1902 and 1903, or during either of each years ?
2.	Is the said Doctor Ellis employed by the government in any other capacity in connection with the medical service in and about the port of Quebec ? If so, what are his duties ?
3.	Has the said Doctor Ellis an annual salary; or is he paid so much for the season, or in any other way ?
4.	What is the amount of the remuneration, either annual or otherwise, of the said Doctor Ellis ?
5.	Is Doctor Howe employed by the government as port physician at Quebec, or medical examiner of immigrants, or in some other capacity In and about the said port ; and in what capacity ?
6.	What is the salary or remuneration of the said Doctor Howe ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: In the absence of the minister, I beg to reply as follows :
1.	Dr. Ellis was employed for about two or three weeks of the year 1903, in supervising the examination of immigrants landing at Quebec, under the new regulations which had just come into force at that port.
2.	Dr. Ellis is the medical officer of the Department of the Interior, and subject to the direction of the department as to his services. He is also the medical examiner at St. John, his headquarters being at that port.
3.	Dr. Ellis is not employed by the season, but by salary.
4.	The salary paid to Dr. Ellis is at the rate of $2,000 per annum, his whole time being engaged by the department.
5.	There are two medical attendants in connection with the immigration service at Quebec. Dr. Arthur Potvin is the medical attendant on all patients in the immigration hall, or those who may he compelled to remain over for hospital or other treatment, having been rejected or refused permission to go forward to destination until they are cured of the diseases for which they were rejected. Dr. Howe is medical examiner of immigrants at the same port.
6.	Dr. Howe is paid by fees and receives $5 for every vessel examined by him with 100 immigrant passengers or less, and ten cents extra per head for every immigrant passenger over 100, provided his total earnings do not exceed $100 in any one month. If the fees exceed the amount named his total allowance is $100.



LIGHTKEEPER AT NORTH HALFWAY POINT.

Mr. MONK asked :: 
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Raymond Prgfontaine) :: 1.	In the public interest.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	It was not necessary.
5.	Since the 17th of August, 1890.
0.	No, this is not the practice of the department.
7.	A petition of influential persons of that locality has been standing in the department since 1890, requesting this change.



CANADIAN FREIGHT CLASSIFICATION.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. KEMP askqji :
Has the Canadian Freight Classification No. 12, taking effect May 1, 1903, been aipproved by the Governor General in Council ? If so, what is the date of such approval ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: The Canadian Freight Classification No. 12, has not been approved by tbe Governor General in Council. There has been no freight classification approved since October or November, 1899.



MR. CAMILLE DESJARDINS.

Mr. BUREAU asked :: Was Camille Desjardins, a clerk in the Public Works Department, at Montreal, appointed by Order in Council ? If so, on what date ? What salary does he receive for each day's work ? Is he paid for holidays, Sundays and days of absence ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. .Tames Sutherland) :: 1.	No, not by Order in Council. He was appointed 26th January, 1896.
2.	Paid by the month at the rate of $90 per month.



INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-INQUIRY FOR RETURNS.

Hon. JOHN HAGGART (South Lanark).: Mr. Speaker, before tbe Orders of tbe Day are called, I understand from the right hon. leader of the government (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) that the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) is going- to make his statement in connection with the Intercolonial Railway to-morrow. There are three notices of motion asking for returns to be brought down-Nos. 11, 12, and 13. I would ask if be would be kind enough to have them before tbe meeting of the House to-morrow.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that he would like to have them to-morrow ?


John Graham Haggart: Yes, if the hon. minister is going to make his statement first thing to-morrow. I would like to have them before he makes his statement.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am afraid I cannot have them to-morrow. The orders for these returns would require to be sent to Moncton, and it will be some days before the information could be got here.


John Graham Haggart: You could telegraph to Moncton.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, but the information would not be here in time even then. It would be available later just as well as to-morrow for reference. If the hon. gentleman makes these motions, I have no objection whatever to their passing and I will telegraph for the information and get it as soon as possible, but it would not be possible to have it here to-morrow.



THE RAILWAY ACT, 1903.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 21) to amend and consolidate the law respecting railways.-The Minister of Railways and Canals.
On section 3,
Mr. MACLEAN.: The minister informed us, when last we were considering this Bill, that he would consider whether the Bill should be made to apply to express companies or not. What has been tbe result of his consideration in this respect ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: I have been considering the matter carefully since the last sitting of the committee, and I have come to the conclusion that, considering the enormous magnitude of the Bill, it would be quite impracticable to encumber it with any further provisions if it is to be disposed of during the present session. My own view is that if it is desirable express companies should be taken under control of tbe railway commission, it would be necessary to have that dealt with by a separate Bill. I cannot think of incorporating it in the present Bill. It would complicate it, and would involve a great deal of labour in making alterations and amendments in other clauses.


William Findlay Maclean: Seeing that the minister has made a study of this matter, I would ask him whether the Inter-State Commerce Bill, and the several State Bills dealing with this matter, do not give jurisdiction over express companies ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Except so far as they may con-

trol common carriers, I do not think that they deal with any of the express companies in any of the states.


William Findlay Maclean: Is not an express company a common carrier ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are not dealing with the liability or the power of common carriers in this Bill ; we are dealing with railway carriers.


William Findlay Maclean: The board of trade of the city of Toronto and other boards of trade have represented to the minister that it is essential the rates charged by express companies should be subject to regulation by the railway commission. I agree thoroughly with that idea. If this Bill is as comprehensive as it is said to be, it should contain such a provision, and without such a provision it is an incomplete Bill and almost useless. The express companies handle a great deal more freight now than ever before, and their charges in some cases are said to be excessive. The commercial people of this country desire that express companies should be included in this Bill, and I cannot see any reason why the minister purposes not to do so. The Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway have three or four car loads of express matter on each train now, whereas formerly half a car was sufficient for the express business. Again, it is the railway companies that own these express companies. As a matter of fact, the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway own their express business. I again ask that the express companies be brought within the purview of this Bill.


Mr. KEMP.: I think the minister would do well to reconsider his intention not to include the express companies in this Bill. A few weeks ago the fruit-growers waited upon the minister and complained that their fruit, which is largely shipped by express, was subject to the discriminations and irregularities which this Bill is supposed to overcome in respect to railways. Hundreds of car loads of fruit are shipped by express, and it seems to me a reasonable thing that the express rates should be regulated by the railway commission. Not only the fruitgrowers, but other shippers are very anxious to have some regulation of express companies, and I trust the minister will include them in this Bill.
Mr. MeCREARY. I do not know why these hon. gentlemen bring up such matters as these at the present time, unless it be their object to defeat this Bill. While the express charges are very high throughout Canada, yet I believe that if we are going to hamper this Bill with every detail of transportation that can be thought of, the result will be to prevent its passage during the present session. I believe the majority of the members of this House are in favour of Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
having this Bill passed at once, and having the railway problem solved so far as it is possible to solve it in this respect.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
Mr. MeCREARY. We cannot expect to cure every ill by one Act. This is something like the Municipal Act, and it will require amendments probably for the next four or five sessions before it is made nearly perfect. The railway Bills in Minnesota and Dakota have taken ten or twelve years since their passage to reach their present condition, and they are not perfect yet. We cannot expect to have this Bill perfect all at once, and if we desire to pass it this session we should not encumber it with details in regard to express charges or telephone charges or telegraph charges, or anything else but construction, equipment, management, operation and rates on railways. We could deal with the express companies either in a separate Bill or after we have finished the main body of this Bill.


Albert Edward Kemp: So far as my knowledge goes of the agitation which was the cause of the introduction of the amendment to the Railway Act by the Minister of Railways and Canals, the complaint was in regard to freight tolls, and not, as the hon. gentleman seems to think, in regard to the construction of railways. The great complaint throughout this country was that the railways were not held within reasonable bounds in respect to freight rates, and express rates as well. If we are going to have a Bill dealing with the tolls on railways, why not have it regulate rates by express as well as by slow freight ?


William Findlay Maclean: I resent what the hon. gentleman from the west says. I am very anxious to see a railway commission Bill carried through the House, and I will do my best to help to get it passed. I believe the country will support the minister in putting such a Bill through but the country expects that a Bill dealing with freight rates will deal with all freight rates, including those of express companies. Why should not the railways be regulated in regard to the rates they charge on express matter as well as in regard to other freight ? Goods are sent by express not only for speed, but often also because they are perishable. Carload after carload of perishable freight is sent by express from the fruit districts of Ontario, and the fruit-growers have said time after time that they can only grow fruit under the condition of having favourable freight charges. If the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher)-and I would like to see him in his place to-day-wishes to aid the farmers, the fruit-growers and the dairymen of this country, he will see that this Bill takes jurisdiction over express charges, I am anxious to see the Bill passed, and I suggest to the minister now that there is no reason why he should not put into this

clause the word express or introduce later a clause, providing that express companies shall be considered railway companies, to make them subject to the jurisdiction of the Bill.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am afraid that the jaunty way in which my hon. friend would dispose of the question and the confident ease witli which he thinks this matter can be dealt with, show that he has a lot to learn as to the proper and effective method of legislating on this question. The assumption of my hon. friend that we are withdrawing express companies for the carriage of goods from the operation of this Bill is a mistaken one. All arrangements between railway companies and express companies are subject to the control of this proposed legislation, and I do not myself apprehend that there will be a great deal of difficulty in a general or broad way in covering all reasonable complaints with regard to the carriage, not of express freight, but of express packages-all goods which are taken up by express companies. But beyond that it would be absolutely necessary, I may tell my hon. friend, in order that proper legislation on that subject should be on the statute-book, that it should be dealt with by itself in a separate Bill. I have given a great deal of attention to this and other questions in connection with the proposed Bill, and have spent a good deal of labour upon it, and I want to say to the hon. gentleman that what he suggests cannot be done. It would simply destroy the Bill, and probably would not be effective at all. But what my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) said a moment ago has much force in it. We cannot hope to exhaust all legislation for the carriage of merchandise by railways and other carriers in this Bill. I feel myself that we have undertaken as much as we can well and properly carry out during the present session. I do not want the Bill to be encumbered, if I can avoid it, with any new propositions. I want to deal with what we have here, and when we get this Bill in proper shape and working order, we shall have a footing on which to proceed to take up other cognate questions and deal with them in a much more effective manner than we could undertake to do in the present circumstances. Referring to what has been said by the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Kemp), I do recall that some delegations of fruit men waited upon me. but 1 do not know that they made any special reference to grievances which they suffered from the express companies. What they did impress on my mind was that, owing to the facility with which the railway companies were able to change their freight classifications, so as to transfer merchandise from one class to another, it was possible for them to do a good deal of injury to fruit and other perishable goods.
It was express freight, so far as my recollection serves me, that they had in mind, and as to which they impressed on me the need of improvement. We are covering express operations in a much larger degree, I believe, than the hon. gentleman imagines, because the word express company is not in the Bill. A railway company cannot, through an express company or other instrumentality, exact exorbitant charges. Its actions over its line are controlled by this board. I do not know how much more you could ask in a general way.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Suppose the railway company were an express company, could it not evade the law ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not think it could if. it were an express company any more than it could if it were not. I do not think, as legal entities, any of the railway companies are express companies. I suppose some of the individuals who constitute one company may constitute the other ; but for all legal purposes they are distinct corporate bodies. I believe that to be the case in regard to the Canadian Pacific Express Company, and I think it is likely to be the case with regard to the others. If my hon. friend desires, as I believe he does, to see this legislation go through, he will not urge that it should be encumbered with an attempt to deal with other questions than those included in it, and I would strongly counsel him to have patience with regard to these matters which he has in his mind, because in another session somebody will be able to take them up and deal' with them if we are not here to do it. We certainly have a very large contract on our hands to get through with ail these various clauses, and discuss all the complicated questions involved in the Bill, without increasing the number.


John Graham Haggart: This Bill proposes to give to the commissioners the absolute power to fix rates.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have not come to that yet.


John Graham Haggart: We are discussing it under this clause. I do not see how it would encumber the Bill or affect it in the slightest to give these commissioners power to deal with rates on freight carried either as express freight or in any other manner by a railway. Express companies are put to much more expense handling small freights in the different sections of the country than railway companies are subjected to on the average class of freights they carry. But the commission could make allowance for the difference and could fix the rates accordingly. And inasmuch as the express companies deal with nearly every individual in the community, inasmuch as, compared with railway companies! they stand pretty much in the position of re-

tailers as compared with wholesale dealers,
X fail to see why the commission should not have the power of fixing express rates as well as rates on ordinary freight. In the American states, jurisdiction is given the commissioners to deal with this very class of freight. Then, it is provided that this Act shall apply to all persons, companies and railways other than government railways, within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada. I suppose the hon. Minister of Railways knows what particular railways are not within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada. I believe that all railways with a provincial charter, concerning which there is no express enactment declaring them to be works for the general advantage of Canada, and some railways which have a special charter subjecting their rates to the approval of the Governor General in Council, would be removed from the jurisdiction of this commission. X would ask the hon. minister what railways are included or excluded.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is no doubt that a portion of the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway would not come under this commission, so far as any reduction in their rates is concerned, unless their income should come up to a certain percentage.


John Graham Haggart: How much of the main line ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: From Callander west.


John Graham Haggart: That is nearly the whole railway.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They have a good many more miles of railway in the west of Canada subject to this commission than would not come under it. They are extending lines in all possible directions. Their whole system in the east of Canada would come under the operation of this Bill. Year by year the mileage of the Canadian Pacific Railway, which would be subject entirely to the control of the railway commission as regards rates, will be increasing. My hon. friend is under the impression that none of those railways should come within the operation of this Bill which were incorporated under the old Railway Act, and allowed a margin of 15 per cent. I think that the hon. gentleman is in error. I have no doubt, and I think that legal opinion will bear me out, that there are no other companies incorporated in Canada which would be exempt except that portion of the Canadian Pacific Railway I have named. It is perhaps true that railways with local charters and which have not come under the legislative jurisdiction of the federal parliament would be exempt from the operation of the Act. But there are very few Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
lines of any importance, and their mileage is very limited indeed, which have not been brought within the jurisdiction of this parliament. But if it should become necessary, by reason of the amount of business done, or because of any complaints concerning rates, that parliament should have authority,
there is a very easy and simple method of obtaining that control. A general Act declaring these roads to be works for the general advantage of Canada would bring them within the jurisdiction of this House. On the whole, I think that railways doing 95 per cent of the business of Canada will come within this section.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. minister, in reply to a statement of mine, says that this Bill will apply to certain railways which were chartered at a particular time when the Railway Act provided that there ' would be no interference with the rates until they had earned at least 15 per cent on their capital. But what I pointed out was that this provision operated in the nature of a contract between the government and these companies. I understand that the power is vested in this government of absolutely expropriating without remuneration at all to these railways. But they got their charters when the general Railway Act provided that there would be no interference with the rates until they had earned 15 per cent. It is true, we have the power, but will it not be an interference with the mutual contract or understanding applicable to every railway company which received a charter under that particular Railway Aet ? Though you may have the power, the moral obligation, the mutual contract remains with these railway companies, which got their charters at that particular time. Then, as to the application, the hon. minister admits that these roads which are not under the jurisdiction of Canada by being declared works for the benefit of Canada would not be subject to this commission.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: As regards control over the rates.


John Graham Haggart: I suppose the hon. minister does not argue that the commission would have power to regulate rates on roads which are purely provincial and have not been brought under the jurisdiction of this parliament by the clause declaring them to be of general advantage to Canada.
I would like to see a decision on that question-whether the general Act of the Dominion which states that all railways which touch or cross government railways, the Grand Trunk Railway or the Canadian Pacific Railway, are brought under the jurisdiction of Canada, is valid. It is possible it may be so, but I doubt the legality of it. To bring a work under the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada you should at least specifically declare what work it is.

In the case of a railway you should name the two points between which you assume jurisdiction over that railway. If my interpretation of the law in that respect is correct, the jurisdiction which we can confer upon this commission will be a very limited one. It will cover works which receive their entity from the Dominion parliament, except as the hon. minister says, the Canadian Pacific Railway from Callander westward ; but it will not cover roads which have provincial charters. Morally, if not legally, it must exclude roads which receive their charter under the virtual notice given by the government that the parties investing money in railway enterprises need dread no fear of interference with rates until they have declared a dividend of fifteen per cent. I doubt very much that it can apply to those roads which were supposed to be brought under the jurisdiction of the Dominion parliament by being declared works for the general advantage of Canada, because they touch or cross the Intercolonial Railway, the Grand Trunk Railway or the Canadian Pacific Railway. As I say if we have power to take over the jurisdiction over these roads, it should be by a specific declaration as to the points between which our jurisdiction is to extend. If my contention is correct, this Bill will have an application only to a moiety, perhaps to a minority, of the railways in the Dominion.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I must confess that I am quite unable to form an opinion as to what is the attitude of the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) on this question-his mental attitude or his political attitude. He attacks this Bill because of its limited application. The apparent inference is that it is not worth while to promote a Bill looking to the establishment of a railway commission because of this limited application, and I understand, for that reason he opposes the Bill. Is that his attitude ? Is it possible that he opposes the Bill on the ground that it is not more comprehensive, while he argues that it cannot be made more comprehensive? Is that his attitude ? My hon. friend, then, I assume, is in that frame of mind. But, how comes this, when he was such a red-hot, enthusiastic supporter of a railway commission not nearly so far reachng in its power as this, which his friend the late Mr. Dalton McCarthy tried to establish by the measure which he introduced session after session in this House. My hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart) ardently supported that Bill and was deeply pained that it did not receive the support he thought its merits justified. What is the difference between the conditions then and the conditions now ? The same special contract was in existence and confirmed by legislation with the Canadian Pacific Railway, and that company covered a larger proportion of the territory under which railways within our jurisdiction were huilt than it does to-day. The
same law existed then which exists to-day with regard to the power of the provincial legislatures and our legal attitude towards local roads was exactly the same. Why is it that when the difficulties were much more serious than they are to-day my hon. friend so warmly supported the Bill which he cannot support to-day ? Now, lie says that in this Bill there is an element that is immoral


John Graham Haggart: Immoral ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, immoral. The hon. gentleman says it may be legal, but it would be immoral for this parliament to take away from the companies which were incorporated under the former Railway Act, the privilege of exemption from control of rates until the time when their profits realized fifteen per cent. It may be legal, he says, but it is wrong. Now, by whom was the wrong done ? By my hon. friend himself. How is it possible for me to understand my hon. friend when he criticises a Bill which in this respect is simply a transcript of the Bill introduced by himself- or, if not by himself by the government of which he was a member-which gave control of these railways to the Railway Committee of the Privy Council irrespective of whether they were earning fifteen per cent or not. How is it that he can have got himself into such a frame of mind ? How can he so shut his memory against what he himself has done ? Is it any wonder that I find it difficult to understand what he his aiming at ? Is he for or against this measure ? If against it, is he against it for the reasons which existed when he was in favour of this class of legislation ? If I do him less than the justice he may think he is entitled to, it is only because I am unable to comprehend the position in which he stands.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals cannot mention anything I have ever said against the creation of a tribunal for the purpose of controlling railways. I was not arguing in that light at all, the hon. minister must notice it. I was pointing out that this Bill had application to only a moiety of the railways of the Dominion, as against the claim of the hon. minister that it had application to nearly the whole of them. I was pointing out that it could have no application to provincial railways. I pointed out-and the Minister of Railways and Canals admitted that point-that it had no application to that portion of the Canadian Pacific Railway west of Callander. I expressed doubt of its applicability to those roads which were supposed to have been brought under our jurisdiction by the section of the law which declares them works for the general advantage of Canada. But all this is no reason why I should object to the Bill itself. I was a party to the Act-

at least I was supporting tlie government under which the law was passed-which virtually gave notice to every man who invested in a Canadian railway that there would be no interference with railway rates until fifteen per cent profit had been paid. I was also a party to the Bill which annulled that, and which would make it exclude from the benefits of that section all the roads which received their charters afterwards. Does that mean that I changed my mind as to the application of that section while it was in force ? Not at all. 1 am simply pointing out that this Bill would have application to comparatively few of the roads in Canada. The hon. gentleman refers to my attitude in the past


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Does the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) say that under the Railway Act introduced by the government of which he was a member and which is in force today, that railways incorporated prior to a certain date were exempted from the operation of the Act ?


