1903-03-20

The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved :: That a message he sent to the Senate requesting that their Honours will unite with this House in the formation of a joint committee ot both Houses on the subject of the printing of parliament, and that the members of the Select Standing Committee on Printing, namely : Messrs Bennett, Casgrain, Clarke, Davis, Holmes, Hughes (Victoria), Hyman, Johnston (Cape Breton), Johnston (Lambton), LaRiviSre, La-vergne, Loy, Maclean, McColl, Marcil (Bonaven-ture). Oliver, Parmelee, PrSfontaine, Richardson, Scott, Sutherland (Oxford), Taylor, Thompson and Tisdale will act as members on the part of this House on the said joint committee on the printing of parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved :: That a select committee composed of Messrs Borden (Halifax), Bourassa, Brock, Calvert, Casgrain, Clancy, Clark, Demers (St. John and Iberville), Russell, Fraser, Heyd, Hyman, Johnston (Lambton), Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Monk, Scott and Wade be appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in the direction of the library of parliament so far as the interests of this House are concerned, and to act as members of a joint committee of both Houses on the library ; and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours therewith.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 21) to Amend and Consolidate the Law respecting Railways. He said: Mr. Speaker, I made a statement to the House a year ago, when I was introducing a Bill similar to this, which I think was a fairly comprehensive statement of the objects and purposes of the proposed legislation. Inasmuch as I would wish to confirm and be understood as repeating what I then said, I would refer hon. gentlemen who may desire to avail themselves of the reference, to Hansard of

[Stage Direction]
last session, page 2431. I do not wish to extend my explanatory statement to any greater length than is necessary ; hut there are some things which I shall perforce be compelled to repeat.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: I think it would he as well for the hon. gentleman ta make a fairly full statement. There are a good many new members in the House, and it may be a little difficult for all of us to refresh our memories in the way he suggests.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I wish to convey to the House as complete a view of the general scope of this legislation as I can. The Bill is substantially the same as that which was introduced last session. There have been a few changes, but those changes, I think, are not material and do not essentially affect the main principles of the measure as introduced last year. I think the Bill has been simplified, it has been considerably condensed, and in its general reconstruction a good deal of thought has been given to it in order to perfect it in every possible way. The proposal is, as it then was, to abolish the existing Railway Committee of the Privy Council, and to substitute for that body a railway commission composed of members independent of the government, independent of parliament in a practical sense, though not in the broadest sense, and capable, as we think and hope they will be, by experience and ability, of making thoroughly effective the legislation we are now proposing to place on the statute book.
There are various kinds of railway commissions, as hon. members know. Commissions have been constituted in other countries, not possessing any controlling or executive power, but of a purely advisory character. Other commissions have been created, particularly in some of the colonial dependencies of the Crown, which have had under their management and control the government railways in those colonies. Commissions have also been established-and it is to this type that the one we are proposing to constitute will belong-not for the purpose of operating railways themselves, but for the purpose of exercising control over the operation of railways, in regard to rates, the manner in which the trains shall be equipped, the manner in which crossings shall take place, and generally the manner in which the public shall be protected in the use of the railways.
In constructing this Bill, we have naturally availed ourselves of the experience of those countries in which railway commissions of this kind have been established. In Great Britain a railway commission was established first as far back as 1873. Some material and important changes took place in the constitution of that commission, in the direction of enlarging and extending its powers, in 1888, and it practically exists to-day as it was then constituted. In preparing this Bill, we have availed ourselves of the experience of that railway commission. We have also turned our attention to the legislation which has been adopted in the various states of the union, as well as the general legislation of Congress. We have also, as the House knows, availed ourselves of the results of the inquiries which were made by a special commissioner appointed by us for the purpose, Mr. McLean, who made to the government two reports upon his inquiries in the United States and his investigation of the existing railway troubles in Canada. We have based some of the provisions of the Bill upon the results at which he arrived -we think correctly-in his study of these various problems, and we have sought generally to turn to useful account the best features of the legislation of Great Britain and the United States. It has been found in the mother country that the operation of the railway commission, though not removing all troubles, and though not a complete and effective remedy for all difficulties, has been on the whole fairly satisfactory. Mr. McLean points out that it has exercised a useful influence for the prevention of arbitrary exactions by railways, that it has been recognized as an unbiased arbiter in railway disputes, and that it has much improved the position of shippers. The defects generally recognized are defects which are incidental to the legislation and the lack of hearty co-operation on the part of the judiciary of the country. In the United States similar defects and others have been discovered, which he points out. He says that there political considerations play a great part in the choice of commissioners, even when they are not elective, and they are elective in a great many cases. He says the term for which the commissioners are appointed is too short ; in none of the states it it more than five years, while in many it is less. Another defect admitted by thoughtful men is that the salaries paid to the commissioners are too low, and in consequence it has not been found possible to secure men of the quality required, by training, experience and general fitness, for the successful operation of these commissions. He says-and this is a question which has attracted a great deal of attention in the United States, and has been discussed in a great many works treating of the subject-that frequent appeals and the enormous amount of litigation arises in connection with the working out of their scheme, been most detrimental to the successful operation of the measure. Litigation springs up on all sides and in respect of all questions. The judicial interpretations of the various clauses of the law and the judicial decisions in respect of the findings of the commission upon the question of facts, have been so conflicting that practically the powers of the commissioners are absolutely

nullified. In this connection, an eminent judge of the United States Supreme Court, Judge Harlan, says : ' The Inter-State Commission has been shorn by judicial interpretations of the authority to do anything of an effective character.' It has also been pointed out that the American legislation respecting the inter-state law was arrived at by a compromise between the transportation interests on the one hand and the producing interests on the other, and apparently there was no fixed aim in view in the establishment of these tribunals. One side probably contended that there was no need at all for such tribunals, and the other side insisted that it was imperative in the public interest that they should be established, and between the two a compromise was reached whereby, while these tribunals were established, they were not endowed with powers which all agree are imperatively necessary if they are to do effective work. But notwithstanding the defects admittedly existing under the system in force in the various states of the union and the United States as a whole, many men who have studied railway questions believe that these railway commissions have done much good. Mr. Blanchard, a well-known authority on railway matters, points out that the foi-lowing good results have been achieved through this legislation :
1.	It has secured more publicity of rates.
2.	It has lessened open rate wars.
3.	It has tended to equalize long and short haul rates.
4.	It has exercised beneficial warning or police powers.
Meaning by that, that the provisions incorporated in the different railway bills imposing penalties for the omission to do or for the doing of certain acts has had a most salutary effect, by acting as a warning to companies that if they violated these conditions they might be made suffer the consequences.
5.	It has silenced much unjust clamor against the railways.
6.	It has been mutually educational.
7.	It has been judiciously administered.
8.	It has benefited the smaller shipper.
9.	By obtaining a better classification it has afforded a more uniform basis for rate making.
10.	Its statistical work has been of great value.
11.	It has exercised important supervisory functions in regard to the application of automatic couplers and safety appliances.
Now, Mr. Speaker, all these objects are aimed at in the present Bill, and in order that we may if possible successfully achieve them, in the face of difficulties which will constantly arise, we have strengthened the hands of the commission we are constituting. We are investing it with larger powers, we are giving it more executive authority, and we have in this respect perhaps gone beyond any legislation which has been passed in any other country up to the present day. The commission, under


Hon. Mr. BLAIR.: this Bill, will exercise all the powers which are now vested in the railway commission of the Privy Council. We propose to constitute a court to consist of three or five members. I confess to a personal preference for three, but I do not assume that my judgment is necessarily sounder than that of others, and I invite an expression of opinion from hon. members on both sides on this point when we come to discuss the subject in detail. Therefore we leave the number in blank for the present. It is proposed that the commission shall be constituted a court of record. The tenure of office is to be a term of ten years, and each member is eligible to re-appointment. We have fixed an age limit of 75 years, beyond which no person can remain a member of the board. The Bill which we submitted last year contained, and the present Bill, when printed, will be found to contain a clause providing that the members of the commission are only removable on an address of both Houses of parliament to the Governor General. This, on full consideration, we concluded to change, and although the Bill when it is distributed will contain such a clause, it is an oversight which will be remedied in committee. We propose that the members of the commission shall be removable in the same manner as the lieutenant governors of the provinces, namely, by the Governor General in Council, for cause.
We confer upon the majority of the board the power of deciding any question, but one member of the commission may make' an order, jiroviding the case or the matter is not one of a contentious character and is not opposed. We propose also that the meetings of the 'board may be migratory. The board may move from place to place, provided, however, that such meetings can only take place with the approval of the Minister of Railways for the time being.
We leave the salaries of the commission open for the present, and will make a proposal to the committee when we reach that stage in the consideration of the Bill.
I now come to an important feature of the Bill, the importance of which you will have 1'ecognized in view of what I said a moment ago as to the unsatisfactory experience in the United States by reason of the facilities for litigation on all sorts of questions under their system. We propose that the commission shall be the absolute judges of both law and fact, subject to two exceptions. The commission will be absolute judges as to the facts, only subject to appeal to the Governor General in Council. They will be absolute judges of the law, except when a question of jurisdiction arises, which of course it would be quite impossible to restrict in any way, but they may state a case to the Supreme Court in the event of any question of legal importance arising.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: At whose instance is the submission to be prepared, at the in-

