1903-10-20

Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would draw the attention of the right hon. the First Minister to a despatch from New York stating that the Canadian commissioners refused to sign the award and that a cable



message was sent from the right hon. gentleman to England approving of their conduct. Has }ie any information to give the House ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I have information that the award is to be signed to-day at noon, and that it will not be unanimous. More than that I have none. It goes without saying nobody will suppose that I would presume to communicate with the commissioners regarding their line of conduct.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In view of the despatch, I brought the matter to the notice of the right hon. gentleman.



REGISTRAR OP THE SUPREME COURT.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 208) respecting the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada. {The Minister of Justice.)
The MINISTER OP JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: I propose that we reconsider clause 3, in order to meet the difficulty suggested by my hon. friend from Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) with respect to the salary of the registrar. He suggested that the registrar might, under clause 3, continue to receive the $600 now paid to him. for editing the Supreme Court Report. In order to avoid that, I would suggest that section 3 be struck out, and another substituted in its place. I beg to move, therefore :
That section 3 of the said Bill be struck out and the following substituted :-
3.	The registrar shall, subject to the direction of the Minister of Justice oversee and direct the officers, clerks and employees appointed to the Supreme Court. He shall give his full time to the public service and shall not receive any pay, fee or allowance in any form of excess of the amount provided in this Act.
4.	The provisions with respect to his salary and the receipt of any pay, fee or allowance contained in the preceding sections shall not apply to the present registrar until the conclusion of his engagement as one of the commissioners for the revision of the statutes of Canada.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is the registrar not getting the $600 now ?


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: He gets $2,600 as salary, and $600 on Order in Council for reporting the judgments of the court. This $600 is voted in the Appropriation Act The present Bill will not come into force until such time as the revision of the statutes is completed and his salary will remain as it is, namely $2,600 and $600. He is now in receipt besides of a salary of $1,200 for his work as one of the commissioners for revising the statutes. When that revision is completed, he will get the salary provided by this Bill.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: Will he continue to perform the same duties when he gets Mr. SPROULE.
the increase as he is paid $600 now for doing?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, he will perform all the duties.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John Graham Haggart: What is the effect of section 2 ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is the same provision as exists with respect to deputy ministers. His salary begins at $3,500, with an increase of $100 every year until it reaches $4,000. But every year he has been in office up to the present time counts. For instance, if he had been five years in office, when this Act comes into force, he will start at a maximum of $4,000. If he has been only four years in office he will start with $3,900, and so on.- As he was appointed in 1898, he has served the five years, and he will be entitled at once to the $4,000.


John Graham Haggart: I thought that under the Bill he was entitled to $3,500 now, his salary to be increased by $100 a year until he had reached a maximum of $4,000. But I find that under the hon. minister's interpretation he commences with $4,000.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Let me try to make the position clear. He is entitled to $3,500 as salary to begin with, and he is entitled to annual increases of $100 a year until he reaches the maximum of $4,000. But, if he has served one, two, three or five years, that service will count for the1 purpose of increasing his salary. So, if he has served for two years his salary will be $3,700, if three years his salary will be $3,800 and so on. This is the general principle. But it is provided also that the Bill shall not become applicable to the registrar of the Supreme Court until such time as he shall cease to act as one of the commissioners for the revision of the statutes. So, until he has ceased to act in that capacity he will remain as at present, in receipt of a salary of $3,200.


John Graham Haggart: Then, this revision of the statute will be finished in about six months or a year.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: A year, I suppose.


John Graham Haggart: Then, he goes at once to the maximum of this Bill ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: Well, I protest against this multiplying of offices and this making of deputy heads where there is no need for it. And, as to the position of registrar of the Supreme Court, I do not think that the qualification required for such an officer justifies the paying of such a salary as that which is paid in this case.

On section 4,


John Graham Haggart: What does this officer get paid for revising the statutes ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Twelve hundred dollars.


John Graham Haggart: So, he is in receipt of 54,000 now ?	.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: A little more than $4,000.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 3) to amend the Dominion Elections Act.
On section 2,
2. The Dominion Elections Act, 1900, is amended by inserting the following immediately after section 9 :-
Compulsory Voting.
9a. Any person who does not vote at an election at which he is qualified to vote shall be disfranchised for a term of six years from the date of such election.
2.	No person shall, however, be disfranchised if he has been prevented from voting by illness or by absence from the electoral district, if he did not absent himself therefrom in order that he might avoid voting, or if more than one election was being held at the same time and such person voted in some other electoral district where he was qualified to vote : Provided always that a judge of any court of record, upon being satisfied that any person entitled to vote had any other good and sufficient reason for not voting, may grant such person a certificate of enfranchisement annulling the disenfranchisement, which certificate may he in the form KK.
3.	Any person who, while disfranchised under the provisions of this section, votes or attempts to vote in any electoral district, shall be guilty of an indictable offence and shall be liable to a fine of not less than one hundred dollars and costs and not exceeding two hundred dollars and costs, or, in default of payment of such fine and costs,^ to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months and not less than three months, with or without hard labour.
Tile MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: That is a section that it will be almost impossible to have adopted at the present time. I think it is far in advance of public opinion, and I see no reason why we should make the exercise of the franchise compulsory. It is a privilege which may be exercised by an individual according to what he considers right or wrong, and I do not see why we should compel a man to vote.


Mr. FOWLER.: The same argument would apply to any offence. A man may have so elastic a conscience that he would want to take money for his vote, but I suppose the hon. minister would not make the man's conscience the guide and final appeal in such a matter, nor would he relieve him from punishment because the man's con-451J
science cleared him of offence against that particular law. As to this section being in advance of public opinion, I do not know that the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) has brought forward any argument to show that. It seems to me that it is the most direct and most effective way of arriving at what the whole House professes to be anxious to arrive at-greater purity in elections.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. While it is considered very desirable that every elector should cast his vote at election time, I believe that the principle of compulsory voting is altogether undesirable. At the same time, I must call the attention of the Minister of Justice to the fact that we manage to protect the elector who, because of conscientious scruple, does not wish to cast his vote. In Manitoba, in the preparation of the voters' list, every voter has to apply to register his name on the list, and only those whose names are registered are entitled to vote. We have a large class of people in Manitoba and also a number in the North-west who, because of conscientious scruple, will not vote. These people do not register their names, and, therefore, are not called upon to vote. Notwithstanding we attain the object in Manitoba, by the preparation of our voters' lists, of protecting those who on account of religious scruples do not wish to vote or cannot vote. But if we adopt the principle of compulsory voting we would put those people in a very awkward position, because they cannot vote.


George William Fowler: This does not affect those people. If they do not want to vote they are simply struck off the list. There is no punishment inflicted upon them.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. But the same circumstances do not exist in the other provinces. Those who are entitled to vote, whether they wish to do so or not, are put on the list, and if they are put on the list against their wish they would be compelled to vote.


John Graham Haggart: The Minister of Justice says that the exercise of voting is a privilege. It is more than that. The man who votes is a trustee, he has to exercise a trust, not only for himself, but for a great many others in the community who have no votes. They ought, therefore, to exercise it one way or the other. It is not a privilege conferred upon a person that he may exercise as he pleases ; it is a duty that he owes to the rest of the community, it is a trust with which he is clothed. He not only exercises it for himself, but he exercises it for others in the community who have no vote. The franchise may be a limited one. There is a certain class of females in the community who have no votes ; he has to exercise that trust for them, and why should he not be forced to exercise it ? If, when he comes to the

poll, he finds there is no difference between the two parties or between the two candidates, if he has no choice between them, he may put in a blank ballot. But surely it is his duty when he is entrusted with the franchise, not only for himself, but for others, to exercise that franchise.


Mr. FRASER.: He is acting like a hypocrite if he puts in a blank ballot.


John Graham Haggart: No such a thing. There may be no difference between the two candidates. But there is a better plan than that. The Minister of Finance, in speaking upon this Bill, drew attention to the prevalence of corrupt practices in this country. We want to do away with those corrupt practices. One of the chief modes of exercising corrupt practices is the expenditure of money to get parties to vote, to use that trust with which the community have entrusted them-not the exercise of a privilege, as the Minister of Justice says, but the fulfilment of a duty. We want to bring them to the polls, and in order to do that, what Is the best plan ? I have thought over the subject for the last twenty years. I have been opposed to the principle which has been advocated in this House again and again In favour of compulsory voting, but I have come to the conclusion that there are only two methods of doing away with corruption, of doing away with the frauds that are practiced in elections, and which are too prevalent at the present day, and those two modes are compulsory voting and open voting.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Open voting is all right. .


John Graham Haggart: I am in favour of open voting. I am in favour of compelling a man who has a trust to exercise it one way or the other in favour of one candidate or the other ; and if he has no choice between them, let him go to the polls and declare, by putting in a blank ballot, that neither of the candidates are satisfactory to him.


The PRIME MINISTER.: It is a purely academic question to discuss whether the franchise is a right or a privilege. Whether it be a right or a privilege it can be exercised in two ways, by abstention as well as by casting a vote. The system of government which we enjoy, and which we all recognize is the very best that can be devised by man for the government of man, is the party system. It is impossible to carry on the government of the country except by party organizations. What has been our universal experience ? We know it happens sometimes that a man is not satisfied with the conduct of the party which he has usually supported ; still he has no confidence in the other party. His conscience will not allow him to go with his own party, because he is not satisfied with certain acts they have committed ; he wants to mark


John Graham Haggart: his disapproval, he has a right to mark his disapproval, of those acts, and the best and most effective method by which he can do so is to refuse to vote. There is not a gentleman in this House who has not seen examples of that kind. A party candidate cannot bring to the polls to support him some members of his own party because they think their party has been guilty of some action of which they disapprove, which was not in line with the general policy of that party. Under such circumstances may not one, or three, or four, or twenty, of the most respectable citizens in a community openly mark their dissent from their own party by abstaining from voting ? They have a right to say, we will not vote for you, neither can we vote for the other side, for we do not believe in them ; therefore, we do not propose to vote at all on this occasion. Now is, that not a legitimate manner of exercising the right of franchise? Is that not one of the highest, most moral and most effective methods of asserting his independence under the circumstances ? More than that, it has been found to be effective upon every occasion that it has been exercised. Under such circumstances you cannot say that you will compel a man to give his vote, compel him to commit a hypocritical action, in going to the polls and casting a blank ballot. I believe that under the circumstances a man has a right to say : I will not vote on this occasion, I say so openly and above-board, I will not vote, neither will I vote for the other side, because I do not believe in their policy ; therefore, I will stay at home. I appeal to the conscience of every man opposite, I appeal particularly to the conscience of my hon. friend from King's, N.B. (Mr. Fowler), who has taken a warm part in the discussion of this question, I appeal to him whether he thinks it is right to force a man to vote under these circumstances. True it is that if we allow this privilege of abstention we may not reach a certain class of electors who want to be bribed. Well, let me say that so far as my experience goes-I will not speak of cities of which I have not much experience-but so far as the rural part of the community is concerned the number of electors who are accessible to bribes is very small, is infinitesimal. You will always find a certain proportion of the electors who are ready to take bribes, but the great mass of the electors vote according to their conscience, according to their sense of duty, according to their usual party affiliations. Of course, there are exceptions, there are always a certain number who will wait to the last moment to vote. We have the five o'clock man, we have the four and a half o'clock man, who will hold back his vote to the last moment, waiting for the highest bidder. If you were to have compulsory voting, and this class of men had to go to the polls, do you think they would be any the less ready to take a bribe ? They would

take it a little earlier, that is all. They would not wait for the highest bidder, but they would take the first one that offered. For my part, I think the method we have at present is the best and the most maniy that we can devise.


George William Fowler: I agree with what the right lion, gentleman has said as to the small number of persons in rural constituencies who can be approached by the briber, but unfortunately there are enough of them in most of the constituencies to make the difference between victory and defeat. They hold the balance of power. There are honest men in both parties, and they are the great mass. The very great mass of the electorate, I believe, are honest voters, who cannot be approached in that way. But unfortunately there are a number in almost every constituency that cun be handled, and when they all go one way, or the majority of them go one way, that' way is apt to be the way that decides the election. That is the class we want to get at. Now the difficulty with the argument of the Premier is that he does not seem to perceive the principle which I think is the true principle, that the right to vote is a trust. As the hon. member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) has pointed out, it is not only a trust for himself, but for others who are not voters, for minors and for females who have not the franchise. No trustee can exercise a trust by abstaining from fulfilling its terms ; that is entirely contrary to the doctrine of trusts. What right has any man to decide at a mere whim of his own whether he shall exercise his trust or not ? We have in this country the system of party government, and the voter has the right to select from either one of these parties, but I cannot agree with the doctrine laid down by the Prime Minister that an abstention from voting is an exercise of the trust vested in the elector.


Mr. EMMERSON.: Elections are frequently held on Saturday. There is a large body of Christians in the maritime provinces, and particularly in the county of Albert, which I represented for a number of years in the local house, who, when elections are held on Saturday, absolutely refuse to vote, owing to religious scruples. These are the Adventists, who are to be found in large numbers in Albert and in Carleton and a great many other counties throughout New Brunswick. This is a country of religious liberty, and however much we may disagree with their views they are entitled to recognition, they are entitled to liberty of conscience, and it seems to me that it would be manifestly unfair if we were to impose upon these people penalties for not voting.


