1903-05-29

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 185) respecting the Canadian Steel Company.-Mr. Fraser.
Bill fNo. 186) to amend the Inland Revenue Act.-The Minister of Inland Revenue.
Bill (No. 187) to amend the Electric Light Inspection Act.-The Minister of Inland1 Revenue.
Bill (No. 1S8) to amend the Weights and Measures Act.-The Minister of Inland Revenue.

The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved :: That from this date to the end of the session government Orders have precedence on Mondays after Private Bills and Questions to be put by members.


Mr. E. D. SMITH (Wentworth).: I would remind the right hon. gentleman that last Monday he promised that an opportunity would be given to bring up the Fruit Marks Act.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I have not forgotten that promise, and should this motion carry I shall ask the House on Monday to take up the two Bills relating to this subject.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: This motion takes away our right to make any private motions whatever, such as motions for returns. Is that necessary ? For instance yesterday a question was put by my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Roche) asking how many members or ex-members of the House of Commons have been appointed to offices of emolument under the Crown since the 13th July, 1896, and also how many members or ex-members of the Senate, and he was directed to move for a return. But should this motion carry, it will be impossible for him to do so. There seems to be a remarkable discrimination made between questions put on this side of the House and

those put on the other side. I called attention to this early in the session, and was told by the hon. Minister of Customs that no such discrimination was intended. But let me point to two instances of such discrimination during the session. in the 'Hansard' of March 20th, the hon. gentleman will find a long return given by the Minister of Customs in answer to a question put by the hon. member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes)-a return which takes up the greater part of the page. 1 called attention to this and was assured by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Customs that no discrimination was intended. No doubt the question was asked by the hon. member for West Huron, at the request of the hon. Minister of Customs, and with this I am not finding fault, but what I do object to is that we should find in ' Hansard ' an answer to such a question and that hon. gentlemen on this side should hare to move for returns which would not be any more voluminous than the one given in the answer to which I have referred. Another extreme instance is to be found on the 30th of April in ' Hansard.' A certain question was put by the hon. the member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott), at the request, no doubt, of the hon. Postmaster General, and nearly two columns of ' Hansard ' are taken up, without the slightest demur, giving long statistics with regard to three different subjects. Yet when my hon. friend from Marquette asks a question, the answer to which would not take up nearly as much space, my right hon. friend tells him to move for a return. I do not want to unduly complain, but I think that my right hon. friend should make an effort to have the one rule applied to both sides, and I am sure that if that were done, we would not find the condition of affairs to which I have just drawn attention. My right lion, friend must admit that the answer to the question of my hon. friend for Marquette could not possibly involve anything like the lengthy details given in answer to the question of the hon. member for West Assiniboia, but even if it should take a half a column or two columns of ' Hansard, what difference is there ? The minister of the Crown has to bring down the information, and the only difference between bringing it down in reply to a question and bringing it down in reply to a motion, is that in the one case he reads it, and in the other he lays it on the Table. It does not seem to me that so many cases should arise in which so many gentlemen on this side are asked to-obtain information by way of motion. A very inconsiderable portion of some of the business of the House at least has been concluded up to the present, and it is quite possible that we may require information which will be obtainable only by an address or Order of the House, and it seems to me that the right hon. gentleman ought to reserve some opportunity at least to hon. gentlemen on this side for obtaining information which they can only obtain by way of motion. I do not think therefore that my right hon. friend should press the motion in its present form.
The PItIME MINISTER. I must say to my hon. friend that if there lias been any discrimination, I was not aware of it. I would be the last man to try to take an ad-advantage over the other side. It may be, however, that sometimes an answer may more readily give the information than a return in reply to a motion, but there are other eases in which the form of a motion may be more suitable. For instance, with regard to the question of the hon. member for Marquette, I have no objection to give the information desired, but I wish to introduce an amendment and bring down some further information so as to avoid discrimination. Perhaps as the question will involve discrimination, a motion to which I would add an amendment would put all parties on an equality.


Robert Laird Borden: That can be accomplished by having a question put on that side.


The PRIME MINISTER.: It would be as well accomplished by having my hon. friend from Marquette move a motion and then moving an amendment to that motion, so that the motion and the amendment would go together. We have come to the time of the session when such a motion is usually moved, and I am only following ihe usual practice. When we have reached a certain period of the session the government takes possession of all the days in order to facilitate, or rather to accelerate, the business of the House. This year, I think, there ought to be no objection at all by my hon. friend to this motion, for, I have only to recall to his mind that, at least of 'ate, on days reserved for private members business, the paper has been gone over, we have been able to finish all the business standing in the nature of private members that was ready to be dealt with and to reach the business of the government. I have no objection that on Mondays, even though this motion is carried, the motions which are not debatable should be called and passed without any objection. Also, we can take up the Bill of my hon. friend from Wentworth (Mr. Smith) and the Bill of my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson). I think that ought to satisfy my hon. friend.


Mr. ARCH. CAMPBELL (West York).: I would call the attention of the right hon. the First Minister (Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to the fact that I also have a Bill before the House, a very important measure, Bill (No. 20). This has been kept back largely at the request of the government, that they might have an opportunity to consider it. If all the Mondays are now taken by the government, there will be no opportunity to consider this Bill. The Bill has been referred to a special committee. I would

ask the Prime Minister if lie would not allow that also to be taken up.


The PRIME MINISTER.: It is not on the Order Paper. It will be called later on when the committee reports.
Hon. JOHN HAGGAItT (South Lanark). I would draw the attention of the right hon. Prime Minister to the fact that, no matter what the period of the session, this motion was seldom made until the main estimates were all passed. At present the estimates of a good many of the departments have not been even touched. Information may be wanted by members of the opposition to enable them intelligently to prepare for the discussion of the estimates. For instance, three or four points concerning which I have notices on the paper came up in the debate yesterday. I was without accurate information on the subject and could only speak on the facts that I gathered, outside. Opportunity should be left the private members of the House to move motions to get the information necessary for the discussion of the estimates.


The PRIME MINISTER.: With the permission of the House, I would say that I do not agree with the statements of my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart) that this motion is generally made only after the main estimates have gone through. It is not only proper, but it is the invariable rule, that all information necessary to the discussion of the estimates should be given, even if not moved for. If it is not furnished, the opposition have a very easy way of enforcing it, and I do not know but that they have availed themselves of that power on occasion even during the present session. With reference to motions of which notice has been given, they will be called up by consent. But even if the motions referred to by my hon. friend are not called up, the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) lias promised that the information shall be brought down before his estimates are completed. There will be no trouble on that score. The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) shall have the information which lie requires.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: Well, we ask for information when the estimates are under discussion and yet it is almost impossible to get it. The minister may promise it, but he may forget, or for some other reason it is not furnished anyway. There is nothing left for us of the opposition but to do as the right hon. gentleman (Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) suggests, and declare that the item shall not pass until the information has been given.


Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: I would suggest one thing, if Monday is the only day we are to have. I notice that when these unopposed motions are called, some member of the government is apt to call * stand,' for some reason best known to the
government themselves. The effect is to prevent the putting of the motion. They could do so with a motion of any kind, and so no opportunity would be afforded to the member who has given notice of a motion to have it passed by the House.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I will tell my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) why the government call ' stand.' W'hen a motion is called and the member in whose name it appears is not present, if nothing were said, the order would be dropped Many debatable questions have been called up in this way. and the hon. member who has given notice not being present, I have called ' stand ' so that the notice might remain on the Order Paper. But on Monday all the motions will be called and those which are not debatable can be passed. For instance, the motion of my hon. friend from Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) which stands on the Order Paper is a debatable question and would not be called. But all motions moved for the production of papers will be allowed without any objection.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. E. F. CLARKE (West Toronto).: With the unanimous consent of the House, I would move for :

The interim report of the commissioners appointed to investigate the accident on the Intercolonial Railway near Windsor Junction at 23 o'clock. April 11, 1903.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: Mr. Speaker, i beg to lay on the Table the interim report of the commissioners to investigate the accident on the Intercolonial Railway near Windsor Junction.



INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY TRAFFIC RATES.

Mr. A. C. BELL (Pictou).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to ask a question of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals; (Hon. Mr. Blair). In the course of his remarks, as will be found at
page 3654 of ' Hansard.' he referred to-
-a careful study made and a careful statement furnished to me by the traffic officers of the Intercolonial Railway as to 'the general traffic of tolls and freight charges which govern on the Intercolonial Railway and those which govern on the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway.
Might I ask if that paper can be laid on the Table of the House. It would furnish valuable information in connection with the discussion that may arise as to the rates on the Intercolonial Railway. I presume the hon. minister has no objection to lay that report on the Table.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND
CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair). I shall be very


Archibald Campbell: glad to consider the matter and let my hon. friend (Mr. Bell) know. I would say to him that I should be very glad to show the report to him if he wishes to see it, but I am not quite clear at the moment that it would be desirable to lay on the Table a memorandum prepared for my own information. I will consider that point.


Adam Carr Bell: I should have supposed that the minister, having read from the document and used in accordance with his speech, the document becomes the property of the House.
TREAD GOLD* CONCESSION COMMISSION.


Robert Laird Borden: Before the Orders of the Day are called I would ask the Prime Minister whether or not the terms of the commission inquiring into the Tread-gold concession have been settled, and whether the commissioners have been appointed ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: The terms of the commission have been settled, Mr. Speaker, and I have reason to .believe that we shall be able to lay the document on the Table on Monday- not later than Tuesday.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the right hon. gentleman propose to permit the House to have an opportunity of discussing the terms before they are settled ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: No ; I will bring down the Order in Council.



JAPANESE IMMIGRATION.

Mr. ALLEY MORRISON (New Westminster).: I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he has been informed of the influx of a large number of Japanese into the province of British Columbia within the last fifteen days, and if so. whether the Japanese Consul at Montreal has been communicated with, with respect to the arrival of these Japanese.


The PRIME MINISTER (Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I have not received any communication upon this subject. This is the first intimation I have had of it.



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, subsection 1,
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: I stated to the committee the other evening that I would consider the suggestions which had been made to include the express companies within the scope of this Act and to place them under the jurisdiction of the railway 117
commission. I have given that subject consideration. and I am not able to see that it will be of any advantage to the Act; on the contrary, I think it would impair its value if we were to make the change which is proposed. I am of opinion that it would be necessary, in order to cover the ground fully and to make the legislation effective, to bring in a separate Bill.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Does the minister consider that the Bill gives any control at all over the rates charged by express companies ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The Bill gives absolute control over the rates wfiicli are charged in respect of all merchandise carried over railways, where railway carriage is concerned. There can be no question about that.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Do I understand that the commission will have control over the whole route covered by express companies in carrying merchandise that is carried on a railway, or only over that portion of a route over which the railroad charges express companies for hauling their goods ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: All charges which are incidental to the carriage of goods over a railway and which would be made in respect of railway carriage, are subject to the control of this tribunal. What is not subject to their control, and what I think cannot be properly made subject to their control, unless we have a separate Act, are the charges which the express companies would make beyond the railway charges. I stated that the other day. I do not think such charges would come within the jurisdiction of the railway commission under this Act.


Robert Laird Borden: Would not the result be that wherever the express charge includes anything beyond or in addition to the charge of carriage on the railways, it will not come under the control of this commission ? Because I do not see how you can divide it up. Suppose you have an express charge covering transmission by a certain railway and covering further a certain distance by coach or by boat, there will be only one charge for the entire distance made by the express company. How can you determine what is the proportion of railway charge and what is the proportion of coach charge ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not think that could be very well worked out so as to exercise control over a portion of the charge with respect to another carriage. To do that I think would require a special Act which, to be comprehensive, would have to take control of the rates and charges of express companies in respect to any portion of the route over which it carries goods. I am not dis-



posed to do that in this Bill, I cannot do it comprehensively in this Bill without encumbering the Bill. At another session perhaps the subject can be taken up.
Mr. BOItDEX (Halifax). The hon. gentleman suggests that this additional legislation called for is impracticable. But was there not some such legislation introduced by way of amendment to the Railway Act in 1900, on account of a difficulty which had arisen between the Yarmouth Steamship Company and the Dominion Atlantic Railway Company ? It seems to me that what the hon. gentleman has just stated was attempted by legislation of that kind ; whether it was actually carried out, I do not know.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not think so, I think that dealt exclusively with the rates charged in respect of what was railroad rates in the ordinary sense on goods carried from one point to another, a part of the distance being covered by water carriage. The steamship company had received freight to be taken to some point on the Dominion Atlantic Railway and to be carried by that railway. Then parliament gave to the Railway Committee of the Privy Council power to control that rate, and provided that there should be a declared rate in respect both of water carriage and rail carriage. But there the railway company was the contracting party, or the party who engaged to receive and carry this freight. Now an express company is not in the same position. An express company contracts with its patron to receive a package of goods, not to carry it all the way by rail necessarily, but to carry it to a certain point, and the company is the party which undertakes the carriage. The company may take a portion of it by steamer, it may take a portion of it by carriage over an ordinary highway, and it may take a portion of it by railway. When it gets upon the railway, then, the charges which are made in respect to the carriage of that merchandise will be subject, as I clearly understand this Bill, to the control of the railway commission, because, the railway cannot by any arrangement or understanding that it may have with an agent, or with some other company, or outside party, permit, or secure to itself, any higher rates to be imposed on such carriage than the law through this commission shall declare.


Robert Laird Borden: I recollect the case now to which I referred a few moments ago. The difficulty there was in respect to a railway company which also had a line of steamers which connected with Boston. The Yarmouth Steamship Company was a rival company. The allegation was that the railway company had imposed altogether too high a charge for railway carriage on freight routed to Boston by the Yarmouth Steamship Line and in that way had subjected Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
the Yarmouth Steamship Company to an unjust discrimination. The hon. minister's position, I understand, to be this : The express company is a separate corporation undertaking business by any means within its power, and that business can be accomplished partly by railway, partly by carriage over highway and partly by boat, and therefore it does not come within the scope of this Bill to control the rates beyond those which shall be charged by the railway. Well, that brings us back to the position that practically where the express charge covers conveyance beyond the railway we have no control at all. It does bring us back to that conclusion does it not ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not disputing the hon. gentleman's position; I am just endeavouring to find out where we are.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think the hon. gentleman is right.


Robert Laird Borden: Then it is a question of policy whether we should undertake to do more and the hon. gentleman thinks we should not.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS ANP CANALS.: Not in this Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: When the hon. gentleman says: 'not in this Bill' does he intend to convey any meaning beyond that, that he has in mind the preparation of any other legislation which would control matters of this kind ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not hesitate to say that if any difficulty arises in respect to the control and regulation of the tolls or rates of express companies I would not be unwilling to examine into the subject and see whether legislation might not be proposed in another Bill. I would be disposed in my own mind to favour legislation which would give to the public protection against excessive rates being charged by express companies. That is a fair matter for consideration.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr. Chairman, I understand the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals to say that express matter carried over a railway would be under the control of this commission as far as the rates go ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: As to the railway carriage.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I presume this Bill is modelled largely upon the legislation in the United States under which the American Railway Commission proceeds ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I notice in some decisions on that question given by the Inter-

State Commerce Commission that tins rule is laid down :
Express business, conducted as a branch of the business of the railroad company, held to be subject to the Act.
Express business, conducted by an independent organization, acquiring transportation rights by contract, held not to be described in the Act with sufficient precision to warrant the commission to taking jurisdiction thereof.
They hold that it would be required to be expressed in the Act in such a way as to bring it under the control of the railway commission.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The whole principle of the Acts which provide for the appointment and jurisdiction of a railway commission in the United States and the whole scope and basis of those acts are entirely different from this Bill. I think there is no similarity at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think they are different so far as they are entitled to exercise control over express companies, charges where carried on a railway whether, carried by an independent express company or carried by an express company which is part of the railway company.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: You will find there legislation giving control of charges to the commission as respects merchandise handled by a common carrier. That is not the principle of this Bill.


Mr. LANCASTER.: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be a little clearer in regard to a matter that was under discussion when the committee rose the last evening upon which this Bill was under consideration. When the committee was sitting on that evening upon this clause, the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals was kind enough to tell me that if I read clause five of this Bill I would find that it did apply to express companies in regard to a ease that I put to the hon. minister; that is a case where goods are shipped by express over a railway that is not within the jurisdiction of this Bill and not within the scope of section three which is before the committee now. T gave the example of an electric railway which runs through the county of Lincoln, entirely a provincial railway, which does not cross any other railway, which does not come within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada and I pointed out to the hon. minister that these goods shipped by the railway I am speaking of from Beams-ville to Ottawa or, say fruit shipped from Beamsville to Ottawa or Montreal, changed hands at Hamilton, were taken from a railway not within the .scope of this Bill and given over to the Canadian Pacific Railway which is a railway coming within the scope of this Bill. The hon. minister told me that if I read section five carefully again I would find that it covered that question, that sec-117*
tion five showed that goods that won Id be carried by express over these two railways, one not within the scope of this Bill, and one within the scope of this Bill, being handed over from the former to the latter in the middle of the journey, would be covered by this Bill. I want to understand this legislation before I vote for or against it. I may be lacking in ordinary intelligence. The hon. minister seems to think that I should read the Bill over three or four times more before I understand it. I would ask the hon. minister to explain how section five meets a case of that kind. Section five reads as follows :-
All the provisions of this Act relating Ao any subiect or matter within the legislative mithor-ity of the parliament of Canada, and for greater certainty but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing terms, all provisions relating to railway crossings and junctions, highway crossings, through traffic, offences, penalties and statistics, shall apply to all persons, companies and railways, whether otherwise within the legislative authority of parliament or not.
It seems to me that no words in that section can possibly apply to express companies unless they are the words ' through traffic.' I do not think that the hon. minister will say that the words ' railway crossings and junctions, highway crossings, offences, penalties and statistics,' will bring any express company within the operation of this Bill in the way in which it was said this Bill would apply. I would now ask the hon. minister whether he means that the words * through traffic ' do cover express companies in cases of that kind, because, if they do, I suppose it follows that the Bill would cover express companies generally, and there seems to me to be a great deal of misunderstanding and a great deal of misconception between the hon. minister and hon. members of this House as to how far these express companies come within the operation of this section. I think it would be well if the hon. minister would point out how section five covers the carriage of express goods by a railway which does not come within the scope of this Bill and which are handed over to a railway which does come within the scope of this Bill. That cannot be covered by this Act at all. The minister said that if I read section five I would find that it covered this exact case, but it can only cover it if it is included in the words ' through traffic.' Will the minister tell us in plain language if the words ' through traffic ' include express business on railways such as I speak of.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman referred to merchandise which started on one railway and was taken up by another and carried to its destinatiton. That ds through-traffic, and that is provided for by section 5. It is perfectly clear from that section that when a railway company is constituted by the

legislature of a province it does not become subject to the legislative jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada ; whether this is so or not, if that traffic was through-traffic in the way he described it, it would become subject to this Act.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Shipped by express.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not care whether shipped by express or not, so long as it is carried over the two railways as through-traffic. I can understand that a doubt might arise if a person in Sarnia were shipping to Ottawa and he sent his goods to Toronto, took them off1 the train, and some one took hold of themiand reshipped them to Ottawa, thus making two distinct shipments. A doubt would probably arise there as to whether the first railway, not being subject to the jurisdiction of this parliament, would be under the control of this commission. But if there is a through shipping over two different railways, and if there is a rate arranged for at first to carry the goods to their destination, then they would become ' through-traffic,' and as such, whether express or not, they would be subject to the provisions of this Act, in my opinion.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: It is not clear yet to a great many of us whether this commission will have power over the rates charged by express companies. As I understand it, the Act will only protect express companies as against the railway companies. The only control this commission would have over rates would be on the railways, and that is but a small part, scarcely half the charge made by the express companies. The express companies make charges for teaming in cities and towns, for the time of their messengers on the train, and for other services, which make up more than half the charges of the express companies, and, so far as I can see, the control which this commission would have over the rates charged by express companies would be of no use whatever to the shipper. Has the minister taken fully into consideration the points mentioned the other night by the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Kemp), who stated that Mr. Staunton, an eminent lawyer who considered this matter carefully, had declared that by the insertion of a very few words the express companies could be brought fully within the scope of this Act ? Why should not the minister put a private individual in the same position as an express company, and have it declared in this law that a private individual can ship his goods upon a railway upon the same terms as an express company can ? If that were embodied in the law, it would meet the complaint of shippers of express goods, and of the fruit-growers in particular, who ship the greater part of their products by express, and who are very much concerned about this mattei1. When the fruit-growers interviewed the minister last


Hon. Mr. BLAIR.: winter they never dreamed for an instant that express companies would not be brought under this Act. I can assure the minister that they have always taken it for granted that the express companies would come under the operations of the Act.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not know what these gentlemen may have taken for granted, but I think they will find that this Bill will afford them a great deal of relief if they have any grievances of which they can justly complain. At all events, it makes it possible for an independent body to investigate and determine as to whether or not the charges that are made in respect to the railway carriage of these goods are reasonable charges, and if they are not they can reduce them. I read from ' Hansard ' the question put to me the other night by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster). He asked :
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 Beamsviile 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 ?
That is a question of through-freight beyond any doubt, and I answered the hon. gentleman accordingly. I told him that the law provides for that case just as fully as it provides for any case in which business is being done by express companies, and the fact that the initial road was not under the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada did not prevent it being brought under the provisions of this Bill as a carrier of through-traffic by the fifth clause, which says :
5. All the provisions of this Act relating to any subject or matter within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada, and for greater certainty hut not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing terms, all provisions relating to railway crossings and junctions, highway crossings, through-traffic, offences, penalties and statistics, shall apply to all persons. companies and railways, whether otherwise within the legislative authority of parliament or not. 51 V., c. 29, s. 4, Am.


