1903-09-24

Mr.  L. N.@: CHAMPAGNE (Wright) presented the eighth report of the 'Select Committee appointed to supervise the Official Report of the Debates of the House of Commons, as follows :
Your committee recommend that Mr. Robert G. Dunbar, who has from the 19th August, ult., been employed in a temporary capacity on the reporting staff of the Official Report of the Debates, be appointed on the said staff at the same salary as that paid to each member therof,
i.e., $2,000 per annum, and that his appointment and remuneration date from the above mentioned date, viz., 19th August ult.



RULES OF THE .HOUSE.

Mr. L. P. DEMERS (St. John and Iberville) moved :: That the report of the Select Committee appointed to confer with a similar committee of the Senate, for the purpose of revising Rule 51 of the House of Commons and Rule 49 of the Senate, be amended by striking out the words ' over the name and address of the solicitor for the applicants,' in the eighth and ninth lines, and inserting in lieu thereof the following : * signed by or on behalf of the applicant, with the address of the party signing the same,' and that the report as amended, he adopted.


Mr. SPEAKER.: With reference to the revising of the rules, it has been the custom in the past-I do not know if it is the regular procedure and whether it is in conformity with our rule-that resolutions of this kind 'should be considered in Committee of the Whole. Perhaps the hon. member foist. John and Iberville (Mr. Demers) should first move that I leave the Chair for the consideration of these resolutions. Here is what is said in Bourinot at page 261 :
When this committee has reported, its proceedings will he ordered to be printed, generally in the votes and proceedings, and after some time has been given to members for the consideration of the proposed changes, the House will resolve Itself into a Committee of the Whole on the report.
Therefore. I would suggest that a motion should 'be made that I do now leave the Chair, in order that these resolutions may be considered in Committee of the Whole.


Mr. CLARKE.: Might I ask the right hon. Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid. Laurier) if he is going to proceed with this motion Y


The PRIME MINISTER.: We will not proceed with it to-day, but will take it up on another occasion.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Might I ask the Prime Minister if he will fix some day, because I wish to offer an amendment ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I think that before we fix a day we should dispose of the business with Which we are now engaged-the Transcontinental Railway Bill and the Redistribution Bill.


Edward Frederick Clarke: 1 am asking something to suit my own convenience. I will be absent for a couple of days next week, and would not like this to be gone on with in my absence.


The PRIME MINISTER.: We are now engaged in some business which ought to have precedence of all other business. As soon as it is disposed of we can take up this question.
Motion withdrawn.



QUESTIONS.


Mr. ROCHE (Marquette) asked :: 1.	What lands for ooal mining purposes have been applied for and granted between Frank and Cowley, on the Crow's Nest Pass Railway, and the district extending thirty miles north of said railway, within the last two years ?
2.	Have the applicants complied with the regulations ?
3.	Has the government extended the time for payments to be made ; and if so, how often has such extension been made, and to whom, and for how long ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: It is impossible to give at present the information asked for as all the files: have to be consulted and they are very numerous. I would ask my hou. friend to let the question drop and renew it later on.


LEASE TO MR. BXRKETT.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. CALVERT-by Mr. Campbell-asked :
1.	Has Mr. Thomas Birkett, M.P., obtained from the Crown a lease of any portion of the canal reserve in the city of Ottawa or elsewhere ?
2.	If so, what portion of the said canal reserve, for how long, and for what price ?
3.	If there is any lease between the Crown and the said Birkett, is it renewable, and if so, when and for what time ?
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) :: 1.	Yes, lease dated July 25th, 1900.
2.	Lots 9 and 10 on west side of Rideau canal basin In the city of Ottawa, Ont., for 21 years at an annual rental of $230.
3.	It is renewable on, August 1st, 1921, for one term not exceeding twenty-one years.


TOBACCO DUTY.
Mr. HENDERSON asked :: 1.	What was the total amount of duty collected on tobacco for the year ending 30th June, 1903 ?
2.	How much of this amount was due to the additional duty imposed in the session of 1897?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. William Paterson) :: 1. The total amount of duty collected on tobacco during the fiscal year ending June 30th, 1903, was $582,089.30.
2. Assuming the quantity and value of tobacco entered for consumption to be the same, the additional duty collected in 1903 would amount to $128,862.08.
This, of course, does not take in the excise.


THE DREDGE ' INTERNATIONAL.'
Mr. FOWLER asked :: 1.	Has the government bought or leased the dredge ' International ' from Michael Connolly? If so, what is the purchase price or rental, as the case may be ?
2.	Is it intended that the above dredge shall be used this season, and if so, when ?
3.	When and where was the said dredge built ?
4.	If said dredge was purchased by the government, by whom was the appraisement of value made ; and at what sum was the valuation fixed ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: Arrangement has been made to purchase the ' International ' dredge plant from the Conolleys. The dredge is now on its way to Quebec, and the chief engineer informs me that it is first intended to dredge in the deep water there for the new pier that is being built. I think that the dredge was built at Kingston, but am not, certain. Its valuation was made by three or four officers of the Department of Marine and Fisheries and the Department of Public Works by Mr. Stephens, of Halifax, N.S., who is looked upon by the Department of Public Works as having most expert knowledge of machinery of all kinds. Reports were made which can be brought down if necessary.



THE ELECTION LAW.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to ask whether or not it is the intention of the government to introduce any measure with regard to the Election Law ? I understand that a report of the committee has been ready for some weeks, and if it is proposed to pass legislation this session, it seems desirable that some progress should be made with regard to it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend is mistaken. The Bill Is before the House and on the public Bills and Orders, an opportunity will be afforded before the close of the session to have the report brought forward.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not know that the Bill had been introduced. No progress can be made unless it be adopted as a government measure, because public Bills and Orders will never be reached again this session.



CORRESPONDENCE WITH GERMAN CONSUL.

Robert Laird Borden: I would like also to ask the right hon. gentleman
12219

*whether he has any information to com municate with respect to the recent correspondence which has taken place between a member of the British House of Commons and Mr. Chamberlain ? I observe in a press despatch to-day the following :
London, .September 23.-A. W. Black, Liberal member of parliament for Banffshire, wrote Hon. Jos. Chamberlain, seeking an explanation as to why the correspondence between Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Premier of Canada, and Herr Bopp, German consul at Montreal, was withheld from the British House of Commons upon the only occasion they were permitted to discuss Ithe Canadian-German policy. Chamberlain's reply, dated September 3, was as follows :-
'The Canadian government did not communicate the correspondence to me. I have caused a communication to be addressed to the Dominion government requesting ithem, in future, to keep me informed as to any unofficial negotiations into which they may enter.'
In a later letter to Mr. Black, Mr. Chamberlain said : ' I have not heard of any intention on the part of Canada to deal with the situation by direct tariff negotiations, nor have I any information whatever to confirm the unauthorized inference you draw from the correspondence referred to, that Canada would he willing under any circumstances to give Germany the same treatment as the -mother country.
There is also a telegram from another source to the following effect:
London, September 23-The Morning * Standard ' says: 'The Ignorance of the colonial office as to the relations between Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Herr Bopp are far from satisfactory?
(By Associated Press.)
London, September 23-A. W. Black, Liberal member of parliament -for Banffshire, makes public -to-night an interesting series of letters which passed between himself and Mr. Chamberlain on which Mr. Black maintains that the former colonial secretary launched hi-s fiscal scheme -while ignorant of Canada's attitude. In the first letter dated September 7, Mr. Black points out that Mr. Chamberlain, replying to a question from the writer -in the House of Commons, July 22, stated that the Canadian government had had no direct correspondence with Germany concerning the tariff arrangements and that the Canadian government could only communicate with Germany through His Majesty's government. The subsequent publication of the tariff correspondence showed that official correspondence had passed between the Canadian Premier -and Mr. Bopp, German consul at Montreal, in which the Canadian policy toward Germany was clearly defined. Mr. Black asked the Colonial Secretary to reconcile his reply with the facts shown in the correspondence. Replying, Mr. Chamberlain said he was unaware of the correspondence as the Canadian government had not kept him informed of any unofficial negotiations they might conduct. Mr. Black replying to this letter pointed out that Mr. Chamberlain makes the damaging admission that he announced ihis preferential tariff scheme without having knowledge of the correspondence which shows that Canada intended -to negotiate directly with Germany and was (prepared to give Germany the same preferential treatment as the mother country. Mr. Black -said that Mr. Chamberlain must see that the reciprocity part


Robert Laird Borden: of his fiscal scheme can not stand without the colonies surrendering their fiscal independence. Mr. Ch-amiberiain replied that the present correspondence was not relevant to the fiscal controversy. He had not heard of any intention on the part of Canada -to directly negotiate tariffs and he declined to argue the question in a private correspondence.
I am not concerned at present with the discussion regarding the fiscal policy, but I would like to know whether or not it is correct that the correspondence was had with Mr. Bopp, the German consul at Montreal, and the Dominion government, and that the colonial office was kept in ignorance of the negotiations. While we are anxious to have the power of this country to deal with those matters unrestricted as far as may be possible under present arrangements existing between this -and the mother country, still I suppose that negotiations of that kind would hardly -be conducted by this government without informing the imperial government of their progress.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The only thing that I know of all this is that a despatch has been received from the colonial office about some informal negotiations with Mr. Bopp, which were placed before parliament some time ago. I have no objection to placing the correspondence before the House.


Robert Laird Borden: If my right lion, friend (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) would be good enough to do that, it would answer the present purpose very satisfactorily. If necessary, we can discuss the matter at a future time.
SUIT AGAINST Mr. W. T. R. PRESTON.


Edward Frederick Clarke: 
The PRIME MINISTER.: So far as 1 know, the government has not been informed of any intention on the part of Mr. Preston to leave England and come to Canada. And, so far as I know we have no information as to the reasons which prevented him coming to Canada if such was his intention.


An hon. MEMBER.: He did come to Canada.


The PRIME MINISTER.: He came to Canada, but went back immediately. According to the despatch which has been read, he was to have returned to Canada. We have no information on the subject.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What about his employing men ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I do not know. I would not take as a charge against Mr. Preston the fact that he had been sued. I would take a judgment as evidence. But a suit can very easily be entered, and I make no comment or charge upon the basis ef a suit having been entered.



NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
House again committee on Bill (No. 2351 to provide for the construction of a National Transcontinental Railway.-The Prime Minister.
On section 2,
The said agreement bearing date the 29Li day of July. 1903, a copy of which forms the
schedule to this Act, is hereby ratified and confirmed and declared to be legally binding upon His Majesty and the said Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and His Majesty and the said company are hereby authorized and empowered to do whatever is necessary in order to give full effect to the said agreement.
Mr. MACLEAN.: I desire to propose a short amendment as an addition to the Bill before it becomes law. The other day in this House, I asked a question to this effect:
Has the following clause in the original charter of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, passed in 1852, been repealed :-' The fare or charge for each third-class passenger by any train on the said railway shall not exceed one penny currency for each mile travel ; and that at least one train per day having third-class carriages shall run every day throughout the length of the line ' ?
This was answered by the Minister of-Finanee (Hon. W. S. Fielding) as follows :
The question of (the hon. gentleman is a legal question, involving the consideration of many years of legislation concerning the Grand Trunk Railway, and we do not think we are in a position to give any definite answer. We' think it would not be wise for us to express any opinion on a matter of that character at present.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I think it is the duty of the government and the Department of Justice to answer a question of this character, and give the information asked for. They are there to advise the people and this House as to the actual condition of affairs from a legal point of view. But I take the answer to mean that the clause in the original charter of the Grand Trunk Railway has not been repealed, and that the company is bound to give the people along that portion of this line covered by its original charter a penny-a-mile rate for a third-class passenger service. The company has not fulfilled that obligation. I believe that the condition of the law in England, and this country is that, when a duty is imposed by statute on a company, they cannot plead any defence, but the court is compelled forthwith to insist on the fulfilment of the obligation. Therefore, I believe it would require only an intimation from the Minister of Railways, to the Grand Trunk Railway Company that they must fulfil that obligation and they would be compelled to afford this service. And I still further hold that even an ordinary citizen can move in the way of an injunction ; and it may be necessary for some ordinary citizen to do so, if the government is remiss in~the duty it owes to the people of compelling the company to give a two-cent rate over that portion of its line covered by the original charter. I believe this parliament and this government should not sanction an agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, which company undertakes that the Grand Trunk Company proper shall become the absolute owners and controllers of the road-I say that such agreement should

not come into effect until such time as the Grand Trunk has fulfilled its original obligation. My amendment is as follows :
That the following clause he added to section 35 :-Notwithstanding anything in .this Act the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada shall not .acquire and take the shares set out in clause 27 of the agreement hereto attached until such time as the company has fulfilled the following clause of Its original charter, passed in 1852 :-' The fare or charge for each third-class passenger by any train on the said railway shall not exceed one penny currency for each mile travel ; and that at least one train per day having third-class carriages shall run every day throughout the length of the line ?
I think that is a very reasonable amendment to be made at this stage of the discussion-to impose upon the Grand Trunk Railway, which is in some way a party to this contract, that it shall not assume control, that it shall not be given these immense subsidies that are to be given to this transcontinental line, until it fulfils the obligation to the people of Canada that it undertook fifty years ago, when it was chartered, namely, to give a two-cent parliamentary rate. It is called a two-cent parliamentary rate, third-class travel. It was the law in England at the time this charter to the Grand Trunk was given, and all the railways in England have given it. It has been the feature of passenger travel in England. Therefore, parliament, in the original inception of the road, insisted on penny-a-mile travel. Why has not this been insisted upon in this case ? I do not know, but from all the investigations I have made and from the advice of eminent counsel I have taken in the matter, I am sure that the clause has not been repealed, as the acting Minister of Railways and Canals would suggest. It is still there to-day, and all that it requires is a government acting in the interest of the people to compel the performance of that original undertaking. There was a meeting of the Farmers' Association in Toronto the other night. We all profess to be the farmer's friend, and there is an election coming on, and the farmer's friend will be out again weeping for the farmers. Well, if they want to show their sympathy for the farmers, now is the time to do it.


Mr. FRASER.: We want to give the hon. gentleman a chance to weep.


William Findlay Maclean: The hon. gentleman himself belongs to the weeping fraternity, and the politicians are getting ready to go out, because I hear there is an election impending. But the time to weep for the farmers is now, for those who want to show their sympathy with the farmers. This Farmers' Association is a non-partisan organization for the protection of the interests of the agricultural classes. It officers are : C. A. Mallory, President ; W. L. Smith, Secretary-Treasurer; L. E. Annis,


William Findlay Maclean: Scarboro, C. A. Mallory, Cobourg; J. F. Beam, Black Creek ; J. L. Wilson, Alexandria ; W. K. McLeod, Yanneck. The purposes of the association are
That while deeming it inadvisable to establish a political party, we believe it is for the welfare of the country that there should be an organization ready to bring its influence to bear to secure and promote the interests of the farmer in matters of legislation and otherwise.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Would the hon. gentleman read the resolution they passed at the same time in relation to the tariff ?


William Findlay Maclean: When the tariff is under discussion I will be very glad to do it and to give my views concerning it. Will the hon. gentleman tell us what he thinks about the farmers and the duty on salt ? Now at this meeting, the farmers declared themselves unreservedly in favour of a two-cent passenger rate in this country. They thought the time had come when such a measure should be passed. They passed other resolutions dealing with the question, but I do not propose to discuss them at the present time. Now, Mr. Chairman, the farmers of this country think it is high time they should have a two-cent passenger rate. They have it in a great many states of the Union, and they can have it to-day in Canada, for they have got the railways in their power, if parliament insists on compliance with this original charter. Let me tell you how it works out. This great reform may be worked out in two ways : It may be worked out as I propose by a clause in the Railway Committee Bill, fixing the maximum passenger rate, or it may be worked out by imposing a certain penalty on a particular company. Here is the opportunity to impose a penalty on a particular company in a limited direction. But that is not sufficient as I have already told the House before. The people of New York State got a two-cent passenger rate because certain legislation was imposed on the New York Central over a limited portion of its line. But it works this way- that if the New York Central is forced to give a two-cent rate, then every other competing road must give a two-cent rate. Now if the Grand Trunk proper is compelled by its original charter to give a two-cent rate from Montreal to Toronto, then the Canadian Pacific Railway, which, is in competition with the Grand Trunk must give it, and then under the law that there must be no discrimination against localities, they must give it all over their system, which is the effect of these regulations. You may compel the company to do it only on a very limited area of territory, but if you enforce it there, every other road in competition must do the same thing. Once a road reduces its rate over a small portion of its line, it is bound, under the law of equal treatment and no discrimination against localities, to give it over every

other portion of its system. Here is an opportunity that will never present itself again, to give the people over Ontario and practically over the whole west a two-cent passenger rate.
I want to point out that the Grand Trunk admits by what it is doing to-day that this is an obligation binding on it, for as a matter of fact they are giving what they call a second-class rate on travel between Montreal and Toronto and intermediate points, for about two cents and a half a mile. There is a second-class rate on the Grand; Trunk between Toronto and west of Toronto, except in case of tickets that originate east of Toronto. Rut the Grand Trunk today, while it professes to give a cheaper rate, and professes to be in a measure complying with this original clause, is not giving the people the penny-a-miie rate that is called for. When the opporJ tunity presents itself as it does here today, I trust the government will take advantage of it to compel the performance of this original obligation. I am willing to help the government in every way I can, and to modify this clause in every way possible in order to secure the performance of this obligation. The government and parliament can very well say to the Grand Trunk : We are imposing nothing on you but what you originally undertook to perform, and you cannot blame us, when a great measure like a transcontinental railway charter is going through parliament, if in the interests of the people, we insist on the fulfilment of that original obligation. There is no hostility in it to the Grand Trunk Company, it is simply an insistence on the performance of an obligation undertaken a good many years ago, and which has up to the present time not been fully carried out. X trust that the government, in view of the facts I have presented here to-day, will put in the agreement some such clause as will compel the performance of that undertaking. It is in no sense a measure of hostility, it is only taking a parliamentary advantage to do something that the people are entitled to, and something the people demand. I now submit this proposition for discussion, and later on I may divide the House upon it. But I hope I will not have to do that, and that the government will see the justice of the contention 1 make here to-day, and that they will insist on the performance of this clause in the original contract.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Chs. Fitzpatrick).: In the remarks which my hon. friend from York (Mr. Maclean) has addressed to the Committee, he has confounded two separate and district things one. a two-cent rate applicable to a particular railway, and the other a general two-cent rate per mile applicable, I presume all over Canada and to all railways such as suggested by that resolution passed at the farmers' meeting. Now, I have not at my 383
disposal the time necessary to gather such information as would, enable me to add anything to the discussion that took place on that subject. These vague statements as to what ought to be done and what ought not to be done are not very useful to the House in enabling us to come to a satisfactory conclusion. In addition to these statements, we require some statistics and positive information that would enable us to act intelligently in the matter. My hon. friend will bear in mind that our relations towards the Canadian Pacific Railway are so fixed by Statute that it would be impossible to make such a provision as he contends for applicable to that system.


William Findlay Maclean: As I pointed out, if this provision is enforced against the Grand Trunk, the law of competition will force the Canadian Pacific Railway to come into line.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am now coming to the other question the hon. gentleman has referred to with regard to the Grand Trunk. I have gone over the statutes passed with reference to this road since 1852, gone over them as carefully as I could with the limited time at my disposal during the progress of the session, and I may say that so far as I have been able to gather I find that the provision of section 3, chapter 37 of the Statutes of 1852, if not repealed by implication-and I think that is arguable, I do not express an opinion one way or the other as to whether that provision is repealed by implication-but I think that is a fairly debateable point, is only applicable to the Grand Trunk Railway on that portion of its line between Montreal and Toronto.


William Findlay Maclean: I admit all that.


Tlie MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Now under that section the company has a right to charge three and a third cents a mile for each first-class passenger, they have a right to charge txvo and a half cents a mile for each scond-elass passenger, and they have a right to charge one and two-third cents a mile for each third-class passenger. As a matter of fact, the company to-day charge on that line between these two points, three cents a mile for a first-class passenger, which is less than the tariff authorizes them to charge ; two cents a mile for a second-class passenger, which is also less than the tariff authorizes-


William Findlay Maclean: But it is not a parliamentary rate.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Less than the tariff authorized. My hon. friend says that they charge an illegal rate for a third-class passenger service. I am not sure as to what goes on in respect to the line between Toronto and Montreal, but my information gathered in conversation with members of this House is to the effect that there has never been a third-



[DOT] 12228
class service maintained between those two points.


Mr. ROSS (Ontario).: That is right.


The MINISTER OF .JUSTICE.: The people of Ontario who use that line chiefly are in a position to indulge in a superior class of accommodation and they will only use, generally, a first-class car, and at the very least, second-class, and if they get that for less than the tariff there is no general outcry in regard to a decrease in the rate. I do not think this would be good legislation. I am quite certain that it would be very improper legislation when dealing with a Bill affecting the Grand Trunk Pacific to attempt to legislate in such a way as to alter the charge made by the Grand Trunk Railway in respect to its line between 'Toronto and Montreal.


William Findlay Maclean: I am not attempting to alter the charge., 1 am only seeking to compel the performance of an undertaking embodied in a statute of this parliament and not repealed, which statute gives the people of Canada every day in the year the right to a two-cent-a-mile rate but which they have not got to-day over one of the most profitable railways in Canada, or in America. The Grand Trunk Railway line between Toronto and Montreal is congested with passenger traffic. They cannot handle the people. Trains are delayed because there are so many passengers to carry. The people are demanding cheaper travel and they have not a two-cent-a-mile rate on the Grand Trunk Railway.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There is no discussion about the second-class rate. It is two cents a mile.
Sir. S1ACLEAN. I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon, it is not. The second-class rate is over two and a half cents a mile.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No.


William Findlay Maclean: I have the rates here. The people are entitled by law to a rate of two cents a mile. I say impose this rate on this one section, because, by reason of that being applied to one section, the law of competition which hon. gentleman opposite are always upholding will give tiie people all over the country a two-cent-a-mile passenger traffic. That is the way things are accomplished and the reduction in rates may be accomplished in this way. If I do not get it here I will go to the courts and I will do the work that we are paying the government and the hon. Minister of Justice to do. I will go there as an ordinary citizen andi ask for an injunction compelling the Grand Trunk Railway to give me a third-class rate between Toronto and Montreal. I think I make a reasonable proposition and I make it at a time and under conditions which hon. gentlemen opposite have Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.
time and again declared to be opportune. When the country is giving a great privilege, a great franchise, to a great corporation get some concession in return for the people. That is the principle which was laid down in connection with the Crow's Nest Pass. Hon. gentlemen opposite said : We are giving a subsidy which is more than the Canadian Pacific Railway asked for from the previous government but in return we are getting cheaper rates for the people. The government did secure cheaper rates in that way and they laid down that doctrine. I remember that at the time the Globe said : Here is something new that has come to Canada, something that never was seen or heard of before, namely, that when a franchise was given concessions are obtained for tbe people.


Mr. SPROULE.: They laid down that doctrine but it has not been lived up to.


William Findlay Maclean: It is not being lived up to now, I confess. Now is the time to secure the performance of an obligation that should have been carried out years ago. I am not asking anything unfair when I ask that we shall compel the Grand Trunk Railway Company to fulfil the original obligations made by that company in respect of its line between Montreal and Toronto where the Grand Trunk Railway Company can well afford to give the people of Canada what they undertook to give fifty years ago-a rate of a penny a mile. It is not quite two cents a mile even. If the Grand Trunk Railway Company give this penny-a-mile rate they will have complied with the law. Is there anything wrong in asking in parliament for the performance of an obligation of this kind by a railway company over a portion of their road between Toronto and Montreal which is so congested with traffic that they have difficulty in handling their trains ? Tbe hon. Minister of Justice tries to lead us away from the point by saying that wn are trying to do something with the Grand Trunk Railway Company that involves their whole system. I do not say it does in connection with my argument but all I ask is for the performance of this specific obligation and I am asking for it at a time when we are giving a great fran-; chise, an immense value in the way of credit to the Grand Trunk Railway Company. Can, anybody conceive how valuable this conces-i sion is to the Grand Trunk Railway Com-, pany, enabling them to raise money at three per cent when money is so hard to get and, when interest is going up in every quarter.l The Pennsylvania and the New York Central Railway Companies to-day are paying five per cent for money in New York and they cannot get all they require even at that rate. We are giving the Grand Trunk Railway Company a valuable privilege when we enable them to raise money at three per cent. I was speaking to a well-known railway promoter in this country the other day

who lias had a very valuable guarantee given to him by this parliament. I said : Mr. So and So, you know what it is to walk the London money market to raise money for a Canadian railway enterprise. He said:
I do. I have done it many a time and, to use his own expression, I have been queered time and time again in my efforts to raise money in that way. I said : What is it worth on the London money market to have a scheme which is endorsed by the Canadian government ? He replied :	It is
the easiest tl;ing in the world to raise money on such a project. It is worth hundreds of thousands every year to be able to raise money in that way. We are giving the Grand Trunk Railway Company something that will enable them to get all the money they wish at three per cent for the carrying out of this project when the New York Central and Pennsylvania Railway Companies cannot get money in New York today unless they pay five per cent for it. We give them that privilege and we give them every other great privilege that can be imagined and all I ask is that at the time we are doing this, carrying out the doctrine laid down by the right, hon. Prime Minister, we shall get something in return by compelling the company to simply carry out a former obligation to which they are delinquent at the present time. It is perfectly germane to this question and we should ask for the performance of this obligation at the present time. What guarantee have the people of Canada that the Grand Trunk Railway Company will fulfil their agreement, especially those features of it which are so important from the national point of view and on which great stress has been laid when they have been guilty of delinquency in the past ? I leave that question to be considered by hon. gentlemen opposite and by the country and I can assure hon. gentlemen opposite that the country is watching them now. What guarantee have we of the performance of these obligations when an undertaking entered into fifty years ago is still unfulfilled ? What position are hon. gentlemen in when they go to the country and ask for credit for passing a Bill of this kind and when they say : Look at the guarantees we have secured for you, look at the undertaking we have imposed on the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and on the Grand Trunk Railway Company to send all their traffic through Canada and going right across the Atlantic at rates equal to those charged by way of New York and other American ports, when conditions imposed in the interests of the Canadian people fifty years ago are still unfulfilled? What guarantee have the people of the performance of this solemn obligation when we now have the confession by the government that they have been delinquent in regard to an obligation of fifty years ago ? It is a well-known maxim of law that there can be no 3834
cavil in regard to something imposed upon a corporation by an Act of Parliament. The performance must be immediate and specific. The Law Lords in England have laid it down and the courts are now guided by that principle. They cannot set up anything and when an injunction issues forthwith it must be complied with. Surely it will not be left to an ordinary citizen to go to the courts and seek redress of this kind. Surely the representatives of the people in this parliament, surely the government, surely the hon. Minister of Justice, surely the hon. acting Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Fielding) who signs this contract will say to the Grand Trunk Railway Company :	Before the name of the Iving can
be appended to this document you must show that you have fulfilled all those undertakings that you gave in regard to railway tariffs in connection with your original charter. I have made out a clear case. My case is not based on party considerations at all ; it is based solely and wholly in the interests of the people and on a due performance ot the laws. I have heard a good deal in this House about vested rights. I have heard the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister champion the vested rights of corporations ; but the public have some vested rights, and they are incorporated in the law, and one of these vested rights is a two-cent rate between Toronto and Montreal. Is this vested right of the public to be observed, or is it to be cast aside by legal quibbles ? It is only quibbling I have heard from the Minister of Justice so far. What has he to say now ; why does he not insist that this Act be complied with ? Why does he not insist on it before we hand over this great franchise to the Grand Trank Railway That is my case, and the people of Canada will comprehend it. I am willing to wait, and I am willing to assist the government in any way to secure an amendment to this Act which will compel the Grand Trunk to comply with the law. It may be said that this amendment has nothing to do with the present Bill; that it would-I think the lawyers say, ' deface ' it. The lawyers are very careful about disfiguring-yes, disfiguring is the word-an Act of parliament. Far my part, I do not care how much it. Is battered, if we secure the rights of the people.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Try to batter some good out of it.


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, let us get a crack at the Grand Trunk now, and in the interest of the people disfigure this Act if necessary. If a man does not do what he ought to do, somebody goes up to him and disfigures him, and if the Grand Trunk will not comply with the law, let us disfigure the Grand Trunk rather than have the rights of the people sacrificed. I appeal to the Prime Minister as a friend of the people, as a friend of the farmer, as a man ready

to weep for the farmer on occasions. I appeal to him to give us some assurance that before this Act becomes law, the people of Canada will get a two-cent rate between Toronto and Montreal, and as a result of that, practically a two-cent rate all over the country.


Mr. DAVIS.: Did the hon. gentleman lead us to infer that the granting of a two-cent rate between Toronto and Montreal would result in reducing the rate on every railway in Canada to two cents ?


William Findlay Maclean: I will answer the hon. gentleman by giving him an example, and there is nothing so cogent as example. The New York Central came to Albany one day and said : We propose to consolidate a little line with our system, and on that little line there is imposed the duty of giving the public ai two-cent rate. The legislature at Albany said : Mr. Vanderbilt, you can have this legislation provided you will make that two-cent rate apply all over the whole system of the New York Central. And the old Commodore, understanding the railroad business so well, replied : Yes, I will accept it. And there is a two-cent rate on the New York Central to-day, and it is the most profitable road in America, and its representatives told a Toronto newspaper man recently that there was more business in a two-cent rate than a three-ceut rate. I was on a portion of the Delaware and Laek-awana the other day where they could charge three cents, but as a general rule all through New York state they have a two-cent rate. The law of competition is, I hope, efficacious at times, and if the Grand Trunk gives a parliamentary rate between Toronto and Montreal, the Canadian Pacific Railway cannot do business unless they follow suit. Then when we get the commission at work, the commission will insist on no local discrimination in the matter of geography, and if you have a two-cent rate between Toronto and Montreal, you must have it between Montreal and Quebec or between Hamilton and London. The greatest reforms have not been effected by sweeping legislation, they have been secured by what the Prime Minister would call concessions gradually obtained in small matters, and here is an opportunity to get a concession.


Thomas Osborne Davis: That is quite a speech, but it does not answer my question.


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, it does.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: This appears to be a new clause and if so it is hardly in order at the present moment.


William Findlay Maclean: I see no reason why it should not be proposed now. We are discusing clause 2 which asks us to ratify the whole thing.


Peter Macdonald: The discussion would be more in order at another


William Findlay Maclean: stage of the Bill. The proposal is to add this as a clause to the Bill.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Finish it now.


William Findlay Maclean: I can move it as an amendment to clause 2.


Mr. CHARLTON.: I would ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) if he knows of any railway in America that has a third-class rate ? Does he suppose that he, or any other self-respecting citizen of Canada, would ride at a third-class rate with accommodation so much inferior to the second class as would be likely to be given? While the hon. gentleman may appeal to popular sentiment, yet if his idea were carried out on the basis of third-class accommodation, it would not be in keeping with the general taste of the travelling public of this country. There is a prejudice even against the second-class, and few people travel by it. If a provision were made that the Grand Trunk should provide third-class cai

riages, and these carriages were as much inferior to second-class carriages as second-class carriages are inferior to first-class carriages. I doubt if anybody would avail of that accommodation.


William Findlay Maclean: I have been in the old country and I always travelled third-class, and nobody ever travels first-class there, but dukes and Americans. Probably the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) travels first-class in Europe, but I have been content to pay a penny a mile and I would like to pay a penny a mile in Canada. I have travelled second class on the Grand Trunk, and I am not ashamed to say it. And I wish all the people of Canada had the opportunity of travelling third class. The railroads in the old country thought that the parliamentary rate would be the insignificant portion of their travel ; it is now 90 per cent of their travel, and as a consequence third-class travel in England is decent travel, you can travel in splendid carriages.


Edward Frederick Clarke: In good company too.


William Findlay Maclean: Good company ? Yes, the very best company. You do not travel in the company of dukes and of American millionaires but you get in with the plain people, and the plain people are good enough for me. I want to travel with the plain people, and I want a penny rate for the plaint people. Sly hon. friend from North Norfolk (Sir. Charlton) tells us they should travel in first-class cars like dukes and American millionaires.


John Charlton: I said nothing of the kind.


Peter Macdonald: SYe are losing time in discussing this question. I think it should be taken up at another period. If the horn, gentleman (Sir. Staclean) moves this amendment, of course I will put it.

M r. MACLEAN. We are discussing clause 2 which says :
The said agreement bearing date 29th day of July, 1903, a copy of which forms the schedule to this Act, is hereby ratified and confirmed and declared to be legally binding.
And so on. I say that we should not pass that section unless this amendment is added, it will apply to this section and we are perfectly in order.


Peter Macdonald: The hon. member might move that as a subsection to be added to clause 2 and then I will rule upon it.


William Findlay Maclean: I will do so.


Mr. ROBINSON (Elgin).: I have not spoken on, this Bill since it was taken up in committee hut I feel that I should say a word or two upon this question. I am satisfied that nothing that the government could do would make this Bill as effective and as popular as to include in it a clause compelling the railway company to carry people for two cents a mile. I supported a motion of this kind some few *weeks ago and nearly every person I met afterwards seemed to be well pleased with that motion, and to think that the government should adopt such a policy and should incorporate it in the Railway Act which passed this House some few weeks ago. Since it was not placed in that Act I would like to see the government take action now. A two-cent rate is charged on the Intercolonial a,nd I think that some such provision should be included in this Bill. I believe that two-thirds of the members ou the other side of the House would vote for this amendment if they dared to do so and I do hope the government will accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean).


The PRIME MINISTER.: The hou. member for West Elgin (Mr. Robinson) has altogether misapprehended the scope of the amendment which has jnst been moved by my hom. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean). That amendment does not have the effect of compelling the giving of a passenger rate of two-cents a mile upon this railway. Its object is to compel the Grand Trunk Railway to give a two-cent rate and to have third-class cars on the railway between Toronto and Montreal and I do not think my hon. friend (Mr. Robinson) is prepared to vote for that at the present moment. My hon. friend from East York appealed to me as a friend of the people. I [DOT] could not tell from the phraseology which he used if lie referred to me or himself as a friend of the people. I think he spoke of himself because those who pretend to be the friends of the people are generally the most clamorous but they are not the most effective; they talk more than they act. Whilst I recognize that my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) is, like a certain hot place, paved
with good, intentions, he is very lacking in execution. In the present case, whatever his motives may be, he has not proposed anything that will be effective In promoting the object he has in mind. His amendment reads :
That the following clause be added to section 35 :-Notwithstanding anything in this Act the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada shall not acciuire and take the shares set out in clause 27 of the agreement hereto attached until such time as the company has fulfilled t.ha following clause of its original charter, passed in 1852 :-The fare or charge for -each third-class passenger by any train on the said railway shall not exceed one penny currency for each mile travelled, and that at least one train per day having third-class carriages shall run every day throughout the length of the line.
That is to say my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) asks us to attach to this Bid a clause requiring the government to take action to compel the Grand Trunk Railway Company to comply with an Act passed in 1852. I have very serious doubts ns to whether such an amendment is in order. I do not think it is germane to the present Bill which Is one creating another corporation to he known as the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. I do not believe it would be germane to that Bill that we should take power to force another company to execute conditions imposed on it by an Act passed fifty years ago. I do not press the point of order at the present moment because I think it will require some further consideration, but, admitting for the time being that this amendment is in order, it would be very questionable legislation, as lias been pointed out by the Minister of Justice, to attach such a condition as that* to the Bill we now have in hand. Further than that I do not see how the horn, gentleman could enforce this amendment as it is now worded.
That the following clause be added to section 35 :-Notwithstanding anything in this Act. the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada shall mot acquire and take the shares set out in clause 27 of the agreement hereto attached until such time as the company has fulfilled the following clause of its original charter, passed in 1852.
That is to say the Grand Trunk Railway will not be allowed to take any of the stock in this new undertaking of which it is provided they shall hold $25,000,000 worth until they have done what ? First until they have complied with the requirement that the fare for each third-class passenger by any train shall not exceed one penny 'per mile. That is easily enough clone, but it is required secondly that at least one train per day having third-class carriages shall run throughout the length of the line. L'hat is to say the Grand Trunk Railway Company shall be compelled to run a train every day. and until they shall have run a train every day they shall not be allowed to comply with the provision of this Act

with respect to the acquiring of stock in the Grand Trunk Pacific. There are 365 days in the year and there are many years to come and they would have to wait until the end of time before they would be permitted to subscribe for that stock. My hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) might say that they can put on a train to-day and then be permitted to subscribe. If they cam put on a train to-day they cam take it off to-morrow, and how has my hon. friend improved the situation ? If my hon. friend is in earnest in his efforts he will have to take some other means of securing his end. I rather think he should adhere to his first intention of going into the courts and trying to enforce the corporation to do its duty as laid down in the Act of 1852. Or he has another remedy ; he can bring in a separate Bill to that effect and this would be better legislation than the amendment which he now wishes to introduce.