John Graham Haggart: I do not say anything of the kind. What I stated was that the moment that law was passed, it was a notice to every one who got a charter under it that there were no conditions in it such as that under the fifteen per cent clause. That does not say that because the Act was passed that from that time any person applying for a charter had a different notice-


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It does distinctly and absolutely.


John Graham Haggart: It does ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Certainly.


John Graham Haggart: I say not. That is my opinion to-day. Why, then, can you not take under control the Canadian Pacific Railway Company ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman asks me a question, I will tell him. Because there was a distinct contract between the government of Canada and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and that contract was confirmed by this parliament; and we could not, we would not, no man would venture, without the sanction of the Railway Committee under these circumstances, to rescind that contract.


John Graham Haggart: That contract is no more binding than a contract made with any other company under the general Railway Act, in which rates are not to be interfered with until they earn fifteen per cent. You changed that law, and you took away from them some rights which were virtually a contract with these companies. You have the same power to take jurisdiction over the Canadian Pacific Railway. No contract should interfere with such control if it is Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
necessary in the interest of the public. The hon. minister knows that he can take the Canadian Pacific Railway Company under control, notwithstanding the contract that the government made with them, and put them under the jurisdiction of this Act, the same as he can any other railway, the same as he can when he assumes jurisdiction over a provincial railway by claiming it to be for the general advantage of Canada. In the same way he could declare this work to be for the general advantages of Canada, notwithstanding the conditions of the contract and the part of the charter they may have received from a provincial government. By the terms of his commission, in proposing to take control of the railways he violates contracts, he violates solemn agreements embodied in the statute-book, just as much as he would by taking control over the rates of the Canadian Pacific Railway and putting them under the control of this commission. I am not arguing against the commission, I am merely pointing out the anomalies and the troubles the minister has to get over, and when I do so he should not attack my inconsistency for supporting the Bill establishing a railway commission introduced by the late Mr. McCarthy some years ago. I am of the same opinion still; but even if I had altered my opinions or discarded them, that is no reason why the hon. gentleman should complain. During my lifetime I have discarded or altered many opinions which I formerly held, and if they are of any advantage to the hon. gentleman he is welcome to them. I would say with the late hon. Mr. Howe, that no man has more contempt than I have for opinions which I have altered or discarded in my lifetime.


William Findlay Maclean: The minister has referred to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company as being, in a way, outside the jurisdiction of this Act.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, I said in one respect only, and that is the control of rates. In every other respect the company is entirely under our control.


William Findlay Maclean: I am coming to that point. There is already a way to bring the Canadian Pacific Railway and its rates under the jurisdiction of this parliament and of this commission, and it is set out in the contract which he has quoted, and I have myself referred to many times in this House. The clause which regulates the charge's of the Canadian Pacific Railway is this :
20. The limit to the reduction of tolls by the parliament of Canada provided for by the eleventh subsection of the 17th section of the * Consolidated Railway Act, 1879,' respecting tolls, is hereby extended so that such reduction may be to such an extent that such tolls when reduced shall not produce less than ten per cent per annum profit on the capital act-

ually expended in the construction of the railway.
Now, we have asked this government to ascertain in some way what the actual cost of the Canadian Pacific Itailway was, as set out in this Act, and the government have never done so. But the moment it is done the Canadian Pacific Railway and all its charges can be brought under our control. I believe that time has arrived now. They are earning sufficient on the actual expenditure incurred to bring them within the jurisdiction of the Act, and one reason why we need this railway commission is to ascertain what the actual cost of the Canadian Pacific Railway has been as provided in this Act. I cannot agree with my hon. friend from Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) in regard to the partial jurisdiction of parliament over these railways. I believe this parliament has an absolute and supreme jurisdiction over these railways. If we have not supremacy, we ought to have it. I do not believe that we are bound so much by the vested rights of the companies, because the whole tenor of our parliamentary institutions is to take jurisdiction over these railways and to regulate them in the public interest, no matter what the past legislation may have been, and I believe no injustice would be done to the shareholders, the stockholders or any one else, and it is high time that parliament should take possession. The Minister of Justice, although he has heretofore strongly argued for vested interests, I am glad to see now that, by giving his consent to this Bill, he abandons somewhat his former position, and that it is now the intention of the government to take complete jurisdiction over all these railways. This parliament has now jurisdiction over all the other railways, and the only one excluded, the Canadian Pacific Railway, can be brought under by this commission immediately if the government should take the steps providing for it in the Act incorporating the Canadian Pacific Railway.
Now, to return to the question of the express companies. The minister says that he does not wish to encumber the Bill. Does he not see that if he allows the express companies to remain outside he gives the railway companies an opportunity of evading the Bill ? They will turn themselves into express companies, and probably do all then-business as such, and in that way they will get outside the jurisdiction of the Bill. The way to regulate the whole of them is to bring them under the jurisdiction of this Act.


Mr. MONK.: I wish to point out that it is very essential that we should include the express companies in this section three. Of course, as the Minister of Railways and Canals is aware, the express companies with which we have to deal are closely connected with the railway companies. They may be
separate legal entities, they are no doubt; but the connection is notorious. It is so close that undoubtedly if the railway commission for which this Bill provides secures any amelioration in the matter of rates, there will be a tendency in the railway companies to take back in the matter of express charges what has been lost in railway charges. I think that applies not only to the community in general, not only to fruit growers, but to that numerous class of persons who ship perishable goods of other kinds. I am sure that the advantage of the railway commission, if there is any, will be in many cases totally lost unless it has control over express rates. I point that out to the minister, because I feel convinced from my experience that there will be a tendency to take out of the public in express charges what may be lost by the commission taking control of the railroad rates. For my part I have very little faith myself in a commission. I believe in retaining in the hands of the minister all that authority which, to a certain extent, he is now divesting himself of in the creation of this commission. I believe in responsible control. I believe it is better for the department to have under its control a large number of experienced men of whom the minister himself should be the responsible head, and in all important matters he should be responsible to parliament. But that is outside the clause we are now discussing. This question of express charges, I do not think, will encumber the Bill. It will enable the commission to act equitably with these parties and it is absolutely essential for the proper and successful application of the Bill.


Mr. SMITH (Wentworth).: Mr. Chairman, I regret to hear the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals say that it is not possible to bring express companies under the provisions of this Bill. I hope he will find a way, on further consideration of the Bill, to bring express companies under its operation. The express and railway companies are intimately connected especially when we consider the relationship of the Canadian and Dominion express companies with. Canadian railway companies. If they are not the same as the Grand Trunk and Canadian Pacific Railway Companies they are at any rate owned and operated by the same men. We know as a matter of fact that if any complaint is made to the express companies in regard to the rates the onus is very frequently thrown on the railway companies, and the immediate reply is: We have to pay so much to the railway company that we are unable to reduce these rates. In some cases the payment has to be made by the express company to a railway company other than with which it is connected. I know of numerous cases where express companies have charged very much higher rates for carrying carloads of fruit a short distance than they have charged for
/

carrying them a much longer distance by their own company, and when asked why they should charge so much more for carrying fruit for a short distance than for a long distance, the reply was :	We have to
pass over another railway, we have to pay it a fixed charge, and having to pay that charge, we are unable to reduce the rates. The "express companies say positively, and apparently, candidly, that the charges they are making are not excessive, because they are not able to pay their shareholders more than 6 per cent dividend. We have no means of knowing whether this is true or not. The railway and express companies are so intimately connected with each other that it may be that the express companies do not make more than 6 per cent, but it may also be the fact that any profit over and above that is credited to the railway companies. So it seems to me that there is very great reason why the express companies should be brought under the operation of this Bill on account of their intimate connection with the railway companies, so that they would not be able to shift the responsibility upon the shoulders of the railway companies. I notice that the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals said that he did not remember that the fruit growers had brought this matter to his attention, but I read in the ' Globe ' of the 12th February, some remarks by one of the delegates who waited upon the hon. minister which would seem to indicate that the question of express rates was discussed :
Mr. Bunting, president of the Ontario Fruit Growers' Association, said that in September last 2,500 baskets of peaches were shipped by express from the Niagara district to points east of Toronto, principally Montreal. The transportation companies received thirteen and a-half cents per basket, whereas the grower received only eight and three-quarter cents.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I remember that statement was made, but I did not understand that it referred to express companies. I understood that it referred to express charges by the railway company.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I know what the rate is from the Niagara district to Montreal. The express rate is 13J cents per basket, so that Mr. Bunting, in referring to it, evidently referred to the express company's charge, because that was the express company's charge.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I did not take it in that way.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Yes, that was the express company's charge. They charge 80 cents per 100 pounds. I should hope, therefore, that the hon. minister will find a way to bring the operations of the express companies under this Bill. The express companies do a large portion of the business in fruit. From the Niagara district I should say that not less than $200,-Mr. SMITH (Wentworth).
000 annually are taken out in express charges on the fruit carried from that district. Whether this is more than ought to be taken out of this district it is difficult for us to say. We know that in many cases by a reduction of rates the fruit growers would capture markets that are now controlled by fruit from the United States. We think the companies can afford to carry fruit at a lower rate, but being unable to know ourselves, we cannot press our claim on the express companies with as much force as we could if we had definite information on the subject. The great Northwest is supplied with fruit from California and from Ontario. It absorbs an enormous quantity of fruit, and the demand is constantly increasing. Our fruit is of such a perishable nature that we require the best accommodation possible. We do not receive that at the present time. Our express service is very inferior indeed. The 1'ruit has to go by way of Ottawa and Carleton Junction instead of going by North Bay, and the train service is inferior. The fruit is not carried on the best trains and an enormous trade is lost to Canada and is placed in the hands of the fruit growers of California simply because the express service is not as good as it ought to be. I hope the liqp. minister will find his way clear to bringing the express companies under the operation of the commission, so that it will be able to control the rates and see that the railway companies do not charge the express companies more than they ought to charge them for carrying fruit cars.


William Findlay Maclean: I see the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) in his place now. I think he was otherwise engaged, and did not hear the argument of the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Smith). The statement has been made repeatedly that the fruit growers cannot get into the markets unless they have the best possible express service. They cannot hold the market of the North-west Territories unless there is some regulation of the charges made by these express companies, and I cannot see now, after all that has been said in this House, why these companies should not be brought under the jurisdiction and control of this commission. What is the reason of this protection that seems to be given to telephone and express companies in Canada ? Their charges are exorbitant. They are rivals of the government. The government is carrying on a large business in what is known as the parcel post system. They have a much better parcel post system in Europe than we have in Canada. We in Canada want to have the same kind of a parcel post system that they have in Europe, and we have asked for it, but for some reason we cannot get it. I know the reason. It is because of the influence which the express companies are able to exercise. They are able to wield

a potent influence that enables them to escape public jurisdiction and control of rates. It is time that these companies were regulated. The government has gone to the country and said they would propose legislation that would regulate all railway charges, and they bring down a Bill that completely ignores the most important feature of these charges. Why is this peculiar protection afforded to telephone companies and express companies ? Why should express companies not be brought under the jurisdiction of this Bill ? Why should the hon. Minister of Agriculture not go to his colleague the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals and say :	In the interest of the farming community, in the interest of the dairying community, in the interest of the fruit-growers I recommend you to include provisions in the Bill dealing with railway companies for the complete control of express charges.


Albert Edward Kemp: In the report of the interview of the delegation that waited on the government on the 11th February, in regard to the charges on fruit to which the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Smith) referred, I find that this statement was made :
A very large proportion of the fruit grown in the Niagara district, Is necessarily shipped by express. Taking express and freight rates together, and averaging the season through, one-third of the price realized on thie Niagara fruit sold in Montreal is absorbed in the carrying charges imposed for hauling from Niagara to Montreal.
In view of the fact that such a large proportion of this fruit is taken by express the hon. minister will see that it is a very important matter. I wish, however, while I am on my feet, to refer to the question of the appointment of the commission. I am not prepared to make any statement as to the legal aspect of this question. I do not know what the moral or legal obligation of the people of Canada is in respect to what dividends the railway shall earn, but I understand that the Canadian Pacific Railway are entitled to earn a dividend of 10 per cent on certain portions of their mainline before their rates can be regulated. It is news to me that any moral or legal obligation rested on the people so far as the other railroads are concerned. I am one of those who would not seek to interfere with vested rights or to enter upon a campaign to con-fiscatei the rights of any corporation or private individual. At the same time most people admit that so far as the tolls and freight charges on railways are concerned, the railways have been free up to the present time to impose just about what conditions they like upon shippers. Whether the Railway Committee of the Privy Council could or could not interfere for the protection of the public, the fact remains that up to the present that body has not done so. I have not myself been an enthusiastic sup-112
porter of the idea of a railway commission, because I have feared that perhaps the constitution of that commission might be such that it would not accomplish the ends we seek. The fact remains that there is today no control over railways, that the public have suffered and are suffering, and that some way or other the railways have been able in the past to get the ear of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council or the officials. Let me give an illustration which I think will convince every hon. member of this House. I put a question on the Order paper as to whether a certain classification of freight which had been framed by the railways had been authorized by the Governor General in Council. The Railway Act clearly states that it is the duty of the Governor General in Council to authorize this freight classification before it is put into effect, and so far as I know all such other classifications have been authorized in the past. The Minister of Railways replied to my question that the last freight classification authorized was in November, 1899, to take effect in January, 1900, and that none had been authorized since. I hold in my hand a freight classification issued by the railways which has never been submitted for the approval of the Governor General in Council. It contains all kinds of regulations which are no doubt all right from a railway standpoint, but what is to become of the public if every private individual or every public corporation in Canada can make rules and regulations to suit himself or themselves. Here is apparently a flagrant violation of the Railway Act. This unauthorized classification came into effect the first of May, 1903, and every pound of freight from the Atlantic to the Pacific is now being shipped under it. Surely this this would prove that if the railway commission is properly constituted and if this Bill is of any use, it will be a benefit to the public. I do not oppose this Bill. I quite believe that the minister realizes as a great many people realize, that the time has come when something should be done. It is not the intention of any one in this House I am sure to take away from the railways any vested rights or just privileges which they enjoy, but I repeat that the public should have some means of being heard before a tribunal whether it be a railway commission or a re-organizedl Railway Committee of the Privy Council. I would like the minister to explain how it comes that this freight classification can be issued by the railways in absolute violation of the law 1


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have never expressed any very enthusiastic opinion as to the outcome of such legislation as we are now considering. I have always felt that the public were hoping for and anticipating greater results than the operation of such a law would justify. I therefore am quite in sympathy with



those who have expressed tlielr doubts In that direction. But there is no doubt whatever in my mind that the Railway Commission of 'the Privy Council, composed as it is of members of the cabinet who have multitudinous duties to perform, is not a tribunal to do effective work, and I do not know of anything that can take its place except a railway commission. That seems to have been the judgment of all English speaking communities who have had the same experience as we have had. The opinion seems to he settled that the appointment of a railway commission is the best remedy to adopt. There may possibly have been instances where, when a railway commission was once constituted having control of railways and rates, the law under which it was constituted has been repealed, but I know of no such instance. X do think that these commissions afford a great deal "of protection to the public, and the public soon realize that they reap some results, perhaps quite beneficial results, from their constitution, although they may not have come up to their expectations in practice.
My hon. friend (Mr. Kemp) has called attention to the fact that the railways have sent out a joint freight classification to take effect on the first of May, without having obtained the approval of the Governor General in Council. I do not know how it would be possible for the Department of Railways to prevent them doing that. I do not know what measure of criticism or blame should be attached to the Department of Railways because of that, but I do say that it was a high-handed proceeding on the part of the railways all the same.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is there no penalty against the railways ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have provided one in this Bill.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: None in the present law?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No. It was an indefensible act on the part of the railways, without a word of communication being sent to myself or to my deputy ,or to any of the officers of the department. I confess that until the subject was mentioned the other day, I had not heard that this freight classification had been issued. I don't think that the department is at fault. It would be at fault if, knowing that this classification had issued, it failed to take any action the law empowered it to take in order to have that classification recalled or rescinded. I am now having the matter reported to me as to what remedy we have in our hands. The railway commission, I think, will be in a very different position. It will be their exclusive duty to see that the law is not violated and to see that those who violate it are brought to book. Acts of that kind they will be


Hon. Mr. BLAIR.: amply competent to deal with ; and they will, I think, assure the public against offence in the future. The hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) almost suggests to my mind the case of an individual who has been crying out for a long time for a railway commission ; then he gets it, and, after he gets it, he enters upon a close scrutiny of the Bill to see if there is some little point that might be put into it which is not there; and, after having made patient search, he finds at last that, broad and comprehensive as this Bill is, there is one thing that it does not comprehend-it does not give the commission power over all express companies ; and the moment my hon. friend discovers that, he begins to preach that this Bill is no good. That is the one thing he is particularly anxious to have in it; there is nothing else that measures in value to that feature ; and because that is not in the Bill, he is going to give it no particular show. The hon. gentleman is running away with the idea that express companies will be allowed to run riot under cover of the railways, in handling express business. That is not permissible under the Bill. If the hon. memi-ber had listened to what I said a while ago, he would have heard from me that this Bill assumes control of the railways, and the railways could not put freight in the hands of express companies, and allow them under the cover of the railway to make all sorts of extravagant demands. In regard to the tolls that are to be paid to a railway company by an express company out of its earnings, they will be subject to the control of the commission.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We do not control the rates of express companies ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No ; and you cannot do it with this Bill without encumbering the Bill needlessly, without introducing into it, almost from the first to the last, exceptions and amendments to such an extent that I tell this committee frankly I am not prepared to undertake it at this time. I am not able to do so. It requires more thought and time and care than I can give to it. When I tell the hon. gentleman that, he has only another year to wait. We have lived through the past without much control, according to the hon. gentleman ; we have lived down to the year of grace 1903 ; . and one might suppose that we could continue to live in the same way for another year. Any one who feels keenly on this matter might introduce a Bill himself, and I am sure it would receive the consideration of parliament. Such a measure should not control simply those express companies which are operated on railways, and let every other express company run free of control. That would be unjust. It will not do to deal partially with the question ; it will have to be dealt with carefully ; and I am not prepared to take that question up at

this session of parliament. If my hon. friend will apply that bright, penetrating, astute intellect of his to the serious questions which we may deal with in this Bill, I am sure that his assistance will he most valuable, and I shall be glad to have it, because I know that he has a great deal of interest in these general questions which are of public importance. But let me give my hon. friend one little word of advice. Do not assume, because these questions are not being dealt with, that there must be some motive or influence or power operating upon one's mind to prevent him dealing with them. My hon. friend is not one whit clearer from influences of that character than the people whom he criticises, and it would be much better and fairer on his part to deal with questions on their merits.


William Findlay Maclean: On almost every occasion when I bring up questions in this House, the hon. gentleman undertakes to lecture me. I have a right to express my views here without being lectured by him, and I have a right to criticise his conduct whenever it seems well for me to do so.
r


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: And I have a right to lecture you.