stance of the litigants, or at that of the board ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It would be prepared by the board-the board would submit the legal question.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the hon. minister does not understand the object of my hon. friend's (Hon. Mr. Haggart's) question. Will either litigant or both litigants have the right to have a case submitted, or will that be done only in the discretion of the board and on its own initiative ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: In the discretion of the board, just as it is in the discretion of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council to-day ; we have made no change in that respect.
Following the clauses I have just referred to you will find a variety of sections, very much in the order in which they appear in the existing Railway Act, dealing, first, with the construction of railways. These clauses will be found between 116 and 205 ; and, except where, we think, they have been improved somewhat, are very much the same as the existing legislation. We have made the usual provision in this Bill for the inspection of railways, and have made similar provision, with immaterial amendments, as respects the operations of railways. We now come to the question of tolls, in respect of which there has been a material change. The provisions that we incorporate in this Bill with regard to the control, supervision and regulation of tolls are, in large measure, adapted from similar provisions in the English and American enactments on the subject, so far, of course as the provisions would be applicable to this country. We carefully provide against undue discrimination, undue preference and advantages of any kind. We have incorporated here provisions regarding the long and the short haul. We think we have adequately and completely protected shippers, and all those who use the railways, in the enjoyment of equal facilities. We have directed attention in the Bill to the question of through traffic, both within Canada and from Canada to and from other countries. We provide for a uniform freight classification. The powers we give to the board include power to alter the freight classifications, so that they may be not only uniform, but that they may be more equitable and just to the shipper. In framing the clauses with regard to tolls, we have exercised all possible care. The provisions have been drawn up after consultation with men who have had long practical experience with respect to railway tolls. And, while we have endeavoured in a proper way to protect the rights of the transportation companies, we have assumed absolute and complete control with regard to what their rates shall be.


John Graham Haggart: That is a very important statement, and this provision seems to be the principle one of the Bill. Does the Bill give the commissioners absolute power of determining and fixing tolls ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes. Short of that, we do not see how the commission can be successfully worked. That is one of the things which has occasioned no end of trouble in the United States, and we think that in any other way it would be quite impossible to avoid the same experience in this country.


John Graham Haggart: If there is no objection on the part of the hon. minister to the asking of questions at this stage, I would be glad if he would say whether this would apply to the Canadian Pacific Railway and the government railways ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The fixing of tolls, so far as relates to the Canadian Pacific Railway is subject, as the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) knows, to some limitation in a part of Canada, according to the generally accepted interpretation of the act under which that company was chartered. We presume we cannot interfere with their rates until they are paying a dividend up to ten per cent. In the other parts of Canada the Canadian Pacific would be subject to this law as all other railways. We have not provided that the government railways shall come under the jurisdiction and control of the Commission any more than they have come under the control of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council. We leave the law exactly as we find it in that respect.


Mr. INGRAM.: Then the government railways may do as they like about rates ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The government railways have always been able to do that, in the sense which, I suppose, the hon. gentleman means. Of course, the government railways cannot do as they like ; they must do as the people or the government likes.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then, in the matter of rates, how is the uniformity to be secured, if the government railways are not under control ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have always had uniformity on the government railways.


Andrew B. Ingram: But not uniform with other lines.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is not possible to secure absolute uniformity on all railways. In fact it is not possible to secure uniformity on any one very extensive railway, because its freight is carried over different parts of the system under varying conditions. You do not have uniformity on the Canadian Pacific, and never can have, though the Can-

adian Pacific were clearly subject to the operation of the law throughout its entire system.


Mr. BARKER.: Will the hon. minister tell us why the government railways should not be under the control of the commission just the same as other railways ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am willing to discuss that question when we reach the clause under which it arises. I would have precisely the same reason for continuing the law as parliament had for enacting it in that form and for continuing it when the law was revised in 1888. The reasons are cogent and, I think will be so regarded by the committee when the subject comes to be discussed in detail.


Mr. McCREARY.: I would like to ask how this provision will affect a case in which a province, for a consideration, has made a bargain with certain railways for the control of their rates ? Would this Railway Commission supersede the legislation of the province ? What powers would the commission have in such a case, for instance, as the bargain made by the province of Manitoba last year with the Canadian Northern Railway with regard to the control of rates ? Would the commission have the power to override that legislation or vary it ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am afraid my hon. friend (Mr. McCreary) is asking me to express an opinion on a question which would require more thought than I could give it at this moment as I am standing on my feet. Probably it would be wiser to call for professional opinion to see what these agreements are, and ascertain the facts, before expressing any very decided view upon the question. I think perhaps 1 can afford my hon. friend some information which will be of use to him even in this connection. This board constituted by parliament would of course have to be advised as to any legal obstacles that may arise in respect of the exercise of its powers in any given case ; and if it should transpire that there were existing agreements such as my hon. friend points out, which would make it illegal for them to make regulations affecting tolls contrary to the terms of any such agreement, they would not exercise their power. They have the widest possible power to arrange and to apply their schedules to any portion of any railway, or any particular portion of any particular district, and not apply them to any other portion of that district. So I think any difficulties of that kind can be overcome easily, and it would not militate against the general efficiency of the Bill if a difficulty did arise such as my hon. friend has pointed out.
We provide for the greatest possible publicity in the matter of tariffs. I think it Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
will be found when sections of the Bill come to be investigated, that every reasonable means has been provided whereby the public can be made acquainted with the rates they will be called upon to pay for transportation, speaking generally, on any of the railroads of the country. Of course, we know there are two great divisions of railway tariffs, freight tariffs and passenger tariffs. We divide freight tariffs into three classes, the standard, the special, and what we call the competitive. As the law stands at present, the schedules of tariffs emanate from the companies. The law provides that a by-law of a railway company must be passed setting forth the tariff which it proposes to get authority to impose upon its traffic, and the Governor in Council may either approve of that by-law, in which case it goes into operation, or he may refuse approval, and withhold assent until such time as a by-law is submitted to him containing a tariff of tolls which he can approve. After all is said and done, the tariff which is thus settled and approved is a maximum tariff ; it is not a tariff do be imposed by the railway upon its traffic ordinarily, because in practice it is always in excess of the tariff rates which are charged. That system will cease to be in operation when this Bill becomes law. The companies will propose their tariff, the board may say :	We
will not approve of that tariff, but we will approve of such and such a tariff, and they may prescribe what that tariff shall be. We have given it that power; and that tariff, as I have said, will be a standard; that is to say, the general tariff in operation upon such railway or portion of such railway as the board shall determine. Neither more nor less than the rate so fixed shall be charged, unless or except there has been submitted and approved one of the other two classes of tariffs, a special or a competitive. Conditions may exist, the carriage of certain classes of goods may be called for, such as coal, lumber or grain, in regard to which it is the custom of railways, and that custom will continue, to make special tariffs, and if these tariffs commend themselves to the board they will go into operation. Competitive freight tariffs deal with reduced charges for any class of the general freight classification between points which the board may deem it advisable that such competitive tariff shall apply, but shall not be subject to the clauses respecting the long and short haul. Special and competitive tariffs may be amended at any time, or may be supplemented at any time, by the railway companies, and tolls for these specified commodities or between any points


John Graham Haggart: By the commission ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Under special conditions, cir-

cumstances or emergencies, that tariff may he changed, but it is not to continue in operation one moment longer than is necessary, and the board shall have power to disallow it. Nobody, I apprehend, wants to hamper the great railway interests of the country; we do not want to do that; and we know there are constantly ocassions arising when offers of particular merchandise are made with which railway companies have to deal at once, and will have no time to prepare and submit a tariff for the consideration and approval of the board. The companies are to have power to make such a tariff and to apply it in particular instances, immediately' advising the board of what they have done, when the board may approve or disallow such tariff.


Samuel Barker: What will occur supposing they disapprove of what has been done ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND [DOT]CANALS. What has been done cannot be undone. We make this provision to avoid uncertainty on the part of shippers. It is also provided that they shall have three days' notice of any reduction of rates and ten days' notice of any increase of rates. I think, Mr. Speaker, I have stated fully the respects in which we have introduced changes regarding the control of rates. We now pass on to the other provisions in the Bill which are not of so much interest, and which are almost in all respects identical with the clauses of the General Railway Act.