John Graham Haggart: As I understand the minister, all freight carried by express companies on railways Is under the jurisdiction of the cojnmission, As my hon. friend (Mr. Lancaster) has pointed out, that is of benefit solely to express companies and is of no benefit at all to the private shipper. The charges made to the express companies by the railway can be regulated by the commission. But here is an express company which perhaps receives its Incorporation from the provincial legislature and over which the Dominion government has no control whatever. It makes a contract with an individual to carry goods by express over the railroad at a greater charge than the commission allows the railway company to

make. I do not see how under this Bill we could exercise any control over the express company in a case of that kind. I do not say that it ought to be so ; but the Bill affords no remedy at all to a shipper by an express company, and I do not know whether you could in an Act like this make regulations that would do so. Take the case of freight initiated on a road of a purely provincial character like an electric tramway between St. Catharines and Toronto. This Bill provides that the Dominion parliament shall give the commission power to regulate freight charges ; but in a case of that kind, I do not think such a clause is worth the paper it is written on. What right has the parliament of Canada to take control over a company which receives its entity and corporate power from the local legislature, and say that it shall only charge so much for the carriage of goods ? It has no control or jurisdiction whatever over it. I am perhaps with the minister to this extent, that it is rather a difficult job to embody in a Bill like this provisions giving the commission power to regulate express rates, for a good many reasons. Most of the business done by express companies is done under special contracts and at prices which could not possibly be regulated by a commission. For instance, the express companies carry money for banks from the different agencies to the headquarters or to central points, and they make special arrangements 'with the banks under which they receive for the carriage of that money perhaps ten or twenty times the ordinary rate of freight. That is a perfectly legitimate transaction. The express companies are entitled to a large remuneration for the risk they run. Why should we prevent them making such an arrangement, and attempt to provide in a purely railway Bill, that they shall receive no more than is charged for carrying ordinary freight ? I can see the difficulty of the minister in making these provisions apply to express companies. But he could make them apply very easily by adopting the suggestion of the hon. member for Lincoln, which would remedy the whole grievance ; that is, to provide that a railway which carries freight for an express company shall carry the goods of an individual on the same terms and at the same rates.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not think my hon. friend would support a motion of that kind.


John Graham Haggart: I do not say that I would.


Hon. Mr. TISDALE.: There is another important consideration in support of the argument of the minister and the hon. member for South Lanark. People are not bound to go to the express companies at all. We must not forget that this Is a general Bill for a specific purpose, and a very broad purpose ; it is a Bill for railways alone. We
have other general Acts of various kinds ; and if you want to regulate express companies, you can only deal with them intelligently and effectively by means of a general law with respect to express companies, which are different creatures from railways. I think that is logical. We should be very careful, in passing a general Act of any kind, not to incorporate in it things which have no relation to its object. It would he unfortunate, I think, in the interests of the shipper if express companies could not operate in such a way as the lion., member for South Lanark mentions. I do not know what banks or others similarly situated would do. We are prepared to pay extra rates if we want our goods rushed from one point to another by an express company. We often pay for quick expedition in the carriage of goods, and we are willing to pay. If we are going to regulate express companies, my idea is that we should do so by a general Bill dealing with express companies.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I agree that we are quite willing to pay a higher rate for an extra rate of speed, but the express companies do not give it to us. It is the railway companies that give us the speed, because they carry the goods. I would like to ask if there is any provision in this Bill which entitles shippers to demand from the railways the same rate of speed and the same charge for the carriage of their goods which the railways give to the express companies. If so, that will solve the difficulty. In many cases the shipper could dispense with the extra services for which the express company charges the shipper. For instance, he could transfer his goods to and from the railway in his own wagon, and he could dispense with a messenger accompanying the goods on the railway. I would ask the minister if there is anything in the Bill to enable shippers to get the same treatment from the railways as the express companies.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My hon. friend will hardly expect freight to be carried in the same" way as a parcel of goods is carried by express. Freight and passengers are not carried together, but an express car is attached to a passenger train, and in that way goods are carried at an express rate of speed. There is no provision in the Bill which I think would compel a railway company to carry ordinary express freight, as it is* called, at the same rate of speed as carriages containing express goods are conveyed in passenger trains. There is no provision in the law especially authorizing them and I do not know that there is any provision in this Bill which by implication would authorize it. As at present advised I would not favour the introduction of any such clause. By this Bill we confer upon the commission power to determine what is just, fair and reasonable, and we impose penalties of a serious character on a railway company or its officials or anybody connected with it who

would disregard the orders and regulations of the commission, but we cannot undertake to ramify through all the channels of railway operation and discrimination and provide some superabundant power which will meet every possible contingency that may occur to anybody's mind.


David Tisdale: There is another point. The express companies are responsible and not the railway companies. They have to pay an allowance to each railway company. We give them their charters, believing that they serve a useful purpose, and you need not go to an express company unless you please. They are separate corporations, with special powers and are responsible. I am not satisfied that a railway company can undertake this class of business. They may often refuse it. I remember an instance of a railway company wanting to prevent an express company operating on its line, and it was only under a clause of the Railway Act that the company was compelled to do so. The railway company said :	' We will not take that
business at all,' but they found they had to. If the express companies were taking advantage of the public, that would be another question, but the more I consider the point raised, the more I think that it would be an unfortunate experiment to deal with it in this general Bill.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: With regard to the statement that railways cannot do this business, the railways in England are doing it. They carry goods at a rapid rate of speed, and if they do not get their cars in on time, they have to pay a fine. Suppose a shipper had a carload of fruit to ship to Winnipeg. He does not want any messenger to go along with it, but is willing to take the responsibility liimsell'. It goes the same way as ordinary freight, except that it goes in a swifter train. If there is no other way of controlling the express companies, why should not the* shipper, if he signs a contract to take the responsibility, have the same rates as the express company ?
The MINISTER Ob' RAILWAYS AND CANALS. I do not think that the passenger trains on English railways carry express goods. They run special fast trains for what they call express freights, but these trains do not run as fast as our express trains. The conditions are quite different.
Amendment (Mr. Maclean) negatived.


Mr. BARKER.: I have asked on one or two occasions on what grounds government railways are excluded from the jurisdiction of this proposed commission, and have not yet been able to obtain an answer. Up to the present moment the only reply I have been able to obtain from the hon. gentleman is that he does not wish it. He has given no reason for his wishes. I wish to point out the relative importance of the govern-


Andrew George Blair: ment railway mileage. Take the hon. gentleman's report, I find that the total num-be* of miles of steam railway in the Dominion is 18,868, and electric railways, 558 miles, making a total of 19,426. The hon. gentleman said the other day that 95 per cent of tlie railways would come under this commission. He may have meant 95 per cent of the companies.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I gave the off-hand opinion that 95 per cent of the provincial roads, incorporated under provincial Acts, and which ordinarily would not come under our jurisdiction, had come under it by virtue of the legislation of this parliament from time to time.


Samuel Barker: I am not holding the hon. gentleman down to 95 per cent. But in a general way he spoke of bringing 95 per cent under this Bill. As I understand, the Canadian Pacific Railway will not come under it, so far as tlie mileage of its main line between North Bay and Vancouver is concerned.


John Graham Haggart: From Callander to Vancouver.


Samuel Barker: After looking at the time table, I find that the mileage west of North Bay to Vancouver is about 2,542, and that the government railway mileage is 1,552, making a total of 4,094 miles excluded from the jurisdiction of the commission. That would mean that instead of only 5 per cent being excluded, there would be nearly 22 per cent of the mileage of the railway companies excluded from the jurisdiction of this commission. I think that that is a very serious subject for consideration, and while I admit that the hon. gentleman possibly cannot get over the difficulty with regard to the Canadian Pacific Railway, it does not follow that he should not have the 1,500 miles of railway operated by the government brought under this commission. I think there is no line of railway which is so important to have under the jurisdiction of the commission as the railway owned and operated by the government. For, this is really the terminal railway. We are discussing in this House the question of adding to the transportation facilities of this country for the purpose of ensuring that the products of the great west shall be directed through our own territory to the sea. The major portion of that traffic may go over the government railway-that is the pipe through which the most of the grain may go. It is of immense importance to those in the west, and to those in the other provinces as well, that the commissioners who control and regulate rates and various other matters as provided in this Bill, should have jurisdiction with regard to this terminal road, the great government road which leads to the sea. There are 1,552 miles of government railway. I admit that

that includes a couple of hundred miles of the Prince Edward Island Railway. But there are over 1,300 miles of the Intercolonial alone, and it is a very important matter that this control of rates by the commission should not be limited so as to exclude that mileage. We are entitled to have from the government something more than their mere wish on this point. There may be reasons why the commissioners should not be allowed to regulate charges upon the Intercolonial, but I believe that the public and that every member of this House will think just the other way. I think that all the discussion we have had in this House, even the elaborate speech with which the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Blair) favoured the House yesterday with regard to his own operations, shows if it shows anything, it is of immense importance to this country that somebody outside of the mere political head of the department should have an opportunity of knowing what is going on in connection with that railway. We are told by the hon. minister that a great discrepancy exists and must exist between the rates charged on the government railway and those charged on other railways. Surely this strikes at the very root of the appointment of this commission. Rates should be fairly regulated, and a shipper should know what rate he is to be charged, not only for a portion of the haul, but for all of it. I persist in the request I have made, and, as I have not had an answer, I move that section 3 be amended by striking out the words ' other than government railways.'


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I should have answered, or at least made an effort to answer, the question which the hon. member (Mr. Barker) put to me the day before yesterday, but that we came to a conclusion about the business of the House very shortly after he had spoken, and before I had an opportunity to respond to his appeal. I recall very well the line of argument he addressed to this committee-practically the same as he used to-day-in which he suggested that there was apparently only one reason, or that he had concluded there was only one reason, why this clause should stand ns it does in the Bill, and that was that the Minister of Railways and Canals did not want to hand over the management and operation of the Intercolonial road to the commission, but wanted to continue to be in charge of it himself if he remained in the department. I can only presume that the hon. gentleman speaks under a misapprehension as to the intended scope and purpose of the commission. This commission is not to engage in the management of railways at all; it is a commission constituted to keep the railway companies in check, rt seems to me that upon the very surface a good and sufficient reason is to be found why this Rill should not include the government railway. I do not specially, or even largely,
rely upon the fact that in constituting the Railway Committee of the Privy Council it was thought well not to give that body the same measure of jurisdiction and control over the Intercolonial that was given it over other railways. But it does occur to me that there are the strongest possible reasons why control over the Intercolonial might have been given to the Railway Committee of the Privy Council as constituted, and yet the strongest possible reasons why that control should not be given to this commission as it is to be constituted. If the government owned all the railways operating in the country you would never have heard any appeal or demand for the appointment of a commission. Why ? Because the grievances of which the people complain would never have existed. And, if .they did exist the people would have in their own hands a very ready and very efficient means of remedying their grievances. They would bold tlie government of the day responsible for the perpetuation of such wrongs as those of which many people in Canada complain to-day with respect to the operation of other railways. It is not for the purpose of preventing the Intercolonial Railway from imposing excessive rates upon the people of this country that the railway commission proposed to be created, it is not for the purpose of compelling the Intercolonial Railway to obey this or that law or this or that regulation that the cry has arisen for the creation of a railway commission :	it
is because the other railways of the eoun-try have apparently been so conducting themselves, or, at all events, in the course of their operation, have created such a sentiment in the public mind, that some control of this kind is necessary to be exercised as regards those railways. Now. it is always enough in legislating to remedy the grievances which you know or believe to exist. There is never any advantage in undertaking to remedy conditions which you think may in the future become grievances, but which have not become grievances and are not crying for remedy. The fact that the gov-vernment of the country owns and operates the Intercolonial and is answerable to public opinion for its action and conduct for such administration, is the best reason in the world why you do not require to set up a tribunal outside of parliament for that purpose. It would strike almost any person at first blush. I think, that it would be r. great mistake to confer upon any body of men. I do not care who they might be. control, beyond the reach of parliament or the government. of the management of any public institution and particularly the managment of a railway. You cannot reach them as you can reach the government. They would not be as responsible as to time, and would not be as ready to answer to any demand of public opinion upon them. They might possibly even do something more. Give to this railway commission the powers to fix and determine what the rates are, and they

would have it in their power to compel the people who are doing business over the Intercolonial to pay higher rates than they are paying to-day. I do not see how they could avoid it. They have the power to make uniformity of rates. Here are the standards, they cannot regulate in any way. Here is a standard tariff, here is a special tariff and here is a competitive tariff. They have got to be governed exactly under the same conditions. If you put all railways under the jurisdiction of this commission there is no discretion on their part to except any cne from the operation of the law. I do not think the people of this country are prepared to hand over the power which they now possess through parliament, to any tribunal to interfere with the rates which are charged upon government railways.


Mr. CLANCY.: I understand that the function of that commission would be to fix what would be a just tariff. Therefore, if they fix a just tariff on other railways, why should the hon. gentleman except any railway from coming under a just tariff ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is a question of public policy whether or not this parliament is prepared at this moment to make the change proposed. Are there any reasons why the condition of things which has existed ever since we have been a Dominion, when the different provinces agreed to enter into this union, should now be rescinded and that arrangement relating to the Intercolonial be dissolved ? Hon. gentlemen have got to think these things out in their minds a little better before they plunge into amendments of laws which have been on the statute-book ever since this Dominion has been in existence. They must stop and think where they are landing. I do not think the members of this House are prepared, from a national point of view, to make that change. The people of Ontario who do business over the Intercolonial, who sell their goods, manufactured and imported, in the maritime provinces, who do nine-tenths of the wholesale business which is done in the maritime provinces, I do not think they are prepared to say that any advantage will accrue to them by making the rates on the Intercolonial uniform with the rates on all the other roads. I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that the result would be anything but disastrous.


John Graham Haggart: The commission would not have power to raise the rates, if they are now sufficiently low on the Intercolonial, even though they had power to raise them.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If the hon. gentleman will read the Bill, he will find that the commission has not only power to do this, but it is their duty to make such rates in respect of all traffic over any and all railroads as it thinks are just and reasonable.


John Graham Haggart: That only applies under the Bill to maximum rates, and the railroad cannot charge less.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Not at all ; there is no maximum business about it. The hon. gentleman has not read the Bill. He will not find the words ' maximum rates ' in the Bill as applied to any measure or scale of tariff.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: Am I to understand that the rates charged on the Intercolonial now are less than those charged on other railways in Canada ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am quite sure that they are less than are charged on the two great railways of this country, the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway, and always have been. The tariffs are divided into three classes. There is the standard freight tariff, the special freight tariff and the competitive tariff, provided for by section 260 :
The standard freight tariff or tariffs where the company is allowed by the board more than one standard freight tariff, shall specify the maximum mileage tolls to be charged for each class of the freight classification for all distances covered by the company's railway. Such distances may be expressed in blocks or groups, and such blocks or groups may include proportionately greater distances for the longer than for the shorter hauls.
The special tariffs shall specify the toll or tolls lower than in the standard freight tariff to be charged by the company for any particular commodity or commodities, or for each or any class or classes of the freight classification, or to or from a certain point or points on the railway, greater tolls not being charged therein for a shorter than a longer distance, the shorter being included in the longer.
The competitive tariffs shall specify the toll or tolls lower than in the standard freight tariff to be charged by the company for any class or classes of the freight elassificaion, or for an;/ commodity or commodities.
Now, the standard freight tariff is settled in one of two ways. The company may make out its tariff and submit it, and if it is approved, then it becomes the standard freight tariff ; if it is not approved, the board may make out specifically such tariff as they please, and which should be designated as the standard freight tariff.