Peter Macdonald: The point mentioned by the right hom. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) is a point that struck me when I first read the amendment, but I wished to get it in the form of an amendment to the clause before I expressed an opinion. This amendment asks the Committee to introduce into this Bill a clause which is mot relevant to the contents of the Bill from the first to the last section. In asking the government to compel the Grand Trunk Railway to do what it promised nearly fifty years ago. the hon. gentleman is asking it to do something which is not relevant to this measure and conse-auently out of order.


Mr. HEYD.: You should have ruled it out of order when it was introduced.


Peter Macdonald: You must remember that it was out of order in another respect, and I asked the hon. gentleman who introduced it to make it applicable to a particular section. He changed it to make it applicable to clause 2, by moving it as a subclause of that section, and then I ruled that it could not be made applicable to that clause and was consequently out of order.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Have you ruled that the amendment is not applicable to the Bill ?


Peter Macdonald: I have ruled that it is out of order as being irrelevant.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That closes the discussion, but it is a very extraordinary ruling.


William Findlay Maclean: It does not even close the discussion.


Peter Macdonald: There can be an appeal, but no discussion.
.Mr. MACLEAN. I am not going to discuss your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but I am going to accept it. After the right hon. the First Minister made his statement, we have the ruling of the Chairman that an Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
effort to secure the performance of an old agreement by the Grand Trunk Railway is improper, and the responsibility must rest with others than myself. But I am still discussing clause 2, which says that the agreement with a certain company is hereby ratified. I say that it shall not be ratified until the Grand Trunk Railway which according to the Prime Minister, is behind this contract, which is in it and of it, carries out the obligation it incurred some years ago and concerning which it is in default. We are dealing now with the Grand Trunk Railway. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway is a mere fiction. It is a fence, and there is a number of fences in connection with this deal. I mentioned the name of an hon. senator and was told that we was not in this company at all, and yet we all know that he is. and there are fences between him and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway and between him and the government. You do not see him, but he is there. There are financial operations going on in Toronto to-day. which these men who, we are told, are not connected with this company, are conducting on its behalf. I am told that my amendment is not germane to the question, but I submit that we have the right, before passing this agreement, to compel the Grand Trunk Railway, which is behind this contract, to fulfil its obligations. We have a railway owned by this government, which carries first-class passengers 400 miles and over at two cents a mile. I refer to the Intercolonial. The solution of the transportation problem would be to put the Intercolonial alongside the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway as a competitor. Then you would get the rates you want. I stand here today, on behalf of the people of Ontario, for the extension of the Intercolonial from Montreal, alongside the Grand Trunk Railway, into the city of Toronto and to the Niagara frontier, Detroit river and the Georgian Bay. I would bring the Intercolonial, which now carries people at two cents per mile, into the North-west, and the people of the North-west would then be given a two-cent rate per mile passenger rate. In giving these millions to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway and the credit of the country besides, we are entiiled to ask that the Grand Trunk Railway, which, as the Prime Minister has told us. is in this contract, should perform its former obligations. But when a question of principle is raised in this House, you will always find a legal quibble resorted to. The true constitutional principle is that the proper time to rectify grievances is when money is demanded.


Mr. ERASER.: Where are the 400 miles over which a two-cent rate prevails on the Intercolonial ?


William Findlay Maclean: I quoted in this House the other day the original schedules of the Intercolonial, which provide for a sliding scale, three cents down to two.

1223S


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Where ?


William Findlay Maclean: If the hou. gentleman will turn up ' Hansard,' on the day when 1 discussed the question, he will find the Order in Council. 1


Duncan Cameron Fraser: In Nova Scotia we all pay three cents per mile.


William Findlay Maclean: I went to Mr. Pottiuger in the Railway Department and asked1 him for the Order in Council regulating passenger traffic on the Intercolonial, and he immediately turned it up. I gave the whole thing in my remarks the other day. That Order in Council provides that the people shall pay at the most three cents for the first fifty miles, and then the rates decrease to two cents per mile for 400 miles and over. The people of Canada are getting a two-cent per mile rate .over their own road, and the Grand Trunk Railway undertook years ago to give a two-cent per mile rate, but have not done so. I am asking the Liberals to rectify the grievance to which I have alluded, and they raise a legal quibble and say that my proposition is not germane to the matter in hand. Sir, when you are voting away the people's money, is the time to rectify grievances.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Then let my hon. friend wait until we go into Committee of Supply.


William Findlay Maclean: That is a jollying proposition. I am bringing up my proposal now ; and if I did not raise it now I would be told, when going into supply, why did you not do it when we were ratifying the agreement. Now is the proper time to have this grievance removed. There are negotiations on and a railway deal, and the Prime Minister should see that the parties straighten out this thing and put that two-cent rate into effect before this agreement goes through. When negotiating with these parties, all that the Prime Minister need do is say to them :	This is going to cause
me a great deal of trouble, and it will cause you a great deal of trouble. Let's avoid it. Fulfil your obligations, and we shall not then need to disfigure this Act of parliament with any such conditions. I do not know whether the -right hon. gentleman knows the immense influence he can exercise by simply writing a little note to almost anybody in this country, especially a delinquent.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am going to write you one, then.


William Findlay Maclean: I hope it will be short and sweet and appreciative. He could write the politest little note to Mr. Hays saying, for instance : My dear Hays,-It is going to cost me a lot of trouble-and the hon. gentleman can take my word that it will cost him a lot of trouble-if I do not get the parliamentary two-cent rate between Toronto and Montreal, Do it before we sign this agreement and let me go to the people
and say that I got this two-cent rate for them, that I made the company comply with this arrangement. It will help me to carry the country when I go before the people with this Bill. The right hon. gentleman is not helping himself


John Charlton: We get at the hou. gentleman's (Mr. Maclean's) animus now.


William Findlay Maclean: My animus is to get back to good old constitutional doctrine. I do not know whether the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) apprehended what I said. At the time when we are ratifying an agreement or voting supplies-that is the time to secure the redress of grievances or rectify agreements. No other time is so appropriate. The question I have raised is germane to the discussion of the ratification of this agreement. I asked this amendment, not for partisan purposes, but simply in the performance of my duty, especially in view of the motion that has gone into ' Hansard,' passed by the very large meeting of farmers in Toronto the other night. I have been around the country and have had many interviews with all sorts of people. And I can tell this Committee that of all the things in which the people take an interest, there is nothing in which they take a greater interest than the rate of charge for railway travel. When they see the Grand Trunk Railway, which they have chartered, and subsidized, and bonused, and made the beneficiary of privileges of all kinds, charging Americans travelling through this country two cents a mile, while they charge Canadians three cents a mile, they say it is simply scandalous, outrageous. Here are these railroads selling tickets in the offices in Chicago for two cents a mile across Ontario and the Canadian sitting in the seat alongside the holder of one of these tickets has to pay three cents a mile.


Mr. TALBOT.: Starting from the same point V


William Findlay Maclean: No. There may be this difference-that the American starts from Detroit and the Canadian starts from Windsor, just the difference of the width of the river, but both passengers going to Niagara Falls. Why, this happens every day. All kinds of discriminations are practised by these Canadian roads against Canadians, and they do it because we submit. We do not claim even our legal rights, but let them walk over us and roll their cars over us to suit themselves. Why, the railway solicitors in this country frame most of the legislation in this country


Peter Macdonald: I would draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that the wide discussion of the general question of two cents a mile rate on railways, in my opinion, is out of order. Of course, section 2 embraces the discussion of the schedules, but I do not think that any of

the schedules touches the two-cent-a-mile question.
* Mr. MACLEAN. I bow to your ruling


Robert Laird Borden: Pardon me. M.v lion, friend (Mr. Maclean), I think, is perfectly in order in pointing out that this agreement does not contain a provision by which the proposed railway shall be obliged to carry passengers at two cents a mile. We are criticising the whole agreement under section 2, and that agreement contains no such provision as he is pointing out.


Peter Macdonald: But can the kon. gentleman discuss any question not covered in the clause or schedules ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Will my hon. friend the leader of the opposition allow me to draw the attention of the hon. gentleman ( Mr. Maclean), who comes here only about once a month, that there is such a thing as section 39 in this agreement ?


William Findlay Maclean: Well, Mr. Chairman, if I am not here very often, it seems to me I have all the greater claim to the attention of the House. And I want to get through what I have to say.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


William Findlay Maclean: You cannot take away my privilege


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) talks about vested rights. This House has vested rights. It does not assemble merely to listen to the hon. gentleman, who comes here only when he has nothing else to do.


William Findlay Maclean: The hon. Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) shall not lecture me for a moment. He will sit down.


Peter Macdonald: Order. I have ruled that the discussion of this question is outside of the scope of section 2-it is clearly outside of the section itself, and it is not included in any of tile schedules before the Coanmittes-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr. Chairman


Peter Macdonald: That is the ruling. There is no discussion re the ruling.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am prepared to discuss section 2, which provides for the ratifying of this contract. What does section 39 of the contract say ?
The rates and tolls to be levied and taken by the company upon any part of the'said railway shall he under the control of the Governor in Council


And what is under discussion here except tire discussion of the rates ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Read it all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: -or of such authority, commission or tribunal as is designated or constituted under any Act Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.
of the parliament of Canada for the regulation or control of the business of railways.
Who is to control the business of the railway except the Governor in Council-the government ? This is a provision under the contract that we are asked to ratify, and the hon. member for East York is quite within his rights when he desires to add a provision which says that the company shall be obliged to observe a statutory obligation which they accepted under their old charter. It may be said that this does not deal with the Grand Trunk Railway, but with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. But we give power to the Grand Trunk Pacific to sell their stock to the Grand Trunk Railway to such an extent that the Grand Trunk Railway Company is expected to own and control the whole line, to become proprietors of it almost in fee simple. Therefore, it is with the Grand Trunk we must regard ourselves as dealing rather than with the Grand Trunk Pacific. Therefore, in my judgment, it is quite proper for the hon. member for East York to carry on this discussion. I do not understand how you, Mr. Chairman, can rule that a proposition of this kind is not germane, or is not to be discussed under this Bill.


Peter Macdonald: My ruling was this-that the hon. gentleman lias been three-quarters of an hour discussing what the Grand Trunk proper should do, making reference to an agreement with the Grand Trunk fifty years ago, and proposing an addition to this Bill to enforce the terms of that agreement. The question before the Chair does not embrace, directly or indirectly, any such question as the hon. gentleman lias spent time in discussing. As the hon. gentleman is irrelevant in his discussion, it is my duty to call him to order. If lie wishes to discuss the question of rates in connection with the proposed Grand Trunk Pacific, his amendment and discussion will lie in order.
ill*. INGRAM. Tire hon. gentleman (Air. Maclean) is stating a case with respect to the Bill before us. He has accepted your ruling and proposes to discuss the question of rates.


Peter Macdonald: The hon. gentleman accepted my ruling, and still went on discussing the same thing.


William Findlay Maclean: May I point out that the clause I am discussing ratifies this agreement. and the amendment I propose and Hie discussion of it are quite germane to the question. I am, therefore, quite in order.
All*. DEPUTY' SPEAKER. The hon. gentleman (All*. Alaclean) surely does not suppose for a moment that be can discuss any and every question by an amendment declaring that the ratification of this contract shall depend upon something in relation to that question. Whatever subject he discusses must be relevant to some clause of

the Bill or the agreement. Of course, if he can show that what he is discussing is relevant he will he quite in order.


Edward Frederick Clarke: He is pointing out discrimination that ought to be removed.


Peter Macdonald: But surely the grievances to be remedied should have some relation to the Bill ?


William Findlay Maclean: When we are voting the people's money and giving franchises to a company that is to pass under the control of the Grand Trunk Railway, we -should not do that until such time as the Grand Trunk Railway shall have performed a previous obligation. Am I out of court when I urge that, in connection with this Bill ? Surely the hon. gentleman will not force me to appeal to the House on this issue, that when we are voting franchises to a railway that is to be assumed by the Grand Trunk Company, the Grand Trunk Company shall not rectify a previous agreement. The Minister of Justice had the bad taste to say I was here once a month. That is not the record. Would he like me to be here every day ? I think I could keep him busy for six years and could get him so used up that he would want some rest-.


Peter Macdonald: Let the hon. gentleman understand my ruling. I do not seek to prevent a free and fair discussion of the rates which may be imposed on the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway but only in reference to the rates which at present exist on the Grand Trunk from Montreal to Toronto, on which any discussion is, in my opinion, irrelevant and out of order. If the hon. gentleman thinks that I am not ruling correctly, I would like' him to appeal to the House so that the question may be settled.


William Findlay Maclean: I have said that I accept your ruling, and your ruling is that at the present stage we cannot get a rectification of agreements that have been made with the public. Well, I am still discussing this clause in this Bill, I am still doing business at the old stand, and the business would be facilitated if these taunts were (not thrown at me across the floor. I have tried to approach this question in a fair-minded way, I have not tried to make any political capital out of it, but simply stated the facts as they exist. I have given a good deal of attention to railway questions, and I have tried on every occasion to keep myself exactly to what I considered the important phases of the railway question, and have tried to keep out of minor discussions. I may not have been here as often as I should have been, but I have been going through the country, talking to the people about these things and hearing what they had to say, and have come back here with their views. I have talked with the farmers and know what they think and what they wish. Sometimes 1 have been sitting in my office, and sometimes I have been listening to what the people say, and I learn more from listening to them than I do from listening to what is said in this House, especially to what is said by the Minister of Justice in regard to a question of this kind. Now I again urge upon the government that they should take advantage of this opportunity in ratifying this agreement. This is an agreement with the Grand Trunk Railway, which is linked with a previous undertaking, and I think the Prime Minister should have accepted my proposal or else have taken a little time to consider it. It will be no hardship to the Grand Trunk Railway, and it will open the way for a widespread reform, it will open the way for conferring a great advantage on the people of Canada. I expected some co-operation from the Prime Minister, and I still hope that the government will think it over. You can always raise -these quibbles, but instead of raising quibbles, the government should acknowledge that there is something in the case that I am making that is worthy of consideration. Let them communicate with the Grand Trunk people, and perhaps they will satisfy the hon. gentleman and allow the Bill to stand for a little while, and we will go on with something else. But I say now that the grievance exists, we are voting this money, we are giving these franchises, and now is the time to correct that grievance, and to start something going that will give the people cheaper travel all over this country.


The PRIME MINISTER.: We will think it over, but let us proceed in the meantime.


William Findlay Maclean: All right, but others may wish to express themselves. The government may seek to dismiss the question in this perfunctory manner, but it will not down, it will be here on the third reading all the same. The demon will not die, and you had better deal with it now. Mr. Hays is in a very friendly frame of mind now, he is getting something the like of which was never given to anybody before in this country, and in order to get it he will give something in return, the coon will come down very rapidly.


Mr.   ILEYD@: Our hon. friend from York (Mr. Maclean) has constituted himself a missionary for the purpose of propagating the two-cent idea amongst the people of this country. He tells us that the farmers have already expressed an opinion in favour of a -two-cent rate. Now, Mr. Chairmau, it is absolutely necessary for him to show some reason why a two-cent rate should be inserted in this Bill, or any other. I hope I am in order.


Peter Macdonald: The hon. gentleman is perfectly in order, providing that

lie confines himself to discussing the propriety of imposing a two-cent rate on the new company which is now asking for a charter for building a transcontinental railway.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: 
Mr. INGRAM.: Did the hon. gentleman figure out the results in the state of Michigan and the state of New York, where they have a two-cent rate, to ascertain whether they are losing money there ?


Charles Bernhard Heyd: They are selling coal in Cape Breton at $3 a ton, and it is costing $6 a ton here. The conditions are different in New York state from what they are in the province of Ontario.


Andrew B. Ingram: I was asking the hon. gentleman if he had looked at these figures.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: I did not look at them, because we are not interested in them. We are only interested in the Canadian railways. An attempt is being made to show that the railways are unfair to the people, because a charge of three cents a mile is made, and the demand is made that it shall be reduced to two. The hon. member for East York puts himself at the head of a movement to compel the railways to reduce the rates to two cents a mile when the fact is that the railways cannot afford to do it. We might as well pass a law compelling a miller to sell a barrel of flour at $2.50 when it costs him $4 to produce it. One wo fid be as reasonable as tbe other. The fact cannot be controverted that with the exception of four or five railways there are no railways that are actually making their


Peter Macdonald: passenger service pay. They would be justified, under the circumstances, in saying that they should be entitled to raise their rates instead of lowering them. My hon. friend would consider it a hardship if we were to pass legislation here declaring that he should sell his newspaper at less than it cost to produce, and yet he pufs himself at the head of a movement to compel the railway companies to run their passenger trains at a loss. The actual result of the operation of these railways according to the figures I have given is that with the exception of four or five railways, every railway company is losing money on its passenger business. They recoup themselves out of their freight traffic. That is the way they are making their money, and it is out of that traffic that they ar-e paying their dividends. Therefore, the hon. gentleman's scheme is entirely impracticable. He has not gone to the trouble of ascertaining what the facts are. He has not taken the trouble even to look at the blue-hook. He sees that it is popular to advocate a two-cent rate, and he makes this proposal. It would be more popular to advocate a one-cent rate, more popular still to carry people for nothing, and more popular still to give them five cents a mile to ride on the railways. Why not do that? There must be a basis of common sense at the bottom of this matter and if he can show that the railways are earning too much money by their passenger business, he would then be in a position to make a strong appeal to our intelligence. He could say to the railway companies : You are making too much money out of your passenger business and it is only reasonable that you should reduce your rates. But, as it is, the railway companies are in a position to say : If we are losing money, if the Canada Atlantic Railway, the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo, and the Lake Erie and Detroit River, are all losing money, is it reasonable to enforce a still larger loss upon us ? Because they have a two-cent rate in New York and Michigan is no reason why they should be compelled to grant that rate here unless it is right. You must show that the conditions are exactly the same. Because an article is cheaper in one country than in another it is no reason for saying that it may be too dear in one country as compared with another. The conditions may be different. It costs more money probably to carry passengers here than there. We have a less number of people to patronize our railways while the cost of running the train is the same whether you have a large or a small number of passengers. If you run a passenger train from Ottawa to Montreal with 100 passengers it costs as much as if the train carried 500 passengers, so that the number of passengers carried is immaterial in respect of the cost of operation. Owing to the sparseness of population the railway companies here cannot afford to carry passengers as cheaply as they can be carried from Buffalo to New York or from Detroit to Chicago. I hope the hon. gentleman will look into the blue-book and satisfy himself that the railways are making too much money out of their passenger business, because, if he does that, I shall be quite willing to listen to what he has to say. He knows absolutely [DOT]nothing about the question, he has given it no study, he goes around the country talking with some farmer on a concession line-


William Findlay Maclean: Only a farmer.
Mr. HEYD-and they stimulate one another with the idea that they understand this whole question. The hon. gentleman cannot, at this moment, tell me what the actual cost of operating a passenger train is in Canada, and yet, with that lack of information, he puts himself at the head of a movement to reduce passenger rates.


William Findlay Maclean: I have brought the fact to the attention of this Committee that the Grand Trunk Railway Company had undertaken years ago to give the people a two-cent rate between Toronto and Montreal, I have proved my case, I have asked that they be compelled to carry that out, and we have had in reply this tirade which is not germane to the question at all.


Mr. THOMPSON (Haldimand and Monck).: It was a corker.


William Findlay Maclean: I have read the figures that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Heyd) has quoted time and time again.
Mr. THOMPSON (Haldimand and Monoid. All the less excuse for you, then.


William Findlay Maclean: The facts are not as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Heyd) states them. The Grand Trunk Railway Company are making a great deal of money out of their passenger traffic, and they would be making a great deal more money if they treated the Canadian people as they treat the "iti-zens of the United States. Does the hon. gentleman undertake to say that I am not bringing a public grievance to the attention of the Committee when I point out that the Grand Trunk Railway Company carry people from a foreign country across our own country at two cents a mile and charge our own people three cents a mile, that I am talking buncombe, and that I do not understand the railway question? I have studied [DOT]the figures that the hon. gentleman has quoted. The hon. gentleman is taking the statements that the railway companies have made and which have not been verified. He says that the money is made out of freights. Freights have been cut in two twenty times in this country, but the passenger rates have never been reduced. I could quote the statistics of the Post Office and other departments to show instances in which they have lost money by imposing high rates, and the moment they reduced the rates they have made money. The post office and

1224S
the telegraph companies have been well repaid for any reduction they have made.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Within certain limits.


William Findlay Maclean: There is one thing that is known in England, and it is that there is nothing like experimental legislation. Try the thing. Compel the Grand Trunk Railway to carry out what they have undertaken to do, compel them to make the experiment on the most congested portion of their road of carrying people for two cents and see whether it will pay or not. I asked that on this occasion and all we get in reply is the speech of the hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd). It does not answer the question at all. If we compel the Grand Trunk Railway to carry out this obligation, we will not impose any hardship upon them.


Jabel Robinson: The bon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd) has based his calculations on a three-eent per mile rate, which travellers are at the present time obliged to pay. If we reduced the rate to two cents a mile a great many more people would travel. Therefore, his calculations are of no use, because the moment the reduction is made a great many more people would go to see their friends, more business will be done throughout the country, more travel will take place and ns a result the profits of the railway companies will be greater. I think, if the hon. member for South Brant had studied this question at all, he certainly would have thought of that feature of it. I think this question is the most important that hask been discussed during the consideration of this whole measure, especially as it affects the interests of farmers. The farmers are all interested, as every man who travels is interested, in seeing that when they do travel they shall pay whatever it is worth.	.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Hear, hear.


Jabel Robinson: The hon. member for South Brant says they are not paying enough now.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: No, I did not say that. I said that the railways are not making money out of their passenger traffic.


William Findlay Maclean: The Canadian Pacific Railway is paying 6 per cent.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Yes, but that is from freights.


Jabel Robinson: We will leave the question of passenger rates then, and take up the freight rates. Last time I went home I met a drover on the train who said to me : We have a serious grievance in Ontario with regard to the freight rates charged ; a man can ship lambs to Buffalo from Bay City, Michigan, for $15 a car, and when I ship from where I live near Iona Station, Ontario, which is a hundred miles nearer the Buffalo market, I have to pay $22.70 for a car. That is just on a par with the passenger rates in Ontario.


William Findlay Maclean: Canadians are charged 3 cents a mile, and the people of Michigan are charged 2 cents a mile through Canada. It is time the government should take this question up, and if there is a remedy apply it. I suppose if there is mo remedy we will just have to grin and bear it.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I called the attention of my hon. friend (Mr. Robinson) to the fact that this Bill provides for the very thing which he has in his mind. Clause 39 of the contract reads :
The rates and tolls to be levied and taken by the Company upon any part of the said railway, shall be under the control of the Governor in Council, or of such authority, commission, or tribunal as is designated or constituted under any Act of parliament of Canada for the regulation or control of the business of railways.
My hon. friend will agree with me, that it is better to have such an authority to deal with this matter than to have it incorporated in an Act of parliament, because of the fact that freight rates have been varied some twenty times already, and they can be varied again, as can the passenger rates. Whenever it is shown to the Governor in Council, or to the authority designated by the government, that the freight or passenger rates ought to be reduced, then that authority shall have power to deai with the question, and I do not know any better method of dealing with it.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then, we are to take it, that this parliament has no right to give an expression of opinion as to what the railway rates shall be ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Who said that?


Andrew B. Ingram: Practically that is the case, because we hand over to others the right to do these things. Are we to be debarred from giving an expression of opinion as to what the rates shall be ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I heard nobody say that we were.


Andrew B. Ingram: That is the language of the section just read.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Who said that this parliament was debarred from expressing an opinion on this matter ?


Andrew B. Ingram: I say that this House has a right to express its opinion.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Everybody admits that.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Heyd) quoted figures to show that the railways in Canada were losing money on their passenger traffic. That may be perfectly true, but they have a two-cent rate in Michigan and New lrork. and is it fair that the same railway companies should charge Canadians 3 cents a mile, when they are only charging Americans 2 cents a mile ?
At one o'clock, committee took recess.

Committee resumed at three o'clock.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Before recess the hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd) professed to tell us the cost per mile of running passenger trains, and then showed that certain Canadian railways did not earn sufficient from their passenger traffic to cover the cost of running the trains, but he did not say whether he made any allowance for the ' earnings of these trains in carrying mails or express or doing any other business. Without that knowledge the conclusions drawn from his argument would be very unreliable.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: But in calculating the earnings of the passenger trains are the returns from mail and express included ?


Charles Bernhard Heyd: They have one table for mixed, passenger and freight trains.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not know of any passenger trains that do not carry mails and express and if these factors are left out of the calculation the conclusion is of little value. The hon. member (Mr. Heyd) criticised the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) for dealing with railway matters when he was not a railway expert. He argued it was improper for the member for East York to contend that the company should be compelled to carry passengers at two cents a mile and said that the hon. gentleman knew nothing about the question whatever. He asked where he obtained his information, did he gather it from the farmers. Just as if farmers had not common sense or intelligence enough to know what the cost of travelling was to them and whether it was desirable to establish a lower rate than that which now prevails. When the Grand Trunk allowed the insertion in their charter of a clause providing for a two-cent rate they had at their elbow their railway experts and they must have felt satisfied that it would pay a railway company to carry passengers at two cents a mile or otherwise they would not have allowed that provision in their Act of incorportaion, It is because the railway company have ignored the statutory provision of their own charter that we are now asking the government to insist that the railway company shall grant to the public what they undertook- to give over forty years ago, but have not given. We might even go further and ask for a refund of the .$58,009,000 in principal and interest- which they owe to Canada on account of the building of that road because they have not given to Canada the service or the return for the money that they * agreed to give. We might ask for the return of that money before we permit tnem to incur further indebtedness to the people of Canada. I do not see any impropriety in compelling them to grant the reasonable demand that we are now making, but I understood the Chairman to rule that this amendment is hardly apropos. I cannot understand by what process of logic he reached that conclusion, but I understood him to say that we cannot deal with anything but what is within the four corners of this Act. Why it is only' in Committee of the Whole or oil the third reading that we can make amendments to Bills of this character and that is done repeatedly in order to provide for matters that have been overlooked. This is not a private Bill and it is not even necessary to give notice of an amendment.


Peter Macdonald: Will my hon. friend allow me to suggest that what he says would be correct providing an amendment is placed before the Committee setting forth what the suggested change is to be. At present there is nothing before the Committee. It would be in order if y'ou proposed to take the power to decide on the question of rates away from the Governor in Council or from the commission, but you would have to so provide in an amendment to a certain clause. Then you must have a proposition before the House and if this discussion is going on a motion of this.kind can better be made as there is now no motion before the Committee.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have every respect for your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but I submit that the law lays down a maximum rate of passenger toll and it is with that maximum rate we are now dealing. The Governor in Council or the commission may revise that maximum rate from time to time ; my hon. friend from East York draws attention to Hie fact that according to their own charter tiie Grand Trunk have agreed to give a maximum rate of two cents a mile for second-class passengers, but they have not done so and he wants to provide by this Bill that in future they shall do that.


Peter Macdonald: I would suggest if we are to have a discussion upon this that the hon. member should move as an amendment to section 39 which deals with rates and tolls to be levied by the Grand Trunk Pacific Company the words 'provided that the passenger rate does not exceed two cents a mile,' then there would be a resolution before the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I admit that that would be a more direct form for the resolution and perhaps more appropriate phraseology. This is an attempt to accomplish in an indirect way what could be accomplished in a direct way. For these reasons I

thought that the hon. member for East York was quite within his rights and that the amendment was one which the House might very properly consider. I want to refer to another point. 1 understood the Minister of Justice to say that the Grand Trunk Railway was charging a lower rate than they are entitled to charge by law, that they are entitled to charge 3| cents per mile and are charging less. But according to the calculation which a few of us have been making, we find that they are charging right up to their full rates on first-class traffic to-day. Instead of only charging three cents per mile they are charging 8J cents.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I did not make this assertion on my own personal knowledge but upon the responsibility of Mr. Biggar, the solicitor of the Grand Trunk Railway. He told me that they are charging a three-cent rate on first class and two cents on second class travel. 1 then put the question whether or not that applied to rates from localities intervening between Montreal and Toronto, and he said he could not say but would get the information.


William Findlay Maclean: According to my knowledge, there is no two-cent rate for second-class traffic. The Prime Minister, when introducing this Bill, made this statement :
' We told them that we would not act unless they brought into the enterprise the old Grand Trunk Railway, the well tried Grand Trunk Railway, &e.' And the Minister of Finance said : ' We have not been content that the Grand Trunk Rail way should be behind it, we have required, and they have readily consented, that they shall be in it and of it and practically the whole thing.' The Minister of the Interior spoke to the same effect. It is the old and tried Grand Trunk which is making this deal, which is in it and of it, and behind it and the whole thing. That being the case I say that the Grand Trunk Railway should not be allowed to enter into this agreement without binding itself to fulfil its old obligation. Let me show the committee the attitude taken by the government in 1897, when passing the Crow's Nest Railway Bill. The then Minister of Railways, in introducing the measure granting susbidies to the Canadian Pacific Railway for building of the Crow's Nest Road, said: 'The committee will have noticed that we have sought to ensure to the country a large measure of relief from the rates which have obtained since the Canadian Pacific Railway was started.' That was the main reason 'why, not only $5,000 per mile, but $11,000 pet-mile, was given the Canadian Pacific Railway. The government obtained concessions in return for what they were giving. All I am asking is that the Grand Trunk Railway proper, which is in it and of it and the whole thing, shall fulfil it for-Mr. SPROI7LE.
mer obligation and give a parliamentary rate of one penny between Toronto and Montreal. Such a demand is quite to the point. If I cannot get a division now, I will later on, and we will see whether the Grand Trunk Railway proper is to be compelled or not to carry out its undertaking of former days. Before the afternoon is over, I propose to show that the Grand Trunk Railway to-day is not giving anybody a t.wo-cent rate on that portion of the line.


Mr. TAYLOR.: I want to draw the attention of the Minister of Justice to the statement made by him that the charter of the Grand Trunk Railway allows them to charge 3J cents per mile. The charter I think reads two pence, which is equal to 3$ cents. The bon. gentleman now tells the hon. member for East Grey that he inquired of the solicitor for the Grand Trunk Railway what is the rate between Montreal and Toronto and was informed that the rate is three cents per mile. If that be the case, why not charge that rate at all points between Montreal and Toronto. I know as a matter of fact, that the local rates are two pence or 3i cents. From Gananoque to Brockville, which is 30 miles, $1 is charged for a first-class ticket, or 3J cents per mile : but if they charge only three cents per mile between Montreal and Toronto, why should the people living at other points be discriminated against ?


Mr. JOHNSTON (Cardwell).: This session we have passed legislation compelling tin' companies to carry members of parliament free, and I think, if we give this exemption to members of parliament, we ought to compel the companies to reduce the rate to all people to two cents per mile. Whether the railway companies would make more or less if the rate were reduced to two gents instead of three is a question open to consideration, but it is almost a sure thing that they would make more, and I notice that they often charge excursions a lower rate than two cents. The general public would travel a great deal more, and the railway companies would be as well off at the end of the year, if a two-cent rate were charged as they are with a three-cent rate. We have a government which boasts that since they come to power, they reduced the postage on letters from three cents to two cents. That they claim is a great boon for the country. Sir, it is a one-sided boon. It is a reduction made in the interests of the merchants, professional men and the great departmental stores, but no benefit has accrued to the farmers from that policy. That reduction in postage operates to the benefit almost exclusively of the dwellers in the cities but the rural population have to pay the largest share of the deficit. If we can legislate for the benefit of the cities on postal matters, why not legislate for the benefit of the farming community in

railway matters ? It is strange tliat we can legislate for the beneflt of the people in postal and not in railway matters. Why not legislate that the railways shall be run at cheaper rates as well as the postal department ? I think it would he better to give the people a two-cent a mile rate on the railways than to give them a two-cent letter rate. I think it is a fitting time to legislate in that direction, particularly as we have legislated in this House unanimously, except for only two or three dissentients, that the railways shall be compelled to give passes to members of parliament. It will be more than just to legislate so that the people can ride on the railways at two cents per mile instead of three cents or three and one-half cents, as at present.
As I understand it, the clause we are discussing is the one that ratifies the agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific. I may be allowed, then, a word or two on another branch of the question before I sit down. We were told by the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) that he is surprised at the opposition for continuing to criticise this measure now that the House has declared for the principle. We on this side have opposed this measure from the start, mainly on the ground that we believe that there is no proper information as to where the railway is to be built or anything of that sort. And, though it has been about carried we still feel it our duty to point out to the government any way in which the proposition can be amended. We on this side were not the first to criticise the great haste that the government has shown in this matter. That criticism came first from the other side of the House, from a man in whom the Prime Minister had such confidence that, in 189G, he selected him not only to become a member of parliament but to become the head of one of the most important departments of government. That lion, gentleman's word should he worth something in this country and this House. Now if I were to attend a Conservative caucus, and then come out and tell what took place in that caucus, I am sure nobody here would disbelieve me. Here was a member of the government who came out and declared that there had been no proper preparation for this great enterprise, and strongly condemned it for that reason. He told us that there was no great reason for hurry that he could see. The government said that time would not wait. But the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) said that time would wait, but that Senator Cox would not wait. This statement did not first come from this side of tlie House ; it came from the man who knew the ins and outs of the doings of the government. And I have not yet heard any minister of the Crown say that it is not true. I have heard the hon. member for North Norfolk condemn the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals for leaving his party and pouring ridicule upon him for showing
any independence or for acting in the interests of the country even against his party and declaring that the hon. gentleman had made statements that he would be sorry for. The hon. gentleman did not deny, nor has any minister of the Crown denied in my hearing that there was something in this statement that Senator Cox would not wait. The people are anxious to know whether this man, who was so high iu the confidence of the government, standing almost next to the Prime Minister himself, when he said on the floor of this House that it was not time, but Senator Cox who could not wait, either the ministers must get up and deny that statement, or else from the public standpoint, it will be plain that the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals was telling the truth. I would urge upon the government to postpone action


George Taylor: And let Cox wait.