George William Fowler: Why could this difficulty not be obviated toy not holding elections on Saturday ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That would be simply absurd.


George William Fowler: Thursday would do as well.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Elections may be held on Saturday ; there is no statute preventing elections being held on that day, and in selecting a day these matters are not always borne in mind. It may be more convenient, in fact it frequently is more convenient, in the interests of the lumbermen, especially in New Brunswick, to hold elections on Saturday, because on other days they are in the woods and are unable to get out until Saturday. The fishermen also are away all week, but come home on Saturday in time to vote and are able to spend Sunday at home.


George William Fowler: Has the hon. gentleman (Mr. Emmerson) read section 2, which gives the judge power to excuse a man for his non-voting ? The reason advanced by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Emmerson) would be an excellent reason, and the judge would-excuse him.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I recognize what is in the law as well as does my hon. friend (Mr. Fowler), but I recognize also that it would be a manifest injustice to impose on each of these men the duty of appearing before the judge, with the expense it would involve and the unfair position in which you place him by compelling him to go to a judge and make excuses for the exercise of his religious scruples. Such a law would be unfair in every respect, and not in accord with the constitutional rights we enjoy in this Dominion.


Mr. DEMERS (St. John and Iberville.) (Translation).: I fear, Mr. Speaker, that in discussing this question in the manner we are doing now, we are somewhat losing too much sight of the real interests of the country. It should not be forgotten that electors who abstain from voting because there is no law to compel them to do so. are not a desirable class of voters. Considered in that light, the question is an easy one_ to solve. To my mind, voters who do not think it worth while to go to the polling booth are not, as a rule, enlightened people, well informed as regards the matters upon which they are expected to express an opinion, or else they are not honest people. Now, while the present system may not give the best results as regards the number of votes registered, it ensures, on the other hand, better quality. What we lose in numbers is made up by the better quality. I believe that the general interests of the country would be better served by those painstaking and honest voters who go to the polling booth of their own free will, than they could possibly be by those ignorant or dishonest voters whom it is the purpose to compel to vote under penalty of law. What would be the value of a popular verdict with a majority of voters lacking in education or honesty, a sort of compulsory universal suffrage ? By

means of the system in force to-day what we lose in numbers we make up in quality.


John Graham Haggart: It seems to me that this House has forgotten the premises on which we started to frame this election Act. The question of drafting an Act of this kind was submitted to a committee on the advice of the Minister of Finance. In recommending this course to the House the hon. the Minister of Finance stated that unfortunately corrupt practices prevailed extensively throughout the community, and he invited all parties in the House to join together for the purpose of doing away with such practices ; that was the premise upon which we started. If the premise is not correct, if, as the right hon. gentleman who leads the House stated, corrupt practices do not extensively prevail, especially in rural districts, what was the object of the statement of the hon. the Finance Minister, or why was the Bill introduced? The very suggestion which we are now considering was made by the hon. Minister of Finance to do away with corrupt practices. He said that perhaps one of the most effective means of doing away with such practices was compulsory voting. We agree with him and we have joined with the government for the purpose of drafting a Bill to the best of our ability and ;of presenting an acceptable Bill to the House. If these practices prevail in the community, as the hon. Minister of Finance states, and as I believe they do, I am with him in stating that one of the most effective means of preventing these practices is compulsory voting, and I believe, as I stated before, that the committee should have gone a step further and recommended open voting. If a man is bribed, you can then ascertain that fact, because you know what his convictions were up to the moment of his voting. If he votes contrary to what he has been stating and talking in the past you become suspicious. Open voting is an effective means of bringing corruption and bribery home to the individual. It would also avoid the enormous expense to which every one of us is put in bringing to the polls those whom the people of the country entrusted with a trust, and who ought to be there without our having to expend money to bring them there. Most of the corrupt practices that are committed are not in the form of direct bribery of a voter, but in the expenditure of money to convey him to the polls to exercise his trust. And why should he not exercise it ? As my hon. friend (Mr. Fowler) says, it is a trust which the voter exercises for a number of persons in the community. If it is a trust he ought to exercise it in some manner or give an excuse for not exercising it, just as any other person invested with the trust would have to do. For these reasons, I think the Minister of Justice and the government ought to support the Bill or show some other means of accomplishing the same purpose of doing away with Mr. DEMERS (St. John and Iberville).
these corrupt practices which the Finance Minister stated extensively prevail in a community, and to prevent which he suggested this conference between the two parties. Surely these practices have not ceased in the community since his statement. And why was there not an agreement in the statements of the Finance Minister and of the right hon. gentleman who leads the government ? Why did not the Prime Minister say that the Finance Minister was mistaken, and that it was his experience that corrupt practices did not prevail extensively in Canada ? We took it as voicing the opinion, not only of the government, but of the members on that side of the House, that there should be an agreement between both parties that an end should toe put to the practices which every one of us knows extensively prevail in the community. If this is not a remedy, it is for the government to suggest one. What remedy do the government propose for these corrupt practices if they do not accept the recommendation of the committee ? Bet them do something to prevent these corrupt practices, the existence of which is notorious.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: If these corrupt practices to which the hon. gentleman has referred really exist in the community. I venture to suggest that this proposal is no remedy at all for that evil. It is not a remedy for an existing evil to substitute another evil in its place, and I would consider it a very great evil indeed to enact any legislation that would have the effect of invading in any respect the conscientious convictions of any element in this community. My hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart) says that' the evil exists, in the fact that men are paid to keep away from the polls.


John Graham Haggart: For bringing them to the polls.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: And he suggests as a remedy for that evil that men should be forced to go to the polls.


John Graham Haggart: Yes.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: In what respect is that a remedy? If a man is paid not to go to the poll, he may be forced to come to the poll under this Bill, and when he goes there he can deposit his blank ballot, or he can spoil the ballot. You might know that he had gone to the poll, and so far had given you consideration for the price you have given; but if he spoiled his ballot or did not mark it, he would not havje voted all the same. Whether, he stays away and. does not vote, or whether he goes to the poll and deposits a blank ballot, he has not voted in either case. In what respect then is this compulsory voting a remedy. I maintain that this proposal is in advance of public opinion in this country. This is not the only country where constitutional freedom exists and where

the people have the right of franchise; but of all other countries, only in Belgium does compulsory voting exist. Why have they not adopted it in England, why have they not adopted it in the United States, why have they not adopted it in any of these countries where a free franchise exists. I contend that this is no remedy for the evil.


John Graham Haggart: What remedy do you suggest ?


Mr. MONET.: Good example ?


John Graham Haggart: We followed the example of the Minister of Finance. "


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Educate the public up to understand the franchise and the privilege of the franchise ; allow the education that is going on now to continue for a few years more, and then you will have a remedy. The whole world knows that the corruption that was so rampant years ago is fast disappearing. My hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Ilaggart) knows that bis friends on that side of the House are no more unanimous than we are on this subject; of that we have had evidence this morning. This is not a party question ; it is a question on which men are free to express their opinions, independently altogether of party considerations. I said that we were proceeding on a wrong principle ; we are proceeding on the principle that the franchise is a duty, when it is nothing of the sort. No one of the books that discuss this question look on it in any such light.	[DOT]


John Graham Haggart: Every one of them.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Every one of them is a vague statement, but I have some of them here.


John Graham Haggart: Oh, no.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Let the bon. gentleman bear with me a moment. My hon. friend must not make a broad statement as to 'every one of them,' and then run away from the answer. Woolsey, on ' Political Science ' (page 388, vol. 1, pars. 5 to 127), discusses this question, and he says :
Voting is a privilege, it involves for the most part a duty ; to enforce it by penalty would not comport with the nature of a privilege.
I also refer the hon. gentleman to the ' Forum,' vol. 14, page 176 : ' Venal Voting; Methods and Remedies,' where we find the same principle; and also to Leckny on ' Democracy and Liberty,' vol. 1, page 226, where we find the same principle laid down. In any event, independently altogether of considerations of political ethics, I say that it is an infringement of the principle of personal liberty to enact compulsory voting, and on that ground I oppose it.


George William Fowler: If Mr. Woolsey or any other man says that it does not comport with
a duty to enforce it by a penalty, be is talking utter rot and utter nonsense.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


George William Fowler: He is talking something that is against the views accepted by the whole world.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend (Mr. Fowler) ought not to make rash statements of that sort. Woolsey did not say it was a duty; he said it was a privilege.


George William Fowler: If the minister will read the quotation again, he will find that Woolsey says : It is a privilege which carries with it a duty. These are the words of Dr. Woolsey, as the minister read them, and Woolsey goes further, according to the quotation read and says: that to enforce a duty


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: He does not say anything of the sort; he says : to enforce a privilege.


George William Fowler: Then read it again, please.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My lion., friend (Mr. Fowler) ought not to be too severe on Mr. Woolsey. This is what he says :
To enforce it by penalty would not comport with the nature of a privilege.
And he says :
That voting is a privilege which involves for the most part a duty.


George William Fowler: That is just exactly what I said.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.	[DOT]


George William Fowler: Yes, I said that it wits a privilege which involved a duty, and the absurdity of Woolsey's contention is that it was wrong to enforce a duty because a privilege was involved in it. The very foundation of a franchise is that it is a duty as well as a privilege. All cannot exercise the franchise, but some must, and therefore it. is the privilege of those who are selected to exercise it. Therefore, some enjoy the privilege of the franchise, but coupled with that privilege is the highest duty of citizenship, which is to exercise that privilege, and to exercise it properly and conscientiously. Therefore, a man has not the natural right to the franchise, but enjoying that privilege, being selected to exercise the franchise, not only for himself but for all others in the community who have not the right of the franchise, it carries with it the highest duty to the state, viz.; that he shall actually exercise it, not abstain from exercising it according to bis own will, but that he shall be absolutely compelled to exercise it. No matter what party he votes for, he is fully and completely bound to discharge that duty which he owes to the state. As the Minister of Justice has said :

this is not a party question. Members on both sides of the House are divided In opinion as to the wisdom of the amendment. The special committee was divided on this particular question; some of us felt that while this proposal did not perhaps fully answer the purpose we were striving for, yet it would go some way in that direction, and others of the committee thought that it would be found unworkable. That seems to be the idea, which prevails in this Committee of the Whole-the difference being that the majority here are apparently opposed to it, while the majority in the special committee were in favour of it.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: How did you divide?


George William Fowler: I think there was a majority of one ; we didn't have any very serious dispute over it. At the same time, while I am of opinion that this will be beneficial in its working, yet I am not so anxious about it that I would detain the House at this very late stage of the session in advocating at length this principle..


Mr. GALLIHER.: I would like to point out to my bon. friend that whatever duty may be involved in this privilege is a moral duty and that it is repugnant to all principles of law to enforce by a penalty a moral obligation.


Mr. RICHARDSON.: The Minister of Justice has just stated that it appertains to the functions of government to educate the public mind to the value of their privileges in this connection. I cannot conceive of any better or more forcible method of educating the public mind to their great privilege in the use of the franchise than the legislation embodied in this Bill. It cannot be a penalty to deprive any man of a right which he possesses, simply because he refuses to exercise that right. The man who refuses to exercise the right to vote, practically disfranchises himself by his own free act. It has been argued that neither Great Britain nor the United States have adopted legislation of this kind. Are we always, as a young, virile nation, to go in leading strings ? Are we never to make a beginning, to lead the world in anything ? I look forward to the time when Canada will be one of the leading nations of the world, when it will he leading the thought of the world, in the direction of the greater progress and higher civilization than has ever before beeu realized ; and I look upon this measure as a step in the right direction.


Mr. ROBINSON (Elgin).: In order to avoid corrupt practices at an election, all we have to do is to pass a law making it a criminal offence to contribute one cent towards an election fund. If there were no money there would be no bribery. Consequently all you have to do is to make it so that no man shall have a fund to purchase votes or to keep men from voting.


George William Fowler: Then every man will go and vote as he pleases. We find that governments are under the control of large corporations. These corporations supply a large amount of funds -what for ? For the purpose of bribing the electors, so that they may cai'ry their point; and the government acquiesce in this, I tell you, and I tell you emphatically, It is time we put this thing down ; and the only way it can be done is by making it a criminal offence to contribute towards an election fund. There would be no difficulty about compulsory voting if men did not get money to go and vote. But while we have only two parties in the state, and men have to vote for one or the other, they hesitate about voting at all, it some times happens that both parties stink in their nostrils, and they are disgusted to have to vote for them. If they had an opportunity to vote for some independent man of their own feelings and sympathies, they would not need to be urged to vote. We had better start right now. Let the Minister of Justice insert a clause in this Bill that any man who contributes a dollar to an election fund shall get six months in jail and a fine of $1,000. With regard to what my hon. friend from South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) says about going back to the old system of open voting I think that is played out. It would not do at all iu this country. We must have a ballot, not to protect me or the hon. member for South Lanark, because we do not care who knows how we vote. But there are thousands of men in this country whose bread and butler depend on their employer not knowing how they vote, and we must protect these men. With regard to registration, if you make it compulsory on every man to go to a notary public or a registrar and register his name, his age and his place of residence, just as you compel him to register the birth of his child, the death of his father or a marriage ceremony, there will be nothing arbitrary about it. Then make it penal if he does not vote; at least disfranchise him for the next election which is penalty enough. Then, make it a penal offence for any man to contribute money to an election fund. I could give you some of my experience.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Give it.