John Graham Haggart: The argument I was making is this, that the commission seemed to fix the maximum tolls, and it was left to the company to charge any tolls under that. The hon. gentleman stated there was no maximum price fixed at all by the commission.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The explanation of tlie minister, if it can lie called one, has not warranted me in coming to tlie conclusion that the amendment of my hon. friend from Hamilton is wrong, and lias not convinced me that I was wrong in seconding bis amendment, and unless I have better evi-


Andrew George Blair: deuce than I hare now to show why these government railways should not come under the control of this commission, I must vote for that amendment. Now, we are all obliged to the minister for giving us the advice he does, but I think charity begins at home. Let the minister himself take some of his own advice and think a little more carefully about these matters which he asks this House to sanction. The arguments made by the members on this side of the House are made in the interests of the country, because they understand that people want a railroad commission to be a railroad commission in reality, and to attend to the business that it is proposed to submit to it, not to do a patch here and a patch there, not to attend to one section of the Dominion or to one locality to the exclusion of others, but to attend to freight shipped from any part of the Dominion to any other part. A little while ago the minister told us that it was not right that goods shipped from the Niagara district to Ottawa should be under the control of the commission, whether shipped by express or otherwise, but that it is quite right that the whole .journey should be dealt with as through-traffic. I understand him to say that the words ' through-traffic ' in section five are to apply to that. What is the principle that the hon. gentleman has in his mind in regard to that ? Surely it is that there should be no difference whether many or few railways handle the goods. Surely it is that people shipping goods from one part of Canada to another shall deal with the commission in regard to the whole matter and not in regard to any particular part of it. They are not going to be supposed to have a special rate in regard to one railway that the commission cannot control, and another in regard to another railway that the commission can control. If there is any merit at all in the hon. gentleman's Rill it is in that sense. To enlarge the illustration that I gave, suppose any one shipped goods from Halifax to Toronto or from Toronto to Halifax or St. John and these goods are going to be carried by the Gi'and Trunk Railway or the Canadian Pacific Railway part of the way and by the Intercolonial Railway the rest of the way. What harm is there in the Intercolonial Railway being under the same jurisdiction and having the same authority over it as that placed over the Grand Trunk Railway or the Canadian Pacific Railway ? Suppose that the people in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are not satisfied with the rates, and in view of the discussion that took place in this House yesterday, I can well understand that some of them would be dissatisfied, suppose that they think the rates should be adjusted; if there is any merit in tlie commission there is just as much merit in applying its supervision to the rates charged on the Intercolonial Railway as to those charged on any other railway. If
the Intercolonial Railway is to be dealt with as a business proposition why should its business not be properly carried on and why should not this commission have jurisdiction over its rates in the same way as it is proposed that it shall have over the rates of the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway ? We suppose that the Intercolonial Railway is doing a railway business. It seems to me that the hon. minister is afraid that the rates will be increased on the Intercolonial Railway. I do not know that it would do very much harm if they were increased a little. Perhaps they would not be paying out so much on capital account if they were increased. I suppose that the people would be willing to pay reasonable rates. The hon. gentleman evidently believes that the commission would increase them. I am not at all sure that the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) is not right in saying that it is the maximum rates that are to be dealt with. Suppose that the rates charged on the eastern portion of the journey on goods shipped from Toronto to Halifax are altogether inadequate, and we say that the commission shall have no power over the Intercolonial Railway but that they may adjust the rates on the Grand Trunk Railway or Canadian Pacific Railway, surely the members of that commission could not exclude from their minds the rates which the Intercolonial are charging. If they had power to enforce any order that the Intercolonial Railway rates were too high or too low if they could apply that order to the other end of the journey and if they could arrive at a reasonable conclusion, they could the more readily satisfy the shippers and purchasers of those goods. The hon. minister says that he does not think we should legislate for grievances that do not exist, but that we should only legislate for those that do exist. Well, if they are the same kind of grievances they are likely to exist and why should grievances that may exist be excluded from the operation of the Bill. The hon. minister surely does not want full power to do what he thinks the Grand Trunk Railway and Canadian Pacific Railway ought not to do. I do not suppose the hon. minister wants us to understand that he desires power to do that. If these grievances exist on the large trunk lines, on the Grand Trunk Railway and Canadian Pacific Railway, and if the Intercolonial Railway is going to spread out (and we hear talk about extending it), is there auy harm in asking that the rates on the Intercolonial Railway shall be controlled in the same way as they are to he controlled on the Canadian Pacific Railway and Grand Trunk Railway ? Are not the same grievances likely to exist on the Intercolonial Railway ? They may not have arisen at present. They may be only about to arise. The hon. minister, for all I know, may expect them to arise next year. If they do arise they will need to be dealt with

by tills commission, ancl there is no harm in the commission having control over the rates on the Intercolonial Railway. In regard to the handing over the power that the hon. minister speaks of, I do not see how that remark applies to the case at all. I do not understand that this commission is to manage the Grand Trunk Railway or the Canadian Pacific Railway. I do not think the hon. minister means us to take him seriously when he says that by giving the commission control of the rates on the Intercolonial Railway we would be giving the commission power over the management of the Intercolonial Railway. That is practically what he says. I think there is nothing that will so much cause hon. members on this side of the House to think that the motion of the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) is right as the weak defence that has been put up by the hon. minister as to why it should not prevail. Upon consideration of all that the hon. minister has said I am firmly of the opinion that the Intercolonial Railway ought to be governed by this commission the same as other railways are, and I shall have to vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Hamilton.


Mr. FRASER.: I noticed a few days ago that when the government announced that the canals should be made free that everybody could carry anything he wanted through them without paying a cent, there was not a word from the hon. members on the other side of the House.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What has that to do With it ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: We have spent as much money on the canals as we have spent on the Intercolonial Railway, and everybody can carry everything free through them. We, in the lower provinces, when we travel or when we ship goods, have to pay for doing so.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What has that to do with the Intercolonial Railway ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: It is now admitted, that, if, under the Bill, we applied the commission to the Intercolonial Railway it would be treated like any other railway.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Certainly, why not ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: The Intercolonial Railway was built for the purpose of securing to this Dominion the lower provinces, and it is as much a part of our constitution as if it we re written in. We know that the maritime provinces would not have entered into confederation if the promise to maintain the Intercolonial Railway as a government railway had not been given and carried out. It is as much a part of the constitution as if it were a section of the British North America Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That did not imply that
the goods were to be carried for less than
the service was worth.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: 


Duncan Cameron Fraser: It implied that the government must always be in charge whether it be Liberal or Conservative, that it must always be a government road because it was built for the purpose I have named. That condition must always be carried out so that our interests shall be protected in accordance with the promise given. We do not desire that goods shall be carried free, although you have your canals absolutely free.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I always thought the building of the Intercolonial Railway was to unite the lower provinces.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: It was the condition under which we came in. It was not to unite the provinces. The lower provinces would never have entered confederation had not the Intercolonial Railway been built. We saw the difficulties that would occur, we saw that on everything that we brought from the upper pro1vinces we would have to pay a large price, we saw that the tariff, small as it was then, would be increased and that this new country would be able to build up a large trade in the lower provinces.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was it not for the same reason that we asked to have the tolls taken off canals-so as to permit of the carrying of goods at a cheaper rate ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: The rates still remain on the Intercolonial Railway. You must take things as they are.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I would like to ask the hon. member (Mr. Fraser) if he is afraid that this commission will do wrong with the Intercolonial Railway ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: No, but if they are honest men they will raise the rates on the Intercolonial Railway.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What does that mean ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I have no doubt that it will be found that the abolition of tolls upon canals is going to be a good thing in the interests of the trade.


Samuel Hughes: I would like to ask the hon. member (Mr. Fraser) a question. Does he not know that one of the chief objects in making the canals free is to give the maritime provinces the advantage of cheaper goods from the western provinces ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: That is very kind indeed. That is a kindness that we accept with the greatest satisfaction possible. But, coal is not sent through the canals and we do not receive anything in the lower provinces through the canals. Everything we get in the upper provinces comes by the railways, Intercolonial Railway included. What comes through the canals is what goes to foreign parts.


Samuel Hughes: No.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Excuse me, I would like to know wliat we get in the lower provinces that comes through the canals.


Samuel Hughes: Flour.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Excuse me, flour does not come through the canals.


Samuel Hughes: Flour will go.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: You are always speculating as to the future. I am talking of present conditions.


Samuel Hughes: Flour is going.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does not the wheat you get go through the Welland canal.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: We don't use any wheat to talk of. You grow the wheat and you grind it and yon grind us by compelling us to pay a duty on it if we buy it any where else. We have no mills down there except a small one in New Glasgow, and I don't know whether it is going or not.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There are some mills grinding native wheat.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: We have the ordinary, mills grinding native wheat, but we get no wheat from the upper provinces and consequently the abolition of canal tolls does not benefit us one cent. If you put the Intercolonial Railway under the commission then if they are honest men they will deal with the Intercolonial Railway exactly as with other roads.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Samuel Barker: Would this commission not do a good service to the people of the eastern provinces by preventing discrimination between these people on the part of those who manage the railway?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There never is discrimination.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I speak in the presence of Conservative members from the lower provinces and I say that the railway rates are largely in the interest of Conservatives, because they are the large producers. If the Nova Scotia Steel Company or any 6ther company wants a special rate because they ship in large quantities perhaps it is given to them, but so far as the ordinary business man in the lower provinces is concerned whether they be Liberal or Conservative they are all treated alike, lion, gentlemen opposite want the Intercolonial Railway put under control of the commission, and if the commissioners were honest men they would treat the Intercolonial Railway exactly as they would other railroads, and then we would have the magnificent spectacle of Ontario men getting the benefit of the $80,000,000 we spent on the canals and we would have no benefits from the Intercolonial Railway'. They would have free canal tolls and we would have high railway rates. Is that
broad statesmanship. The condition under which the lower provinces entered into confederation, was that the Intercolonial Railway would be built to cement the provinces together, to give us an opportunity of' consuming western products and to give you an opportunity of consuming our products, but you take very little of the things we produce. It may be a speculation to say' that our coal comes up here, but I notice that some hon. gentlemen opposite, not all, are clamoring that even the duty be taken off coal so that they can get It from the United States when the freights would perhaps be one-third of those on Nova Scotia coal. I care not whether the government of Canada is Liberal or Conservative, I want that government to hold the Intercolonial Railway, to judge what the rates on the Intercolonial Railway shall be, and thus carry out the cementing process that was understood when we entered into confederation.


Mr. HALE.: I have always thought, Mr. Chairman, that it would be in the] best interests of the section of the country I represent that the Intercolonial Railway should come under the control of this railway commission. Ever since the Intercolonial Railway has been in existence it has been operated in direct antagonism to the best interest of the western part of the province of New Brunswick, because the rates on that road have been so low that the products of the upper provinces are carried to the cities of St. John and Halifax for less than we have to pay to carry freight from the county of Carleton and the river counties into these cities. The western produce is thus enabled to come in to competition with the produce that we raise in our section of country. I have thought for a long time that something ought to be done to regulate that. Many years ago I brought this matter to the attention of the late hon. Mr. Rope, then Minister of Railways and Canals, but nothing has ever been done to relieve the situation so far as we are concerned. I believe that it is just and fair that the Intercolonial Railway should come under this commission and that if they are good honest commissioners who will regulate the rates on that road, we will get justice for our section of the country'.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I never understood that it was part of the terms of confederation that we should build a railway to carry freight for less than the cost of handling it. I do not think that you will find in the British North America Act or in the debates on confederation anything that will justify that contention. The argument of the member for Guysborough in favour of that proposition is decidedly unique.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: It has often been advanced in this House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have heard it repeatedly stated in this House by members from the
3735 .

maritime provinces that they were charged as high freight rates oil the Intercolonial Railway as on other railways in Canada and that they got no advantage. But the member for Guysborough seems to have the idea that the removal of tolls on the canals is for the benefit of the upper province people and that forsooth because of this, the Intercolonial Railway should carry freight below cost for the people of the maritime provinces.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: What I said was that the condition that has existed on the Intercolonial Railway since confederation should be maintained.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The conditions on which the maritime provinces entered into confederation has been kept to the letter, but it never was part of the compact that freight on the Intercolonial Railway should be carried below cost, or that the' rates should be so low as not to afford a reasonable profit. Let me tell my hon. friend that the reason why the tolls were taken off the canals was to enable the freight of the west to be carried down to the maritime provinces instead of having it sidetracked off to New York and Boston and other American ports. It was for that purpose and that purpose alone that the canal tolls were removed. The member for Guysborough says that one of the aims should be to carry the coal of the maritime provinces into Ontario.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I did not say what one of .the aims should be. I said it could not be done, and the fact that they were asking to take off the duty on coal in Ontario indicated that it could not be done.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would remind the hon. gentleman that it not only has been done, but it can be done, and that Nova Scotia coal has been carried as far west as Belleville.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: % Then there is no need of taking off the duty.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I want to tell the hon. gentleman that the principle has always been enunciated and supported by the Conservative party that the duty should be kept even on coal, because that was part of the national policy. It is not the Conservatives who are in favour of taking off the coal duty. If the contention was that that duty should be taken off, that was put forward by his own friends in the upper provinces, and not by the Conservative party as a party. As to whether or not the Intercolonial Railway should come under this commission, I have always held that if the commission is expected to do what is right and fair-and we assume that they will be men of intelligence and honest intention-then I cannot understand why there should be any valid objection to the Intercolonial Railway coming under that commission any more Mr. SPROULE.
than any other railway in Canada. If it were expected that they would not do what is right aud fair, I could understand it : but it is expected that they will do what is right and fair-not that they will compel any railway to carry freight at lower charges than will pay, but that they will not allow any unfair discrimination in regard to the short haul and the long haul or between one shipper and another.


Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).: Last night the lion. Minister of Railway's explained to the hon. member for Pictou that the rates on the Intercolonial Railway were exactly the same now as they were when the men now in opposition were in power. There was then no word about the rales being too low. But I want to impress on the public outside of this House that the disposition of the opposition, as expressed by the bon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) last night, was to increase the rates [DOT] on the Intercolonial Railway for both freight and passengers. There is another view of tills subject that lias been overlooked altogether, that is, that the carriage over the Intercolonial Railway is not for the benefit of the maritime provinces alone. Hon. members must not forget that the people of the west get the advantage of these low rates in shipping goods to and from the West Indies aud Great Britain in the winter season. I think it would be just as well to leave the management of the Intercolonial Railway in the hands of the hon. Minister of Railways, who has done so well with it during his term. I am sure the hon. member for West Toronto would find the hon. member for Pictou in opposition to his suggestion to increase the rates.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: And the leader of the opposition.	[DOT]


William Ross: The leader of the opposition has been very silent on this subject, because he is not in accord with his own supporters when they advocate an' increase of the rates on the Intercolonial Railway.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I may say that I tever mad<( the statement that the rates on the Intercolonial Railway were too low or too high.


William Ross: I did not at all attribute anything to the hon. gentleman.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The contention on this side of the House has been that the fact that the Intercolonial Railway is not a paying concern, is due to improper management, not to too low freight rates. We have never, as a party, dealt with the question whether the rates were too liigli or too low. Personally I have never said that they were too low.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Then you cannot vote for this amendment, which says they ought to be raised.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Tlie resolution is tlmt the Intercolonial Railway be included in this commission. It does not say a word about the rates, whether they are too high or too low.


Mr. BLAIN.: I would like to aslc the hou. minister, if this commission had control over the rates of the Intercolonial Railway, and it found those rates too low, would it have power under this Act to increase them ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS ANI) CANALS. There is no doubt about that. I have not any hesitation at all in expressing my opinion. I read the sections which show that the railway commission has absolute power to determine when the rates are just and reasonable, and to impose those rates ; and after it fixes a tariff, until it changes that tariff, you cannot make your rate any more or any less. That is the rate you have to pay.


Richard Blain: That is to say, the commission would have power to increase the rates if they found them too low ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Mr. HENDERSON.: It seems to me thatj hon. members from the maritime provinces are unduly excited over this question of rates. I understand that one of the great objects of this railway commission is to secure for the public a general reduction in rates. The contention is that our railways on the whole are charging too much, and our express companies also. In the face of that, why will hon. members from the maritime provinces suppose for one moment that the commission would act directly in opposition to the great purpose for which the commission is being inaugurated ? To my mind, the maritime provinces will be protected under this commission, if the general policy of the commission is what I have stated, and I believe it is. It would seem to me that to make the system uniform all over the country, the Intercolonial Railway should be brought within the scope of this commission, and I, for one, fail to see any cause for alarm on the part of the members from the maritime provinces. While their rights on the Intercolonial Railway will be preserved, I think they will be aided by this commission in securing low rates over other railways from the west.
I do not apprehend for one moment that there will be any interference with the special privileges which the maritime provinces now enjoy.
Mi-. CLANCY. I think if there was any doubt in the minds of the members of this House as to the necessity of having the Intercolonial Railway placed under the jurisdiction of this commission, that doubt has been dispelled by the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser). My hon. friend
t has told us that the express terms upon ) which the maritime provinces came into 1 confederation were, first, that there should i be an Intercolonial Railway built

which is admitted-and second, that they should be exempted from paying the same rates ; of freight as are paid by the balance of the people of Canada. That is specifically neither more or less than what , the hon. gentleman has told us. Well, ' I am not prepared to believe that any Minister of Railways will lay down i a rule of that kind. As an illustration of his argument, our genial friend from . Guysborough pointed out that if the Inter, colonial Railway came under the jurisdiction . of this railway commission, the Nova i Scotia Company would be in a worse posi-. tion than it now occupies^
; Mr. FRASER. I said there might be 1 special rates, and I instanced the Nova Scotia Steel Company as large shippers who would be entitled, on that account, to special rates.


James Clancy: Either they are entitled to special rates or they are not.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Like all other large shippers on any railway.


James Clancy: Let me suppose that there will be, as we all hope there will, an institution of the same magnitude at Sault Ste. Marie, which will have to compete at a point half way with the Nova Scotia Steel Company, will the hon. gentleman argue that the latter company would be entitled to the advantage of exceptional rates over the Intercolonial Railway to that competitive point which the other industry could not obtain over the other railways that come under the commission ? Yet that would be the logical outcome of the hon. gentleman's argument. The hon. gentleman also pleads that the tolls are being reduced or entirely wiped out on the canals without protest from anybody. But it seems to me that the amount of these tolls is so insignificant as not to be worth considering. By the abolition of canal tolls, the country is losing the large sum of 8315,425 per year, or less than six-tenths of a cent for each person in Canada.
What I wish to impress on the hon. Minister of Railways is that if we are to have a railway commission, it should not be a meaningless one. The object of a railway commission is to correct the inequalities in freight charges and excessive charges where there is no competiton. Does the hon. gentleman propose that this work of the commission shall be confined to those railways in Canada which are not government railways and that, while all other railways may be forced to do what is fair and reasonable, the Intercolonial Railway is to be exempt from any interference ? The people of this country have contributed large sums for the obtaining of railway

facilities. Are we to handicap these railways which have been aided by Dominion, provincial and municipal bonuses ? Should we not give them a living chance as against the Intercolonial Railway or any other railway that may, according to my hon. friend s contention, be run in the interests of any particular section of the country ? Wliat amount of bonuses has been paid ? The Dominion has contributed to railways in Canada at the rate of $9.0S3 per mile. The provincial governments have contributed at the rate of .$1,177 per mile, and the bonuses given by municipalities have amounted to $S92 per mile.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: And we paid equally with you.


James Clancy: That does not touch the fringe of the question. What 1 say is that the people of this country have contributed large sums in order to get railway facilities. My hon. friend from Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Hale) has pointed out that even in the maritime provinces, certain sections are put at a disadvantage by*reason of the lower rates charged by the Intercolonial Railway to other competing sections. How can you expect a private enterprise to supply railway facilities in any section of the country, if the people in that section are getting lower rates on the Intercolonial Railway than are charged by any other railway in Canada ? How can yon expect private enterprise to invest in railways, if these railways are to be swamped by the rates charged on the Intercolonial Railway ? It is all very well for the government to tell the people that they are getting lower rates on the government road. That is a mere electioneering dodge, which may be resorted to by whatever government may be in power. If yon charge lower rates on the Intercolonial Railway than the goods can be carried for, or than a private enterprise could carry them at with a reasonable profit, you are simply taking money out of the pockets of one section of people for the benefit of another. My hon. friend the Minister of Railways has told us that had he charged the same rates of freight on the Intercolonial Railway as are charged by other railways, and he went further to emphasize the fact by adding that the rates charged by other railways were not, in his opinion, excessive.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I expressed no opinion as to that.