Robert Johnston: Yes, and let Cox wait. And I want the House and the country to distinctly understand that that cry did not come first from this side of the House. Friends of the government are striving to make it appear that it was the Conservatives that started this cry for election purposes, but, the fact is that is was the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals who first raised it and, more than that, none of his former colleagues has yet given it a denial.


Mr. KAULBACH.: Mr. Chairman, this problem, the proposed construction of a line of railway, to be known as ' The Grand Trunk Pacific ' National Transcontinental ' as it is called, having Moncton, N.B. as its terminal in the east, and Port Simpson, B.C., as its terminal in the west, has engaged the attention of parliament for some weeks, and been watched doubtless with no little interest by every Canadian desirous of seeing the sunny side of our Canadian future, beaming with promise, showing signs of development by the opening of new channels of trade in every direction. But I fail to see how in this case Nova Scotia by the sea, or the maritime provinces, I might include Canada as a whole, could be benefited by such a project as this. Representing, as I do, an important constituency in the east by the sea, and the people of that county having reposed in me their confidence, I must say, in justice to them as well as to others, I feel it my duty to express my views on this subject, which I have no hesitation in saying are not favourable to the scheme in any way, and for the following reasons :
1. Because this proposed road is to terminate at Moncton, N.B. instead of at a Canadian Atlantic seaport. 2. Because it parallels or side tracks the Intercolonial between LSvis and Moncton, and deprives it of its usefulness-a road that offers a valuable asset, and constructed at a cost of $70,000,000.	3. Because it involves such



down the valley of the Gold river, to connect with the above line at Chester Basin, an artery to our railway system.
The proposal as submitted by the Conservative leader the member for Halifax (Mr. Borden), is received with much favour and certainly would be by every reasonable and rightly disposed mind, and should be emphasized argumentatively by every one, in a matter of such vital importance, free from party bias or party interest as the interest of all Canada is at stake, and as I view it, Nova Scotia more particularly. I will ask here what about the Intercolonial the people's railway, built and owned by the people, and for the people, a national road, a colonization road, a military road, a splendid asset to the people of Canada-it is to be set aside as a local road, or by-road, at a heavy loss to the country, aud another built at an immense cost to the country, and handed over to a private company for fifty years, not only to parallel but to paralyze it-the Intercolonial-and we to suffer the loss t What about the Intercolonial and the pronosed Grand Trunk Pacific ? Are both roads to run between Ldvis and Moncton, and is the Intercolonial to be a through road to Halifax ? I predict that if the Grand Trunk Pacific is built from Quebec south of the Alleghany range of mountains as advised by lion, gentlemen opposite, following the St John river to Chipman within a few miles of St. John, and thence to Moncton, it is reasonable to suppose that St. John will be the entrepot of trade, and will get the traffic. But, I would ask here, where does Halifax come in for a benefit ? It simply does not come in at all.
The Intercolonial Railway, the people s railway and Nova Scotia's sea-port towns including Halifax, will be side-tracked. I sincerely hope that every Nova Scotian will stand for his rights and not allow a project s^ suicidal to Canada to be carried to com,
^It'Is'said the government are induced to build this Grand Trunk Pacific to relieve the congestion of traffic in the west at Winnipeg. I will here quote what the Winnipeg Tii bune ' says of it:
Winnipeg August 22-The -Tribune' (Liberal) to night sl'ys -Wily In reports to hand from Ottawa, Mr. Sif-ton represents the Trf bune ' as having endorsed the Grand iru Pacific's project for a new line across Canada. He knows very well that the ' Tribune ' never, by inference or otherwise, favoured such a ras cally project as that proposed by the government Mr. Borden, leader of the Conserra
lives, has joined the [DOT] extend-,t^e-Int^';olo0fn^a party in Canada. It numbers thousands of oldtime Liberals in Canada, and the hosts of independents who make and unmake governmens.
'There is simply no comparison between tne proposition of Mr. Borden and the cne now being jammed through the House by 'the government. Mr. Borden's policy, so far 'as the railway problem from Winnipeg to the Atlantic is concerned, will, we are sure, commend itself to the people.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: 'It means the entry of the Intercolonial into Winnipeg. It means the extension of the Grand Trunk, if that road is anxious to enter the west. It means an outlet for the produce of the country through natural channels. It means that the Canadian people will not be handed over in boudage to a private railway corporation for the next fifty years or more. And among many other things, it means the saving of millions of money.'
I endorse most heartily tlie extension of the Intercolonial Railway west to Winnipeg, both by rail and the great lakes, tapping and controlling the transportation trade of the west, as well as having direct communication by this road, as a main artery, to the eastern provinces and the ports by the sea, for freight of every description from the west and from the east-a complete interchange of commodities, all of which can be brought about within a short time ; I might say all but immediately, and, better still, we have it then as the people's road, whereby we can have complete control of the freight rates and. place it on a basis to earn money at once. By this means we can arrange to compete favourably for the shipments of grain from the west to the ports of Montreal arid Quebec by tlie St. Lawrence in summer and to the ports of Halifax and St. John in winter, even if we have to carry freight over the Intercolonial at a loss, as we can recoup ourselves indirectly by the increased trade given to tlie Canadian shipping ports on the Atlantic, by the shipments outward as well as the shipments inward to these ports.
Here proves the advantage of government ownership to regulate rates. By this means, at the seaport towns ship chandlers, traders, mechanics, stevedores, labourers, fishermen and sailors, all reap a reward, and it is only by the extension of the Intercolonial that Halifax can be benefited. The farmer in this way can find a larger and a better market, with better prices, for Iris farm products in disbursements of ships, and he can often avail himself of chances for shipments of his products to ports where the outward bound ships are destined. The Intercolonial can be made, and will be made, if the government will only abandon this Grand Trunk Pacific scheme of theirs, which I sincerely hope they will, the chief highway between the east and the west, with Winnipeg in the west as the centre and Halifax in the east as a second New York. Halifax geographically is well placed, with a harbour second to none on the Atlantic coast and easy of approach, and 300 miles nearer to the old world than Portland, Boston or New York. All that Is lacking with its people is enterprise. Here comes the advantage to the fishermen with the Intercolonial extended as a highway to the west and Halifax as the chief seaport and depot in the east. Halifax will be a market for fresh fish in cold storage, sent directly throngh by the Intercolonial to the west, which hitherto was detained in transit by interruptions,

owing to its not being a through line. If the government will take the advice of making the Intercolonial the 'grand trunk line of Canada,' taking out many of the curves between Quebec and Moncton, running as close to an air-line as possible from Rimouski to Newcastle, N.B., taking out the bends between Moncton and Sackville and Sackville and the mines, running south of the Cobequid mountains at least 100 miles, I believe, would be saved on the Intercolonial between Quebec and Truro, and with the gradients and curvatures improved, I feel assured hon. gentlemen opposite wili see that the advice given them with the best of motives, and in aft sincerity, that of extending the Intercolonial and making it the Grand Trunk of Canada, should be adopted as the better part of wisdom. But to follow out the project as submitted to parliament, that of constructing another road-the Grand Trunk Pacific-and destroying the usefulness of the Intercolonial, after all the advice so generously offered, and with the best of motives, appears to me to be nothing more or less than a national calamity.


Mr. NORTHRUP.: I beg leave to move a clause which is intended to extend one of the provisions of the original contract. The clause Is as follows :
No work shall be commenced on 'the eastern division under any contract for .the construction thereof, or any part thereof, until the plans, specifications, tenders and contracts therefor have been submitted to and approved by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company; md no work shall be commenced on the western division under any contract for the construction thereof, or any pant thereof, until the plans, specifications, tenders and contracts therefor have been submitted to and approved of by the government. '
That is founded on clauses 7 and 9 of the contract, which provide that in order to secure the economical construction of the road and the protection, on the one hand, of the government and on the other hand of the company, the specifications are to he submitted in each case to the other party. This amendment goes a step further and provides that not only the specifications but also the plans and .profiles are to be submitted to the other party before any work is done or any contract let.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend is aware that the plans and specifications have to be submitted to the government in the first instance, but I do not see any reason why the government should have an opportunity to inspect the tenders which the Grand Trunk Pacific may receive for the construction of the western division. My hon. friend is aware that the western division has to be constructed up to a well-known standard, that is to say, the standard of the Grand Trunk Railway between Toronto and Montreal, and I think that in that provision we have a sufficient 3S4J
guarantee to meet the object which my hon. friend has in view.


William Barton Northrup: My only object is to secure as complete protection as possible on the one hand for the government, who are guaranteeing 75 per cent of the cost of constructing the western division, and on the other hand of the company, who are to pay 3 per cent on the expenditure on the eastern division. While it is on the line of the original contract it goes a step further by applying to the tenders as well as the plans and specifications.


Mr. REID (Grenville).: The Minister of Justice made the statement that the maximum passenger rate on the Grand Trunk between Toronto and Montreal was three cents first class and two cents second class. Did the hon. minister refer to the through-rate only or to the rates between stations along the line ? If he referred to the local rates his statement is not correct.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The statement I made was that the rate between Toronto and Montreal and vice versa at the present time does not exceed three cents per mile first class and two cents per mile second class. I took the rate between the two terminal points, Montreal and Toronto, and if my hon. friend will look at the statute he will find that it provides a rate as between Montreal and Toronto. A question arises as to how far the statute fixing a rate between the two terminal points applies to the local rates between points along that line. I was careful to guard what I said with respect to intermediate points, because, while my information is that the rate is higher as far as intermediate points are concerned, I am not sure from any information I have that it is higher than the rate fixed by the statute. The statute fixes three and one-third cents, and I understood that between intermediate points the rate is three and one-third cents, but I want to protect myself to this extent, that I have no authority for my statement except as to the rate between Montreal and Toronto, and with respect to that rate, X speak on the authority of the solicitor of the Grand Trunk and the statute.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. Minister of Justice, I think, is right in so far as the two terminal points are concerned. I understood from his statement this morning that he meant that three cents a mile was the maximum rate between intermediate points, and as I live on the line of the Grand Trunk I know that that is not correct.
Amendment (Mr. Northrup) negatived.


William Barton Northrup: Mr. Chairman, I beg to move the following amendment;
That clause 2 he amended by .adding thereto :-
21. In the event of any suspension of the work of construction under section 21 of this Act, or

in the event of such works not being again proceeded with after such suspension neither party to the said agreement shall have any claim for damages or compensation against the other of them by reason of any such suspension of work or failure to resume the same.
This amendment is founded on section 21 of the Bill, which provides :
The Governor in Council shall have the power at any time to suspend the progress of the work upon the said eastern division until the then next session of parliament.
In case the work had been commenced and had then been suspended, and that as a result of the suspension the Grand Trunk Pacific should be deprived of an outlet to the east for a year or two, then possibly they might come to the government claiming that on either.legal or technical grounds, probably the latter, they were entitled to compensation by reason of this delay through the calling into operation of clause 21. I therefore move this amendment in order that, should such a contingency arise, the Grand Trunk Pacific shall have notice in advance that they cannot, under such circumstances, expect any compensation for not being able to proceed continuously with the work.


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: I had some such provision in my mind, but have not yet come to a conclusion concerning it. I will therefore have to ask the House to reject the amendment, but if, on further consideration, I shall conclude that it is a proper amendment, I want to reserve the right to reconsider it later ou.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why not reserve the amendment now ?
Amendment negatived.


Mr. BARKER.: I beg to move the following amendment:
Notwithstanding anything in this Act the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada shall not subscribe for, acquire, or hold any preferred stock, bonds, debentures or other securities of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, without the previous consent of the Governor General in Council.
My reason for moving that amendment is this. As has been so often said in the course of this debate, the Grand Trunk Railway will control the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, and it is not desirable that, under these circumstances, the Grand Trunk Company should have unrestricted power to acquire the preferred stocks or securities of the other company, the proceeds of which are required for construction or for the purchase of rolling stock. We are Dot at all dealing with the question of the common stock, which has been so much discussed, but with the question of the disposition to be made by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway of its preferred stock and securities, all of which are to be paid for, and should be paid for, so that the works may be constructed. We


William Barton Northrup: propose simply that no acquisition of those preferred stocks or securities shall be made by virtue of any arrangement between the two companies, without the approval of the Governor in Council. I do not see that there can be any objection to this. It must be obvious to everybody that a reasonable, fair transaction could hardly be expected between these two companies, which are identically the same. No imputation is cast upon the companies by this clause. It is simply an ordinary business precaution. Where the two companies are identical as regards conirol and have no adverse interests, the country, which has an interest opposed to them in some sense, should be protected against their making an improvident bargain in the sale of the preferred stocks or securities by one to the other.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Of this amendment I have had no previous notice, and it would be impossible for me to say now off-hand what the effect would be and also to what extent, if any, we should have it inserted in the Bill. I would like to make the same reservation with regard to this amendment as I did with regard to the other, and in the meantime ask the House to reject it. There is sufficient in it to suggest further inquiry, and if, on further consideration, I should conclude that something should be done, I reserve the right to move the House back into committee for that purpose.


Samuel Barker: That would be quite satisfactory.
Amendment negatived.


Samuel Barker: I desire to move a further amendment. I have not had the opportunity of showing this to the Minister of Justice, having only drawn it a few minutes ago, but perhaps the hon. minister will be good enough to consider it as he has promised to do the other. It has relation to clause 19 of the agreement. That clause lias two or three very useful objects. It provides for tlie inspection of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway accounts, also for a separate account being kept of the traffic on the western division from that on the eastern division, and it provides that there shall be a means by which the government may see that, in the division of earnings as between those two sections, the proportions shall be equitably established. It is quite clear that that is a very useful provision in the interests of the government. Otherwise the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway might give a larger portion of the earnings to that section of the road, which it would be most in its interest should receive the largest proportion. It might, by charging expenses or by an unfair division of freight rates, enable the western division to earn profits while tbe eastern division would be made to work at cost or at a * loss, so that there might be no rental pay-

able to tbe government in those years in [DOT]which the rent depends upon profits. So far the provision is all right, and I have no fault to find with it, nor with the provision that, in the case of any dispute as to the apportionment of the earnings, the matter shall be referred to arbitration or, in the event of the Railway Commission being appointed, to the Board of Railway Commissioners; but I desire to point out that the same question will necessarily arise in the apportionment of the through rates between the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway, and that the Grand Trunk Railway Company might, having control of the two systems, so apportion the freight earnings and traffic passing over both systems that the Grand Trunk would be given an undue proportion to the detriment of the Grand Trunk Pacific. I, therefore, move this clause as a subclause to number 2 :
Should the government be of the opinion that at any time during the continuance of any obligation of the government in respect of the western division, or during the said lease of the eastern division that the earnings upon the traffic interchange between the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company system of railways and the system of railways of the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada, have not been properly apportioned between the said two companies, the question of such apportionment shall be determined by arbitrators to be appointed by the government, and the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada in like manner, as is provided with regard to arbitrators by paragraph 47 of the said agreement, or be determined by the board of railway commissioners as mentioned in section 19 of the said agreement.
Iu effect this resolution applies, as between the Grand Trunk Pacific and tbe Grand Trunk Company, tbe same procedure, tbe same method of ascertaining a fair division as the government has provided between the two divisions of tbe Grand Trunk Pacific.
And so that I may not occupy the time of tbe House unnecessarily, I may add that I propose to move another amendment in a moment, and I shall speak of that now. Under section 19, for the purpose of ascertaining what would be a fair division of the through-rate between the eastern and the western division, power is taken on behalf of the government to inspect papers, contracts and books of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. I propose to move an amendment adding a clause to the effect that, for the purpose of any matters pertaining to the business common to the two companies the government shall have power to inspect the books, papers and vouchers of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. I think that will commend itself to the Minister of Justice, for it will be apparent to him that, in the course of business, in order to ascertain what the through-rate has been, and whether it has been duly divided as
between the several sections of the eastern and western divisions, and then as between the two divisions and the Grand Trunk Company, the most important papers, the papers without which it will be absolutely impossible, I think, to ascertain the facts, will be found in the offices of the Grand Trunk Company1. I do not propose, of course, to ask that the government shall examine the Grand Trunk Company's papers generally, but only the papers of the company that relate to these particular matters.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I would like to make, with respect to this amendment, the same declaration I made with respect to the preceding one : I would like to have an opportunity of considering the effect of it and to reserve the right to reconsider it at a future time.
Amendment (Mr. Barker) negatived.


Samuel Barker: Now, I would move formally the other amendment I mentioned. It will be quite satisfactory if the hon. minister will take it in the same way.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Willi the same declaration on my part. In this connection will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) tell me if he has considered how far section 266 of the Railway Act might be applicable, that is, with respect to joint tariff ? It occurred to me to look at it. I have not given the point consideration.


Samuel Barker: I have not looked at it particularly with respect to this, but it seems to me it would not go far enough. The Grand Trunk Company will virtually control three divisions of railway over which the traffic will run, and on each division there will be separate interests. It will not be like two companies acting in opposition to each other, but there will be one company controlling the traffic over three sections, the western division of the Grand Trunk Pacific, the eastern division of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and the Grand Trunk's own railway. There are distinct interests in each of these. First of all, the government will be interested in the division of the traffic between the two sections of the Grand Trunk Pacific ; then, it will be interested also in the question whether the two divisions of the Grand Trunk Pacific get a sufficient share as against the Grand Trunk proper. I do not think these things can be dealt with under the clause referred to. My amendment is as follows :
To amend clause 2 as follows :-The government shall have the right to inspect all books of account, statements, contracts, correspondence, vouchers, wav-bills, and all other papers and documents of the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, the inspection of which may be considered necessary for the purpose of investigating or determining any question, matter * or thing arising out of the said agreement, or the said lease, or the pro-

12268'
visions of this Act, or connected with the obligations or undertakings of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company entered into pursuant to the said agreement, or lease, or to this Act.
Amendment (Mr. Barker) negatived.


Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).: I have an amendment to move in connection with this clause, and I do so with all the greater confidence, because 1 feel that the government should accept it, inasmuch as they have declared that this railway is being constructed not only for the purpose of relieving the grain congestion of the west, but also as a means of affording cheap transportation to the products of the western farms to a Canadian seaport. This amendment has relation to the rates that will be charged on the line as far as the head of Lake Superior, and is to the effect, that the rates shall not be higher than those charged on the Canadian Northern Railway. The reason I choose the Canadian Northern Railway is that the Canadian Northern at the present time has the lowest rates of any line running to the head of lake navigation, and also because the Canadian Northern Railway line has been subsidized by this parliament with a cash bonus, by the government of Ontario and also by the government of Manitoba. In connection with the Manitoba guarantee, the government of the province has absolute control of rates. The control of rates that this Dominion government has in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific scheme -is control in theory only, and is not more than we already enjoy under the General Railway Act. Personally, I do not place much dependence upon any effective control so far as that is concerned. Therefore, while I am not going to make any maximum rate to be established by this government, I propose merely that the rates shall not be higher than those charged on the Canadian Northern road. Now, when the Northern Pacific lines in Manitoba were acquired by the government of that province and the bonds were guaranteed for the construction of the line to Port Arthur and Fort William, the provincial government secured, as a result, absolute control of the rates. At the time these lines were acquired, the rate on wheat from Winnipeg to Port Arthur was 14 cents per hundred pounds. A little over a year ago, in accordance with the agreement, that rate was reduced to 12 cents per hundred pounds. From the 1st of September of this year that has been still further reduced to 10 cents per hundred pounds. Therefore, I desire to 'move that the government should not charge, or allow to be charged, any higher rates to the head of lake navigation than would be charged by the Canadian Northern Railway.
Now a provision has been incorporated into the Grand Trunk Pacific charter by which if put into effect they cannot build their line within thirty miles of the Can-Mr. BARKER.
adian Pacific Railway or of the Canadian Northern Railway, in the North-west Territories and in those districts where there is no competition the farmers may be at the mercy of this road unless- the government has some effective control, something more than a merely nominal control. Of course, at those points where there is competition, the new road will have to meet the rates charged by the Canadian Northern and the Canadian Pacific Railway, otherwise they will not receive the business. But at those points thirty miles apart, the farmers will have to take less for their grain if an exorbitant price is charged by the Grand Trunk Pacific for the carriage of their grain. Without entering into a long discussion on this matter, I beg to move to amend section 2 by adding the following subsection :
That in the transportation ot traffic from or to points on the said western division hy way of Lake Superior, whether such traffic be between points in Canada or be export or import traffic, the rates of transportation to be charged by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company shall not exceed the lowest rates then being charged by the Canadian Northern Railway on the like traffic hy way of Lake Superior between, the same or corresponding points.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I would not like to accept that amendment, because the result would he to limit the power of control which the Board of Railway Commissioners and the government now have over these rates.
Mr. CLARIvE. In what respect ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: In this respect, that according to this amendment we will be practically binding ourselves to follow the rates on the Great Northern Railway Company.


William James Roche: Maximum rates.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: In effect you will be. I believe myself that we will be able to do very much better, and I want to reserve to myself the right to do better.


Thomas Osborne Davis: It appears to me that this-resolution is merely a clap-trap resolution for the purpose of trying to catch votes. It is a well-known fact that the rates on the Canadian Northern are under the control of the Railway Commissioners, notwithstanding anything the hon. gentleman may say about the bargain made by the Manitoba government in connection with the construction of the Canadian Northern, or buying the other road-all the same, the rates are under the control of the Railway Commission, who will have full control over them. I do not think any intelligent person will expect that the Railway Commission will allow one rate to be charged by the Canadian Northern and a higher rate to he charged by the Grand Trunk Pacific. If we are appointing a hoard of Railway

Commissioners for the purpose of controlling and regulating rates, I do not see why we need to put a maximum rate into this Bill, because the Railway Commission will attend to that. If they do not attend to it, then they are not going to fulfil the purpose of their appointment. I say again that notwithstanding the bargain made by the Manitoba government with the Canadian Northern, this Railway Commission wiy have full control of the rates over the Canadian Northern, and they will exercise that control according to their judgment, not only over this road, but also over the Canadian Pacific Railway. For my part, I am satisfied to leave the matter in the hands of the Railway Commission.


Mr. BOYD.: I am not surprised at the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) designating this motion as clap-trap. If it came from his quarter X should expect it was clap-trap. But after the experience we have had in Manitoba with the Canadian Northern, I would be surprised at any man who was not an ardent politician, like the hon. member for Saskatchewan, saying that this motion was unnecessary. We in the west know what evolutions we have passed through in regard to this question of railway freight rates. It has taken us years to get control of those rates, and we now are .able to appreciate the power we possess. We also know that during the discussion that took place in this House, the Minister of Railways said, contrary to the remarks that have just fallen from the member for Saskatchewan, that while the Railway Commission possibly had power to control the rates, they would at no time increase the rates ; there was no probability that they would increase the maximum rates, and would not do so. Now all we ask is that this new railroad shall not charge more than is charged between corresponding points on the Canadian Northern. We do know that the Canadian Pacific Railway has not yet met those rates. We know that the Manitoba government said to the Canadian Northern a year ago, in connection with the agreement they made wdth them :	We want you to lower your
rates from 14 to 12 cents per hundred pounds. We know that the Canadian Northern people said :	We cannot do so, and
I understand some of them said they would not do so, because they could not afford to do it. We know they did lower their rate on the Canadian Northern, and the Canadian Pacific Railway did not meet that rate, except at competing points. Except where the Canadian Pacific Railway entered into competition with the Canadian Northern, they charged at the rate of 14 cents per hundred pounds. Again, on the 1st of September, this year, the Manitoba government said to the Canadian Northern : We want you to low'er your rates to 10 cents per hundred pounds, and again they
said they could not or would not do it. We were told by our Liberal opponents in the province of Manitoba that this was mere clap-trap, that it was just to catch votes. Wo were told that for months during the last elections in the province of Manitoba. But, Sir, true to the policy of the Conservative party, who always carry out their pledges and promises made before the election, true to that policy that is inborn in the hearts of all Conservatives, they lived up to their promises in this respect ; and notwithstanding that the election was over, notwithstanding that they might have followed the example of their opponents and failed to carry out their promise, they actually secured a lowering of the rate to 10 cents per hundred pounds. Therefore, it comes with ill grace from the hon. member for Saskatchewan to say that this is a clap-trap motion, after all the Conservative party in Manitoba has done. Why, Sir, they saved the people of that province, on their last year's crop and on their imports, over a million and a half dollars. All we ask now is that the rates shall not be higher thau those charged by the Canadian Northern Railway Company. If you give us that, then you have control of those rates, and you will satisfy the people of that province and of the North-west Territories, and do a great deal to make this measure less objectionable to them than it is at the present time.


Thomas Osborne Davis: The hon. gentleman has forgotten to tell the House in connection with the bargain entered into between the Canadian Northern Railway and the Manitoba government with respect to the construction of those lines, that the Manitoba government is responsible and have the power under that agreement as I understand it, to lower the rates if they wish to do so. At the same time a settlement takes place every two years, and at the end of that time, if the rates are lowered beloAv what the railroad can afford to carry the traffic


Nathaniel Boyd: Every school boy knows that.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Perhaps the hon. gentleman knows it, and he will know it better in about two years, when they have another settlement. Now it is a well-known fact that the Canadian Northern people say they are not able to haul the traffic for that price. But they say that if the Manitoba government wish them to haul wheat at 5 cents a bushel, they will do it, provided the Manitoba government will make up the loss that will accrue to the company by hauling it at a less price than they can afford to. It it quite refreshing to hear these hon. gentlemen talk about freight rates in the west. Who saddled the railway monopoly on the west ? It was these hon. gentlemen who are howling about freight rates now. It was not the party in power at the present

time who did it. It was done by lion, gentlemen opposite, and now that the government are doing something to remedy this condition of affairs in the west, we find that the Canadian Pacific Railway are lowering their rates. But, they did not do it until this Bill was before the House. They did not do it when the Manitoba Bill was before parliament. They know that the Grand Trunk Pacific is going in there, and they are desirous of getting their feet in, of getting possession of the traffic before the Grand Trunk Pacific take it away from them. There is no connection between the action of the Manitoba government and this proposition at all. If you haul freight out for five cents a hundred, you simply have to pay the difference. And hon. gentlemen will find that there will not be so much cheering in Manitoba when the next election takes place as there is at the present time.


Nathaniel Boyd: It is evident that the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) is under the impression that a great many people do not understand the powers of the Manitoba government in regard to this matter of rates. If the Manitoba government order the rate below 10 cents per 100 pounds on wheat and it does not pay, they bear any loss that accrues. But, until the 'rate is lowered below 10 cents, the railway company bear the loss. It has not been lowered below 10 cents and if there is any loss the Canadian Northern Railway bear the loss. The Manitoba government have their own auditor in the office of the Canadian Northern Railway Company, and they get a report from him weekly, or as frequently as they require. They know just as well as the president or any official of the Canadian Northern Railway what the railway can do and what it lias been doing. To that extent they can govern the rates over the road in the province of Manitoba. We have heard a great deal about the monopoly of the Canadian Pacific Railway, but there is no comparison between the Canadian Pacific Railway in 1880 and at the present time. With all their monopoly and with all the injury that this lion, gentleman would lead us to suppose the railway has done to that country, we must not forget that there are hundreds and thousands of people in the west to-day we have vastly improved their own, and the country's prosperity through the medium of the Canadian Pacific Railway. There is in the ' Citizen ' this morning a statement that the crop of Manitoba and the North-west Territories will be worth 845,000,000. This great monopoly has enabled persons who were to a very large extent servants of other people in eastern Canada to go up there, and many of them are to-day possessors of wealth. Many of them, such as the hon. member for Sas-I atchewan and others, myself included, if it had not been for that railway, might have possibly been in the eastern portion of Can-Mr. DAVIS.
ada working under salary for some other person. I do not think, when we are considering all these things, that we should forget the opportunity that the Canadian Pacific Railway has given to hundreds of thousands of people in Canada to better their position.


Thomas Osborne Davis: The hon. gentleman tells us about reading in the ' Citizen ' this morning that the western country was going to produce $45,000,000 of wealth. I know it is going to produce that amount of crop this year, but if it had not been for this monopoly that was saddled upon the country in place of $45,000,000 of wealth we would have had $200,000,000 of wealth produced during the present year. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company simply kept people from going into the country, and if we have not had more people going into the west, they are responsible for it.- I want to point out to my hon. friend, who is such an ardent admirer of the Canadian Pacific Railway, that when the Canadian Pacific Railway came forward to the Manitoba government, of which he is also an ardent admirer, and offered a bargain which was 50 per cent better than the bargain that they accepted, they rejected the Canadian Pacific Railway proposition and accepted that of the Canadian Northern Railway.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: To get away from this side issue and to get down to the question involved in this' amendment which the hon. member for Marquette has moved, I want, if possible, to understand his proposition. The hon. member for Marquette suggests that we should accept the amendment, which would have the effect of fixing the freight rates in respect to the Grand Trunk Pacific at similar figures to those which prevail on the Canadian Northern Railway. That, I understand, is the proposition. It is possible that under the arrangement which exists between the Canadian Northern Railway and the Manitoba government for the Manitoba government to fix a freight rate of 5 cents per 100 pounds, which would be ruinous. In that case the Canadian Northern Railway has the Manitoba government to guarantee it against any loss that this company might sustain. The effect of this proposition would be to sanction a principle which might involve a serious injustice.


William James Roche: It is not likely that the Manitoba government is going to institute a rate by which it will lose money.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: We must provide against what is possible.


William James Roche: As my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) has pointed out, the government is not liable for any loss the railway incurs unless the rate is lowered below 10 cents per 100 pounds. The Manitoba government is liable if it is reduced below 10 cents for any loss that may

be incurred. Surely the provincial government of Manitoba is not going to institute a rate by which the province is going to be mulcted in perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars. The hon. member for Saskatchewan is arguing as if the Canadian Northern Railway was carrying grain at a loss. If that is the case with a rate of 10 cents per 100 pounds, how is this new road going to carry grain all the way to St. John at lli cents, according to the hon. Minister of the Interior, and according to the expert of the government on curves as well as rates, the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), from Winnipeg to Quebec for 5-61 cents tier bushel, and from Brandon to Quebec for 0-5 cents per bushel V If the Canadian Northern Railway is losing money in carrying grain from Winnipeg to Fort William for 6 cents a bushel, how are we to take any stock in the argument that this new road is going to carry grain at the quotations which we have heard from these lion, gentlemen opposite V The hon. member for Saskatchewan is equally absurd when be states that the reason the Canadian Pacific Railway has reduced its rate is because the government lias introduced this Grand Trunk Pacific Bill. He does not attribute it to the fact of the cut which was made by the Canadian Northern Railway on the first of September. Does the bon. gentleman suppose that the Canadian Pacific Railway can do business in the face of this other railway carrying grain for 4 cents per hundred pounds less than the Canadian Pacific Railway ?


Thomas Osborne Davis: There was more grain than possibly both of them could haul last year.


William James Roche: The hon. gentle-1111111 will find that this year the Canadian Northern has its system fully in operation. It carried upwards of 11,000,000 bushels last year, which was the first year it had the line in operation, and this year it will certainly handle a great deal more. The Canadian Pacific Railway realized this, and it cut its rates for that reason, and not because this Bill was introduced. Here is a Bill introduced providing for a railway which hon. gentlemen opposite do not expect to have in operation until seven years from now, and yet the hon. gentleman says the Canadian Pacific Railway reduced its rate because of the fear of the competition of this new road. The proposition of the hon. gentleman has only to be stated to show the absurdity of it. It is a strange thing that an hon. gentleman on this side of the House, representing his constituency, cannot get up and make a motion in the interests of his constituency without having improper motives attributed to him. However, we who are acquainted with the hon. gentleman's calibre as a statesman need not experience any surprise on that ground. If the government has any confidence in their expressed opinion, that they can carry grain from Winnipeg to Quebec for five or six cents a bushel, this is a most reasonable amendment. The amendment only refers to the carriage of grain to the great lakes, because personally I do not take any stock in this new railway as being a grain-carrying route east of the lakes.


Mr DAVIS.: Can the hon. gentleman tell us why there was no reduction on the Canadian Pacific Railway last year ?


William James Roche: Simply because the Canadian Northern Railway had not its line in operation until late last season.


Thomas Osborne Davis: The Canadian Pacific Railway has been running for a great many years, and we have had a 14-cent-rate all along. Every person knows that is an outrageous rate. Last year it cost about eight cents a bushel to carry wheat from Manitoba to the lakes, a distance of 431 miles, while the rate charged from Buffalo to New York, for about the same distance, was about half the Canadian Pacific Railway rate. Notwithstanding the competition of the Canadian Northern Railway, the Canadian Pacific Railway made no reduction last year, and that was because both railways had more than they could do. But since they know that the Grand Trunk Pacific is going into that country, the Canadian Pacific Railway have turned around and commenced to think about lowering their rates. If the hon. gentleman were in the House yesterday he would kuow that his friends occupied the whole day arguing that the Grand Trunk Pacific would take its wheat from Manitoba to Portland via Chicago. I pointed out that that was ridiculous, since if they went by Chicago they would be several hundred miles further from the Atlantic seaport than the new line. The hon. gentleman can square that with his friends, and find out where the discrepancy comes In. The argument of the Conservatives in the House yesterday was in flat contradiction of the argument presented to-day by the member for Marquette.


William Findlay Maclean: This amendment is a roundabout way of securing a maximum rate. I tried to have maximum rates provided for In the Railway Commission Bill, but I did not succeed, and here is another opportunity to provide for that principle in this Bill. In Manitoba, by reason of the arrangement with the Canadian Northern Railway, they have a universal three-cent a mile passenger rate, while in Ontario they are charging three or four cents. This very amendment will compel the Grand Trunk Railway in the North-west to give the people a three-cent-rate at least, which the Grand Trunk Railway to-day is not giving to the people in the east.


Mr. KEMP.: I notice that when this amendment was under discussion for about five minutes the member for North Norfolk (Mr. Chariton) made liis departure from the chamber for some reason or other. Had he remained lie could have answered the argument of the hon. member for Saskatchewan, because lie lias laid it down that grain can

be carried from Brandon to Quebec for a little over six cents a bushel


Thomas Osborne Davis: Let the bon. gentleman compare the fixed charges on the Grand Trunk Pacific with the fixed charges on this Manitoba road, and he will get his answer.


William James Roche: The fixed charges on the Canadian Northern are the lowest of any railway on the American continent.