Jabel Robinson: It is not necessary. I tell you it is sadder than anything you can think of at the time of an election to see thousands of dollars brought into a constituency to bribe the electors. Everybody knows it is done, and why don't you try to stop it ? You can do it by preventing the fund being created.


Mr. BARKER.: As a member of the committee to which this Bill was referred, I have been very much struck by the somewhat remarkable change in the temper with which the measure was received when first introduced by the hon. member for North Nor-

folk (Mr. Charlton) and that with which it is received to-day. At that time a good deal was made by the hon. member for North Norfolk of the evil, of which we all hear so much during election times, of men holding back their votes until the last minute, in the desire to sell them to the highest bidder. I do not recollect that any hou. gentleman on either side of the House at that time disputed the existence of that evil. It seemed to be generally assented to that such an evil existed, that it was a serious one, and that if possible some remedy should be found for it. To-day we find quite a different attitude taken towards it especially by hon. gentlemen opposite. We have one gentleman who feels that this clause of the Bill would do a great injustice, because it happened in one province of this Dominion that an election was held upon a Saturday, and the. Adventists refused to vote on that day. Well, the hon. gentleman supports that by saying that it may be convenient in that province to hold elections upon a Saturday. I am under the impression that the elections are held throughout the Dominion on the same day, and I think it would not be convenient for all the rest of the Dominion to hold the election upon a Saturday, and therefore it is a very remote possibility indeed that we shall ever have one election for the Dominion held upon a Saturday, or that the Adventists will suffer on that account. Another hon. gentleman minimizes the number of people who hold back for the purpose of selling their votes. He thinks there are very few, and points out that the great mass of the people are honest and give their votes honestly. I do not dispute that ; but I think every gentleman in this House will admit that there are quite sufficient of those who hold back their votes to overbalance the majority in almost every constituency of the Dominion. I do not refer to the cases where very large majorities are obtained. But in the large mass of cases there is a comparatively small majority, and I think it is the general experience that a sufficient number of people hold back until nearly five o'clock to turn that majority in the one direction or the other. Then another great objection which is urged to the clause is that it is an outrage to compel a man to vote against his convictions. For instance, a man might be opposed to both candidates, and it would be wrong to punish him because he did not vote for either. But there is nothing to prevent such a man from depositing a blank ballot. The hon. the Minister of Justice tells us that this is an infringement upon civil liberty. But where is the harm of saying to a man who refuses to turn out and vote or even deposit a blank ballot, that if he does not perform that duty which he owes to the public he shall be left off the list for a certain number of years ? Then we had a learned discussion as to whether the right to vote was a mere privilege or a trust or a duty. I
doubt whether any one will dispute that it is a duty incumbent on every man, who is protected in his civil rights by society and the laws of the land, to vote for the proper men to represent the people in parliament ; and I say if he will not perform that obligation, which he owes to society, the right should be taken from him unless he has some reasonable excuse for not exercising it. While I do not believe it possible to provide a complete remedy, this will provide a remedy to some extent and ought to be given at least a trial.


Mr. BELCOURT.: No doubt the evil of bribery and corruption is more or less prevalent in Canada, though possibly it may be less prevalent in the rural parts than in the city constituencies, and we would no doubt all welcome a substantial and effective remedy. I do not believe, however, that the remedy proposed by section A is a remedy at all. In my opinion we ought only to impose penalties when dealing with offences per se, things which are of themselves criminal, immoral, unjust or dishonest, and we should not impose a penalty for the mere omission to perform a duty, however necessary the performance of that duty may be. The legislation now proposed is on a line with that kind of legislation by which you try to make people sober, temperate, religious, patriotic, or honest, by Act of parliament. The hon. member for King's, P.E.I. (Mr. Fowler), when dealing with the objection that there is quite a number of people, if we are to believe the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson), who have conscientious scruples against voting, compared the refusal to vote to the taking of a bribe. But there is a very great difference between the two. The taking of a bribe is an offence against honesty and conscience and quite another matter from the non-performance of a duty, especially when there are conscientious scruples against its performance. Parliament has never questioned the right or the propriety of proposing penalties for the taking of a bribe, but I do not think that even the most ardent advocate of compulsory voting ever proposed that a man should be sent to jail for not going to the polls. My idea of the only solution is the one indicated by the hon. the Minister of Justice, and that is education. The only way in which you can awaken the public conscience to the performance of a duty is to enlighten that conscience, and you can only do that by constantly putting before the electors the great importance and the sacred obligations of casting their ballot at election time. But, if you deprive a man for any number of years of his franchise because at any election he has not cast his vote, you might as well make a law providing that any one who has been asked to become a candidate for parliament shall not have the privilege of refusing, under penalty of being debarred during a term of

years from coming forward as a candidate. If a man is to be punished for not casting liis vote, he should equally be punished for refusing to become a candidate. Then the remedy which section 9a provides is a very peculiar remedy. You declare that it is an offence not to vote, and in order to punish the man who has committed that offence, you compel him to go on committing it during six years longer. That seems to me very contradictory. It is a very poor way of curing one to compel him to remain in his offence for another six years.
Hr. ROBINSON {Elgin). Will the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him a question ? ,Does the hon. gentleman think the law against crime does not prevent crime ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: You have a law against bribery, and my hon. friend from Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson)


Jabel Robinson: We want to make that law strong.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: But I am pointing out that the measure proposed will not have that effect, that it is not a remedy for the evil, the existence of which we all admit. If my hon. friend from West Elgin (Mr. Robinson) has a remedy, let us have it.


Jabel Robinson: I have given you my remedy.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I repeat that, in my opinion, the solution of this question is education. And I think it devolves upon all of us who are engaged in public affairs constantly to educate the people on the subject. During election time particularly, every member of this House should do what he can to make the people appreciate the franchise and the sacred obligations devolving upon those who enjoy it. If we do our duty in this regard, we shall prevent a great deal of the bribery that now prevails, at any rate we shall do a great deal more than by a provision of this kind which, it seems to me, means absolutely nothing.


George William Fowler: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Belcourt) says it is a very strange thing to provide that, because a man refuses to vote or abstains from voting you should take away from him the privilege of voting and so continue him in his crime. If we accept the doctrine, which is the doctrine of the schools, that the vote is a privilege and a duty, and that the voter is a trustee not only for himself but for all the people, the Bill is logical and perfectly proper. For, if a trustee neglects to perform his trust what do you do ? Do you contiuue him in his trust ? No, you remove him. The answer to the hon. gentleman's argument is so patent that I wonder it did not strike him.


Mr. SCHELL.: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler) allow me to ask him a question ? Is the voter a trustee for any one except himself ?


Mr. BEL COURT.: 


George William Fowler: Certainly. The body of voters are trustees for all the rest of the community. The voting privilege is not for the voters themselves alone, but for all the non-voters in the community as well. That is the true principle, that is the only principle that is contended for by any person. Any one who has given any study to the sub.;ect will not attempt to deny that the voter is a trustee for the non-voters. So, the committee were perfectly logical in providing to have the trustee removed for a portion of the time because of his


Louis Philippe Demers: Will my hon. friend (Mr. Fowler) permit me ? He removes a trustee. But who is to replace the trustee during these six years ? If nobody replaces him the parties are abandoned and their interests are no more represented.


George William Fowler: He is not sole trustee.


Louis Philippe Demers: The mandate of the trustee is revoked. Who, then is to take his place ?


George William Fowler: He is not the sole trustee; there are all the other voters. Why, the principle is recognized every day. If you have three 'trustees and one of them defaults, will not he be removed from the trust ? And if he is removed does it necessarily follow that another will be put in his place V Suppose there are three executors; one dies and the other two continue in their places; a second dies and one remains as sole executor.


Louis Philippe Demers: I suppose the voter represents the interests of his family. If he is removed, who is to represent them ?


George William Fowler: Myi hon). friend (Mr. Demers) loses the point entirely. The voter is the trustee not for his particular family or friends, but he is the joint trustee, with all the other voters in the community, for the community.


Dominique Monet: What about different parties then V


George William Fowler: The trustee has the right to exercise his trust as seems to him best, of course. My hon. friend betrays an absolute ignorance of the whole subject by his question.


Mr. ROSS (Ontario).: I have listened with a great deal of pleasure to the legal gentlemen in the House discussing this question mainly from a legal standpoint. I thought that, perhaps, I might contribute a little from the layman's standpoint. I think there is no hon. member in this House who would approach any measure designed to remove from the community the slur that is cast upon it, through the existence of bribery in any other spirit than that of regard for the public interest. And it is in that spirit that I approach the discussion of this mea-

sure. The trend of legislation in the province of Ontario, from which I come, has been in the direction of extending the franchise. I well remember when no one could vote for a member of the House of Commons unless he had what is called a stake in the community. Now, we have municipal voters who vote on property only, we have also the manhood franchise, which extends the suffrage practically to everyone over twenty-one years of age who is a British subject. This has been done during a series of years, and during that time there have been great struggles for the extension of the franchise. It has come to this perfection; and now it is sought by this Bill, to restrict the franchise to a certain extent. I am sure that every hon. gentleman here would hail with gladness legislation wisely framed to prevent bribery and ensure a free and fair expression of public opinion. But, as against this proposal of compulsory voting, we have heard of people who have conscientious scruples against voting. These scruples may arise in the course of one election to prevent a man from voting, while, in the next election, the difficulty being removed, he would feel himself free to vote. The Prime Minister gave one case in illustration.
I have one in mind that came within my own experience some years ago. I was working in a certain election, and, about an hour before the closing of the poll, it was reported to me that a certain prominent Liberal had not voted. I went to him to ask his reason for remaining away from the polls. He said to me :	' William, I cannot
vote in this election.' He had been my school teacher and was an old and very highly respected member of the community, a man concerning whom nobody would for a moment think that any illicit means had been used to keep him from the polls. I asked his reasons for not voting, and he said : ' On one question I cannot agree with the party

Mr. HUGHES {Victoria). Temperance.


William Ross: No, not temperance. ' On one question I cannot agree with the party, and for that reason I cannot see my way to vote in this election.' That man had a conscientious scruple about using his franchise in that particular election. Surely under these circumstances, you would not disfranchise a man for six years. For my part I would not think of it. This is only one instance, and I think every member will recall similar instances in his own experience. I agree with the Minister of Justice that this legislation is rather in ad- j vance of public opinion, and the best thing 1 would be to drop it from the Bill. While j there may be some things to commend it- J and I must say that some of the things that I have been repeated here in its support commend themselves to my judgment-still, I! think public opinion is not ready for this I legislation.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: Inasmuch as the Finance Minister took a strong stand on the other side, and the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) also, I think the House is entitled to know why both of these gentlemen are absent.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: The motion is that this clause do stand as part of the Bill.
Motion negatived.
On section 3,


Henry Robert Emmerson: 
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I move that paragraph 4 of section 6 be struck out. I have consulted the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery and the King's Printer, and they

both tell me that It is absolutely impossible to apply that section, that it would be out of the question for the returning officer to send to all the electors on the electoral list a copy of these offences, or an abstract of the same. There are districts in which there are eight, or ten, or twenty thousand electors, and to attempt to do such a thing would take up all the time the returning officer has at his disposal.


George William Fowler: He does not do this work by himself, he has a clerk to do it.


Samuel Barker: I think subclause (f) should be struck out.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I think subelause (f) is a useful clause, and it would be an improvement on the Bill if we were to adopt it.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: I do not think there is any need for furnishing each deputy returning officer with ten copies of the printed directions as clause (f) requires him to do. What is the use of sending each deputy returning officer ten copies ? I think the thing is absurd, and we ought to strike out the whole clause. I move in amendment that the whole clause be struck out.


George William Fowler: The idea of sending ten copies was that they might be well circulated throughout the polling district.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I think this is exceedingly useful for the purpose of bringing to the notice of the electors when they go to the polls for the purpose of registering their votes, the penalties to which they are subjected, and also the general requirements of the election law. I think it is very desirable.


Mr. KAULBACH.: I think the Minister of Justice is perfectly right. There should be some instructions to guide the voters when they go to the polls.
Amendment to the amendment (Mr. Campbell) negatived.	-
Amendment (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) agreed to.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I drew the attention of the Minister of Justice to the fact that I thought there was something wrong in the wording of this first amendment. I would ask the Minister of Justice if he has ascertained how these words would fit in with the statute as it now exists ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Would the hon. gentleman repeat the objection he made the other day ?


David Henderson: I have not before me the Act we are amending, but my recollection is that I found some error in the drafting of this Bill, in fact it was admitted by the Minister of Finance the other day when we had this Bill up. The section we are amending reads :


Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.: Immediately after the issue of the writ of eleotion the clerk of the Crown in Chancery shall transmit to the returning officer a sufficient number of copies of the voters' list.
Now after that we are to add :
And an abstract of the offences and penalties under this Act.
The section would then read thus :
A sufficient number of copies of the voters' list and of an abstract of offences and penalties under this Act if there are any.
Now it looked to me as if the words * if there be any ' certainly applied not to the voters' list but to the abstract of offences.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think that is intended to apply to the province of Prince Edward Island, where they do not have voters' lists and of course the clerk of the Crown in Chancery could not furnish the deputy returning officer with the voters' list.