James Clancy: My hon. friend was especially prudent on that occasion. He was careful not to express an opinion, but he must have assumed that they were not excessive, or lie would have expressed an opinion to the contrary. He told us that if he charged on the Intercolonial Railway the same rates as are charged on other railways, there would be $2,000,000 more in the treasury. Well, what is he doing? He is piling up a capital account of immense magnitude. The Mr. CLANCY.
people of this country are paying on that capital account not less than half a million dollars per year for interest. The hon. gentleman boasts of a magnificent surplus of something like $96,000, but he forgot to tell the people that he is taking out of their pockets half a million dollars in interest on the capital added to our public debt for the purpose of producing this surplus. Is that surplus really an economy or is it not a fiction ? It is the purest kind of fiction, a mere juggling of figures, a mere deception on the public, a brazen attempt to make the people believe that they have saved $96,000, whereas in reality they have been bled to the tune of half a million dollars. If we are to have a railway commission, I can see no reason why the Intercolonial Railway should not come under its jurisdiction. It certainly should, if we are to do every section of our people the same justice. Suppose that the dream of the hon. gentleman were to be realized, in which he indulged when out to the Pacific coast last fall. Suppose the hon. gentleman were to do what he is hinting at as possible, and build a transcontinental line at the public cost. That road, being a government road, would not come under the jurisdiction of this commission. So, the hon. gentleman would be able to say to the people :	Being beyond
the control of the commission, I can do as I like with rates, and I will give favourable rates to those sections which support me, and unfavourable rates to others. It is impossible not to see what the effect of such a state of affairs would be. Wo have [DOT]devoted millions to the subsidizing of trunk lines to the Pacific coast, and the government road would have no right to become an unfair competitor with those lines, and to use for the purpose of competition 'ts advantages in the way of freedom from taxes and from the obligation which rests upon railways of earning interest upon the cost of construction. Nothing could be more destructive of our great national outfit, our railway system of which we are so proud. It woiild be contrary to justice, contrary to common sense, contrary to every business principle. There is no reason why there should be a lever in the hands of the government to give favours that cannot be given to the people in common. What do we hear with regard to other classes of trade ? There has been a cry that convict labour should not be allowed to come into competition with the honest wage-earner. I say that is a good contention. To act upon the contrary principle would be use-ing public institutions against private interests ; and I say that it would be wrong to use the Intercolonial Railway or any other road owned by the government to injure private interests. It might yield apparent advantages to a section of the people, but advantages which must be paid for dearly by the people at large. I say again that I know nothing more contrary to rea-

'foil, common sense and business principle, than the suggestion that the Intercolonial Railway should not come under control of this commission.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) has asked a question. But first as to what the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Hale) says. 1 can understand him when he says that the produce from the province of Ontario comes through his county, carried on the Intercolonial Railway at cheap rates, and comes in competition with the produce of the farms of Carleton. But the public of the lower provinces know that the county of Carleton canuot supply them with everything they require, and so they want others to come in and supply them. And- even though it be considered small-they are of opinion that it is better that the county of Carleton should suffer to a limited extent rather than that the whole of the lower provinces should suffer. Referring to the lower provinces, 1 desire to say one thing, and in this I speak for Nova Scotia alone. Nova Scotia has given more per head to build railways, either to compete with or to feed the Intercolonial Railway than has been given for railways by the people of any other province in the Dominion. Moreover, Nova Scotia has received less money per head voted by the parliament of Canada for railways than the people of any other province of the Dominion. The return was brought down to this House which proved it. But the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy), has got away from the fact of the canals. Whatever the rates are on the Intercolonial Railway, at least this year we have a surplus. But we have never had a surplus on the canals. And this year we are adding two or three hundred thousand dollars as a free gift to the people who benefit by those canals, to be added to the deficit. There would be judicious management of the Intercolonial Railway whether the Conservatives or the liberals were in power. And we must not forget the long distance between the lower provinces and Montreal, which is covered by the Intercolonial Railway. Cannot we trust the making of the rates upon this road much better to a government that can consider broad questions of the public interest than to a commission that must rigidly enforce the law, and that must insist upon rates-


James Clancy: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fraser) permit me ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Yes.


James Clancy: Is he presuming that the commissioners will be enforcing an unjust law ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: That has nothing to do with it. I say you can trust the government, whatever party that government may represent, to fix the rates in the best interests of the country. There is also the consideration that the Intercolonial Railway was built to bring about confederation, a fact that has been stated in this House a dozen times in my hearing and never contradicted until to-day. Any government will do better in the interest of the whole country than a commission that must simply follow the law, caring nothing for the people. The rates on the Intercolonial Railway have been substantially the same since the road was built-do not hon. gentlemen think that we can reasonably expect that road to carry out the same in the future ? The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) looks at it from the Ontario standpoint, but he forgets to take into consideration the canals which were built largely for the benefit of Ontario, and which never had a surplus and never will.


James Clancy: We on this side have never defended or condemned taking off the canal tolls, or expressed ourselves on that subject. Let the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fraser) look to his own friends for that.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) does not favour the removal of the canal tolls he has the opportunity to express his opinion, and, as a member of this House, to move that they be not taken oil. The fact that he expresses no opinion and moves no motion on the subject, ranks him with those who are in favour of the change.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Fraser) is simply putting up a man of straw and knocking it over.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: We have heard now from two prospective ministers, for the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), and the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy), if I am to judge, must he in any government formed by the leader of the other side. If these bon. gentlemen had their own way they would increase the rates on the Intercolonial Railway in the lower provinces. If their attitude means anything, it means that. AVe understand it now ; that is the way our Conservative friends would treat the Intercolonial Railway.


John Graham Haggart: The question before the committee is simply this-shall the Intercolonial Railway come under the jurisdiction of this commission or not. As an argument to the contrary, the hon. Minister of Railways states that, being responsible to parliament and to the people in fixing the rates, the people would have better control than if the commission were given jurisdiction over the road. I stated that the commission had nothing to do with fixing the rates on the Intercolonial Railway. They only fix the maximum tariff, and under that maximum the minister could make any charge he liked. The minister contradicted me when I stated that. He asked me if I had read the Act, and stated that the commission had the right to fix the tariff of

tolls and that the government would be obliged to exact those tolls from any one using the Intercolonial Railway. There was no one on this side who said that the tolls charged on the Intercolonial Railway were less than those charged on the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Grand Trunk Railway. It was the hon. Minister of Railways himself, when he was appealing to supporters from the maritime provinces. He turned around to them and said : ' I could have a surplus of $2,000,000 if I were allowed to charge the same rates on the Intercolonial Railway as are charged by the other railways.' I would like the hon. gentleman to point out in what respect the charges on freight traffic or the charges on passenger traffic are less on the Intercolonial Railway than on the Grand Trunk Railway or Canadian Pacific Railway.
Let me mention the passenger freight rate on the Intercolonial. You pay three cents a mile, and if you get a return ticket you get it for one and a half the full rate. Isn't that the same custom on every railroad of the Dominion ? Don't you pay the same when you travel on the Intercolonial as we do here ? There may be a couple of mines from which coal is carried to Halifax, there may be exceptional cases where freight is carried lower on the Intercolonial than elsewhere; coal is carried from particular mines to Halifax or to some favoured lumberman at specially low rates. But the poor farmer, the industrious man, the traveller in every portion of the maritime provinces pays as much for the user of the Intercolonial as we do for the user of onr railways in the western part of Canada. That is why the control of rates on the Intercolonial should come under a commission. As I said last night, the reason of the apparent reduction of rates on the Intercolonial, the reason of the loss in carrying freight, was an effort on the part of the minister to carry freight which would naturally follow other channels, and to divert it in an tin-natural course to St. John or to Halifax. We will have a comparison of the freight rates before the estimates are through, we will have a comparison of the passenger rates, and I venture to say that my statement will be found correct. The hon. gentleman is indulging in parish politics of the lowest kind. He is appealing to his followers on the back benches, saying; Look at the glorious things I have done for you in the management of the Intercolonial ; look at the envy it has excited throughout the Dominion. I am giving you cheaper passenger rates and cheaper freight rates, and these people in Ontario and in the west, if they had the power, would impose upon you rates entirely different. The minister is perfectly correct, and the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser) is correct; there has been but little change in the rates on the Intercolonial from its inception, either under the Conservative government or the Liberal government. But the rates are fair,


John Graham Haggart: they ought to pay, and possibly, if through rates were imposed, there might be a greater return to the people. All we ask is a fail-rate for passengers, a fair rate for freight. That fair rate is being imposed upon the people. Under good management and economical management the Intercolonial, instead of being a drag and an imposition on the people, would give us a fair return for the expenditure. We have no wish to impose on the people of the maritime provinces. When w4 talk about the management of the Intercolonial we are not finding fault with the charges that are made on passengers and on freight to people using the road locally ; we are only asking that economical management should be exercised.
But to return to my question. What objection is there to the appointment of a commission whose principal object and work would be to fix and control tbe rates and tolls ? Surely the minister does not think that the rates and tolls fixed by a commission would be less than those that he now charges on the Intercolonial. Then what has he to fear ? There may be arguments advanced on both sides of this question. My hon. friend thinks that under the absolute control ' given to the commission they would have power, not only to control the rates, but the appliances to be used, the speed to be observed in the running, the rolling stock and everything else. Perhaps it would be better. We know the powers of commissions appointed by governments in other countries for the purpose of dealing with railways. It is the commission which steps between the individual and tbe railway company, as a sort of arbitrator, to say what is just and right in reference to the dealings between the general public and the company. My own opinion is that it would be better for the Minister of Railways and Canals to be directly responsible to this House and to the people. I would not like him to have a further opportunity to shield himself behind a commission. If he does wrong, let him come here where he is responsible to this House, and we will talk to him and find out all about it. In a government railway. T think that the controller of it should be directly responsible to tbe people of the country and to parliament, and that there is not much call for the interference of a commission.


Mr. KENDALL.: We have been told on this side of the House by hon. gentlemen opposite that the Intercolonial is an institution which is run in the intex-ests of the maritime provinces.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Nobody said so.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: Well, I have heard some hon. gentleman say that the deficit incuiTed by the Intercolonial in the maritime provinces was paid by the people of Canada generally, and for the express advantage of the people of the maritime pi-ovinces. Now, I think that hon. gentlemen opposite will recollect that a few months ago the board

3 * 4b
of trade of tl)e city of Halifax passed a resolution calling upon tlie government to hand over the Intercolonial to the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think that was exactly the tenor of the resolution. The resolution asked the boards of trade throughout Canada to consider that question.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: Yes, and I suppose there was never a greater storm raised among the boards of trade throughout Canada than that very resolution of the Halifax board of trade. How did they take it up ? The boards of trade in Moncton, in St. John, in Quebec, in Montreal, and the board of trade of the city of Toronto, which I presume has the confidence of hon. gentlemen opposite, passed strong resolutions condemning the proposition to turn over the Intercolonial to the Canadian Pacific Railway.
I presume that the board of trade of the city of Toronto represents fairly well the manufacturers of Canada, the manufacturers of nearly everything in which iron enters, the manufacturers of textiles. It represents the millers of Canada, who send hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of their products to the maritime provinces every year ; and they recognized that the working arrangement between the Grand Trunk Railway and the Intercolonial in the maritime provinces affords them protection against the excessive rates which might otherwise be charged by the Canadian Pacific Railway which runs to the city of St. John. I presume that the board of trade of Toronto did speak with some authority for the great manufacturing classes of Canada when it said that it was thoroughly satisfied with the administration of the Intercolonial. The hon. member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) suggested that the rates might be raised on certain commodities going over the Intercolonial. He intimated that certain privileges were being granted to the lumbermen. I wish to point out that only this year, when the lumbermen of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick approached the Minister of Railways and Canals and asked for certain reductions in the freight on lumber to the seaport, that request was refused, and I think we will all say very rightly refused. If, two years ago, those lumbermen could make money when deals were selling for $9 and $10 a thousand, they must be making more money to-day when they are bringing $13 or $14 a thousand. I would not be opposed to seeing the rates on lumber carried by the Intercolonial raised to a certain extent. The hon. gentleman intimated too that coal was carried at too low a rate. That may be correct, but it is a pretty serious matter for this House to say that the rates on coal should be raised, serious for the consumers of coal in Quebec and Montreal. I recognize that the coal companies of Nova Scotia are charging the consumers of coal too much for their coal, but 118
how are you going to benefit the consumers of coal by raising the price of the carriage of coal to Quebec and the eastern part of Ontario. I think if the hon. member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) were again entrusted with the responsibility of being Minister of Railways and Canals he would hesitate, because numbers of his supporters would call upon him to hesitate, before he would raise the rate on the carriage of coal. We in the coal mining districts do not get the benefit of these rates, but the people In the west do.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I failed to hear any one on this side of the House contend that coal was carried too cheaply.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Chairman. I think the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Kendall) Is not doing quite justice to this quesion when he speaks of the origin of this discussion in regard to freight rates on the Intercolonial Railway. My hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Air. Blair) made this statement in the House when he was presenting the affairs of the Intercolonial Railway to parliament.
That important portion between St. John and Halifax is, I think, paying quite a handsome return over its cost and the expenses of operation.
Now, I suppose this statement is only consistent with fair rates being charged. In so far as I am concerned it was news to me yesterday to hear the announcement of the hon. Alinister of Railways and Canals which I am about to read. I am sure the people of the maritime provinces do not want the Intercolonial Railway conducted on any system which is not fair to the people of the rest of Canada. They do not want the Intercolonial Railway conducted on a principle which would make the people of the rest of Canada pay any portion of the freight charges which should be paid by the people of the maritime provinces. At the same time they do have regard to the fact that the Intercolonial Railway was part of the terms of confederation and there may be circumstances which would justify the reduction of freight rates upon that railway to a point perhaps lower than those charged upon some other railways. These are conditions which should be viewed just as much by commissioners as by the government of the day in the administration of the Intercolonial Railway. They ought to be considered by the commission just to the same extent as they are supposed to be considered by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals. Therefore, it seems to me, "that a large part of the discussion in regard to whether the rates should be controlled on the Intercolonial by the commission or by the government is beside the question, because exactly the same consideration should apply to dealing with this matter by the commission as to dealing with it by



the; hon. Minister of Railways and Canals. Now, I think it is most unfortunate that the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals should have made the statement which he did make in the House yesterday unless he is absolutely sure that the facts are-as he states them. As I said before, I have no means of knowing whether the facts are as the minister has stated them. I will read to the committee the remarks of the hon. minister which led to this entire discussion and which, I think, placed the people of the maritime provinces in a false position in regard to the people of Canada as a whole. I suppose that the hon. gentleman by stating that the rates on the Intercolonial Railway afford a fair return as between Halifax and St. John, and a certain portion of the maritime provinces has stated that these rates are fair rates. 1 do not know what else the statement means. If they afforded a fair return on a portion of the road in a fairly thickly inhabited district surely they must be regarded as fair rates. Tha hon. gentleman has made that statement, but notwithstanding that, he goes on to say this :
I had a careful -study -made and a careful statement furnished to me by the traffic officers of the Intercolonial Kailway as to the general tariff of tolls -and freight charges which governs on the Intercolonial Railway and those which govern on the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway; and the result of that statement, keeping well on the safe side, is that the rates upon those two railways are from 50 to 100 per cent higher than those upon the Intercolonial Railway. I am not going to suggest that the rates upon either of the two other roads -are higher than they ought to be.
Well, if the rates ou the Intercolonial Railway in Nova Scotia afford a fair return and if these rates to which the hon. gentleman refers in Ontario are from 50 to 100 per cent higher, I think the hon. gentleman ought to be able to form an opinion upon them, although he says he has no opinion whatever. I think it is important that the hon. minister should place upon the Table of the House the information upon which he relied when he made that statement, and which I do not think does justice to the people of the maritime provinces as far as the Intercolonial is concerned. I have a great deal of doubt, with all deference to my hon. friend, as to whether or not his statement as to the rates being 50 to 100 per cent higher will be found to be exactly borne out by the facts. I am not impugning the varacity of my hon. fx-iend, but I must say that I shall have my doubts until the information is placed upon) the Table of the House as to whether or not that statement is correct. I would like to ask the hon. minister whether or not it is a fact that these i-ates have to be submitted to him as Minister of Railways and Canals or to the Railway Committee of the Privy Council. Is it not a fact that these rates cannot be raised until he has approved of them ?


Robert Laird Borden: 


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Freight rates are subject to approval by the Governor in Council. Until they are approved they are not collectable, or they are not supposed to he collectable.


Robert Laird Borden: 
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have not been quite clear this afternoon during the discussion, a<s to whether my estimates were under consideration or whether the Railway Bill was being-dealt with. The debate has passed from one theme to the other, so that it was almost impossible to discriminate as to what was in the minds of the gentlemen who are addressing the House.


Mr. TAYLOR.: You did the most of that yourself.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Does the committee hear my hon. friend deliberately and coolly state that I occupied the most of the time of the House ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The question was started by the minister's own friends and replied to from this side of the House.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not think that I spoke more than once or twice when I was called up by members of the committee.


Samuel Hughes: And then you were worse than the Minister of Agriculture.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I shall be very glad to furnish to the committee the information which has been supplied me in regard to this question of the freight rates upon the Intercolonial Railway. I was, however, amazed to hear the ex-minister (Hon. Mr. Haggart) state that the local rates are the same upon the Intercolonial Railway as they are upon the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway in other parts of Canada. I felt very much like turning the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) over to the tender mercies of the member for Carleton (Mr. Hale) who complained that to his knowledge the Canadian Pacific Railway charges on freight from Woodstock to St. John were so much higher than the Intercolonial charges for the same kind of freight that it was a serious handicap for their business and that the people of the county of Carleton and the river counties were not able to place their goods in St. John in fair competition with the goods carried over the Intercolonial Railway. I leave my hon. friend (Mr. Hale) to deal with the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) and to tell him that he was not really well informed as to what was doing on the Intercolonial Railway when he was head of the department. At my request one of my officers has supplied me with a statement which will show the difference between the rates which are in force on the different railways, and I will furnish that to the committee. I move that the committee rise.


Robert Laird Borden: I have not stud-died the Bill perhaps as attentively as I

should, but, is it a part of the scheme of this Bill that railways should be prevented from giving lower rates than those fixed by any one of the tariffs referred to in the Bill.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes; except incompatible with the Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: It is part of the scheme of the Bill to prevent a railway company from giving a low rate if it wants to.


John Graham Haggart: That is what he said.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The only way in which a railway company can make a lower rate is by submitting the tariff and having that considered and passed upon by the commission; otherwise there would be no end of opportunity for all sorts of unfair discriminations. The tariff would have to be established and approved by the commission.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: They may go lower than the tariff.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No; because that is one of the fruitful means of affording opportunities of discrimination, and discrimination is the thing that the country is crying out against.


Robert Laird Borden: Do I understand the minister to say, that applies to the competitive tariff and to the maximum tariff, both.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That applies to the question of tolls. The competitive tariff will not under this Bill have to be submitted and approved before a lower rate can be charged.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILS.


[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 134) to incorporate the Erie-Ontario Power Company.-Mr. German.
On section 11,
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood that the Minister of Railways was to confer with the promoter of the Bill and have a clause recast. .


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: This is the clause, but I do not think it has been recast.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the promoter of the Bill is not here, would-it not be well to postpone it until he is here ?


Robert Laird Borden: .


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: We can pass the clause, and leave the Bill in committee.
Progress reported.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 119) respecting the Alberta Railway and Coal Company.-Mr. Oliver.
Bill (No. 124) respecting the Hudson's Bay and Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Stewart.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Militia transport and freight, $40,000.
['Well, it could hardly have been run by less.\nSome resolutions reported.']
David Tisdale: We were promised some information about the commission.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: The hon. gefltleman asked the other evening for some information about the appointment of Mr. Martineau. I had not then the particulars, but I have them here now, but I think it would be better to defer the discussion of this subject until the report of the commission is laid on the Table. The report is in the hands of my bon. colleague, the Finauce Minister, who will be back in a day or two, and I think it will be much better to postpone discussing this matter until that report is before the House, more particularly as it affects the Department of Finance as well as Militia. In reply to my hon. friend, however, I may say that Mr. Martineau was employed first on the 22nd of August, 1901, and continued in our employ until he was arrested. He was a junior second class clerk, paid at the rate of $800 per annum. He was not appointed specially to the accountant branch, but was a clerk of the civil service in the Militia Department, and was given certain duties to perform in connection with the accountants branch. No guarantee was asked, because none was required. None of the officers in the departments here-at any rate none in my department-have anything to do with the handling of money. I understand that it is only in departments such as customs and post office, where moneys are actually handled by the employees, that guarantees are required. That is all the information I have to give at present.