William Findlay Maclean: When I look at the hon. gentleman's administration of the Railway Department of this country, what do I find? I find that this illegal classification has existed for years without his protesting against it. What is he there for ? What do we pay him for ? Why does he not bring these companies to time ? As a matter of fact, not one dollar of tolls can be collected by these companies without being approved by the Governor in Council. Yet there sit fifteen men who confess here to-day that this thing has taken place, and nothing has been done for the protection of the public. The hon. gentleman has lectured me in regard to this question of express companies. He says an opportunity shall be given to me to amend. I propose an amendment now. Mr. Chairman, 1 beg to move to amend the clause by inserting the words ' express companies ' after the words ' to all ' in the first line. The hon. gentleman says that the opportunity will be open to me to do something next session. I am sent here to do something this session. It is all very fine for the hon. gentleman to talk about imputing motives. Probably he is inviting this kind of thing today so that the Bill will not pass. He has promised it for this year, and when we propose to make it a good and complete Bill, he gets up and assumes a fatherly air and lectures everybody who ventures to criticise it. That lecture may be worth little or much. It has very little influence on me. In the interest of the public, of the commercial community, of the farmers, of the fruit growers, I propose that this Bill shall take jurisdiction forthwith, from the time of its 112*
passage, over express companies as well as railway companies. Express companies are another name for railway companies, to enable them to evade the control of the law. Why not bring them under the law now ? It only means that another schedule of rates shall come under the jurisdiction of the commission. I wish to see this commission created. I wish to see the measure pass this session. I will give every assistance I can to have it become law this session, and I hope that the minister will listen to suggestions made by gentlemen on this side of the House for the purpose of making the Bill as good and complete as we can, without delivering lectures to them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not see why the hon. minister should complain of too minute an analysis by an hon. member as he has done in the case of my hon. friend from York (Mr. Maclean). It is our duty to scrutinize most carefully every section of the Bill in order to make it as perfect as possible. But what I rose more particularly to refer to is the fact that a good many railways will be outside the jurisdiction of this commission. We first exclude the government railways. I do not see why we should. If a railway commission is a good thing, it ought to be equally as good for the farmer in the maritime provinces as for the farmer in Ontario. It is quite conceivable that the government, in its management of the Intercolonial Railway, may discriminate unjustly against one shipper in favour of another. It would do no injustice to government or to the people to make this Bill apply to government railways. Then we exclude a large portion of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and also railways with provincial charters. Leaving these out, the Bill will apply to only a few railways at the best, and shippers will be confronted with the same difficulty as they were met with a few years ago before certain railways were declared for the general advantage of Canada when they had one-half of a railway a provincial road and the other half a Dominion road. Suppose a shipper in Ontario sends something to the seaboard. He first sends his freight over a provincial railway and then there is a dispute. He complains of being charged higher rates than somebody else. The company reply that the rate was a through rate and governed partly by local and partly by federal authorities. Under what law will the citizen prosecute to get his rights ? Will the commission deal with that question ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Section 5 specially provides that this Bill shall apply.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It applies to companies which are within the legislative authority of Canada, but these provincial railways are not.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: With respect to their traffic they are.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But not local traffic. What I was going to point out is that if this commission is to be as useful as we hope it will, it can only be made so by working in conjunction with provincial commissioners on the plan of the interstate law in the United States. We have an equal right to include electric railways just as well as steam. The interpretation clause says :
The expression ' railway ' means a.ny railway which the company has power to construct or operate.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If my hon. friend will turn to page 29. section 118, subsection F, he will find that the Act applies to electric railways.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I looked to the interpretation clause, assuming that the electric railways would be found there.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Can the hon. gentleman name any railways in the province of Ontario which are not subject to the control of this parliament ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is the Brockville and Westport.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That has a Dominion charter.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would the railway being built by the provincial government towards Temiscaming come under this ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The number of railways which will not come under this commission is so small and their mileage so limited, that they are not worth considering. The Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway are the two great systems doing business in the older provinces and they apparently are going to do the business in tiie west.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Take Manitoba and Ontario, and the hon. gentleman will find there are quite a few.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The number is rapidly diminishing.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But it seems to me if we want to make the best use of the Bill, we should have provincial commissions as well.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend will find that all these railways will come under this Bill.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: May be in the future, but not now. Will the hon. minister tell me why the government railway should not be under this commission ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Why should it be ? Is there Mr. SPROULE.
any institution in the country more amenable to public opinion and to the demands which the public make, or one more likely to be run in the general interest than is the government railway ? You institute a commission practically free from control, but the management of a government railway would be infinitely more responsive to the demands of public opinion. That management can be got at, it can be got at here on the floor of parliament. That is why the Intercolonial Railway was expressly exempted from the Railway Act when it was first passed and why it has been exempted on the different occasions when the railway law has been revised or codified. There is no reason why the people should seek to control this road indirectly through a commission when they control it directly already.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I can only say I have heard a great many complaints of the management of the Intercolonial Railway and the discriminations it charges on freight carried over it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: You will hear a great many complaints. We have had many complaints, for instance, because we could not furnish cars during the great pressure of business. But that is not the fault of the road, and it is not a difficulty which the commission could solve. In response to the complaints which have been made parliament has been asked to furnish money to provide more cars, so as to make up the deficiency as rapidly as possible. The Intercolonial in this respect, is much more responsive to public opinion than an ordinary railway would be.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The complaints I speak of have gone much further than that, I have heard it claimed that the Intercolonial Railway would carry one man's goods, even, for instance, one man's furniture, for little or nothing, while it would charge another man the full rate. I have heard that freely stated.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I can only say to the hon. gentleman :	Do not believe these stories that
are circulated; they are pure gossip-nothing in them. There is no railway in the country that is not more likely to be influenced in the direction of discrimination than a government railway. A government railway cannot discriminate, for the management knows that what it does for one man it must do for another. No management could exist that would countenance or tolerate discrimination in any way; it would be heaping up untold trouble for itself. There was never such a thing known. It may be that, by the action of the Governor in Council, in the case of a great fire, or as a means of helping the sufferers from some other calamity, certain freight might be carried cheaply or for nothing. But as for

carrying one man's furniture for nothing while making others pay, under ordinary circumstances, nothing of the kind could occur; it is perfectly out of the bounds of possibility.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to rest in the conclusion that the hon. minister is as perfect in his dealings with the public as he seems to think he is and that nothing of the kind I have referred to could occur. But I have heard it very frequently stated that these discriminations have been granted. I am not prepared to say whether that is correct or not. However, I think that if the railway commission is to be of use, it might as wejl apply to the government railways as to others. I see no reason why it should not apply to government railways. The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) says that we are only now establishing a railway commission, that the system will be perfected by amendments from time to time, and that, some time, we may include express companies under the jurisdiction of this commission. But we are told that the United States have included express companies under their railway commission, and to this, the hon. member for Selkirk replies that the United States have had a railway commission in operation for years. Well, surely -we can learn by their experience. If they have brought express companies under the operation of the railway commission and are working out a successful system, it seems to me that we should take advantage of their experience rather than wait eight or ten years before we make this a part of our system. I do not see how we could hope for the best results in the operation of this law when, on the satne train you have certain cars with goods the rates of freight on which are regulated by the commission and also other cars with goods for which the carrier can charge exorbitant rates or make rates which discriminate in favour of the person as against another. I do not see any reason why all the goods carried on a train should not be under the protection, so far as rates are concerned, of this commission. The hon. minister speaks of it being so difficult to bring the express companies within the operation of the Bill. I listened carefully to his explanation, but I did not hear any explanation of what this difficulty was. The hon. minister says it would be troublesome, but in what respect it would be troublesome he did not inform us.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: * I do not think there ever has been a Bill introduced in this House which was received with more general commendation than the one now under consideration. There is hardly a board of trade or an association interested in trade matters that has not approved of this Bill. The idea of a railway commission has been for twenty-five years, to a greater
or less extent, before parliament. Ever since I have had the honour of a seat in this House, there has been talk of introducing a railway commission Bill, but the idea has never come to maturity until now. The late government talked about a railway commission but they never actually introduced a Bill to establish it. The board of trade of Toronto sent a deputation to Ottawa which commended the Minister of Railways and Canals for the perfection of his Bill. It is true they suggested some amendment which they thought would improve the measure, but, if there was danger of the Bill not going through this session, they desired rather than that, to have no change made. It is probably right that a Bill of such importance as this should be criticised, but I rather think some of the criticism has gone a little too far. For my own part, I would like to see express companies brought under the operation of the Bill, and I have no doubt that, in time, this will be done. But as the Minister of Railways and Canals has pointed out, the Bill as it is covers them to a very large extent. And, if there is any danger that, in attempting to bring express companies under the operation of the Bill, the Bill itself would be made unworkable, we ought not to cumber the measure with such clauses. The hon. minister has intimated his wish that express companies should be placed under the control of this commission. But has pointed out that it would be better to do that by a separate Bill, which he purposes to introduce possibly this session, or, at all events next session. The hon. minister has given a great deal of care and attention to this Bill, and it is a Bill which ought to become law. It is supported, as I have said, by every public institution in the country. It is a Bill that has been petitioned for very widely and, as it stands it has been everywhere commended. Instead of our throwing obstructions in the way of the passage of the Bill we ought to help it along. Therefore, after the minister has given us the assurances we have heard, I think the member for East York (Mr. Maclean) should not pursue any further this hypercritical course in throwing out the little technical objections that he has been doing. One of the objections taken by the member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) is that this Bill does not provide for provincial railways. How can he make it apply to provincial railways ? How can he make it apply to the railway being built by the Ontario government ? Every possible railway that it can be applied to will come under its jurisdiction. Therefore, instead of that being a reason against the Bill, I think it is a reason in its favour.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I did not give that as a reason why it should not be passed. I am not opposing the Bill, I am in favour of it; but I am endeavouring to point out its defects.


Archibald Campbell: He pointed out that it would only apply, as he said, to a few railways at best-those were his words. Now, in point of fact there are only a few railways at best that It does not apply to. It does apply to 95 per cent of the railways in Canada; as to the other 5 per cent I understand the government have not power over them. I therefore think that the Bill should receive the support of the House. I believe it is a very good Bill, and the Minister of Railways deserves great compliments for bringing this measure before tiie House.


Mr. BARKER.: On more than one occasion I have endeavoured to find out, and I have not yet found out, on what grounds the Minister of Railways and Canals proposes to keep the government railways out of the jurisdiction of this commission. I can quite understand that the minister would prefer to run the government railways himself. He no doubt has more confidence in the present Minister of Railways and Canals than he would have in any commission, whether appointed by his own government or not. But we want to know why it is that the government railways should not be put under the jurisdiction of this commission just as the Grand Trunk Railway or any other railway will come under it. The hon. gentleman knows that if there is one thing that is particularly desirable in connection with this Bill, it is that wherever possible there shall be uniformity of regulation, uniformity of tariff, of rates and of every detail in the management of railways. It is of the utmost importance that there should be no line of demarcation between the several railways of the country, that the commission should not be restricted in their power to control the rates over all the railways in the country. When the public want to know what the rates are to be from Woodstock or Windsor to Halifax or St. John, the commission should be able to tell them and not be obliged to turn around and say: For a thousand miles of this railway we have nothing to say, that is under the control of the hon. gentleman who happens for the moment to be Minister of Railways and Canals, and of his officers. Now we have, of course, the highest respect for the present Minister of Railways and Canals. He has managed this railway so well for several years past that perhaps he considers he can do it a great deal better than any newly appointed commission. But the hon. gentleman may be a commissioner himself ; it has been so stated in the press, it is certainly a possibility ; and therefore we may have him as one of these gentlemen wlm are going to compose this commission, and we may have a new minister without any experience whatever. Surely the public would be better satisfied to have this commission, appointed for a series of years, and composed of experienced men with all the railway interests of the country under their charge, rather than have some portion Mr. SPROULE.
of the railway system under a minister for the time being who may not have had the slightest experience, and who may not possess our confidence in the same degree as the hon. minister who now occupies that position.
So far I have heard nothing from the minister on the subject except that he intends to omit government railways. Now surely, if the railways of this country are to be under a commission, and if it will be a benefit to the trading community that they shall be under this commission, we ought to know why it is that any portion of the railway mileage must be exempt. I would like to have that question answered. The hon. gentleman gave an answer a moment ago which he probably considered satisfactory. He said that in all the railway Acts that have been passed the government railways have been exempted. But what application has that to the present condition of things ? The hon. gentleman knows that in the past the general Railway Acts have not applied to government railways, in all their details, at all events, for the simple reason that all the other railways were worked by officers appointed by independent companies. Therefore there were restrictions upon the management and their officers that do not necessarily apply to government railways. But that is being all changed. We are no longer going to have the matters to be dealt with by this commission left in the hands of the various railway companies and their officers, they are going to be controlled by this commission, and why should not a railway operated by the government and its officers be controlled in like manner ? You are not proposing to interfere arbitrarily with the various railways, but you are proposing to interfere just so far as the public interest requires and to that extent the commission should have jurisdiction whether a railway is owned by a company or by government.
I may mention also that there are various things that will come under that commission as to which I am sure the public would feel safer in the hands of a commission than even in the hands of the hon. minister. I may recall to the minister that a short time ago there was a very serious accident upon the Intercolonial Railway, and there was an inquiry made into the accident. The minister, in referring to that in this House, spoke in the highest terms of commendation of the engine driver who was concerned in that accident, he gave a very high character to that man. Yet I understand that since then the investigation has shown that that man was not worthy of the commendation the minister gave him ; it was shown, as I understand, that he was a drinking man, and he had been drinking before he went upon the train, and was not in a fit condition to run the train. Now, all that took place under the management of the government. I ask why a railway that is sub-

ject to such accidents should be exempted from the commission which is to have jurisdiction as to all other railways. There are many other things that should come under the control of this commission besides the operation of the road and the control of tariffs and rates. The hon. gentleman does not provide for counsel appearing on behalf of either party when the commission are investigating matters upon the Intercolonial. The hon. gentleman is to be a law unto himself in that respect. He assumes that the trading community are going to be content with all the minister and his officers may do. But I can assure him that the trading community will not be content, they will be just as anxious to know every detail of the rates on the Intercolonial Railway as they will be to know the rates of any other railway in this country. I think we are entitled to know, not what the hon. gentleman wishes, but why it is that these government railways should not be under the control and jurisdiction of the commission.


Albert Edward Kemp: Has it ever been suggested to him, may I ask the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, to put the matter of tolls, leaving out everything else in connection with the management of the Intercolonial Railway, under the jurisdiction of the commission ?


The MINISTER OF RAIRWAYS AND CANALS.: No.


Albert Edward Kemp: That has not received, the attention of the hon. minister ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It has not been suggested.


Albert Edward Kemp: I may draw the attention of the hon. minister again to this matter of classification to which I have referred. Although it has not been authorized by the Governor in Council and although it is not supposed to be a legal classification, yet, I notice that the Intercolonial Railway and Prince Edward Island Railway have consented to it with all the other railways, and that the name of one of the officers of the Intercolonial Railway is given as being one of the classification committee.
The MINISTER OB1 RAILWAYS AND CANALS. I can understand how that occurred. A joint committee composed of representatives from all the different railway companies meet periodically. I would not say that they meet at stated periods, but frequently meetings are held to consider traffic questions arising between them. I presume in this case they had a meeting in the usual way, and that they had agreed amongst themselves as to what they would recommend. It would devolve upon the companies that were moving to have the matter presented to the department for submission to and approval of by the Governor in Council. I do not blame the traffic officers for the issue of that, because that
would not properly be part of their duty. They only meet and agree upon what they think should be recommended. But, the department would not be committed in any way by any action of a traffic officer.


Albert Edward Kemp: I quite understand the position, but in effect, under the Railway Commission, the government railways in respect of tolls will be subjected to the commission inasmuch as their officers who meet with the officers of other railways agree to this in joint committee, so that, the tolls on the Intercolonial Railway would be in effect under the jurisdiction of the commission, would they not ?


John Graham Haggart: No, that Is only in reference to classification.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It has only reference to classification. The rates are another thing.


Albert Edward Kemp: The same officers agree to the rates as agree to the classification.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The rates which govern on the Intercolonial Railway are not the same rates which govern on other railways.


John Graham Haggart: The government have a member on the classification committee and from time to time there is an alteration in the classification. The classification is sent up to the department for approval. No doubt this has been sent to the department month after month and has been neglected by the department and therefore has not got the necessary assent by Order in Council to confirm it. Perhaps that has occurred under other regimes as well as the present one, and after all if the classification is in accordance with the freight rates which have been approved of by the Governor in Council, if it does uot increase the rate upon any particular article, I do not think it requires the assent of the Governor in Council to it. If the classification has the effect of lessening the rate charged or leaving it at the same figure as before, I do not think it necessarily implies the assent of the Governor in Council to the new classification. The first think I did when I was minister was to inquire from the officers of the department if the new classification had the effect of increasing the rates or tolls which had been charged before, and if it did not have that effect, I do not think the officers went to the trouble of having an Order in Council passed to confirm the classification. I think thel statute says that all rates and tolls have to be approved by the Governor in Council and that any new classification must be in accordance with the last classification approved of by the Governor in Council.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The last classification was the eleventh that was promulgated by the railway company, and approved by the Governor

in Council. I think it is necessary under the Act that each classification as it comes out, if it varies from the previous one, as of course it must, otherwise they would not issue a new one, must be approved. My hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Ilaggart) suggests that probably the companies might have sent this classification into the department and that it has been overlooked. 1 am informed that it has not been submitted to the department at all, and even if it had been submitted and overlooked that would not warrant them in issuing a new classification and taking action upon it. The law reads :
The company in fixing or regulating the tolls to be demanded and taken for the transportation of goods, shall, exicept in respect to through traffic to or from the United States, adopt and conform to any uniform classification of freight which the Governor in Council on the report of the minister from, time to time, prescribes.


Albert Edward Kemp: What clause is that ?


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No. 220. Some hon. gentlemen are complaining because they say I have not given them any sufficient explanation of why I pointed out that the inclusion of express companies by express terms could not be made in this Bill. I will try to repeat myself and make it clear if hon. gentlemen really desire information on the subject. I have said that the present Bill, I think, covers the subject quite fully now. It does not deal with all express companies. It only, by imputation, deals with the express companies which do their business upon railways. So far as the receipts of express companies are made up of railway charges and charges in respect to carriage upon railways, these charges are entirely within the control of the railway commission under this Bill. I am not prepared to say that the commission could not compel the carriage of these goods by the express company or by the railway company through the agency of the express companies who are using the trains to carry these goods at such a price as the railway commission might determine. The present Bill goes as far as we can properly go with respect to railways. The express company end of the thing is another matter. Possibly an express company might be justified in making some additional charge for removing goods from a warehouse or dwelling to a railway, or from the railway to their destination. Perhaps an express company might properly make some charge in respect to the oversight of goods in transit, but so far as the railway carriage is concerned, that is subject absolutely to the control of the railway commission under this Bill. I have seen the language of some of these clauses in the United States legislation, and I can understand how they deal with express companies. One cogent reason would be, that some of these Bills are Bills for the purpose of Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
regulating tolls and charges which are imposed by common carriers. The definition of * common carriers ' Is determined by a long series of judicial decisions, and under our law common carriers have not the same liabilities and are not the same people as common carriers in the United States. The relative rights and duties of common carriers are largely dependent upon the common law in this country and in the United States, and in the United Kingdom, modified to some extent by statute. We could not say that express companies in their express business shall be subject to the control of this Bill without setting up a machinery to provide for it. Express companies send by steamers as well as by railways and perhaps by horses and wagons, and if you are going to control their business it would be necessary to provide machinery for so doing. There is no common sense in putting in a clause saying that express companies shall be controlled in their rates by this railway commission when you have not any machinery prescribed, at all events for dealing with that portion of their business which is not carried by the railroad. If we limit or restrict the business of express companies which do tlieir business by railroad, don't you think they would have reason to complain that we loft a free hand to express companies who transacted business through other agencies.