Samuel Barker: The amendment might come in the fourth line of section 21 after the word ' Act ' so that it would read :
Immediately after the issue of the writ of election the clerk of the Cro jvn in Chancery shall transmit to the returning officer a sufficient number of copies of the voters' list, if there are any, one copy of this Act and of the abstract of offences and penalties under this Act and of such instructions, and so on.


Archibald Campbell: I moved in amendment that section 6 be struck out and I would like to know what has'become of the motion.


Peter Macdonald: The hon.
member for West York (Mr. Campbell) must have been speaking to some motion. The members of the committee will remember that I put Mr. Campbell's motion that the whole of section 6 be struck out and that motion was lost.
Section as amended agreed to.


Archibald Campbell: I move that the clause as amended be struck out.


Peter Macdonald: 
Archibald Campbell: I understood that the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) moved that part of section 21 of clause 6 be struck out and in amendment to that I move that the whole section as amended be struck out. It is not the same motion as I made before, because the clause'has been amended.


Peter Macdonald: Iu my opinion it is substantially the same thing. The committee have accepted these words proposed by Mr. Barker. They have rejected your amendment, you are asking that the committee shall reverse the decision they arrived at a few moments ago, which is contrary to the rules of order.

On section 7,


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The effect of this amendment is to make a distinction between officials who commit offences and the ordinary voter. The penalty for officials is most severe. It is a very severe penalty and it may make it difficult to get men to accept the office, but if a man does accept, I suppose that no penalty is too severe which will keep him straight.


Mr. CLANCY.: I -do not think there will be any difficulty in getting good men to take the office. I believe in the principle that officials who commit offences should be more severely punished than others.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There is a provision here which carries with it disfranchisement for a period of seven years.
I am rather opposed to the idea of disfranchising people unless the offence is very serious ; but it is for the committee to decide.


James Clancy: I have known men to have voted twice who had absolutely no idea they were committing an offence against the law. To disfranchise a person who commits an offence unwittingly might be too severe a penalty.


Jabel Robinson: A clause should be added to this in the following words :
The deputy returning officer shall be a resident of the polling division in which an election takes place.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Impossible.


Jabel Robinson: You can laugh, but if you saw the trouble about it I saw, you would not laugh.


Hon. Mr. BLAIR.: I agree very strongly with the Minister of Justice as to the disfranchisement penalty under this clause. We ought to be slow to impose the penalty of disfranchisement on an elector. In this section it would cover cases in which the offence would not be commensurate with the penalty. We ought not to disfranchise a citizen unless he commits an act which shows that he is absolutely unfit to exercise the franchise. Many of the offences under this Act are not of that gravity, and I would agree with the suggestion of the Minister of Justice to omit the part of the clause Which provides for disfranchisement.


James Clancy: Would this apply to voters generally as well as to officials ?


Andrew George Blair: When you make them liable to an indictable offence, I think you go far enough.


James Clancy: Not in the case of officers.


Andrew George Blair: Perhaps not, but I do not think it should apply to the voters generally.


Samuel Barker: Would the Minister of Justice state what are the offences which would bring about this penalty?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: If I read the marginal notes perhaps that would be sufficient to describe them. The first offence is interfering with the voter marking his ballot paper by the candidate, officer, clerk, agent or other person. The second provision is that the ballot paper when given to the voters is not to be shown to any one for the purpose of giving information as to the manner in which he has voted, nor is it to be shown by the deputy returning officer or any person, so that those present may know how the voter has voted.


Mr. COCHRANE.: We have had some considerable difficulty over this in my riding, and this is a good time to know what the law is. If I mark my ballot and show the returning officer the initials on the ballot paper, who has the right to deposit that ballot in the box; is it the voter or the deputy returning officer ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The deputy returning officer.	,


Edward Cochrane: Are you sure ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am not, but I will look it up.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: It is the universal custom that after the officer sees his initials, he puts the paper in the box.


Edward Cochrane: I don't want the custom; I want the law. The ballot belongs to the elector, and the officials should have nothing to do with it.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am never sure of anything until I have seen the text, and I find now that I was right. It is the deputy returning officer who should place the ballot in the box. Then, in reference to the question of my hon. friend (Mr. Barker), paragraph 4 provides for the punishment of those who induce the voter to display his ballot paper. Any one who has arranged with the voter that when he comes to hand his ballot paper over to the deputy returning officer, or arranges that an elector shall show how he has marked his paper, is liable to the penalty provided for here. Cases have come to my knowledge in the election courts in which, by the aid of a window in the secret chamber where the ballot is marked, the voter puts his ballot on the glass so that a person outside may see how he has voted.


Samuel Hughes: When we were asking the minister to amend this Bill, I suggested that each scrutineer or agent of a candidate should be allowed to place his initials or any distinguishing mark on the counterfoil, so that when the ballot was brought back by the voter each officer could see that it was the ballot which had been I given to him.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There is a stamp put on the back of the ballot.
'Mr. HUGHES (Victoria). That does not amount to a hill of beans. It is duplicated in many different ways, as the minister knows. I put that suggestion in writing at the time. I do not know whether it was brought before the committee or not.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I think section 5 is absolutely without effect, because there is no number on our ballot paper after the counterfoil has been detached. This has probably been adopted from the Ontario Act.


Samuel Barker: All these are questions affecting the secrecy of the ballot, and any person who interferes with that ought to receive all the punishment provided for here.


Mr. OLIVER.: I would like to follow the Minister of Justice in objecting to the penalty of disfranchisement. Provision is made for the punishment of a person who commits the offence, under the ordinary procedure of the court. The punishment which deprives the individual of his vote for seven years does not leave any latitude in regard to the nature of the offence. It is a minimum punishment, and it seems to me that if we consider that the offence is subject to a lighter or a heavier punishment, in the discretion of the court, it is hardly logical to make a minimum punishment of seven years' disfranchisement. For my own part, I object altogether to disfranchising the individual for any except the most grave reasons. If his punishment can be achieved by any other means, I would say certainly do not disfranchise him.


John Graham Haggart: Suppose a voter marks his ballot and, without any intention of doing wrong, takes it without folding it and hands it to the returning officer to put it in the box. Under this clause he Would be disfranchised for seven years without intending to do any wrong. That is done hundreds of times. The voter goes and marks his ballot paper and forgets his in-stuctions to fold it up, and hands it to the returning officer to fold it.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: In a case of that kind actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea would apply, and there would be no offence.


Samuel Barker: If what is done in that way were made legal, there would be no good in the Bill at all ; any sort of fraud could be committed. A man who had sold his vote could simply, as has been said, open his ballot so that everybody could see it. If the ballot is to be of any effect at all it must be secret. If we are to fritter the whole system away by allowing men to show how they voted, we had better at once go back to open voting.
Progress reported.


Samuel Hughes: At one o'clock, House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock.
RAILWAY! SUBSIDIES.
House again in committee to consider certain proposed resolutions respecting the granting of the subsidies therein mentioned to certain railway companies.
To the Timagami Railway Company for a line of railway from a point at or near Sturgeon Falls in a north-westerly direction to a point on the westerly shore of Lake Timagami in the district of Nipissing, not exceeding fifty miles.


John Graham Haggart: What railway company is that ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My recollection is that the charter is a provincial ' one. This has to do with the development of large pulp mills in the Nipissing district.


John Graham Haggart: Does the hon. gentleman know whether any subsidies were given by the provincial government to this line ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not to my knowledge.


David Henderson: How long will this road be when completed ? I understand we are only giving a subsidy to the extent of fifty miles.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is from Sturgeon Falls, a station on the Canadian Pacific Railway, to Lake Timagami. It is for the purpose of opening up that district and bringing pulp wood to the large mills erected there by the Imperial Paper Company. These people recently invested a couple of million dollars in large pulp and paper mills and the government thinks this encouragement might be given them.


James Clancy: Where are the pulp mills situated ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: At Sturgeon. Falls on the Canadian Pacific Railway.


James Clancy: I suppose that it is intended that road is to extend for some considerable distance to the north of that country.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The application is for fifty miles only.


James Clancy: To what distance is the road chartered ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am perfectly confident that the capitalists are putting their own money into this enterprise. They have taken over the large works, and these English people are capable of carrying out their undertaking.


James Clancy: Is this the company which had some difficulty with Its agents in Canada ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There was some difficulty between the local people and the English company, but that has been settled and a new company organized. A son of the late Lord Russell is one of the principal men in connection with it and other wealthy capitalists in England, and they have applied to the government to subsidize this piece of road.


David Henderson: I understand that the application for this subsidy was made by the solicitor of the railway company and he makes no reference whatever to these pulp mills. All he says is that this road will be a valuable aid to colonization. It does not appear that they desire particularly to aid the pulp enterprise.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The Sturgeon Falls Pulp and Lumber Company own a very large tract of territory north of Sturgeon Falls and bave a very extensive waterpower at that place. They negotiated for a sale of their limits and powers to the Lloyds Paper Company of London, England. These negotiations culminated ,in a sale, but then certain difficulties arose between the two companies which were referrred to arbitration. The result of the arbitration was that the limits and the power were handed back to the Sturgeon Falls Company besides a large payment and the Lloyds went out. After the original owners came again in possession, a new company was organized, the Imperial Paper Company, which took over the limits and built a large pulp mill at Sturgeon Falls. This pulp mill was built by Peter Lyall, of Montreal. The area of territory is very large and the power is said to be one of the best powers in that part of the country. Lake Tirna-gami is a lake on one of the branches of the Sturgeon Fallls river and at the beginning of the pulp limits. The intention is to penetrate into the pulp concession by this road for the purpose of bringing down principally pulp wood and also promoting settlement. In addition to the pulp concession, they have got a large tract of territory in fee simple. I know something about this as I acted myself as arbitrator between the companies, but with respect to this particular application I know very little.


David Henderson: Then practically the object of granting this subsidy is to benefit a private company which has bought up the whole of the territory in that section.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Not all of it.


David Henderson: I am not sure that we are doing wisely in aiding a private enterprise of that kind, if the general public are not going to participate in the advantages.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: In that locality Mr. Booth and Mr. Lumsden and other lumbermen also own limits.


Mr. McCOOL.: I may say that this railway passes through a very good agricultural country. It touches the townships of Springer, Field, Grant, Bastedo, Gibbons, Dana, MacWilliams and Pardo, every one as good land as there is in the province of Ontario. There is settlement for a distance of thirty miles along the proposed route of this railway, many of the settlers having been there a number of years. The company who are asking for this are virtually the Imperial Paper Mills Company. Hon. members will see in the Toronto ' News ' a report of the starting of the mill on Thanksgiving Day. The capacity of the works is forty tons of paper a day, and they intend developing further power at Smoky Falls, about fifteen or sixteen miles above Sturgeon Falls, and to double the capacity of their mills inside of a year. I had the curiosity to inquire as to the amount of duties the company have paid in to the treasury on their machinery, and I found they had paid within the last year no less than $7,000. This was on machinery that could not be had in this country. They have as complete a paper mill as there is in America-that is the way they put it. And if hon. members will refer to the Toronto ' News ' of yesterday they will see quite an item about it. There is no question about the benefit this railway will be not merely to the company but to that section of this country which is a very desirable section to open up.


John Graham Haggart: There were two parties here during part of the session advocating different lines of road in this section. Would the hon. gentleman (Mr. McCool) tell us the merits of the rival schemes 7


Charles Arthur McCool: This is another company altogether. The companies to which the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) refers were two local companies. I have here the names of a few of the parties interested in this company, and from these names it will be seen that the company is a strong one :
Commercial
Rating.
D. Sinclair. Esq., (Messrs. Tillie &
Henderson)	 $2,500,000
Edward Lloyd, Esq. (Messrs. Bucknajll Bros.)	 1,250,000
G. Lawson Johnston, Esq. (vicechairman, Bovril, Limited)..	..	7,500,000
Robert Jardine. Esq. (Messrs. Ker,
Boulton & Co.)	 2,500,000
R. H. Hedderwick. Esq. (Messrs.
Hedderwick & Schultz)	 500,000
J. C. Bayldon, Esq. (Messrs. J. C.
Bayldon & Co.)	 1,250,000
D. W. Bell, Esq	 1,500,000
J. G. Paterson', Esq. (Messrs. Paterson, Laing & Bruce)	 1,250,000
Sir Jas. Fairfax & Co	 2,500,000
M. H. Barnet. Esq	 1,250,000
F. Lazenby, Esq. (Messrs. E. Lazen-by & Sons)	 2,500,000

So it will be seen that this is not a small company. They have the means behind them to carry out the enterprise, and I am sure the work will be started early next spring.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thought the hon. Minister of Justice said that Mr. Lloyd had dropped out of the company.


Charles Arthur McCool: I think this must be another Lloyd. This is Mr. Lloyd, of Messrs. Bucknall Bros.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not wish to oppose this subsidy, but merely to say that I do not take much stock in the item one sees in the papers about the time railway subsidies are about to be voted or charters given, as showing the merits of the schemes. One who has watched these things from year to year for any length of time must come to the conclusion that if their insertion in the paper is not paid for. at least the publication is for some specific purpose, and it is not always a guarantee with reference to the company. I noticed the item in the ' News ' to which the hon. gentleman refers.


Jabel Robinson: Will the companies who are about to receive these bonuses recoup the government at any time for the money paid to them ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is a clause in these resolutions which corresponds with that in existing railway subsidies to the effect that if these companies render services to the government they shall not charge for them, but that these services shall be credited on account of the subsidy. Except as we may in time-and I think it in not likely to realize very rapidly-recover a portion of that subsidy in that way, there is no provision for repayment.