Mr.   W.@: It. BROCK (Centre Toronto). May I ask the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, before he passes on, whether he is giving this commission control of the grant-lug of charters to railways, or whether its recommendation will be submitted to the Railway Committee to be acted upon by the Railway Committee, and also may I ask the hon. minister if this commission is to have control of canals as well ? I listened carefully to what the hon. minister has said, but I have not heard him say anything about canals. Canals may become the rivals of railways. Another very important means of carrying trade at the present time and which is growing all the time are tramways. Will the commission have control of freight and passenger tramways operated by electricity or otherwise, and are these powers included in the Bill ? Some of our railways are part rail and part canal, or part waterways and part steamship carriage; would this commission have the same control over all these means of carriage that you are giving it over railways, or are you reserving these for the control of another commission, or to that of the Privy Council ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My hon. friend (Mr. Brock) has asked me several question and I will try to answer them in the order in which he has asked them. He has first asked whether any provision is being introduced in this Bill giving power to the board to control the granting of charters. I may say to him that we have made no such provision. Later on, before I resume my seat,
I intend to call the attention of the House to that question and to another, and cognate question, that might be discussed and considered while this Bill is going through. This provision and the other one that I shall mention later will be provisions of a very drastic character, and I did not feel like pressing upon my colleagues in council the inclusion of these two clauses in the present Bill; and yet they are railway questions of importance and I thought it would be very fitting at all events that the attention of the committee, when they were considering the Bill, should be brought to them, that they might become subjects of discussion ; and it might be that such an opinion would be evoked from the committee that clauses embodying the sense of the committee on these subjects could be included in the Bill. I have drafted a couple of clauses relating to these matters, and later on I will call the attention of the committee to them. The hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) asked me another question as to whether this legislation included tramways. I may say that we did not have it in mind to include control over tramways in preparing this Bill. There is another question which I am afraid has escaped me for the moment.


Samuel Barker: The question as to part rail and part water routes.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: In regard to the question of the control of canals by the board, we have not suggested that. There does not seem to me very much analogy between the subject of railways and that of canals, not so much as to make it desirable that the commission should be invested with any duty in respect to canals.


Mr. COWAN.: May I ask the hon. minister whether it is the intention to bring the operations of express companies under the control of the commission ? For instance, in shipping carloads from the fruit districts, over a railway, would the commission be empowered to exercise control over the rates charged by the express companies ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cowan) will find abundant power to regulate rates as respects express shipments of all kinds. If he thinks these provisions are wanting in any respect we will be very glad to hear from him on the subject.


Hon. Mr. TARTE.: Would the hon. minister allow me to ask him whether there will be any appeal from the decision of the commission ? I was not here and I did not hear any reference to that point.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Tarte)

was not here when I mentioned that there is an appeal provided for in the Bill from and against any and all decisions of the board to the Governor in Council. That tribunal was thought to be the most useful to which to make an appeal for many obvious reasons. There is an appeal now to the Governor in Council from the Railway Committee. It is perhaps just as well that I should say that in the few years I have been connected with the Railway Committee that power has only been availed of on one occasion, and it is to be hoped that it will not be found very frequently necessary to appeal from the decisions of this board. Perhaps I might as well refer to the other subject just at this moment which I had in my mind and which relates somewhat to the question which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brock) asked. I had in my mind two questions which we have not undertaken to deal with in this Bill, one as to the exercise of control over the granting of new charters or the location of new railways. That power has been conferred by the legislatures of some of the states-one or two, at least, to my knowledge-but I think it has been rather in the form of an advisory authority. The duty is cast upon the commission to advise the state legislatures in respect of any applications for the construction of new railways, and in other instances the power has been given to the commission to grant or withhold, even after the charter has been granted, a certificate which is called a certificate of public necessity, or something of that kind, without which certificate the company chartered to build the railway cannot proceed with its work. It will appear, of course, upon the surface, that the object of such legislation is to prevent the unnecessary duplication of railways, to prevent their running, perhaps, too close to one another, or running parallel with each other, when the public interest will be best served by there being either no other railway or by its being located elsewhere, at some convenient or sufficient distance from the existing railway.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then why should the charter holders, having a time limit in which to commence and complete the railway, be interfered with in that way ? That would affect the time limit to commence and complete the line of railway after it had been chartered. Parliament grants the right to construct a railway and fixes a time limit.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is much to be said in favour of the proposition, and I am not going to say that there is not a good deal to be said against it. I was merely pointing out, with the view of inviting discussion later upon this subject, that this was one of the powers which have been conferred upon railway commissions in other places but which it is not proposed in the present Bill shall be conferred upon this commission.


Andrew George Blair: Another direction in which legislation has taken place elsewhere is in giving railway commissions power to exercise a very careful supervision and control over the excessive issue of stock and bonds by railway companies. There seems to me, speaking individually only, to be very much in a proposal of that kind to commend itself to parliament. We know perfectly well that in the experience of the past few years, at least, although companies which have charters from parliament and are authorized to issue very large quantities of stock, very rarely indeed has any of the actual money been put into stock or has gone into the construction of these roads. The stock is given, I suppose, perhaps, to enrich the bonds, or distributed as favours among friends or used otherwise than as a means of raising the capital to put into the undertaking, and it seems that it is very desirable, if parliament thinks it well to proceed with this Bill, to consider whether or not there might not be some tribunal, and if so why not the railway commission, to look into, watch carefully and supervise the expenditure upon these railway undertakings, so as to be able to restrict the undue and excessive issue of their bonds or shares of capital stock. These bonds, this stock distributed among the public, received as a gift or bought at perhaps a low rate to-day and sold at a little higher rate to-morrow, as the prospect of the railway may improve financially, get into the hands of the holders at an enhanced price and they become a legitimate charge upon the traffic of the railway, and become sometimes a burden upon such traffic and an unnecessary burden, it seems to me. It is my own opinion that we whould be acting in conformity with public opinion if we turned our eyes in the direction of legislation of that kind.
I have endeavoured to state as fully as I could, without being unduly tedious, the general scope and in some respects the particular details of this Bill. It has been framed in an honest endeavour to put before parliament a Bill which should be effective in its operation. If the country desires, as I believe it does, that there should be a tribunal constituted for the purpose of exercising a large measure of control over the railways of the country, I think we would fail in our duty in responding to that demand if we did not give to the tribunal we are creating, ample power to enable them to carry out the purpose for which they are created. When you come to read some of these clauses it may seem that the powers that are given-if they are pressed to extremity of their literal meaning ; if an interpretation is going to be given to them by the board right up to the limit which their language would bear-it might seem that you are giving to the Railway Commission power which would enable them to crush the railways or to do serious injury to the business in-



25S

[Stage Direction]
terests of the country. While that may be so, it must be borne in mind, that you must give in the language that you employ, larger powers than you intend to have exercised in order that you may insure a sufficient measure of power to the body which you are investing with these responsibilities. It is because of this, that it is of the first importance when we come to constitute the tribunal itself ; when we come to determine upon the qualifications which are necessary in order that the measure generally may be successfully worked out; that we shall exercise extreme care in making these selections. It would not be possible for me, and it would not be perhaps becoming for me at this stage, before parliament "says there shall be such a tribunal constituted, to undertake to state in any definite way just what the ideas of the government are as to the personnel of the board itself. We are fully conscious that it will be necessary that there should be represented on that board a man of large legal experience who has had some knowledge of the trend and bearing of railway questions, who has followed railway legislation generally. There should be a man who should have technical knowledge of the working of railways and railway tariffs also upon the board. This is very important. It is regarded as very important in the United States, and after the long experience they have had in that country I presume their judgment may be taken as fairly sound. Outside of these two qualifications I apprehend that a wide latitude might be exercised by the government in its choice. I have noticed recently in the public press that some opinions have been attributed to me with regard to what the constitution of the board ought to be and what ought to be the avocations, of the men who are appointed on it. 1 must say that I have been quite misunderstood in these reports. If any person has had any conversation with me in respect to the subject I have not gone any further than to state in the most general way anything with regard to the technical and legal training required. Beyond that, I think the general business interests of the country should be represented ; and chiefly and prominently among these must always come the interests of the great farming community of Canada; an industry which in its importance far surpasses that of any other industry ; far surpasses the manufacturing and commercial interests great as they are and great as they will continue to be. But while that is the case it is at the same time absolutely true that the farming interests and the manufacturing and industrial and general commercial interests are a common interest after all. A man, no matter what his particular occupation might be who had a business experience might well be taken to be qualified to fill a place upon this board provided that he has a sound judgment and a calm and independent mind. In consider-9
ing this, bearing in mind that it is the strength and pressure of the public opinion which has been aroused by what the farmers of the country have felt to be their particular grievance ; having regard to the enormous extent of these interests not only in eastern Canada, but growing with such tremendous rapidity in our great west, I am satisfied that I speak with the approval of all my colleagues when I say, that the selection which we will make to occupy a place on this board, particularly in respect to the business interests of this country which are connected with transportation, will be such a selection as will commend itself heartily to the approval of the farming community, and will insure, as far as possible, the promotion and protection of their interests.
Mr. BROCK.: I notice that the hon. minister has not stated that the commission is to have any power to deal with labour difficulties and strikes which affect railways very materially. Is it intended that these are to be dealt with in the compulsory arbitration Bill which I understand is to be introduced ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have not incorporated any provisions of that kind in this Bill. There would be difficulty in doing so. I can point out one, which however I do not consider to be by any means the most considerable. You are constituting a commission which will impose very onerous and responsible duties on the gentlemen who compose that tribunal. They will have no sinecure, I can assure you. The duties they will have to discharge will be multifarious, and I think, at all events in the inception, whatever it may be found possible to do later, it would not be wise to hamper the action of the commission by attaching to it such duties as the hon. gentleman alludes to. Then there is another reason. It has not been found practicable so far, under the conflict which exists between provincial and federal legislation, to do very much, if anything, in the direction of compulsory arbitration ; and if you are to rely, as I think you will have to rely, almost entirely upon the friendly intervention of a conciliatory board, for the solution of these labour difficulties, it would not be well to ask the commission to assume duties of that character. Such a board should always have upon it a direct representative of the labour elements themselves ; if they are to have confidence in its decisions, they must have some choice in the composition of the board. Another reason, and perhaps the conclusive one, is that my hon. friend the Minister of Labour has a Bill which he proposes to submit to parliament this session touching that very question.	'