Mr. INGRAM.: Who are the commissioners ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: The manager of the Bank of Ottawa, Mr. Burn ; the Deputy Minister of Finance, and Mr. A. L. Kent, a prominent accountant of the city of Montreal.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When will that report be laid on the Table ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: As soon as the Finance Minister returns.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Of course, if we pass this item, it is understood that we will be at liberty to discuss this report on any other item ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Absolutely.


David Tisdale: It was agreed the other night that one item would be held back on which we would have full opportunity to discuss all the other items.


Samuel Hughes: I understand that there will be supplementary estimates.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes, both for the present and the next year.


David Tisdale: It was understood that the hon. minister would not make his general statement until then, because there would be some new matters.


Mr. BENNETT.: Did Martineau pass his civil service examinations ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MILITIA	AND
DEFENCE. No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood that further information was to be given regarding claims	against the	town	of Valleyfieldwhether a writ had been issued, and when, and what is the position now.The	MINISTER	OF	MILITIA	ANDDEFENCE. Legal proceedings were	taken
on the 13th of April, 1001. The riot occurred in the autumn of 1900. The troops were paid on the 17th of April, 1901. I shall read the letter which I have found in the department, which will perhaps, better than anything I can say, show exactly the present position of the case. The letter is from Edgar N. Armstrong :
Montreal, May S, 1903.
Lt.-Col. Alexander Roy,
D. O. C. No. 6 District,
St. Johns.


Re A.: Roy ana others versus Valleyfield.
Dear Sir,-In reply to your communication, this case is at present pending upon a demurrer filed by the defendant, which will be argued next week. Incidental proceedings in the matter have caused some delay. As soon as a decision upon the demurrer has been rendered, the case will be Inscribed for final proof and hearing upon the merits, and I trust it may be heard at the next session-of the Supreme Court at Beauharnois, where the action was instituted. I will let you know the decision upon the demurrer when rendered.
Yours faithfully,



Thomas Simpson Sproule: The case was inscribed in the fall of 1901 ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And nothing more done since ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the paper which the hon. gentleman has contain all the information about the various phases ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: No.


William Humphrey Bennett: On what date was the writ issued ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I have not the date of the issue of the writ.


Edward Frederick Clarke: A writ has been issued I presume ?
The MINISTER) OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE. Yes, long ago-in 1901, I take it from this statement.


William Humphrey Bennett: If the action was commenced in the spring of 1901, surely it could not have run until now on a demurrer to any of the pleadings or the institution of the action.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I am sorry the information is not more complete, I will endeavour to get further particulars, to be given when the militia estimates are again under consideration. This file of papers was handed to me, and I assumed that it was a complete answer to questions asked the other night. At any rate, the letter I have read show's the committee that the case is now' being pressed to a conclusion, and that the lawyer in charge of it expects that it will be tried finally at the approaching term of the Superior Court in Beauharnois.


David Tisdale: Will the hon. gentleman lay on the Table the papers that he has there that wre may examine them ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes.


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure).: Is Mr. Armstrong acting on behalf of the government ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: For Colonel Roy.


Charles Marcil: In his name?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: As I understand it, these troops were called out some time in 1900 to suppress a riot. They are young men employed as clerks and mechanics in the city of Montreal and surrounding towns. They lost undoubtedly, larger pay while they w'ere absent from their regular duties than the fifty cents a day that they were

to be paid for their military service. Yet, have they not yet got the paltry pittance of fifty cents a day?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: They got it long ago. They were paid in 1901.


Samuel Hughes: I am glad of that. Well,' take the case of the recent threatened riot in Montreal. Young men who turned out for the suppression of the riot there lost their regular pay and were drawing only fifty cents a day for the service they rendered. Has the minister taken into consideration this aspect of the case- that troops called out for special service, for the preservation of law and order should be paid higher rates, rates somewhat commensurate with the wages they are losing in the establishments they regularly serve


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: If I may interrupt my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes, Victoria), I may explain that the statute fixes the rate of pay for this military service.


Samuel Hughes: I am well aware of that. But the hon. minister is introducing a new militia law, and I am giving him a suggestion for it. In his new militia law I think it would be very advisable to provide that troops when called out for the preservation of law and order in a municipality they should be given a little more than the original fifty cents a day. It would have the advantage of being a warning and a lesson to the municipality.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: The new Bill provides for a higher rate.


Samuel Hughes: I was going to suggest a higher rate of pay for all purposes. I am sorry to say that I could not be present when the item of militia pay was under discussion. But I trust that the minister purposes fixing the rate of pay for volunteers somewhat higher than it has been. It might be fifty cents for the first year, seventy-live cents for the next year and after that one dollar as long as the man remains in the service.


The MINISTER OM MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Perhaps the committee will bear with me while I say to my hon. friend that the matter was pretty fully discussed the other evening, and I said that while we had not come to any conclusion, I felt that the better way to give the increase, which I thought ought to be given, was somewhat in the way suggested by my hon. friend, that is, that 50 cents should be the rate for the first year, then, for the second year a man served, if he was a good man, he should get his increase as good conduct pay, and the third year a further increase, his pay to remain at that maximum so lonsr as, lie served and was within the age limitr Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).


Edward Frederick Clarke: If these proceedings in the case of the municipality of Valleytield were initiated by the commanding 'officer, how comes jt that this correspondence is in the office of the hon. minister? As I understood the hon. minister's explanation to us the other evening, the government had nothing to do with the matter as it was the commanding officer who entered the suit. And yet we find the correspondence in the Militia Department.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: The correspondence will speak for itself. It seems clear that the officer did not immediately proceed, and I presume he was hoping to collect the money. He waited a reasonable-or unreasonable-time, then the Valleytield authorities refused to pay, and the officer was asked what he was doing-


Edward Frederick Clarke: By whom ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: By the General Officer Commanding-it was all donp through the military branch. The General Officer Commanding very distinctly states his opinion, in agreement with what I stated the other evening, that it was the duty of the officer commanding the troops that had turned out to suppress a riot to begin an action in his own name.


David Tisdale: But not at his own expense ?


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


William Humphrey Bennett: It would appear from this correspondence that the suit must have been commenced through the Department of Militia here or by others with the commanding officer, because it refers to the fact that there are others connected with Colonel Roy as plaintiffs. On the last page of the file there is a letter from the Justice Department stating that there were no steps taken through that department relative to this suit. May 1 ask the minister if he is aware who Sir. Edgar N. Armstrong is, and whether instructions were given by the Department of Militia and Defence to Mr. Armstrong to commence the action 7 I assume from the record, that Mr. Armstrong is a solicitor in the city of Montreal.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I have no information respecting Mr. Armstrong.


William Humphrey Bennett: It may be that some hon. member from the city of Montreal can tell us who Mr. Armstrong is.


Charles Marcil: He is a practising lawyer in the city of Montreal, a son of Mr. C. N. Armstrong.


David Tisdale: The proceedings seem to be carried on by direct correspondence with the commanding officer, instead of through the Justice Department. It might be open to the department to commence pro-

ceeclings in that way, but I think that an examination of the precedents will show that such proceedings were formerly commenced through the Justice Department. I know that was the course under the former regime, and I think it is the proper one. I notice by the memorandum that the department instructed that proceedings be commenced by the commanding officer. It says : ' Instructions to take legal proceedings were sent to the commanding officer of district No. 5 on the 3rd April, 1901.' That is from the department


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: The military branch.


Mr. CLARK.: Of what ?


David Tisdale: Of the Militia Department. It does not seem to me a desirable way of proceeding, to pass over the charge of these matters to the commanding officer, who is in no way interested, as I remarked the other evening, except as a trustee for the department. Can the minister explain why instructions were not sent to the Department of Justice to proceed to collect this money ? There ought to be some explanation, it seems to me, unless the minister considers that he has pursued the proper course. So far as my judgment goes, his course is irregular. We have a Justice Department here at the service of the government, which should take proceedings in the regular way, and the head of that department is responsible to the government, to parliament and to the country. But instead of that, the hon. gentleman seems to have imposed this duty on the commanding officer. Now, I think the constitutional way is to hand it over to the Justice Department. Besides, the Militia Department is not equipped to take these proceedings at all. Surely the hon. gentleman will recognize that parliament must hold the minister responsible, and therefore he should utilize the proper department of the government to institute proceedings of this sort. It seems to me an unusual proceeding.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: My hon. friend was here the other evening when these estimates were discussed, and he heard the Minister of Justice state that it was a matter which the law fixed, and that the department here, in the first instance, had nothing to do with it. The law reads as follows :-
When the active militia, or any corps thereof, is so called out in aid of the civil power, the municipality in which their services are required shall pay them, when so employed the rates authorized to be paid for actual service
to officers, men.... And in addition, shall
provide them with proper lodging, and with stabling for their horses ; and the said pay and allowances for subsistence and forage, as also the value of lodging and stabpng, unless furnished in kind by the municipality, may he recovered from it by the officer commanding the corps, in his own name, and, when so recovered, shall be paid over to the persons entitled thereto.
Under that clause the general officer commanding, as my hon. friend will see if he reads the General's letter, instructed the district officer commanding who called out the troops, that it was his duty to act. and the department had nothing to do with it, at that stage at any rate, and have no other obligation in the matter.


David Tisdale: My sole object in dwelling upon this matter now is to get the minister to take a stand on what he considers to be the constitutional practice that should be followed under these circumstances. When the municipality does not pay the troops the law explains that the department should pay them-that is what happened here. Now, while the law does say that the commanding officer should, in his own name, take action, the money is not going to the commanding officer, but to the Militia Department. Naturally, as the government have paid the money, they have a right to collect it, and the commanding officer has no business to touch it. My object is to get the minister to say on his responsibility what procedure ought to be taken. I contend that under the proper construction of that law the Justice Department should enforce it and take proceedings to recover. It becomes a legal matter then, and it is for the Justice Department to see that legal proceedings are taken. I want to press this matter in order that the militia officers may understand the construction that is put upon it. I think if the officers understood that they are to take these proceedings at their own risk, on their own responsibility and at their own expense, you would very soon find them declining to act as commanding officers. I expressed myself strongly the other night on the same line, and the conclusion of the discussion was that the minister should bring down the information, as he has done, that we might discuss the question more intelligently. Now, we find that the Militia Department instructed the officers to proceed. I say that is not a proper course to follow, because the money to be recovered belongs to the country. Does the hon. gentleman know of any other similar cases that have occurred under his administration ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: There has been one case in British Columbia.


David Tisdale: How did you proceed then ? Did you pay the troops ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: We paid the troops, and took proceedings to recover in the same way.


David Tisdale: Was the case sent to the Justice Department to recover the money ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: No.


David Tisdale: You directed the
commanding officer there to do it ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes, lie was reminded of liis duty, and he proceeded to collect, and did collect In that case, I think.


David Tisdale: Well, I think it is time attention was called to the irregularity of proceeding in that way. I submit that is not what is intended under a fair construction of the law. The statute had to provide for some person to bring the suit. But if the practice the department has been following is according to law, the law ought to be promptly changed, and that is the reason why I am laying stress on this matter. Under the old regime, this course would not have been taken. The law is sufficient in its present form if it was carried out in a constitutional way. If the commanding officer had to pay the men himself it would be a different thing, because then he would be acting for the men. I submit that If the law is to be so construed that this money must be collected by the commanding officer, the law should be amended.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I think the point my hon. friend has taken is well worthy of consideration. I am not a lawyer myself, therefore I am at a disadvantage as compared with him. I assume that the practice followed in this case was the same as the practice followed in preceding cases that have happened. There have not been many, but there have been at least two before this one, one in my time and one before. My deputy minister is a lawyer, and I have a good deal of confidence in him, because he has had a good deal of experience, and I felt quite sure he was pursuing the proper course. I may say at once that I think it will be very proper to submit the question which my hon. friend has raised to the Department of Justice to have our position defined under the statute. I am not able to construe the statute. I have simply stated the construction which was put upon it the night before last by the hon. Minister of Justice within the hearing of my hon. friend. So far as the expense to be incurred by the district officer, or the commanding officer, is concerned, it does not seem to me that there is any question as to that. I do not think there could be any doubt under the statute that where an officer is compelled to do a certain thing it must be understood that the money shall be provided for him, and that he shall not be put to any expense. It does not seem to me that that can admit of argument at'all, no matter what course is pursued. It cannot be presumed for a moment that a person who is compelled to bring this suit shall be expected to do so at his own expense.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think there should be any difficulty whatever in working out the statute in that case. As a matter of fact I think that in practice the pay and allowances for the men are provided


David Tisdale: by the government because usually there is some delay before a municipality pays them over. A suit in regard to a similar matter in the province of Nova Scotia went first to the Supreme Court of that province and then to the Supreme Court of Canada. There was no difficulty about it. The department hands over to the men the pay and allowances provided by the statute. Well, then, the department having done that, the commanding officer, not for his own benefit, or on his own account, but on account of the government, calls upon the municipality for the reimbursement of that amount. The commanding officer is merely the trustee for the government, because the government have paid the money and are entitled to recover it in the name of the commanding officer. The practice pursued in the case I refer to is this : The municipality declined, or neglected to pay over the money to the commanding officer, the Department of Militia and Defence simply placed the case in the hands of the Department of Justice and the Department of Justice instructed its agent to take tjfie necessary proceedings for recovery. These proceedings were taken. A question arose as to the sufficiency of the requisition in that case, ns to whether or not the requisition came within the terms of the statute. That case was eventually decided in favour of the Crown and the amount was recovered from the municipality in question. The commanding officer is a mere figure head. He is simply a trustee for the government. If he refuses to take action the government would still have a remedy. That is beyond doubt, and I do not know why there should be any difficulty in a case of this kind more than in any other case, because, the fact that he refuses should not in any way effect the right of the government to recover from the parties who are liable as the law provides. In so far as the hon. Minister of Justice makes any argument to the contrary, I am not clear as to what he means. In so far as he makes an argument to the effect that this is only a matter for the commanding officer, I do not agree with him. There cannot be any question about that. The commanding officer is simply the person in whose name the statute has authorized the suit to be brought. The object is 'very clear. In the first place the liability is created between the municipality and the officers and men who are entitled to their pay and allowances. It would be inconvenient for every one of these men to sue the municipality; therefore. the statute provides that the action shall be taken in the name of the commanding officer. Another provision is necessary. That is that the men shall be paid while the questions arising with the municipality are being determined by the courts. Therefore, the statute provides that the government may advance these moneys, but it also provides that this shall in no way interfere

with the liability of the municipality. Then, it says that the commanding officer shall proceed to sue, and that upon the recovery of the amount he shall pay it over to His Majesty. He is what in law- is called a bare trustee for the Crown, having no personal interest whatever. There should be no difficulty in working out the statute and taking the necessary proceedings to recover the money.


William Humphrey Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I think w-e are entitled to know- w-hen these proceedings really were taken by the colonel of the regiment. It was on the 13th April, 1901, that Colonel Aylmer sent instructions to the district officer commanding in these words :	,
Be so good as to carry out the requirements of the Militia Act, as set forth by the major general commanding in his minute, No. 4, of the 4th instant, and as approved by the hon. the Minister of Militia.
This was on the 13th April, 1901, but it w-as not until the 24tli September, 1901, that the money was paid. So that these instructions to collect from the municipality of Valleyfleld were given some months prior to the date of the actual payment of the money as shown by this memorandum from the general officer commanding to the deputy minister, in which he says :
I forward herewith the papers in connection with the claim for payment of the troops employed on duty in connection with the riots at Valleyfleld, and, as it will be seen from the preceding minute of the deputy officer commanding militia district Nos. 5-6, that the course prescribed in the Militia Act has been duly carried out, I recommend that the amount due, viz.: $4,442.91 be paid by the government pending a settlement with the Valleyfleld municipality.
(Sgd.) R. H. O'GRADY-HALY,
Maj. Gen. Oom'd'g. Can. Militia.
That is dated the 24th September, 1901, so that it cannot have been subsequent to the date w-hen the money was actually paid. I see that the hon. minister has his deputy here. Perhaps he w-ill tell us at w-hat date the instructions were given to this gentleman, Mr. Edgar N. Armstrong, who is apparently the solicitor on the record, to commence proceedings. Is it a fact that proceedings were instituted through the department and instructions given direct to Mr. Armstrong, and if not w-hen w-ere the instructions sent by the department to the commanding officer to commence action ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: In April, 1901.


William Humphrey Bennett: But the money had not been paid by the department until September of that year.
The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DE-
FENCE. That did not make any difference.


William Humphrey Bennett: There is nothing in the records of the department that will show ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: The riot occurred in October, 1900. The district officer commanding waited until April. He failed to collect. The general officer commanding inquired w-hat was going on and reminded the district officer commanding of his duty under the statute to bring action to collect the money. I do not know the date at which the district officer commanding began action but he was instructed in April, 1901, to bring the action. Later on the Valleyfleld people, having still refused to pay, in September, I think it was, the money was paid.


William Humphrey Bennett: I am not conversant with the practice in the province of Quebec, but it seems to me very odd that when the suit was commenced in April, 1901, the demurrer in the courts has not been disposed of yet.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I did not say the suit was commenced. I said that a reminder was sent to the district officer commanding that he was not attending to his duty and that was sent in April, 1901.


William Humphrey Bennett: It was the whole contention the other night that this action w-as delayed, that no process was issued, that no steps were taken to show that the department was pressing for the payment of the claim which had been made against the municipality of Valleyfleld for months, and that it was dragged on pending a by-election that happened in that county. The hon. minister must have something in his department that will show the actual date of the issue of the writ, or when instructions were given to Colonel Roy that he must press for payment by process in the court.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I am not able to give the date of the issue of the writ, but I will get it and complete the file of papers the .next time these estimates come up.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Would it be unreasonable to ask the minister to bring down a copy of demurrer filed by the municipality of Valleyfleld ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: If It is filed I will get it.


William Humphrey Bennett: The plaintiffs are Ro.v et al. Who were the others associated with Mr. Roy in the action.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I am unable to say. I will endeavour to get the file of all the papers from the court and produce them.


Samuel Hughes: A very interesting ease arose out of this matter in connection with the refusal of a certain com-

manding officer to turn out liis corps when ordered. What are the facts of the case as determined by the court ?


The MINISTER OP MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: You refer to the case of Col. Cole and Col. Cooke ?


Samuel Hughes: Yes.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I would ask my hon. friend to let that stand, because I am bringing down an item in the supplementary estimates with regard to it, when the whole thing can be discussed.


David Tisdale: I understand that the minister has declined to bring down the special report which has been made by the major general commanding. Would the minister please repeat his reasons, as I will probably have something to say about it later on.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I consider this report of the major general commanding to be of a confidential character, precisely similar to the report made by the Defence Committee in 1898 for which the House voted .$5,000. That report was marked 'secret' and was intended for the use of the government and of the intelligence branch of the war office.


Samuel Hughes: Has the war office an intelligence branch now. or had it then ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Well, so-called. I do not believe there is a country in the world in which reports of that kind are published.


David Tisdale: I am not speaking of the Defence Committee report.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I say that the report of the major general commanding is precisely of the same character as the report of the Defence Committee, and I am arguing that it should be treated in the same way. I shall be very glad to submit both these reports to the leader of the opposition and to whatever members he wishes to associate with him as a confidential committee, but I do think it would be very much out of place to publish a report of that kind or lay it on the Table of the House.