James Clancy: Perhaps the hon. minister would say whether anything has been earned in this way, what the amount and whence it came ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I cannot give the source, but I will learn that later if the hon. gentleman desires. My hon. friend (Mr. Robinson, Elgin) will have to remember that this wise provision was put in only recently. In the former days of extravagance this was not done.


John Graham Haggart: Oh, you are mistaken.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We have put this provision in recently and must not expect to accomplish great things in a short time. In 1902 there was received in the way of refunds of that character-I think altogether from the Post Office Departmental,057.14 ; in 1903, $1,346 ; and for the present year up to date, $676.90. These are deductions from the Post Office subsidies.


David Henderson: I fear the memory of the acting Minister of Railways (Hon.


Charles Arthur McCool: Mr. Fielding) is somewhat at fault. I have a recollection that, many years ago, when the railway from Calgary to Edmonton was given a subsidy and, I think also the railway from Regina to Prince Albert, concessions of this very kind were demanded of the companies, and that the companies did recoup tlie government in the way that was prescribed. This policy for which he claims credit is not a new policy ; but, as in so many other cases, hon. gentlemen opposite have adopted the policy of their predecessors and now parade them as theirs, thinking that, perhaps, the memories of the people of the country are as defective as their own. I am sure that my recollection in this matter is Correct, and I think the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) who was Minister of Railways and Canals at the time, will bear me out that this is an old provision adopted many years ago at a time when the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fielding) was not in this House, and with the parliamentary history of which he may not be so familiar as with that of his own time here. ,


Tlie MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am sure the hon. gentleman (Mr. Henderson) is wrong in tlie impression he would leave on the minds of the House. He is right in saying that in one or two cases some such provision was inserted in railway measures. But one swallow does not make a summer, and a condition inserted in out contract does not make a whole system of railway subsidies. As applied to railway subsidies generally this principle is new, and whatever merit is in it must be credited to this government. The return is not very large, but small as it is, I am not willing to have hon. members opposite claim the credit which belongs to this side of the House.


Jabel Robinson: I have no complaint to make against either government. It is not politics that I speak of. But what I wish to say is that when the government give privileges to any class of people, railways or any other, they should see to it that they get something in return. The people expect this from the government. My hon. friend from Nipissing (Mr. McCool) stated that, in some of these townships the land is as good as in any part of Ontario. Well, if that is the case, I do not see why a company should want a bonus to build a railway or develop any other enterprise. The people are quite competent to do it. The way I feel is this : The government are quite justified in helping any new enterprise. But whenever that enterprise becomes a success they should get their money back-just the same as when a man starts his boy on a farm and helps him to put up buildings and improve the property, when that boy becomes able to lay up money and majje a success, he has a right to pay the old man back some time and keep him out of the poorhouse. That is what I want these

people to do with us. We are giving them money and making them rich at the expense of the taxpayers. I am glad to hear from the acting Minister of Railways that there is a provision to compel these people at some time or other to refund the money, or to do some service for the government.


James Clancy: I would like to ask the Minister of Finance, as a result of what is called the new and wise policy under which these subsidies are given, how many millions have been granted that have produced $1,000 a year to the revenues of this country ? Can the hon. gentleman give us that information ? It would be useful information now, because the hon. gentleman has laid great stress on this new, wise and progressive policy that was giving a return to the people. We had one return given to us to-day, it is alarming, but it is alarming because it is so small. Will the hon. gentleman say off-hand ? I would not care to exact too much of him. Speaking for myself, I think it is about time the hon. gentleman stopped parading the results of their new and wise policy.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am afraid that the hon. gentlemen opposite are hard to please. They ask for information, and when the information is furnished then we are accused of parading it. They complain if we try to be obliging. I am not able to give my hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) the details of this large sum be asks for. If it is considered important I would be glad to get it at a later stage.
1 happened to have my attention drawn to this when these resolutions were being prepared, and I gave directions to ascertain what amount was received, and I feel justified in saying that these sums have been received, under the policy which has been adopted in recent legislation, in the form of interest on the subsidies. But I have not attached as much importance to it as the hon. gentleman thinks we do. If he attaches importance to it, I will get a subdivision of this large sum of money at a later stage.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think if there is any subsidy that has been proposed to this House in late years that is defensible, it is this one. While we would all appreciate any policy that would bring more direct revenue to the treasury of the country, we must not forget that in this particular case at any rate the country will derive great direct and indirect benefit from the building of this road.


James Clancy: No one is opposing it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: But my hon. friend from Elgin (Mr. Robinson) seems to be under the impression that we are giving away a privilege. I am not so sure that it will not become a privilege to the Dominion. It is a benefit to the Dominion when men with capital are prepared to go in and establish works, as these
gentlemen have done at Sturgeon Falls, giving direct employment to at least 500 men, taking the timber from the farmers in the district, while the settlers get their land free, and get a market, and get started on their farms. That district is a good farming country. Every gentleman who has visited that section knows that there is good farming land there. We have the fact that even during the present season this company has paid $75,000 into the treasury as duties upon the machinery they have brought in, and perhaps will pay $100,000 more in duty during the coming season, to say nothing of the other business they will work up and which will contribute indirectly to the treasury. I think that the subsidies given to these companies to open up colonization roads so-called ought to meet the hearty support of this country. The great thing is to see that the subsidies are used profitably, that the work actually goes on and that we get value for it. I do not know of any grant made by this government from which we will reap greater benefit almost at once, or in the near future, from the development of the country, than from this subsidy properly applied, because it will do much to develop the resources of the country as well as to open up land now unoccupied.
Mr. SPItOULE. Is it this company who are the beneficiaries of this grant ? Because the question was asked, and the acting Minister of Railways did not give us that information. It would be interesting to know whether this railway is owned and promoted, or whether this charter is owned and promoted, by this company of which so much is said, or whether it is owned by some private individual.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The only gentleman who approached me, I' think, was Mr. Russell, son of the late Chief Justice of England, and he said that these parties who were interested in establishing paper and pulp mills had this charter, and would undertake to build the road if they got assistance from the government.


Samuel Hughes: Is it a Dominion or a provincial charter ?


Charles Arthur McCool: I think it is a Dominion charter. The incorporators are really those men whose names I gave a few minutes ago, calling themselves the Imperial Paper Company. Their intention is to develop further power at Smoky Falls, and to increase their capacity to more than double what it is at present. Their expectation is that next year they will carry on a much larger volume of business than they are doing at the present time. It may be some satisfaction to the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Robinson) to know that they expect to pay into the treasury of duties at least $75,000 on further extensions to their plant which they have, in view.


John Graham Haggart: The acting Minister of Railways, comparing the benefit received from the new policy of the government with that received from the old policy, says that the amount of subsidy granted during the last couple of years has yielded something like $1,000 a year. He must be entirely mistaken. There must be something received from the subsidies given to the Edmonton road, from the road down to the boundary near Lethbridge, the Galt road, and from the Hudson Bay Railway, which has been transferred to the Northern Pacific Company. The government have not only the right to have their mails carried, and the company gets credit for it *on the amount they owe to the government, but the company are obliged to transport "the mounted police and their supplies, and all that kind of thing. The minister must find that the revenue is greatly in excess [DOT]of the amount he mentions. The only change in reference to that is that when m railway or a portion of a railway thus subsidized carries the mail, the amount to which they are entitled for carrying the mails is credited. Under the old system under which so much a year was granted to the railroads in the west, or they were given a guarantee of the amount, they not only had to carry the mails, but they had to carry all government supplies for the mounted police or military stores, and this was credited on the amount of the guarantee given by the government.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think my bon. friend has made a slight mistake. The Calgary and Edmonton road received a subsidy in land as to which I think there was no provision for a return in any shape or form. A contract was made in addition ' to that subsidy whereby there was an arrangement for $80,000 a year for transportation. The road was subsidized in land and as respects that land subsidy there is no compensation whatever, but the figures which I gave have reference principally to subsequent returns made under the recent legislation. I did not go into the other question at all but had reference to subsidies voted in recent years.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. minister should be able to get the information from his deputy who ought to remember that we gave so much a year for a number of years, independent of the land grant altogether.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is not a subsidy.


John Graham Haggart: Oh, that is not a subsidy . The only thing that constitutes a subsidy then is land. That was one of the provisions of the guarantee of so much a year for a number of years by the government ; we were to get our mails and government supplies carried free.
To the Bay of Quinte Railway Company for further extension of its line of railway, from Mr. MCCOOL.
the northern terminus thereof, commencing from a point at or near Actinolite, thence in a north-westerly direction via the villages of Queensborough and Bannockburn to a point in the township of Marmora or lake in -.Hastings county, not exceeding 20 miles in all.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is a further extension of the Bay of Quinte road. I suppose that every member of this committee is familiar with the experience of that road. It is opening up, I believe, some very fair agricultural districts but chiefly districts which are especially rich in mining and timber resources. This is for an extension in the county of Hastings. I believe the road is doing good work in opening up that district of the country and we have from time to time been granting them, on their application, subsidies for small extensions. This is what is known as the Rathbun system of railways in eastern Ontario.


David Henderson: What particular industry will this give access to ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The mining industry at Actinolite and I believe that there are mines of importance of different descriptions in that section of the country. There is also a fair farming country in the district of Tweed and there is some timber as well.
To the Bruce Mines and Algoma Railway Company for a line of railway from the end of its line, as subsidized by chapter 7 of 1901, northerly, not exceeding nineteen miles ; and for a line of railway from Bruce Mines to Bruce Mines junction, not exceeding two miles.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This line is projected from the town of Bruce Mines, from Lake Huron, north west, a distance of one hundred miles to the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway near 'Woman River Station. It will open up a number of mines there and will furnish railway facilities to several copper mines in which about $1,000,000 have been invested by American and English capitalists. This information is furnished to us by the promoters and we have no reason to believe that it is incorrect.


John Graham Haggart: Is not two miles of this finished ? and has it not been finished for two or three years ?


Mr. DYMENT.: That two miles was finished this spring.


John Graham Haggart: Was there not a grant from the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway down to Bruce Mines to take the tailings from the mines ?


Albert Edward Dyment: It was not finished until last spring. There is a piece of road built from there by the old Bruce Mines Copper Company, but it has nothing to do with this at all.


John Graham Haggart: I notice that that section of the Canadian Pacific Railway was ballasted with the debris of the mines and

the tailings of the copper works there. How did they get to them unless there was a railway or branch down ? That has been done for three or four years.


Albert Edward Dyment: That has been done for twelve years, but this road was not In existence then. Until about two or three years ago this1 ballast was hauled out there over the Canadian Pacific Railway siding.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In 1901 we subsidized twenty-one miles, of which nine miles have been already built and subsidy thereon paid to the amount of $28,800.


John Graham Haggart: It is this two miles from Bruce Mines that I am asking about.


Albert Edward Dyment: That has only been finished this spring.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What company gets this? Is it the English company tnat has been spoken of ?


Albert Edward Dyment: This company is principally composed of Americans, a different company altogether.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do they own copper mines in Bruce Mines or some others outside ?


Albert Edward Dyment: They have nothing to do with this organization at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then this is an independent organization, or a new one ?


Albert Edward Dyment: It is a new one.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Whiat interests have they that require a railway there ?


Albert Edward Dyment: They have a mine at Rock Lake, about seventeen miles from Bruce Mines, and that portion of it is built. Now they want to extend that further up towards the Copper Queen mine which is about fifteen miles north of the Rock Lake Mine and on towards the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Just for mining purposes ?


Albert Edward Dyment: No, partly for colonization ; it runs through a fine tract of agricultural land and hardwood timber which is not accessible at all without a railway, and they have arranged with one company to build a mill on the line of this road for the working up of the hard wood as soon as about twelve miles more of the railway is completed. They will go to the end of the road where there is a large tract of fine hardwood timber. They have also arranged for a large furniture factory to be put in there.


John Graham Haggart: Has this particular part of the railway from Bruce Mines Junction anything to do with the Canadian Pacific Railway ? Is it a portion of the Canadian Pacific Railway ?


Albert Edward Dyment: No.
452i
Hon, Mr. HAGGART. It does not belong to the Canadian Pacific Railway ?


Albert Edward Dyment: No.


John Graham Haggart: Well, the Canadian Pacific Railway had a branch from their main line down to Bruce Mines.


Albert Edward Dyment: Yes, but it has nothing to do with this at all.


John Graham Haggart: This must parallel it.
Mi'. DYMENT. The rails have all been taken off some years ago and the road has been abandoned.


Mr. BLAIN.: Are we to understand that these two miles referred to in this resolution have already been constructed ?


Albert Edward Dyment: Yes, finished this spring.


Richard Blain: Are we to understand that the policy of the government is to allow a company to survey and construct a line of railway, and after it has been constructed for two years to come forward and secure a subsidy from this government for that line of railway ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think, there have been cases where railways have been subsidized after the time of their completion. Sometimes there have been understandings in advance that the road would be aided and I think there have been cases where a subsidy has been granted after the completion of a section of road.


Richard Blain: Has there been an application before the government during the last two years for the subsidy which we are now voting ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Richard Blain: Why was it left for two years ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Last year there were no subsidies.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: On a previous occasion the application was for the whole of this road.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In 1901 we subsidized twenty-one miles of this road.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: When this reorganized company took hold of the mines they applied for assistance to build this railway. They were granted nine miles at first, which was afterwards increased to 21, and perhaps part of this is a revote.
Mi-. FOWLER. If it is a revote, it should not appear here.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is in addition to the previous grant.