Mr. JABEL ROBINSON (West Elgin).: I would like to ask the Minister of Railways if he has made provision in the Bill to give



the commissioners power to deal with all questions relative to water which is necessarily carried beneath the railways ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Jabel Robinson: Will they have power also to deal with railway crossings in towns and villages, and all matters of that kind ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Jabel Robinson: Will they have power to deal with the long and short hauls ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask one question. I did not care to interrupt the hon. minister as he was proceeding with his speech. He spoke of appeals to the Governor in Council on some questions of fact.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: On all questions of fact. All orders of any kind made by the board may be appealed.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it to be in the nature of an appeal pure and simple or in the nature of a re-hearing ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I take it that would be very much as the Governor in Council himself would determine. The Governor in Council under this Bill would have complete and absolute jurisdiction to revise any order or decision of the board. We have hitherto had, I think, only one instance in which an appeal was carried to the Governor in Council, and in that instance we forwarded from the Railway Committee of the Privy Council the shorthand notes, which contained a statement of everything that had been said, the arguments addressed to the committee and the evidence taken ; and I think some of the gentlemen wished to supplement that evidence, and they were permitted to do so. The same thing would be done In the case of an appeal from a decision of this board.


Robert Laird Borden: I should have thought there would be a necessity for some specific provision in the Bill with regard to that. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman one more question. Apparently the p:>wer to control rates does not extend to the Canadian Pacific Railway, at least to a very considerable portion of the system of that company. Under the circumstances referred to by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary), the same thing might be said of the Canadian Northern, which stands in very much {he same position as the portions of the Canadian Pacific Railway referred to by the hon. minister. Then, there is the Intercolonial Railway as well. So that we have Mr. ROBINSON (West Elgin).
three great railways in Canada as to which there will be no control of rates by this commission ; and will not the fact that there is no control over the rates on these three railways hamper the commission very much in its dealing with the rates on other railways ? I do not profess to have any great practical knowledge of railway matters ; but it occurred to me that the control of rates would not be nearly so effective under these circumstances as It might otherwise be, because how will this commission be able to control the rates effectively on one railway when it has no power whatever to deal with the rates on another and a competing railway ? It seems to me, with due regard to what the hon. minister may say on the subject, that will be a great handicap on the commission in regard to the control of rates, which, as the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals says, is one of the most important features of the Bill. However, I do not propose to discuss the Bill at this stage, and I merely make this suggestion for the purpose of asking the hon. minister to direct his attention to that particular point when he comes to move the second reading.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: So far as the Intercolonial Railway is concerned, my hon. friend would not,
I am sure, anticipate that any conflict is likely to arise with the decisions of the commission in respect of rates, because I have never heard any one allege that the rates charged on the Intercolonial Railway are of such a character that they would have to be reduced in order to conform to the rates prevailing on other lines.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, we are making this Bill for the future, are we not, as well as the past ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, and I think the experience of the past affords very good ground for inferring what will be our experience in the future. I would say, in regard to the condition pointed to in the first instance by my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. McCreary), I understand that the nature of. the agreement between the Canadian Northern and the Manitoba government is this : The Canadian Northen binds itself not to impose a higher rate than the specific rate mentioned in that agreement in respect of its traffic which, of course, so far as the jurisdiction of the Manitoba legislature is concerned, would be limited to the province of Manitoba. The exercise of the powers of this commission are not therefore likely to bring it into conflict with any contract made between the provincial government and that railway. While the hon. gentleman was speaking, the thought presented itself to my mind that the only question that would arise would be as to whether or not the Canadian Northern was imposing too high a rate. Well, there could be nothing in this

contract which would entitle that company to claim that a reduction in rates was heyond the jurisdiction of the railway commission or this parliament and that they could therefore not properly be asked to submit to the jurisdiction of the railway commission. The railway commission might cut down its rates and the Manitoba government could not complain in that case, though it might complain if the rates were put up. I do not think therefore that the case is one of practical difficulty.


John Graham Haggart: 
The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No.


John Graham Haggart: What then did the hon. gentleman mean when he said that costs would apply ?


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We propose that the same system shall continue that now obtains in the

Railway Committee, namely that the costs be left to the discretion of the commission. The fact that we are constituting this commission a court of record, is not tantamount to setting up a judicial tribunal in the ordinary sense. We are simply giving authority to the decrees which they may pass.


John Graham Haggart: I understand that the power to allow costs will be the same as that now held by the Railway Committee of the Privy Council.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: I understood that the object was, in view of the ease with which questions might be brought before that tribunal, to allow this power of mulcting a party in costs to prevent bringing what are called litigious actions.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think we have only given costs in two cases in the last six or seven years.


John Graham Haggart: I presided over that committee for a number of years, and never allowed costs in any case.
THE MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS. We have allowed only fifty dollars or so in one or two cases.


John Graham Haggart: No matter who these commissioners under this new law may be, I do not think the commission will be any more responsible or intelligent or better able to deal with the questions coming before it than is the Railway Committee of the Privy Council. There is one change made in this Bill with which I quite agree. Commissioners were to hold office the same tenure as judges and to be removable only on an address to both Houses of parliament. The hon. gentleman now intends to give the Governor in Council power to remove these gentlemen.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: For cause.


John Graham Haggart: Of course. But no officer has ever been removed by the present government, except ' for cause,' according to the Minister of Railways and Canals and others. But the ' cause ' may be very slight in some cases. But I believe in the power of removal, and I think this is an improvement in the Bill. As I have said, there are a good many things in which the commissioners might exercise power. One is as to the issue of stock and bonds. Of course, they cannot prevent that issue, because the company is given the power in its charters. But they can exercise a supervisory and educational power, as is done by the commissioners in the United States. Of course, if an issue were illegal, it would be bad and void. But they can inform the public of any excessive exercise of the power of issuing stock or bonds. As I have said, it is not my intention to discuss the Bill in Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
full. We shall have an opportunity on the second reading and when the Bill is in committee.


Mr. SPROULE.: I would like to ask the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Hag-gart) whether, if a charter were granted with a provision that the use of the bonding powers shall be subject to the approval of the commission, the commission would not be able to control such powers ?


John Graham Haggart: Certainly they would. They can do that now-they can alter any charter or cancel any contract. Their power is supreme in these things, the only condition being that it shall be done specifically, otherwise the interpretation would go against them in the courts. Of course, if, as my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) says, it were embodied in an Act of parliament, that would be sufficient. But how could you embody it ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: To whom do I understand my hon. friend (Mr. Haggart) to refer when he says ' they ' have the power to do these things now ?	[DOT]


John Graham Haggart: I mean the parliament of Canada. It has absolute power to control. We have the power of eminent domain, and can even take a man's property without giving him any consideration in return. Of course, that is never done, but still the power is vested in us.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: In whom ?


John Graham Haggart: I mean in the parliament of Canada, in the people of Canada, in the Dominion of Canada. When I say ' we ' I am speaking in that sense. When I said ' they ' had the power, I referred to hon. gentlemen opposite as representing the majority and exercising the power of legislation and government.


Andrew B. Ingram: I may have misunderstood the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals in his explanation and in some of the answers given to questions that have been asked. We know perfectly well that one of the chief reasons why the people have demanded this commission is the exorbitant character of the rates charged by certain railways. In answer to a questiou as to the long and short haul, the hon. minister has stated that this commission will have the power to remedy grievances with respect to exorbitant rates. But, in answer to a question by the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) the hon. minister was not clear as to whether this commission would have the right to interfere as to the rates on certain local railways. How, then, can they effectively remedy grievances with respect to rates ? We had every reason to hope that this new Bill would cover not only railways but tramways as well. There is a strong belief throughout the country that a large number of tramways will be con-

structed to accommodate the farming community and to serve as feeders for the trunk lines. But this Bill does not give the commission power to deal with the rates on the tramways. Next we find the hon. minister stating that, though this parliament is the highest in the Dominion, and clearly has the right to grant charters to railway companies, yet, even after parliament has granted such a charter, this commission may take the company by the throat and say : You shall not construct that railway until we furnish you with a certificate authorizing you to do so. I for one, as a member of this House, would not feel like so stultifying myself in matters of that kind. Parliament should retain the right to grant or refuse charters, but, once the charter has been granted on the condition that the railway shall be commenced within a certain time and finished within a certain time, the company should be free from interference with regard to that matter by any of the parties whatever. This and other objections, I think, will fairly be raised to this Bill as I find it now. I have not read the Bill, but have only listened to the explanations of the hon. gentleman, and consequently I am not in a position intelligently to discuss it qt this stage, but I hope at a later date to have something more to say about it. In the meantime I may say to the hon. gentleman that he has his hands full in promoting a Bill of that character in this parliament. He will find a great many serious objections to it, and a great many differences of opinion. So far as I am concerned, however, I should be glad to assist the hon. gentleman in any way that I can, though my assistance may not be worth much, in making this a workable Bill.