David Tisdale: The minister's explanation of what the report is


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: It; is a defence scheme.


David Tisdale: I quite agree that a defence report should not be published because it is a plan by which an enemy could be most successfully met. but I do not understand from the explanation of the minister that the report in question is of such a nature. I thought it was a report on what the major general believed would put the militia of Canada on an efficient Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).
footing. In his annual report, the major general says :
With this report I have the honour also to forward another special report to which I have given a great deal of thought, and it contains a broad scheme for the improvement of the militia. If the proposals contained in it are carried out they will in my opinion conduce to the greater efficiency of the militia.
It would not appear from this that there would be anything secret about the report. There may be reasons why the minister would not carry out the recommendations in that report, the expense among other things, but seeing that the major general does not say that it is a confidential report, I do not think the minister should take the responsibility of keeping it from parliament. I have not the honour of knowing Lord Duudonald even by sight, but he is an officer of very high reputation and very great experience, qualities which commend him highly to the people of this country and to the militia force, and consequently his views on what would add to the efficiency of our militia are extremely important to the public, and I have no doubt would be very beneficial if they could be carried into effect.
With all deference to my leader, and with all the confidence that I have in him, I do not think the private examination of that report should be left to his responsibility. I think we are all entitled to get the benefit of it. At this time especially, when the relations of the colonies to the Empire, particularly in regard to defensive measures, are a live question, it would be most opportune to have a scheme devised by a man of the capacity and responsibility of the Major General Commanding, and endorsed by the government. I am one of those who have no desire for what is called militarism in the sense in which that word is generally used. I think we ought to do our share, and we ought not to be afraid to do our full share, of providing for the defence of this country, and if we do that, it may be fairly taken as our quota towards the defence of the empire. That is my idea at the present time of the distance we should go in that direction. I know of nothing that would be more satisfactory to myself, as a representative of the people, and I believe to all other representatives of the people in this House, and to the militia force, a part of which made such a splendid record for themselves in fighting side by side with the force which in case of need would help us to defend this country. I regret that the minister has taken the view he has expressed. I hope I may be able to induce him yet to reconsider his decision. In my opinion he will make a serious mistake if he does not submit the report to the public view. It will be a mistake for him in his position, for his department, and for the government, and a disappointment to the force, if we are not allowed to see that report, prepared by a great and experienced

soldier, one of the finest officers, from liis record, in the British service. Let ns see it and judge for ourselves. I do not think it is at all on the line of the defence report. There were most important and essential reasons why that should be secret, but none of those reasons seem applicable to a report of this sort. While the scheme may be too large and too expensive in many ways, yet 1 think it would be an excellent thing for us to have the views, extravagant or otherwise, contained in this report as to what will be necessary to put our militia into an efficient shape, and as to the proper size of that force. I am more than ever desirous of seeing it for this reason. So far the Major General and the minister have not shown a disposition to expend money extravagantly in the way of training the militia. They are introducing some new features. Probably from what the hon. minister says about the supplementary estimates, and about postponing the discussion until we have them before us-, we may have some statements at that time in regard to those features. But in the meantime I hope he will change his mind and allow this report to be seen and judged by all the people of this country.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I thought it was understood that we were to postpone this discussion ; but I am afraid my hon. friend is rather inclined to anticipate the discussion on the item which I agreed to bring down later on. I thought that was the proper course to pursue, because I hope in the supplementary estimates to have some items on which a discussion of this kind can properly be raised. Of course, my hon. friend has the advantage of me in coming to a judgment of the report he is talking about, because he has never read it, and I have. Let me repeat to him that the report is in my judgment very similar to that of the defence committee which sat here in 1898. That report has been adopted by this government, and approved by the intelligence branch of the War Office, with which we must be in touch in carrying out our defensive schemes in this country.' I do not think it is wise to pursue two lines of a defence scheme at once. I prefer to get rid of one before I begin with another. When the estimate which I have to bring down is brought here, I propose to take the House into my confidence, so far as I can, with reference to the contents of the defensive committee's report of 1898 and the contents of the Major General's report of a recent date.


Andrew B. Ingram: What the hon. minister has just stated would rather confirm the widespread rumour that there was a difference of opinion between the General Officer Commanding and the hon. minister respecting this report ; and if we look at the statement in the Militia Report, submitted by '
the General Officer Commanding, we shall see that he finds a good deal of fault with the way in which the militia force of Canada is conducted, for instance, in the matter of equipment. I would like to know how we are going intelligently to discuss the estimates of the Militia Department without being in possession of all the necessary information. I submit that the hon. gentleman should at least give us that portion of the report which it would not injure the militia to make public ; and instead of the minister reserving his general statement until the supplementary estimates are brought down, if that statement had been made when the estimates were first introduced, we would be enlightened as to his policy with respect to the militia of this country. But not knowing what the policy of the hon. gentleman is, I fail to see how we can discuss these estimates as they ought to be discussed.


Samuel Hughes: With reference to defence schemes and confidential documents, the history of European countries shows that these are largely instruments to encourage some confidential clerk to sell them to neighbouring agents. I do not know that there should be any confidential scheme of defence for Canada. The cheapest confidential scheme would be to have all our young fellows trained to be good shots so that they could make any enemy feel that it was a rather dangerous experiment to cross the border.


Mr. BOYD.: Puncture them.


Samuel Hughes: Yes, puncture any enemy that would cross the border. We heard a great deal about the confidential scheme of the war office for the invasion of the Transvaal, but when the South African war broke out, there was not a solitary map of the Transvaal or Orange Free State in Britain. So far as the confidential report of the general is concerned, that has been discussed before, and I shall not reopen the discussion. I should be sorry to have anything said here which would tend to produce the slightest friction among tlie officers of the Militia Department. It has always been my aim and the aim of hon. members on this side to keep the issues in the Militia Department out of the arena of contentious discussion as much as possible, because we should all stand shoulder to shoulder in the upholding of our country. I have not had an opportunity of reading this famous report, but the hon. minister lias expressed himself in this House as very favourable to the views stated by the general. He has told us that he and the general are in a.ccord in all these matters. That being the case,
I am not disposed to probe too deep into any little wound or any confidential reports there may be in the department, but I trust that in due time these things will be used in the best interests of the militia. I may

inform the hon. minister that it is my intention, either on the militia estimates or on going into Committee of Supply, to take up the question of training the youth of the country in the use of the rifle. My whole aim is to get both young and old men trained in the use of firearms, so that should an enemy assail us, X care not whether our cousins to the south, or Invaders from any other quarter of the globe, they would hesitate before they crossed the Canadian border to face the lads of this country.


Andrew B. Ingram: Does this deal with transportation going to and returning from camp?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: No. This covers the transport of officers of the headquarters and district staff of the permanent corps on staff duties during annual drill-$S,000, transport of officers and men of the active militia and the permanent corps to and from the schools of instruction, also transport to and from the different stations, $10,000 ; freight and express charges on stores, $20,000.
Militia-grants to asociations, $38,000.


David Tisdale: How many of these associations are there ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: This vote is divided as follows : Grant to Dominion Rifle Association. .$10,000
Artillery Association	 5,000
Provincial Rifle Association	 8,700
Local Rifle Associations	 6,500
Bands	   7,500
Military Institutes	 300
Total	$38,000
In round numbers, the number of men enrolled in the different rifle associations is close on 20,000. There are two classes of associations. There are the military associations in the different militia corps, the assistance given to which is 200 rounds of free ammunition per annum. Then there are the civil associations, composed of not less than forty members and up to eighty. To each of these we give 100 rounds of ammunition and a certain number of rifles. Of course we cannot spare as many rifles as we would like.


David Tisdale: How do you see that these rifles are cared for ?


The SIINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: The captain of each civil association is an officer of the militia.


Hon.   S@: Would a retired officer do ?


The SIINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: What is being done with regard to the furnishing of ammunition to the various schools of the country for rifle practice ? I refer to miniature ammunition.


The SIINISTER OF SIILITIA AND DEFENCE.: At present we have no authority Sir. HUGHES (Victoria).
under the law to do that, but I hope that in the new Bill we will take that authority.


Samuel Hughes: If an institution were willing to purchase, would it get the ammunition at a reasonable rate ?


The SIINISTER OF SIILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Certainly.


Sir. FOWLER.: How much was expended last year on this item ?


The MINISTER OF SIILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Forty thousand dollars.


Samuel Hughes: Formerly the rifle associations obtained larger grants from the government than they do now. Why has the amount been cut down ?


The SIINISTER OF SIILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I was not aware that it had been cut down.


Samuel Hughes: I may say on behalf of the association I have the honour to represent that we are very glad to get it doubled up again.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: The same amount of money or a larger amount is expended, but it is given in a different way, in the maintenance of rifle ranges and in other ways.


George William Fowler: This amount covers the grants to civil associations as well as military. In what proportions is it divided between them ?


The SIINISTER OF SIILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I do not think I could give the exa ct figures.


George William Fowler: It seems to me that this is a matter of some importance, that we may know how far the general public have taken advantage of this offer.


The SIINISTER OF SIILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I have already informed the hon. gentleman that we have 20,000 men enlisted in the civilian associations.


George William Fowler: It seems to me there ought to be in the department information that could be given to the committee with respect to this matter. I am surprised that the minister seems to treat it so lightly. It seems to me a matter of importance to know whether persons not enrolled in militia camps are taking an interest in making up associations and becoming proficient in the use of the rifle. We have understood that it will be a very important feature if ever we are called upon to defend this country, that the young men-and old men too-should be well trained in the use of the rifle whether they are connected with the militia or not. I think the minister should be able to give us this information.


The SIINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I shall be glad to give the hon. gentleman the information. I find that, according to districts the associations are divided as follows	'

Military. Civilian.
District	No.	1,	London	
7	21"	2.	Toronto	
15	22"	3,	Kingston andOttawa	
24	14District No. 5, Montreal	
7	13"	6. St. John	
*7"	7.	Quebec	
3	2"	8. New Brunswick 8	9"	9.	Nova Scotia ..	5	10"	10	Winnipeg ....	6	32"	11,	British Columbia	
5	10District	No.	12,	Prince EdwardIsland	
4	9Ottawa Brigade	
1	1
Mr. FOWLER, It must be very gratifying to every member of this committee-I am sure it is to me-to know that the general public is taking an interest in the matter of rifle practice.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I am much obliged to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler) for asking the question.
Mt\ FOWLER. I asked it in order to bring' out the information, for I may say to the minister that I think this the most valuable improvement made in connection with the Militia Department, and I was anxious to know how the people were taking hold. Would the hon. Minister tell me whether there were any differences made between the grants given to civilian associations and those to the military associations.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: There is no difference, except in the ammunition. The military get two hundred rounds-that is, they get one hundred rounds at the time of their annual drill and they get one hundred besides-while the civilian associations get only one hundred.


George William Fowler: I suppose that in some of these civilian rifle associations there would be military members


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes.


George William Fowler: They would be formed, I suppose, in rural constituencies where it would be impossible for a sufficient number of military men to get together, and would be filled up with civilians. Could the minister give an idea how many altogether are civilians and how many are military men ?
The MINISTER OFj MILITIA AND DEFENCE. I am afraid I cannot. But in the province of Manitoba where we have far the largest number of civilian associations, there are very few members who belong to the militia at all. That is a very satisfactory point. In the other districts I am not able to say ; but I can say that a very large proportion of the members are civilians. Let me say one word further. We did not feel justified in making this large grant of ammunition without getting some pledge in return, and all the members of the civilian associations signed an agreement to serve in case of emergency, to join the active militia and serve their country for three years.
Mr. FOWLER, I think that is a very proper thing. I would like to know the total enrolment in these associations.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: About 20,000.


George William Fowler: Are rifles supplied to them ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes. Unfortunately we are not able to supply many rifles, but we supply ten Lee-Enfield rifles to every 40 men of the civilian association.


Andrew B. Ingram: What is the authority under which the hon. gentleman acted in supplying civilians with this ammunition ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: We have the vote of parliament, and we have the regulations of the militia which have been authorized by this parliament.


Andrew B. Ingram: I understood the hon. gentleman to say that so far as high schools are concerned he did not provide this ammunition to them free. But I find an exception here, the Hamilton Collegiate Institute has been supplied with free ammunition. I think that all the institutes ought to be treated alike.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I suppose in that case they are connected with one of the corps, and are over 18 years of age. We arfe limited by the Act, there is an age limit, and that is the reason we cannot grant clothing, money or ammunition to boys below the age fixed in the statute. In this particular case it is a voluntary corps, and the rifle has been issued under the Militia Act.


Samuel Hughes: In regard to the Hamilton Collegiate Institute, I have the target returns in my possession for the senior corps. They are members of the regular rifle association and shoot over the long ranges. The junior corps shoot with the miniature ammunition. I do not know whether that ammunition has been supplied free or not. The collegiate scores are all at 200, 500 and 600 yards, seven rounds at each range. Out of a possible 105, I find the score running up to 68, 54, 40, 45, 37 and so on. This is at 200, 500 and 600 yards for boys. Then they had one match of seven rounds rapid firing at 500 yards, and I find that the scores were very creditable. Out of a possible 35 one made 26, one made IS one made 17, 19, 15, 17, 11 and so on. The scores all through are very creditable. Although these are cadets in a collegiate institute, nevertheless they shoot with long range rifles, and at very long ranges. In the case of the junior cadets, they used miniature am-

munition and the score there for the boys ! from 12 to 14 years of age is remarkably creditable, and I will give it to the House later on.


George William Fowler: Is it the intention of the minister to get authority to supply ammunition to the different schools throughout the country ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: We have it already, but we have not had enough ammunition to go round, so far. It is manufactured in Quebec. Next year, on account of the largely increased machinery, we expect to be able to manufacture over 2,000,000 rounds.


George William Fowler: Is it a fact that to the * junior class in this collegiate institute at Hamiltion you have charged for the miniature ammunition supplied, or was it supplied free ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: 'It was not supplied free.


George William Fowler: Then the reason that the others could get none was not because there was none, if you supplied it free in this case. If you supplied it to the senior class free why should you not supply it to the junior class free ? '


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I have explained that the senior class comes within the law and the regulations, and the junior class do not.


George William Fowler: Is it the intention of the minister to get authority to supply the juniors ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: In the new Bill which has been prepared and of which notice has been given it is proposed to take that authority I stated the other night that I would be able to say whether I would bring down the Bill this session or not, but I am not prepared to say that to-night.


Andrew B. Ingram: It is a most inconsistent thing to supply the juniors with ammunition and make them pay for it, and to supply the seniors free. The reason cannot be that it is dangerous for the juniors, because it would be just as dangerous for the seniors. I am sorry to see the minister so indefinite in regard to introducing his Bill this session. Last session he gave us a promise that the Militia Act -would be amended so as to give these boys an opportunity of having free ammunition. There are several other things that should be provided in connection writh cadet corps. For instance, the arms are too heavy for them, as the hon. gentleman will see by his own report. More interest should be taken in the cadet corps. I hope the hon. gentleman will not overlook the importance of providing that these cadet corps should spend at least a short time in camp, perhaps for one day, subject to certain restrictions safeguarding and protecting Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).
them in such a way as that the parents of these small boys would not object to their attending camp. I trust the hon. gentleman will give this matter consideration.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I agree entirely with my hon. friend (Mr. Ingram) and other hon. gentlemen who have indicated their opinion as to the importance of looking after tliesfe young cadets. At the same time it must not be forgotten that under our constitution the provinces have control of educational matters and this to a very large extent must come under their purview. I am making arrangements with some of the heads of the educational departments of the provinces with a view of trying to agree upon some plan by which we can do a little more to further the end which my hon. friends and myself have in view.


Samuel Hughes: I would say that this is another point I purpose bringing up when this question is discussed at greater length, but now that we are on the question, and in view of the early coming on of the military camps, I will take the opportunity of giving the hon. minister a few suggestions and like the old medicine, if they will not do any good they will not do any harm. The target practice, even under the very capable instructors that are placed over these camps is largely, to use a mild term, wasted at the present time. The riflemen go down and practice at the targets. What the hon. Minister should see carried out is that every officer not only practices shooting, but that he also take hold of the squad and instruct the squad how to carry out its rifle practice. Then, when they get through with that they should go on to the long range and the officers and non-commissioned officers in turn should take charge of the instruction, because men learn by doing. It is all right for a man to stand off and see another giving directions, but unless lie gets into harness himself and has to put his men through the firing practice he is not as proficient as he otherwise would be. I have watched them frequently in camp. I watched them last year at the Niagara camp for part of a day. It was very nice-I will not say it was useless-but it was not as useful as it might have been. I just give the hon. minister these suggestions in order that if they commend themselves to him they may be carried out in the coming camps. I would like to ask the hon. minister if he has considered the proposition as to placing, not only rifles with all these Dominion associations and n couple of rifles in each school in the country for the use of the school associations, but ultimately of placing a rifle in the hands of every ablebodied man in the Dominion of Canada under proper auspices.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I would be delighted to do it, but

when I have only $35,000 for rifles. 1 And it very difficult.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I understood the hon. minister to say that a portion of this amount went in aid of military bands ?


The MINISTER OP MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Would the bon. minister give us some information about that ? What principle is adopted in assisting bands and what bands are assisted ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: The amount given to bands depends npou the number of men in the band and its efficiency. It ranges from $25 up to $100. It is given to all the bands throughout the country and to all the corps.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Who is the judge as to efficiency ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: The commanding officer. It may be the district officer commanding or possibly be an officer from headquarters. I think usually it is the district officer commanding.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In regard to the cadets, what is the limit of age ; that is, how old must they be before they can enter ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Twelve.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: From twelve up ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Even at the risk of being somewhat unpopular, I have entertained the view for some time that there is a possibility of carrying this military spirit a little too far. There is no doubt whatever that we are fast developing by our system, or conduct, a strong military spirit all over the country and that we are attracting the youth of our country from the industrial pursuits of life. I notice that these military cadets are very popular in towns and villages. It is there you would expect them to be popular, but I notice as well that the youth of smaller towns and villages and those connected with country schools all over the country are taking it up very rapidly and there seems to be a strong and growing ambition to be connected with some military organization, military cadets, or military something. Many of them are showing the strong inclination owing to that to get away to the larger fields of life where they can be more intimately associated with military life than they are in the country villages or at the country schools. We have at present, in my judgment, too many attractions to draw the youth of the country away from the agricultural pursuits of life especially. This seems to be another one that may grow to dangerous proportions in future, and I am
merely throwing out this word of warning. While this is no doubt intended to be in the right direction there seems to be a possibility of starting an agitation that afterwards may grow beyond the proportions that we intended it should reach and beyond the proportions that are healthy in the interests of the country. I think we ought to be a little careful and not encourage it too much, because if it is continued and grows as rapidly in the future as it has in the past, it may be a trouble to this country, because we cannot keep it under control as we may desire to do. There is no question that this is one of the things to-day that is becoming very attractive to the youth of the country and is tending to draw very many away from home at an earlier period in life than perhaps they should be taken away in their own interests, or in the interest of their parents, or of the pursuits of life with which they are connected.