Albert Edward Kemp: No question of fixed charges can explain the discrepancy between the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) and the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis). The Canadian Northern Railway agreement provides for a reduction in freight tolls mot only on grain coming out of Manitoba and North-west points to the head of the lakes, but also on freight going in, and this resolution covers the whole ground. If the government wants to confer a benefit on the people of the North-west, let them adopt this resolution. The Canadian Northern Railway from Winnipeg to the head of the lakes has grades of half per cent, exactly the same grades that the member for North Norfolk desires to get on the Grand Trunk Pacific from Winnipeg to Quebec, in order to make it a first-class grain-carrying road. I do not think that any member of this House believes that because of this 10-cent rate on the Canadian Northern Railway, the government of Manitoba will have to make up any deficit by paying the interest on the bonds of the Canadian Northern Railway. I deny that this resolution has been moved for the purpose of catching votes. It is a resolution intended to benefit the farmers and consumers of the North-west, and I cannot understand why it is that the members from the Northwest do not use their influence with the government to have it accepted. The Railway Commission will have the right to regulate rates, but they will not, of course, regulate them upon the Canadian Northern beyond the agreement between that road and the Manitoba government over which the Manitoba government has complete control. But it may be that the Railway Commission might take the Canadian Pacific Railway rates as a basis for the rates on the Grand Trunk Pacific, and this resolution will prevent that danger.


Thomas Osborne Davis: You can establish no analogy between a transcontinental fine and a local road like the Canadian Northern Railway, which runs simply through the Northwest Territories and into the province of Manitoba. The Canadian Northern Railway is practically a six-months road, running to the head of the lakes. Thev have no connections at all in the east, they have practically no passenger traffic, and it is simply a local grain-hauling road. My hon. friend will find if he inquires that the earnings of that road are just about half what Mr. KEMP.
they are on the Canadian Pacific Railway, and although the Canadian Northern Railway has all it can do during the months of the wheat traffic congestion, they have no passenger traffic and no connections east or west, and are not at all in the position of a transcontinental road.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If, under these unfavourable conditions, the Canadian Northern Railway can pay its way, surely a road working under more favourable conditions could do as well


Mr. SCOTT.: I call my hon. friend's attention to the fact that the Canadian Northern Railway people say, they are not making it pay at these rates.


Nathaniel Boyd: We know they are.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Against the statement of the hon. member, I have the fact that the Winnipeg papers have declared that the rate in the Canadian Northern Railway is a paying rate, and that the Manitoba government have no fear that the Canadian Northern Railway will not honour its obligations under the contract. If that be the case then surely it may be taken as a fair criterion of what the freight rates ought to be. I understood the Minister of Justice to say that this amendment provided that the rates shall ,be the same as the rates on the Canadian Northern. As I read it it does not say that, it says that the rate to be charged by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway shall not exceed the rates on the Canadian Northern. They may put their rates as much below the Canadian Northern rate as they desire. He stated that this amendment would prevent the railway commission interfering with the rate. The Railway Commission as I understand, have not the power to raise rates and this would not in any way interfere with their right to lower the rate, if on examination they found that this railway could haul at a lower rate than the Canadian Northern was doing. The people of the country know what they have got in the Canadian Northern ; they know the advantage of what they have secured and know that those who are in control of the Canadian Northern have such an interest in the welfare of the country that they will endeavour to keep the freight rates as low as possible consistent with permitting that railway to meet its obligations. Therefore, it would be a great advantage to the people there if we should pass this resolution stating that at all times the rates charged on this road shall be no higher than those on the Canadian Northern.


Thomas Walter Scott: If I thought there was the slightest need for such an amendment or the slightest foundation for the fear that at any time in the future when this road has been constructed the Grand Trunk Pacific might impose on the people of the coun-

try higher freight rates than those at that time in force on the Canadian Northern,
I would not support this measure at all.
I beg to correct my hon, friend from Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) with regard to his statement about the operation of the Manitoba contract. I understood my hon. friend to say that there is no danger of the people of Manitoba having to meet a shortage until a reduction exceeding four cents a hundred on grain had been made by the company.


Nathaniel Boyd: I said a reduction to ten cents.


Thomas Walter Scott: Until the grain rate had been brought down to at least ten cents. The contract provides that if the company shall have made a reduction equal to four cents a hundred pounds on grain or shall have made reductions on other traffic equal to fifteen per cent, then the company is entitled to claim from the people of Manitoba that any shortage in the operation of the line shall be met by the government.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I wish to point out a clause in this agreement with the Canadian Northern which my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) might read. I find that section1 10 of this agreement says, with reference to passenger rates :
Commencing when this agreement takes effect, the company shall reduce its passenger rates in Manitoba to not exceeding three cents per passenger per mile.
My hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) when moving his two-cent rate might have taken into consideration the fact that the Canadian Northern have an agreement with the government of Manitoba that the maximum rate shall be three cents.


William Findlay Maclean: Hear, hear.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I do not know what my hon. friend is saying ' hear, hear ' for. The three-cent rate, I think, applies to the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The government of Manitoba went security for a considerable sum of money in connection with the building of the Canadian Northern and yet they did not see fit, although they knew the condition of things in that country, to lower the rate below three cents.


William Findlay Maclean: They endeavoured to cut a four-cent rate down to three cents and they succeeded in doing so.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Where was it four cents ?


William Findlay Maclean: The Canadian Pacific Railway charged four cents and the effect of this agreement was to bring the rate down
to three cents.


Thomas Osborne Davis: That makes it all the worse for my hon. friends opposite. He says that the Canadian Pacific Railway charged four cents in that country. That goes to bear out the statement of my hon. friends on this side of the House who have declared,
time and again, that the people in the North-west were charged too much on passenger traffic and now my hon. friend has proved their statement. There is nothing in the statement made with reference to the Canadian Northern lowering rates. My hon. friend has not contradicted that the Railway Commission has absolute control of rates on the Canadian Northern in Manitoba. The hon. leader of the opposition, in his alternative proposition, proposes to give running powers to any railway over the tracks of the Canadian Northern. If they had full control of that railway I do not think that the leader of the opposition would have made the suggestion which would be quite unnecessary. They have no power to reduce the rates and if they reduce the rates they pay the piper, and the settlement takes place every two years. The agreement says provided always that such deficiency if any shall be ascertained at the end of two years.
Provided always that the said deficiency, if any, shall be ascertained at the end of each period of two years, commencing from the first day of October, 1901, and any surplus in either year of any such period shall as far as necessary be applied in reduction of any deficiency in the other year of such period ; but each period of two years shall for the purpose of this clause be treated apart from each other period.
Now we have no demonstration of how the pi'oposition in Manitoba is going to work out as no settlement has yet taken place between the railway company and the people of Manitoba. We do not know if they will have to pay for any deficiency Or not.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Have we not the returns of the railway made from month to month as to what its earnings are, and what its outlay is ? We know the fixed charges that must be met -and therefore it is easy to ascertain whether it is able to meet its obligations or not.


Thomas Osborne Davis: If my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) has seen this, he has seen more than Mr. Roblin has seen. I do not think the information to which he refers has been forthcoming. Under this agreement the Canadian Northern Railway Company are at liberty to employ all the officials they want to put all the money they choose into improvements. There has not yet been any final adjustment of accounts between the province of Manitoba and this company, and therefore no one can say how it is going to work out until the adjustment is made. I know as a matter of fact, that when the adjustment is made you will find that the balance will be on the other side of the page and that the province of Manitoba will have to pay a shortage.


Nathaniel Boyd: The hon. gentleman who has just.taken his seat (Mr. Davis) evidently knows more about this contract than was

Unown by the ablest legal talent the province of Manitoba were able to procure in Canada at the time the contract was ratified. The statement I made is borne out by all that has been read that putil the rates on wheat have been lowered four cents, from fourteen cents to ten cents, and the rate on other freights has been lowered by fifteen per cent, the province of Manitoba will not be called on to pay any loss.


Thomas Walter Scott: Has the position been reached ? If there is a shortage at the end of two years will the province have to meet it ?


Nathaniel Boyd: If there is any loss the province of Manitoba will have to meet it after that point has been reached.


Thomas Walter Scott: Has it been reached ?


Nathaniel Boyd: I may say this that the province of.Manitoba has its auditor in there and he knows when a loss will be reached.


Thomas Osborne Davis: That is skating around a water hole.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Nathaniel Boyd: I should like to know who is making this speech. It is evident that this is a rather troublesome question for these hon. gentlemen or they would not be so agitated. All they have to is to sit quietly and vote down the amendment and not worry themselves so much about it. The hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) asks why we should do in this case what we did not do in the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway. But it is just to prevent this company doing what the Canadian Pacific Railway did that we ask that this amendment be carried. Why, the Grand Trunk Railway to-day is charging in the province of Ontario for the same distance as it is from Winnipeg to Port Arthur, 450 miles, a grain tariff of 14 cents per hundred pounds. It is to prevent that company from doing in Manitoba and the North-west Territories what it is doing at present in Ontario that we ask for this amendment. The hon. gentleman said that we on this side were arguing all afternoon that the Grand Trunk Railway was going to carry grain down by Chicago. No one on this side made any such argument, but we said that the Grand Trunk Railway was going to Manitoba by the States and would carry its grain by Lake Superior to Duluth and across Lake Superior into the province of Ontario, and from those points over its own road to Portland. That is what they may do and what we believe they will do. All we ask is that the government shall either accept this amendment or vote it down, and those gentlemen from the North-west Territories who support the government will have an opportunity of standing up and recording their votes later on.


Thomas Walter Scott: It was a very fair question which I put my hon. friend and I would really like to have an answer. I want to know whether the position has been reached in Manitoba which will entitle the Canadian Northern Railway Company to claim that the province shall reimburse it for any shortage, if a shortage exists at the end of two years.


Nathaniel Boyd: This is what has been agitating the minds of nearly all the Liberals in Manitoba for the last two years. Their chief organ, the ' Free Press has been teeming with that kind of thing for the past two years. What I say in reply is that that period has not been reached. And further the province of Manitoba has its own auditor in the office of the Canadian Northern, who understands as well the position of that company in every respect and the effect of those rates as any member of the Canadian Northern Railway Company.


Mr. BLAIN.: I am sure the people of western Canada will be much disappointed when they learn that the hon. members for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) and Assindboia (Mr. Scott) are opposed to this resolution.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No, they will not. They know them.


Richard Blain: Even since this parliament opened in the year 1900 there has beei\ no two gentlemen in this House who have so uniformly condemned the Canadian Pacific Railway for its bad treatment of the people of western Canada. When the Manitoba government made an agreement with the Canadian Northern Railway to reduce the freight rates through the province of Manitoba, these hon. gentlemen condemned that government. It seems rather difficult to understand what will suit them.


Thomas Walter Scott: Where does my hon. friend find authority for that statement 1


Richard Blain: My authority is the hon. gentlemen who are sitting in this House. I have no hesitation in repeating that there are no two gentlemen having seats in this House who have so uniformly condemned the Canadian Pacific Railway for its treatment of the west as our two hon. friends. They forget entirely that it is the Canadian Pacific Railway which made western Canada what it is to-day.	[DOT]


Thomas Walter Scott: My hon. friend went on further to state that the member for Saskatchewan and myself condemned the Manitoba government for the deal they made with Mackenzie and Mann. I ask him where he got his authority.


Richard Blain: I am coming to that point if the hon. gentleman will only keep quiet, if he possibly can. These gentlemen were opposed to the Manitoba government. The hon. gentleman's newspaper attacked Mr. Mr. BOYD.

122&2
Robliu's administration in tile last general election in Manitoba. What then was the chief question at issue ? It was the reduction of freight rates.


Thomas Walter Scott: I would like to say

Some lion. MEMBERS. Order.


Richard Blain: If he has a question to put I will permit tips busy body to interrupt.
ilr. DEPUTY SPEAKER. The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) has the floor and does not wish to be interrupted, and no hon. gentleman has the right to interrupt him without his consent.


Richard Blain: I am quite willing to answer any question, if the hon. gentleman would not make a speech every time he rises to ask a question.


Thomas Walter Scott: Can my hon. friend produce the paper ?


Richard Blain: Will my hon. friend now stand up and say that he was not opposed to the Manitoba government in the last election ?


Thomas Walter Scott: I ask him to produce the paper.


Richard Blain: I ask the hon. gentleman, did he oppose the Manitoba government in the last election which took place a few months ago, or was he a supporter of, that government ?
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER, I think that both hon. gentlemen would get on better if each of them would make an independent speech.


Richard Blain: I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, in your ruling, but I was not the trespasser. I say that the people of western Canada will be very much surprised to find that when a resolution is presented to this House calling upon the government to embody in this railway agreement a clause that will give the people of the west better freight rates, it should be opposed by these hon. gentlemen. The hon. member for Saskatchewan referred to the proposition of the hon. leader of the opposition. Would that hon. gentleman be surprised to find that he was a supporter of that proposition himself ? Let me read what he said in the House during last session :
I believe that the government made a mistake in not having bought the control of the Canadian Northern Railway some time agoe.
The hon. member for Saskatchewan made that statement last session. He said that the government should be condemned for not having long ago purchased the Canada Atlantic Railway. Yet now when the leader of the opposition comes forward with a proposition which will solve the rate question of the west and calls upon the government to buy that same railway, the hon. gentleman says no and records his vote against that proposition. He says further :
The Intercolonial should have been extended from Montreal to Depot Harbour


Edward Frederick Clarke: Who says that ?


Richard Blain: The hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis)

-on the great lakes, so as to give an outlet by the government road from the great lakes to the sea-board. I believe also that we should continue the Intercolonial Railway through the province of Quebec, direct from the city of Quebec, the whole way to the Pacific coast,

*
I am quoting from page 3676 of the ' Hansard ' of last year. This is what the hon. member for Saskatchewan said, yet, when the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) moved his resolution, the hon. member for Saskatchewan voted against it. But let me continue the reading of the hon. gentleman's! statement:

and we would then have a through rail
route to the heart of the North-west Territories, and touching an ocean port at both sides of the continent, one open the year round, and the other of which could be kept open from nine to ten months in the year, or go further down to an ocean port that could be kept open the entire year. You could then have a system of transportation over which you could carry the products of the west to the sea, and which could be open every month in the year. That would be a main artery, under the exclusive control of the people of this country.
There is a complete endorsation of the policy of the hon. leader of the opposition on this subject. Why, it seems impossible to suit these hon. gentlemen. If the Manitoba government does something for the people of the west these hon. gentlemen condemn it. If there is a proposition from the Liberal-Conservative side introducing a resolution, as my hon. friend from Marquette has introduced a resolution this afternoon, calling upon the government to embody a clause which would give to the people better freight rates, they are not satisfied with it. Nothing will satisfy these hon. gentlemen except to keep the Conservative party out of power and keep the Reform party in power. I repeat that I am very much surprised that these hon. gentlemen stand in their place in this House, where their words go before the people they represent, the people demanding lower freight rates from the railways-thati these hon,; gentlemen should be found not only willing to vote against the proposition, but actually to stand up in their places and condemn the hon. gentleman who moved it, saying that he does so for political purposes


Albert Edward Kemp: And that his talk is mere claptrap.


Richard Blain: Yes, as my hon. friend from East Toronto (Mr. Kemp) reminds me, accusing the hon. gentleman (Mr. Roche) of talking claptrap. I am especially

surprised at the position taken by the hon. member for Saskatchewan, whose statement of last session I have read calling upon the government to purchase the Canada Atlantic Railway and extend the government road to the Pacific coast, in order to make a main artery of transportation that would keep down the freight rates. Yet, when a simple resolution of this kind is moved he feels it to be his duty notwithstanding the words he has uttered demanding better freight rates for the people to stand in his place and condemn this resolution, and even to condemn the hon. gentleman who moved it.


Thomas Walter Scott: I should think that the experience that the hon. member for Peel (Mr Blain) has had in this House and before the people would have made him careful to have some authority for statements he makes. He commenced his statement a few minutes ago by asserting flatly, that the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) and myself had opposed the deal made by Premier Roblin of Manitoba, a couple of years ago with the Canadian Northern Railway Company. And, when I took him to task for that, without offering any support for his statement he proceeded to make another to the effect that some newspaper with which I am connected had opposed the Manitoba government. I challenge the hon. gentleman now to support his assertion with some tittle of proof. I should think that, when he had taken the trouble to make assertions of that kind he would have some semblance of proof to offer.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) deny that he opposed the Manitoba government ?


Thomas Walter Scott: My hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) when speaking in the Northwest last year was not so careless. He carried about with Mm what he called proofs of his assertion. He had the utensil and exhibited it on the platform.


An hon. MEMBER.: What was It ?


Thomas Walter Scott: I do not need to mention it before this House and before the country again. It is already sufficiently notorious. The country is aware that the assertion the hon. gentleman made last fall was unsupported, and some of my hon. friends have complained against me because I took the trouble to entirely and absolutely disprove a charge he made on North-west platforms. Now, I challenge the hon. gentleman again to produce a single tittle of proof in any shape or form that I, in any manner, or in any measure, opposed, at any time, the deal made between Premier Roblin and the Canadian Northern Railway. And I challenge him at the present time to produce a copy of the newspaper in which, he asserts, I opposed Premier Roblin in Manitoba in the last election.
Now, with regard to the amendment that is before the committee, let me say just one word. Let me repeat that, if I thought there was any need for such an amendment, I should not be found supporting the project of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. I consider that there is no need for such an amendment. I imagine that when the road is built under the contract the people of the west will have the advantage of rates not only no higher than those of the Canadian Northern, but lower than that road can quote and live. We have provision for a railway at the lowest possible cost. There is no possibility of watered stocks or exaggerated debts on which the people must pay dividends, as I pointed out when I spoke on the subject of this contract in the debate on the second reading of the measure, And with the railway commission, which parliament has wisely provided this year, to govern the railways of this country, there is assurance not only to the people of Manitoba and the North-west, but to all the people of Canada, that upon this railway at all events, no higher rates will be charged than shall pay a fair return upon the money legitimately spent in the construction and equipment of the road.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I wish to say just a word in reply to the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain). He is not fair to me in accusing me of opposing the railway deal of Premier Roblin to which he referred. If he will look at the votes and proceedings he will see that I did not oppose it. I thought then, as I think still, that it was a foolish bargain. But, believing that provincial rights should be maintained, I did not oppose it. Nor was I In Manitoba opposing Mr. Rob-lin's party in the last election. The hou. gentleman read a statement that I made last year in this House and tries to infer from it that I should support the scheme laid before this House by the leader of the opposition. Does that hon. gentleman propose to extend the Intercolonial to the Pacific ocean ?


Nathaniel Boyd: Yes.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I think not. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that one of the strongest supporters of government ownership in this country, the Toronto 'Telegram,' a Conservative newspaper, a short time ago, after the proposition was made by the leader of hon. gentlemen opposite, declared that it was nothing but a rag-bag proposition, and that it would never be forgotten because it would never be remembered. I suppose the hon. gentleman has seen that. If so, when he accused me of voting against the scheme of the .leader of the opposition, he should have told the committee that this was characterized by the hon. gentleman's own friends as a rag-bag proposition. It was not government ownership at all. A part was to be built by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, then they would buy out


Richard Blain: a crooked, useless part of that railway from the Canadian Pacific Railway ; then buy running rights in another place ; then build a little piece of road, and then buy the [DOT]Canada Atlantic. It is exactly as the editor of the ' Telegram ' characterized it, nothing but a rag-bag proposition.
Amendment (Mr. Roche, Marquette) negatived.


Nathaniel Boyd: The hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), who is the railway expert of the government, the man they have put up to 'defend this contract, stated in his place in the House the day before yesterday that a survey party, I think he said a Grand Trunk survey jjarty, had reported that they would be able to procure a line from Winnipeg to Lake Nepigon with grades of four-tenths per cent per mile. I want to know where we can get that report, where the information is, and if it will soon be laid on the Table of the House.


The PRIME MINISTER.: If the hon. gentleman wants an answer to his question he is not proceeding in the best way to get it. Unless he puts a civil question, he cannot expect an answer. When he states that the hon. member for North Norfolk has been .put up by the government to defend this Bill, and repeats that statement, he is saying something which has no foundation. As to the information upon which he says the hon. member for North Norfolk reported that certain grades would be found, the government has no such information.


Nathaniel Boyd: I had no intention of being uncivil to the government or to the Prime Minister. But I do know, and the country believes, that the member for North Norfolk was to a great extent representing the government when he stood up in the House and replied to the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals in the discussion of this Bill. And when the Prime Minister says that that hon. gentleman is the greatest railway expert in Canada, or words to that effect, we have a right to pay especial attention to his utterances. I do not wish to be at all uncivil to the Prime Minister, or to the House, and I have never been accused of it since I have held a seat in this House. We all know something about that country, and I don't believe any such road can be got, I believe that road will cost $100,000 a mile, and therefore, I think it is my duty to the people I represent, and who will have to pay the piper after it is built, to get all the information possible as to what that road is going to cost.


Albert Edward Kemp: I may say, in regard to the surveys, that an editorial appeared in the Toronto ' News' two or three weeks ago on that matter, which I will take the liberty to read :
The Grand Trunk has been exploring the [DOT]country. Its officials to-day are in possession [DOT]of their own surveyors' reports. These reports
cover the country from Winnipeg to Lake Abitibi. These reports state that from Winnipeg to the eastern border of New Ontario a grade of four-tenths of one per cent-about twenty-one feet to the mile-is perfectly practicable. The standard of the best wheat-carrying railways of the United States can be attained.
More than that, the fall of almost every grade is to the east. This is an immense advantage, for it means that the road will practically run down hill from Winnipeg for the thousand mile stretch in eastern Manitoba and New Ontario.
This is a splendid start. For the first thousand miles at least the trains will roll down a continuous gentle slope. Extraordinary economy of operation should be practicable. The limit to the size of the trains will be the number of cars which a single crew can handle, rather than the hauling power of the engine. We must insist on equally good grades all the way through Quebec. It may prove the case that the height of land in Quebec will make an up hill grade necessary. The ideal road would be down hill every foot of the way from prairie to ocean. The ideal seems to be assured for one thousand of the fourteen hundred miles.
After this article appeared I asked the government whether they had any information of these surveys because it appeared to me peculiar that, inasmuch as this section of the road was to be built by the government, the Grand Trunk should have their surveyors out exploring the line. I raised the question then whether, this being a government road, the government should not have their own engineers employed on this work, or whether the government intended to accept the surveys of the Grand Trunk engineers.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 19,
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: 1 have prepared an amendment to this section which I sent over to the leader of the opposition for his approval, and I have not got it back. Take another clause.
On section 25-issue of debentures,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Minister of Justice intimated that he desired to examine this section carefully with a view of changing it a little. It was first stated that this was for the purpose of keeping trace of the accounts, but the wording seems to imply that it is intended for another purpose, and that these debentures might be used for another purpose.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I do not think it is possible they can be used for any other purpose except for the purpose of the accounts. There is no provision for the issue of debentures for any other purpose whatever.


Mr. OSLER.: There might be a question as to the authority or title of the commissioners to issue debentures. Then, what provision is made for issuing debentures

after the commission has ceased, and the road is being worked by the government ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There is no provision for any issue of debentures after the road is completed.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Then what about the first point that was raised as to the title, whether the commission have power to issue debentures ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: They would only have authority to issue those debentures for the purposes mentioned in the section.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I want to inquire of the Minister of Justice what control the Auditor General will have over these accounts ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: By an amendment which was introduced last night it was provided that the Auditor General shall have complete control over the whole work, just as he would have over any other public work in Canada.
On section 26,-debentures to be first charge on eastern division.


Edmund Boyd Osler: These are debentures to be issued by the commissioners and to be a first charge upon the eastern section. If there are no debentures to he issued after the commission ceases, then the money expended after that date would be a second charge upon the road. Should there .not be some words added to say that the subsequent expenditure shall rank ' pari passu ' with all the expenditure on capital account?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: These debentures are to make provision for the money required for the construction of the road, and which would be the only lien on the road. I do not know that there will be any other expenditure required than for the construction of the road. The operation after the construction is completed may not be under the commissioners.


Edmund Boyd Osler: That is quite true. These debentures, as I understand, are simply the ear-marks between the commissioners and the government, blit after the commission ceases and the first expenditure has been made the government from time to time may make expenditures on capital account.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.


Edmund Boyd Osler: They will probably have to borrow money for that from time to time, and the first lot of debentures, which have been called the ear-marks, will be a first charge upon the road.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The others would have to rank ' pari passu.' as the hon. gentleman suggests. I would not like to touch the clause, as I did not draft it myself, but I will look into the matter, and we can consider it at a later stage.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Edmund Boyd Osler: On section 19,-member of parliament not to be paid employee or contractor,


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I would like to offer this amendment :
No member oE the House of Commons shall hold or be appointed to any office of emolument under the commissioners, or shall be a party to or concern or interested in any contract with the commissioners for the construction or working of any pant of the said eastern division, or any contract with the .said Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company for the construction or working of any part of the western division of the said transcontinental railway, or shall be: a shareholder in any incorporated company having any such contract.
The intention is to provide that no member of the House of Commons shall accept an office of emolument under the commission and that no member of the House of Commons shall have the right to enter into a contract with the commissioners or with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company for the construction of any portion of the road, either east or west of Wininpeg. Not only is a member of parliament prohibited from entering into the contract in his individual capacity, but he cannot do it as a member of'an incorporated company. It was suggested that we should go one step further and provide that a member of parliament should not be in a position to tender for any of the material or supplies which were required, but on reflection I came to the conclusion that this would be impossible. A member of parliament might be a member of an incorporated company like one of our steel companies. In such a case the company would be prohibited from furnishing supplies, and we would thus defeat the object we had in view.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: That is all right.


Edmund Boyd Osler: That covers it.


John Graham Haggart: I drew the hjon. gentleman's attention to the fact that some of the principal incorporators of the company were senators. The hon. gentleman stated of the principal incorporators of the company its entity, and be would take care, when the contract is made between the company and the government, that no senator or member of parliament should be interested in it.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I will read the second paragraph :
Any member of the House of Commons who accepts any such offices, or is a parity to or concerned or interested in any such contract as aforesaid or is a shareholder in any such Incorporated company having a contract as aforesaid, shall incur the disqualifications and be subject to the penalties prescribed by sections 11 and 12 of the Act respecting the Senate and House of Commons, and any person holding any such office or being a party to or concerned or interested in any such contract, or being a shareholder as aforesaid, shall be in* eligible as a member of the House of Commons-

Now, I shall deal with the Senate. I have to deal with the senators separately, because the Independence of Parliament Act deals differently with members of the House of Commons and members of the Senate :
3.	No member of the Senate shall hold or be appointed to any office of emolument under the commissioners, and subject to the penalties prescribed by section IS of the Act respecting the Senate and House of Commons in respect of the matters therein prohibited, no member of the Senate shall be a party to or concerned or interested in any such contract as aforesaid, or a shareholder in any such incorporated company having a contract as aforesaid.
This makes the provisions of the first paragraph applicable to the Senate in the way I have pointed out. Now, there is a provision which I think Is reasonable :
4.	Provided that upon the completion of the said western division according to the terms of the said agreemnt, and upon its being duly opened for traffic the provisions of this section with respect to contracts with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company shall cease to be in force.
When the western division is completed and in operation, then, of course, it will be open to the company, which is an absolutely independent corporation, to deal in the ordinary way with members of the Senate or members of the House of Commons. This is making applicable to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, in respect of the western extension only, the provisions of the Independence of Parliament Act as to the Canadian Pacific Railway. After this road has been constructed and is an ordinary going concern, it should be put in the same position as any other road in Canada.


John Graham Haggart: Members of the Senate and members of the House of Commons may be owners of the whole corporation, or may constitute the entity of the transcontinental railway company and may enter into an arrangement with the government for the purpose of carrying out this contract without being liable at all under these provisions.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: In respect to the western division it is possible that members of the corporation might be members of the House of Commons or the Senate, but in respect to the eastern extension, if the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company have members of the House of Commons or Senate in the corporation they cannot tender for the construction of the eastern extension. I am exceedingly doubtful if they can take the lease within the meaning of this section. I drew the section as carefully as I could, I submitted it to the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), and I thought it carried out the intention of the House as it was made known at the time we discussed it the other evening. I am still of the same opinion.


Jabel Robinson: Will that prevent a member of the House of Commons or Senate from purchasing the stock or owning the shares of the company ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The Grand Trunk Pacific is the company which is going to construct a line from Winnipeg to the coast-is that the point 1


Jabel Robinson: Will this clause prevent the Senators or members owning shares or purchasing stock' in that company.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I should think, with respect to the western section, that possibly it would not.


John Graham Haggart: Surely the Minister of Justice does not contend, that Senators and members may be incorporators and principal owners of the Grand Trunk Pacific that enters into this contract with the government.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My answer was, that if members of the House of Commons or Senators were shareholders in the Grand Trunk Pacific and that company, when tenders were called for the construction of the eastern division, were to put in a tender ; they could not continue to be shareholders in that company and become contractors.


John Graham Haggart: That is perfectly right, hut my contention is that they should not be in a company at all that makes a contract with the government.
Amendment (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) agreed to.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) suggested that clause two of the Bill should be amended by inserting after the word * company ' when such word first occurs therein ; the words ' subject to the provisions of this Act' and by adding at the end of the-clause the words ' and to the provisions of this Act.' I think that would be an improvement and I accept the amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Barker) agreed to.
Section two, as amended agreed to.
On the schedules.


Nathaniel Boyd: Is there any provision in this contract that would prevent these companies having separate express companies and separate telegraph companies ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The express business does not form part of the railway business, but the telegraph business certainly does. A suggestion was made a few days ago, with respect to telegraph business, by the member for Toronto (Mr. Osier) and as a result of that I am going to propose the following addition to the Bill-


Nathaniel Boyd: The Dominion Express Company is owned by the Canadian Pacific Railway and their annual returns are included



in the report of the Canadian Pacific Railway.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The Dominion Express Company may or may not be owned by the Canadian Pacific Railway, but it certainly exists under a distinct and separate charter, from a Canadian Pacific Railway charter. To do an express business it is necessary to get a charter, and nothing in this contract authorized the Grand Trunk Pacific, to do an, express business. With regard to the telegraph business, I beg to move the following clause :
26a. The commissioners may with the approval of the Governor in Council construct as pant of the said eastern division subject to all the provisions of this Act such telegraph and telephone lines upon the said eastern division from the city of Moncton >to the city of Winnipeg, as may be reasonably required for the operation of the said eastern division in connection with the said transcontinental line of railway, and the government may agree with the company subject to such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may approve, that upon the completion of the said eastern division 'the company shall have the right to use such telegraph and telephone lines for the purposes only of the operation of the said eastern division in connection with the said transcontinental line for 'the period of fifty years :	Provided, however, that it shall
he a term of any such agreement that for the purposes of the lease of 'the said eastern division to the company the cost of construction of such telegraph and telephone lines, shall be added to and included in the ' cost of construction ' within the meaning of -clause 15 of the agreement set forth in the schedule to this Act.
This provides for the construction by the commissioners of a telegraph line to he used in connection with the operation of the rail-" way, and it also provides that the cost of construction of that telegraph line shall be a part of the capital charge upon which the -company shall be obliged to pay interest. It was suggested to me that possibly in connection with the development of the traffic of this road, it might be necessary for the company to utilize this line, at all events to a limited extent, for the purpose of doing a telegraph business, and consequently I suggest the following amendment:
Notwithstanding anything in this Act on the said agreement contained, any revenue which the company miay at any time directly or indirectly receive or become entitled to through or by reason of the use of such telegraph or telephone lines for commercial purposes, shall form part of the revenues and earnings of the company for the purposes of this Act and the said agrement.
They will be obliged to account to us for any money received from this line for commercial purposes, in connection with the earnings of the company with which we are directly interested, for a period of three years, after the first seven years the road is in operation.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You apparently leave the company the option, to charge whatever


Nathaniel Boyd: rates they like. I think they should be subject to the restrictions contained in the Railway Act.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Section 90 of the Railway Act authorizes a railway company to construct telegraph lines, and I would be under the impression, speaking generally, that the rates charged by that telegraph line so constructed would he under the same control of the railway commissioners as the rates that are charged on the railway itself. This clause as drawn was submitted to the leader of the opposition and to the member for Toronto (Mr. Osier) and approved of by them and I would therefore like to adhere to the present wording. After the Bill is reported it will be necessary to reprint it and if we then find that we have to make any improvement in the terms of the clause we can do it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think it should be made subject to the clause in the Railway Act controlling telegraph companies.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I agree with that, and I will add words to that effect at once.


William Findlay Maclean: Do I understand that the hon. gentleman, the Minister of Justice, is dealing with a transcontinental railway aud not making provision for the regulating of express business in connection with this road ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Unfortunately, I am obliged to say yes. Express business is done by express companies, and express companies must have separate charters from those of railway companies.


William Findlay Maclean: I propose to discuss that on another occasion.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I propose to add to the clause which was rather crudely drawn the following -
The whole subject to the approval of the Governor General In Council with respect to the rates to he charged.
Section, as amended, agreed to.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Can we not allow this Bill to remain in the committee stage until it is reprinted ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I thinik it would be advisable that we should get it out of the committee stage if we can, and have it reprinted before the third reading. It is possible that I may myself be obliged to move the Bill back into committee if, on reflection, I should come to the conclusion that I should accept some of the amendments moved this afternoon. There is one of them moved by the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) about which I am seriously concerned at the present time. If we can get the Bill out of committee I would like very much to do so.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The objection is if it is reported from Committee of the Whole, then it can only be sent back to the Committee for a specific purpose and a distinct resolution would be required for every clause we desire to touch, while if it is in Committee of the Whole, we can avoid that trouble.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend will agree that after the Bill is reprinted, if it is found desirable to refer it back to the Committee for a specific purpose it will be best to have it go back for that purpose only and not at large. It seems to me to be in the interest of every one that we should do this.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It imposes a very great obligation on those who desire to revert to special clauses, if we find when it is reprinted that it does not agree with what we thought it meant when it was in Committee.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Perfection is not of this world.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is the very reason why I ask delay, because we do not expect it is perfect simply because the Committee have considered it. If it would delay the work of the government in any way I could understand why there should be an object in reporting the Bill before it is reprinted.
Bill, as amended reported, amendments read a second time and agreed to.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.



REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill (No. 66) to readjust the representation in the House of Commons.-The Prime Minister.
On item 36-the county of Grey.
Richard Blain: This was held over for further consideration, and the hon. member for South Grey is not in his place. I think the request was that the village of Markdaie should go into South Grey, and under the Bill it is in East Grey. That causes the population to be more unequal than it is at present. I was in hopes that the government would see its way clear to make the change.


The PRIME MINISTER.: We have come to the conclusion to leave the Bill as it is.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Richard Blain: I wish to make a motion.


Peter Macdonald: The item has been declared carried.


Mr. HYMAN.: The hon. gentleman can make his motion on the third reading.
385i	'


Richard Blain: I did not hear, the item declared carried. The hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Richardson), when the Bill was last before the Committee, produced a map and made out a very strong case in favour of putting the village of Markdaie into South Grey.


Peter Macdonald: The item has been adopted, and the hon. gentleman is out of order.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gntleman wishes to make a motion, and I move that the clause be reconsidered in order to give :him an opportunity to do so.


Charles Smith Hyman: The motion he proposes has already been made and is on record.


Richard Blain: It was made in the House, hut stood over and was not voted upon.


Charles Smith Hyman: It was voted down.


Mr. HENDERSON.: My recollection is that the First Minister, or some member of the government, asked to have it stand.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The reason why the section was allowed to stand was because of a petition presented by some parties to divide the town of Collingwood. The other was dealt with.
On item 37-the county of Hastings.