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

[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved that the House go into Committee on Tuesday next to consider the following proposed resolution
That the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on Tuesday next, to consider the following proposed resolution :That it is expedient to amend the 32nd chapter 63-64 Vic., " An Act respecting and restricting Chinese immigration," by providing :
1st. That a tax of $500 shall be imposed on every person of Chinese origin entering Canada.
2nd. That the person in command of, or in charge of, any vessel or vehicle, bringing Chinese immigrants into Canada shall be personally liable to His Majesty, for the payment of the said tax, with respect to any such immigrant carried by such vessel or vehicle.
Motion agreed to.

Andrew B. Ingram: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance a question ; and in order to make my question
plain I will quote from the government organ in the city of Ottawa, the ' Free Press.' I notice a report in that paper that a deputation of manufacturers waited upon the government and asked for higher protection. I will quote a short paragraph
The Prime Minister promised full consideration of their request. He advised them, however, that they allow their proposed tariff schedule to be made public. Mr. Fielding informed them that any other course would injure their case. He had letters from many manufacturers warning him against the request of the association, and urging that the tariff be left as it stands at present.
I ask the Minister of Finance if he has any objection to lay those letters on the table that he received from manufacturers.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: In the first place, I desire to point out to my hon. friend that the only organ which the government has in the city of Ottawa is that valuable publication known as the ' Canada Gazette.' For whatever appears in that quarter we are willing to be held responsible. In regard to the other matter, there were some of the papers referred to which I will be pleased at a later stage, or perhaps at an early date, to lay on the Table of the House. The report is not exactly in line with what I said. I said I was aware that a number of letters had been written, some of which I had seen in the hands of members of parliament, taking exception to the proposed action, or what was supposed to be the intended action of the Manufacturers' Association. I stated that I also had some communication myself adverse to what was understood to be the proposals of the Manufacturers' Association. Some of those papers that are not of a confidential character I shall be glad to bring down at once.


Andrew B. Ingram: In the words of the hon. gentleman, why are some of them confidential ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have received a great many representations from different parts of the country on the tariff question, from time to time, which have been offered and received in confidence. Where the representations relate to the material facts of a man's private business, it might be very inconvenient to have such things made public. In many such cases we have received information in confidence and have kept it accordingly. But where a proposal is made to impose a particular rate of duty on a given article, I think that is not a matter that should be received in confidence, and that we should be free to make it public. That is the view I expressed to the Manufacturers' Association.



SUPPLY-CANADIAN CATTLE IN GREAT BRITAIN.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved that the House again go into Committee of Supply.
["Before you declare that item carried, Mr. Chairman, if we are discussing the question of cabinet ministers, I want to say one word for the province of Prince Edward Island. Almost since the time of confederation, we have had a member of the cabinet representing that province. A short time ago, when Sir Louis Davies was removed from this House to a higher position, a gentleman contested the constituency which he had represented in his stead. A good deal1 has been said here about rumour. The right hon. leader of the government has said that he cannot be held accountable for rumour. I can assure him that I attended meetings during the contest and it was held up to the electors of West Queen's that if they elected the gentleman who now represents that riding he would be a cabinet minister. There is", "no province that requires more to be represented by a cabinet minister that Prince Edward Island owing to its isolated position, and owing to the fact that we are shut out for a long time in the year from communication with the mainland. There is no province that has a greater right or is more deserving to be represented in the cabinet than the province of Prince Edward Island. We have suffered this year for the want of representation in the cabinet and we are likely to suffer longer. I see that the lion, member for West Queen's (Mr. Farquharson) sitting now at the left of the right hon. leader of the government, he has not yet been appointed to the cabinet, and I would urge upon the right hon. gentleman that if he wishes to do justice to the province of Prince Edward Island he should see that hon. gentleman is elevated to the proud position of a member of the cabinet, the promise of which induced many electors to vote for him.\nSome resolutions reported.\nOn motion of the Prime Minister, House adjourned at six o'clock p.m.", 'Monday, March 23, 1903.']
Mr. A. C. BELL (Pictou).: Before you leave the Chair, I wish to give notice that I will move on Tuesday next, or on the first day thereafter when the House is moved into Committee of Supply, the following amendment :-
That in the opinion of this House there is no justification for the application of the Diseases of Animals Act of Great Britain to Canadian cattle.
That Canadian cattle at the time of the passing of said Act and ever since have been free from all contagious diseases.
This House is of opinion that the application of the said Act to Canadian cattle has an injurious effect upon the cattle trade of this country.
This House regrets that the representatives of Canada at the colonial conference utterly failed to obtain any redress or promise of redress for this grievance.
This House further regrets that this government has not succeeded by more vigorous protests, or by other effective steps, in finding means to obtain the removal of the existing unjust restrictions on the sale of Canadian cattle in Great Britain.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: I would suggest to my hon. friend, though that is a question for him to consider, whether it would be wise to move that as an amendment to Supply. The whole subject is likely to come up, and by bringing it up in the form of an amendment to Supply, unless he has some special purpose in view, he restricts the discussion and obliges us to coniine ourselves to that particular form. If that is his purpose, I cannot object. But if the object is to broaden the whole question, he can find another form of bringing it up. Still, if he proposes to put it as an amendment to Supply, I cannot object to it.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman forgets that last year this very course was adopted, and the government acquiesced in the proposed amendment. I do not know if my hon. friend has any special purpose in view further than that which the hon. gentleman had in view who made a similar motion last year. He is adopting exactly the same course as was adopted last by an hon. gentleman opposite.
_The MINISTER OF FINANCE. But my hon. friend forgets that when the motion came from this side of the House, possibly the hon. gentleman who moved it was more likely to accept an amendment to his amendment, But, if an hon. gentleman moves a similar amendment on the other side of the House, I am not sure that he would be so ready to accept any kindly advice we might give him. However, that is for my hon. friends opposite to consider.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Department of the Interior-Salaries, including E. Deville at $2,800, W. F. King at $2,500 and Otto J. Klotz at $2,300, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $119,029.
['The hon. gentleman forgets that last year this very course was adopted, and the government acquiesced in the proposed amendment. I do not know if my hon. friend has any special purpose in view further than that which the hon. gentleman had in view who made a similar motion last year. He is adopting exactly the same course as was adopted last by an hon. gentleman opposite.\n_The MINISTER OF FINANCE. But my hon. friend forgets that when the motion came from this side of the House, possibly the hon. gentleman who moved it was more likely to accept an amendment to his amendment, But, if an hon. gentleman moves a similar amendment on the other side of the House, I am not sure that he would be so ready to accept any kindly advice we might give him. However, that is for my hon. friends opposite to consider.']
Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: 


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir Wm. Mulock).: The hon. Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) is not able to be present. He is arranging to go to England, and he asked me to take his estimates for him.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose he is going to England notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act. Perhaps the hon. gentleman will be good enough to give us some detailed explanation why this provision is necessary in this item ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The increase is $3,332.50, and it is made up by the balance of the increases and reductions. The total increases are as follows :
Increases :

Statutory increases 56 x	$50	00	equals $2,800	00lx	37	50	-	37	503 x	25	00	"	75	002 x	10	00	"	20	00

Promotion of Robert Dunlop, from $900
to 2nd class at $1,100 per annum

	200 00
Promotion of Messrs. F. C. Capreol, H. Sherwood, G. W. Paterson and F. W.
C. Cuming to 2nd class from $1,000 to
$1,100, per annum	 400	00
Additional required In the case of Mr. Mclsaac, who was transferred from the Auditor General's office on the 1st July, 1902, $650 per annum and only
$600 was provided	
50	00Additional junior 2nd class clerk	600	00Increase to Messrs King and Klotz, $150 each in addition to statutory increment, and E. Deville, surveyor general, $200	
500	00
Decreases :-
4,682 50
Difference between salary of Mr. J. P. Dunne, promoted to 2nd class at $1,100 and salary of Mr. H. E. Hume, $1,400
superannuated	
Difference between salary of S. J. Willoughby promoted to 2nd class at $1,100 and Mr. W. S. Gliddon, promoted to 1st class, $1,400	
Difference between salary of late Mrs. Ridley, $900, and appointment of J. G.
Mitts, $600	
Difference between $1,000 salary paid late Mr. L'Etoile and J. W. Gibson
appointed at $600	
Difference between salary of Mr. A. T. McNeill, resigned, $650, and appointment of Mr. Munroe at $600	
300 00
300 00 300 00 400 00 50 00

Increases	 $4,682 50
Decreases	 1,350 00
Net increase	 $3,332 50


Robert Laird Borden: I do not understand in what respect the Civil Service Act is repealed, or why it should be repealed.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I am informed that in the case of Messrs. King and Klotz the maximum salary is $2,400, and they are being allowed $150 in excess of the maximum. Mr. King is connected

with the new observatory and has an important addition to his labours which are of a very responsible and technical character. Mr. IClotz has been employed in connection with the Alaskan boundary, and the hon. Minister of the Interior thinks his services should be recognized accordingly.