John Graham Haggart: This two miles is the total length of the road.


Albert Edward Dyment: Oli, no ; it is an extension of the 19 miles.


David Henderson: 1 understand that the province of Ontario has already subsidized this road, and it is important in every case that we should be informed as to what subsidy has been granted by a province. It may be that the province thought that their subsidy was sufficient to promote the construction of this road. We hear a great deal at present about provincial rights, and it may be that the province of Ontario would be jealous of our subsidizing a road which they have already aided. Can the Finance Minister tell me what subsidy was granted by the province ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The application of the company says they have received a provincial subsidy for 17 miles, but it does not state the amount.


James Clancy: We certainly should know what subsidy has been granted by the provincial government in every case. If the province gave a large subsidy in land and cash, it does not strengthen their claim to come here and ask for a further subsidy. There is a limit to the extent to which we can aid even deserving schemes, and we might be disposed to take into account the subsidy granted by a province when we are giving aid. We should not proceed in utter disregard of the fact as to whether the province has granted a subsidy or not.


Albert Edward Dyment: There was no land grant given by the province. It was a subsidy of $3,000 per mile in cash for 17 miles.


George William Fowler: For the same road as we are asked to subsidize here ?


Albert Edward Dyment: No, for about 11 miles of it.


David Henderson: We are groping in the dark. We are granting a subsidy to a road, 17 miles of which has been built, and built with the aid of a provincial subsidy. Why should we, in addition to the ample provision which has been made by the province of Ontario, grant another subsidy for a road that has been already constructed ? The government should see that we are not throwing away the people's money on enterprises that are already provided for by the provincial legislature. I would feel very much disposed to move that this item be not agreed to. I shall investigate it further, because I now think that it is one of those subsidies which should not receive the sanction of this committee.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am afraid we are a little mixed with regard to this. Some years ago the company made an application for a subsidy and nine miles were subsidized. They built the road and made the property a success. Last year no subsidies were granted, but they went ahead and nearly completed 17 miles, and


John Graham Haggart: the total subsidy will be for 30 miles of road through that important section of the country. They have established their works successfully, and are now carrying the products of other mines as well as of their own. This application has been pressed very strongly and very energetically by the citizens of the district. It is not as if the road were built by a company without any application on their part, or without any reason for them to believe that if they went on and spent their own money and developed the country and established their enterprise, they would not receive assistance. I believe that a great development has taken place in that part of the country because of the little assistance we gave in the past, and which we are now supplementing, by aiding in the construction of this 30 miles of road.


George William Fowler: Is this two miles from Bruce Mines to Bruce Mines Junction between the same two points that the Canadian Pacific Railway formerly had a branch ?
Mr. DYMEiNT. Yes.


George William Fowler: Are they utilizing the old road ?


Albert Edward Dyment: No.


George William Fowler: Was there a subsidy granted to the Canadian Pacific Railway for that ?


Albert Edward Dyment: I don't think so. The two miles built by the Canadian Pacific Railway were merely for their own convenience, the same as they would run a line into a gra\ el pit. The Minister of Public Works is quite right in saying that these people were led to believe that if they went on with the work they could look for favourable consideration. The people' insisted that the railway company should build into the town of Bruce Mines, feeling perfectly satisfied that the government would supplement what they had already done, and I think every hon. member will agree that this was much better than that the road should have stopped half way.


John Graham Haggart: They are building on the old road of the Canadian pacific Railway ?


Albert Edward Dyment: No ; they have taken another route altogether.


Andrew George Blair: A remark was made a moment ago by the hon. member for Hal-ton (Mr. Henderson) to which I would like to refer. He appeared to think that it would be an extraordinary thing for this parliament to supplement a subsidy given by a provincial legislature. Ever since I have had any knowledge of the Department of Railways, and prior thereto, from the time subsidies were first given, it has been customary for the Dominion government to give a subsidy to a meritorious undertaking which had been given or been promised aid by the provin-

cial government. The very fact that the provincial government had aided a railway very much improved its chances of receiving Dominion assistance. One of the things which the government have required at the hands of each company has been that it should satisfy them of its ability to construct the line ; for we know that a subsidy of $3,200 a mile does not at all furnish sufficient means for that purpose. For this particular road I should say that it would be quite inadequate. My information with regard to this road is that it is a much more extensive one than the ordinary railways which we aid, that it passes through a rough and irregular country, and that it will require a good deal of heavy work in its construction. The object which the government have had in view in requiring each company to advise them whether any subsidy had already been given or promised by the provincial government, was not to furnish a ground for objection to the Dominion giving aid. but to justify the application, and to assure the government that if they granted aid, the undertaking would probably be carried through. The information which the acting minister has furnished is as full information as we have ever required from a railway company. With reference to these two miles which have been referred to, I may say that what has been stated by the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Dyment) is quite correct, that the company had good reason to expect if they went on with their undertaking and completed these two miles, the government, when considering the subject of giving subsidies at any futur'e time, would give this subject as favourable consideration as they felt they could, and the few days gained. I think, ought not to be any reason why this assistance should not be given.


John Graham Haggart: I am not aware that any person on this side of the House made any objection to a grant being made to any particular railway on account of its having received aid from the provincial government.


Andrew George Blair: I so understood the hon. member for Halton.


John Graham Haggart: I thought the exminister was directing his attention to me ; because I am of the same opinion as he, that unless the combined subsidies would be largely in excess of the requirements for the purpose of building the road, we could have no better evidence of faith in the scheme than the fact that it had received aid from the provincial government. I never heard any objection raised on that ground. Nor have I any objection to a subsidy having an ex post facto effect; because if the parties have gone on in good faith and built a road which tends to the development of the country, I think they are as much entitled to the money as if the undertaking were in prospect.


David Henderson: I fear that I did not make myself plain to the ex-Minister of Railways. What I intended to elicit by asking whether this road had received a provincial subsidy or not was such information as would warrant us in granting the vote asked for. We are asked to vote $3,200 a mile to assist this enterprise ; but that may be increased to $6,400 a mile, depending altogether on the cost of the construction of the road. We might consider that a fair subsidy ; and to my mind it should be quite sufficient for the construction of a road into that country, which is referred to by the promoters as one which will produce an enormous amount of traffic, a comparatively rich section, especially in timber and in mines. If that is the. case, and the road has already received a subsidy of $3,000 per mile from the local legislature, the combined subsidies will amount to $9,400 per mile, which seems to me to be a very large subsidy for a road into that section. Under these circumstances, I think we ought to be informed whether or not some provision has already been made for the construction of this road. If so, possibly it would be wise on our part not to grant the full subsidy given to roads aided by the province, but to limit the amount and bring it within reason. I rather approve of the policy laid down last night by the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock), who suggested that we should have the fullest information, and that all these matters should be referred to the transportation commission for full and ample reports regarding them. At any rate, we should be put in possession of information as to the probable cost of these roads and the character and value of the country through which they run, so that we could vote intelligently on these matters. While I do not consider the fact of a provincial bonus having been granted an oo-jection to our granting aid in a meritorious case, a knowledge of how much the province has given would enable us to decide on what we should do here. Therefore in every case \Ve should be put in possession of these facts.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Let me point out to my hon. friend that before this road could receive the subsidy of $6,400 per mile, it would have to cost $21,400 per mile. If it were to receive $6,400 from the Dominion and $3,000 from the province, it would then have $9,400 for a road costing upwards of $21,000 per mile.


David Henderson: Don't you think that is a pretty good bonus ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: A good deal would depend on the conditions. There are portions of the country where you could not get a road built with that. At the same time, I agree with my hon. friend that it is always desirable to know what the province contributes. Having regard to the conditions of the country through which

this railway is to run. I do not think the promoters, even if they get all the subsidies which my hon. friend mentions, will make very much out of it.


Richard Blain: Might I ask the hon. member for Algoma if the subsidy from the Ontario government has already been paid to the company ?


Albert Edward Dyment: I cannot tell the hon. gentleman that.


Richard Blain: I noticed, when the hon. member from Algoma made the statement that this road had already been constructed and was completed almost two years ago, the acting Minister of Railways seemed surprised.


Albert Edward Dyment: This part, which is only a portion of the whole line, was finished last spring.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I said that we had subsidized twenty-one miles, and have paid a subsidy on nine miles as completed. I did not make any statement with regard to these two particular miles.


Richard Blain: But the hon. gentleman understood why this subsidy was applied for, the two miles had not been completed.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I was not clear on that point.


Richard Blain: It is evident that when these people applied for a subsidy, they held back from the government the most important information. The fact is the hon. Minister of Finance asked the committee to vote a subsidy when he had not the information as to whether this road was completed or not. I think it is a wrong policy for any government to allow any set of contractors to go on constructing a portion of road, whether two miles or twenty miles, and then, after it is constructed, seek and obtain a subsidy. When promoters require a subsidy, they should ask for it before beginning the road.


George William Fowler: I am not quite clear about the extent of this road. I understood the acting Minister of Railways to say that the first subsidy in 1901 was for twenty-one miles, and if this is also for twenty-one miles, that would make forty-two miles.


Albert Edward Dyment: Only nine miles were subsidized two years ago, which, with these twenty-one miles, makes a total of thirty miles.
To the James Bay Railway Company for a line of railway from Toronto, via the east side of Lake Simeoe, Parry Sound, and Sudbury, towards James Bay, not exceeding 265 miles, in lieu of two subsidies granted by chapter S of 1900. of 35 and 20 miles respectively, from Parry Sound towards James Bay.


Mr. BROCK.: Might I ask an explanation of this particular subsidy ?


Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: 


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This was the subject of some reference last evening. It will connect the city of Toronto with the northern portion of Ontario. Several deputations waited on the government urging that this line should be subsidized.


John Graham Haggart: Is it intended to be a connection of the Canadian Pacific Railway from Toronto to Sudbury ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It will cross the Canadian Pacific Railway at Sudbury, and connect ultimately with the new transcontinental.


John Graham Haggart: Who constitute the James Bay Railway Company ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Mackenzie & Mann.


William Rees Brock: This runs half a mile from the Northern Railway at many points.


Samuel Hughes: The Northern Railway runs west of Lake Simeoe, while this runs east of Lake-Simeoe.


James Clancy: Has this company a Dominion or a provincial charter ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: A Dominion charter.


James Clancy: What is the length of the road ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have forgotten. This charter has been in existence some years, and the first real work was commenced two or three years ago, when they started to build north from Parry Sound on the subsidy now being revoted. The total mileage now being subsidized is 265 miles. I think this is perhaps the most important subsidy we are asked to grant. It will bring the whole western section of northern Ontario into direct communication not only- with the Canadian Pacific Railway, but with the Grand Trunk Pacific, and will afford a through route to the west. Moreover, it will develop a splendid country' north from Parry Sound. Of course, close to Toronto, there is already railway' communication, but this, which is really a transcontinental line, will do more to benefit western Ontario-than any other scheme dealt with in these subsidy resolutions.


Mr. GOURLEY.: Is this road intended togo on to James Bay ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: It should be pushed through there then ; that is a great country.
To the Quebec and Lake- St. John Railway-Company for one mile of railway from Roberval to the government wharf at Lake St. John.


David Henderson: Is there any' explanation of this ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I tliouglit tlie modesty of this item would so commend it that it would be at once approved. The object is to carry the present terminus of the Quebec and Lake St. John Railway to the wharf at Roberval, that is about a mile.


David Henderson: At least, a scheme of this kind does not call for ' mountains of information ' to convince the House of the propriety of it. But it seems strange to apply for a subsidy to build a road to a government wharf. Anyhow it seems a very small matter to trouble the government with. Of course, the information is very meagre, but I apprehend that it would be cheaper to allow the item to pass than to occupy the time of the House in discussing it.
To the Interprovineial and James Bay Railway Company on a line of railway from Lake Timis-kaming at the present terminus of the Canadian Pacific Railway line, in a northerly direction. not to exceed 50 miles.


George William Fowler: Is that the same company as the one to which the subsidy has been given for 265 miles ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: This is a company to build an extension of a railway that now runs from Mattawa northward in the direction of Lake Timiskaming, on the Quebec side. It is proposed to build a road to the village of Yille Marie. As everybody knows, this is an excellent agricultural country, which is rapidly being colonized and developed.


James Clancy: This is simply an extension from the end of the Canadian Pacific Railway line. What is this ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: The incorporators are mostly gentlemen in Ottawa and in the locality of Timiskaming.


George William Fowler: Is this a different company from the James Bay Railway Company ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Absolutely.


John Graham Haggart: Would it not be better to offer this subsidy to a line of railway from Lake Timiskaming, running in a northern direction fifty miles, instead of confining it to this Interprovincial and James Bay Company ? The only possible way to get the extension of the line is to induce the Canadian Pacific Railway to extend their line which now runs from Mattawa up along the shore of the Lake Timiskaming. To put it in the form I suggest, gives the government the opportunity to make arrangements, and not give a special status to parties who are mere intermediaries between the government and the Canadian Pacific Railway.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The company applied for the subsidy. We inquired about them, and as the company is one of
thorough respectability, I see no reasons why we should not grant the subsidy.