Charles Smith Hyman: That clause 37 be amended by striking out subsections (a) and (b), and substituting therefor :-
(a)	. The east riding shall consist of the townships of Thurlow, Tyendinaga, Hungerford, Madoc, Elzevir and Grimsthorpe, Tudor, Cashel, Limerick, Dungannon, Mayo, Monteagle, Carlow, the town of Deseronto and the Tillages of Madoc and Tweed.
(b)	. The west riding shall consist of the townships of Sydney, Rowden, Huntingdon, Marmora and Lake, Wolaston, Faraday, Herschel. McClure, Wicklow and Bangor, the city of Belleville, the town of Newton and the villages of Marmora and Sterling.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and item, as amended, agreed to.
On item 50-the county of Waterloo.
Charles Smith Hyman: That the Ontario schedule be amended by striking out paragraph 50 of Part III. thereof, and substituting the following :-
50. The county of Waterloo, into two ridings, to be called respectively the north and the south ridings of Waterloo.
0a.) The north riding shall consist of the townships of North Waterloo, Wellesley and Woolwich, the towns of Berlin and Waterloo, and the village of Elmira ;
(b.) The south riding shall consist of the townships of North Dumfries, 'South Waterloo and Wilma t. and the towns of Ayr, Galt, Hes-peler, New Hamburg and Preston.


Mr. BENNETT.: The hon. member for North Waterloo is on his way up. Perhaps we might let that stand until he comes.

The PRIME MINISTER, I can assure the hon. gentleman that the hon. gentleman from Waterloo will have no fault to find.


John Graham Haggart: Do I understand the hon. minister to leave that constituency as it was 'before ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It stands as it is at present.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, anid item, as amended, agreed to.
On section 2,
The said provinces and territories respectively shall, tor the purposes of the election of members to serve in the House of Commons, he divided into electoral districts, and be represented as provided in the schedule to this Act.
John Dowsley Reid: The hon. minister will remember my Dringing to his attention the county of Leeds. Might I ask him if he has considered Brookville riding ? I asked him the other day if he would change it by dropping the municipality I mentioned, which would equalize the population and make a fail- riding.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am sorry to say that I have considered the matter and cannot see eye to eye with my hon. friend on this question.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 252). to amend the Act relating to Ocean Steamship subsidies.-(The Minister of Trade and Commerce) read the resolution, and House went into committee thereon.
Edward Frederick Clarke: If my memory serves me well, when we discussed this subject on a previous occasion the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) promised to give us information as to the status of the parties.	.


The PRIME MINISTER.: That information was placed oh the Table more than a week ago.


John Graham Haggart: Would the right hon. gentleman please explain the scheme generally.


The PRIME MINISTER.: In 189C, the last year of the late government, a law was passed providing a subsidy for a direct line of navigation between France and Canada, the amount of the subsidy being $50,000. In 1901, this subsidy was increased, if I remember well to $100,000 for twenty-four trips. It so happens, unfortunately, that we have not been able to arrange for this line for the money voted. This year, we have made a contract with a Mr. Gustave Colombier, of Bordeaux, who has been recommended to us by the British consul at Bordeaux.
The terms of the contract are, in a few words, that this company binds itself to establish a line of steamers between Canada and France, to be provided with all modern apparatus, cold storage, &c. The tonnage will be 4,000 tons gross. The steamers will complete eighteen trips between Canada and France. It is provided that two of the steamers are to bear the French ting and two the British flag, but all the officers are to be British subjects.


John Graham Haggart: What is the speed?


The PRIME MINISTER.: The speed will be about 12 knots.


Samuel Barker: I have heard that there are other persons connected with Mr. Co-lombier, either directly or indirectly. I would ask the Prime Minister whether Mr. Carbonneau has. either directly or indirectly, any connection with this transaction ? I have heard that that gentleman is, in some way, interested, either as a negotiator, or as a party, and I would like to know from the right horn, gentleman whether Mr. Carbonneau is a party in any shape to this contract.


The PRIME MINISTER.: So far as the government is concerned, Mr. Carbonneau is not a party to the contract in any shape whatever. Mr. Carbonneau has asked to be authorized to transfer bis contract to a company that he proposes to organize. We have answered that we will consider the transfer, if the terms are agreeable to us.


Samuel Barker: I understood the right hon. Prime Minister the other night to say that he had made inquiries about Mr. Co-lombier and bad received very satisfactory assurances with regard to that gentleman, I know nothing to the contrary, and I have no doubt that the information received by the right hon. gentleman is quite satisfactory so far as it relates to Mr. Colombier. But I have heard-it may be one of those rumours that people ought not to trust too far-that there are other people who are connected, or who pretend to be connected, with this transaction. I have heard that Mr. Carbonneau, whose name is not unknown in Canada, claims to have some interest in this matter as a negotiator, or to be in some shape directly or Indirectly connected with the contract. I would like the right lion, gentleman to tell us whether, not only in so far as the government is directly concerned but in any shape whatever, to his knowledge, Mr. Carbonneau lias had any interest or any part in this transaction or is in any way, connected with the negotiations or the contract.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I can only repeat what I have said-that, so far as the government is concerned we have had no communication whatever with Mr. Carbonneau. All our communications and negotiations have been with Mr. Colombier


William Humphrey Bennett: alone, and Mr. Carbonneau has had nothing to do with the government directly or indirectly. I have heard that Mr. Carbonneau pretends that he is interested with Mr. Colombier. That has not come to me directly, but only as a rumour, it may be true or not true. At present, he has nothing to do with the contract-absolutely nothing. If Mr. Colombier assigns his contract to a company, as he may try to do, the name of Mr. Carbonneau may come before us then ; I do not know. We shall have to judge of the personnel of the company when it comes before us. But, at the present time, I beg to say in the most emphatic manner, we have absolutely nothing to do with Mr. Carbonneau.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Have any communications passed, since this matter was last before us, between the government and the Canadian agent general in France, Mr. Fabre ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: No.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Has Mr. Fabre been communicated with ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: No.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Mr. Fabre resides in Paris and for many years has been the representative of Canada in the capital of France. Is it not rather singular that, in a matter of so much importance to both countries, our agent general in France has not been communicated with and information aslced for from him as to the status of the gentleman entering into these negotiations ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: No, I think we have sought information from a gentleman who is better able to inform us as to the standing of the firm of Colombier than Mr. Fabre is. The British consul at Bordeaux is in a better position to give information as to character and standing of the firm of Colombier, and we sought information from him.


Samuel Barker: The right hon. gentleman (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has been good enough to place a paper in my hands the substance of which he communicated to the House some days ago. I recollect what was said then and so far as that is concerned, it seemed to me entirely satisfactory with regard to Mr. Colombier. The information was of that confidential character that I think would be quite satisfactory to the right hon. gentleman, and I have no hesitation in accepting it. But the question I am raising is somewhat apart from that. It is rumoured, and I understand the right hon. gentleman to say that he has heard the rumour, that Mr. Carbonneau claims to be in some way connected with this transaction, either concerned with Mr. Colombier, or in some way as negotiator, or interested in negotiations, with regard to the proposed contract. I am drawing attention to the
possibility that Mr. Carbonneau may be connected with this transaction. I do not say he is. The right hon. gentleman also has heard that he pretends to be connected with it, and all I desire to say at the present moment is that if I were in the position of the right hon. gentleman-though I never hope to be there-I would consider it my duty, knowing what I do of the reputation of Mr. Carbonneau, and hearing that he had some connection with this transaction,
I say I would consider it my duty to probe to the bottom that rumour, and if I found that he was connected with it, I would have great hesitation in entering into the bargain.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I think my hon. friend (Mr. Barker) is a little hypercritical in this matter. We have made a contract with Mr. Colombier, and my hon. friend is satisfied with the standing of Mr. Colombier. We have no relations with anybody else than Mr. Colombier. He has asked us if he could transfer his contract, saying that he wanted to organize a company, and we have given our consent, provided he submitted the personnel to us and we were satisfied with the conditions of the transfer. If, when Mr. Colombier makes application, we find that there are in this company parties who do not offer all the guarantees that the Canadian public and government have a right to expect, then it will be time to look into the matter more carefully. But as long as the affair remains as it is at present, when our negotiations are entirely with Mr. Colombier, I do not think we can do more than we have done, and I think my hon. friend will be disposed to agree with me.


Samuel Barker: I do not quite agree with the right hon. gentleman. If the right hon. gentleman, on behalf of the Dominion of Canada, is entering into this important con-| tract with Mr. Colombier, I submit, with all respect to the right hon. gentleman, that it is not sufficient for him to know the character of Mr. Colombier alone. If the right hon. gentleman has learned that there is even a suspicion that there are people connected with Mr. Colombier with whom the right hon. gentleman would not, on behalf of Canada, enter into a contract-and from what I have learned I think the right hon. gentleman would not enter into a contract with Mr. Carbonneau-if he has the slightest suspicion or reason to suspect that Mr. Carbonneau may be directly or indirectly connected with this transaction, although his name may never appear in the contract, and although the name of the gentleman who does appear in the contract may be as respectable as any man in this Dominion, I say I consider it the duty of the right hon. gentleman not to be content with the name of the man whose name appears in the contract, but to ascertain whether Mr. Car-

bonneau, or any other person who might be objectionable, is secretly a partner or in any way connected with Mr. Colombier in the contract. The right hon. gentleman says that when he comes to enter into this contract it will be time enough to inquire who are connected with it. I understand the contract is already entered into, and is before the House for confirmation. Conceding that the contract as it stands is with Mi-. Colombier alone, I ask, and I press, tlie right hon. gentleman to say, whether there is any reason to believe that there is anybody behind Mr. Colombier or connected with him in this transaction directly or indirectly, bearing the character which, I understand, Mr. Carbonneau bears.


The PRIME MINISTER.: There is no reason to believe that, so far as I have information-and I would not take idle rumour on the street to be any foundation-our relations have been with Mr. Colombier, whom we have found to be a perfect gentleman, and I think is of good commercial standing. He has told us that he is able to carry out the undertaking himself, with his own resources and those of his friends.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is he carrying on) this contract himself or is he passing it over to another company ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: He intends to organize a company, but he will not be allowed to assign his contract to that company until he submits it to us for confirmation.


Edward Frederick Clarke: There was a cable from a gentleman signing himself ' Macdonald,' I presume he is the British consul. Is the copy of the cable sent to Mr. Macdonald forthcoming ? This is only his reply.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I have not been able to find the cable sent to him. The cable was sent by myself or by my secretary. My secretary has not been able to lay his hand upon it. The inquiry was as to the standing of Mr. Colombier.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Of course the telegraph company can supply copies of the cable.


The PRIME MINISTER.: If the hon. gentleman wants it he can get it before the third reading.


Mr. BROCK.: Apart from the personal considerations in a matter of so much importance as this, I think it is very esseiu-tial that we should not run any risks of making any more failures in our ocean steamship service. Before we enter into this contract the government should assure themselves that there is no risk of failure. We are just now entering upon a new course, we are opening up communication with France, a very wealthy country, whose people are very careful in entering int'o business operations of this kind, and they Mr. BARKER. .
would be adversely influenced in the event of a failure, either from the improper personnel of the Company undertaking the transaction or from want of business foresight on the part of the government. It may look to be a small matter, but I think in making an arrangement of this kind we should be very careful about the personnel of those with whom we are dealing. I myself have heard some rather adverse criticisms of the gentleman whose name is mentioned, not of the gentleman whose name appears as the contractor. I think it would be well, as suggested by my hon. friend from Hamilton, that the Prime Minister should have this matter thoroughly probed before he enters into the contract. Therefore, as these rumours have got abroad, not only in Montreal but they have also reached Ontario, that there is some influence at work in connection. with the transaction which would probably be detrimental to the high standing and character that the government of this country have at the present time, it behooves the government to proceed with a greater caution.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I was not in the House when this discussion began, and personally I know nothing about the gentlemen who are referred to. About a week or ten days ago I was in New York, and in one of the hotels I met by chance several gentlemen who happened to be talking about, this subsidy which was being obtained from the government for a line running between Canada and France. The statements that were made there in reference to some of the gentlemen connected with this scheme were so startling that I asked them if they could procure me any information on the subject. I received two days ago a mass of papers and statements. They are merely statements, and included amongst the papers is a copy of the ' British Columbia Review.' One of the gentlemen writes to me :
Dear Mr. Osier, I know nothing of the facts stated in this memorandum, but, if true they would seem to be matters of public importance.
I do not wish to read these statements, but I would like to hand them to the right hon. Prime Minister so that he can see what they are worth. I happened merely by chance to meet some gentlemen in New York, and during the course of the conversation which took place, one of them said :
' Canada seems to be the softest place to exploit that there is in the world to-day.' I do not wish to read these statements in the House, but I think it would be worth the while of the right hon. Prime Minister to look into them and see if there is anything in them at all. I simply state how I received them. I know nothing about them and as I stated, it was purely by accident that I came to know anything about the matter at all.
Bill reported.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 254) to amend the Yukon Territory Act.-Minister of Justice.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 225) further to amend the Act respecting the Judges of the Provincial Courts, read the second time, and House went into Committee thereon.
On section 1,
Thomas Simpson Sproule: What increases are being made in the salaries ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (H911. Charles Fitzpatrick).: The effect of the amendment is to add one judge to the number of puisne judges in the province of Quebec. The amendment is in line 20. The Act at present provides for ' fourteen puisne judges and the amendment is to make it fifteen. . The intention is to appoint a new judge for the new district of Pontiac ?


John Graham Haggart: Does it increase the salaries ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No, it does not increase the salaries at all.


Edward Frederick Clarke: This does not affect the Ontario judiciary ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No, it only provides for the appointment of a judge across the river from here.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I want to call the hon. gentleman's attention to a statement in one of the local papers about the appointment of a judge in the 'province of Ontario, but I shall wait for another opportunity.


John Graham Haggart: The Biill only provides for the salaries. Have you provided for the appointment ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The appointment of the judge is made by Order in Council. Parliament here, by providing the salary, authorizes the appointment, and it only remains for the executive to make the appointment.


John Graham Haggart: You will have to Xirovide for an additional judge.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is what I am asking parliament to do now.


John Graham Haggart: I am doubtful whether the Bill does so or not. It seems to me that it only provides for the salary of an additional judge.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: If the House provides the salary the executive provides the judge.
Mr. TAYLOR Has the hon. gentleman decided upon the man to fill the position?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I really do not know anything about that. I have had questions enough to attend to recently without troubling myself about that.


John Graham Haggart: Is there a petition from the provincial authorities asking for another judge ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The Act providing for the appointment was passed in 1SS0. It has not been carried into effect since, but the conditions are such now, that the judge is often obliged to travel over 200 miles to go to a particular section of the country.
Bill reported ; read the third time, and passed.



NORTH-WEST TERRITORIES-REPRESENTATION IN SENATE.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 253) to increase the representation of the North-west Territories in the Senate, read a second time, and the House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
William Findlay Maclean: I should think that the government would incorporate in this Bill a clause carrying out the pledge to reform the Senate given to the people by the Liberal party some years ago. For some months past the Liberal papers have been declaring that the Liberals have a majority of from ten to fifteen in the Senate and that they now control that body. If that be the fact, then the pledges of the Liberals made in 1893, that the Senate ought to be reformed


Mr. JOHNSTON (Cape Breton).: So it has been.
iMr. aiACLEAN. What the Liberals pledged themselves to do was not to reform the personnel of the Senate, but to reform its constitution, and here is a chance for them to carry out that pledge. But, if the government does not carry out its pledge to reform the Senate, let me point out that they are responsible for the action of that chamber, and if a measure designed in the public interests such as the cattle-guard clause in the Railway Act, comes to grief in the Senate, then the government must be held responsible. In view of the fact that an election seems to be at hand, and that strange things may take place within the coming month in connection with public legislation, I take this opportunity of pointing out. that whatever the Senate does, the government must be held responsible for it. I do not purpose to introduce a measure to reform the Senate, but I have been waiting for this opportunity to say, that in view of the statement in the Liberal press that the government controls the Senate, they are responsible for the conduct of the Senate. not having carried out their pledge to reform it.


John Graham Haggart: Does this increased number of senators in the North-west give the same representation by population as in Quebec and Ontario ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There are twenty-four senators for Quebec, twenty-four for Ontario, and twenty-four for the maritime provinces. In addition to that provision is made for the representation of Manitoba, British Columbia and the Northwest Territories. The British North America Amendment Act of 1880 chapter 3D, Imperial Statutes authorizes the appointment, and chapter 33 of the Dominion Statutes, 1887, provides for the representation of North-west Territories in the Senate by two members. In 1887, the population of the organized territories was 25,515 ; in 1891 it was GG.799, and in 1901, 159,940. I need not say that since 1901 the increase In population has been at even a greater ratio than previous to that year. In 1881 the population of the unorganized portion of the Territories was 30,000, and in 1901 it had increased to 52,709. Taking the present population of the organized and unorganized territories, and allowing for the increase since 1901, the unit of representation will be practically the same as in Ontario, which is about 90,000.


John Graham Haggart: There are 210,000 people in the organized and unorganized territories, and that gives you the same unit as in Ontario ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, about.


William James Roche: Is each senator allotted a territorial district in the North-west Territories ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No.


Thomas Osborne Davis: A reference to the confederation debates will show that Sir John Macdonald explained that representation in the Senate was a question of interest, and not of population. On that principle the maritime provinces, Quebec and Ontario each got twenty-four senators. Even with the increase of two senators proposed in this Bill, western Canada only gets eleven senators, as against twenty-four in the maritime provinces. If we consider representation in the Senate a question of interest and not of population, then every one will, I think, agree with me, that including British Columbia, the North-west Territories, Manitoba and the Yukon, the interest of the country west of Lake Superior, is at least as great as the interest of the maritime provinces. Indeed, it may be admitted, that if you take all that western country as one, its interest is as great as the interest of Ontario or Quebec. Therefore I think that when this measure was brought down we should have been given a full complement of senators, as many as are given to the maritime provinces.


William Findlay Maclean: 


William Findlay Maclean: Twenty-four ?


Thomas Osborne Davis: Yes, twenty-four.


William Findlay Maclean: May we take it for granted that a member of this House, who has already been ordained, is soon to be called ?
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



NORTH SYDNEY HARBOUR COMMISSION.

[Stage Direction]
House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution :-
That it is expedient, in the interests of the harbour o£ North Sydney, N.S., to amend the 8th and 10th sections of the said Act.
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. R. Prefontaine).: This is a very simple Bill. It provides that the secretary of the board of harbour commissioners for North Sydney be paid a salary of $500 instead of $400 as at present and that the collector of customs be authorized to collect duties in that harbour. This has been asked by the harbour commissioners of North Sydney.


John Graham Haggart: Have you the consent of His Excellency to the introduction of this resolution ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I notice that it was not announced that you had received that consent.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It is not customary to mention it in the resolution.


Mr. FOWLER.: I would like to have some further information on this matter; if it is an increase in the salary of the secretary of the harbour commission I would ask if his duties have increased.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Of course it is an increase.


George William Fowler: There should be some explanation as to whether the duties have increased. It is true that the amount involved is not a large one but it is an annual charge upon the country.


Alexander Johnston: As this matter concerns the constituency which I have the honour to represent I may say for the information of the committee that for some years the salary of the harbour master of North Sydney has been $400. A resolution has been adopted by the harbour commission of North Sydney recommending the increase of that salary from $400 to $500. I transmitted that resolution to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and in consequence of that resolution parliament is now asked to grant this increase. The duties of the

harbour master of North Sydney have increased a good deal in the last nine years.
I do not know when the commission was created but it was probably twelve or fifteen years ago and the salary at that time was put at $400.


George William Fowler: I would again ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries for this information. As I understand it is proposed to give a salary to the present collector of customs to perform the duties of harbour master. I would like to know what the duties of that officer are at the present time, and why the increase is necessary ?


Alexander Johnston: There is absolutely nothing in this to provide that the collector of customs at North Sydney shall have anything to do with the duties of harbour master. So far as this resolution refers to the collector of customs at North Sydney I may say that it has been customary ever since the formation of the harbour commission to pay the collector of customs a certain percentage of the harbour dues for collecting them, as a matter of convenience. There is nothing in the Act providing for this payment and it is now proposed to authorize the collector of customs at North Sydney to receive from the harbour commission of North Sydney a small percentage for the collection of the dues. That is the part of the resolution referring to the collector of customs at North Sydney. This is to authorize the collector of customs at Sydney to receive from the harbour commissioners a small percentage for the collections of harbour dues.


George William Fowler: I must repeat my request to the minister to give us some information. I presume he would not bring forward a resolution of this kind unless he knew the circumstances, and ought not to require the services of the hon. gentleman who has just spoken and who seems to be a sort of wet nurse to the hon. minister.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: As the amendment was drawn up in the Department of Justice, and that department is consequently responsible for it, I may venture to take the liberty of explaining it. It provides for an increase of $100 in the salary of the harbour master, and also for a percentage to be given the collector of customs, amounting to 5 per cent, for collecting the harbour dues.


George William Fowler: Are they both the same individual ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No, they ore not.


John Graham Haggart: No doubt the explanation of the Minister of Justice is correct, hut I must object to the slovenly manner of proceeding, and raise the point of order. There is nothing before the House. All we have is a resolution that it is expedient, in the interest of the harbour of North Sydney, N.S., to amend the eighth and tenth sections of the said Act. It does not say what Act or in what manner it is intended to be amended. I take the objection that there is nothing before the Chair, and I ask, for the sake of regularity, that the order be discharged and proper notice given.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: What is intended is to give notice to the House of the change, and the Bill to be introduced will complete the resolution.


John Graham Haggart: There is nothing in the notice to indicate what it means.


Peter Macdonald: In my opinion, we have proceeded irregularly. There is nothing in the resolution to indicate its intent. The ordinary procedure is to give notice that the House will resolve itself into Committee on a certain day to consider a certain resolution, to which His Excellency the Governor General has given his sanction. Then the resolution goes on the Order paper, and is taken up in due course. The Committee had better report, and then let the proper procedure be followed.
Progress reported.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the Order is irregular it must be dropped.	'


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: No ; it cannot be dropped to-day. It can be dropped to-morrow when it is called.



GOVERNMENT OF THE NORTH-WEST TERRITORIES-FINANCIAL AID.

[Stage Direction]
House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, thait it is expedient to enact as follows : -
1.	The Governor General may, in his discretion from time to time, advance to the government of the North-west Territories any sum required for local improvements in the Northwest Territories, not exceeding in the whole the sum of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars.
2.	All sums so advanced to the government of the North-west Territories shall be charged in an account to be known as ' The North-west Territories Debt Account,' and shall, in any financial arrangement that may be made in connection with the organization of a province or provinces in the said territories, be taken into consideration as a debt owing by the said territories to the Dominion of Canada.-(The Minister of Finance).
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hou. W.
S.	Fielding). This resolution proposes to authorize an advance of a sum, not exceeding in the whole $250,000, to the government of the North-west Territories, from time to time, for the construction of any public works which they may wish to construct and may deem to be of a class chargeable to capital acconnt. The rapid and very gratifying increase in the population of the
[Stage Direction]
North-west Territories makes it desirable that some additional provision should be made for the carrying on of the government of that portion of the Dominion. The time must be close at hand when it will be necessary, not only to revise the financial arrangements of that portion of our country, but also to take np the larger question of granting full powers of local government to the people of that region. In the past, having regard to the comparatively small population and the large area over which they were dispersed, the conditions did not seem favourable, for the establishment of a government and legislature with full powers of a province.
The powers granted to the North-west legislature are, however, quite large ; and, in very many respects those territories are to-day exercising the privileges and bearing responsibilities of self-government. In some respects, they are not entirely clothed with the powers of provincial government ; but I think we all agree that the time is close at hand when these powers must be given to them. These powers will not merely convey privileges, but will also impose upon them some responsibility, and I am not quite sure that, from a purely financial point of view, they will be benefited by establishing provincial autonomy. However, I presume the question is not to be judged from that point of view alone and that the people in that country which is now so rapidly being filled up will desire ordinary powers of provincial government. In the meantime, as it is not proposed at the present session to bring forward a measure to give them full powers of provincial government, it is proposed that we should make a more liberal provision for the management of their financial affairs. We, therefore, agree to make a very considerable increase in the annual grant and also to make this special provision having relation to the opening of a capital account. If they were established as a province, no doubt they would have a certain sum of money placed to their credit, the interest upon which they would be entitled to receive and the principal of which they could make use of for public works. Provision is made in the existing law for any of the provinces that have capital account to their credit that, if they desire, the^ may withdraw an amount for what are called in the Act local improvements. As a rule, the provincial government may not be desirous of withdrawing these sums, because while they remain to the credit of the province in the treasury, the province probably obtains a better rate of interest than it could manage to obtain otherwise. We think it is well that, during the present session, we should make a more liberal allowance to the North-west government in the way of annual grant, and also by giving them additional power, if they wish to exercise it, by having a capital account on which they Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
may draw and which will be a matter of consideration in any financial arrangement which may be made hereafter with respect to organizing a government, or, possibly, more than one government in these territories. All that is proposed for the present by tliis resolution is that power shall be conferred upon His Excellency the Governor in Council to advance, from time to time, to the North-we'st government, if they so desire, sums of money up to $250,000, which are to be expended on public works of a class which may be deemed properly chargeable to capital. Perhaps, as the two questions are connected I may call attention to the increases that have been made in the grants to the North-west Territories. During recent years very considerable increases have been made, and it is proposed, in the present year, to make still further increases. There is one general grant given to the government of the North-west Territories w'hich is classed In our estimates as grants for schools, &e., which, practically is equivalent to a provincial'subsidy. There are some other grants for special purposes to which I need not more particularly refer ; but this annual grant for schools and other purposes, I think I may say, stands in about the position of a provincial subsidy. That grant in 1892 was quite small-only $40,000. In 1893 it was $198,000 ; in 1894, $199,000; in 1895, $225,000 ; in 1S90, $267,000, which was the figure at which the grant stood when the present government came into power. In the following year there appears to have been a slight failing off, the reason of which I have not at band. For the year ending 30th of July, 1897. the grant was $242,000. From that time it has almost steadily increased. Tn 1898 the grant was $202,000 ; in 1899. $282,000; in 1900, $282,000. In 1901, including a special grant which was made in consequence of considerable damage suffered from floods, the grant was increased to $424,000. In 1902, the grant was $407,000. In 1903, the year recently closed, the sums allowed by parliament were found to be quite insufficient, and, in our supplementary estimates for the year recently voted in this House, we gave an additional grant of $250,000 so that this general grant, which I have described as being equivalent to a provincial subsidy, stood for the year 1903 at $707,000, as against $267,000 in 1S96. For the coming year, we are proposing to add a similar sum of $250,000, which will be provided in the supplementary estimates. We are also making a special grant to the local government to enable them to carry out a plan which they had some months ago of rebuilding two important bridges, one the Pelly river bridge and the other the Old Man river bridge. The Pelly river bridge is estimated to cost $55,000 and the Old Man river bridge $29,000, or $84,000 for both. The local authorities came to us several months ago and represented that

these were two important structures, they needed authority to construct them at once, and they were without financial means as to do so. They were assured that the government would place them in funds to construct these works. In the course of negotiations it was at one time proposed that, these bridges, being of a solid and permanent character, should be made a charge against capital account, and it was proposed to place a sum to the credit of the local government on capital account. The local government objected to that and we have, on consideration, decided to make this the cost of these two bridges a special grant for the year and not make it a charge against capital account.
John Graham Haggart: Is that to be deducted from the $250,000 ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: As I was saying, it was at first proposed as my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart) lias suggested that we should deduct it. in some correspondence I had with the premier of the North-west government, I expressed the view that as these bridges were of a permanent character they were a proper charge against capital account. However, the North-west government thought that an ungenerous view to take and, on consideration, we have decided to yield to their representations and make it a special grant this year. So, we shall provide for the current year, apart from some ordinary grants amounting to $90,000 which I do not need to specialize, and including the special grants on account of the bridges, $1,046,000, as against $267,000 which they were receiving only a few years ago when the change of government occurred. I think it will be seen from the figures I have read that fair consideration has been given, from time to time, to the needs of the North-west Territories, and that we are responding with fair liberality to their increasing necessities. IVe are proposing therefore, to give them, for the current year, either for their own general purposes or for special purposes, a sum of $1,046.C00, and to give them a right to use, if they wish, a further sum of $250,000. Of course, if that be not used, there will be no charge against them, and, if It be used, or if any portion of it be used, the amount used will be charged to a capital account, and, when we come to the question of establishing the financial relations of a new province or, possibly of more than one province. in the new territory, the matter of the $250,000 will be1 taken into consideration in the adjustment of their debt account.


William Findlay Maclean: The statement made in the House by the hon. Minister of Finance is in the nature of setting the House in order before an election takes place. I think that this is a thing that indicates to us that an election is near qt hand more directly than anything else we have had.
It is also in the nature of an apology on behalf of the government for having neglected hitherto to erect one or more provinces in the North-west. I think it is the feeling of hon. gentlemen on this side that this should have been done long ago. Certainly, It would have my support and the support of many hon. gentlemen on this side if not merely one but more provinces were erected in the North-west Territories. Still we are glad to hear that the question is now to be considered, and that it will be taken up, as I gather, immediately after the elections are over. From what the Minister of Finance has said here' to-night, they have been forced to take up this question, and in the meantime we are going to do something for the Territories in a financial way, and later on we are going to erect them into provinces. Now. I am in favour of the most liberal kind of treatment to the Northwest. I think they ought to be given a liberal share of the public domain in that country, it ought to pass under the exclusive control of the provinces in the same way that Ontario, Quebec and the lower provinces are given the Crown Lands. I hope when this territory comes to be erected into provinces that not only a liberal financial arrangement will be made with them, but that they will be given control of a very considerable portion of the public domain still held by this government in the western territories.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Whatever may be the reason for the generosity of the government, I thoroughly approve of the proposal to grant an extra $250,000 to the North-west Territories. No one who has been in that country and knows anything about it, can help being struck with the enormous expense that must be made there for bridges and roads. As the country fills up roads must be laid out and bridges must be built over the various streams, and these bridges will be expensive. I think the time has arrived, if it has not passed, when they should be granted more aid. A very liberal treatment accorded to the North-west will be approved of by both sides of this House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me this would be a very proper time for the government to explain why they have refused provincial autonomy to the North-west Territories. We know the people of the Territories have applied or it, the application has been brought to the notice of the government at different times and in different ways, with a good deal of force. We found when in that country last fall that there was a strong consensus of opinion in favour of it, and the people regarded .their situation as most unfortunate because they were not granted provincial autonomy. The people out there think they are very much handicapped in carrying on the operations of life for the want of it. Then, why have the government not

considered it ? Are they not prepared to grant provincial autonomy to the Territories, and if they are not, what is the reason ? This grant appears to be in the nature of a provincial subsidy, and X notice it is to be charged against them in what is called their debt account. If it is charged against them in the way of a debt, is it proposed to charge them any interest on this debt


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There Will be no interest at present.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Well, it might be regarded as a debt. I think the government ought to be prepared to give us some reason why they have been unable to grant the request of the Territories for provincial autonomy.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is the great boast of our English system of government that it is a growth of time, and that consequently it is not well to do things too rapidly. Our development should be like that of British freedom, that ' broadens slowly down from precedent to precedent.' It is not well to do these things with a hop, step and a jump. There has been some development of the principle of local self-government in the Territories during recent years. Under this present government amendments have been made to the legislation respecting the North-west Territories, which broadened the powers of the legislature and gave the people a large measure of responsible government. I think the time is close at hand when this government which is always looking after these things wisely and well, will have to go further, and still further broaden these powers and give to that section of the community the larger measure of self-government which the other provinces enjoy. The conditions in the North-west Territories have not been the same as those in the older provinces in past years. But through the growth of population and the increase of settlements they are rabidly assuming those conditions, and I am quite sure it will be the pleasure of both sides of this House at a very early day to extend the powers which have already been given.


Mr. GILMOUR.: I would like to hear the Finance Minister say by what rules he considers this allowance a debt. If he considers it a debt, I would like him to say on what footing, on what basis, it is a debt. I do not understand just where you are going to begin to reckon up an account with the Territories. Certainly I think you ought to be liberal with the territories. I would also like to hear some reason given why autonomy is not granted to them. But, aside from that, I would like to hear the Finance Minister state, and put it in the * Hansard,' put it before all concerned, just on what basis he is going to begin and reckon an account between the territories and the Dominion. It is well that that


Thomas Simpson Sproule: should be understood now, so that there will be no difficulty about it in the future when we come to settle the account.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If we were to-day carrying legislation for conferring full powers of provincial autonomy on the North-west Territories, undoubtedly there would be a sum placed to their credit in what is called the ' debt account,' just as is to be found with respect to most of the other provinces. Instead of waiting for the moment to introduce legislation creating provincial autonomy, if we place a portion of that money to their credit at once, and charge them no interest upon it, I do not think we can be held to be imposing a serious burden upon them.


James Gilmour: I am only asking upon what basis this is to be considered. If you pay them all that is due up to this date, you are not giving them anything now except the interest on this money. So long as you retain those Territories as wards of the government, so long will they remain in your debt. I would like the minister to say just on what basis he is going to reckon this as a debt.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: A debt account does not necesasrily mean that the balance is against the North-west Territories. In this case the North-west Territories are to have the debt charged against them, but they are to pay no interest upon it, and therefore it becomes no burden upon them. Just what the precise basis of the financial arrangement with the Territories shall be when we come to establish a province or provinces is not a matter upon which it would be wise to commit ourselves to-day, but we do realize that, having regard to the fact that they have no land of their own and that there are special conditions with regard to the North-west Territories, when we come to adjust accounts with them we will have to place to their credit a certain amount of money in the debt account. It may not be a debt in the sense that they will have to pay it. The probability is that we will have to pay them interest upon it. My hon. friend is mistaken when he says that this is all we are doing for the North-west Territories, because we largely increase their general grant. We are going to give them a million dollars, as compared with a little over a quarter of a million seven years ago.


James Gilmour: I did not say that you were giving them nothing. I understood quite well what the hon. Minister of Finance said, but in view of the fact that you are establishing what I would consider a debt, I wished you to make it plain whether or not you would deduct this when you gave them provincial autonomy.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not think it would be wise that we should today undertake to settle the precise basis of

the financial relations that should be established with the provincial government it it should be established next year, as I hope it will. We had better wait until that time and hold ourselves to negotiate and determine what the basis shall be. As to the provinces which have money in what is called the debt account, instead of paying interest to the Dominion, the Dominion has to pay interest to them and it may be so when we come to adjust this account between the new province or provinces and the Dominion. What we do is to give the local government of the North-west- Territories now one of the privileges which they *would no doubt have if they had provincial autonomy, and that is the right to have in the capital account a sum upon which they may draw for important public works. If they do not wish to use it, of course we cannot complain, but our theory is that if they undertake any important public structure which is a matter of permanent improvement they may wish to charge it against capital account. If we should give provincial autonomy to the North-west Territories we would have to place further sums at their credit in some wray.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it proposed that when you finally make a settlement with them upon the lines of provincial autonomy their income shall be reduced to the extent of this loan which we are giving them now ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That will have to be a matter of adjustment. Everything will depend upon the amount that may be assigned to them. There are many questions which will have to be considered in the adjustment of the finances of the territories. Their position is peculiar. They do not stand in the same position as the other provinces of the Dominion which have lands, mines, forests and other sources of revenue. We might have to take all that into consideration and I do not think it would be wise to undertake to-day to lay down the precise basis of the financial arrangements which we may have to make even so early as next year. We place this sum at their disposal and if they need it they can use it. If they do not need it we do not want to force it upon them.