John Graham Haggart: If freight is carried partly by railroad and partly by water, don't you give the commission the power to apportion the rates to each.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, but that does not touch the fringe of the question. As an illustration, the steamers between Montreal and Quebec do an express business, and so do the railways between these two points. You would have control over the one and not over the other, and if the express companies who did their business by railroad were to complain that they were restricted by legislation and that the water carriers were free, there would appear to be some reasonableness in that complaint. It appears to me that you can only properly deal with the control of express companies by independent legislation. If you insert it in this Bill, you will have to string all the way through the Bill provisions which will exempt certain clauses from application to them, and that would simply complicate the Bill and make it difficult of operation. I give my honest conviction to gentlemen opposite, whether they accept it or not. that this is a matter that can only be satisfactorily and properly dealt with by separate legislation. This Bill has reference to railways and all questions connected witii railways that effect the public interest. It is not simply to control rates on railways, but its provisions govern the incorporation of companies, the construction of railways, the protection which is afforded to the pub-

lie by railways, the operation of railways in all their various departments ; and it would be a mistake to thrust a clause into it to say that the Bill shall apply to express companies without looking ahead to see what other alterations will have to be made and what additional machinery may be required. I have no objection at all on principle to the control of express companies. I think it would fee a proper thing to have power to control express companies, but let us do it in the right way. If we do it, let us do it efficiently.


William Findlay Maclean: Would the minister allow me to make this suggestion which would meet his objection :
This Act shall apply to all persons, companies and railways Including the express business of such railways.


Samuel Barker: That would not do.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Of course I have had no opportunity of considering the bearing of that amendment, but this thought occurs to me ; Why should you throw the express business out of the railways and into other hands, which would be the result of that amendment.


Albert Edward Kemp: I think that this matter of express companies could be dealt with in four lines without * affecting the general scope of the Bill. The hon. minister seems to think it would be necessary to extensively change its wording. I am advised by a very eminent lawyer that the addition of the following few words would accomplish what we want in regard to express companies :
Section 2, subsection C. The expression 'company' means a railway company and express company and includes any person having authority to construct or. operate a railway or express company.
Section 3, subsection 4. Sections 1 to 50 inclusive, and 251 to 280 inclusive, only shall apply to express companies.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not know whether the eminent lawyer my hon. friend refers to has been asked to express an opinion whether or not the present Bill does not practically control all rates that are levied for railroad carriage of every kind and description. Has that question been asked by the hon. gentleman ?


Albert Edward Kemp: I may state that it was Mr. Staunton, who waited on the hon. minister with some other gentlemen, who framed that proposed amendment. He informed me that it would cover the whole case. The hon. minister must believe that Mr. Staunton is very sincere in his desire to see this Bill become law, and he would not make that statement unless he was sure of his ground.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am sure that Mr. Staunton
would not express that opinion unless he was assured in his own mind that he was right, and I am sure also that he is in sympathy with the Bill and desires it to become law. All the same, I am not prepared at this moment to express the opinion that express companies would not be as adequately covered by the Bill without that provision as with it, unless there were other provisions. There is no doubt whatever that other provisions would have to be incorporated to make this Bill, as a Bill, operative upon express companies, stronger than it is now- ; and, moreover, after you had done that, you would only have reached a portion of the express business and a portion of the express companies. It is a matter which I think this parliament ought seriously to consider, whether, when we are dealing with express companies, we ought not to deal with them as a whole. I cannot see what justification we can possibly have for dealing with them by instalments, or for dealing with a portion of their business, and not with the balance of it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the hon. gentleman propose to deal with them as common carriers ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We cannot, because we are not legislating on the subject of common carriers here.	-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I mean in any proposed Bill to deal with them as a whole.


William Findlay Maclean: If the minister says this is a question worth consideration, I am willing to leave it for the present, especially if it is to be taken up in connection with the amendments suggested by Mr. Staunton, to provide for jurisdiction over the charges of express companies, which are, as a matter of fact, a subject of common complaint throughout the country.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am willing to let this section stand, if hon. gentlemen want to think more about it. But I would like those who wish to come to a direct conclusion on the subject to seek an opinion from those who may be expected to know, whether or not this Bill, as it is now framed, does not comprehensively cover the case of express companies, as respects the carriage of express merchandise on railways.


John Graham Haggart: Oh, yes, it does that.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Then you cannot make the Bill go any further by providing in specific terms that it shall apply to express companies, because you would have to include other provisions in order that the commission could deal with express companies in their business on other routes and conveyances than railways.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. minister's Bill may provide for the carriage of articles by express on railways, but that does not reach the question at all. Suppose an article is put in an express company's office twelve miles from a railway. It has to be carried to the railway station, and there should be an allowance for that and for warehousing as well as for the carriage on the railway. That principle is admitted in the Bill, because it gives to the commission power to apportion railway freights as distinct from lake and ocean freights. Otherwise the thing would be useless in the case of an article shipped partly by lake or ocean and partly by rail. In the same way you would have to give to the commissioners power to apportion so much for the carriage to the station and for the warehousing as well as for carriage by rail.


The MINISTER OE RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: You would need to have provisions inserted for determining that, and you would then be dealing only with a certain portion of the business of express companies.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Do I understand the minister to argue that under the Bill as it is now the commission would have authority and power to regulate the express rates so far as the goods were carried on a railway ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, certainly.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: If that is the case, it covers 99 per cent of the goods shipped by express, because only a very small fraction of the goods so shipped are not shipped entirely on railways ; and the argument that express companies ought to be exempt from the operations of the Act because you could not cover their entire operations, is in exact contradiction to the argument that this Act is a good Act with regard to railways although it does not cover government railways, and some other lines of railway. If the Bill is a good one with respect to the operations of railways, although it does not cover them all, it seems to me it would he an excellent Act if it covered the operations of express companies on railways alone, because 99 per cent of the goods are carried on railways, not on water or by wagon.


Albert Edward Kemp: The suggestion of the hon. Minister of Railways is a fair one. He proposes to let clause 3 stand in order to see whether the proposition I have made can be adopted. It wasi not clear to Mr. Staunton that the wording of the Act covered express freights on railways.


Mr. LANCASTER.: What part of the Act is it which the hon. minister thinks covers the express business ? I do not find anything in the interpretation clause to lead to that conclusion. The word ' com-


Andrew George Blair: pany ' is interpreted to ai railway company and to include any person having authority to construct or operate a railway. By no stretch of the imagination can we say that that includes express companies. Nor can it come under the interpretation of the word ' railway.' It would be well if the hon. minister would point out what particular part of the Act he relies on for his opinion that express companies are included.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not think that I need particularize any one or more sections of the Bill. Take the sections between 251 and 280. This Bill gives to a railway commission power to say what shall be the tolls exacted by railways on every article of traffic. That is pretty comprehensive to start with. The commission need not wait for the railway company to say how* much it wants to charge but may arbitrarily fix what the toll shall be. We do not discriminate between goods carried by an express company and those which are not. Every article carried on a railway must get, in respect of the tolls levied, the approval of thq commission.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. minister has given in his Bill a special definition to the word ' railway ' and the definition will exclude express companies.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Not at all. An argument of that kind would result in this. All that a railway company would have to do in order to shirk its responsibility and escape the control of the commission would be, instead of carrying its goods itself, to carry them in the name of an outside corporation-call it an express company or agency company or anything you like.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is why we want express companies included.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: What is the particular advantage of indicating any one company by name any more than any other ? When you say that this Act shall apply to all persons, companies and railways, other than government railways, what more do you want ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. gentleman ought to readjust his interpretation clause. He is giving a limited definition to those words ' persons, companies and railways.'


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: You will findi no limitation.


Samuel Barker: The word ' railway,' in the interpretation clause, means any railway which the company has authority to construct or operate, and that word ' company ' means a company operating a railway.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: In the third clause, this Act ap-

plies to all persons, companies and railways other than government railways. Of course that means all companies operating railways, and when it means that, it means as well all companies doing business on railways and getting benefit out of the carriage of goods on railways.


Samuel Barker: It would not mean a company carrying on a book-selling business on a railway ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, there are no freight rates in that business.


Samuel Barker: By your definition of the word ' companies,' it includes any person having authority to construct or operate a railway. Express companies do not operate railways.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That does not affect the case. The Bill applies to all persons, companies and railways. If you can suggest anybody who is not comprised in one or the other of these, there might be some reason for changing the Bill.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Will it cover telephone companies ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They have not anything necessarily to do with railways.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: This Act applies to all persons.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, that have to do with railways,, that are operating, owning or carrying goods on railways.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It does not say anything about carrying companies. It says ' any person having authority to construct or to operate a railway.'


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is the definition of the word ' company.' The Bill, in its provisions, does apply to all persons, companies and railways.


Samuel Barker: Section 278 rather implies that express companies have a different meaning. It says :	' Every company '-
that would mean a railway company-'which grants any facilities for the carriage of goods by express to any incorporated express company or person, shall grant equal facilities on equal terms and conditions, to any other incorporated express company which demands the same.' That rather implies that the general scope of the Act does not cover express companies.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Not necessarily. This provision is included in order that there may be no advantage given to any express company over another. If you will take the clauses with regard to traffic and tolls and all that, you will gather this clearly from them, that
no traffic can be carried on railways nor can any tolls or charges be imposed in respect of the carriage of such traffic, until the Railway Commission has said what these tolls shall be. Now, if the railway company itself cannot do that, it cannot by any contract that it may make or any authority it may delegate to anybody else, authorize some other person to do it. Any person or company who may, by the authority and permission of the railway company, have any special privileges in respect of the carriage of traffic over that railway can only exercise that special privilege subject to the control of the railway company. Otherwise all that would be necessary would be for the railway to hand its freight business over to another company and it would thereby avoid all control. That, I think, should be thoroughly understood, and it is so clear that it ought to be accepted. If the law does not mean that it is not worth the paper it is printed on even to control business carried on railways outside of that managed by the express companies.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If the hon. minister means what he says, why not amend clause c, of the interpretation clause, so as to cover distinctly what he says ?


Mr. GERMAN.: I do not think that any amendment is needed at all. If hon. gentlemen will look further on in the Act, they will see the word ' companies '-


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The amendment would be needed if you want to control the express business outside of railways.


William Manley German: Quite so. Clause c, of the Interpretation Act says that the expression ' company ' means a railway company. If hon. gentlemen will look through the Act they will find the word ' company ' here and there throughout the whole length of it. But clause 3 says :
This Act shall apply to all persons, companies and railways.
-and so on. That word ' companies ' there has no reference to the Interpretation clause of the Act


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Surely.


William Manley German: Certainly it has not, and I think I can give my hon. friend very ample authority for my position. This is the word ' companies ' which is not interpreted by the interpretation clause, but the word that is interpreted is ' company ' and that occurs throughout the length and breadth of the Act, and is interpreted to mean a railway company.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: And it has a capital ' C.'


William Manley German: Certainly. The word ' company ' in the third clause has not the restricted meaning given in the interpretation clause, but has the same meaning as

it would have in any other Act passed by this parliament. So when we say ' all persons, companies and railways ' we mean exactly what we say, that all these are subject to the Act.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. German) mean that the interpretation clause applies only to the singular of the word ' company ' and not to the plural ? That Is what his argument means.


William Manley German: Certainly, that is exactly what I mean. Here you have the interpretation of a word, the word ' company ' and that word is carried throughout the whole Act, and is interpreted to mean a railway company. X venture to say the word ' companies ' is also used here and there throughout the Act, and that where it does not come within the meaning of the Railway Act it is a general term whicli covers all companies and is not intended to be restricted by the interpretation clause.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Does not the hon. member for Lincoln and Niagara (Mr. Lancaster) know -1 am sure he does, but he has not profited by the knowledge-that in the general Interpretation Act governing ail statutes the very word ' person ' means company as well as individual ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I know that very well. But the hon. minister is not content with the general Interpretation Act, but proposes special interpretation clauses for his own Act, which he is asking us to approve. If he is not satisfied with the general Interpretation Act, we suppose that lie regards these interpretations that he proposes as having special significance. In reply to what the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) says, I know very well the difference in the interpretation whicli he speaks of, but this Act expressly states what a railway shall mean and what the word ' company ' shall mean. But I do not agree with him when he says that the word 1 company ' has a different significance in the singular from what it has in the plural.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Has the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lancaster) read the Bill ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I have read it all through three or four times.
The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND Canals. Is the hon. gentleman of opinion that, if this Bill becomes law, any railway company in Canada can carry goods or allow goods to be carried on its line without first having arranged for tolls and tariffs approved or authorized by the railway commission 1


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Not quite in the way the hon. minister puts it. But I want to point out that, in my humble opinion, the way to provide for what he desires is not by giving a special interpretation to the Mr. GERMAN.
word ' company.' If he wants to make his Bill apply to the carrying of all traffic on railways, the natural, simple and efficacious way is to say that it shall apply to express companies that are carrying goods on railways.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lancaster) seriously tell this House that a railway company, if this Bill were in force, could not carry goods at rates fixed without the authority of the commission, but that it could authorize an agent to do so ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No ; but one way of reaching the point may be much more cumbersome than another. And if you wish to make the Act apply easily, quickly and cheaply, as it is in the interest of the country that it should do, to traffic carried on railways, the Act should be simple and direct, and should leave no question that the express companies, if they do carry freight, carry it as the agents of the railway company. We all seem to agree as to what should happen, but we disagree as to the way of getting at it. I submit to the hon. minister that he should put it beyond doubt by saying that express companies shall be in the same position as the railways.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not think it would be creditable legislation to us to attempt to remove doubts that do not exist. If the hon. gentleman admits that a railway company cannot carry goods over its line without being subject to the provisions of this law, he has not a leg to stand on, so far as the charges on express business carried on railways are concerned. And that is all we propose to deal with under this Bill. The hon. gentleman says it would be better and simpler to deal with the express companies as agents of the railway companies. I contend that it is simpler and better to deal witlf one company, the railway company, than to deal with a company and also with its agent. The railway company is responsible, under severe penalties under this clause, for any departure from the rates fixed by the commission. You do not want to deal with anybody else but the railway company. So far as it is necessary and proper to control the express companies in connection with the railways, they are controlled by this Bill. When you speak of general control of express companies you have not got it here, and you cannot put it here without embarrassing the Bill and im-paring its value by introducing what is really an outside element, something that had better be dealt with in a separate and distinct measure.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I would just like to put a case to the hon. minister. Suppose that goods to be carried in charge of an express company start on a railway in my county. The railway I refer to is not one

of the railways included under this Act, it is not within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada. It is an electric railway which carries fruit, and runs from the county of Lincoln


William Manley German: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to correct him ? When he speaks of the Niagara Central, that is under the control of the Dominion parliament.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I am not talking about the Niagara Central, I am talking about an Ontario electric railway. I said a railway not included in this Act. I refer to the Hamilton, Grimsby and Beamsville Electric Railway, and that road never had any connection whatever with the Niagara Central, which is now the Niagara, St. Catharines and Toronto railway, running from Port Dalhousie to Niagara Falls. But the Hamilton, Grimsby and Beamsville Electric Railway starts at the village of Beamsville and runs through a fruit growing belt to the city of Hamilton. That is an electric railway only incorporated under an Ontario Act, and is in no sense covered by this clause three. Now, the question I want to put to the minister is this :	Suppose some
constituent of mine ships his fruit on that electric railway to be carried to Ottawa. It is to be carried by the Dominion Express Company that starts on the Hamilton. Grimsby and Beamsville Electric Railway and is then transferred to the Canadian Pacific Railway, which is a railway within the provisions of this Act ? Now, what does the minister say about that express business ? Wher(e the traffic in the goods originates on a railway not under the operation of this Act if this transfer occurs on their journey, whether the commissioners that look after this traffic are to do anything to help the shipper, because they must look after the goods on their whole journey from beginning to end. Now, would not the minister do better to say that this express business should be dealt with under this Act, that this Act should apply to any express company that carries goods on either an electric or a steam railway and whether such railway is or is not one of the railways covered by this Act ? Because in the case of fruit growers I have mentioned they do not ship their goods on a railway which is within the authority of this Act, their goods go twenty or twenty-five miles before they reach a railway that is within the authority of this Act. I think that class of cases ought to be provided for, and would be covered by the amendment such as I have suggested.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not wish to do the hon. gentleman any discourtesy, but I would recommend him to read the Bill, because when he reads the Bill he will find that the case he refers to is entirely covered by section five. There the hon. gentleman will
find that the moment a through shipment is made and it is transferred to the Canadian Pacific Railway, then the rate must be a through rate and will be controlled by the commission. But I am ready to consider the suggestion that has been made. In any case, I would now move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and progress reported.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 134) to Incorporate the Erie, Ontario Power Company.-Mr. German.
On section 11,
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Section 11 has been amended to read as follows :
11. The directors may issue as paid-up stock, shares of the capital stock of the company in payment for all or any of the businesses, franchises, undertakings, rights, powers, privileges, and properties which the company may lawfully acquire by this Act or by law, and may, for such considerations, allot and hand over such shares to any person or corporation, including its shareholders or its directors, and any such issue or allotment of stock shall be binding upon the company and such stock shall not be assessable for calls nor shall the holder thereof be liable in any way thereon ; or the company may pay for the same wholly or partly in paid-up shares or wholly or partly in debentures, as may be agreed upon ; provided that any allotment and issue of stock under authority of this section shall be approved by the holders of at least two-thirds in value of the stock of the company, previously issued and held at the date of such issue and allotment.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I would like to ask any hon. gentleman who was in the committee whether or not he has examined similar provisions made in previous Bills in reference to the handing out of stock of this kind in payment. It does not seem to me that the clause safeguards the enterprise at all because the shareholders might hand over the stock for a mere nominal consideration. They might pass it over for a song and if the stockholders are all interested in one way, that is, in getting a distribution of stock among themselves, there is nothing to prevent it being done under that clause as it stands. I do not think it has been well considered.


Mr. BELCOURT.: That is the usual clause.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am quite sure it is not the

usual clause because there is no provision to safeguard the transaction, except the consent of two-thirds of the other stockholders shall be had. Is it desirable or not that we should confer the power upon any company that we incorporate here to hand over its stock for nothing if it chooses ? If two: thirds of the stockholders are prepared to give the stock out without any valuable consideration being received in return upon any terms which they choose, it is a question whether this is a desirable clause to incorporate in the Bill or not. That is my proposition and if it has been well considered perhaps there will be some bon. member of the committee who has had the matter in charge or was present when the discussion took place who could throw some light upon it.


William Manley German: That clause was not originally in this Bill, but when it came before the Private Bills Committee the acting chairman at that time, one of the hon. members for Ottawa, proposed that the original clause should be struck out and that this clause be inserted, being exactly in line with a clause in a Bill which the Private Bills Committee had passed the day before. I do not see very much difference between this clause and the one that had been originally in, but I was quite willing to accept it and the committee passed it. The hon. member for Montreal, St. Lawrence, (Mr. Bickerdike) bad a Bill with this same clause in it which had passed the Private Bills Committee. When it was considered by the Private Bills Committee it was thought that this clause should be adopted.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not think there is much difference between the two clauses. I think there should be something in this clause which will require the transaction to be a bona fide transaction, not a mere nominal transaction, but a bona fide one in which bona fide value is being given for the stock. That is not secured by this present Bill. I do not think the new clause is any better than its predecessor. They are both open to the same exception.