James Clancy: The respectability of the company is not in question. But the fact is that this piece of route will be absolutely of no use unless the company make some arrangement with the Canadian Pacific Railway.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I dare say.


James Clancy: Then, as suggested by my bon. friend from South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart), it ought to be left an open question. I care not what the respectability of the company may be, they should not be made the intermediary between the government and the railway company that will actually build the line. The question is simply how the country is to be served, and not what is to be the position of the Canadian Pacific Railway or of the promoters, of this scheme. I think the proposition of the hon. member for South Lanark is a very fair one.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I do not see that it is fair. It did not strike us so at alt events. The company made an application, and I am sure that the considerations which now present themselves did not occur to us. We wished to see the road built, and, it seemed apparent that the company would build it.


James Clancy: But the company will be unable to do anything unless they make arrangements with the other company to complete the road.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Then, they will have to make the arrangements.


James Clancy: But we should make provisions designed to secure the building of this road for the people, and not depend upon any haphazard arrangement. It is not unreasonable, in a case like this, to ask that the subsidy be given to a line of railway rather than to a particular company,


Charles Arthur McCool: The Canadian Pacific Railway were approached times without number asking for this extension of their road from Kippewa lake, or the foot of Lake Timiskaming-Timiskaming station, as they call it-northward.	That road was built
some years ago and the extension has been greatly needed, but the people were unable to get any satisfactory assurance from the Canadian Pacific Railway that the road would be built. Men living in Yille Marie,, who have been settled there for the last twenty years, went to the trouble of organizing a company, and these men are the promoters of the Interprovincial and James Bay road. They are all men of substance, and I think it would be most unfair if, after they have gone to all this trouble, they should be cut out. I do not think the Canadian Pacific Railway are opposed to it at all. The Canadian Pacific Railway were in
l

sympathy with their application in the first place, and said : We are not prepared to go on, but you go on and get a charter and build a road, and we will help you. I do not think the Canadian Pacific Railway would ask that this subsidy should be changed from the company named to another company not named.	,


Samuel Hughes: On what side of Lake Timiskaming does this road run ?


Charles Arthur McCool: On the Quebec side. It is opening up a large and important section near the head of Lake Timiskaming. I suppose there are 3,000 or 4,000 people in there at the present time.


James Clancy: We are not questioning the necessity of a road at all, but we want to know who is going to get the benefit of it. The hon. gentleman told us it would be too bad to refuse a grant to these gentlemen who had spent their money. For what purpose ? To make something out of it.


Charles Arthur McCool: They want to get a road.


James Clancy: Is this an enterprise in which these gentlemen have large vested interests themselves, or is it merely an enterprise that they have set on foot for the purpose of making money out of it ? Who are the parties interested ? I am not defending the rights of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, they have no rights that I know of. It is the public rights I am looking after. Here is a case where it is proposed to put a link at the end of a railway belonging to the Canadian Pacific Railway, extending their line and depending upon the Canadian Pacific Railway to give them an outlet. Now, who are the parties who made the application, and who' are spending the money ?


Charles Arthur McCool: I cannot give you from memory the names of the parties. I know that one of the promoters is a resident of Ville Marie, Mr. A. E. Guay, a very respectable and responsible citizen of that place, a gentleman worth probably $100,000 or $150,000. I think Sir. Ranger is another.
I accompanied these gentlemen down here on a deputation asking for a subsidy, though I cannot give their names from memory.
I also remember when they got their charter the winter before last, when I attended with them a meeting of the Railway Committee. If the hon. gentleman will refer to the charter he will find the names of the promoters, and they are all men of substance.


Mr. CLAN  Y.@: When a proposal is made to make a grant to a line of railway without stating any particular company, I do not see any objection, according to the hon. gentleman's own statement, to the proposition made by the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart).


Charles Arthur McCool: I am satisfied there is not one man interested in this enterprise who Mr. McCOOL.
desires to make a dollar of profit out of it, except as an indirect consequence of this road helping settlers in that section of the country, and benefiting any of the promoters who happen to live there. I cannot understand why the hon. member for Both-well should object to granting this subsidy to a named company, a company who have gone to the trouble of getting their charter, when there is no opposition to it from anybody. There is no opposition by the Canadian Pacific Railway, at least I do not think there is ; and I cannot see any reason why they should not be granted a subsidy under the name of an incorporated company.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I want to say a word of explanation respecting the Bruce Mines and Algoma Railway. I find that my hon. friend from Algoma (Mr. Dy-ment) was correct, and that the former vote was for nine miles. How the memorandum given to me said 27 miles I cannot explain.
For a line of railway from Waltham station to Ferguson Point in the county of Pontiac not exceeding 20 miles.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is for an extension westward of the Pontiac and Pacific Junction Railway from its present terminus to Ferguson, on the Ottawa river.


James Clancy: Why is a distinction made in this case ? This is for a line of railway, the other was for a railway company. Who are the promoters of this road ?
Mi-. McCOOL. I think the reason for the distinction is that the Canadian Pacific Railway, who now own the Pontiac and Pacific Junction Railway, would not make application for the subsidy, although I think they are anxious to get the extension. The Pontiac and Pacific Junction Railway hold a charter covering that ground. The road has been built to Waltham for the last ten or twelve years or more. I ought to know a good deal about it, because I was born about half way between the two points on this road. I am quite satisfied that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company will make the extension. If they do not, then I think they will make no objection to another company building.


Samuel Hughes: Has not the Canadian Pacific Railway Company got a charter ?


Charles Arthur McCool: They have got a charter covering this ground.


Samuel Hughes: Ig it not the intention of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to build a bridge across there ?


Charles Arthur McCool: I presume it is.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is with the expectation that the Canadian Pacific Railway will really build it.


John Graham Haggart: Is there a bonus to this particular road already from this government ?
14450


The PRIME MINISTER.: No.


John Graham Haggart: There was a bonus.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It has lapsed.
To the Quebec Central Railway Company for an extension of its line of railway from St. Francois to St. George, not exceeding nine miles; also for a railway from Scott junction to the Quebec bridge, not exceeding 22 miles.


The PRIME MINISTER.: This is an extension of the Quebec Central Railway along the valley of the ChaudiSre river. At present the Quebec Central Railway starts from Quebec, or to speak more correctly, from Levis and enters the valley of the Chau-diere river.


Samuel Hughes: It enters the valley of the Etcliemin river first.


The PRIME MINISTER.: No, it does not, it goes- down by the Intercolonial Railway to Harlaka Junction and then goes south into the valley of the ChaudiSre river. This is to extend the present terminus from the valley of the ChaudiSre nine miles to the valley of the St. George. At Scott Junction there is a duplication of the railway. One section goes along the valley of the Chau-difire to St. Francis and the other section crosses the railway and goes to Sherbrooke and the Eastern Townships. This is required in order that there may be a railway built directly to the Quebec'bridge, a distance of twenty-two miles.


John Graham Haggart: There is no railway there now ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: There is a railway going eastward to the Intercolonial Railway near St. Charles. This would cut off all that section, giving a straight line to the Quebec bridge.


John Graham Haggart: This is not built ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: No, it is to be built.


Mr. MORIN.: I would like to inform the government that in building this road they are taking one step towards the building of the Grand Trunk Pacific. It was stated in the House some time ago that one reason why they would not build the Grand Trunk Pacific through the county of Dorchester was that it would give a longer route. Let me tell the House that by building this road from the Quebec bridge to Scott Junction you are building a road twenty miles exactly on the line that I have proposed. I may say, further, that in the case yon build the Grand Trunk Pacific here you will by this be killing two birds with the one stone, and in places you will be killing three' birds with one stone. You must remember that the road would be built from St. George, in the county of Beauce. St. George lies exactly west of a parish in the county of Dorchester called Ste. Justine. Ste. Justine is the natural gap, or the place for a railway to go through there. It is a very level piece of farming land. If the government build this Grand Trunk Pacific Railway it will start from the Quebec bridge, and if the government should send the man who is sitting there beside the minister, Mr. Schrieber, in whom I and every person else have the utmost confidence, to that district and tell him to locate a railway line, he will undoubtedly locate it through the places I have mentioned. Then, besides that, if you build a railway where I am asking it, you will serve the demands made by my bon. friend from Victoria, N.B. (Hon. Mr. Costigan), who has a charter, as we all know, from River St. Francis to Quebec, and by building this line you run a road exactly where he wants it. Then the Quebec Central Railway Company has a charter from St. George up the valley of the Famine river about eighteen miles to Ste. Justine, from Ste. Justine then to this Lake Pohenagamook you would be running on the same line again, from that lake in the county of Temiscouata there you would serve the Quebec Central, the road asked by my hon. friend from Victoria, N.B., and you would serve the government road. You would need to build only one road where there are three applications for roads, and therefore I say that you would be killing three birds with one stone.


Edward Cochrane: You would not be killing Costigan, though.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Then, from Quebec through to St. Isidore, in Dorchester county, this one road would do for all. The Quebec Central in building from Quebec bridge, will have to go through St. Isidore and then go straight soutli to Scott Junction. If the government builds the road they will have to build in the exact place I am now mentioning. It would be wise for the government before dabbling into all these things to send my friend Mr. Schreiber there and let him look at the country and the location; he will undoubtedly say that I am perfectly right. It makes no difference who says I am wrong; I say I am right and I know it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Carried.


James Clancy: No, it is not carried.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Surely no further explanation is required after the speech to which we have just listened.


James Clancy: The explanation which has just been given demands a further explanation. The hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Morin) has stated that if the government carried out their contemplated scheme of a National Transcontinental Railway, it would traverse practically the same territory and serve the same purpose as the road to which it is now proposed to give a subsidy. If that be true-and the hon. gentleman no doubt speaks with very definite information

-it seems to me that that puts an end to any argument that the railway will serve a country that cannot be otherwise served. If the statement be true it is an alarming one,
that when we have passed an Act giving the government power to build a railway over this same territory, to serve the same purpose, that some gentleman makes an application for a subsidy and we grant it, knowing all these facts. Unless there is some explanation following the statement of the hon. member for Dorchester, this committee should make inquiry and have definite information before consenting to this vote.


The PRIME MINISTER.: There are two branches of railway now asked to be subsidized under this item. One is an extension of the existing railway along the Chaudiere valley from St. Francis to St. George, and my hon. friend from Dorchester (Mr. Morin) will say to my hon. friend behind him (Mr. Clancy) that the Transcontinental Railway can have nothing whatever to do with that railway; one goes west whereas the Transcontinental Railway is going east. That settles that point. In regard to the other section of railway from Scott Junction to the Quebec bridge is a distance of twenty-two miles. That is all there is and how far the new railway will parallel this railway, I cannot at present say. That will depend very much on the route to be taken by the new railway. I think that if the railway which is to be built is to follow the Etchemin river it would to some extent parallel this railway. If it does not follow the Etchemin river, after leaving the Quebec bridge, it must go east and would not come in contact with this railway except for a few miles. There are several railways which must in the future come to the Quebec bridge. Already there are the Grand Trunk Railway, the Intercolonial Railway, and probably another road, the South Shore Railway will come to the Quebec bridge. The Transcontinental Railway must leave the Quebec bridge and go south and east and will parallel this for a few miles only.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: If you want to build a road from the Quebec bridge south you have to go to the west of St. Jean Chrysostome church and then east of the St. Lambert de L-Svis church, and then right through the parsonage of the St. Isidore church. You cannot help doing this owing to the nature of the country and then from there my hon. friend says the line will follow the valley of the Etchemin river. You must not follow the Etchemin valley at all.


The PRIME MINISTER.: For a transcontinental railway ?


Jean-Baptiste Morin: No, Sir. What I am saying is right,, and if Mr. Schreiber and I go on the road, as I have gone with him before. I believe we will agree as to that point. You start from the Quebec bridge, and you go


James Clancy: straight south through the parish of St. Isidore, which is about eighteen miles from the bridge. Then you go two miles beyond that, and then the Grand Trunk Pacific will still follow a straight course south or south-east. Then the road of the Quebec Central, a little beyond St. Isidore, would turn to the right on account of a hill there, and go to Scott junction. You must go through the village in which I live, although the people do not want a road there because it is not necessary. Then you go on through the parishes of Ste. Marguerite, St. Malachie and St. Clair, striking the corners of these four parishes. [DOT] Then you strike the Etchemin river at St Malachie, and you follow the river clear through to the outlet of lake Etchemin, whence you go to St. Germain. Then you go four miles beyond, when you strike the waters of the Famine river which flows into the 'Chaudiere river ; you then turn to the left a few degrees, and you strike the summit of the Chaudiere river and the Etchemin river, and then you go eastward through all the other counties. You will thus serve every county on the south side of the mountains. But if you adopt the line that has been spoken of by my hon. friend from Belleclmsse (Mr. Talbott from the Quebec bridge to the mouth of the Abenakis river, you would only be a nile or a mile and a half apart. After you leave the Quebec bridge, you would commence to ascend the mountains for about fifty miles, until you get probably a thousand feet high. The ascent is not very great from the Quebec bridge until you get to the Abenakis river, but then you strike a very heavy grade for about eight miles until you get to the Pine river, when you turn to your right. If you adopt the route which I have suggested, you follow the natural course of the valley the whole way. As I have already stated in this House, the only two rivers in the province of Quebec which cross the Alleghany Mountains are the Richelieu river and the Etchemin river and we all know that when you have a stream to cut the mountain for you, you are at a great advantage in railway construction.