Hon.   S@: I think the country is very fortunate in being able to retain such distinguished men as I know Mr. King and Mr. Klotz to be in their profession, and it seems a little peculiar that the advances in salary to these gentlemen are so small in comparison with the very large increases that were made in the salaries of two other officers, unimportant as compared with them. I think one of the'gentlemen to whom I refer is a chief clerk, and another a registration clerk, and they had $400 added to their salaries a session or two ago. No doubt their duties were increased by the administration of the Yukon, but theirs are largely clei'ical duties and it is satisfactory after all to find that men who have scientific training and who are so able and prominent in their professions as Mr. King and Mr. Klotz are to receive some recognition, though, I must say, in proportion to the recognition given the other gentlemen, they have not been fully rewarded even yet.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Would my hon. friend (Sir Wm. Mulock) be good enougli to tell me if J. D. Bollard, who is mentioned as receiving $850 is the gentleman who is in Paris now ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: He is not the same person.


Joseph Israël Tarte: May I ask where this gentleman is located ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: In the immigration office in Ottawa.


Robert Laird Borden: Why is not the Civil Service Act amended so that eminent gentlemen such as those mentioned can be retained in the service without requiring the repeal of the provisions of the Act ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I cannot say why the Act is not amended. I suppose if the Act in time is found not to be sufficient to meet any situation that may arise, and if that becomes quite clear, the House will be possessed of the information and will amend it.


Robert Laird Borden: That has been quite clear for the last six years, ever since I have been in the House.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There are only a few cases.


Robert Laird Borden: Only a few cases ?


The MINISTER OP FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: In comparison with the whole Civil Service list.


Robert Laird Borden: It does seem a most absurd thing to keep that Act on the statute-book and to repeal it piecemeal each year in the estimates.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Special merit has to be taken into consideration.


Robert Laird Borden: It might be done occasionally in a very exceptional case of special merit perhaps.


John Graham Haggart: Why is it that the hon. gentleman changes the theoretical organization of the department ? It does not seem as if he requires any more of a staff for the purpose of accomplishing the work, but he wants five more second-class clerks and one more first-class clerk. The hon. minister ought to maintain his theoretical organization approved of by council, and under no circumstances, unless of the grayest and mcst serious character, change it. And why he has changed it by adding five second-class clerks and one first-class clerk to his staff I do not know.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There may be a different number of clerks in the different classes but there is only one additional clerk in the total number.


John Graham Haggart: I know that perfectly well. What I complain of is that the theoretical organization of the department has been changed and there ought to be some grave reason for doing that. There are less in the third class, five more in the second class and one more in the first class. There ought to be some reason for that change other than favouritism.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: All these changes have been made on account of length of service, increased duties and efficiency. The hon. gentleman will not stand in the way of promotion for merit.


John Graham Haggart: Yes 1 do. The country requires a certain staff for a certain organization and because a clerk is efficient and has attended to his duties is no reason why there should be a larger organization than is absolutely necessary to carry on the business of the country.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If there are a number of young men as junior second class clerks, getting small salaries, and if they are promoted to a higher rank because of merit, surely my hon. friend (Mr. Hag-gart) would not object to that.


John Graham Haggart: I insist that the first duty of the government is to see that tlie organization necessary for carrying on a department should not be increased. That is all the organization that is required for the efficiency of the department, and the government are not justified in unnecessarily increasing the organization even if it be for the purpose of increasing the salaries of deserving clerks.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The expression ' increasing the organization ' would convey that the number of clerks has been increased, but as the bon. gentleman knows there is only one additional clerk. It is not to be expected that a number of meritorious young men are always to stay at the same salary. Surely if the minister sees that some of these young men who have made excellent clerks are at small salaries for a number of years he ought be able to promote them.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I wish to ask when was Mr. Bollard appointed in the department ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: He was appointed in 1884.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Has he been in the department since ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Was he not sent to the Yukon for some time ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I am informed that he never was sent to the Yukon.


Mr. CLANCY.: Are there any statutory increases included in this increased vote ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I am informed that in every case where a clerk was eligible for the statutory increase it has been granted to him.


James Clancy: Are we to understand that the Postmaster General and his friends have receded from the position they took at one time, viz., that no statutory increases should lie given, or are these increases given under the system adopted .by this present government on recommendations made by the favourites of the department ? When the government took office they set their face against statutory increases except as a matter of grace on the part of the minister for the time being. Has the Postmaster General abandoned that policy and will the civil servants in future receive their statutory increase under the Civil Service Act, as they did in the past ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: In all these cases the services of the clerks were such as to entitle them to these increases. The labourer is worthy of his hire and is being paid accordingly. My hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) will not. object to our taking advantage of this privilege in the law to ask parliament for this vote.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman has given a beautiful explanation. I asked him if he had abandoned the policy of refusing to give statutory increases unless it suited the sweet will of the minister, and he evaded that question. Now let me ask him again : Has the government abandoned the system they found in operation when they came into power and which was that unless there Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
was some substantial reason why a civil servant should not receive his statutory increase he was entitled to it by law.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: We propose to give an increase to those who are deserving of it. If my hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) can show that these men are not entitled to their increase we will be glad to hear from him about it.


James Clancy: It is scarcely worthy of a minister of the Crown to give such an answer as that. The minister is bound to give this committee all reasonable information, and he has not the right to ask a member on either side of the House to show cause why a civil servant was or was not entitled to an increase. I was going to say that the hon. minister was ' dodging ' the question, but although that might be substantially true it may not be parliamentary. I trust the Postmaster General will give all reasonable information to this committee as lie is bound to do.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not kuow what more I can say. The government are proposing to give these increases to the officers named because they deserve them. There is the statute and there are the officers, and we are exercising the privilege which the statute confers upon us.


James Clancy: We have obtained that much information from the hon. gentleman -there is a statute. The hon. gentleman disregarded the statute in the past. I would like to ask on whose recommendation these increases were made.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: All these increases are based upon the recommendation of the deputy minister.


James Clancy: Have those who have been advanced passed the civil service examination in every case ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes, all those referred to.


James Clancy: When were these recommendations made ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Some time last December, a short time before the deputy minister went away. He went into the case with the minister, and made the recommendations.
Department of Indian Affairs, $66,610.


Andrew B. Ingram: Who are the chief clerks in the Indian Department.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There are four chief clerks :	John D. McLean
secretary, at $2,400 ; D. C. Scott, accountant, at $2,100 ; S. Stewart, assistant secretary. at $1,950 ; R. Rimmer, law clerk, at $2,050.


Andrew B. Ingram: Have there been any changes in the chief clerks in this department for some time back ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The last change was the appointment of Mr. Rim-nier in 1898.


Andrew B. Ingram: Did he get the maximum salary then, or did he start at a lower salary and receive increases ?	[DOT]


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Mr. Rimmer was appointed in 1898 at a salary of 82,000 a year. Since then he has had one increase only, of 850.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is he entitled to an increase the same as the others ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The
maximum, as the hon. gentleman knows, is 82,400.


Andrew B. Ingram: There must be some reason why he has not received the annual increase since his appointment.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It is not a case of a man entering the service as a junior and spending several years before reaching his present position. He got 82,000 at the time of his appointment, and I am informed that the minister thought he should remain at that salary for a short time until it would be wise to recommend an increase.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then I understand that this gentleman was appointed in 1898 and was paid 82,000, which he was not entitled to. Is that the general rule followed in all departments ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There is no rule on the subject. He was appointed a chief clerk and law officer, a more or less technical position, at 82,000. There is no question of being entitled until parliament votes the money. Since his apointment he was recommended for one increase which made his salary 82,050, and he is now recommended for another.


Andrew B. Ingram: The point I want to get at is if these increases are to be given by a sliding scale, who has a right to recommend them from year to year ? There surely ought to be some principle governing these cases.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I suppose the increase should be based either on merit or take place automatically. I think the view of this government is that there should be an exercise of judgment on the part of the minister in the case of high-priced officers. In the case of low-priced officers, I think, expressing my own opinion, that the increase should be given automatically, unless a man disqualifies himself from receiving it. You can hardly compare the case of a law clerk with the case of a secretary performing a different class of work altogether. Each case should be judged on its own merits.