William Manley German: So far as the promoters of the Bill are concerned they are not objecting at all to any reasonable amendment that the hon. minister, or any one else, desires to put in to ensure that it shall be a bona fide transaction. The gentlemen who are asking for incorporation are going into it in a bona fide way and they are willing to have any restrictions placed around them that are reasonable and that other companies are bound to submit to.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is no such clause in the General Company's Act and no such clause would be admitted in the General Company's Act, I am quite sure.


Andrew George Blair: 


William Manley German: What would you suggest ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am not prepared at the moment to frame a clause. There will no doubt arise circumstances under which stock might be handed over for property which was being acquired in a bona fide way for the interests of the company. If any person wanted to put through a transaction which was not a bona fide transaction, but simply a cover to the getting possession of the stock, with a properly framed clause, the stock might be taken away from them and proceedings might be taken which would invalidate the transaction, but they could not be under this clause as it stands.
Mi-. SPROULE. It seems to me that it is doubly dangerous for this reason :	In
clause four the capital stock which the company may issue is placed a't 85,000,000. They can divide that as they see fit so long as shareholders representing two-thirds of the capital stock agree. Then they can issue bonds to the extent of $5,000,000 and deal with them afterwards. With the provisions in clauses 4, 11 and 13 it seems to me to be susceptible of a good deal of stock jobbery if they were disposed to go into it.


William Manley German: This Bill was drawn in an exactly similar way to the Bill incorporating the Hamilton and Lake Erie Power Company, which was obtained from this parliament in 1895. The clause originally drafted was taken verbatim from the act to incorporate the Hamilton and Lake Erie Power Company. I had supposed in drafting the Bill that what had been done on a former occasion by this parliament would be done again.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: You might reasonably do so.


William Manley German: One might reasonably suppose that. The company does not desire anything more than what is fair, and they intend to go into the project in a bona fide way if they go into it at all. Engineers have already looked over the ground and it is supposed to be a feasible and profitable proposition, and having taken this clause' verbatim from a Bill which has already passed parliament, I cannot see why there should be objection to it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Perhaps we should have a model clause.


Mr. FRASER.: I think there should be a clause common to all Bills, but if some such words as ' bona fide ' are inserted here, I do not see what objection there can be to the wording of the clause as it stands at present. If any party is willing to take stock in payment, then when two-thirds of the shareholders say that it is a good bargain rather than to give cash, I do not see what harm there is in it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Suppose they should be all in a ring.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Then they would have to be In league with the parties who are giving them the franchise. It often happens that a corporation can make a better bargain with parties who are willing to take stock than if they have to go on the market and get cash. If you wish, let there be some safeguarding words in this section which will apply to similar Bills through all time.


Mr. BICKERDIKE.: If you strike out the words in the clause ' may make and ' and leave it that the directors ' may issue as paid up and non assessable shares ' I think it would meet all objections. The moment the stock is paid up, is it material to any one what they do with it ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not think my hon. friend (Mr. Bickerdike) apprehends the full extent of my objection. Even if these words be struck out it would still be possible for the company to issue as paid up and assessable stock any amount they please without getting anything in return.


Robert Bickerdike: I want to guard against that.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: As a member of the Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills I am glad that this, question has come up. Bills of this kind invariably contain a similar clause and on every occasion there is considerable discussion in the committee. The clause now before the House is the clause as amended by the committee, and we adopted it on the ground that it has been inserted in many Bills already and is looked upon as a model clause. If the House in committee should now rule as to what is a proper clause for such Bills it would save a great deal of the time of the committee and act as a guide. I cannot say that I have much objection to the clause as it stands. As the member for Guysborough has said, it is sometimes advantageous for the company to purchase real estate or other things by means of stock, and if there is any way in which the clause may be limited so as to overcome the possibility of fraud might be well to insert that limitation.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If the hon. gentleman prefers, I am willing to have a clause drafted and submit it for consideration.


William Manley German: Surely there can be no objection to the company issuing stock as paid up stock for the construction of buildings, the purchasing of franchises or of any property as contemplated by this section. I infer from what the minister says that this is legitimate so long as the transaction is a bona fide one, and that if they are getting value they can pay for it in stock
or in money. If people enter Into a project with the intention of committing fraud it is very hard to prevent them from doing so by legislation, and if any clause can he devised whereby you can prevent persons from being guilty of fraud who desire to commit fraud, I -would like to see it, because I have never seen it yet. What is there wrong about issuing paid up shares in a company as consideration for a contract for the construction say of a race-way that would cost $1,000,000? Why should not the contractors be allowed to take stock in the company just as well as forcing the company to raise the money to pay the contractors ? So long as you accede to the principle that the company may in a bona fide way issue stock as a consideration for payment of a contract or any franchises or privileges, I do not see how you can prevent them doing wrong if they want to do it. I doubt very much if it could be done. I am quite willing that the Bill should stand over, and if the minister can devise a clause that will meet the case, I should be satisfied.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not wish it to be inferred that I took the position that a power of this kind might not be very properly and honestly exercised ; but what I did say was that this clause as it stands is peculiarly liable to abuse. The only condition attached to it is that two-thirds of the stockholders shall be consenting parties to the transaction. That is no protection at all. What I thought, and still think, would be an ingredient that would greatly militate against the use of this section in a fraudulent way, would be to include in it such terms as would practically make the transaction void if it were not in compliance with the ternis of the section. If the parties to the transaction knew that it was liable to be attacked in the courts and set aside on that ground, I think they would hesitate.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Would not the non-compliance of the transaction with the provisions of the clause not render it void ipso facto ? Does the minister mean that if all the formalities of the clause were not complied with, the transaction would be void ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have not thought about the proper wording of the clause ; but there is nothing in it as it stands that could not be complied with, and yet the thing might be the most fraudulent transaction in the world.
Progress reported.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 119) respecting the Alberta Railway and Coal Company.-Mr. Oliver.
Bill (No. 143) respecting the Canadian North-west Irrigation Company.-Mr. Oliver.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 126) respecting the Mexican Light and Power Company, Limited.-Mr. Thompson (Haldimand).
Bill (No. 70) to incorporate the Macleod, Cardston and Montana Railway Company.- Mr. Oliver.
Bill (No. 45) respecting the Calgary and Edmonton Railway Company.-Mr. McCreary.
Bill (No. 42) respecting the Alberta Central Railway Company.-Mr. Oliver.
Bill (No. 110) respecting the Canadian Northern Railway Company.-Mr. Davis.
Bill (No. Ill) respecting the Edmonton, Yukon and Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Oliver.
Bill (No. 114) respecting the Nipissing and James Bay Railway Company.-Mr. McCool.
Bill (No. 120) respecting the Lake Erie and Detroit River Railway Company.-Mr. Cowan.
Bill (No. 108) respecting the Ottawa Electric Railway Company-Mr. Belcourt.
Bill (No. 146) respecting the Lindsay, Bob-caygeon and Pontypool Railway Company. -Mr. Vrooman.
Bill (No. 43) to incorporate the Regina and Hudson's Bay Railway Company-Mr. Scott.
Bill (No. 47) to incorporate the Nipissing and Pontiac Railway Company.-Mr. McCool.
Bill (No. 117) to incorporate the Hudson's Bay and Western Railway Company.-Hon. Mr. Haggart.
Bill (No. 118) respecting the Canada Atlantic Railway Company.-Mr. Belcourt.
Bill (No. 132) to incorporate the Pere Marquette International Bridge Company.-Mr. Cowan.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 175) respecting the Century Life Insurance Company.-Mr. Morrison.
Bill (No. 176) to incorporate the Canadian Transportation and Storage Company.-Mr. German.
Bill (No. 177) respecting the Klondike Mines Railway Company-Mr. Mclsaac.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sidney Fisher) moved that the House again go into Committee of Supply.
M. E. F. CLARKE (West Toronto). Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Customs if he will lay on the Table of the House a copy of the amendments made by the offi-Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
cers of his department to the certificate of origin of British goods allowed to enter into Canada under the preferential tariff.
["I give it up, but I will make an inquiry.\nSome resolutions reported.\nOn motion of the Minister of Militia and Defence, House adjourned at 12 o'clock, a.m., Wednesday."]
The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I shall have pleasure in doing that. I think it will be amended in the direction that I explained the other day. Does the hon. gentleman want the certificate enforced to-day ?


Mr. CLARKE.: I refer to the amendments made to the certificate of origin rendered necessary by the surtax on German goods. May I ask the hon. minister when he will lay the amended certificate on the Table ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I announced to the House the other day that we had to extend the time somewhat. I have to obtain the sanction of Council to that. I have not yet obtained it, but as soon as it is obtained, I will lay the amended certificate on the Table.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I have not quite made myself clear. A certificate of origin of British goods imported into Canada under the preferential tariff was required to be filed. That will have to be amended in accordance with the resolution adopted by the House respecting the surtax on German goods. I understand from a recent number of the ' London Times ' that such an amended certificate has been prepared under the officers of the Customs Department and it is a copy of that amended certificate which I ask the hon. Minister to lay on the Table. May I ask him when he will do so ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I can lay that on the Table immediately; but, as I have explained, we are extending the time from the 30th of June to the 30th of September, and the certificate pursuant to that change has not yet been printed; but I can lay the original one on the Table.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Militia-pay and allowances, $391,405.
['I can lay that on the Table immediately; but, as I have explained, we are extending the time from the 30th of June to the 30th of September, and the certificate pursuant to that change has not yet been printed; but I can lay the original one on the Table.']
Hon. Mr. TISDALE.: Before the item passes, I would like to ask the minister if he proposes to make his general statement now.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: No, I do not propose to make a general statement as to the condition of the militia, or as to any changes that may be proposed until the supplementary estimates for 1903 are brought down.


David Tisdale: I presume that if we go on with the estimates to-night, 1he hon. gentleman will consent to let one item stand.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Certainly.


David Tisdale: Before we go any further, I would like to call the attention

of the hon. gentleman to one matter and ask for some information upon it. I allude to a late official of the department, Mr. Martineau. I would like to know when he was appointed and how appointed, and whether he gave any security to the department at the time he was appointed. I understand that he was appointed in a financial capacity. I would like a short statement in regard to him.
The MINISTER OF MIIdTIA AND DEFENCE. ~I scarcely expected to be asked to make that exxilanation to-night. The hon. gentleman is aware, I think, that a commission was appointed to inquire into that case, and into the condition of financial matters in the different departments. I think that commission has completed its labours, and it would perhaps be more convenient for me to make a statement on the subject when its report is brought down. However, if one item is left, I shall be very glad to make a statement at a later date. I have not the papers with me to enable me to give the correct details of the matter now. If the hon. gentleman will kindly accept that explanation and let the matter remain until a later period, I think it will be more convenient and satisfactory.


David Tisdale: I have no objection. 1 was not aware officially, though I saw in the newspapers, that a committee had been appointed.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: It is really a commission.


David Tisdale: Then I would ask the minister to give us information of the commission, who was appointed, and whether he can give us an assurance that its report will be down before we take up the supplementary estimates.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I am not able to give that assurance, because it is a matter which my colleague the Minister of Finance has directly under his control. He suggested the commission, and I think he made a statement to the House early in the session with regard to it. But I will promise the hon. gentleman to speak to the Minister of Finance and endeavour to have the report brought forward as soon as possible. But in any case I shall be prepared to answer questions in reference to this matter on the next occasion when the militia estimates are brought up.


David Tisdale: I would only, then, wish to say this much further. The hon. minister can hardly expect us to pass the estimates for his department until the report of that commission has been brought down. If it is not down, I hope that the hon. gentleman will not consider that we are unduly pressing the matter if we Object to allow the estimates to go through without that information.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Do I understand that my hon. friend objects to our going on at all now ?


David Tisdale: Not now, but at a later stage we might not feel inclined to allow the estimates to go through unless we have the information.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: That commission is looking into all the departments.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is to be regretted that we should not have had the Bill, notice of which was given on the 3rd of April, before taking up these estimates. I recognize that the hon. Minister of Militia is entitled to some indulgence, but this year we have reason to expect considerable changes in the militia organization. The committee will remember that during the colonial conference in London, engagements were entered into by our representatives at that conference, and we are entitled to know how far the government intend adhering to those engagements, and what changes are contemplated. Under the circumstances, it is to be regretted that we have not had from the Minister of Militia some outline of all the changes he contemplates. We have estimates to the extent of over a million and a half dollars, and it would be more satisfactory if we knew in a general way, before voting those estimates, what new schemes the government may have in view. Another matter to which I wish to refer is this:	I
would like to know if the militia who were called out during the strike in Yalleyfield, a considerable time ago, have been paid by the government or not ? On the 11th of this month some questions were put regarding this matter, which will be found on page 2759 of ' Hansard.' Among those questions, which were put by the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Morin), were these :
Were the militia ordered out at Valleyfleld at the time of the strike ? If so, what was the cost of the troops ? By whom was the said cost paid ? Has the town of Valleyfleld paid the costs ?
In the absence of the hon. Minister of Militia, the Postmaster General replied :
The mayor of Valleyfleld made a requisition for the services of the militia on October 25th af the request of the company, and two companies of infantry arrived in Valleyfleld from Montreal that night.
And in reply to the other questions, the Postmaster General said :
The Department of Labour has no information on the subjects referred to In these questions.
The questions were not put to the Department of Labour nor to the Minister of Labour, nor to the Postmaster General, hut were put generally to the government, and I think that the answer given was neither fair nor sincere, because, from the Information I have gathered, the troops on that occasion-just before the elections of 1900-



were paid by the government, and no claim lias since been enforced against the town of Valley field for reimbursement. If such be the case, I submit that the answer given was neither sincere nor true. There is another matter to which I wish to refer. Recently at Montreal the troops were [DOT]called out, not to protect any private industry as in the case of the Valleyfield riot, but to protect the shipping interests of the country. I am informed that the militia have not yet been paid. Some of the officers are even out of pocket. It is only just that these troops should be paid at once, and that the cost should fail, not on the city of Montreal, but on this government, if there is any strength in the Valleyfield precedent. In Valleyfield the troubles were between the men employed in the mill of the company and the company itself, whereas, in Montreal the troubles were of a far more public character. Troops were called out to protect the harbour, which is to a large extent under the jurisdiction of this government, and I think that, under the circumstances, the cost should not be saddled on the city of Montreal, but should be paid by the government. These are questions to which we are entitled to an answer. We are entitled to know whether the reply given by the hon. Postmaster General on the 11th of May is correct or not, whether the government have definitely assumed the cost of calling out the troops at Valleyfield, and what is the intention of the government with regard to the cost incurred at Montreal ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I do not think the hon. gentleman has any right to charge insincerity in the answer given. It so happened that I was not in the city the day that question was put, and until this moment, my attention has not been called to the nature of the answer given. I gave instructions that the question should be answered and the answer sent to the Prime Minister, but possibly through some inadvertence that was not done. There is not the slightest objec-tition to answering the question. The government paid the men, of course. If the hon. gentleman will take the trouble to look at the law governing the case, he will see that it provides that when two magistrates or the mayor of the city make a requisition on the senior officer to call out the troops, in case of riot, the expense is paid by the city or the municipality interested, but where, for any reason, the pay is not immediately forthcoming, the Act authorizes the government to pay the men, and the officer in command, upon whom the requisition was made, then proceeds to sue the municipality for the amount. That is the law. In the case of the town of Valleyfield, the men were paid out of the consolidated revenue fund, and I understand that the commanding officer is taking the necessary steps for the return of the money. I do not know. That is beyond Mr. MONK.
my control ; I have nothing to do with it. So far as the city of Montreal is concerned, the law, of course, is precisely the same as I have just quoted. There is not a question whether it is shipping or a government building or anything else that is to be protected ; it is simply a question of the violation of the peace. That having taken place and a riot threatening, the Act enables the chief magistrate of a municipality to call upon the militia to protect the citizens. That was done in the city of Montreal. If the men have not been paid they will be paid under the authority contained in the Act which I have quoted. I was informed on Saturday morning by my deputy that the accounts had not yet been forwarded to him, but that he had made inquiry into the matter, and, so soon as the accounts were forwarded to him they would be paid under the authority I have mentioned, if, in the meantime, the city had not chosen to pay them; and then, of course, the same proceeding I have mentioned in the former case, th& usual proceedings, would be taken-the officer in command of the troops would sue to recover the amount of money paid.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Do I understand the hon. minister (Hon. Sir Frederick Borden) to say that no claim has been received from the military authorities in Montreal for the pay of the militia ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I said that up to Saturday last no accounts, no claim of any kind, had been received here at headquarters.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is one thing that is certain now, and that is that during the difficulties that occurred in Valleyfield in 1900, in the early part of the fall of that year, the troops were paid by the government. We have that now as a certainty. And I may tell my hon. friend (Hon. Sir Frederick Borden) that, like many other members of the committee, I was quite aware of the provisions of the law to which he has referred. But my hon. friend slid very rapidly over those provisions of the law which require the government to make demands afterwards on the municipality that has caused the calling out of the militia. My hon. friend is familiar no doubt with that part of the law also. But, since 1900. there has been an election in Valleyfield. During the campaign that preceded that election, one of the topics discussed was the question as to whether the government would or would not insist upon the payment by the town of Valleyfield of the cost of calling out the troops, which amounted, if I mistake not, to between $5,000 and $8,000.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: A little over $4,000, I believe.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That question was very much discussed. And I am informed that assurance was given during the heat and

fever of the election-assurance of the most positive character-that there would be no exaction of the payment of this indemnity from the town of Valleyfield. Is that correct ? Is there anything in the department which warrants me in making that statement ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: No ; there never was any assurance given by the department.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Was there any correspondence ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: No.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Was any assurance given by any member of the government that this claim would not be pressed ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I am not aware of it. Of course, I am only speaking for the Militia Department.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I see the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) knows something about tire question.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Nothing ; but I am keen to be enlightened.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I did not see the hon. Minister of Justice in the municipality at that time, but he has a very long arm, and he may have reached some knowledge of the matter.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I have nothing to say.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There were other ministers there. The assurance that I speak of, that the government would exact nothing from the town, had great effect And, as a matter of fact, since 1900 no demand has been made upon the town for this amount. I am not mistaken there. There has been no demand on the department by the town of Valleyfield for this amount ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I presume there has been the usual demand.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has there been any ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I believe there has. I cannot speak more positively than that. The commanding officer, of course, must-


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The hon. minister will undoubtedly be able to find out if there has been such a demand.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: The hon. gentleman says that he has carefully studied the law. He knows, then, that it is the commanding officer that brings the action.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Who instructs him ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: He does not require any instruc-113i
tion ; he is obliged to bring action under the law.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: But these officers are under the control of the department; and it should not surprise the committee if, under the circumstances of this case of the town of Val-leyfield, I should claim that it is the duty of the government to see to it that these soldiers who served in Montreal are paid without delay, and also that a different rule should not be applied to the city of Montreal from that which has been applied to the town of Valleyfield. The mere fact that there happened to be a by-election in one place and not in the other should not make a difference in the application of the law. I do not ask that Valleyfield should be obliged to contribute to the pay of the militia, but I do find it unjust that the city of Montreal, which contributes more to the revenue of this country than does the town of Valleyfield, should be subjected to a different rule from that which was applied in this other case.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I wish to enter a protest at this stage about this matter. If the militia were called out in Valleyfield to suppress a riot and the government paid the cost 'of the maintenance of those soldiers while on duty, the same rule should apply to the city of Toronto. My hon. friend (Mr. Monk)'is quite right in demanding that no exceptional treatment should be given any municipality. Some time last summer, I think it was, the militia were called to do duty in the city of Toronto owing to an anticipated riot because of a street car strike, and the city of Toronto was called upon to pay the necessary expenses in connection with the presence of those troops there. Now, this unfortunate trouble in Valleyfield took place about three years ago. I presume that the men were paid immediately after their service. Surely some officer of the department instructed the commanding officer to proceed to collect this money. Or, are we simply bandying words about this business ? It is time that we should know whether one rule is to be applied to Valleyfield because a byelection was coming on, while another rule must apply to other municipalities. If the law is that the municipality is to pay for the troops, that law should be enforced.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: My hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) will see that there is no way by which the commanding officer can force a municipality to immediately hand over the money if the municipality does not see fit to do so. In the case of Toronto, evidently the city authorities felt that they were hound to pay and they did pay. That has happened in a great many other cases, in the city of London, for instance. The town of Valleyfield -and the same has happened in other cases -there was hesitation and delay about paying. Of course, the men had to be paid, and,

under the authority given in the Act, the government advanced the money.