William Humphrey Bennett: If there is no bard and fast rule by which the rifles of a battalion are to be kept entirely at the headquarters of the battalion, I would like to ask the consideration of the hon. minister to the request that the rifles of the two companies which have their headquarters at the town of Orillia may be kept there. In the cities it is much more easy to get up a feeling of kindliness, if I may so term it, towards the militia, owing to the fact that in cities the companies cultivate the social side of military life. In the town of Orillia one very attractive feature has been the friendly competition between the civilian corps of shooting men and those connected with the militia, but owing to the fact that the rifles are kept at the battalion headquarters at Barrie, these two companies have been without the attraction of rifle shooting that other companies have in the battalion. I would ask the hon. minister if these companies could have their rifles, and as the armoury is not as good there as might be desired, I would call his attention to the fact that in the public building used for the purposes of a post office and other government offices, there is a large room that I think is not in general use which might be used for the storage of these rifles.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I sympathize very much with the views expressed by my hon. friend (Mr. Bennett). I am very sorry indeed that a change was made in the rural battalions by making central! headquarters, and I am frank enough to admit that I think it was a mistake. There seemed to be some sort of extraordinary dread, when I came into office, in the mind of the then general officer commanding as to issuing the new rifle. The officers seemed to have an idea that it should be packed in cotton wool, and that the militiaman should be allowed to see it only once a year. We have outgrown that now. but the prevailing idea then was that we must not issue the rifles until there was

a central armoury and a competent armourer. In tlie meantime we liaye constructed certain armouries, and I suppose we feel under an obligation to make use of them ; but I think that the proposal made by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) is perfectly fair, and I will take it into consideration and see whether his wishes in that regard cannot be carried into effect.


Samuel Hughes: The theory to which the minister refers was due to the fact that the myth was abroad that once a rifle had been fired with cordite cartridge it must be cleaned immediately. I have a rifle that I have carried in 1S99 and 1900, and every year since, and it has not been cleaned once.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Samuel Hughes: I may explain that it belongs to myself ; and though it never has been cleaned once, yet strange to say its bullet sometimes finds its billet. It has fired some thousands rounds of ammunition, and it is all right.


The MINISTER OP MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I think that is the general experience.


Samuel Hughes: I am sorry the minister did not reply to the remarks of my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) in relation to the creation of a military spirit in the country. So far as I am concerned,
I would have every boy and, for that matter, every girl, in Canada imbued with the military spirit, and then you would never have to dread militarism. Our permanent ' corps are begging Canadians to join and they will not do so, but in a district where there is a proper military spirit abroad you will find our young men joining the volunteers enthusiastically.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: The reason I did not reply to the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) was because I felt that the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Hughes) could reply very much Jietter than I could.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Let me give an illustration of what I mean. Not very long ago I was passing a country school and saw a number of boys, ranging in years from nine to fourteen, each of them with a little wooden gun marching under the command of a small boy, and each with a cigarette in his mouth, puffing away for all he was worth.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It did seem to me that the doctrine of teaching the young idea how to shoot had been inculcated into them too early in life, and that they had associated with it other habits of military life.


Samuel Hughes: I have carried a gun for thirty-seven years, and I have never had a cigarette or a pipe in my mouth Sir F. W. BORDEN.
yet, so the two things do not go hand in hand.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There are few like my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Hughes), and we cannot expect the ordinary individual to be the same as he is.


Andrew B. Ingram: I disapprove of the idea that we should not encourage our boys to join the cadet corps. It is not so much that it creates a military spirit as that it promotes discipline and strength of character. If the member for Grey (Mr. Sproule) saw the cadet corps in connection with our Collegiate Institute, and saw those boys one day before they joined the cadets and two weeks afterwards, he would find them greatly improved.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Andrew B. Ingram: The cadet corps creates discipline, it gives the boys a bearing which they preserve through life, and if they should ever be called to the defence of their country it imparts to them at all events the rudiments of military knowledge. I believe these cadet corps ought to be encouraged, and I believe the parents of our Canadian boys approve of them. The gentleman in St. Thomas who looks after the cadet corps there has received very great praise from the commanding officers for the discipline which he imparts to the boys. My hon. friend will find that could they have cadet corps in villages the same as we have in cities, and if he inquires into it, he will find that instead of encouraging the boys to smoke cigarettes it would train them to habits directly the opposite.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If it were confined to collegiate institutes the boys would have reached more mature years, and the system would not be so objectionable. My experience is that in nearly every rural school throughout the country the spirit is becoming so prevalent that children of seven or eight years are imbued with it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Those acquainted with rural districts recognize that there are attractions in military life which draw the youth at too early an age from their quiet farm homes to the cities. We have been considering how we can prevent this depopulation of the agricultural districts. There are various reasons for it, and in my judgment this is one of them.


Samuel Hughes: The argument of the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) defeats itself. If the policy of having all the youth of the country trained in military exercises is carried out, there will be no need of these boys rushing to the cities and towns to indulge in military

training. I can say to him, with a good deal of pride-and the gallant and learned gentleman from Haldimand (Mr. Thompson) will endorse this statement-that at the time of the military review at Toronto, two years ago, some of the rural corps took second place to no corps from Toronto or any other city on that occasion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was that due to the system of military cadets inaugurated some years ago ?


Samuel Hughes: To speak personally, I had the honour of leading a regiment which I think was considered second to none on that occasion, and I can assure the hon. member for East Grey that the efficiency of that regiment was largely due to the fact that many of the men had been trained in the schools before joining the volunteer corps. Fully one-half of one company and about one-third of another, were boys who had their training in the schools of the country previous to going into camp. The hon. member for East Elgin has very properly pointed out the great advantage of this training. Where do you find men with more respect for law and order than the old soldiers of this country ? You never find them indulging in disorder, except in an occasional celebration on pension day, and X am sure that my hon. friend from East Grey would not object to that. Where-ever you have a strong military spirit, you have more manhood in the youth of the country. As the hon. member for East Elgin says, when you have a boy who stands with his head erect and his' hands out of his pockets, you have the making of a man ; but when you see one standing with his head down and his hands in his pockets, and a streak of tobacco down his jaw, you can safely say that he is on the way to the gutter. I trust that the hon. member for East Grey will reconsider the conclusion he arrived at on seeing those boys going around with cigarettes in their mouths. I am surprised he did not stop them and read them a moral lecture. But I am sure that if he will make the school a present of a Union Jack and the teacher a present of a new bonnet for their proficiency in drill, the result will be that the boys will give up smoking.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: X have no doubt the hon. member is able to give a great deal of valuable advice ; but I fail to see that he has advanced any logical reason why I should change my views on the subject. I admit that a military training does make boys look more manly ; that is in the right direction. But in many other directions I am afraid it is not for the well-being of the youth of the country. The hon. gentleman suggests that the member for East Grey might have read these boys a moral lecture. Well, he is perhaps not as much in the habit of reading moral lectures to 119
others as the hon. gentleman is, and there may be some excuse for my refraining.


Andrew B. Ingram: I wish to point out that if the youth of the country are trained in the way we have been describing, the necessity will be avoided of the General Officer Commanding making such remarks as the following in his report:
For example, at Niagara-on-theLake this year, out of 1,054 non-commissioned officers there were not less than 440 who put on the stripes for the first time. Such a force certainly does not provide the trained frame-work needed to make a citizen army efficient in time of war.
As with seme of the non-commissioned officers, so it is with some of the officers.
Militia-contingencies, $22,000.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: This item is made up as follows :	Printing and stationery, $13,000;
military survey, $4,000-a survey carried on by the pupils of the Royal Military college, under the direction of a competent officer of the college, which has been going on for some years ; injuries at annual drill, covering cases of illness and accidents to men and occasionally to horses, $2,000 ; telegraphic expenses, legal expenses, and sundries, $3,000. It is the usual vote.
Royal Military College, $75,000.


David Tisdale: I see that is just the same as the vote of last year. There is nothing new in it, I suppose ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: No, it is the same.


George Taylor: I see in the Auditor General's Report, at page Q-83, an item of $3,288 which was paid to R. Crawford for coal. Was that purchased by tender and contract ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes.


George Taylor: Livingston & Bros, were paid $7,201 for clothing. Was that also purchased by tender ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: No. It is impossible to do that, because the clothes are made to measure. We have pursued the course that has always been pursued since the college was established.
Defenses of Esquimau, $114,703.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: That is the usual vote. It is based on an agreement entered into between this government and the imperial' government, the terms of which were laid; on the Table of the House two years ago.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This expenditure is spread over a term of years. How long was it supposed to run ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND.   DEFENCE@: Ten years, I think.


Samuel Hughes: There has been a good deal of discussion throughout the press, especially in the old country, as to why Canada does not get on with her general officers commanding. If we are to judge by the verdict recorded by almost every one of these generals, each one found that his predecessor was absolutely useless. Discuss the matter with any imperial officer of high standing in the old land, and he will tell you that there are three types of generals sent out to this country. One of these was the second in command of a certain regiment, and in order to avoid having to give him the command of that famous regiment, he was shipped to Canada to get him out of the way. Another was sent but because they wanted to keep him a year or two longer on the full pay list. Another was such a born crank that they had no place for him in the service in the old country and so they sent him out to Canada. And another came out in order that he might make the Canadian militia a stepping stone to the position of commander in chief in the imperial service. For the first time in history, we have in Canada a general officer who was sent here by the imperial authorities on his superior merits. I have therefore no hesitation whatever in encouraging the House to increase his pay. I am thoroughly in favour of having an imperial trained officer to command our militia, but I am also thoroughly in favour of reforming the training of the imperial officer. The fact that in many cases these officers have been failures in Canada is not necessarily due to any fault on the part of the people in Canada, but because the pay was not sufficient to attract an officer considered fit to take the position, and inferior men were sent out. This is what you will be told by officers high in the imperial service in the old country. But we have to-day a general officer commanding who is a credit to the imperial service, who is an ornament to the British empire, whether you take him as a gentleman or a soldier, and I should be very glad to see his salary increased to what it should be. If such were done, we could look forward to having the proper men sent out to command our militia.


David Tisdale: Since my hon. friend has been in charge of the Militia Department, the pay of the general officer commanding has been raised to a figure which we thought would be an inducement to officers, such as the one we have now, to take the position. As to our former generals, I do not think that the gossip which my hon. friend heard in England is at all applicable to them, nor do I think it desirable to repeat gossip of that kind reflecting on gentlemen who are no longer at the head of our militia, but who served us well when in this country. When we discussed the question of pay, we compared the amount these officers get in the other colonies and


Robert Laird Borden: increased ours accordingly, and I apprehend that the gentleman who is here now understood what pay he was going to get when he accepted the post, and that pay compares fairly with what is paid by the other colonies.


Samuel Hughes: I owe no apology to this House or anybody else for the comments I have made. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that he was not long enough Minister of Militia to know very much about it. Take these generals, and the fact that they have all run foul against the various Canadian governments has reflected adversely on this country in more ways than one. I know that that subject has been discussed in the old country very recently, and the fact that there has been occasion for such discussion is due to no fault on the part of the Canadian people or government. This remark is applicable to past governments as well as to the present one. As regards the increases of salary, I was the first to bring that matter up and I fought it to a finish. I found that the little colony of New South Wales was giving its officer commanding a higher salary than this Dominion was giving, with its population of 5,000,000 and its immense resources. To-day we should still further increase the salary of the general officer commanding. I maintain that we can very properly increase the pay to what it should be and encourage not only this officer to remain but similar officers to come to this country.


David Tisdale: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes, Victoria), takes the responsibility of saying these things for himself, of course, he bears his responsibility. But what I understood him as stating before was the gossip he heard in England. If he speaks of his own experience and sentiments, I have nothing to say about it. But, I will say that the gentlemen who have come here from England have been, as a rule, capable men, and they have served this country well by helping materially to bring our militia force to the splendid state in which it now is. And I may repeat that it will not help the position of this country, nor will it improve the opinion held of Canada in the old country, to bring these things up with regard to gentlemen who have served us for some time and have returned to their regiments and to take the rank they were entitled to at home.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: As one who is not a military man, I may be permitted to state, how, in my opinion, this strikes a good many people throughout the country. To many it is inexplicable that nearly every general officer commanding who comes out is praised very highly for a time after he comes, leaving us to think that we have the best officer commanding that could be secured. but, after a time, there is dissatisfaction and grumbling, and these keep increasing until it must be very unpleasant

for the general officer commanding if he tries to remain throughout the natural length of his term of office. I think the impression is that we have had some good general officers, notwithstanding that dissatisfaction has been expressed before they left the country. The hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Hughes) said-I forget whether he intimated that it was a remark he heard on the other side of the water-that the general officers came in contact with snags over here. In defence of the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence, who might otherwise be thought to be one of the ' snags ' I think I might ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes, Victoria) to whom he intended to refer by that expression.


Samuel Hughes: Certainly not to the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) who I regret to say, has been very sycophantic to some of the gentlemen.


The MINISTER OP MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Perhaps I may be expected at this point to say a single word. There is a great deal of truth in what the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Hughes) says as to the salary given to the general officer commanding. It is, no doubt, true that Canada pays less than any other colony of the British Empire to an officer of equal rank. I do not think however, that that fact makes very much difference in the class of officers


Samuel Hughes: Yes, it does.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Well, I think the fact that Canada occupies a leading position among the colonies of the British Empire makes the position here sought after, and officers are rather anxious to get here. For instance, I happen to know of a gentleman who was offered a position of very much higher emolument, but declined it in order to come here. That is some proof of the correctness of my argument. That, however, is not a very good argument as bearing upon the question, whether we are paying our general officer commanding adequately or not. I think that that is a very good subject for consideration. On that point I can only refer to what I said the other night. I do do not care to be drawn into that discussion again, except, perhaps, to repeat one observation I made the other day, and that is that while gentlemen who have been sent out here have been very good soldiers, they have not been men with the kind of experience necessary to qualify them to occupy the very delicate and difficult position which the general officer commanding occupies in this self-governing country at the head of the militia force. Most of these gentlemen- all of them in fact-are regular soldiers accustomed to command in the regular army and men who have not had experience in the war office in connection with the executive of the mother country or any other country. I will not add anything more.
119}


Andrew B. Ingram: I would like to ask the hon. minister if, in making his general statement, he intends to deal with the recommendations in the report brought down ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: By the general officer commanding ?


Andrew B. Ingram: And by all the officers who make recommendations ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes.


David Tisdale: I understand that item 83 will stand.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Item 83 stands.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).: If there is no objection we will proceed with the customs estimates. But if hon. gentlemen object to that, we will not press it. Perhaps we might take half an hour at the customs estimates.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. AVm. Paterson).: There is nothing contentious in the customs.


Robert Laird Borden: Unfortunately a number of gentlemen who are specially interested in the customs estimates, and familiar with the matters involved, are not present, and, perhaps we could not make much progress to-night. But, if the hon. gentleman (Hon. Sir William Mulock) is particularly anxious to go on, we might go on until eleven o'clock.


David Tisdale: It was expected that the militia estimates would last all evening.
Customs-salaries and contingent expenses of the several ports in the various provinces and in the North-west Territories, $1,059,865.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is an increase of $80,000 here. This surely will require a lengthy explanation.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: There is a very large increase, but I know that the committee will readily grant the amount asked. We must have the money to( carry on the business of the department. I do not know of any objection that could be taken. The business having increased, of course it cannot be carried on at the same expense as before. I may explain that while we take $100,000 more this year than last year, it will really only be $50,000 more, because I will ask for a supplementary estimate of $50,000 for the current year. When you grant that supplementary of $50,000 it will no doubt be an increase over 1902-3, but it is necessary from the expansion of business.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the hon. gentleman give us an explanation of what the $80,000 is composed of ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Sixteen thousand eight hundred is required to meet increased contingent expenses at various

ports. There are contingent expenses for cartage of goods and different things of that kind. There is also an increase in postage of some $6,000, owing to increased business.


Robert Laird Borden: Would the hon. gentleman tell us what the department has to do with the cartage of goods ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: There is an examination required, under the Act, of one case of merchandise out of every ten. If there are ten cases of dry goods coming in, the law requires that at least one case must be taken to the examining warehouse and be examined. If there are only two cases, one of them must go to the examining warehouse for examination. The department pays for the cartage of those goods thus taken to the examining warehouse, and as there is a large increase in the importation of goods, the cartage account has also increased.


Robert Laird Borden: How much of this is for cartage ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The contingent expenses at the port of Montreal are $3,850 more, largely caused by increased cartage owing to increase of business. There is also an additional expenditure of $2.50 per day for a man to deliver invoices from the custom house to the examining warehouse. The expenditure for contingencies at this port for eight months to 28th February, 1903, was $10,517, or at a rate of $15,775 for the year. The estimate last year was only $12,650, and we think it is advisable to raise it to $16,500. That is for the port of Montreal. I will give you some figures to show why we want this increase. The customs revenue at Montreal in 1900-1 was $8,981,787 ; in 1901-2 it was $9,965,366. So there was an increase of about $1,000,000. In the eight months ending on the 2Sth of February, 1903, the revenue was $7,816,020, or at the rate of $11,724,930 for the year. The cost of collection in 1900-1 was $1.72, while in 1901-2 the cost of collection was $1.55. I give these figures to show that while contingent expenses are increasing, that is entirely owing to the increase of business ; and that while we are increasing the exportionate increase in the cost of collection. It is a very large sum for the city of Montreal, $16,000 more, by reason of the increase of revenue there. The details would be very important.


George Taylor: Can the hon. minister give us the figures of the total cost at the port of Montreal for the years 1896 and 1902, the years in which he draws a comparison of the percentage ? The percentage is not a fair comparison at all. It costs no more to pass an entry for a million dollars than for one hundred dollars. The labour is practically the same. The imports may be larger in 1902, but there should be no more work for the office. There is the same amount of clerical work in both cases. What he ought to do is to give us the expenditure at the port of Montreal for the two years referred to as compared with last year, not the percentage.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: We are now talking about contingent expenses, in which there is an increase of $16,800, and I gave the increase at the port of Montreal as an illustration of how this sum is made tip. It is not a question of the total business at the port of Montreal, but merely of what is called the contingent expenses. These do not include the salaries of officers, but merely the necessary expenses about the office they have to be provided for.


George Taylor: I would like the hon. gentleman to furnish the figures of the cost at Montreal in 1896 and 1903.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I will give the figures for the port of Montreal as I have those by themselves. The hon. gentleman says that it requires no more clerical work to collect a larger amount than the smaller amount.


George Taylor: That is where there is one entry.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I quite recognise that, but there is more than that. The hon. gentleman asks me to make a comparison between the years 1894-5 and 1895-6 and last year. Here are the figures :
penditure, we are reducing it in the percentage of cost. Then there is an additional expenditure at the port of Ottawa of $500,
Entries inwards-
1894-5	
1901-2	
501,357
785,512
largely for cartage.
Increase 56 per cent.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman has not given us the details of the expenditure at Montreal.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I have not got it detailed in that way, nor do I know that I could give that. But the hon. gentleman will find it largely set out in the Auditor General's Report.
Entries outwards-
1891-5	
1901-2	
Increase 151 per cent. Railway reports inwards-
1894-5	
1901-2	
Increase 60-8 per cent.
90,130
226,382
438,982
705,997


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman lays down the principle that if there is a large increase in the sums collected at Montreal, there is as a necessary consequence a pro-
Railway reports outwards-
1894-5	
1901-2	
Increase 88 per cent.
135,739
256,475


Hon. Mr. PATERSON.: 


James Clancy: What are these railway reports ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: All the manifests from the railways come in and have to he passed upon, examined and dealt with. That means clerical work.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman said a moment ago that he was not increasing any salaries. Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that this refers to the employing of clerks to do extra work ? He says that there is a large increase in the number of railway reports dealt with. Is any of this sum to pay extra clerks in the office there ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Yes, we have had to engage extra officers, of course, as the business has gone on.