Robert Laird Borden: How many different departments are under the charge of the Minister of the Interior ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The Department of Indian Affairs, the Department of the Interior and the Geological Survey.


Robert Laird Borden: Has that system been found to work well ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: So far as I can see, it has been most satisfactory for the last six years. I cannot speak as to before that.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman (Sir William Mulock) was not so careful as to his speaking in former years. If the system of having three departments under one cabinet minister works so well, might I ask the Postmaster General, or my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) when we may expect that reform of which we heard a good deal before 1896-the period concerning which the hon. Postmaster General is so unwilling to speak-the reduction of the number of cabinet minister from 14 to 7. We can all remember how in those days a gentleman very prominent on the other side, now Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright), advocated that policy, and perhaps I had better address myself to the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce unless my right hon. friend would like to deal with the question himself.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I never expressed such an opinion.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce will observe that he is repudiated by his leader.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright).: My right hon. colleague has merely said that he never expressed that opinion.


Robert Laird Borden: Which is tantamount to a repudiation of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: That is your inference.
Mi-. BORDEN (Halifax). That is perhaps in return for the somewhat taunting speech which the Minister of Trade and Commerce made last year, in which he recalled to the right hon. gentleman the fact that he had made a very strong free trade speech in Winnipeg. The Minister of Trade and Commerce will remember how he turned round to the leader of the government and said that the words he had used at Winnipeg were very excellent words at the time and would be very excellent now. We on this side rather felt for the leader of the government on that occasion. But since

the right hon. gentleman who leads the government will not take this matter up, perhaps his colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce will. My right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce belongs to a cabinet which has fourteen members drawing salaries and I do not know how many without portfolio. The Minister of Trade and Commerce was strongly of the opinion in the olden days before 1896, that seven cabinet ministers being enough for the United States should be quite enough for Canada. It would be interesting to know whether or not he is still of that opinion, and if not when and why did he change it. We have it from the Postmaster Genera], that this system of having three departments under the one minister works excellently well. Why not take the department of Trade and Commerce and Customs and Inland Revenue and place them all under the control of the Minister of Customs ?
Hon. Mi-. TARTE. And Public Works also ?


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend from St. Mary's Division (Mr. Tarte) has always a valuable suggestion to offer. Why not throw in the Department of Public Works ? This would give my hon. friend the Minister of Customs a somewhat wider scope for the splendid energies he is wont to exhibit on all occasions. I offer this suggestion particularly for the approval of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who no doubt will take this occasion to urge on his leader and colleagues the advisability of the change. If seven ministers were sufficient for Canada six or seven years ago. they ought to be now, just as they are in the United States.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: The hon. gentleman has not quoted me correctly. As a mere matter of personal opinion, I do not object to state that I have not altered my opinion which I have expressed several times to the effect- not that I think we should follow the American system-but that I greatly prefer the English system. Speaking academically, of course, I would rather have the number of cabinet ministers reduced and have a very much larger number of junior officials similar to the under secretaries of state. Theoretically considered, I think that that is a far better system than the one we have fallen into. It is scarcely worth while at this time of day to recall the reasons which compelled us to inaugurate the present system at the time of confederation. They were political rather than reasons of business. My experience has confirmed me in the view that if we were free to act-which unfortunately we were not-it would have been better for all of us if we had a number of under secretaries and a more moderate number of cabinet ministers. That is my individual opinion and the hon. gentleman is welcome to it.


Robert Laird Borden: 


Hon.   S@: I suppose this is only one of the many instances in which the Minister of Trade and Commerce is suffering, and suffering in silence, from the fact that the ideas he so loudly and strenuously advocated 'when in opposition have not been adopted by his colleagues with whom he is compelled nevertheless to co-operate. There are many other things, I dare say, on which, if we could induce the Minister of Trade and Commerce to unbosom himself, he could similarly enlighten us, but we have not gained much information on the question as to whether the present number of cabinet ministers is to be increased or decreased. All we know is that a very prominent gentleman in the cabinet is convinced that the cabinet is too large, and that we have more ministers than the country requires. But he dare not venture to urge that the number should be reduced even to the extent of one. It seems to me that the right hon. the first minister should take the House into his confidence and tell us to what extent, if any, he sympathizes with the views of his colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce. That hon. gentleman has been frank. He tells us that he still holds the view that there are too many ministers of the Crown, and the country is interested in knowing from the first minister whether, despite the views of his colleagues, he is not only not going to reduce the number of cabinet ministers but on the contrary proposes to increase them. If we are to place any credence in the well authenticated rumours which were used in order to encourage the hearts of the faithful in the west and to serve election purposes, another portfolio is to be created-that of the Minister of Mines. At one time, the Minister of Mines was to be taken from the province of British Columbia, but lately, during the Yukon election, the country was informed that the government candidate in that election, if successful, was to be chosen for that position. I think that the right hon. gentleman, who, I am glad to see in his place ought to satisfy the legitimate curiosity of the public on this question. He ought to let the country know whether he proposes to reduce the number of his colleagues or whether he proposes to add to that number by appointing a Minister of Mines.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I should think that, by this time, having been for some time in public life, my hon. friend (Hon. Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper) would cease to attach much importance to rumours. For my part, I am a little older than he is, and I have ceased to care what rumours may be. I do not think that parliament should care much or lose time in seeking to ascertain whether any given rumour is true or is not true. Governments have their own way of acting, and that is by official method ; and, so long as

no official action is taken by the government there is nothing to find fault with. But I see that my hon. friend, not having anything serious to criticise in the action of the government, wishes to criticise in advance. He wishes to know whether we intend to appoint a new minister, and, in case that may be done at any time, he indulges in criticism in advance. So far, nothing has been done in the way of increasing the cabinet, it seems to me he is simply borrowing trouble in worrying over the matter. I would suggest to him that he should not allow his sleep to be disturbed by matters of that kind. It will be time enough to worry when the government presents any such proposition. But, so long as they do not do so, I cannot see why he should criticise.
Hon. Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER, All this sounds very pretty, Mr. Chairman. But, of course, there is nothing in it. The Prime Minister, with the support which the country seems to be blindly giving him of late, can afford to be jaunty and light-hearted about these things, and to tell us that the people have no right to be curious. But it is not so long ago that such questions as I have referred to were made to do duty in the interest of the Reform party, so called. Take for instance the case of my old colleague, Col. Prior, formerly one of the members of this House from Victoria, B.C. He happened to join the Conservative administration and to hold the position of Commissioner of Inland Revenue, a subordinate position in the administration but not in the council. And the party which the right hon. gentleman then led made a great deal of capital out of the implied slight to the province of British Columbia-that it had been so long denied representation in the cabinet, and at last its representative had been given a position in the government but deuied a place in the cabinet. From that time on, the right hon. gentleman's representatives in British Columbia have been assuring the people there that it is only because of the Chinese immigration question, that it is only because the right hon. gentleman is so engrossed with this, that or the other question of, perhaps, great importance, that he has not been able to carry out his heart's desire, which, his lieutenants assure the faithful in that part of the country, is to have British Columbia represented in the cabinet. So, these are not altogether rumours, but are statements which do duty and make votes for the right hon. gentleman. This is the time to air the rumour, if the right hon. gentleman will allow me to refer to it as such, and have it either punctured or confirmed. Let us know whether these people who pretend to speak with authority have the slightest reason for that pretense, or whether they have been simply pleasantly spoken to by the right hon. gentleman, as I have been. Shall we tell them, when they
assure us that the province is to be directly represented in the cabinet, and that Senator Templeman's position without portfolio is an earnest of the intention of that government that soon there will be a member sitting at the head of a department, that there is nothing in it-that it is only rumour ? Or shall we say the same when we are told that the member for the Yukon (Mr. Ross) is to be the happy man ? I dare say it is embarrassing to the right hon. gentleman to be asked to take the House into his confidence. It may be very inopportune for him to explain the situation of the government now. But, surely, speaking as one of the committee on the country's business to the head of the government, I have the right to ask, and to press the right hon. gentleman to say whether there is anything in the statements that have been made and largely circulated throughout the country ; or whether they are, as he has suggested, mere rumours. If he wishes to convey the idea that these matters have been the subject of rumour and nothing more, that is an answer to the question I have put. And, if that be so, then are hon. gentlemen opposite prepared to make good their profession of reducing the number of ministers instead of increasing them ? If, on the other hand, they have been seriously considering the appointment of a Minister of Mines, whether in the person of a representative from British Columbia or of the representative from the Yukon, it is clear that they intend to depart in this particular, as they have in so many others, from their past professions.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I do not think my hon. friend (Sir Charles Hibbert Tup-per) has at all improved his position. I must say that I decline to recognize any rumours whatever.