Edward Frederick Clarke: But three years have elapsed since the money was paid, and surely some steps should be taken, if it is the duty of the municipality to pay.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Here is what the law says. In the event of the money being advanced by the government out of the consolidated revenue fund, then the commanding officer shall at once, in his own name, proceed against the municipality for the recovery of such sum.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Then is the officer commanding the troops who were called out still in command ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I am not quite sure whether Colonel Gorden, who is the officer commanding at Montreal now, was in Montreal at that time. I think he was in South Africa, and that Colonel Roy was commanding at that time. But I will get a statement upon this point, and bring down the exact condition of affairs, when the estimates next come up.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will instructions be issued that this money shall be collected ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: My impression is that steps have already been taken to collect it.


David Tisdale: I am not satisfied with the answer of the minister. I do not find fault because the government paid the money, it is a proper thing for the government to pay in the meantime if the municipality does not. But now nearly three years have gone by, and we are voting the estimates to-day, and the minister does not know. I do not accept his statement that it was none of his business. It is not only his business, but it is his duty as head of the Militia Department who are out this money, to take steps to collect it. I go further, and I say that we have no right to remit the money, and if any such steps were taken at the time as have been spoken of, they were taken beyond the authority of the law. The government could not pay this by Order in Council. Therefore, I do not accept the minister's statement that it is not his duty to know. Is it to be understood that when a municipality refuses to pay, the government is to assume the debt ? Supposing Toronto had declined to pay, suppose Montreal should decline to pay now, the government should promptly see that the proper steps are taken to collect the money. It is not the duty of the commanding officer, because he is immediately under the control of the Department of Militia and Defence, he is only acting as the trustee of the government, or of the department. Therefore, when these estimates come up we have a constitutional right to


Sir F. W. BORDEN.: insist upon this explanation. I was surprised at the trivial answer of the Postmaster General, or the Minister of Labour. Everybody knew that he had no business to answer, it was not his place to do so. It was his place to say, the Minister of Militia and Defence is not here to-day, let the matter stand, and it would have stood as a matter of course. Then if the Postmaster General, or the Minister of Labour, had not interfered to give that answer, the Minister of Militia and Defence would have given us the information and we would not have been compelled to ask the government for it on another occasion. I say the language of my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Clarke) is none too strong in characterizing that answer as unsatisfactory and trivial. Look at the result. If he had communicated with the Minister of Militia and Defence and informed him of what had happened, the Minister of Militia and Defence would have inquired and this discussion to-night would have been avoided. Now, I must say that since I have been in opposition I have not engaged in any obstruction; but I want my hon. friend to understand that I propose to be severe in my criticisms when necessity calls for it, and when the government endeavour to trifle with us I wont stand it. So far as I am concerned, if the minister will give us this information it will be satisfactory, but I do not accept his explanation that it was not his fault that the answer was given in that way.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I certainly will do as I promised, and bring down a statement with regard to this matter.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will he bring down a statement as to whether his department or the Justice Department, or the Labour Department, has instructed the proper officials to proceed against the municipality to collect this money ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: There was no need of any instructions under the law.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will the minister bring down a memorandum explaining exactly how the matter stands, so that we may know what steps this House may take, if necessary, to have that money collected ?


William Findlay Maclean: The money of the country is controlled by the Minister of Finance, and the moment the Minister of Finance consents to an extraordinary expenditure of this kind, he debits somebody with that amount of money and he never rests until he gets that money back. He calls on the Department of Militia and Defence at least once a week to know whether they have recovered that money. If the business of the department is conducted in this careless fashion, what will be the result whenever there is a disturbance in any town ? Im-

mediately the troops will be requisitioned to keep the peace, and immediately that municipality will repudiate its obligation and oblige the government to pay the troops. That will be a serious condition of affairs. I say the law Is a good law, and ought to be administered and carried out in a way to compel these municipalities to pay their just debts. The Minister of Militia and Defence, or the Minister of Finance, or the Minister of Justice-because he is involved in it-somebody has to institute legal proceedings to recover this money, and the responsibility for doing so cannot be shifted on to the commanding officer of the militia. Somebody in the government is responsible, I think it is the Minister of Finance, and he ought not to rest until that money is returned.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: My hon. friend, although like myself not a lawyer, knows something probably of the glorious uncertainties and the inglorious delays of the law. He knows that if an individual or a municipality wishes to repudiate its debts it can occupy a good deal of time. Now, I am correct in stating that there is a suit pending, and has been pending for some time against the municipality of Valleyfield for this money, that it is being pressed forward as rapidly as possible.


Mr. BENNETT.: When was the writ issued ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I cannot say, but I will get the particulars.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I deemed it necessary on this item to bring the question to the notice of the government. I do not blame my hou. friend the Minister of Militia so much as the whole government collectively. Those who have any knowledge of what took place in 1900 in the town of Valleyfield know perfectly well that the organization which was supposed to be an organization of labour, but which was in reality a purely political organization, provoked a strike just on the eve of an election. In. some way or other through the instrumentality of some one of the same political faith as the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence, the militia was called out at Valleyfield just before the election, and the whole blame of this was, through some instrumentality, laid upon my friend Mr. Bergeron, so that he lost his election in consequence of these manoeuvres. Now we find that the government comes down and pays for the calling out of the militia, the sum of $4,480 and there is no further question raised whatever until a by-election comes on, and then, when the by-election comes on and when the question of this organization by which Mr. Bergeron was defeated in 1900 is threshed out before the people, we find that ministers of the Crown-I do not say the hon. Minister of
Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick), although he appeared to me to be pretty well aware of what was going on ; it may have been the hon. Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) because he came down there- ministers of the Crown came down and gave the electors of the town of Valleyfield the complete assurance that they would never be called upon to pay a cent of this largo sum which was employed as a political manoeuvre. Now, I leave that aside, but what I would ask is this : What is going to be the rule ? We know the law, but is the law going to be applied ? If it is going to be applied in that way I say we must reimburse the city of Toronto for the money that has been expended there, and that it is unfair that these men who have been doing duty in the city of Montreal should not have been paid in full. I know many of them have suffered from not being paid. I know that many of the officers have been disagreeably situated on that account. But, I go further and say that yon must apply that rule to the city of Montreal as well, and if there are $15,000 or $20,000 to be paid there, it should be paid by the government. All I want is that justice shall be done, that the same rule shall be applied to everybody and that the machinery of the Militia Act and the Department of Labour shall not be used in any way for political purposes. It is proper that we should bring this matter to the attention of the House and the country.


Mr. LOY.: Mr. Chairman. I cannot allow the statements which have been made tonight to go uncontradicted. I took part in that election. I attended every .meeting at which any of the ministers were present, and I never heard one single member of the government give any assurance to the electors of Valleyfield that that amount would not be collected from them.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Hear, hear.


George di Madeiros Loy: There is another point which I think it well to contradict, and that is the statement in respect to the labour union being a political organization. If it was a political organization it was composed of both Conservatives and Liberals. There is also another statement that I wish to deny, and that is that the strike at Valleyfield was provoked by the labourers. In my own opinion, if an investigation were held, it would prove to the entire satisfaction of those who would be honest enough to admit proof, that it was the Montreal Cotton Company which was responsible for the strike of their employees.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend (Mr. Loy) is giving himself a great deal of trouble contradicting what I did not say at all. Certainly, I am surprised that my hon. friend who has been some years in politics, should suppose that the ministers would go down to Valleyfield and state publicly that

they would give the town of Valleytield $4,480. . What I said was, and what I repeat is, that the statement was made by somebody in authority on the eve of the by-election and my hon. friend was elected.


An hon. MEMBER.: Who made it ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I did not attend the committee meetings or the private meetings where that assurance was made, but it was made and it had that effect. Nor did I say that the labourers of Valleyfield had provoked the strike. Why does the hon. gentleman take the trouble to contradict what I do not say ? The labourers of Valleyfield I know as well as my hon. friend does. I never treated them as my hon. friend treated them when he brought their affidavits into this House to read them, but what I say is that the organization which brought about that strike and called upon the mayor to call upon the troops, was conducting a political manoeuvre. We have proof of it to-day in the fact that the account has not been collected. The city of Toronto and the city of Montreal ought to stand in just as fair a position as Valley-field, yet Montreal and Toronto are treated in the way in which we know they are treated. This is the proper time to raise the question. Let the hon. minister give us an assurance that even justice will be dealt out to all before we vote this $391,000. It is only fair and I think we have a right to exact that.


The MINISTER OE MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I have no hesitation whatever in giving the assurance that we shall proceed under the law and that we will do our best. It is not always possible to do it, but we will do our best and see that even justice is given to all.


Edward Frederick Clarke: May I ask the hon. and learned Minister of Justice when the writ was issued and who was the solicitor acting for the government in the endeavour to collect the money from the town of Valley-field ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am not aware that a writ issued nor am I aware that there has been a solicitor appointed to act for the government, because, as I read the statute, action must be taken by the commanding officer. He alone has the right to bring suit and he alone has control.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The hon. Minister of Justice knows perfectly well that although the commanding officer is the party who claims the amount, he is entirely under the control of the Department of Militia and Defence and of the government. At any rate I wish to make my own position clear in view of the statement of the hon. member for Beau-harnois (Mr. Loy). What I demand and what I think we have a right to exact from the government is that the same treatment should be meted out all around. I believe, as the hon. member for York (Mr. Maclean) Mr. MONK.
said, it might lead to grave abuses if this practice is adhered to, because, the hon. Minister of Justice will, himself, admit that abuses would be easy. Upon the slightest trouble of any kind whatever you could requisition the militia and cause considerable expense and profit to certain individuals and the municipality, being on the right side, probably, would have nothing to fear. I believe the law is a good one, but it has to be administered in the same way for all parties.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: The hon. gentleman will see that it is the city authorities themselves who make a requisition for troops ; therefore, that seems to safeguard the question of improper expenditure.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Loy) has just told us that the militia were brought to Valleyfield on the requisition of the Montreal Cotton Company. Is that right ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: No, no.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. gentleman, ns I understand, said that.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: No, that was not the fact any way.


Mr. EMMERSON.: He said that the strike was caused by the Montreal Cotton Company.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon, then. But it all goes to show how necessary it is that we should understand where we are in this matter. If a strike is caused by a company whose head office is many miles away from the scene of the disturbance, and the local authorities are requested to bring the militia out for the purpose of awing the strikers, it should be clearly understood that the expenditure for the maintenance of these troops should be borne by the municipality. The gravest possible abuse may arise in the calling out of troops here or there where their services are not required. If the precedent is established in this ease, that for certain reasons a municipality must not bear the responsibility of its action in calling out troops, then other municipalities may call out troops when their services are not required. It would be scandalous if one rule is applied to Valleyfield, and another to Montreal, and another to Toronto. We are entitled to know what action the government purposes taking to spur on the commanding officer of that regiment to do his duty. It appears to be one of those cases where it is nobody's business to act. The militia were entitled to be paid for their services, and the government having disbursed $4,000 or $5,000 of the money of the people, they should take steps to collect that money from ' the municipality if the law says the muni-

cipality is responsible. Will tlie Minister of Militia tell us whether he will give the proper officer instructions to proceed forthwith to collect this money from the municipality of Valleyfield ?
The MINISTER OF - MILITIA AND DEFENCE. It is not a case of the minister giving instructions, but I certainly shall inquire to ascertain why this officer has not done his duty, and then it will be my business to deal with the officer.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Quite so. If it is the duty of the officer to protect the public treasury as well as life and property, and if it is his duty to collect the money from the municipality, surely he is guilty of a gross dereliction of his duty if he does not proceed forthwith.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I think so.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will the minister take cognizance of that ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Certainly I will.


William Findlay Maclean: The Minister of Justice evades his responsibility anti the responsibility of the government who profess to be the watch dogs of the treasury by casting the blame upon some officer. I, for one, am not willing that this question should pass until there is an assurance from the Minister of Finance that he considers it his duty to recover that money at the earliest possible moment. We have been told that irregularities in connection with the Militia Department are to-day the subject of inquiry by special commission. Here is work for another special commission. I don't know that I have ever heard before that money can be paid out of the treasury without warrant, and that no steps are to be taken to recover it from the municipality which owes it. I will not be satisfied until 1 have a statement from the Minister of Finance that as guardian of the treasury, and as the custodian of the people's money, he Intends to get that money back. It is nice to see the Minister of Justice laugh at the idea of the government being custodians of the money of the people. It is a joke. Open the bag boys and pass the money around ; that's their idea of it. The men who have the public money to guard, occupy a sacred trust, but these gentlemen on the treasury benches do not seem to understand that. I want an assurance that the Minister of Finance does intend to get that money back, that the Minister of Justice will assist him in getting it back, and that the Minister of Militia will insist on the commanding officer doing his duty in the premises.


David Tisdale: I certainly would not have spoken again were it not for the nttempt by the government to fasten the
responsibility upon the commanding officer, and I am surprised that the Minister of Militia should allow such a thing to be done. As soon as the men are paid, the commanding officer has no further interest except that the law says his name shall be used in an action for the recovery of the money. If the Minister of Militia is going to hold the commanding officer responsible for the collection of this debt, I am satisfied that every militia officer in the country will resent such a thing, and that not one of them would serve an hour longer. It is absurd to contend that a commanding officer should be put to the expense and risk of entering a suit to recover such money for the Crown. If that is the iaw then there is not one officer out of ten who would take such a responsibility. For my part, I would not. Does any one mean to say that the Minister of Militia is going to stand up here in the face of the militia of Canada and say that this officer is neglecting his duty. Why the thing is absurd. I would resign my position as Minister of Militia, much as I might pride in it, before I would allow such a principle to be laid down. The Minister of Justice cannot disclaim his responsibility. When I was Minister of Militia, if such a thing occurred, instructions would have been sent to the Justice Department to collect the money, and then the responsibility would be upon the Minister of Justice. If the Minister of Justice received such instructions he is responsible, and he is doubly responsible as a member of the cabinet, because the whole cabinet is responsible in a sense for the proper administration of any one department. It is absurd to say that it is the duty of the commanding officer to move without the initiative of the Minister of Militia, and then the action should be taken on the responsibility of the Minister of Justice. I do not believe that on consideration, the Minister of Militia will take the responsibility of saying that the commanding officer in this case is in any way responsible for the neglect to collect this money. We are given to understand that it is the duty of the commanding officer to take action, but the Militia Department should be behind him, so that, even if he is in South Africa his name can be used. I agree with the hon. member for East York that the most important question is whether the responsibility is to be shifted from the department to the officer.


George di Madeiros Loy: I think it well to state that so far as I know a demand was made on the town of Valleyfield for the payment of the expenses in connection with militia being called ouj:. I know that the town refuses to pay the whole amount demanded. I do not know whether it assumes the responsibility of part of it; but I think it does. I know that the demand was made on the town.
I Some hon. MEMBERS. By whom ?


George di Madeiros Loy: By the Militia Department or by some one authorized by the government; but I think the town is resisting the claim, or a part of it. I think it is only right for me to say that, in respect to the charge which was made, that some one had been authorized to promise that the amount would not be collected. For my part, I assisted at nearly every meeting, and I do not know of any person being authorized to make any such statement. I would be glad if the hon. gentleman would give me the name of the party who made that statement.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if in his opinion this debt is going to be collected from the town of Aralleyfield, or if it is not, going to be collected 1


Sir.   BOY@: I may say, in reply to the hon. gentleman, that the town claims that it was not responsible, because the strike was provoked by the employees of the Montreal Cotton Company.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Will the hon. gentleman inform us at what date that demand was made ?


George di Madeiros Loy: I cannot tell the date.


Mr. WARD.: I would like to call the attention of the hon. Minister of Militia to a short discussion which took place on this item last session. On page 4260 of ' Hansard ' I lind the following :
Contingencies-further amount required, $4,500.


The MINISTER OP MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: This is simply to reimburse the department for the amount paid over to the troops in connection with the Valleyfield riots. Proceedings were taken to collect that money from the town, but in the meantime the men had to be paid and were paid out of contingencies. There was no other way of paying them.


Mr. WILSON.: Prom whom are you trying to collect the money ?