John Graham Haggart: What is the total amount you gave them last year ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Last year, including the sum voted in the supplementary estimates, we gave them $707,974. Then, in addition there was the sum of 379,000 for special purposes, but I am dealing witli the general grant.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. Minister of Finance states that he is going to give the North-west Territories a grant of $1,200,000 this year.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The grant is a little over $1,000,000. This $250,-
000 is an additional provision, but it stands in a different relation.


John Graham Haggart: I understand from the hon. minister that independently of the $250,000 the grant which would be given to the North-west Territories would be a little over $1,400,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, a little over $1,000,000-actually $1,046,000.


John Graham Haggart: That is in excess of the grant, last year nearly $200,000. That includes the bridges over the Pelly river and the Macleod river costing $89,000. It occurs to me that it is a very pertinent question to ask what possible credit can the North-west Territories have to the debt account. They can have none whatever. The lion. Minister of Finance states that this $250,000 is to be charged against them pending a settlement when they are given autonomy. I do not see any possible credit that the North-west Territories can have to the debt account. The only possible way in which this $250,000 could be charged would be upon the per capita allowance of the province to be deducted at some future time. The hon. gentleman states that he [DOT]does not intend to charge any interest upon the amount. Does he propose, in giving this $250,000 to the North-west Territories, to give them the absolute control of the expenditure of it for any purpose which they may think proper, or must it be spent in a certain direction? If the government intend to direct how it shall be expended we would like to know how it is proposed to expend it. I protest that there is no possible credit to the debt account which the North-west Territories can have against the Dominion government upon entering confederation. They have no expenditure for Dominion purposes, they have no expenditure upon railways that I know of in that section of the country or anything which would be a credit to the debt account. The only answer to the question of my hon. friend from East Middlesex (Mr. Gilmour) is that this $250,000 must be a charge against the per capita allowance of the territories when they, get autonomy.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend has undertaken to settle a question which I was anxious not to settle at the pi*e-sent time and that is as to what shall be the financial adjustment between the Dominion and these new provinces. My only desire is not to commit myself as respects a single dollar of this amount which we are voting. I want to be absolutely free when this question comes up, and I think we all desire that none of us shall be bound by anything we may do in the way of granting temporary aid. In answer to the other question of the hon. gentleman as to whether the local government is to have control over' the expenditure of this money the answer, is practically, yes. But technically there is a

qualification to that. We use here the same words as are found in the existing laws in respect to the debt accounts of the other provinces. Every one of the provinces of tlie Dominion which has a sum to its credit in the debt account, is entitled under the act to withdraw that money for 1 local improvements.' Those are the words. The Governor in Council has, in his discretion, the right to advance this money. Technically he can say that it shall not be advanced at all, but my bon. friend as an old! cabinet minister knows that practically that is not so. What I apprehend will happen will be that the local government will make application and will say that it desires to use this money for some useful public work. Its application will be approved and the expenditure will be entirely under its control and not under the control of the Dominion government.


William Findlay Maclean: The hon. Minister of Finance spoke of the erection of new provinces. Is the hon. minister, or any member of the government, prepared to say whether all of the correspondence which has passed between those representing the Territories and the members of the government in connection with the request for the 'erection of a new province or new provinces liar been published ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I understand that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister submitted it all to the House a few weeks ago.


John Graham Haggart: I must protest against the expenditure of $250,000 under the direction of the Dominion government.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend misunderstood me.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. Minister of Finance states that a request is made for the money for local improvements by the local government and that the disposition of it depends upon the Governor in Council. Then, the request, must be in consonance with the desires of the Dominion governmeht as to the expenditure. I much prefer to see the amount of $250,000 absolutely given to the North-west Territories to be expended [DOT]on local improvements in any manner in which they see fit.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We are using the precise words of the present law In respect to all the (provinces of the Dominion. If the North-west Territories had been created into a province this year under a provincial government the same as the government of Ontario or the government of any of the other provinces, these are the precise words which would be used in regard to the advance of public money out-of capital account. The application has to come from the local government, and the Dominion government has the right to re-Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
fuse, I suppose, but practically that is not the way it operates. The local government is the judge and we are bound to believe they expend these moneys for useful purposes, and unless there is some strong reason, which I cannot imagine, to refuse the application, it would go as a matter of course.


Mr. OLIVER.: The understanding in regard to this debt account which prevails in the North-west Territories, is perhaps not the same as has been voiced so far in this discussion. The idea that has come to me and others in the west is : that at confederation the original provinces were heavily involved in debt, and when other provinces were added to confederation which were not so involved in debt, they received a credit from what was called the debt account, to put them on an equal footing with the original provinces in respect to the indebtedness of these original provinces. It it under that head that the territories would claim a credit at the hands of the Dominion when the time for provincial organization comes. Believing that the territories would be entitled to such a credit under the fundamental arrangements of confederation, they consider that they have a right to an advance on that account, if required and as required. That debt account is based on the population of the provinces at the time each entered confederation, and because of that there is not that unanimous and urgent demand for provincial organization in the territories that some of our friends seem to think. The larger the population of the territory at the time it enters confederation as a province, the larger the debt account in favour of the territories will be, and therefore the greater the advantage to the territories, the longer it waits and the larger1 its population is.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are we to infer that the territories do not want provincial autonomy, but that they prefer to remain without it for years until they get a larger population?


Frank Oliver: I do not wish the hon. member to draw any inference. Speaking for myself, and for those who think with me-who I believe constitute the overwhelming majority of the people in the territories-we believe that it is better to wait until we can be assured of a more satisfactory arrangement based upon increased population, than we possibly could expect to get to-day.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then, the argument of Mr. Haultain in favour of provincial autonomy would seem to be unfounded. I judged from the correspondence that the territories were strongly in favour of autonomy.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Divided in opinion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I refer to the resolution passed by the legislature, and the corres-

pondence submitted to strengthen the argument of Premier Haultain.


Frank Oliver: The conditions surrounding Premier Haultain's proposition might perhaps be explained a little more fully. Premier Haultain proposes provincial autonomy, on the basis of the grants that would be due to the territories, even on their present population under provincial autonomy, as compared with grants received a few years ago, under the present system. For a matter of seven or eight years the subsidy grant to the territories was practically at a standstill, and at the same time population was increasing, and our responsibilities were increasing.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think that the arrangement made with the territories was, that as population increased the grant would increase.


Frank Oliver: There was no arrangement with the territories. The grant is a matter of ordinary vote by parliament from year to year. Naturally if the grant is not liberal and if it is not advanced in amount according to increased population and responsibilities the government of the Northwest Territories falls back at once upon the rights which it would have were it given, provincial organization. That was the condition which gave rise to the present demand (if you may say so) for provincial autonomy. Mr. Haultain wanted to get the benefit of the debt account which he would have on the then existing population and to get such other grants as properly belong to a province, believing that he would then be financially better off than he was under the system of granting subsidies, which practically stood still for a number of years. But since that time, the subsidies have very largely increased, and particularly so during the present year. The increase of subsidy changes the position very considerably in regard to the demand for provincial organization. In my estimation at any rate- in a country such as the territories, where the financial needs are very great-the financial question is the chief question. The obtaining of money with which to carry out public improvements and to keep educational facilities up to a modern standard, is the great object which the government desires to attain, and if it be attained, then the chief object of local government is attained. And whether it be under the name of territorial organization or provincial organization, is of secondary moment. It is fair matter for consideration, whether we should press an immediate and urgent demand upon this parliament, for provincial organization, or, with the prospect of still larger and very rapid increase of population, whether we should wait until that increase of population should entitle us to still better terms. The area under the jurisdiction of the territorial government covers by far
the greater part of the agricultural area of the Dominion. If that great agricultural area -which in all human probability before very long will be quite fully populated-is organized to-day on a provincial basis, with the debt account according to the present population, and receiving consideration generally according to the requirements of the present population ; it stands to reason that inside of a very few years, the concessions that have been made will be found far further behind the actual requirements than they have ever been since we organized in the territories a local government.


William Findlay Maclean: Then the ' better terms ' principle begins to act.


Frank Oliver: That is what it amounts to ; and you will find that in Mr: Haultain's correspondence he suggests that there shall be provincial organization at the present time, on the basis of present population and a readjustment every five years afterwards according to population. That is not in accord with the principles of confederation, but if parliament will concede it, why, I will be willing to go in for provincial organization at once.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the hon. gentleman not think that, since the government are not prepared to give this by way of subsidy upon any determined basis, it would be better to take into consideration the exceptional needs of the territories from year to year and grant a larger subsidy until such time as we can give them all full provincial autonomy or establish some account with them on a proper basis ?


Frank Oliver: That is exactly my position. 1 think that as long as this parliament will deal liberally with the North-west Territories while they are in their present formative condition and while their population is increasing as rapidly as it is, and will adequately recognize that increase of population, it will be better for the territories, financially, to remain under the present condition rather than to be bound by any definite financial arrangement that will in future years be entirely inadequate and will cause the territories to come here again and again for better terms.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I mean that instead of giving this money by way of loan, we should take into account the very exceptional needs of the territories and give a subsidy to suit their requirements from time to time, not to give it in the shape of a loan, which would be regarded as a debt.
Mr. OLIVER, As a member for the territories I have nothing to urge in opposition to the plan suggested. If parliament will vote this year the $1,046,000 suggested by the Minister of Finance and also the sum of $250,000 for current expenses, I shall certainly vote for it and be very glad to sup-

port it, but 1 may say that such generosity on the part of parliament is a surprise to me, and I think that Premier Haultain and his government, if they are at all inclined to be fleshy, would be very likely to be stricken with apoplexy at such an exhibition of generosity as compared with the action of parliament on previous occasions. However, if hon. gentlemen will move that I will be very glad to support them and if they would prefer to make it $500,000 instead of $250,000, I will support that.


James Gilmour: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) consider that up to the present time the territories have received all they were entitled to in grants and that this $250,000 should now be considered as an advance to them ?


Frank Oliver: No, I do not think they have been getting as much as they are entitled to, but I certainly think the grant this year is fairly liberal. The House will understand that as one of the members representing the North-west Territories, who have been continually accused since we have been in the House of demanding too much from parliament, I have felt some diffidence in pressing demands for any serious advance of money. I certainly felt that a grant of $1,000,000 in the present year was a very fair allowance and I was glad to accept it and also to accept the advance of $250,000 for permanent improvements. But if the opinion of the House has changed, if it has become generous in these matters, 1 can assure the House that the North-west Territories government can expend a larger amount, and if hon. members are desirous of voting this $250,000 as an addition to the yearly grant I will be glad to support them in that and, as I said, if they will make it $500,000 I will still support them and I can assure them that the money will be well expended.


Mr. CLANCY.: I fully concur in all that has been said of the necessity of increasing the grant to the North-west Territories. If I had any fault to And it would be that the government have not gone quite so far in this matter as the present needs of that growing country require. I am not much impressed with the reasons given by the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) for delaying the granting of provincial autonomy. Speaking for myself I do not believe that any party in power can afford to drive hard and fast bargains with the newer provinces to be made in the Northwest Territories. A cheese-paring policy would be the most mistaken policy that any government could undertake ; it would simply mean a recurrence of what we have had in the past under less stringent conditions in regard to the provinces that today constitute confederation, a constant pressure for additional subsidies. When provincial autonomy is granted to the ter-Mr. OLIVER.
ritories we must expect to make ample provision for the support of a government in these territories. This may be a proper time to ask the Minister of Finance as to the correctness of the report that is current in the leading organs supporting the government, that for the purpose of aiding in the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway or for other purposes of a similar kind, it is the purpose of the government to set aside a quantity of land in the North-west Territories to be sold for these purposes ? I do not thiuk that this parliament or the people of the North-west Territories or of the rest of this Dominion would view with greater favour the taking of any portion of land in the North-west Territories for that purpose than the taking of land in the older provinces, if it were possible, and the setting aside of such land for the construction of railways or for other purposes. If we are to aid railways we must aid them from other sources of revenue and if the people of the North-west Territories should ask for provincial autonomy to-morrow I do not believe that we should drive such a hard bargain as the hon. member for Alberta has suggested :	we should
deal with them on very liberal and generous terms and must remember that what might be a generous appropriation to-day might be entirely inadequate in a few years owing to the great growth that is taking place in that country. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance if there is any foundation for that report.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No legislation of that kind is contemplated.


James Clancy: I am aware that there is no legislation of that character ; I ask the hon. gentleman if that is the policy of the government.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The policy of the government for the present is as I have stated it; I think the hon. gentleman will have to let the future take cqre of itself.


James Clancy: It is a deplorable fact that we have to do that both as to information and as to everything else.


Nathaniel Boyd: I am also pleased with the increase that has taken place in the appropriation for the North-west Territories, and I would be much better pleased if the government had intimated that they proposedi giving the people of the North-west Territories the provincial power which they are seeking. I am sure that in saying that I express the opinion of the vast majority of the people of the North-west Territories. I am sure that I am expressing the opinion of the majority of the people of the territories when I say so. I do not think that it is pleasant to the people of the North-west Territories, in fact I know it is humiliating to them, to have to come here annually as

beggars seeking for better terms and finding themselves in the position in which they were last year, when their assembly had to adjourn for want of funds. They had to go back to their homes until they could procure money to carry on public business. They have been appealing for provincial autonomy. Their population has increased, as has been pointed out by the Minister of Justice, sufficiently to entitle them to ten representatives in this House and four senators. A territory of that importance and extent should receive that recognition from this parliament for which they are asking and which they deserve, and that is the power to manage their own affairs. The difficulty pointed out by the hon. member for Alberta regarding population and so on, is merely a matter of readjustment, which may be made every two, or three, or five years, and I cannot see why the government are holding back in that respect. We know well enough the reason why they are not dealing with this question. It is because they fear that ghost in the closet- the school question-which they will have to deal with whenever they give the territories provincial autonomy, but the longer they leave it off the worse it will be.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Why ?


Nathaniel Boyd: Because there will be more people in the territories, and the greater the number the more difficult will become the settlement of that question.


Thomas Osborne Davis: We have separate schools in the territories now.


Nathaniel Boyd: What they have and what they will get according to the arrangements made in this parliament are entirely different questions. I have been amongst these people, I have been at their public meetings, I have heard their premier give expression to his views at a very large gathering, and in that gathering there was almost a unanimous opinion in favour of provincial autonomy. What else could we expect from a body of Canadians and British people, numbering some 160,000 or 200,000. but that they would want their own provincial autonomy, the power to make their own laws and manage their own affairs.


Thomas Osborne Davis: How much more power would they have under provincial autonomy than they have now ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: There is an old saying, 1 Save me from my friends,' and the people of the North-west Territories will have no reason to thank the hon. gentleman, for if we were to adopt his suggestion they would be worse off than they are to-day.


Nathaniel Boyd: I do not think so.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The hon. gentleman has said that the North-west Territories have a population large enough to 386
entitle them to ten members. He must [DOT] ' know that such is not the case. He ought to know that their population, as shown by the last census, would not entitle them to ten members. We are giving them ten members, not because they are entitled to that number, but as an act of grace. If we were to follow my hon. friend's suggestion, and give them a provincial organization, they would have to come under the laws that regulate the provinces and be given a representation according to population, and not by grace, as they are under this Bill. If the territories want to come in as a province, my hon. friend would be the first to say that it would be only fair that they should have the representation to which they would be entitled as a province. But_ we thought it better to keep them as territories and give them representation this year of ten members, because their population is increasing, and will no doubt soon reach the figures which will entitle them to that number. My hon. friend has spoken on the school question, but I doubt whether, in view of the school taxation, it would be advisable for the territories to become a province, because they would then lose the power they now have of taxing the railway lands of the Canadian Pacific Railway for their schools. The question is not so simple as my hon. friend would make us believe it is. How many provinces will there be- one or two ? On that point the people of the territories are not unanimous. A member of some prominence in the legislature has withdrawn his confidence from Mr. Haul-tain's government, because it is in favour of one province, whereas he and others think there ought to be two provinces. For these reasons, we had better reflect coolly and seriously before we make the final jump. My hon. friend says it is humiliating for the territories to come here year after year and ask for better terms. Well, they are not: coming for better terms, but for an allowance, which parliament has given them, and which must increase as their population increases. But when they are organized as a province, with all the powers of a province, they will have to take all the responsibilities of a province ; and whether their population increases or not, their allowance must remain the same, and we shall have probably the spectacle, which we have seen in other provinces, notably Manitoba, which was perhaps organized as a province prematurely-we shall see them year after year coming for better terms. It would be far better not to move too hastily. What are tlie powers which the territories have not to-day which they would have as a province ? If I mistake not, speaking at first blush, the legislature of the territories has all the powers enjoyed by a province, with tilie exception of the power to borrow money. My hon. friend has therefore no reason to get warm and say that they are kept as slaves, and are not free British subjects.

They are as free as any one of ns, but have not the power to borrow money, and per-* haps it is as well to keep that power in abeyance in a young country like that.


William Findlay Maclean: Here is another Liberal doctrine abandoned, the Liberal doctrine of self-government. Now the doctrine preached is that of arbitrary government, the greater government ruling the smaller one. So, one by one, all these pledges and professions of the past are going by the board. There is a great difference between provincial autonomy and the kind of government they have in the North-west Territories to-day. The people of the Northwest Territories feel that difference. The difference is that the provinces have something by right, but the people of the Northwest must come here and take what is given to them by what the Prime Minister calls an act of grace or benevolence. The people of the North-west do not wish to be in the position of suppliants seeking favours ; they wish their rights, and they wish, above all, the sacred right, which Liberals say they fought for so many years in this country, the right of self-government. I appreciate this demand of theirs; I know that the people of the North-west do wish to be erected into a province and have an endowment and have the status and the rights of the people of the rest of Canada. Here we have an autocratic Czar telling them : Oh, leave yourselves in our hands; forget all about self-government and we will look after you. That is not Liberal doctrine, that is not what the Canadian people expect. There are reasons why the provinces have not been created. But an election is near at hand, and these hon. gentlemen feel constrained to make an apology for their neglect to erect these territories into provinces.


William James Roche: From the remarks which have fallen from the lips of the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier), I think the North-west Territories need not expect self-government in the near future. The remarks of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) left a different impression upon the House. That hon. gentleman, in the vernacular of the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) attempted to jolly the people along, holding out the hope of the early establishment of provincial autonomy. But the Prime Minister adduced arguments that were strong, no doubt, from his point of view, that the North-west Territories should not be gru it-ed local self-government for many years to come.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Hear, hear.


William James Roche: The Prime Minister says, * hear, hear,' so I am not misstating the case from his viewpoint. One reason the hon. gentleman states why they should not be given local autonomy is the Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
fact that he could not satisfy the people, because they are divided among themselves as to the number of provinces into which the territories should be divided, one or more. That need not stand long in the way; the government can soon settle it. Let them give the people a plebiscite, as they did on the liquor question, though I hope not with a similar result. Let the people decide this matter. This will be an easy way of settling the question whether there shall be one province only or more than one. The Prime Minister says also that they have almost evei'y liberty that they would have if provincial autonomy were conferred upon them, all except the one of borrowing money, and that it was a good thing not to trust them lest they should rush into debt to their own injury.
I think the people of the North-west Territories are as well able to govern themselves as the people of the Dominion are. They are among the most intelligent people of Canada. They are largely from eastern Canada, and eulogies have been heaped upon Mr. Haultain's government by people in this House and elsewhere for the way it is managing the affairs of the territories. So, no valid reason can be given on that account. It was a rather indefinite reply given by the Finance Minister to the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) as to whether they were going to set aside the land or sell the lands and set aside the funds, to pay for the Grand Trunk Pacific. If I mistake not, the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) stated that this latter was the intention. We have heard a great deal from the government to the effect that we are giving no land grant to this railway. But what is the difference if we aire going to sell the lands and hand the proceeds over for the construction of the railway line ? Fifty millions of acres of land the Minister of the Interior estimated would be released by his arrangement with the Canadian Pacific Railway. Putting it at $3 per acre, which is a very low estimate, that would mean $150,000,000 to go into a sinking fund to construct a line of railway that the Prime Minister says is only going to cost ns $13,000,000. So, I think the Finance Minister was not so candid as he might have been in answering the hon. member for Bothwell. As a western man, I am in favour of granting the territories powers of local self-government. The influx of population into that country is going to throw heavy liabilities upon the territorial exchequer to keep pace with the requirements of the country. The education of these new-comers must be looked after. And the territories have no local revenue except the small tax upon the land for school purposes. Thus, they are dependent entirely upon votes of this parliament to keep up improvements. I believe that in some years what is spent for public works and education has more than

eaten up the grants of this .parliament. Like the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) I would feel like acting a little more liberally with the territories, and would hand over this $250,000 to the territorial government rather than place them in debt so that when autonomy is given them they will find the Dominion of Canada is already their creditor to a large extent. I approve the increased grant. I know that it is necessary in order to keep up roads, bridges, schools, and other requirements of a growing country, and I am much more in favour of granting this $250,000 outright than by letting it stand as a debt against the territories.


Richard Blain: On the question of whether the people of the North-west Teritories are in favour of provincial autonomy or not, I wish to quote a few words of the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) last year :
But I believe I express the opinion of a very-large majority of the people when I say that the conditions have now reached a stage when it would be advantageous to those people as well as to the entire Dominion, to have this question settled without further loss of time. Some hon. members may be aware of the fact that within the past two weeks the question has been debated in the local legislature at Regina, and by a vote of 23 to 7, I think, in a House of 31 members, it was decided that it was a matter of regret that this question had not been taken up and an endeavour made to settle it this present year.
One other quotation from the hon. gentleman :
I said that I believed the time had come when the question of giving the territories provincial rights should be taken up and dealt with. 4s far as I am concerned, I believe that the people in the territories in general are ready to accept provincial autonomy. Of course they are not unanimous, and I think that if the powers at Ottawa wait until they are, they will wait until Kingdom come, because neither on that or any other question will the people of so large an area ever entertain one opinion. It is a fact, as has been stated by my hon. friend opposite, that the population of the territories now is vastly larger than was that of Manitoba when that part of the country was formed into a province.
That is the statement of a gentleman who, I think, knows very much more about it than I do. It seems to me clear that the people of the North-west Territories are in favour of provincial autonomy.


Frank Oliver: There seems to be some misunderstanding as to what the people of the North-west Territories, through their legislature, were asking for. It is held out to the House that we were asking for provincial autonomy, and the idea is thereby conveyed that we were asking for it on the same terms as it is enjoyed by the other provinces. I wish to say that the Northwest legislature is not asking for provincial autonomy on the same terms as it has been received by the other provinces. It is asking
386*
for provincial autonomy subject to two conditions radically different from those on which it has been received by the others. One condition is that the per capita allowance shall be revised on the basis of population arrived at by a census taken every five years; and the other is that the debt account shall be revised at the end of the ten-year census. Now it is an essential principle of provincial organization throughout the Dominion that the per capita allowance on population remains the same from the entrance of the province into confederation, and that the debt account remains the same. Therefore when the territories ask for provincial organization they are asking for it on radically different terms from those on which the other provinces have received it. When hon. members are so ready to grant provincial organization, it will be interesting to know whether they are willing to grant it on those terms. Those are the terms upon which it is asked, and the inference is that it would not be acceptable on any other terms, and circumstances being as they are, I take the liberty of saying that it would not be acceptable on other terms, terms which did not provide for a revision of these accounts at reasonable periods.


Peter Macdonald: I draw attention to the fact that we are out of order. We are discussing a question that is really outside of the resolution when we are discussing the propriety of organizing the territories into provinces. That is not the point in the resolution, and I think we-had better defer that question.


Samuel Barker: We have proceeded so far upon that subject that it would he interesting to hear from the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) wliat has induced him to change his opinion.


Peter Macdonald: Order.


Thomas Walter Scott: The member for West Assiniboia has expressed no changed opinion.


Peter Macdonald: Carried.


Nathaniel Boyd: I think when the discussion has reached this point and when certain statements have been made


Peter Macdonald: There will he another opportunity for discussing the question of provincial autonomy. That is not in the resolution.


James Clancy: I think my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) desires to discuss the resolution.


Peter Macdonald: If he intends to discuss the propriety of giving $250,000 to the North-west Territories, and confines himself to that, he will be perfectly in order.


Nathaniel Boyd: I merely wish to answer a couple of questions that have been brought to the attention of the House by the prem-

1232S
ier, but as you have decided that I am out of order, I will take another opportunity.


Peter Macdonald: If the hon. gentleman goes on and makes another speech, then another hon. member will want to answer him, and I think we had better stop here. Carried.


David Henderson: I desire to discuss the resolution. But before doing so, I wish to enter a protest against the chairman continually calling ' carried ' without putting the motion. I think it is proper that the members of the House should in every instance have a timely intimation that the chairman is going to put the question, by asking the committee plainly whether they are in favour of this resolution or not.


Peter Macdonald: The hon. gentleman is out of order. He rose to say he was going to speak to the resolution, and he is actually speaking to the chairman. In submitting motions in committee, I say ' Is this carried ' ? I do not say 1 Carried ' but 1 Is it carried.'


David Henderson: Well, the only word we have heard is ' carried.' However, I am going to deal with the resolution. I think we are making a mistake in creating a debt against the territories before we give them autonomy. I am very sorry indeed, if we are going to proceed as a parliament next year to organize those large territories into one or more provinces, that we shall be compelled to sit down and adjust a debt account. I think it is better to proceed along the lines we have been following in the past, giving the territories what we consider fairly and reasonably sufficient for their purposes. But by no means let us raise up a debt account against them, which will be standing in the way and perhaps be a troublesome matter to settle when we come to arrange for the political autonomy of the provinces. It will make no difference to the Dominion. We are getting no interest, and I do not suppose for a moment that when the adjustment is made even the principal will ever be asked for. If we treat the territories respectfully, treat them handsomely, and keep them in good humour, I think we will make better terms with them when we come to settle all these questions. But by no means let us do something that will only prove a vexed question hereafter. Now with regard to the other question, I have only to say that the sooner we give these provinces political autonomy the better, for then we do away with these annual grants. As at present they are regarded as wards of the Dominion, and I think the sooner we close this account by bringing about a different arrangement for the government of these provinces and doing away with these annual grants, the better for the Dominion and the better for the territories. I would advise the Finance Minister to create no debt account, because if we do anything


Nathaniel Boyd: of that kijrd we may have a troublesome matter to settle when we come to erect them into provinces.


Nathaniel Boyd: Has the territorial government been consulted regarding this $250,000 and has it consented to its being placed in the way the hon. minister proposes ? that is by adding it to the debt and making it a matter of readjustment in connection with its account in the future.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The correspondence on the subject was brought down some time ago. I think perhaps I would not be justified in saying that the territorial government consented. Really, it was unnecessary to ask their consent inasmuch as this is not a matter of obligation upon them at all. If the territorial government do not wish to avail themselves of the privileges of this Act they need not do so. Therefore, as we are not imposing any obligation upon them, we did not deem it necessary to obtain their consent. I think, perhaps, the territorial government would be pleased to have as large a grant as the government would give aud that they would prefer to have this in the form of a grant and not something to be charged to the debt account.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Have they applied for this subsidy ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, but the territorial government for many years applied not only to this government, but to the former government asking for a larger grant. They always err on the side of liberality in asking, and I think our responses have not been less generous-m fact, they are much more generous-than they have been under our predecessors. But, having represented their needs to us, we have to some extent exercised our own discretion as to the various methods by which we could meet their needs. I do not wish to say that the territorial government have requested that this method shall be adopted, but I think the territorial government will find this arrangement useful to them. If they do not need this money it will not be pi-essed on them and no harm is done.
Mi\ SPROULE. I understood the hon. minister to specify two items in regard to which it was represented as being necessary that an expenditure should be made.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: As respects these two particular items they did apply some months ago and we have decided by Order in. Council that we shall X'ecom-mend parliament to make provision for these two works. We are proposing in the supplementary estimates to make that provision, not as a charge against this grant, but out of the ordinary grant for the current year. The government of the North-west Territories applied for these special appro-

priations, but they aid not ask for a general credit such as we now propose.


James Gilmour: I hope the hon. Minister of Finance will consider the propriety ot continuing the grant. That country is being settled far and wide. It is quite different from any other portion of Canada. Bridges have to be built. Of late years bridges have been swept away as quickly as they have been built. In view of the extraordinary circumstances prevailing there I hope the hon. Minister of Finance will consider the propriety of continuing the grant rather than of charging these advances to the debt account. This plan which he proposes may cause a misunderstanding in the future in view of the fact that there are no specified terms upon which this debt is to be created.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We do both. First we give them a liberal grant


James Gilmour: I understand perfectly.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We are not ungenerous. We give them a grant this year, about four times as much as it was when we came into office.


James Gilmour: I do not say that you have been ungenerous. I do say that you are creating a debt and they must have need of the money or you would not be giving them an opportunity of borrowing it. One of the worst things connected with giving them autonomy in my opinion is that they would be free to create debts.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend has touched the serious objection to autonomy. Still there are different kinds of debts. When you say that the matter is to be subject to adjustment in the debt account, it does not absolutely decide on which side the debt shall be. In my province we have $1,000,000 in the debt account, but instead of being a burden on the province the Dominion has to pay interest upon it. I do not want to make any dangerous admissions as to what will be the case in regard to the North-west Territories, because, having responsibility, it devolves upon me to speak with reserve, but when the time comes to adjust the debt account it does not follow that it will be charged against the Territories.


David Henderson: Although it may be a question as to which party the debt will be charged against there is no question about the $250,000 referred to in this resolution, because the resolution says :
All sums so advanced to the government of the Nonth-weat Territories shall be charged in an account to be known as ' The North-west Territories Debt Account,' and shall, in any financial arrangement that may be made in connection with the organization of a province or provinces in the said territories, be taken
into consideration as a debt owing by the said territories to the Dominion of Canada.
This will be owing by the territories. That is what I object to. I think we should leave them in the position in which they are now as we have been satisfying the territories very well until we are prepared to make a different arrangement with them which will not be, perhaps, beyond twelve months, according to the Minister of Finance. It would be a pity to create a debt or anything that could be called a debt because it might lead to a dispute when the settlement is being brought about. We are told that they have not been consulted about this, that they have not asked for this money and they may not ask for it. I think perhaps they may be independent enough not to ask for it, because I believe it is their right to have it and it should not have been charged to them as a debt to be held up before them one or two years hence when we come to finally arrange with them.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am afraid I have not been able to make myself clear. Suppose when the adjustment of accounts takes place between the new province and the Dominion it should be found that there was-I do not like to name the amount-a million dollars to be placed at the credit of the North-west Territories in the debt account. The only difference between the situation then and now is that instead of waiting for the event and placing the money to their credit next year we are giving them the right to draw upon it in advance and it then has to be adjusted in connection with the general arrangement of the farmers of the province.


David Henderson: Does the hon. Minister of Finance expect that when they are organized into a province in that way, and when they are supposed to get a credit of $1,000,000 they will only get three-quarters of a million that it will be satisfactory to them ? I do not think it should be so. I suggest that the hon. Minister of Finance drop the matter and bring it up again when he gives them autonomy.
Resolution reported, read the first and second times, and agreed to.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 256) to provide for advances to the government of the North-west Territories.