Hon.   S@: They) are only rumours then ?
The PRIME MINISTER, If my hon. friend quotes any word of mine or of any of my colleagues, I am ready to answer, friend quotes any word of mine or of any thing to say as to where they originated or on what authority they were circulated, I decline to be bound by them or even to answer any questions with regard to them. If, for instance, Senator Templeman has said anything on the subject, or if the hon. gendeman (Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper) can trace anything I said, his question will be a proper one. But life is too short for one to hold himself responsible for what appears in newspapers about one. I do not think that when the hon. gentleman was in the government he held himself responsible for what appeared about him in the newspapers or for rumours of any kind. The hon. gentleman spoke of a wish of my heart not being realized. I must say that that has happened more than once-I have failed to

realize tilings that I had very much at heart. And this may he one of those things-I do not say it is not. The hon. gentleman has not made out a case, and if he wishes to draw me in this way, I am sorry to say he is hardly likely to succeed.


Robert Laird Borden: My right hon. friend (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) does not always hold himself bound even by the statement of his colleagues. I referred him to a statement of his present colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) and he refused absolutely to be bound by it-repudiated it at the very outset, and left my poor unfortunate friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce to struggle with the matter as best lie might. I think I am justified in saying one thing on behalf of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He has struggled with the situation, as best he could, from 1890 down to the present hour, seeking to have the number of his colleagues reduced to seven, but not at all desirous of having the reduction commence with the Department of Trade and Commerce. But he will not stand any further additions to the cabinet. I want to say that distinctly on behalf of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He has made up his mind on that point-the cabinet has grown as far as he will stand. If the Prime Minister attempts to add to the members of the cabinet, I am sure the Minister of Trade and Commerce will strike. I think I have the right to say this in justice to my right hon. friend (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) because he does not appear to be inclined to say it for himself.
Now, the Minister of Trade and Commerce says that he would be glad indeed to see the cabinet reduced to the number of seven, if we were free to reduce it. When did we lose our freedom in that regard ? I think my right hon. friend the Prime Minister boasted of our glorious freedom in England, and gave up for that boast our chances of preferential trade with England in 1897. We have that glorious freedom, at least, have we not ? Let me direct the attention of my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the fact that we can reduce the number of departments at any time, we are perfectly free in that regard. We have just as much freedom now as we had when he made that pronouncement in 1895. In what respect has our condition changed with regard to freedom ? I do not quite follow the observations of the hon. gentleman ; perhaps he will make the situation clearer to the House than it is at present. But coming back to what the Postmaster General said a moment ago, we are in this position, that a gentleman occupying the position of cabinet minister and acting as Minister of the Interior, tells us that the system of working three very important departments together, requiring a great deal of labour Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
and attention to details, answers perfectly well, and is in the best interests of the country. Well, does not this declaration made by one of the right hon. gentleman's most important colleagues, justify us in asking whether the government has any idea of carrying out a system of that kind. My right hon. friend seems to think that he is not obliged to give any answer to this question because the word rumour has been mentioned. Let us dismiss the rumour altogether. I think, however, there was something more than a rumour, because these allegations were made on public platforms by gentlemen speaking in the interests of the Liberal party in a recent election. However, let us dismiss the question of rumour. Here we have a declaration made by a gentleman who now holds an important position in the Liberal party and in this government, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, a declaration never repudiated, so far as I am aware, by my right hon. friend. Then we have the declaration of the Postmaster General that the system under which the pledge of the Minister of Trade and Commerce might be carried out answers excellently well in the interests of the country. My right hon. friend thinks he gets rid of all that by saying that there is nothing more than a rumour. Now, let me ask why it is that a policy which the Minister of Trade and Commerce pledged himself to the people of this country years ago to carry out, if I remember his words correctly, and which his colleague says now would be in the best interests of the country, is not carried out by this government. I think my right hon. friend ought to treat this matter more seriously than by dismissing it on the ground that is a mere rumour.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: My hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce can well take care of himself, as perhaps the hon. gentleman opposite will find if he persists in his attempt to draw him out. Let me relate as a warning to the hon. gentleman a story told by the late Hon. Mr. Huntingdon in this House, under somewhat similar circumstances, for the benefit of an hon. gentleman opposite him. A little boy received a present of a jack knife, and, with it he tried to carve his name upon the hind quarters of a mule. Some time after the doctor had tried to put his nose into shape and reduce the swelling of his eyes, the little boy said to his father :	' Pa, do you think I will ever
look as nice as before ? '	' No,' said his
father, ' but you will be a darn sight wiser.'


Robert Laird Borden: If my right hon. friend feels obliged to compare the Minister of Trade and Commerce to a mule, that is his own affair. He says the Minister of Trade and Commerce is well able to take care of himself. I entirely agree with that, and I believe he is also able to take care of

a good many persons who are nearly related to him. I do not know but that the same observation could be applied to the leader of the government of this country. Now, we have had a very interesting discussion with regard to this matter, I do not know whether my right hon. friend feels pleased with it or not. He has not seen fit to make a declaration of the policy of his government with regard to it, but he has seen fit to treat a great question of this kind in a flippant manner instead of giving such an answer as might be expected from the leader of the government. Does my right hon. friend think that this flippant way of dealing with a matter declared to be of so much importance by one of his own colleagues, is really what the country expects of him ? Does he think that by telling some stale story he will get rid of public responsibility in this regard ? I do not think that his method of dealing with a matter of this kind is consistent either with public interest or with the dignified position which he holds. The Postmaster General has made a very important statement here today. He says that the system of working three great departments under one minister of the Crown answers very well indeed.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I did not lay down any general proposition. The hon. gentleman asked whether the combination of the Department of the Interior, the Department of Indian Affairs and the Geological Survey under one minister had worked satisfactorily. I said that so far as I knew it worked satisfactorily last year. I did not say that other departments could be grouped together. There are departments and departments.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I have this to say to the hon. gentleman, who I am sorry to say has not as good temper as he might have, that I thought the whole discussion was in the nature of banter. But if he wants to have an answer from the government on this great question of policy as to what ought to be the constitution of the cabinet, I think he will agree with me that the present occasion is not well suited to a discussion of that kind where we are only discussing the estimates of the Department of the Interior. If he desires, however, to ascertain the views of the government with relation to the constitution of the cabinet, which might be a very proper and important question to discuss, if he will give us proper notice we will be glad to gratify him.


Robert Laird Borden: I am glad to find that the right hon. gentleman is willing to deal with this matter in a fairer tone. It may be that some notice should be given to the government, and I am willing to accept that suggestion. In view of what he has said, I will take a further opportunity during the session, after proper notice, of
asking the right hon. gentleman to state his policy on this question.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I should imagine that the Prime Minister had been reading very carefully the Gamey debate in the local House, for I notice that that little story of his has been given down there. I thought that the late Joseph Rymal had patented that story, but since he has died, I suppose the Prime Minister thought there could be no objection to him using it after it had been used in Toronto. But, what I rose more particularly to draw attention to was the fact that the right hon. leader of the House speaks of not being held accountable for rumour. The present government have surely something more than rumour to work upon ; they have the resolution which was moved in this House and supported by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce at the time when it was proposed to establish the Commissioner of Customs and the Commissioner of Inland Revenue, which, they said, was increasing the number of the departments and they thought it their duty to protest strenuously against it. Then, we have the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce and his colleagues enlarging these two commissionerships into full fledged ministerial departments and he took one of them himself. That was much more than rumour and not only that but they made it retroactive so as to enable themselves to collect a salary for the year which was past and gone. That was not rumour. That was dealing with facts which took place in this House and therefore is ample justification for referring to the matter and especially in view of the fact that the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce has occupied the position ever since and must have assented to it before Council or otherwise it could not have come before the House notwithstanding the views he held in regard to it before he became a cabinet minister in the present government.


Mr. HACKETT.: Before you declare that item carried, Mr. Chairman, if we are discussing the question of cabinet ministers, I want to say one word for the province of Prince Edward Island. Almost since the time of confederation, we have had a member of the cabinet representing that province. A short time ago, when Sir Louis Davies was removed from this House to a higher position, a gentleman contested the constituency which he had represented in his stead. A good deal1 has been said here about rumour. The right hon. leader of the government has said that he cannot be held accountable for rumour. I can assure him that I attended meetings during the contest and it was held up to the electors of West Queen's that if they elected the gentleman who now represents that riding he would be a cabinet minister. There is

no province that requires more to be represented by a cabinet minister that Prince Edward Island owing to its isolated position, and owing to the fact that we are shut out for a long time in the year from communication with the mainland. There is no province that has a greater right or is more deserving to be represented in the cabinet than the province of Prince Edward Island. We have suffered this year for the want of representation in the cabinet and we are likely to suffer longer. I see that the hon. member for West Queen's (Mr. Farquharson) sitting now at the left of the right hon. leader of the government, he has not yet been appointed to the cabinet, and I would urge upon the right hon. gentleman that if he wishes to do justice to the province of Prince Edward Island he should see that hon. gentleman is elevated to the proud position of a member of the cabinet, the promise of which induced many electors to vote for him.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of the Prime Minister, House adjourned at six o'clock p.m.

Monday, March 23, 1903.