The MINISTER OP MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: From the town. From that it would appear that proceedings were taken at that time, and I think we should be told by whom those proceedings were taken, what was the result, and what is the reason for the delay since last session. I am sure the hon. minister will be able to give us that information.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I have no Information. I have no doubt that what I said at that time was absolutely true, and was said after 1 had made inquiry in the department. I did not expect that this question would be asked tonight, and I am not prepared with the dates: but I have no doubt whatever in my own mind that proceedings have been taken and are going on to recover that money, and we propose to recover it if it is possible to do so. My hon. friend from South Norfolk (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) did not quite apprehend my meaning when he assumed that I proposed to throw the whole responsibility upon Mr. LOY.
the commanding officer. What I said was that I would cause inquiry to be made to see why the officer had not performed the duty assigned to him under the statute. I said nothing about his responsibility, or about his paying the money out of his own pocket, or paying the cost of the suit, or anything of the kind. The statute prescribes a duty for the commanding officer to perform, and I said that I would inquire and ascertain why he had not performed his duty-that is all.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I think the first thing to be done is to ascertain the fact before we proceed to pass judgment on what has occurred. The first tiling to be ascertained is whether or not the commanding officer has performed the duty assigned tet him by the statute. If he has, then it would be a matter of inquiry, I apprehend, to ascertain whether or not he has proceeded diligently or has been remiss in the performance of his duty. If he has not performed the duty assigned to him, then it seems to me that it is properly within the jurisdiction of the committee to inquire why he has not performed his duty. But let us start by knowing whether or not anything has been done. When we ascertain the fact, then we can apportion the blame and determine on the responsibility. I would like to make a statement of the law, as I understand it, with regard to the calling out of troops by the civil power. It is a matter of statutory duty. The government is absolutely without power to interfere, either to call out troops or to prevent them being called out. The very moment peace is disturbed within the limits of a municipality, those who represent the civil power in that municipality have a right under the statute to call on the military authorities for assistance, and it is the duty of the military I authorities to give those who represent the j civil power that measure of assistance which they think necessary. Up to that point the government cannot interfere in any way. When the civil authorities make their demand, they make it upon the senior officer in the district, who in the exercise of his discretion calls upon such number of the militia force as he thinks necessary under the circumstances to give to the civil authorities the measure of aid they require. In that he acts within his discretion. After he has performed his duty, and the services of the troops are no longer required, the question of remuneration comes up for consideration. It is then the duty of the commanding officer to apply to the civil authorities who are responsible for his action in the premises, to liquidate the obligations which he has contracted towards the militia. If there is any default or hesitation on their part, the statute provides that he can apply to the government. The funds are then taken out of the consolidated revenue fund for the purpose of liquidating this obligation to the militia; but that is only a temporary

expedient.* The duty still remains on the commanding officer in his own name to proceed against the municipality-I am reading from tiie statute-'for the recovery of such pay, allowances and cost of transport, and he shall, on receipt thereof, pay over the amount to Her Majesty.' Therefore, hou. gentlemen will see at a glance that the duty in the first instance is>
on the commanding officer. If he fails in his duty, then it is for the government to consider how far they can interfere, using his name, to force him to recover the amount, or to recover the , amount by direct action. The first thing is ' to ascertain whether or not he has performed his duty in the premises. That is a matter of inquiry, and the Minister of Militia will be in a position to inform the committee when his estimates come up tomorrow.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I understand that the question was put in the Senate to-day by the Hon. Senator Landry, whether judicial proceedings had been taken to recover from the town of Valleyfield the amount paid by the Militia Department for calling out" the troops, and what was the amount paid by the department ? To these questions the Hon. Mr. Scott replied that the amount paid was $4,480, and that a suit was pending for that amount.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Then I am out of it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not think that my hon. friend the Minister of Justice will claim that it is now the duty of the government to study the question and find out whether it is possible to get this officer to urge his suit. No doubt this officer is performing a statutory duty under the direction of the government. I do not want to blame that officer, but I want equal rights, and I will put this last question to the Minister of Militia and Defence : Will he give us the assurance that he will not press this claim against the city of Montreal until he has settled the Valley-field business ? That affair is three years old, and if he will make this promise, I shall not criticise any further.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: The only assurance I can give is that the letter of the law will be applied in the case of Montreal as in every other case.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: As in the case of Valley-field ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That may be very satisfactory for Valleyfield and Montreal, but I would like to know where Toronto comes in.
I think that we should have the assurance of the hon. minister that he will send a department cheque to the city of Toronto for the moneys that city contributed to pay for the calling out of the militia. If Valleyfield and Montreal are to go scot free. Toronto should be reimbursed.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I am afraid I have not the power.
_ Mr. KEMP. The hon. Minister of Justice, in the graphic way in which he has explained the mode of procedure, seems to throw the responsibility on the commanding officer. But to my mind the commanding officer is simply a figure head. Who has to supply him with the sinews of war to carry on a lawsuit, if it be not the department ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is not I who am throwing the responsibility on the commanding officer, but it is the statute which puts the responsibility both on the government and on him. The statute puts the responsibility on the government of paying. in case of default by the municipality, and then puts the responsibility on the commanding officer of collecting the money, just as absolutely as it puts upon him the responsibility of calling out the troops when requisitioned to do so by the civil authorities. With regard to legal expenses, there has never been any request made to the government to come to the assistance of the commanding officer under the circumstances. When he seeks to collect the amount due, under the conditions described, the expenses are very trivial, and I have never known a commanding officer to apply to the government for aid, but if he did his request would be favourably considered.


Albert Edward Kemp: It is not in the usual order of things that a lawsuit for $4,000 er $5,000 can be carried on two or three years without involving heavy costs.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This case is not without a precedent. My hon. friends from Quebec will not forget the case that occurred at Pontiac in 1895.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That was under another government.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: In this case it is quite clear that if the commanding officer has not done his duty and does not wish to do it, there must be some means by which we can recover from the municipality the amount we have paid to liquidate an obligation it is under to the militia.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Would it be possible for the commanding officer to issue a writ without the knowledge of the Minister of Justice ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, he would retain his own counsel without any reference to the department.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is there any correspondence respecting the issue of a writ ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I could not possibly answer now. There is a lot of work done in the department without my

personal knowledge. I shall let my hon. friend know everything we have in the department.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Will the hon. minister give us the correspondence regarding the payment of the militia at Valleyfield ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I suppose the same delay will be given Montreal as the town of Valleyfield ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: We will ask Montreal to pay as promptly as Toronto did.
Annual drill and musketry, $520,000.


David Tisdale: What is the number you propose to drill ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Last year the report indicates that the system of what is called skeleton drill was adopted, and the camps were composed very largely of officers, non-commissioned officers and a very few men. This year'it is proposed to send more men, but still to continue the skeleton drill, which the general officer commanding seems to think works very well. The best selected men from the different companies will be taken into camp, about twenty-two men for each company.


Henry Alfred Ward: I wish to ask if any provision will be made this year for increased pay to the men ? The hon. minister knows how difficult it is to procure men under existing conditions. I would be glad to know if. should the Bill he brought down this session, or by any other way, provision will be made for increased pay.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I may say to my hon. friend that even if the BUI should be brought down this session there would be no provision in it with regard to pay. It is not proposed to include in the new Bill a scale of pay as is done in the present law. That would be left to the executive and to parliament to settle from year to year. I hope, however, that a solution of the difficulty may he reached in this way. Beginning at fifty cents for the first year, for every additional year that a man serves, up to say five years, there should be given good conduct additions of five or ten cents, as is done in the North-west Mounted Police. We have not actually adopted that scheme, but it was recommended by the former general officer commanding, and I think the present general is in favour of it. And I must say that it appeals to me as being one of the best ways, perhaps the most effective way, in which we could deal with this question.


David Tisdale: I understand, then, that this is purely an estimate, that it is not based on actual numbers ?


Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.: 


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: No.


David Tisdale: I understand that neither numbers nor rates of pay have been settled. I see the men are ordered out in June


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: The rate of pay will be the same as last year.


David Tisdale: Will the other questions be dealt with in the supplementary estimates ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes.


David Tisdale: And information will then be given and we shall be free to discuss-


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Absolutely.


David Tisdale: But this is not intended to cover that-it will be in the sup-plimentary estimates ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does the hon. minister intend to hold a camp at Niagara this year ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: When I was at home last week, they told me they had received no word about it.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: There is to be a camp.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: In June ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I would urge upon the government, in view of what the hon. minister has said, the necessity of increasing the pay to the young men who go out to the camps. There are a number of very fit young men who should be in the camp at Niagara, but, it would be altogether too much to expect them to go out for .fifty cents a day. The commanding officers tell me that it is almost impossible to get them, that it is asking too much of the young men. when they are so busy with their fruitgrowing and other things-the very best class of young men, well fit for drill and willing to go, but quite unable to leave their duties at that time unless fairly paid. So, if the hon. minister has not determined the rate of pay he is going to give these young men, I would urge him to materially increase it. Considering the way things are going now and the rates of pay men are receivingworking at! other things than learning drill in order to serve their country, these young men should be paid considerably more than is paid now.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: It is as well, perhaps, to say a word or two on that point. There is a great deal in what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lancaster) says. But the hon. gentleman will see that if we undertake to pay a man what you might call adequate, reasonable fair wages, we would at once practically double the militia vote-more than double it. Well, now, I really don't think that is necessary. Much as I would like to increase the pay, I think we have a right to expect now and in the future what we have had in the past- a response to this demand for military service on the part of young men who have a taste for it and are willing and anxious to undertake it if they are only indemnified for actual money loss. I believe that a very large percentage of the young men who turn out do not go for the money. Otherwise, at this moment, it would be very difficult to get men to go into camp no matter what you might do, because they are so busy with their own personal affairs. It would take a very large sum of money to tempt them if it were not for this love of the service, this strong military ardour. I do not think it is largely a question of money at all. I believe that we shall get the men as we have done in the past. Forty years ago when I first joined the militia of my own province, no such thing as pay was talked about, and we had in the province of Nova Scotia as large a militia as we have now in the whole Dominion of Canada. The men turned out without a dollar- turned ' out because they liked it and because they felt it to be a duty. I do not think that we should hold out to the young men of this country the expectation that this parliament is going to vote them any very large sum of money. Rather I would expect them to do, as I said a moment ago, now and in the future, what has been done by our young men hitherto, that is, give their services, provided the government indemnifies them for actual loss of money. I think that we should give them more than we do now. But I do not think there should be a very material increase.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. minister, perhaps, has not understood me. I did not wish to say on behalf of these young men that they want to make money out of their military service. There are two extremes to this matter, and perhaps we are at one extreme to-day. What I mean is that at the present rate of pay they are not indemnified for actual loss, and would not be at three times the amount. What I submit is that there ought to be a better average struck. There is no lack of military ardour, but the fact remains that these young men are simply unahle to pay their debts and give their time to this military service for so small a sum as fifty cents a day. They do not ask to be even fully indemnified, but they do ask to be better indemnified than they are now, and I think they should be.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: That is a fair question.


Henry Alfred Ward: I confess that I am somewhat disappointed by what the hon. minister has said with regard to the paying. I doubt, even if the pay were increased by the small ratio the minister suggests, that it would be satisfactory. I wish to call the mjnistjer's attention to one thing which militates against the regiment which I have the honour to command in securing men. There are two other arms of the service in the county from which my regiment is recruited, the artillery and the cavalry, find each is allowed a dollar a day for a horse. That is, a horse is counted to be worth double what a man is. When these young farmers can get $1.50 a day by taking a horse, they much prefer the arms of the service that offer that opportunity. I think, notwithstanding what the minister says about patriotism and all that sort of thing, that the men who give their services to the country for these twelve days in the year are entitled to a better treatment from the government than they receive. It seems to me that, when only half the number of men of each company are to be taken out, a small advance might be given in the pay of those who are going to serve. I would strongly urge upon the minister to reconsider this matter and, if possible, to consider it in the light of the increase of the facilities the country has for obtaining money. It seems to me that when the revenue is so large, the militia should obtain a little benefit from it. I trust he will give his consideration to the case, and I am sure it would be greatly to the benefit of the militia if he would do so.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the minister tell us /at what time in June the camp will assemble in Niagara ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I think it is the 23rd, but I am not absolutely certain.


David Tisdale: It is the 9th, I believe.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: No, I think it is later than the 9th. There is a camp on the 9th at Dese-ronto.


Mr. THOMPSON (Haldimand).: At Niagara.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Then the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) is right. It has all been published in the newspapers.


David Tisdale: I was discussing it the other day; I feel safe in saying that it is the 9th.


Henry Alfred Ward: There also was to have been a camp in Kingston on the 16th. I would like to ask why that has been changed to the 23rd ? It is a less convenient date, be-

cause the troops are kept in camp on a holiday, the 1st of July, which they would prefer to spend at home. If the camp at Kingston could be arranged for the 16th, the men would arrive home before the 1st of July. I am sure, however, it would be much more satisfactory if the camp were held on the 16th.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: All I can say is that it is a detail, as my hon. friend from South Norfolk (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) will appreciate, which the military branch control and settle, and they do it after corresponding with the district officers commanding in the different districts. I do not interfere in the slightest respect, but since the matter has been mentioned, I will have great pleasure in bringing my hon. friend's observations to the notice of the Adjutant General.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is there going to be a camp v at Laprairie this year ?	.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I believe not.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What is the reason the department has ceased to have a camp at Laprairie ? I think it has been now some time since we have had a camp at Laprairie.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Two years, I think. The reason the camp was not held at Laprairie two years ago was because of an outbreak of small-pox. It became necessary to secure another camping ground, and a very favourable place was found at Three Rivers, and at a reasonable cost. A camp was held there last year, and I believe will be held there this year. The General Officer Commanding was very much pleased with it, and he again selected the place for a camp this year. The hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Monet) has spoken to me with reference to this very matter, and I assured him that very likely next year a general camp would be again held at Laprairie. There is only one camp being held in the whole province of Quebec, at Three Rivers, which is the most convenient place, and the cost of transportation is somewhat less at that point. It is more central than Laprairie. Nevertheless, the Laprairie camp was a very good one. I think it is desirable that these camps should be changed from time to time. The whole militia of the province of Quebec camped at Laprairie three or four years ago, and there is no reason why it should not do so again.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Had the member for Laprairie made these representations before the minister had determined upon Three Rivers for the camp this year ? Is there any correspondence ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: No, I think not. He spoke to me about it only to-day.


Henry Alfred Ward: 


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is it the intention to have the camp at Laprairie next year ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: It is probable. I may explain that these are matters which are settled chiefly by the staff here, the General Officer Commanding and the Adjutant General, witli the officers he has around him, with the assistance of the officers commanding the different districts. I never interfere with recommendations of this kind that are sent to me, because I think these gentlemen know the most about it. Still, I do know that Laprairie is a good ground, and I think it probable that the General Officer Commanding will recommend that a camp be held there, perhaps next year.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: "Small-pox is the reason why the camp was not held there two years ago?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes. There was no reason why we did not go there last year except that we had a good ground at Three Rivers.
Salaries and wages, $95,000.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I want to ask the committee to allow me to divide this item. The money provided here is for the purpose of paying the stores branch of the department, and also for the care of buildings, rifle ranges, &c. It is intended on the 1st of July to place the stores in the military branch under the supervision of the General Officer Commanding. That has been decided upon since the estimates have been made up, therefore, I want to transfer out of this vote $45,000 to the vote for pay and allowances.


David Tisdale: What distinction do you draw ? This covers salaries, wages, superintendents of stores, inspectors of clothing and miscellaneous employees. Are you going to take miscellaneous employees out and leave the stores alone ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: The hon. gentleman knows that we have a chief superintendent of stores at Ottawa, who has a considerable number of officers and clerks under him. He also has a stores branch and a superintendent of stores in every military district in the Dominion. Now it is proposed to create a department of ordnance, with the chief superintendent of stores as a military officer at the head of that department. He will be called the director-general of ordnance, and his department will then become military, and will be paid out of the fund for pay and allowances. I wish to transfer that portion of this vote, and to carry to the officers and men of the stores branch to the pay and allowance vote, so that they can be paid from that vote instead of as in the past.


David Tisdale: It will take all the employees of the stores into the military branch.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Exactly.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is that change provided for in the new Bill ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: It is not necessary to provide for it by statute. The present law is sufficient.


David Tisdale: I forgot to ask the minister whether we will have that Bill down before the supplementaries are taken up, because if we are going to have a general discussion then, we ought to have all the information.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Certainly. I intended to say to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), in reply to an observation he made, that I am prepared, when the general discussion is taken up, to state, and perhaps before that, what we intend to do with reference to introducing the Bill this year. I have given notice of the Bill, but there are some reasons why it has been impossible to go on with it. Now, Mr. Chairman, I move to transfer $45,000 of this vote to number 74. It will be a permanent change. This vote will be reduced to $50,000. It is a matter, perhaps, for the clerk to settle how it shall be done, but surely it would be possible to divide this vote into two parts, and to say ' pay and allowance, $45,000 in addition.


Peter Macdonald: Item 76 would then read as follows :
. That a sum not exceeding $436,405 be granted to His Majesty. &c.
That would be adding the $45,000 to the $391,405 for pay and allowances.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is not the best way to do it.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: No, I do not think so.


David Tisdale: Say in addition to pay and allowances $45,000, and then you would have the $50,000 for other purposes. I notice there is an addition in that vote of $5,000.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes, it is due largely to the additional number of caretakers. We are building armouries, drill halls and new rifle ranges, and the employees in connection with these will be paid out of this vote of $50,000.


David Tisdale: Where are you appointing these new caretakers ?
The MINISTER OF MILITIA) AND DEFENCE. Take military district No. 11, for instance; there is an increase of $631 owing to the appointment of W. L. Davis, as caretaker, at a salary of $540. In district No. 9, which is in Nova Scotia, there is a clerk, Major Black, appointed at a salary of $540.


David Tisdale: What is he required for ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: He does work for the district officer commanding. I may explain in regard to this officer that he was the brigade major when I came in, a very deserving man, but he was stricken with illness and rendered unfit to do that work. He is able, however, to do clerical work. He could not come under the pension law and as he was not very well provided with this world's goods it seemed a public duty that we should make some provision for him. Then, there is a man named F. R. Hiltz, who was employed as caretaker of an armoury at $1 a day, and John Potter who is employed at the armoury in Cumberland county, also receives $1 a day. That makes an increase of $1,277 there. So I might go through the whole list.


David Tisdale: What I want to know is if these men are employed where new armouries have been provided, or are they additions to the staffs in localities which are already supplied ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: No, they are employed at new armouries.


David Tisdale: I mean all through- the balance of the additions.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes, pretty much. There are some cases of increased wages. There are increases! from $1 to $1.25, and from $1.25 to $1.50 a day. .


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to ask the hon. minister if these soldiers who went; out to South Africa and who were in the employ of the government have all been taken back since they returned ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: So far as I know. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) will remember that a return was moved for and that return, I know, has been prepared by every department and will be laid on the Table of the House.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I wish to invite the hon. minister's attention to the case of a man named Herbert Cottee, who writes me from 257 Bolton street. As I understand his communication he was ten years in the service of the government. He went out with the 4th contingent, joined as a private, was promoted to be lance corporal and has not been taken back since his return.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: What department was he in ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: He says :
I have been in the employ of the government for over ten years and was the only one to my knowledge that did not receive his position hack on returning from South Africa. Then, X know others who received full pay when absent

who volunteered when I did. I trust you will do what you can for me.
I remain, respectfully,
(Sgd.) HERBERT GOTTEE.
I really think the case of this man may have been overlooked.
The MINISTER OF MILITIA', AND DEFENCE. I will be very glad to look into it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: He is very deserving, I should judge from his communication, and perhaps, when we continue the discussion of these estimates, the hon. minister will have looked into the case and will see that justice is done to him.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: If my hon. friend will send me the papers, I will give him an answer tomorrow. I may say though, that I think Mr. Cottee is mistaken in saying that in the last contingent in which he was, any officers were paid their salaries. I may be wrong. In the first and second contingents that was done, but latterly I do not think it was done, although I will not be absolutely positive.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: He may be mistaken as to that, but I think in other respects his claim may be worth looking into.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I will look into it.


Peter Macdonald: I think it would be well that we should amend the phraseology of item 76 so as to read that:
A sum not exceeding $95,000 be granted to His Majesty for salaries, wages, pay and allowances.


David Tisdale: That would leave it uncertain. It seems to me that we should divide it into two items.


Peter Macdonald: It could be made to read in this way : ' Salaries and wages $50,000 ; making one item, and then another item saying : ' Pay and allowances $45,000.'


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: That will do.
Item as amended voted.
Military properties, $190,000.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: This is the usual vote. There is $35,000 for maintenance of drill halls, &c., and rentals and renewals of military properties generally ; rent of buildings and rifle ranges, $10,000; fuel for buildings and rifle ranges. $10,000 ; lighting, $12,000 ; water, $1,000; sundry expenses, $2,000. There is a certain amount required annually in the different districts for repairs and it is proposed to divide it in this way : London, $8,000; Toronto, $10,000; Kingston, $8,000; Montreal, $8,000; St. Johns, $5,000; Quebec, $10,000; Fredericton, $8,000; Halifax, $5,000; Winnipeg, $2,000; Victoria, $2,000; Charlottetown, $2,000, and Ottawa, Mr. MONK.
$5,000. For putting up armouries generally, $5,000. There is $20,000 to keep the historic walls of Quebec in some sort of respectable shape. We have been voting this money for the past three years, and they are in a much better condition than they were. There is $8,000 for general repairs for the cartridge factory; repairs to the Wolseley barracks, London, $5,000; repairs to Stanley barracks, $2,000; Toronto cavalry quarters, $1,500; extension of drill hall at Ottawa; Royal Military College, installation of Are protection; Quebec, heating officers' quarters, general repairs to store buildings, painting and general repairs to R.C.R.I. barracks; general repairs at Levis; levelling grounds for Bedford rifle ranges, $5,000; new sidewalks around drill hall, Halifax, $2,000.