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

[Stage Direction]
House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution :
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Civil Service Act to the effect set forth in tire
[Stage Direction]
following clauses, and for that purpose that the same be inserted in a Bill to amend the said Act.
1.	Section 12 of the Civil Service Act, chapter 17 of the Revised Statutes, is repealed and the following is substituted therefor :-
12. The salary of a deputy head of a department on appointment shall be three thousand five hundred dollars per annum, with an annual increase of one hundred dollars per annum to a maximum salary of four thousand dollars per annum, such increase to be made by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the head of the department ; provided, however, that the deputy of the Minister of Justice,, if at the time of his appointment he is a barrister of at least ten years' standing, and the deputy of the Minister of Finance and Receiver General, if at the time of his appointment he has been at least ten years in the service of one or more of the chartered banks of Canada as general manager or as a manager of a branch of su-ch bank, or in both capacities, and the deputy of the Minister of Railways and Canals, if at the time of his appointment he is a civil engineer of at least ten years' standing, may be paid one thousand dollars per annum in addition to the amounts hereinafter provided for.
2.	For the purpose of determining the salary of the present deputy heads, such deputy heads shall be credited with their period of service either as deputy or in some other capacity in the public service, at the time of the coming into force of this Act, and shall thereafter be paid such salary as they would by length of service have become entitled to had they been appointed under the provisions of section 12 of the Civil Service Act, as enacted by this Act. Provided further, that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Act contained, the salary of the present Deputy Minister of Finance so long as he remains in office shall be the maximum salary for the deputy of that department, as authorized by this Act.
3.	If any deputy head is not now entitled under the provisions of this Act to receive the maximum salary of four thousand dollars, his salary may be increased by yearly increases of one hundred dollars each until he receives the said maximum salary.
4.	In addition to the class of chief clerkships referred to in sections 15 and 16 of the said Act, another class, to be known as that of * chief clerkship, grade A,' is hereby created.
(2.) The minimum salary paid to a chief clerk, grade A, shall be two thousand four hundred dollars, with annual increases of one hundred dollars up to a maximum of two thousand eight hundred dollars.
5.	Section 16 of the Civil Service Act is repealed and the following is substituted therefor :-
16. The minimum salary of a chief clerk shall be one thousand nine hundred dollars per annum, and the maximum salary shall be two thousand five hundred dollars per annum.
6.	Section 18 of the Civil Service Act is repealed and the following is substituted therefor :-
18. The minimum salary of a first-class clerk shall be one thousand five hundred dollars per annum, and the maximum salary shall be one thousand nine hundred dollars per annum.
7.	Section 20 of the Civil Service Act is repealed and the following is substituted therefor :-
20. The minimum salary of a second-class olerk shall be one thousand two hundred dol-Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
lars per annum, and the maximum salary shall be one thousand five hundred dollars per annum.
8.	Section 4 of chapter 14 of the statutes of 1900 is repealed and the following is substituted therefor : -
4. The minimum salary of a junior second-class clerk shall be seven hundred dollars per annum, and the maximum salary shall be one thousand one hundred dollars per annum.
9.	The Governor in Council may, in the case of junior second-class clerks whose salaries are, at the time of the coming into force of this Act. less than seven hundred dollars per annum, increase the salaries of such clerks to seven hundred dollars per annum ; but no such increase shall take effect from a date prior to the date of the coming into force of this Act, nor shall it be made except upon the report of the deputy head of the department, concurred in by the head of the department, that such clerk is deserving thereof.
10.	Schedule A to the Civil Service Act as amended by section 12 of chapter 15 of the statutes of 1895, and by section 1 of chapter 14 of the statutes of 1900, is amended by adding thereto the following paragraph :-
(g.) Third-class clerks.
11.	The minimum salary of a third-class clerk shall be five hundred dollars per annum, and the maximum salary shall be seven hundred dollars per annum.
12.	Except as hereinafter provided, the salary of a third-class clerk on appointment shall be the minimum salary hereinbefore provided for.
13.	The Governor in Council may, after a third-class clerk has served one year, increase his salary, by amounts not exceeding fifty dollars in any one year, up to the maximum salary of a third-class clerk hereinbefore provided for ; but no such increase shall be made except upon the report of the deputy head of the department, concurred in by the head of the department, that such clerk is deserving thereof.
14.	Any person who is now or hereafter may be wrriter, clerk, packer, sorter, or messenger, temporary or otherwise, in the service of the government of Canada, employed in one of the departments at Ottawa, or in the office of the Auditor General, under Order in Council, may be appointed a third-class clerk at a salary not less than the salary of which he was in receipt or to which he would be entitled at the time of such appointment (but limited always to a sum not exceeding the maximum salary of the third-class); provided always that any such person, who in the capacity aforesaid, or in any other capacity, has been continuously in the said service for two years prior to the passing of this Act, may be so appointed without regard to his age and without passing the qualifying examination, and said Order in Council shall be held to create the third-class clerkship in respect of which such appointment is made, and the Governor in Council may, in the cas? of any such person whose salary is at the time of his appointment as third-class clerk less than five hundred dollars a year, increase such salary to five hundred dollars a year ; but no such increase shall take effect from a date prior to the date of the coming into force of this Act, nor shall it be made except on the report of the deputy head of the department, concurred in by the head of the department, that such clerk is deserving thereof.
15.	So much of scheduTe B to the Civil Service Act as is included under the heading * eus-toms,' as enacted by section 14 of chapter 12

of the statutes of 1888 is repealed and the following is substituted therefor :-

[Stage Direction]
Higher Classes.
Inspectors	Salary from $1,600 ,to $2,500
Collectors	
"	300	to	4,010Chief clerks	
"	1,200	to	2,000Surveyors	
"	1,200	to	2,400
Assistant surveyors (comprising tide surveyors, chief landing waiters,
and chief lockers).	800 to 1,200
Technical Officers.
Appraisers	Salary	from $ 800	to	£2,000Assistant appraisers	"	600	to	1,500Gaugers	
"	600	to	1,200
Other Classes.
Clerks	Salary from $ 400 to $1,200
Examining officers (including lockers and
landing waiters). .	"	400	to	1,000
Packers, messengers
and tide waiters..	"	300	to	600
16.	So much of schedule B to the Civil Service Act as is included under the heading 'Inland Revenue,' as enacted by section 3 of chapter 12 of the statutes of 1899, is repealed and the following is substituted therefor :-

[Stage Direction]
Inspectors	Salary from $1,600 to $2,500
Collectors	
"	500 to	2,400Deputy collectors ..	400 to	1,700Accountants	
"	600 to	1,500Special clasts excisemen (chief officers in charge of distilleries) 	1,400 to	1,800Special class excisemen other than as above	1,200 to	1,400First, second and third-class excisemen 	600 to	1,200Probationary excisemen	' 500	Stenographers and typewriters	400 to	600Messengers	400 to	700
To which may be added for surveys of important manufactories an additional salary for the special class excisemen and other officers connected with such survey, not exceeding, in any one case two hundred dollars per annum.
17.	The Governor in Council may grant such increases of salary in the Department of Customs and Inland Revenue as are by this Act authorized, but no such increase shall take effect from a date prior to the date of the coming into force of this Act, nor shall it be made except upon the report of the deputy head of the department, concurred In by the head of the department, that the person recommended for such increase is deserving thereof.
18.	Subsection * C ' and the following subsections. except subsection ' D ' of section 47 of the Civil Service Act. are repealed and the following is substituted therefor :-
47c. The remuneration of temporary clerks, writers, messengers, porters, packers and sorters shall be on appointment five hundred dollars, and may be increased by annual sums not exceeding fifty dollars up to a maximum of seven hundred dollars per year, such increases
to be granted only upon an Order In Council passed upon the report of the deputy head of the department, concurred in by the head of the department, that the person recommended therefor is eligible for such increase and is deserving thereof ; and the Governor in Council may, in the case of any such temporary clerk, writer, messenger, porter, packer and sorter whose salary is at the time of the coming into force of this Act less than five hundred dollars per annum, increase such salary to five hundred dollars per annum, but no such increase shall take effect from a date prior to the date of the coming into force of this Act, nor shall it be made except upon the report of the deputy head, concurred In by the head of the department, that such clerk is deserving thereof.
19.	All sums of money voted by parliament for the financial year ending on the 30th day of June, 1904, for the payment of the salaries or the Increases to the salaries of any persons now in the public service, shall, in the event of the promotion of any such persons to higher classes or grades, or on their transfer to other positions In the public service, be applicable in or towards payment of the salaries or increases to the salaries of such persons so promoted or transferred, and during the financial year ending on the 30th day of June, 1904, there may be paid from and out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada such sums of money as may not have been voted by parliament, but which may be required for payment of such salaries and increases of salaries as are authorized by this Act.-(The Postmaster General) .
On clauses 1, 2 and 3-salaries of deputy heads.
The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Under the present Civil Service Act, the salary of a deputy head upon his appointment is $3,200. The Act says that the minimum salary of a deputy head shall be $3,200 and the maximum $4,000, but the Act does not provide any rule for increases, and so we have the anomaly of some deputy heads remaining for years at the minimum, and others more fortunate, getting the maximum salaries. It is proposed in future to apply the same rule of annual increases to deputy heads, as applies to other civil servants. At the same time, an effort is made to deal with the deputies who are at present in the service. Deputy heads newly appointed will received $3,500 with annual increases of $100 until they attain the maximum. Those now in the service are to be treated in the same manner, $100 a year being credited to them until they reach the maximum. It is proposed to treat the deputy heads in the Departments of Finance, Railways and Canals and Justice exceptionally. In the event of the Deputy Minister of Justice being at the time of his appointment a barrister of 10 years standing ; the Deputy Minister of Finance, for 10 years the manager of a bank or a brauch bank, or the Deputy of Railways and Canals, a civil engineer of at least 10 years standing, he shall be entitled to a $1,000 in addition to the amount mentioned. These three deputies shall get $4,500 at their ap-

poiutment, and attain a maximum of $5,000, instead of $4,000 as in/ the other cases. There is also a provision that the present Deputy Minister of Finance shall get the benefit of this Act without having to wait for a number of years. It would be more convenient if we dispose of the resolution clause by clause, and I therefore move the adoption of paragraphs two and three, referring to deputy heads.


Mr. BIRKETT.: On behalf of the civil service, I desire to thank the Postmaster General for having withdrawn the one sided Bill which he submitted to parliament a few weeks ago, and on my own behalf, I desire to express my thanks to him for adopting in this new Bill, the principle which I laid down in the amendment which I had the honour to submit to this House when his first Bill was presented. As the Bill is to be adopted by sections, I shall confine myself to dealing with these first clauses respecting deputy heads. Bet me say at the outset, that I believe that a gentleman who is capable of filling the position of deputy head of one of the departments of government, should not be treated on entering the service as if he were an apprentice, and be compelled to start at a minimum salary. Any man who is capable of properly filling the position of a deputy minister, ought to start at the maximum' salary of his class. I also take objection to the provision in this clause which gives an additional salary to the Deputy Ministers of Finance, Railways, and Justice. It would seem to me that no discrimination should be made in the salaries of the deputies. Each department of government is recognized as of the same importance and each minister receives the same salary, and if one minister is as important as another, then the deputies should be on the same footing. Again, the fact that a man has served 10 years as manager of a bank or a branch bank, before being appointed Deputy Minister of Finance, does not give him any particular qualification. I know managers of branch banks who are no better qualified to be a Deputy Minister of Finance, than any ordinary accountant. Then, as to the Deputy Minister of Jnstice ; there are lawyers who have been practising for ten years


George Taylor: And starving.


Thomas Birkett: Oh, no ; I do not say that.


George Taylor: Some of them.


Thomas Birkett: The mere fact alone of a
man having been a barrister for ten years, does not give him any superior qualifications to fill the office of Deputy Minister of Justice. It is the same in the case of the engineers. If it is necessary to have professional experts to fill these three offices, is it not just as necessary to have commer-Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
cial experts for deputy ministers of other departments of government. Why not treat all alike ? I do not object that the Postmaster General should give these three deputy heads an additional $1,000, but the point I make is that their minimum salary being $4,500 and the maximum $5,000, the salaries of the other deputies should be the same. An expert business man is in every respect just as valuable as an expert professional man, and if deputy ministers who are professional gentlemen are worth the salary which it is proposed to give them, then the deputies in what might be called the commercial departments of the government, are worth the same. As the minister proposes to discuss these resolutions clause by clause, I shall not say more on this part of the resolution.


John Dowsley Reid: Under this Act, do I understand that a deputy minister is not required to pass a civil service examination before his appointment ? I assume that an outsider could be appointed over the head of a man who has given years of efficient service, and who would be entitled to promotion.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: By the Civil Service Act any one of the age of 21 years is eligible to be apointed deputy head of most of the departments. It is not necessary for any one to pass an examination for such a position. There are many other offices high up in the service to which men can be appointed without passing a civil service examination.


John Dowsley Reid: I wanted to know whether a person had to pass a civil service examination in order to be qualified for the position of deputy minister ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No.


John Dowsley Reid: In that case an officer who had served a number of years in a department and was familiar with the work of the department and entitled by seniority to the position of deputy head, might be passed over and an outsider might be appointed over his head so that he would be deprived of the promotion to which he would rightly be entitled. I suppose, therefore, that the position of deputy heads of departments are merely political appointments.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: We have made no change in the law. If the hon. gentleman will examine the lists of deputy heads appointed from time to time by various governments he will find constantly recurring cases of persons who were not in the service being appointed deputy heads.


George William Fowler: Does this clause apply to the outside civil servants ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The section we are now dealing with is limited to deputy heads. There are other clauses

applying to other persons, but we are now dealing with section 1.


George William Fowler: Is the general resolution open for discussion, or what would be the proper time to discuss the general features of the Bill ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: A motion to go into committee would be the proper place for such a discussion.


George William Fowler: I want to refer to some officers of the outside service.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: After the resolution is reported a Bill founded on it will be introduced.


Mr. BELCOURT.: As the remarks which I have to offer on the Bill are of a somewhat general character I would like now, if it is convenient to the chairman and the hon. minister who is in charge of the Bill, to speak to the resolution generally, leaving tlie suggestion I have to make until a later stage.


George William Fowler: If I have not the right to discuss the resolution generally I do not think the hon. gentleman should have tlie right.


Hon.   S@: Are these three deputy heads at present at the maximum to which they are entitled under the Act 1 I should judge that they must have served the number of years requisite to get the maximum of their class.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Tlie Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals derives his salary from two sources ; as Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals he gets $4,000, and he also receives $2,000 as chief engineer. Mr. Newcombe, the Deputy Minister of Justice, is receiving $4,000 as deputy minister, but he also, for the moment, fills another office in collection with the revision of the statutes. Mr. Courtney, Deputy Minister of Finance, is now getting $4,200.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I jiropose to address myself to the first section of the reso-! lution, although my remarks will be of a general character. This measure, whichl I think is timely and justified, will be well received by the public gener-1 ally, and will be thankfully acknowledged by the civil service. It is true that in a measure as regards both the deputy ministers and the other classes of civil servants it does not grant exactly what the civil service expected and it does not grant all that I for one have urged the government to grant, but I believe generally it is a substantial measure of justice and that it will be thankfully received by the civil servants. So far as I am concerned it has my cordial and thankful support. It is quite in consonance with the traditions of the Liberal party in the treatment of the
civil service ; it is not quite as generous a measure as, that which was proposed by the right hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) in 1S75 when he was a member of the Mackenzie administration, but it is in many respects an improvement on the civil service law which has been on the statute-book for many many years. Then, too, under the Mackenzie administration, the civil service received what it never received under any other government, it was granted bonuses for very large sums. In 1874 a bonus of $75,000 was paid by the Mackenzie government to the civil service which amounted to a 15 per cent increase on the salaries then paid. A bonus of a similar amount was paid in 1875 and a third one, which was paid some years afterwards, amounted to $30,000. The Bill is timely and justified because the civil service to-day has very much increased labours. It has to be in many respects more proficient and its members have to give more time to the performance of their work, in addition to which the work of the civil servants is of more importance than it was formerly. The growth of our country in the last few years has not only increased the work of the civil service but has brought it into contact with the civil service and with the officers of state in other countries.


George William Fowler: I wish it tb be understood that if you are going to allow the hon. member (Mr. Belcourt) to speak generally on the Bill the same rule should be applied to all the other members of the committee.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Campbell).: I understood that the committee decided to take this Bill up clause by clause and I understand that the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) is speaking to the first clause ; I hope he will confine himself closely to the first clause.


George William Fowler: I do not object to him speaking, but I want to have the same right.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me it would be more convenient if we were not confined to any particular clause, because it is necessary to travel over the whole Civil Service Act. It would be much more convenient to allow a general discussion on it so as to avoid the necessity of going over and over it again.


Thomas Birkett: Would the hon. gentleman excuse me ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Does my hon. friend want to ask me a question ?


Thomas Birkett: No.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Then, I prefer not to give way to him.


Thomas Birkett: I was confined to the first section, and why should not other hon. gentlemen be equally restricted ?


Tlie POSTMASTER GENERAL.: As there seems to be a desire to discuss the whole subject generally, I suggest that we should consider the whole question before going into it clause by clause.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I was just about to say that on account of the growth of the country and its increasing importance and its expansion in all branches of the affairs of state, our civil service has not only been given increased work, but has been brought into contact with the civil service of other countries, which has added to its efficiency. It may be said that the members of out-civil service, who have been called on to deal with the civil service of our countries, have acquitted themselves in a very creditable manner, but the result is that larger money demands have been made upon them and they have to fill positions in society which compel them to incur extra expenditure. Speaking generally, it may be said with truth that the civil service of Canada is composed of faithful, loyal, honourable and efficient men. In order to show how very much things have changed in Canada, let me draw a comparison between the conditions now and those which existed at the time of confederation. At the time of confederation our population was 3,500,000; it is now 5,500,000. Our revenue, which was then $14,000,000, has increased to $53,000,000. Our expenditure has risen from $14,000,000 then to $50,000,000 now. I find that in 1873, which is the earliest year for which we have returns regarding Dominion lands, the extent of Dominion lands we dealt with was 156,000 acres, whereas in 1902 the amount was 3,750,000 acres. The post offices opened in Canada at the time of confederation numbered 3,600; last year they numbered 10,000. The number of letters carried have increased from 18,000,000 at confederation to 240,000,000 last year. Our post office revenue, which was $1,024,000 at confederation, has increased to $5,250,000 last year. Our imports and exports amounted to $130,000,000 at confederation. In 1902 they aggregated $430,000,000. Our public assets increased from $20,000,000 to $100,000,000. At confederation we had 2,200 miles of railway; to-day we have 20,000. Our government expenditure has increased from $500,000 at confederation to $8,000,000. Our expenditure on railways and canals, which was then $130,000, is to-day $2,500,000. On public works, from the modest sum of $200,000 spent at confederation, we have reached $4,500,000 to-day. The number of our post office savings banks has increased from 81 to 915, and our deposits in those banks from $200,000 to $43,000,000. Our first shipments of grain, of which we have any record, amounted to 500 bushels in 1896. Last year they amounted to from 120,000,000 to 150,000,000 bushels.
Since confederation there have been no increase of salaries except in the year 1882. They have remained stationary. In 1868 Mr. BIRKETT.
the salaries of chief clerks were fixed by the Governor in Council. The first-classi clerks got from $1,200 to $1,800 ; second class from $1,000 to $1,400 ; junior second class from $700 to $1,000 ; third class from $400 to $650. In 1882, which was the first time since confederation that the salaries were dealt with generally, they were fixed as follows :
Chief clerks	$1,800	to	$2,4101st class	
1,400	to	1,8002nd class	
1,100	to	1,400Junior 2nd class	
Abolished.3rd class.-	
400	to	650
Up to 1882 there was no attempt to deal with the salaries of the civil service, except in 1875, when a Bill was introduced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and discussed in the House, but did not go beyond its second reading. In 1902 the maximum pay of the messengers was increased to $600 on the suggestion of the Postmaster General. In the outside service of the Inland Revenue and Customs Departments, there were small increases from time to time. The outFide service of the Post Office Department received a substantial increase in salary under the Act of 1902, in which the Postmaster General revised all the salaries of that service and increased them very considerably, including the salaries of letter carriers, packers, porters, messengers, railway and mail carriers. The changes brought about by that Act were so favourably received by this House and the country that the government were induced to bring down the present Bill.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Has the bon. gentleman the difference between the aggregate salaries at the time of confederation and now ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: 
John Dowsley Reid: May I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Belcourt) his authority for these figures, and how long he has had them ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: These figures were furnished me by a gentleman in the library who is generally very accurate. I have the figures in detail, if the hon. gentleman would like to verify my summary of them. I may say, with respect to the other figures, which
I have given, except those of the Commonwealth of Australia, I have verified them myself from the year-books and other statistical works of the different countries. With reference to Great Britain, the salaries are as follows :


John Dowsley Reid: What are the messengers paid ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: The messengers are paid a daily allowance which varies very much. The smallest annual increase in England is $75. In view of these figures-which I may say I have known for a long time-I have nearly every year since I have had the honour of a seat in this- House, deemed it my duty, not only as representing a large number of civil servants but as a citizen, to draw the attention of the government to the fact that our civil service is underpaid, and that it should receive better treatment. I have from time to time submitted to the government by memorials and otherwise suggestions in that regard, and if you will bear with me I would like to give a general outline of what those suggestions have been. I do not hope that they will or can be adopted, but I think I will give my suggestions to the House, commending them to the impartial and kindly consideration of every member of the committee, feeling confident as I do that it is the desire of every one to see full justice done to the civil service. Most every one must realize that it is in the interests of the community at large and in the interest of the better administration of our affairs that the civil servants should be properly treated.
Now dealing with the deputy heads I had thought that the provision which has been made applicable to a certain number, for instance to the Deputy Minister of Justice, the Deputy Minister of Finance and the Deputy Minister of Railways ^nd Canals, might also be applied to the other deputies, and that after ten years service a deputy head should receive $1,000 in addition to the maximum fixed by the new Bill. I will not deal with this at great length, and I only make the suggestion believing that it is one which is justified by the reasons I have mentioned, namely, the cost of living and the tremendous duties and responsibilities which are cast upon the deputy heads of departments. Dealing with the service generally outside of the deputy heads, my suggestions were these-and I may say at once that they are taken, with one single exception, from the Bill which was introduced into this House in 1875 by the present Mr. BELCOURT.
Minister of Trade and Commerce. The figures which I have suggested are also those which the civil servants themselves, after considering the matter many times, have submitted to the government. First, for grade A, $2,400 to $2,SOO. This has been adopted in the present Bill. Chief clerks were to be $2,000 to $2,400. The present Bill provides for paying them $1,900 to $2,500. I had suggested that first-class clerks should receive $1,600 and a maximum of $2,000, with an annual increase of $100 instead of $50 ; that second-class senior clerks should receive $1,200 to $1,600 with an annual increase of $50; second-class juniors, $800 to $1,100 with an annual increase of $50 ; third-class clerks, $500 to $750, with an annual increase of $50 ; temporary or permanent messengers, sorters or packers, stenographers and typewriters, $500 to $750, also with annual increases of $50. I had also suggested that a new class of messengers might be created. The messengers in the different departments, as I understand, are all on an equal footing, they are all receiving the same salary. None of them, as I understand, has any particular authority over the others. I had thought that for the better administration of the departments it would be well to have a new class of messengers created, to be called chief messengers, and I had suggested that in that case, there being only one for each department, he should receive a maximum or $750, with an annual increase of $50. I had also suggested that writers and clerks, packers, sorters, messengers, stenographers and typewriters might be promoted to the third-class or to the second junior class. I understand that these members of the service were eligible to the junior seeoud class, but were not so to the third class. The Postmaster General has adopted that suggestion, and by section 14 of the resolutions, the gentlemen who have been performing that duty are mow eligible to the third class.
It is well known to those who have had occasion to deal with the different departments that there are a number of messengers, packers and sorters who have been for a number of years, some of them as long as 15 or 20 years, doing really clerical work, and who are still messengers, packers or sorters, whom it was very difficult indeed to promote to junior second-class clerkships on account of the great disparity of salaries received by messengers and junior second-class clerks. That provision, as I say, has been adopted and made part of these resolutions. I had also suggested that temporary officers employed in various branches of the departments as technical officers might be put on the permanent list. It is known that there are gentlemen in the service who have been there, some for 10 and others as long as 35 years, and who have always been and are still on the temporary list, men who

are in receipt of salaries as high as $2,800. It always seemed to me to be an anomaly that men should he in the civil service for a great number of years, and yet be only temporary. They are deprived of the benefits of superannuation, their appointment is very precarious, and it has to be renewed by Order in Council every six months. It seemed to me to be an anomaly that men should be, to use an expression we heard not long ago employed by the Minister of Finance ' permanent temporaries.' It seemed to me proper that these clerks, who are in the service to stay and who will stay there as long as they do not resign, should be put on the permanent list. I think it would add considerably to the independence of the civil service, and relieve the service from the necessity of resorting to political pull, and log rolling, and a lot of other undesirable things to secure promotion. I hope that at some future time when this Bill is under revision, the government will deem it proper to adopt my suggestion and to make all these persons permanent. My suggestion was that they should he placed in a class the salary of which corresponds with the salary they are now getting. If a man is in receipt of a salary of $1,200, he might be put in the class of second clerks ; if he is in receipt of a salary of $2,000 he might be put in the class of chief clerks, and so on. My suggestion did not mean any increase of salary, it did not mean an increase of expenditure at all ; it simply meant that these temporary clerks who have, as I say, been there for so many years, should be put on the permanent list at the salary they "were then receiving. These are the suggestions which I have from time to time submitted to the government, suggestions which, again, I say, I commend to the kindly consideration of the committee. I need not remind the committee, as it is known to everybody, that since confederation the cost of living in the most essential necessities of life has tremendously increased, I think I am quite within the mark when I say that the increased cost of living since confederation is at least between 30 and 40 per cent, and that that increase in the cost of living has taken place very largely during the last five or six years. The suggestions which I had the honour to submit would have involved an increase in the salaries of the civil service to the extent of 15 per cent over the present salaries. I have made a computation of what the increases that are provided for by the present Bill amount to. The increases above the present salaries of the civil service which are proposed by this legislation are as follows :-Deputy ministers, 25 per cent ; chief clerks (old class), 41 per cent ; first class clerks, 54 per cent ; second class clerks, 7i per cent ; junior second class, 10 per cent. If we leave out the deputy heads we find that the average increase of all classes of clerks is 6i per cent. The suggestion that I made would have provided for an increase of 15 per cent and I think that such an increase is justified when the fact is known that there has been an increase in the cost of living of at least 30 per cent. The government, I think, might very properly have provided for an increase in the salaries of the civil service of 15 per cent. I do not wish to delay the committee any more than is absolutely necessary but, before I resume my seat, I want to refer to my hon. friend (Mr. Birkett) who has the honour to share the responsibility j>f representing this city with me. My hon. friend has within the last few weeks resurrected himself from his inertia in connection with the civil service.


Thomas Birkett: You have not resurrected yourself yet.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: My hon. friend recently discovered that something was going to be done by the government for the civil service. He heard that the government intended to bring down some measure of relief providing for an increase in the salaries of the civil service. My hon. friend realized that possibly this was due in a measure-in a very small measure, perhaps, but in some measure-to the efforts of his colleague and the thought occurred to him that it would be wise on his part not only to claim, but to appropriate a share of the credit, if credit there be, in such a move. So he immediately cogitated with himself ns to how he would accomplish his purpose. He conceived the bright idea that it would be a good thing for him to claim all the credit for himself and not even to share it with anybody else. How did he accomplish his purpose ? It seems so simple and so easy that the only wonder is that it did not occur to him to do it before. Just as the government Bill was about to be brought down-my hon. friend timed his move very well-he sat down and wrote on a small piece of paper certain figures which he no doubt copied from the Bill of the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright). He dexterously handed the paper to the Clerk of the House and the thing was done. The recalcitrant government, which, according to the hon. gentleman, had not done anything for the civil service and who were not willing to listen to the suggestions and representations of their own follower and friend had to succumb before the hon. gentleman who sits on the opposition benches and always records his vote against this government and in a few days afterwards that measure was brought down. To complete the whole comedy the organ of the party which my hon. friend supports and which is published in this city, modestly and with what truth I -will leave to the committee to judge, announced that the government had to succumb to the stragetic move of my hon. friend, that the government had adopted his Bill. The Bill was in fact

called ' Mr. Birkett's Bill.' The scrap of paper so ingeniously prepared and dexterously handed in by my hon. friend was published in this paper with big head and double lines, and he deluded himself into the belief and tried to convince the civil servants that lie had acomplished his purpose and now we are told that this is ' Mr. Birkett's Bill.' But, perhaps, it may be well to remind my hon. friend that the little scrap of paper was absolutely worthless. This is a Bill involving an expenditure of money ; it is a Bill involving a taxation of the people. It has to be brought down by means of a resolution under and with the sanction of the Crown and it cannot be brought down in any other way. No hon. gentleman who sits in this House, either upon the government side or the opposition side, can propose one single amendment to it in the sense of increasing the amounts mentioned in the resolution. My hon. friend either knows that or he does not know it. If he does not know it it must be admitted that he has not made the best use of his opportunities during the three years that lie has occupied a seat in this House. If he knows it then he must know that the notice of motion which he gave the other day was absolutely worthless and that he made a poor and clumsy attempt to mislead. I feel confident that this government is deserving of and that it will receive the graceful thanks of the civil service for this measure of relief. I feel gratified that it is permitted to me as the representative of such a large number of civil servants who are, as I have said, on the whole, loyal, faithful, efficient, capable and deserving-to express on behalf of the civil service their very grateful thanks for this measure of [DOT] justice. Since I am in the mood to make suggestions, and as you, Mr. Chairman, and the committee seem disposed to listen patiently to what I have to say, I wfill add one or two suggestions to those which I have already ogered to the committee. I hope that the House will of its own motion take up the question of the remuneration not only of the civil service proper, but also of all the different servants of the state, high and low, beginning with the Prime Minister and dealing also with the other ministers of the Crown and the judges of the land. I have already expressed the hope on another occasion, that the leader of the opposition in this House should also receive the recognition which he deserves. The leader ofi the opposition-and I could not mention it at any more appropriate time because he is not present and because of the great length of this session-has been in constant attendance^ upon his duties during this long session which has dragged its length for more than half a year. It is plain to every one in this House that the present leader of the opposition, who has a very large and lucrative practice, has had to sacrifice his profession and his time and we regret very much that he has had in a measure to sacri-Mr. BELCOURT.
lice his health. It seems to me that under these circumstances the leader of the opposition has very strong claims upon the consideration of the House and I think some adequate provision should be made for him when this matter is under consideration. I have another suggestion and it is this. It is known that there are in this country still living quite a number of gentlemen who have served thieir country faithfully and well for a number of years in the position of ministers of the Crown. Some of them have given a quarter, and in some instances, half their lifetime to the public service. They have given the best of their years and of their talent to the country's service, and unfortunately some of them have left office in almost destitute circumstances. The country owes it to these men to make provisions so that they may pass the remainder of their days at least removed from want. I believe that this suggestion will commend itself to parliament. It is on the line of the principle adopted in the case of others of our public servants, and I hope that the government will consider it favourably. I realize that it is not in my power to amend the Bill in the direction I have suggested, because under our constitution no private member has a right to amend a money Bill so that it will increase the charges upon the revenue of the country. However, Sir, I offer these suggestions, and I trust that they may receive the early and earnest consideration of the government. Before I resume my seat, on behalf of the civil service, I again give my hearty thanks to the government for the substantial measure of justice that this proposal accords.


Thomas Birkett: It is very amusing indeed to listen to my colleague (Mr. Belcourt). On the 17th of August last the Postmaster General presented this Bill (No. 245), and he said that Mr. N. A. Belcourt, member for Ottawa, was responsible for it. Now, Sir, if Mr. Belcourt is responsible for this first Bill introduced by the Postmaster General, the fact remains that not a suggestion which he has made to-night is incorporated in it. It refers only to deputy heads, and the chief clerks, grade A, but


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to say a word.


Thomas Birkett: Kindly keep your seat. I asked you as a gentleman to allow me to explain a matter when you were speaking, and you would not give me the opportunity, and so you can keep your seat now. I have no desire to make political capital out of this matter. All I desire is to do a simple act of justice to an underpaid class of public servants, and in doing that I am simply doing my duty as one of the representatives of the people of Ottawa. In this Bill (No. 245), which was first introduced by the Postmaster General, he renders no justice whatever to the majority of the civil servants,

anil even in the last Bill which he lias introduced, although he establishes a maximum, he gives the poor civil servants no way of climbing up to that maximum. Today the deputy heads have a minimum salary of $3,200 and a maximum of $4,000 ; but most of them have never attained the maximum, and so it will be with the great majority of civil servants in the future, if this law passes in its present shape. The hon. member (Mr. Belcourt) says that the figures which he gave to-night are identical with the figures which he previously submitted to the government, but I am jusl as satisfied as I am standing here that these figures were not in his possession until after what he calls my illegal action in proposing an amendment to the first Bill. X am perfectly aware that I have no power, nor has any private member power, to increase the public expenditure, but I make these suggestions to the government, hoping they will adopt them, and as they have already gone a second time to the Crown to get permission to improve this measure, surely they suopseSSns Xra axuq pun 'aunt pjnR b oS uuo adopted. The present Bill says that the deputies and chief clerks, grade A, shall have annual increases of $100, but there is not one word about first, second or third-class clerks, as to how they shall reach the maximum.
T{)e POSTMASTER GENERAL. Let me inform my hon. friend that X propose to move to insert the words, ' with an annual increase of $50 up to the maximum,' with reference to first-class clerks, second-class clerks and junior second-class clerks.


George William Fowler: Coming down again.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No, not coming down again.


Thomas Birkett: I accept that offer of the minister with a great deal of gratitude on behalf of the civil servants, but I am not asking anything out of the way when I ask him to go a little further and make the first annual increase $100 and every subsequent annual increase $50. If the Postmaster General will do that he will do all that I am contending for. My amendments are as follows:
Section 12. That all .the words after 'shall be' in the second line of section 12, as proposed to he amended, be struck out. and the following substituted therefor : ' $4,000 per annum.'
Section 16. The minimum salary of a chief clerk shall be $2,000 per annum, with an increase of $100 per year thereafter until a maximum of $2,600 is reached.
Section 18. The minimum salary of a first-class clerk shall be $1,600 per annum, with an increase of $100 for the first year, and $50 per year thereafter, until a maximum of $2,000 is reached.'
Section 20. The minimum salary of a second-class clerk shall be $1,200 per annum, with an inorease of $100 the first year and $50 per year thereafter, until a maximum of $1,600 is reached.
Section 4, chapter 14. The minimum salary of
a junior second-class clerk shall be $700 per annum, with an increa.se of $50 per year thereafter, until a maximum of $1,200 is reached.
If the Postmaster General accepts these proposals, I have nothing more to say. The hon. gentleman brought me a copy of the Bill with reference to the outside service on the 3rd of June. 1 then told him that I hoped he would use his utmost efforts with his colleagues and have a general revision of the whole Civil Service Act. I gave him my reason for askiug this. I said that the cost of living had increased from 25 to 30 per cent; that there was a greater quantity of work and a change in the class of work as shown by the increase in revenue and in expenditure in the last ten years. I find that the revenue has increased from $30,921,871.00 to $58,050,790.03, an increase of 00 per cent. The expenditure during the same period has increased from $40,179,810.11 to $02,931,520.33, an increase of 50 per cent. The salaries of the civil service have not increased in accordance with that. They have increased from $881,019.57 to $983,949.11, an increase of only 11 7 per cent, while the civil service have to do extra work, which is indicated by the increase of 00 per cent in revenue and 50 per cent in expenditure. In asking on behalf of the civil service for an increased rate of payment I am not unreasonable. Every man in this city who is an employer of labour has had to increase the wages paid, lie has had to pay more to his labourers, to bis cash boy, to bis1 clerks and to bis accountants. There is not a financial institution in tlie country that has not had to do the same thing. I saw by tbe papers the salaries of tbe officials in the city hall in Toronto were increased two or three days ago. In view of the increased' cost of living I say that we are not asking too much when we ask an increase of 15 per cent in the salary of the civil service. I am sorry that I have to give second figures to my hon. friend and colleague (Mr. Belcourt) but if I bad been permitted to speak on the Bill when I first rose, I would have had my figures in first. I do not want to take anything! from him. All I can say is that if I had been in a position to aid the civil service for as long a term as he has, and had not been able to secure more for the civil service than he has done, I would have sent in my resignation long ago. What has lie obtained to-day ? He has secured nothing over $100.
While I am on my feet I would like to give notice of the following resolution which I propose submitting to the minister for his consideration.
That the following subsections be added to section 4 of this Bill, as subsections 3 and 4 : In addition to the different classes of clerks herein mentioned another class to be known as technical clerks is hereby created, and shall include ail civil engineers, surveyers, architects and draughtsmen, and others of similar character known as temporary technical clerks.

Any such technical clerks who have been employed in technical work continuously in any one or more of the departments for a period of five years, to the satisfaction of the head or heads of the department, or departments, in which he may have been employed, shall, at .the expiration of the said five years, he placed on the permanent staff in such one of the classes named in this Act, as the head of the department at the expiration of said period may determine, and shall be entitled to the same salary and increases, and other rights and privileges, as the other members of the class to which he is appointed.
This is in the interest of a class of men who are very much underpaid. I am told tha't some of these professional men are not getting more than $00 or $70 a month. A large number of them were taken into the department on the completion of the Canadian Pacific Railway. If that is the case and if they are performing professional work they should be placed in the same position as other clerks. On 1 y a certain number of the civil servants are governel by tbe Civil Service Act. Take for instance the employees of the library, the employees of the House of Commons here, the policemen and others w'ho do not come within the meaning of this Act. I would ask that the same measure of fairness should be extended to the lowest paid official in or about these buildings as is given to the higher classes. If the Postmaster General will increase the salaries of the civil service in the manner I have suggested, it will be a gracious act on his part-and I am sure that my hon. friend who was to get credit for the first Bill will get full credit for this Bill. He will make a great deal more political capital out of it. If I can obtain the result I am satisfied to let him have the political capital.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I wish to say, Mr. Chairman, that I have had absolutely nothing whatever to do with the preparation oif either the first or second Bill. It is true that when the second Bill was introduced into the House, providing for an Increase, I called the attention of the Postmaster General to a memorial which had been sent into the Premier by the civil service six months ago, and upon which I had previously and often insisted and since then I had on several occasions discussed it with him.