James Clancy: Then, a portion is for salaries ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Perhaps I did not make myself plain. There is an increase of $80,000 in this item, of which $16,800 is for contingencies in the various offices-increased expenses, which are called contingencies. The balance of it is for salaries and I was going to deal with that later on. I was making a distinction. I am simply now giving the increase in contingencies at the port of Montreal. It is made up by the increase in the staff of officers that has been necessitated by the extra work and the contingencies of the various offices which have increased. In the Auditor General's Report at F-16, hon. gentlemen will find a list of the contingencies given.


Andrew B. Ingram: I would like to draw the attention of the hon. minister while he has the Auditor General's Report in his hand, to page F-36, as follows :
Temporary employees	$9,353	79"	
1,197	50"	
4,220	00"	
2,577	75
All these are temporary employees. Is there any way of avoiding that and of placing these employees on the permanent list ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: At Montreal-I have not the figures under my hand now, but I dare say there are a hundred temporary employees. Perhaps I should not say that, but there are over fifty and running up to one hundred, who are what are known as temporary employees. These are men who have not passed the civil service examination and have not been placed upon the permanent list by Order in Council. Many of them, while they are called temporary, necessarily owing to the distinction which the Act makes, are really as permanent in one sense as any of the other officers who have been placed on the permanent list. I would be very glad to place them on it also. They have urged it upon me and put pressure upon me to get on
for the very obvious reason that a temporary officer under the law, as it is now, if he is taken sick, cannot receive his pay. He is not entitled to his three weeks' leave of absence, and, therefore, the temporary employees are very anxious to get on the permanent list. I have told them that if they will only pass the qualifying examination, which is requisite for that purpose under the Act, I will be only too pleased to put them on, because, as it is, it works a hardship upon these men. There are some men who have been twelve or fifteen years in the service and who are just as good and just as faithful officers as others who are on the permanent list. We have a number of men who come on in the summer and we let them go in the winter. But, I am speaking of a number of men who have been in the service for ten or twelve years or more, who are on the temporary list, and who would like to get on the permanent list. I say to them : I would be only too pleased to put you on if you pass your qualifying examination. I dare say that when they left school they could have passed the qualifying examination such ns is prescribed under the Civil Service Act, but they are afraid to try it now and do not do it. But, there is only one office to which we can appoint them without passing the examination that is to the position of preventive officer. A collector at a port does not have to pass the examination. The appraiser at a port does not necessarily have to pass the civil service qualifying examination, but he has to pass a special examination, the reason for which hon. gentlemen will see as he has to be an expert as to the quality and value of goods. In many cases I have appointed some of these men who have been faithful officers to positions as preventive officers. The office has no particular, designated duties. We appoint them and assign them to this position or that position. But as long as the Act remains as it is, requiring that these officers should pass the civil service examination, I hesitate to place them on the permanent list in a general way, but I am trying to induce them to pass the examination. There are men who have been in the service a long time and who can do their duty as well as younger men who can pass this examination, and in regard to these I have felt warranted in appointing a good many of them to the position of preventive officer, although a good many of them have not been appointed in that way yet. They are virtually permanent men as far as remaining in the service is concerned. The greater bulk of them were employed before I was charged with the department, and they have remained on. One result of the disability they are under is that if they get sick, the collector must certify that they have worked so many days and he can only certify to the number of days that a man has worked and unless he'gets such a certificate the wages are not
*

paid. This is a hardship on these men. Formerly, wheh the old Superannuation Act was in force, it was a matter of greater consequence than it is at present not to be on the permanent list, because, when an officer on the permanent list became aged, he retired upon the superannuation fund. Of course that does not come in now, because, with the new law, there is a certain amount retained from the salaries of the permanent employees which the government give to them with interest compound when they leave the service, but there still remains the difficulty that if they have lost time through illness they are not entitled to their wages as the permanent employee is with whom they are working side by side.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The reasons given by the minister are very good for not putting them on the permanent list, but the strange thing is that we constantly see civil servants appointed who have not passed the examination. To-night we were told that Martineau had not passed the examination, but he started on a salary of $700 a year.


The MINISTER OP CUSTOMS.: That is the inside service.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the difference between the inside service and the outside service, when the Act provides that both must pass the qualifying examination ?


William Ross: It can be said for the members of the outside service that many of them have passed the age when they could go up for the civil service examination. I know personally that there are many men in the outside service who are just as capable, and perhaps more capable. than those who have passed the examination in the inside service. In the case of bonded goods leaving a ship these officers are there to deliver them, and they must keep a correct memorandum of their work, and sometimes they are employed at night as well as at day. I have had some experience, and I know from personal observation that there are men who are engaged in that service who are most capable men, and as a rule they are very much underpaid.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the minister come to any conclusion as to a change in the system by which the transportation companies now pay some of our customs officers for night work and overtime ? The present system, as explained to me, does not seem to be very satisfactory. I understand that objections to it have been presented to the hon. gentleman, and I would like to know whether he thinks there is any good ground for these objections.


The MINISTER OP CUSTOMS.: I will have to bring in a supplementary estimate to provide for that service for 1903-4. I am not unmindful of the request made a year ago by the hon. gentleman that we should Hon. Mr. PATERSQN.
estimate our expenditure more closely, and I think it is very desirable that we should when possible, and it certainly would be more convenient and more pleasant, if we did not have to ask for a supplementary estimate. The fact, however, is that the business has increased so rapidly that we have hesitated each year, and this session I will have to ask for a supplementary estimate of something like $100,000 for the purpose of paying these amounts to officers to which the leader of the opposition refers. It arises in this way : The hours for officers in the outside service are from eight o'clock in the morning to six in the evening. At all the frontier ports you must have men on duty at night to meet trains or boats, and up to the present the pay of these officers has been charged to the transportation companies. It was said to my predecessors in office, and it has been said to myself : It is the duty of the government to give every facility to trade and commerce, and as it would not be reasonable that you should ask that trains should be run between eight in the morning and six at night, you should pay your own officers for being on duty when we do run our trains. Hitherto we have said to the companies : You may run your trains and we will put our officers there, but it is for your convenience and you must pay for them. Their argument was : You recognize that it is your duty to give every facility to trade and commerce, and your officers are there to guard the revenue of the Dominion, and it is the duty of the Dominion to pay their salaries ; if you have to have your officers there at night as [DOT] well as in day time, you should pay them for their services instead of making us pay.
I have never been able to answer their argument to my own satisfaction, and I feel now that it is only just that we should accede to their wishes. I have always felt that it was anomalous that our Dominion officers should receive pay from transportation companies.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The transportation companies pay this amount to the collector and the collector pays it out to the men who have earned it, so that the officers were not paid direct by the companies. I will have to ask for $100,000 in the supplementary estimates, but we may be able to economize, so that perhaps we shall not require to use the whole of it. Hon. gentlemen know from the conservative and prudent manner in which that department is managed that the money will not be spent if not needed. Occasionally an officer will be required by the transportation companies purely for their own convenience, and we will still make them pay in that case. For example, the Grand Trunk Railway in competition with other companies will find it to their convenience to have a Canadian officer at Boston say, who will forward goods through in bond. That offi-
*

cer will be for the convenience of the railway company, and we will ask them to pay for him. The United States government keep their officers in certain ports in Canada in order to afford similar facilities to passengers, and the railroads pay for those officers, but so far as I can ascertain, the United States do not charge one cent to the transportation companies for the payment of officers who perform extra service or night work. That is the point the hon. leader of the opposition has brought to my attention. That is not covered by this extra vote, but will be an addition ; and when I bring the supplementary vote it will be hardly fair to contrast the expenditure of the Customs Department, with that $100,000 added, with the previous expenditure, when that expense was contributed by the railway company.


George Taylor: I asked the hon. gentleman for a comparison of the total cost of the Customs Department in 1895-6, and in 1901-2. As he did not give it, I will give the figures, having before me the estimates of 1895-6. For this same service for which we are now asked to vote $1,059,000, the estimates for 1895-6 were $801,580, an increase of $258,000 by the hon. gentleman since he came in to administer what he calls this economical department. Taking all the expenses together, for which he asks $1,301,505, the same work was done in 1895-6 for $874,285, an increase of $427,000, or nearly half a million-over fifty per cent of an increase. It is true, the imports have increased, the business of the offices has increased somewhat, and more money has been collected; but because more money has been collected, it does not necessarily mean that there should be half a million dollars paid to extra officers to collect it. At the port of Ganan-oque. where the business has probably doubled, the same officer has done the work during the past year who did it in 1895-6. There has been no increase there, and why should there be an increase in other ports ? Because a man who imported $100 worth in 1895-6, imports $1,000 worth now, there is no more work in making the entry or taking the money. My hon. friend speaks of percentages. That is a nice way of putting it. He says he collected more money at a smaller percentage of cost than his predecessor; but that is not a fair comparison, in regard to running the Department of Customs. The bare fact is there, that the hon. gentleman has increased the expenditure of his department nearly half a million dollars, and then he says it is an economically managed department.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I think the hon. gentleman's remarks will not commend themselves to the fairness of the committee. Does he actually think it possible to do double the amount of business on the same expenditure as before ?


George Taylor: I think it possible in the hon. gentleman's business, or any other business in the country. Many merchants and manufacturers have doubled their business, but have not increased their staff or their expenses twenty-five or even ten per cent. . The hon. gentleman knows that his own business has probably increased to two or three times what it was in 1895-6, but his expenses have not increased accordingly. No manufacturing concern in the country wotfld sustain the hon. gentleman in increasing his expenditure practically fifty per cent over what it was under the late administration, in order to collect a little more revenue.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I have not myself been in business lately, but when I was we were doing a continually increasing business, and we found that our expenses were continually increasing, in doing it. The hon. gentleman's experience may not be the same. He has quoted the expenses of the year 1895-6; but that is not a fair comparison, because when I assumed office the estimates for the year were not sufficient; part of the expenses of that year had to be paid in the following year. But we will take the year before that, 1894-5, which was a complete year under the late controller, who I think was considered to manage the department very well. How much did it cost in that year to collect the revenues of this country ? As I said, you cannot collect $35,000,000 of revenue, which represents so many more goods arriving in the country, so many more packages to be examined and carted, so many more entries to be made, so many more clerks to be employed to do the work, at the same cost as half the amount. You must apply the rule of percentages. In 1894-5 the cost of collection was $5.13 for every $100 collected ; in 1901-2, the cost was $3.62. If we apply the rate of cost of collection of 1894-5 to the revenue of 1901-2, I would have paid $1,663,429 to collect last year's revenue. In other words, if the percentage of cost of collection last year had been the same as it was in 1894-5, I would have spent $487,405 more than I did. That is the amount of the saving. The hon. gentleman says, you do not expect the same proportion of increase in expenditure. No, we do not, but we do expect an increase. We expect this year, if the revenue keeps up, that it will be collected at a less rate than it has been collected in the country before. Any business man must know that when the revenue is doubled, there is more work to be done at the custom-houses. The habit of trade now is, with the facilities which we have for transportation, that people, instead of buying in such large quantities as they did before, do very much more in the way of repeat orders. They make smaller purchases more often renewed. That means more work and more entries. I grant that

if a clerk is working at a desk and has an entry of $1,000, if it is a short invoice, he can perhaps attend to it just as quickly as he could attend to a $100 invoice containing the same number of items. But for the extra work that requires to he done, extra men must be employed. I have not mentioned the extra ports that have been opened, I have not spoken of the increase of business in all parts of the Dominion, or of our desire to give some of our officers higher salaries, who are not paid sufficiently for the work they do. This will be part of the increase we ask, but we are keeping in mind the reduction of the percentage of the cost of collection. If we can keep that reduced to the extent we have been doing, fair minded business men will admit that the department must be fairly well managed. There is no use in saying that we can collect $35,000,000 with the same expense as $17,000,000. We cannot have the imports of the country nearly doubled without putting increased work on the appraisers staff and the clerical staff, and your landing waiters. Then there is the opening of new ports. I have now about twenty applications for new ports in places that where they say trade has so increased that new ports are required. I cannot give all the new ports demanded, but I do what I can. I can assure you that our officers are earning their salaries and that a good many of them are not paid what they should be, considering the present conditions, and while we may not be able to meet the views of all of them, we think that there are certain cases so strong that we must make an effort to do them justice.


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman talks about the increased work causing increased expenditure. Let him take the port of Gan-anoque and he will find that although the business there has doubled, and although the amount collected has trebled, the expenses have not increased, and the staff is the same. Why should not the same result be found at Montreal and other ports ? The hon. gentleman does not want to compare the year 1895-96 with the present, but wants to go back to 1894-5, when the depression was still greater, in order to make a comparison of percentages. Well, let him take 1896-7, when he had complete control, and when he asked for a vote to pay the deficiency of the late government. With the same items that he is asking for to-day, he had the work done for $956,000 for which he is now asking $1,300,000.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: What was the revenue last year ?


George Taylor: That has nothing to do with it. Take the port of Gananoque, the revenue increased there, but not the expense. The fact is that at Ottawa and at Montreal and at other places, the department is overrun with labour not required, and in order to make places for hungry Hon. Mr. PATERSON.
heelers, since 1896-7 the hon. gentleman has increased the expenditure of his department $345,000.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: It will be $100,000 next year.


George Taylor: We will not find fault with that, because it is taken off the transportation companies and put on the government ; but compared with 1896-7, the hon. gentleman is asking $345,000 more for the same work and the same staff, though, of course, some more taxes have been collected and more burdens have been put upon the people. The hon. gentleman compares percentages, but it costs no more to collect $1,000 than $100. In none of the departments are the officers overworked. I know the customs work that has to be done at my out port, and I know that the employees there do not do the work that is done in factories or in business offices or anything like it.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: There are many ports where the salaries have not been advanced, owing to the fact that the officials formerly had not much to do, and could easily do a good deal more work, and Gananoque may be one of these. But where the business of ports has increased as it has done in Montreal, it must be evident that the expenditure has to be increased. It is impossible to do $1,000,000 more business without increasing the expenditure. Why, the receipts at Winnipeg, when I took office, were about half a million. They are nearly $2,000,000. It is simply impossible to have that extra work done without increasing the expenditure. Of course, we could let the work go, we could give the people their goods, but it is our bounden duty to have sufficient officers to collect the revenue. Where you have the cost of collection reduced from $5 per $100 to $3.50, that shows that the expenditure is not increasing in ratio to the increase of business. The proper test is the number of entries and the actual clerical work which is performed. If $35,000,000 worth of goods come to this country there must be nearly the double number of packages that came in when only $17,000,000 worth of goods were entered. These packages have to be opened and examined and attended to by the landing waiters. They have to be checked and entered by the clerks in the long room, and all the different branches of the department must necessarily have more work thrust upon them. Then in addition you have ports, such as Depot Harbour, where no revenue is collected, but where you must have two and perhaps three men to attend to the transshipment of grain. We must have men at Coteau when grain is going through. You have to have this, though it adds to your expenditure and does not show any revenue at all. I maintain that the department is worked as economically as it is possible to work it, to safeguard the re-

venue and collect what ought properly to be collected. If I were to be pressed further in that direction, and some hon. gentleman were to ask me :	Are you sure you have
enough officers at certain ports to efficiently safeguard the revenue ? I do not know that I should he able to give as satisfactory an answer as I am to the question whether we employ too many of them. Do not let hon. gentlemen judge the whole service by a port like Gananoque, where at one time the officers had not enough to do to occupy their time, and where more work could easily be done without increased expenditure. The increase in such a port has not the same effect upon the expenditure as the increase in Montreal, Winnipeg and other large ports throughout the country.


James Clancy: Did I understand the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Paterson) to say that the per capita cost of collecting the customs had decreased or merely the percentage on the amount collected ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The percentage.


James Clancy: Then he does not contend that the per capita cost has decreased ?
The! MINISTER OF CUSTOMS. You do not judge it by the per capita cost ?


James Clancy: I think the hon. gentleman, in the criticisms he made of the Customs Department some years ago when he was on this side, used as one of his arguments figures intended to show that the per capita cost had increased. Of course, if his experience has caused him to repent, he has improved to that extent since 1890.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I never based it on the per capita cost.


James Clancy: I think the hon. gentleman used that argument in his criticisms in this House.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Oh, no. If I did, I know better now.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman has learned something


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: 1 do not admit that I needed to learn, and I do not think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) could prove it.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Perhaps hon. gentlemen will like a little further time to consider these items.


Robert Laird Borden: I think we have made substantial progress, for the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Paterson) has been enabled to take about two-thirds of the time in explaining matters to us at enormous length. I admit they require explanation, but I do not think that this side have had a fair chance at the item yet. Therefore, perhaps, the hon. Postmaster General would permit the committee to rise at this stage ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: And not take an item at all ?


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman has had two-thirds or three-quarters of this item, so far as the time necessary for its discussion is concerned. The progress has been ample, I think. It is a very comprehensive item as I think the hon. gentleman will see.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: That is why I want it to go through.


George Taylor: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will bring down the figures with regard to Gananoque in 1896 and 1903. Meantime I would point out to him that the other institutions of the country, such as the banking institutions, are doing double the business they did in 1896 and yet their expenses have not increased. There is hardly a bank but is doing double or treble the business it did before handling more cash, receiving and discounting more notes, yet with practically no increase in expenses.


Mr. HEYD.: Somebody was asking where Gananoque was.


George Taylor: When the hon. gentleman gets the figures from the customs he will learn.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: It was intimated here that, probably in 1896, there were twice too many employees in the Gananoque office and that is why the number has never been increased since.


George Taylor: It has always been run by one man.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Well, it could hardly have been run by less.
Some resolutions reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

[Stage Direction]
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock) moved the adjournment of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: What business is to be taken up on Monday ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Part of the private member's business for Monday remains, and private Bills and questions. Then there are the two Bills in the hands of private members which, I believe, have been fixed for Monday-Bills relating to the Fruit Marks Act, in the hands of the hon. member for Ilalton (Mr. Henderson) and the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Smith). After these are disposed of, we shall proceed with government business, proceeding first, I think with the Railway Commission Bill, though I have not been able to see my colleague the Minister of Railways and Canals on that subject. After that, I think we shall take up Supply, proceeding probably with the estimates of the Minister of Customs or the Minister of Railways and

Canals. I do not know whether there are any government Bills to be proceeded with but X would like to have it understood that, if there are any, the government will be privileged to move them.
Mr. BOItDEN (Halifax). I think it would be advisable, in order to expedite the business of the House, that we should have as distinct a statement as possible at adjournment of the work at the next sitting, otherwise it is not always convenient for us to arrange that the gentlemen on this side more particularly interested in the different branches of the House shall be present and ready to proceed at the proper time.
The TOSTMASTER GENERAL,. I think that what I have outlined will pretty well exhaust the day-first there is the private members' business, then the Railway Commission Bill, followed by Supply, taking up the estimates of the Customs Department. I should think, considering the progress made this evening, that, perhaps, these items alone will be a ' piece de resistance ' for Monday. If not, we will proceed with the railway estimates.


Robert Laird Borden: What I understand from my hon. friend the Postmaster General is that we may expect, so far as the government business is concerned, the Railway Commission Bill, after that the estimates of the Minister of Customs, and after that, if any other business is taken up, it will be the estimates of the Minister of Railways and Canals.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: My hon. friend the Minister of Customs thinks that perhaps the Minister of Railways and Canals may be occupied a part of the evening with a conference over his Railway Commission Bill outside of the House. If so, we will [DOT] proceed with the estimates of the Department of the Interior instead. But as the Minister of Railways and Canals has commenced his estimates it would be advisable to continue them. But, there will be the estimates of the Department of Customs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.35 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 1, 1903.