Henry Alfred Ward: Last year the same sum of $190,000 was voted for this purpose, but it would appear from the Auditor General's Report that $268,000 was spent. What is the explanation of that. There was.$315,-000 spent for the annual camps out of a vote of $520,000. Would the excess expenditure on one vote come out of the balance left from the other.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: It ought not to. I cannot give the information now, but I will make a'note of it and give the explanation later.


Henry Alfred Ward: I see that there was an under expenditure of about $23,000 for pay and allowances last year.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: That happens almost every year in connection with that vote.


Henry Alfred Ward: There is a statement as to the lapsed amounts in the Auditor General's Report, but that item does not appear amongst them. For annual drill and musketry there was $520,000 voted last year and only $314,000 expended. However, the minister says he will get the explanation.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: That item includes stores and equipment of all kinds and last year we added considerably to the equipment and stores and the balance of the vote was expended in that way.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It does not seem as if any of these repairs at any place have been done by contract. That is very regrettable. The citadel of Quebec seems to have been stormed every day since the celebrated battle of the Plains of Abraham. Twelve thousand dollars of work seems to have been done by the day. _


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I think it would be impossible to do that work by contract. I am so advised.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am afraid the minister has got among very bad people in my own province; it makes me feel doubly sorry to say

so. None of these repairs amounting to over $5,000 seem to have been done by contract. This naturally excites some curiosity. What are the repairs to the citadel to the amount of $20,000 to be done this year ?
The MINISTER! OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE. If the hon. gentleman will look at the Militia report, at page 22, he will find all the details.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think it is sufficient to look at the public accounts of last year to see that a great saving would be effected by giving most of these things out by contract. The plumbers seem to have held an orgy last year, and if we pursued the rule we would have more money for the militia.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: All new plumbing work is given out by tender, and I assure the hon. gentleman that wherever possible we ask for tenders; but for such work as repairing these old walls it is impossible to get tenders, and I think it is in the public interest to pursue the course we have been pursuing in that respect.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to ask the hon. minister if there is any truth in the report which reaches us from time to time to the effect that the government intend to establish a new military depot in the city of Montreal ? I believe that the establishment of such a depot would be productive of much good, and, as the hon. gentleman is aware, deputations have come to Ottawa several times in connection therewith. We have no small-pox there at present. I mention that because I see the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Monet) here, for I believe the camp lias been taken away from there because of small-pox. But we have none in Montreal, and we would be glad to have a military depot there.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I cannot make any positive announcement now; but if the hon. gentleman will carefully scan the supplementary estimates, he may be pleased with what he will see there.


Mr. MONET.: My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier has alluded to the small-pox at Laprairie, as having caused the removal of the camp from there to Three Rivers a few years ago. But I am glad to know that next year we may have the camp at Laprairie again.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That was the explanation of the camp being taken away in the first year, but it did not apply the second year.


Dominique Monet: There was still some smallpox there.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am afraid that my hon. friend seeks an excuse, that is not to be found in disease, except another kind of disease.


Dominique Monet: There were two or three eases there.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The hon. gentleman has assumed too much from what the minister said, in saying that the camp will be brought back to Laprairie next year.


Dominique Monet: I said I hoped it would.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I would like to know whether any provision has been made by the Militia Department or the Public Works Department for completing the work on the Toronto drill shed. I feel it incumbent upon me to bring the matter to the attention of the minister. I have already on several occasions, as the minister is aware, brought it to his attention and also to the attention of the Minister of Public Works. It is after all a serious matter, in which both this government and the previous government are involved, and it should be disposed of in one way or the other. As the minister knows, we have three or four fine corps in Toronto. I believe he has authorized additions to the cavalry corps, and, in view of this fact, it is the duty of his department or the Department of Public Works to take the necessary steps to complete this work. Three or four years ago this matter was brought up formally by the city of Toronto. A resolution was adopted in 1899, setting forth the conditions under which the drill shed site was granted, and calling on the hon. Minister of Militia to proceed witli the erection of the armouries for the cavalry and artillery, as shown by the government plans and as formerly intended. The matter has been discussed recently, as the hon. minister is aware. I believe His Worship the Mayor of Toronto brought the matter to the attention of the government when he was down here a short time ago, and there has been some correspondence published recently in the newspaper press respecting the conditions under which the city of Toronto provided the $150,000 for the site. There were two letters respecting this matter published in the Toronto ' News ' of Saturday, the 9th of May-one from Col. George T. Denison, the other from Col. .T. H. Mead. Col. Denison has been for a life-time connected with the militia. He was formerly commander of the Governor General's bodyguard, and was very active at the time steps were being taken to procure the passage of the money by-law for purchasing the site. Col. Denison is a reputable citizen and a militia officer of very high standing, and I shall take the liberty of reading his letter because I cannot put in stronger language the obligation which I conceive to be binding on the government of completing the work whieh the government pledged itself to perform when the citizens voted $150,000, and purchased the site.
Heydon Villa, Toronto, October 1, 1902.
My dear Howland,-You were asking me about the understanding as to building the cavalry quarters as well as the artillery quarters along

with the armouries. I remember well the circumstances. The plan prepared by the government and shown to the officers commanding corps included accommodations for the infantry. cavalry and artillery. It was all one proposition, one building really and for the whole fores, and we were told and we informed our men and our friends that if we could get the by-law passed and the money voted for the purchase of the land that the building would be built by the government. We all worked for the by-law and voted for it, and have paid our share of the taxes for the land upon that understanding. When the land was got, a portion only of the building was put up-the infantry were provided for and the cavalry and artillery done out of theirs.
I have been enforcing criminal law for twenty-five years, and have sent down hundreds of criminals to the penitentiary or Central prison for fraud and obtaining money under false pretenses, and the moral wrong has often been no worse than the wrong done to the cavalry and artillery, whose taxes have been paid for years to buy land upon the false ^pretense that they would get certain specific rooms and quarters.
Yours very truly,



[Stage Direction]
That is a pretty strong indictment to make against the government of Canada. I happened to he the chief executive officer of the city at the time this bylaw was voted, and I know that had it not been for the active co-operation of the officers and men of the militia in the city of Toronto, the citizens would not have voted the sum of $150,000 to purchase this site. They had the assurance of the Minister of Militia that if the money were voted, the required building would be furnished by the government. The citizens, in good faith, voted the money and purchased the site-a magnificent site in the heart of the city. The militia force of Toronto are cramped for accommodation, as the Minister of Militia well knows. The Department of Public Works and. the Militia Department are in duty bound to keep their part of the bargain. There was an understanding that if the citizens of Toronto would purchase the site, the government would put up a building to accommodate the various branches of the service, and it is only fair that the government should keep faith and provide accommodations for the artillery and cavalry. There is also a letter from Colonel Mead. Colonel Denison was the commanding officer of the cavalry, the Governor General's Body Guard, and Colonel Mead was the officer commanding the Toronto Field Battery. Colonel Mead wrote as follows
Toronto, October 3, 1902. To His Worship the Mayor, Toronto.
Sir,-I have the honour to inform you that I was in command of the Toronto Field Battery of Artillery at the time negotiations were in progress between the government of Canada and the city of Toronto, respecting armouries for the accommodation of the militia force of this city. A plan was prepared by the government, showing accommodation proposed. This comprised a drill shed for the infantry, and a riding school for the mounted corps. In this Mr. CLARKE.
latter building, there was a satisfactory number of rooms for armouries, and squadron rooms for the cavalry, a gun shed and rooms also for the artillery.
I believed the plan submitted formed part of the agreement between the city and the government, and under this belief and as the riding school contained adequate accommodation for my corps, I approved of it. Similar approval having been obtained from the other officers commanding corps, the land was purchased by the city and, as I understood and believed, the government undertook to complete the two necessary buildings to accommodate the mounted corps of the city.
I constantly urged the completion of the arrangement, as ever since the construction of the one building for the infantry, the artillery has suffered greatly from want of adequate accommodation.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Yours very faithfully,
(Sgd.) J. H. MEAD,
Major-Lt.-Col.
I cannot put tbls case any stronger than the gentlemen whose letters I have read, have put it to the public and the government. It is a notorious fact that the militia has not sufficient accommodations for its stores. It is also notorious that two or three years ago the officer commanding the district, Colonel Otter, made application to the city of Toronto for the use of a portion of St. Andrew's market buildings for the storing of certain material. Two years ago Colonel Otter wrote to the chairman of the property committee of the city hall in Toronto, and I shall put this letter on record again, in the hope that it may have some effect on the Ministers of Militia and Public Works. Colonel Otter, commanding district No. 2, wrote as follows :
Stanley Barracks,
Toronto. March 22, 1901.
Sir,-I have the honour to make application on behalf of a portion of the local militia force for the temporary use of the ' Arcade,' St. Andrew's market, for the purpose of storing guns, wagons and harness.
With the present strength of the city corps, it Is impossible to find enough accommodation in the armouries, and pending the provision of such, I am compelled to appeal to the municipal authorities, as no place adapted for the purpose In view can be obtained.
I sincerely trust your committee will see its way to recommending my application to the council, and that a favourable answer may be granted.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
-	W, D. OTTER, Col.,
C'omd'g M. D. No. 2.
The Chairman of the
Property Committee,
City Hall, Toronto.
Tbe committee, upon receipt of this letter, made tbe following report to tbe council : Temporary Use of Arcade in St. Andrew's Market for Storing Guns, &c.
Application has been made to your committee by Col. Otter, commanding M.D. No. 2, on behalf of the local militia force, for the temporary use of the Arcade in St. Andrew's market for the

purpose of storing guns, wagons and harness. In his communication. Col. Otter states that with the present strength of the city corps it is impossible to find enough accommodation in the armouries, and pending the provision of such he is compelled to appeal to the municipal authorities, as no place adapted for the purpose in view can be obtained.
Your committee, after due consideration, beg to recommend that the temporary use of the Arcade in the St. Andrew's Market be granted to the local Militia force for the purpose indicated, the council reserving the right to terminate this arrangement upon giving one month's notice to "Col. Otter, or to such officer as may be authorized to carry out the duties now performed by him.
Two years have elapsed since the council of the city of Toronto provided the additional accommodation necessary for the storage of this military equipment, and nothing has been done, although repeated demands have been made on the government, to provide the requisite accommodation. I telegraphed to-day to the City Clerk of Toronto to ascertain if the military authorities were still using St. Andrew's market for storage, and I have his reply : ' Yes, two rooms in market annex for storage.' This reply was sent by Mr. Littlejohn, City Clerk. Surely we have the right to ask the government to put up the necessary buildings and afford the accommodation required for the Toronto militia on the site which the people of Toronto have furnished out of their own pockets. Surely if one of the parties has lived up to its contract, the other is in duty bound to do so. We are not asking a favour, we are demanding a simple right. We are very proud of our militia. Many of them made considerable sacrifices to keep up their corps, and the government should treat them reasonably and fairly by fulfilling its pledge and keeping faith with men who are doing so much, as these young men are doing, in connection with the militia corps in Toronto to maintain the esprit de corps of the militia force.
X think we have the right to demand-I do it most respectfully, but as firmly as I can- that faith should be kept with the city of Toronto. I myself had something to do with getting that money voted. I had to carry out the work of getting that site expropriated, and I feel a good deal on this matter personally. We have fulfilled our part of the arrangement and provided a site at a cost of $150,000, that our militia forces might be provided with the accommodation necessary to make them reasonably comfortable. I have had sent to me clippings from the ' Globe,' the ' Mail ' and other newspapers, with respect to the accommodation provided at Buffalo, Malone and other places in New York State for the local militia companies, and they certainly put us to the blush. The accommodations in Buffalo armoury for one regiment are greater than the accommodations in the Toronto armoury for three or four. I hope it will not be necessary to bring this matter up any more.
I think we are not asking anything unreasonable when we ask to have this shed completed at once ; and I would appeal-and I do appeal with a good deal of confidence- to the present Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) and the present Minister of Militia and Defence (Hon. Sir Fred- . erick Borden) that this be disposed of, and that accommodation for the cavalry and artillery be provided at the earliest moment.
The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: My hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) says that there is nothing unreasonable in his asking that additional accommodation be given to the people of Toronto


Edward Frederick Clarke: The militia.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: For the militia. There is certainly nothing unreasonable in it. It is the hon. gentleman's duty to do so, and I am bound to say that he has performed that duty very faithfully. But my hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) will not complain, I think, if I tell him that I do think it is not reasonable for him to hold my hon. colleague the Minister of Public Works and myself responsible for the failure of his own friends to fulfill their obligations. Now, I have always looked upon my hon. friend as one of the fairest, straightest men in this House or any other House. But I do think he might have said to this committee, when he is putting ail this on record in ' Hansard,' that the indictment which he read, penned by Colonel Denison, was an indictment against the late administration.


Edward Frederick Clarke: All the worse for the late administration. And all the more creditable to the hon. gentleman, if the late administration was derelict in its duty, that he should perform the work which it failed to perform.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: This is a legacy which has come to us from the late administration. But, notwithstanding the letter that Colonel Denison has written, let me, to some extent, come to the rescue of my hon. friends, and let me tell him that I have diligently searched for one particle of evidence to show that there was any written understanding-and surely the business men of Toronto would not enter into an agreement to purchase $150,000 worth of land upon an agreement with the government without having it in writing-not a particle of writing that I have been able to find, not a single plan, or letter, or statement, or agreement of any kind or description, to show that the government of that day bound itself to do anything in particular with reference to the drill hall of Toronto. There is, apparently, an opinion abroad among the military people there that certain promises were made, but the plan to which my hon. friend has referred,
I have never been able to procure, though I have asked for it. But let me dismiss that



view of the case. I have agreed with my hon. friend on this floor before, and I agree with him now, that there should be increased accommodation given to the garrison of militia in the city of Toronto. Moreover, I do not care what the agreement was with the late government, or whether they kept their agreement or not, it is absolutely a fact, and I admit it, that the city of Toronto to-day requires a very considerable amount of increased accommodation for the militia of that city. I agree with all that my hon. friend has said as to the excellent character of the militia of the city of Toronto. In the time of trouble we would look to that city almost before any other place to respond to the call, if it were necessary to call the militia to arms ; and they would turn out and would do their duty as they have done their duty. Now, let me say a word as to the concrete question. I have made a recommendation to my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works, which he has now before him, and I sincerely hope that we shall be able to make provision for the additional accommodation which is greatly needed, which has been too long needed, in the city of Toronto.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I was very careful to say, in speaking of this matter that it was the government of Canada that was responsible. I did not attempt to throw the responsibility upon the hon. gentleman (Hon. Sir Frederick Borden) or his colleagues. Since I have had the honour of a seat in this House I have not hesitated to draw attention to the laches of somebody in connection with this matter. The fact that the site was selected and approved of by the Department of Militia and the fact that only half of that site is occupied with a building, is evidence that the intention was to erect a further building to afford the necessary accommodation for the various branches of the service. The land that was expropriated was exceedingly expensive land. The city of Toronto would not expropriate a site double the extent of the present building if the citizens had not what they deemed to be a reasonably satisfactory assurance from the militia authorities that that land would be required and the necessary buildings erected. The construction of the present building was not completed until about the time when the late government left office. The same representations would have been made to them that are being made to hon. gentlemen opposite, had they remained in office. I do not know whether those representations would have been more successful, but certainly we could not have been much worse off than we are at the present time. The late government, whatever its faults, certainly carried out part of its contract with the city, for it erected the present splendid shed, and representations were being made to the iate government to complete that work. Governments, apparently, are very slow to move in matters


Frederick William Borden: of this kind. I do not desire, Mr. Chairman, in bringing this matter up, either to remove responsibility from the late government in the first place or to throw any undeserved responsibility on the present government. But the Minister of Militia admits the fact that there is nothing like sufficient accommodation for the militia of the city of Toronto. The hon. gentleman, in his administration of the department, has increased the cava b y corps. There is, therefore, greater need for additional accommodation. I think I am justified in calling attention to this matter. And, if the hon. minister thinks that he will be relieved in any way by throwing the responsibility on his predecessors for not completing the building in one or two years, I am not at all concerned about that; I am satisfied that he should do that, provided he will do what I think he admits is reasonably and fairly his duty in the premises by insisting that the building intended to be put upon the site shall be completed and that our various regiments shall have the-space and accommodation they ask for and absolutely require.


Dominique Monet: I did not understand the Minister of Militia as answering the question put by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) about the establishment of new divisions of the permanent coips. The rumour is that there are to be three. I would be glad if the hon. minister would tell us whether that is true, and where these new companies are to be situated.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: It is rather anticipating matters, but I may say that there will be a small addition to the permanent force. Just where the additions will be located lam not in a position to say because it has not been finally settled, and I do not think it would be proper to speak on the subject.


Mr. GALLERY.: I would like to ask the Minister of Militia and Defence on what grounds the department charged the city of Montreal for calling out the militia ? This matter has been discussed in the city council of Montreal, and as I am also a member of the city council, I would like to get that information.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: My hon. friend, I suppose, did not hear the discussion that has taken place this evening. It was pointed out that under the Statute the government had no direct responsibility in the matter at all. The Minister of Justice pointed out with great clearness that if a riot is threatened the mayor of the city may call upon the commanding officer of the militia in that district to turn out the militia to assist the civil authority. The law further provides that the municipality shall pay the militia, and that in the event of its not doing so, the government may take the money out of the consolidated revenue to pay the troops, and the commanding officer who called out the
3G21

troops shall immediately proceed to collect the money from the corporation.


Daniel Gallery: But I want to point out to the minister that the property which was threatened belongs to the government, the city of Montreal cannot collect five cents in taxes upon it, and has nothing to do with it. We wanted to tax some sheds there recently, and took the case down to Quebec, and it was decided against the city. Why should not the government protect their own property now the same as in years gone by ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Perhaps my hon. friend from Montreal, St. Anne, (Mr. Gallery) was not here when we had an assurance from the government that the city of Montreal would not be called upon to pay. I understood the Minister of Militia to say clearly that he would only call upon the city of Montreal to pay after Valleyfield had settled. My hon. friend knows, therefore, there is no danger of Montreal being called upon.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: As a matter of fact, I said nothing of the kind. I want to say this, however, to my hon. friend, that it does not matter to whom the property belongs when a riot is threatened, whether it belongs to the Dominion government, or the provincial government, or the city. The corporation of Montreal is bound to see that order is maintained within its borders, and the law provides how that may be done and at whose expense.


Henry Alfred Ward: Before we leave this item, I desire to call the attention of the minister to a peculiar item that I And in the Auditor General's Report, page Q-44. It is an item in connection with the expenditures on military properties, and is very peculiar. I find some gentlemen named Cote Freres did some work repairing walls, and they received 8370.98 for supervision. You would imagine that having received that much they would have sharpened their own tools. But I find here an item for sharpening and repairing 728 dozen of tools at fifteen cents a piece. That is 8,720 tools at fifteen cents a piece, $130. It seems to me out of all proportion for the work done, and I hope the minister will make an inquiry and find out what these tools were.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I give it up, but I will make an inquiry.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of the Minister of Militia and Defence, House adjourned at 12 o'clock, a.m., Wednesday.


HOUSE 0E COMMONS.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 28, 1903.