John Dowsley Reid: I think that the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt), who made that statement, has lately resurrected himself from a state of inertia. I have heard him speak on the Civil Service Act at different times, but never heard him make a single suggestion of any kind. True, he has advocated increases in the pay of certain classes of the service ; but if he were in earnest, why did he not come before this with suggestions similar to those made by him this [DOT] evening ? He has not informed the House that he ever made these suggestions prior to this evening to any member of tbe government, notwithstanding tbe fact that he has been trying to make us be-Mr. BIRKETT.
lieve that lie has been so active in seeking to get the salaries increased. The hon. gentleman gave us a list of the salaries of civil servants in other countries, and in every case they are about double those paid in Canada. Take, for instance, England, which is a cheap country to live in, yet even the deputy heads there are paid at least double what they are paid in this country. Why is this the case ? Is it because the deputy heads in England work harder than they do in this country ? I do not believe that. There is not a department in Ottawa in which, whenever I have visited it, I have not found the deputy head a very busy man ; and such being the case, he is earning a salary equal to what is paid in other countries. However, it is not so much to the deputy heads, or those who are receiving what are supposed to be large salaries, that I wish particularly to refer. The class I have in view is those who are receiving much smaller amounts. There are a great many civil servants in Ottawa who are paid from $500 to $700 per annum ; and considering the increased cost of living within the last five or six years, it is an outrage and a disgrace that these employees should be continued on those salaries and be expected to support a family and bring tlieir children up decently on such small stipends. On behalf of that class I earnestly appeal to the government for an increase. Take any outside department. Take the canals, for Instance. In my constituency it is almost impossible to get a labouring man employed on the canal at $1.25 per day an advance of 15, 20 or 25 cents per day, yet the Minister of Railways and Canals will appoint a man to superintend them who never saw a canal before at about $1,500 or $1,600 per annum. There is not one of the men filling even the position of lockmaster who would not be much better qualified to fill the position of superintendent. And w'hile it is easy enough for such men to get an increase 'of salary, we find that men who have put in fifteen or twenty years of service at low wages are not able to get even the smallest increase. It appears to me that the employees who are the least paid have the greatest difficulty in getting an increase, and I appeal to the government to do them justice. Take the highest, grade, that of deputy minister. A gentleman occupying the position of deputy minister has to keep up a certain status in Ottawa and is subject to heavy expenditures, which necessitate his getting a higher salary than those under him. The position of chief clerk is also a responsible one, requtrfng its occupant to keep up a certain dignity and necessitating his receiving a higher salary ; but when I come down to the men working around the department, men who have received good education, and who only occupy the position of third-class clerk on account, perhaps, of having been appointed to that post at first with a view to promotion, and then not

having got the promotion to which they are entitled, and, who have remained on in that position from year to year until the best part of their life is gone by, and it is impossible for them to procure any other position-such men have to live as best they can on a salary of $500 to $700 per annum, when, if they (had got their promotion, they would be receiving double that sum. Men of this class are under paid, and it is really a great surprise to me that the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) should never have made a suggestion in their behalf until to-night.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: The hon. gentleman could not have been in the House on the 6th of July, when I brought up the subject and made a long speech.


John Dowsley Reid: I am referring to the last two years.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Every session in which I have been in the House I have brought the subject to his attention.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, as I said a. few moments ago, in a very mild way. The hon. gentleman never before made a detailed list of the advances he claims the civil service are entitled to.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I did on several occasions.


John Dowsley Reid: I have admitted that the hon. member has said that some part of the civil service Should receive an increase.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: All around.


John Dowsley Reid: Did the hon. gentleman ever state definitely that, in addition to the civil service, the temporary clerks should receive an increase ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Yes, on many occasions.


John Dowsley Reid: I have never heard the hon. member make that statement before this evening. I do not wish to misJ, represent him. I admit that he has appealed to the government to increase the salaries of the civil service, but he has never made a speech that any hon. member of this House could take as coming from the bottom of his heart


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Where does the hon. gentleman think it came from ?


John Dowsley Reid: Well, they seemed to me to be merely political speeches. Otherwise would not the hon. gentleman have made suggestions similar to those he has made this evening ? The hon. gentleman has hardly been fair to the civil service in the past.	.


George William Fowler: I think it is only fair to congratulate the hon. junior member for Ottawa


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Senior, if you please.


George William Fowler: I thought the hon. gentleman (Mr. Belcourt) was lower in the polling and that is why I called him junior. Well, it is only fair to congratulate the hon. senior member for Ottawa city (Mr. Belcourt) on his frankness in his ascribing to his hon. junior colleague the credit for inducing the government to come down from their former position and propose to increase the salaries of the civil service, as they now propose to increase them.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: In what way did I do that ?


George William Fowler: In words, in language, and in very nice language too, I thought. He stated that the credit was entirely due to the hon. junior member (Mr. Birkett).


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: If my hon. friend (Mr. Fowler) will permit me-if he so understood me, he has entirely misunderstood me. I did not intend to give my hon. friend (Mr. Birkett) credit for it. because I do not think he is entitled to it.


George William Fowler: I regret very much having to revise my opinion of the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Belcourt's) frankness. I thought it very refreshing to find any hon. gentleman who supports the government willing to give credit where credit is due to an hon. member on this side. I am sorry he did not mean it when he made this complimentary reference to his junior colleague.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I thought that hon. members of this House had gumption enough to know that it was satire.


George William Fowler: And I thought the hon. gentleman (Mr. Belcourt) had more candour than to mean anything else. Surely, he would not stand up before this committee and make statements with such an appearance of sincerity and honesty as that with which he made the statements I have referred to, and not mean it. But, of course, I must accept the hon. gentleman's revised statement, and must understand him as saying with Artemus Ward : ' This was spoke sarkastikul.' But, whether he ascribed the credit to the junior member for Ottawa city (Mr. Birkett) or not, the people who are the judges, and who, if the information given us this evening is true, will soon be called upon to give their verdict-the people knowing the facts, I am sure will give the credit to my hon. friend (Mr. Birkett).


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: That is a matter of little moment.


George William Fowler: If it is a matter of small moment I fail to understand why the hon. member (Mr. Belcourt) should be so careful to refuse his colleague credit for what he has done. His colleague was much more generous to him, for he said that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Belcourt) was welcome to all the political credit be could make out of it, that all he (Mr. Birkett) wanted was the



results oa behalf of the people for whom he was speaking. Whether the hon. gentleman ascribes the credit to the junior member for Ottawa (Mr. Birkett) or not, the fact remains that it was not until the junior member for Ottawa had placed his suggestion in the hands of the clerk that the Postmaster General receded from the position he had first taken. The Postmaster General, when he announced his first Bill, ascribed all the credit to the hon. senior member for Ottawa city. It may be presumed, and I think it is not only fair, but the only presumption, that, before this proposal was crystallized into a Bill or resolution, the senior member for Ottawa city had exhausted every argument he could bring to bear upon the Postmaster General and the government to make the Bill as wide as possible and to give as much relief as possible , to those who were affected by it. The hon. gentleman must have brought all his batteries to bear, and all that he could get, when he had exhausted every entreaty was the resolution which the Postmaster General prepared but afterwards withdrew. It was only after the hon. junior member for Ottawa city (Mr. Birkett) had placed his resolution in the hands of the clerk that the government were willing to give the measure of relief now before the committee. Therefore it does seem to me that the most superficial, as well as the most critical, observer will see that the credit for the present resolution is absolutely the due of the junior member for Ottawa city. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Beleourt) has made some other suggestions to the government with respect to the payment of pensions and allowances, in many of which suggestions I heartily concur. But this Bill does not go far enough, in my opinion. There are many officials under the government, who to-day are working for paltry salaries, whose salaries should be largely increased. Take for instance, the department presided over by the Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock) himself. Take the case of the postmasters of the different small towns scattered throughout the country, men who give their whole time to their official duties, and who are under heavy responsibility. I speak more particularly of towns like the one in which I live. The total gross income of that postmaster, is $1,200. Not only is he obliged to give his whole time to the office, but he has to pay a clerk. His total salary is $1,200, and he has to pay $500 to a clerk, which leaves him the magnificent salary of $700, not quite the salary of a third-class clerk under this Bill, and a third-class clerk has not the one-hundredth part of the responsibility of the postmaster in such a town as I speak of. A large amount of money passes through his hands, and, in this and in other ways he bears a heavy responsibility. Yet, he receives a net salary of $700, upon which he must support himself and family. Oe-


George William Fowler: eupying a prominent position, that of the postmaster of a town of 2,500 or 3,000 people, he must keep up a certain style. It does not do for officials of the government to live in mean or beggarly style. I can understand why the Postmaster General should smile. With his wealth, he can well answer with a sneer when matters of this kind


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler) is entirely unfair.


George William Fowler: Well, I hope I am mistaken. I trust the hon. gentleman would not act in that manner with reference to a plea on behalf of officers who perform faithfully and efficiently duties quite as onerous, so far as they are concerned as those the hon. gentleman himself performs. I say, Mr. Chairman, that it does seem to me that a word should be said on behalf of officials such as these. There is scarcely a town of two or three thousand inhabitants throughout the country but what has just such an official as that, and I think that when the scale is being revised for the civil service, these officials should be taken into account. I believe in paying well for the service, and getting a good service. Be careful as to the class of men you appoint to fill these positions and pay them well, for if you do not pay them well you will not get a good service.
Now, Sir, I see one very serious objection in the resolutions before the committee. In nearly every instance the raise from the minimum to the maximum is dependent upon the pull that the clerk may have with the powers that be. I think that these increases should be statutory, that the salary should go up year by year from the time they begin until the maximum is reached, and that it is not right, it is not proper, it is not doing justice to the clerk to make his .increase of salary depend upon whatever political pull he may have.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that the statutory increase should take place any way, whether the official is worthy or not ?


George William Fowler: 
George William Fowler: That is so, but if you have statutory increases a man is not so much dependent upon the chief. He must obey the direction of his chief, he must do his duty in that way of course ; but if you make his increase of salary dependent upon the favour of the chief, then at once you are putting a premium, upon toadying, and if the chief is the sort of man who likes to be toadied to-and a good many men are of that stripe, more or less, even the august heads of departments are not free from a certain love of flattery-but I say that in order to avoid that, make your increases satutory and then there is no difficulty. Now with regard to these appointments that are made at the present time, as soon as this election is over there will be a new government, and then these gentlemen that are appointed by this government will be dependent upon the government of another political stripe, because I take It for granted that as soon as we go to the country and the elections are over a new government will be Installed.
387i


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: The hon. gentleman ist preparing a great disappointment for himself.	j


George William Fowler: Not so much as the hon. gentleman thinks. Notwithstanding all the attempts he has made to gain political capital for himself out of this business, he will probably find himself in the lurch. But I say that it is in the interests of the clerk himself, in order that he may preserve his independence of character, in order that there may be no temptation to him to toady to those above him, that this increase should be made statutory and not dependent, as it is now under the present resolution, upon the favour of the person who is sent in authority over him.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I only wish to answer an argument made by the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Fowler) about political pull. I have had occasion to speak of this Civil Service Bill during the last two or three months to quite a number of the very 'best employees of the different departments, and they have told me that, although they are political opponents of the present government, they have been better treated by this administration than they were by their own friends when they were in power.


George William Fowler: Well, Mr. Chairman, that shows that the present administration has been showing favours. I think it is a high compliment to pay to the honesty, and fairness, and equity of the previous administration to say that these civil servants get as fair treatment from their opponents as they got from their friends who appointed them. It seems to me the hon. gentleman has paid a compliment to the previous administration.


Mr. ROCHE (Halifax).: I shall have great pleasure in voting for increasing the salaries of the officials who at the present time are insufficiently paid.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. the senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) says that during the seven years he has been a member of this House he has been able to induce the present government to increase the salaries of the civil service by six per cent. I desire to ask him if that is the whole extent of the increase which he has succeeded in getting for the civil service ? The hon, member takes credit for that increase. I claim that the junior member for Ottawa (Mr. Birkett) is entitled to the credit, I do not think -there is the slightest doubt about that.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I did not say that 6 per cent was the extent of the increase, I said six and three quarters per cent it is not all that I suggested, passed and hoped for. But that is six and three quarters per cent better than all the governments supported by

my hon. friend ever did for the civil servants, it is that much better than was done by their predecessors. If this government had not found! public opinion as it was in reference to the civil servants at the time they would have been able to have acceded to the suggestions which I presented to the committee. It is well known amongst the civil servants that the preceding governments, particularly when Mr. Foster was Minister of Finance, did everything that they could to bring the civil service into contempt in the country. It degraded the civil servants, so much so that when this government came into power they found it impossible to mete out the measure of justice which the civil service was entitled to. From confederation down to 1896, while the party which my hon. friend supports was in power, the salaries of the civil servants had not increased. Not one single attempt was made to l'aise the salaries of the civil servants notwithstanding the fact that the cost of living in Canada had materially increased, and notwithstanding the fact that the labours of the civil servants had materially increased. On the contrary, whatever privileges the civil servants had enjoyed previously under the Liberal government of 1875 were taken away. It was the Liberal government of 1875 which granted a bonus to the civil servants and which granted bonuses in the two years following. It was the Liberal government that gave the franking privilege to the service, which Mr. Foster took the first opportunity of withdrawing from the service after he came into office. My efforts on behalf of the civil servants during the past seven years and which have been constant, not so much in this House as outside of it, have, I know, resulted in bringing about the results which I have stated and which will be in a large measure embodied in the Bill based upon the present resolutions.


George William Fowler: When the hon. gentleman claims that 61 per cent increase is the net result of his efforts he is trying to take credit for what the hon. junior member for Ottawa has done. If the hon. gentleman will figure up the increase under this resolution which was first introduced by the hon. Postmaster General and which is the only one he can claim credit for he will find that it does not amount to anything like 6} per cent. That is the amount of the increase under the present Bill.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I heard that before.


George William Fowler: And you will hear it again. You will hear it many times before we are back here again.


David Henderson: The hon. member (Mr. Belcourt) is in reality the junior member for Ottawa because I think he did not poll as large a majority as the hon. senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Birkett) polled and I think my hon. friend (Mr. Birkett) is more Mr. BELCOURT.
entitled to be called the senior member than the hon. gentleman who claims that distinction. However, that is not the point that I rose to make reference to. The so-called senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) claims that the Conservative party did nothing for the civil servants during the long period of 18 years in which they were in office. Let me tell him something his own friends did when they came into power. A system was that the civil servants received their annual statutory increase year after year. What did the bou. gentleman's friends do when they came into power ? Did they pay them that increase ? No, one of their first acts was to attack the civil service and keep back from them what they were entitled to and it was not for years that the civil servants secured from the government the money that they had earned and I am not sure that it has yet been all given to them. I rather think that under the operation of the Act as it has been worked out by his own political friends they have retained money due the civil service in the city of Ottawa. I think it does not come well from him to charge the Conservative party with being unjust to the civil servants knowing as he must know that the government which he is supporting to-day were the first to attack the civil servants and keep back from them the money which they had rightfully earned.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: In answer to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Henderson) I will say that the great majority of the civil service, both in the inside and outside service, are satisfied that the treatment that has been meted out to them by the party now in power is far superior to the treatment meted out to them by the party who went out of power in 1896.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) made the statement that the government which I supported did not make any increases in the salaries of the civil servants and that their salaries were not increased previously to the present government coming into power. If the hon. gentleman would take the salaries of the civil servants during the seven years previously and add the regular statutory increases to which they were entitled he would find that the average increase will be more than 6J per cent. I do not think the hon. gentleman was fair when he made that statement. The hon. gentleman also made the statement that during the past seven years the increased cost of living has been very much more than it was previous to the accession of the present government. If such is the case 6J per cent increase in the salaries of the civil servants will not make their salaries equal to what they were when the Conservative government were in power. A man with a salary of $500 will get $30 increase. Seven or eight

years ago he could' live in a much better way and bring up his family more comfortably on the salary of $500 than he can today on a salary of $530. I heard the hon. gentleman, not very many months ago, make a speech in this House in which he claimed that this government had a surplus of $13,000,000. Though this government had so much money to spare they hesitated, yes, they refused, to pay the employees in the service a bare living salary. If the hon. gentleman had urged them to take a portion of this money, and distributed it amongst these employees so that they would be in a position to live as they should he would have done something for the civil service. The hon. senior member for Ottawa has influence with the government and for that reason he is entitled to censure for failing to secure the increases to which the civil servants are entitled. I do not believe there is any hon. member oh the other side of the House who has as much influence with the government as the hon. senior member for Ottawa has. It is a well known fact that the hon. gentleman has been slated for a portfolio.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: My colleague says that I cannot be re-elected here.


John Dowsley Reid: If the hon. gentleman has so little influence with the government that he is supporting that he cannot secure any better treatment for the service it is doubtful if he can be re-elected. If after seven years experience 6J per cent is the total amount of the influence which he has with the government I should think the hon. gentleman would hardly be pleased with the position he occupies before the public. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman how he has succeeded in reference to the temporary clerks or employees. For instance, he stated that the employees of the departments


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Is the hon. gentleman going to answer the question or let me answer it ?


John Dowsley Reid: I was going on to explain what I was asking, but if the hon. gentleman knows what I am going to ask I would like him to answer the question. I was going to ask the hon. gentleman what he has succeeded in doing for the temporary employees, draughtsmen and surveyors, those employees in the departments who are not in the permanent list ? Has he succeeded in getting any increase for them.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I refer the hon. gentleman to section 14 of the resolution, which [DOT] says :
Any person who is now or hereafter may be writer, clerk, packer, sorter or messenger, temporary or otherwise, in the service of the government of Canada, employed in one of the departments at Otawa, or in the office of the Auditor General, under Order in Council, may be appointed a third-class clerk.
This is the largest class of temporary employees, and they are made eligible to the permanent service with an increase in the minimum and maximum salary. Whether this is due to me or not I will not say but if the hon. gentleman is going to give me all the blame for that which is not accomplished, surely he will give me the praise for that which is accomplished.


John Dowsley Reid: Take the ease of a draughtsman with a salary of $1,500 or $2,000, who has been in the department for 15 years, and you will not insult him by making him a third-class clerk.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Section 39, subsection 4 of the present Civil Service Act renders eligible to the permanent service draughtsmen, surveyors, architects and engineers. There is no necessity to make a provision in this 'measure to cover their case though it might be to make them all permanent.


John Dowsley Reid: Perhaps the Postmaster General can explain how they will get any increase tinder these resolutions.
The POSTA1 ASTER GENERAL. I am not aware that this measure does any injury to them. This resolution deals with a certain limited number. I daresay there is a very large number of officers In the public service who might very fittingly be promoted, and doubtless will be in time, but no government of Canada has ever under- * taken to revolutionize the whole service in one measure. We are gradually improving the condition of the different classes of the service, and our policy has been to reward the faithful and make the service more desirable. The committee seems to be unanimous in favour of this proposal, and they could better prove their sincerity by letting the resolution pass.


John Dowsley Reid: The Postmaster General has admitted that these resolutions only apply to a limited number of the civil servants In Ottawa. How can officers who have been years in the department be made permanent or enjoy the benefits of this Bill ?
The POSTA'IASTER GENERAL. As 1 understand the resolution suggested by the hon. gentleman for Ottawa-I will not touch the question whether he is the senior or the junior member, but at all events be Is the hon. gentleman who does not give us his confidence, although perhaps he gives us his respects sometimes


Thomas Birkett: If yon give me what I ask, you will have my confidence.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I think the hon. gentleman's resolution proposed to put men on the permanent list by Act of parliament.	No	man	is put	on	thepermanent list by Act of parliament. The Act of parliament provides the machinery,	and	then	it is	for	the
government of the day to act. But there

is no precedent for a whole class of officers being transferred by Act of parliament to the permanent list It must be that they can be appointed and removed by the Governor in Council as other civil servants are, with the exception of the judiciary. Suppose I had one of these officers in the Post Office Department, and I desired to have him appointed to a clerkship, it would be necessary first to create that additional clerkship under the Act, and then parliament would have to vote the money for his salary. These two things being done, it would be open to the Governor in Council to transfer that officer from the temporary to the permanent class. It does happen that there are men in the service performing responsible duties, and some of them an receipt of large salaries, and yet they are temporary in the eye of the law. I received a memorial from a number of gentlemen in the Interior Department asking to be transferred to the permanent list. To do that, each case would have to be considered to a certain extent in the same way as if it were a case of promotion, and if the Minister of the Interior happened to be in Canada at the time, perhaps he would have seen his way to ask for additional clerks, and make it possible to appoint these gentleman. as 1 have said because some classes either on the inside or the outside service are not dealt with it does not follow that their ' cases will not in due time come up. Last year, for example, parliament was good enough to pass a measure on my advice increasing the salaries of certain classes in the outside service in my own department. Speaking from memory, the classes (affected were composed of messengers, porters and packers, men in my department who make up parcels of supplies, &c., to be sent to different postmasters throughout the country and to do similar work. I found these men with a maximum salary of $500 and last year parliament passed a Bill increasing that maximum to $600. I felt then and I feel now, that in making increases the most urgent cases are those of the people who receive the lower salaries. By this measure the class of messengers, packers and porters, to which I have referred, will be in receipt of a maximum salary of $700 as against $500 when we took office, an increase of 20 per cent. That increase, I know, receives the hearty approval of hon. members on both sides of the House. With reference to the class of temporary technical officers to whom reference has been made, I suppose that if the various ministers could direct their attention to the whole matter and go through a regular course of house cleaning and say which of these should be transferred to the permanent list they could be appointed in the regular way by the creation of additional clerkships. That is a suggestion that has my entire sympathy and if the Bill does not increase the salaries of these men in every department in which they could be increased Sir WILLIAM MIJLOCK.
it is not because we do not wish to have them increased. The fact is, without wishing to make any point about it, but to be perfectly frank, that there is some truth in the statement that formerly, before the change of government, the civil service had been the subject of criticism and talk, and I think parliament did a rather unwise thing in abolishing the third-class clerkships in the inside service. That class went up to $1,000 and represented a very large proportion of the civil service and it is there that you have to be even more considerate than with the higher classes. A certain amount of public opinion was developed against the civil service which was referred to even in campaigns as we have all seen, and many people in criticising the service alluded perhaps unkindly to the civil service. From my few years in government I can say, speaking with reference to the officers of my department-and I now speak of it as of them as I would speak of employees in private life, and as I would wish to be spoken of-I say there is in my department without any question as good, efficient and loyal a staff as any country could desire and many of the employees in that department are men who are I consider wasting their lives in the public service, because the prizes in the public service are not such as should command the ability and fidelity possessed by many of these men, and I think that the civil service of Canada generally is not properly remunerated. It has been suggested that the increases should be permitted automatically and that the civil servants should get their increases as a matter or right. This has never been the unvarying practice ; the practice has always been that the increase is voted by parliament as apportioned by the government. After we took office, for a time, these increases were suspended and that was no doubt prompted by the feeling created in the public mind and in our own mind that the service required overhauling and we could not then permit increase to occur automatically as now, when we are more familiar with the service practically do, for we feel now that this automatic increase can be made without any injustice to the service and to the country.


James Gilmour: Will the members of the outside service, in the inland revenue and customs departments throughout the country receive the same treatment as these servants for whom you are providing under this resolution ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: If my hon. friend will turn to the resolution he will find by the schedule that this resolution deals with the Customs and Inland Revenue Departments and the schedule respecting the Customs and Inland Revenue Departments has I think application entirely to the outside service. Last year there was legislation affecting the outside service in the Post Office Department and this year a spe-

cial Bill dealing with the outside service of the Post Office Department was passed. The present Bill deals with the outside service of the Customs and Inland Revenue Departments, and I trust that, by degrees we will be able to put our outside service on a proper footing and afford proper relief no matter what government is in power. I am satisfied that the country will believe we are moving in the right direction, and I think I may now appeal, coming down to details, for the adoption of this clause.
Mr. ItEID (Grenville). I do not wish to detain the House any longer, but the hon. minister did not quite understand the point I was trying to make.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: About the technical officers ?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes. The hon. minister has explained that satisfactorily, the only thing I regret is that he could not see his way clear to including that class in the increases.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It would have to be by increasing the number of classes.


John Dowsley Reid: It can be done as he suggests. The only thing that I would ask of the Liberal representative from Ottawa is to use his influence to obtain all that is possible.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I think I owe an apology to the hon. gentleman from Ottawa who gives the government his confidence. It is quite correct-and I am not saying this for the purpose of making any capital or robbing any one of capital ; we are glad in legislation of this kind to have the concurrence of all classes of representatives-but it has been said that any member representing Ottawa and supporting the government is naturally the intermediary through whom the civil service seek to reach the government and the House- that my hon. friend (Mr. Belcourt) in the discharge of his duty, and he could not have done less, brought this matter to the attention of the government and to my attention as a member of the government. My sympathies, went out first of all towards the lower paid grades and for this reason, although I had taken pretty ample notes, yet I had not been as impressed in regard to the agreements on behalf of the higher classes as perhaps I should have been. But the cases that made the greatest impression on me were the classes I have spoken of, the temporary writers and clerks, messengers, packers, etc., men who came in at $400 with an annual increase of $30 per year until $600 was reached, and there they stopped. There is a class that begins at $300-sorters, messengers and porters-and who went up to $500. There is a very large number of those. In my department they are particularly strong. I dare say these various classes number up to the best part of a hundred. I felt I was really reaching most of the cases in dealing with these classes, and therefore in the first Bill I gave particular attention to them by establishing a third class, with a maximum pay of $700. There was provision in the first Bill, as there is in the present, for all that class being transferred from the status of temporary clerks and writers and so on, to third class. There was provision in the first Bill for the temporary class and writers- I do not know that it went as far as the packers-but there is in this Bill, and all of that class eligible for transfer may be transferred. I felt it my duty to half apologize to my hon. friend when I introduced the first Bill, because I knew I had not gone as far as he desired. I rather innocently explained that I had not gone as far as he diesired. I could not make that announcement privately, and it was my duty, in justice to him, to make it to the House on account of the especial responsibility which devolves on him as the representative of the city supporting the government. This is just how this second resolution came in, if you want a confession. As soon as my Bill was introduced, my hon. friend remonstrated with me. He said that I was not a strong enough supporter of his measure, and he appealed to the Premier. He took the memorial of the civil service, which had been prepared some time before-I am not quarrelling with him about it-but he passed by me and presented it to the Premier. I happened to be away at the time, and when I came back I received an intimation from the Premier that the measure was to be introduced in its present shape. I am extremely glad that my hon. friend on the other side has furthered my effort by presenting his resolution. Neither party need try to make political capital out of this matter. Both this side and the opposition owe a duty to the civil service. Let us do our duty fairly to a deserving class, and not try to win favours except on our merits. If I tried to point out shortcomings of the previous government I might succeed, but what good would come of all that ? If you pass the resolution I shall leave it in committee until to-morrow, in case any hon. gentleman desires to make any further remarks.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: While apportioning the responsibility, I want to remind the bon. member for Leeds and Grenville that the gentlemen to whom he is extending his solicitude just now-and I share that solicitude with him-have also had my attention. I appealed to the government to have these men made permanent, but I would remind the hon. gentleman that there are men who have been employed temporarily in the public service, not a few years, but a great many years. I know a gentleman who has been employed as draughtsman in the Interior

Department for thirty-five years. When the hon. gentleman's friends were in office, why did he not bring these cases to their notice? Why did not the previous governments, which had been employing these people for a quarter of a century, deal with their cases ? The memorial to which the hon. the Postmaster General has referred is signed by forty or fifty gentlemen employed in the Interior Department, nine-tenths of whom were in the department a great many years previous to 1896. When apportioning the responsibility, it is only fair to remind my hon. friend of these facts.


John Dowsley Reid: The government I was supporting was only in power four years previous to the change, and during that time the civil service received their annual increase according to statute. True, that government never brought in a Bill such as has been brought down now, or that class of civil servants would have received my support as well as the others. I know employees who have been In the service fifteen, twenty and thirty years, and yet who are only temporary employees, and that is the class which is honestly entitled to an annual increase as well as other men working right opposite them, who have received appointments as first or second-class clerks. If I had been in the same position as the hon. member, if I had brought down a Bill


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I did not bring down a Bill.


Nathaniel Boyd: Before this resolution passes I want to remind the Postmaster General of a delegation of employees who waited on him in the early part of the session.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman is referring to the postmasters. If he will let that stand until my supplementary estimates come up, there will be an opportunity to discuss it.


Nathaniel Boyd: There is another question brought to my attention by the junior member for Ottawa (Mr. Birkett). I refer to the recent appointments. A number of appointments have been made practically by Act of parliament, as we see in the estimates the words ' notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act to the contrary.' In several cases men have been promoted over the heads of other men. We brought that matter to the attention of the government. Well, such men will receive this increase, which the men below them will not receive. That is something this government should not sanction. Now, the minister remarked that the civil service was looked upon rather unfavourably in years past. I am isure the party on this side is not responsible, because when we were in power, the reason the civil service was so unfavourably looked upon in the country was the attacks Mr BELCOTJRT.
made upon them by the Liberal party during the campaigns.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: We will admit everything, only get on with the Bill.


Nathaniel Boyd: Another point-the hon. gentleman said we went in for overhauling the civil service. I want to tell him that it was well overhauled in our country, when they dismissed 150 Conservatives whose names I put on ' Hansard.' So I think we can leave it with the two gentlemen who have spoken, and the civil service will be quite able to decide who is worthy their support and consideration. They will also be able to decide as to the conduct of the government. And I hope the minister will keep in view the point I have mentioned. It is bad enough to have a number of these men, as the estimates will show, pushed over the heads of men older in the service, but now a number of these men will get $100 extra by this Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I wish to say a few words on this subject, and there is no more appropriate time than now. In the first place, I desire to say a word as to the speech of the hon. senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt). If that hon. gentleman had really desired to do justice to the civil service he would have welcomed assistance from any source instead of abusing the hon. junior member for Ottawa (Mr. Birkett) for trying to get the increase of salary the hon. senior member said he was trying to secure. From the very beginning the hon. senior member has tried to belittle and discredit what was done by his colleague in support of the very object which the hon. member (Mr. Belcourt) said he had in view. I do not think the service will give him much credit. In the course of his remarks he said that the Conservative party had been in power for eighteen years and had done nothing for the civil service. Is that true ? Does he forget the first Civil Service Act which put the civil service upon a non-political basis ? That was passed by the Conservative party in 1882. Before that, the service was a rather heterogeneous class employed largely on political lines. It provided that, certain examinations should be passed, so that, whether a man belonged to one party or the other on .passing the examination he was eligible for the civil service. In my own riding I had a prominent Reformer appointed entirely upon his merits, because he was recommended as a graduate of Toronto University, and capable of taking the position that was vacant, [DOT]and because the man whom I had had in view was reported to me as not suitable. I took this man, who was a Reformer and whose family were Reformers, and got him appointed. There was no question as to which party he belonged to, but simply as to his qualifications ; and he proved that he had the qualifications for the position and therefore got it. By this Civil Service

Act the service was put upon a business and non-political basis. The principle of promotion according to ability and qualification was established. And, in addition to that they were given statutory increases, if they were faithful and efficient officers and were recommended by the deputy head. In face of these facts I am surprised at his saying the Conservatives were eighteen years in power and did nothing for the civil service.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) refer to the Act of 1882 V


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: How many years was the party in power after that ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That was the first time the civil service was dealt with squarely in my opinion. The Postmaster General has said that the civil service at one time became very unpopular in the country. The hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) has told us the reason for that. During that long campaign which took place regarding irregularities in the civil service' in 1891, constant attacks were made upon the civil service by hon. gentlemen opposite who were then in opposition, notably by the present Senator McMullen, who represented North Wellington, and Mr. Somerville, who then represented South Brant and others. Time after time we were obliged to defend the civil service in this House and in the country when they were unfairly attacked. It was because of those attacks that the civil service seemed unpopular. And I regret to say that these attacks prevented many men in the serivce from receiving even the justice they were entitled to for faithful and efficient service. As to the classes mentioned here, the hon. member said that the junior class were provided for under the Civil Service Act. Who made that Act ? The Conservative party. And the members of that party are entitled to credit rather than to have wholesale abuse heaped upon them because of what it is alleged they did not do for the service. I do not know whether the Postmaster General proposes that we should report these resolutions to-night-


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Let us go through and carry them. Then, we will let them remain in committee.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If we carry them, we must have the right to refer to them again. Because I wish to speak on several clauses.
On section 4,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If you are going to go through them at this rapid.rate, I will have to object, because discussion' is to take place on several of these clauses. I do not see why we should not stop where we are.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not wish to be unduly pressing. But the points are very simple.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But there are fifteen clauses in this Bill, besides-


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: But we have been since ten o'clock discussing it, and the resolution has been before the committee a long time. I think there is no controversy over these clauses.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is a very important Bill. We took day after day discussing the Civil Service Bill in 1882, and in this we go over the same ground.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Are not we getting into the habit of putting in too much time on these matters ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No more progress is likely to be made, because if the debate does not take place now, it must take place later on, and we must go back over the clauses that are passed.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I suggest that we go down as far as clause 10.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: With this understanding, that some of these may be referred to again.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Certainly.


Thomas Birkett: I desire to move the following amendment:
Section 12. That all the words after ' shall be ' in the second line of section 12, as proposed to be amended, be struck out, and the following be substituted therefor :-' $4,000 per annum.'
Section 16. The minimum salary of a chief clerk shall be $2,000 per annum, with an increase of $100 per year thereafter until a maximum of $2,600 is reached.
Section 18. The minimum salary of a first-class clerk shall be $1,600 per annum, with an increase of $100 for the first year, and $50 per year thereafter, until a maximum of $2,000 is reached.
Section 20. The minimum salary of a second-class clerk shall be $1,200 per annum, with an increase of $100 the first year, and $50 per year thereafter, until a maximum of $1,600 is .reached.
Section 4, chapter 14. The minimum salary of a junior second-class clerk shall be $700 per annum, with an increase of $50 per year thereafter, until a maximum of $1,200 Is reached.


Archibald Campbell: I think the amendment is out of order, I do not think it can be moved by a private member.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would suggest that it would be more appropriate to move it as an amendment to the Bill and not to the resolution.


Thomas Birkett: I would like to ask the minister in charge of this Bill if he will increase the first years' indemnity from $50 to $100.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I am not in a position to increase any of the provisions of this resolution. This resolution has received the assent of His Excellency,

it is a money resolution, and therefore it cannot be amended upwards, it can only be amended in the, other direction.


Thomas Birkett: I admit that, what the Postmaster General says is true. If my amendment is out of order, I. do not wish to press it any further.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I think any movement of this kind at this late date of the session would imperil this measure. Public business, even of a very urgent character, towards the close of a session is often deferred, and my hon. friend 1 am sure does not want to imperil this Bill. It has made some progress. It will take time to draft new amendments and get the assent of the Crown. Then we have the second chamber to deal with. If my hon. friend is desirous to have some benefit given to the civil service, he will not interpose any measure that involves delay.


Thomas Birkett: Certainly not.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I wish to amend section 5 :
The minimum salary of a chief clerk shall be $1,900 per annum, and the maximum salary shall be $2,500 per annum.
I wish to amend that so that it shall read :
The minimum salary of a chief clerk shall be $1,900 per annum, with an annual increase of $50 up to a maximum of $2,500 per annum.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
Progress reported.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved the adjournment of the House.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: What business will we take up to-morrow ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The Redistribution Bill.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And if we should dispose of that early in the day, what then ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Have you that in anticipation?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We will allow the Iron, gentleman to sleep under that impression, anyway.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I suppose the Transcontinental Railway Bill, but of that I am not quite certain.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You would not have it printed.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Well, we will have to find something else in order to keep the House busy. We may proceed with the motion of my hon. friend the Postmaster General.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: May I ask the hon. Minister of Finance when the supplementary Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
estimates and the railway resolutions will be brought down ? The hon. gentleman promised them this week, and we are getting pretty near the end of the week now.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The deck has been pretty well cleared of othqr questions, and I would hope that early next week both of these matters will be before the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 1.40 a.m. Friday.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, September 25, 1903.