James Clancy: For the first nine miles we grant a subsidy to the Quebec Central Railway Company, and the subsidy for the other two miles is granted to any railway company.


An hon. MEMBER.: No.


James Clancy: Well, even suppose it is granted to the Quebec Central Company, what purpose is served by this road, which will not be served by the Trans-continental railway if it is built ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I do not know that the Transcontinental Railway has auy-thing to do with the present vote. This subsidy here will go to the Quebec Central Railway, and will accommodate three or

lour parishes which have no rail connection now. It will shorten the entrance of the Quebec Central Railway from the United States into Quebec city.


Samuel Hughes: From Scott Junction to Quebec, the Quebec Central will have two roads :	One to Lfivis and one to
the Quebec bridge. It is the intention that the National Transcontinental Railway will take over the present line of the Quebec Central up as far as St. Anselme.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I do not know what will be done with the Transcontinental Railway. At the present it is the intention to give a subsidy to the Quebec Central Railway.


Samuel Hughes: From Scott Junction to the St. Lawrence, the Quebec Central would have two railways.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes.


James Clancy: Are we going to lay down the principle that we are to give subsidies to a road paralleling the road of the same company for four or five miles. It may shorten the distance, but it is a mere convenience to the railway company. We must have money very plentiful when we do that.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: My hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) is labouring under a mistake. This is not to make the Quebec Central line any shorter, but instead of going to Levis it enables them to aim for the Quebec bridge. Owing to the construction of the Quebec bridge every road on the south side of the river will want to get to it now. Circumstances alter cases. The Quebec Central cannot handle heavy freight from Levis for about thirty-five miles. From Harlaka Junction they have a very heavy grade, and ten miles further on they strike another almost impossible grade of a mile and a half. Passenger trains find it very difficult to clinch that grade. That prevents them handling heavy freight, but the route which they now propose will avoid all that, and it does not come to the same point as the old road at all. At LSvis the two roads will be probably nine miles apart, and this new road will enable them to handle heavy freight from the north to the south.


James Clancy: As I understood my hon. friend (Mr. Morin), all the roads are now aiming to get to the Quebec bridge, and I can quite understand that. But are we going to start out on the principle of subsidizing all the railways to reach that bridge, instead of subsidizing lines to serve the public in a wider sense ? I may not have grasped the situation properly, but so far as I am able to judge, we are subsidizing a railway now to reach the Quebec bridge, which is hardly in the proper sens? of the word a national undertaking at all :	it is
a private enterprise. Instead of having in view the serving of the public generally, we are subsidizing railways all tending to
that bridge. If my information is correct, this is not justifiable.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The answer which my hon. friend asks for has already been given by my hon. friend from Dorchester (Mr. Morin). He has stated reasons which ought to satisfy my hon. friend that while this new railway goes to the Quebec bridge, it will serve a section of country which is at present devoid of railways, and is entitled to the same help that we give to other sections,


James Clancy: I understood the hon. member for Dorchester to say that the transcontinental railway, if built, will serve the same purpose.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Not at all. It is on a different side of the river.


Mr. TALBOT.: Might I give a few words of information on this matter ? The Quebec Central Railway, leaving Scott Junction, the terminus of the line which is proposed to be subsidized, runs in a north-easterly direction to Harlaka Junction, which is a station on the Intercolonial Railway, about five miles east of L6vis. The proposed line will run due south from the Quebec bridge to Scott Junction. The Quebec bridge will be the terminus of all these different lines of railway ; but the Grand Trunk Pacific line will run in a south-easterly direction, while the proposed line will run due south, along the valley of the Chaudiere river. The Et-chemin river flows into the St. Lawrence about three miles east of the Chaudiere river and takes a south-easterly course, and that is the course which the Grand Trunk Pacific will eventually take in that part of the country. The hon. member for Dorchester knows very well that if the Grand Trunk Pacific were to follow the Chaudiere river through the parishes lie has named to Scott Junction, it would have to run in a southerly direction. The hon. gentleman said a moment ago that the two railways would follow a similar route. My hon. friend knows very well that if the Grand Trunk Pacific were to follow that direction, it would have to be forced out of its course to take a southerly direction, to follow the valley of the Chaudiere river, instead of following the valley of the Etchemin river, and then striking eastward through Belle-chasse, Montmagany, and so on. If it followed the course my hon. friend suggests, it would be forced to go to Lake Etchemin and then on to the boundary line and through the state of Maine.


David Henderson: Before this is carried, I wish to draw the attention of the committee to the way in which this matter has come before the government. I think it] has been brought to the attention of the government in a way that we cannot entirely approve of. The only application 1 made was for a portion of the subsidy, and that comes from the hon. member for Beauce

(Mr. Belaud). He applied for a subsidy for the Quebec Central Railway from St. Francois to St. George, a distance of nine miles, and stated that the district to be served by the extension was very large, comprising nine towns, with no water communication and no railway communication whatever, and that a population of 10,000 people would be immediately and directly benefited by the extension. This recommendation applied entirely to the nine miles. We have no reference whatever to the twenty-two miles. I wonder who made the application for the subsidy for that portion. There seems to be something in the dark, something hidden. The impression of lion, members on this side is that this subsidy for the twenty-two miles is for some secret purpose, and the government so far has not disclosed who is to benefit by it. Is it recommended by anybody at all, or is it to assist a road for which a charter has been obtained by some other hon. member of this House who does not desire his name to come before the committee ? X think we are entitled to more information with respect to these twenty-two miles, because the manner in which the application has come before the government and the committee indicates that there is something kept baek which ought to be disclosed.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The line of the Quebec Central Railway extends from the city of Sherbrooke up the valley of the ChaudiSre river, crosses the river, runs through Dorchester and on to Harlaka Junction. If my hon. friend will look at the map, he will see that this road, once it leaves the ChaudiSre river, runs north and easterly. The intention is to extend the railway from Scott Junction, the point' on the ChaudiSre river where it starts to run in an easterly direction, beginning in Beauce, passing through Dorchester and on into Levis, and ending at the Quebec bridge. It seems desirable to extend this road for the purpose of its business from Scott Junction to the bridge, because at the present time to reach the bridge it describes the two sides of a triangle, one of the sides being the Intercolonial Railway ; and recently the Minister of Railways had the pleasure of listening to a complaint which the manager of the Quebec Central Railway made of excessive charges on the part of the Intercolonial. It is to avoid the necessity of using the Intercolonial from Harlaka Junction to Levis that this extension is asked for. I do not know how the application came to be made, but there were certainly several interviews in which the general manager^and traffic manager applied for this extension. With respect to the nine miles, that is at the other end of the Quebec Central. At present it runs from Beauce Junction to St. Francois, from which point the intention is to extend it to St. George. The valley of the ChaudiSre, which will be served by this extension, is probably one of the most fertile portions of Mr. HENDERSON.
the whole province of Quebec. Last season ten million pounds of butter and cheese were taken out of that valley and four million pounds of maple sugar by this Quebec Central Railway, but owing to the lack of facilities to reach Quebec, these goods had to be sent to Montreal for export. This will all be remedied when this line is extended down to the bridge. It will cross the bridge to the harbour at Quebec and the freight will be deposited alongside the steamers.


David Henderson: The hon. gentleman has not told us who applied for this subsidy.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Mr. Grundy, the general manager of the company, and Mr. Walsh, the assistant traffic manager, both in my presence, applied for it, but I could not say whether any formal application was made in writing.


Samuel Hughes: Is there a charter for the road from Scott Junction to the bridge ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: Is it a good farming country V


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.
For a line ot railway from the station of Lac Bouchette on the Quebec and Lake St. John Railway to St. AndrS, not exceeding 13 miles.


The PRIME MINISTER.: This is a line from the present line in the valley of the Lake St. John from a station called Lac Bouchette, on the present line in the valley of the Lake St. John extending to a new parish where there is a large pulp establishment and other industries.


David Henderson: I was rather amused at the reasons advanced by the gentleman who applied for this subsidy. He says that the government has already subsidized lines of less importance than ours, and hopes that they will give personal attention to the matter. To my mind that is a very poor reason indeed.
For a line of railway from Quebec towards Seven Islands, including branches to Murray Bay and Bale St. Paul, not exceeding 200 miles.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Seven Islands is on the north shore of the St. Lawrence, opposite the western end of the Island of Anticosti. The intention is to build from Quebec to Seven Islands. Whether or not that is possible is a question for the engineers. A great deal of work has been done at Seven Islands by the capitalists interested in this project, and they are under the impression that the line is feasible. While the whole of the north shore of the St. Lawrence looks from the river like a sea of mountains, it appears that behind these mountains there is a level valley through which a road can be built. The intention is to build branches from the main line to Baie St. Paul, and also to Murray

Bay, which is a very important point, j especially during the summer season.


David Henderson: I should he glad if the hon. Minister of Justice who, no doubt, is familiar with this section of country, would tell us the probable cost of the road ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am speaking absolutely without any accurate information. But the preliminary surveys or, I should say, the explorations that have been made from the Bay of Seven Islands up towards Chicoutimi would indicate that the expenditure would be in the neighbourhood of $30,000 per mile. As to the road from Chicoutimi to Quebec, I cannot say anything, except that the country through which the road will run is in some respects similar to the country through which the Lake St. John Railway runs. And I understand that that road cost $20,000 or $25,000 a mile.


David Henderson: I understand that this is a very mountainous country, and that is one of the reasons why the company applied for a larger subsidy than is asked for by any other company. Their application is for a minimum subsidy of $6,400 a mile.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is not granted.


David Henderson: The reasons given why that subsidy should be greater than to other companies are that it is to pass through a mountainous country and that the country is almost wholly uninhabited. What object can there be in granting a subsidy of $6,400 a mile for a railway into a mountainous country almost uninhabited ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No, no.


David Henderson: That is what the applicants say.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That may be from Chicoutimi east, but not from Chicoutimi west.


David Henderson: The reasons given for granting a subsidy are as follows : Mountainous country, almost wholly uninhabited; open up extensive agricultural, timber and mining areas ; will cost in excess of $25,000 a mile ; and make Bay of Seven Islands a great national port. Now. I am not sure that it is desirable that we should commence. at this hour, to open up any more national ports. Our ports at Montreal, Quebec, St. John and Halifax require a good deal of money to equip them, and I fail to see that there could be any great advantage in encouraging this enterprise, if one of the most important objects is to establish a national port at the Bay of Seven Islands. However. I think we can console ourselves with the thought that there is very little danger of the subsidy ever being called for.
For a branch line from a point on the Canadian Pacific Railway at or near St. Philippe d'Argenteuil. thence in a northerly direction,
passing through the village of Brownsburg, not exceeding three miles.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This description is not very accurate, so I move that the resolution he amended to read :
For a branch lino from a point at or near the intersection of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Great Northern Railway between St. Phillippe d'Argenteuil and Lacbute, thence in a northerly direction passing through the village of Brownsburg a distance not exceeding three miles.
Mr. HUGHES (Victoria!. Is this in order to run to the cartridge factory ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The main industries to be accommodated are the factory at Browns-burg and a very extensive quarry beyond that village.


David Henderson: This is another of the class of applications tliat come before this House in very objectionable form. I do not think that it is in keeping with the dignity of this House that one member of tlie government should write to another member of the government asking for a subsidy for a railway in which' he or his friends may be interested. It would be much better if the application came from some other source. The only application I find for a subsidy for this road is a letter from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Pr&fontaine) addressed to Hon. Mr. Fielding, acting Minister of Railways. That looks very much like a family compact concern. I wonder who owns the granite quarry that this road is to reach, for which we are to give a subsidy of about $10,000.


Mr. CHRISTIE.: I bad much pleasure in supporting this application for a subsidy. I was approached on the subject by the president of the Dominion Cartridge Factory, which company, as the committee are aware, has extensive works at Brownsburg. This road will be of great benefit to that industry, as well as to the quarry already mentioned. So far as the quarry is concerned, the supply is unlimited, the only difficulty in the way of developing the quarry being tbe transportation difficulties the company have been obliged to contend witli. The company already employ seventy hands, and I am informed that the amount of their pay-roll is #5.000 a month. In these figures I am speaking from memory, but I think they are accurate. I am also informed that if this road is built the amount of business will probably lie quadrupled : in fact, that there is no limit to the amount of business which can be done, if the transportation difficulty is overcome. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Henderson), who asked the question, will do me the honour of a visit at my home. I shall have great pleasure in driving him, not only to the Cartridge Company's works, but to the quarry. I will make his visit as pleasant for him as possible, and when he has seen what is

going on there I think he will agree that this subsidy will result in benefit to the country.


David Henderson: I thank the hon. gentleman (Mr. Christie) for his invitation, which I gladly accept. I am informed by some of my friends who have visited him that he is a very hospitable entertainer, and so 1 shall be glad, as soon as I can make it convenient, to go down and spend a day with him. He has told us that this quarry is a very valuable one, that the supply is almost inexhaustible, that they employ so many men and pay so much money-in fact he has told us almost everything that we had not inquired about. We on this side were interested in knowing who were the owners of this quarry. I am not so much interested in knowing the great value of the property. I have no doubt it is valuable, otherwise they would not ask the government to subsidize a road leading to it.


An hon. MEMBER.: How many miles ?


David Henderson: Three miles.


Thomas Christie: The president of the company is Mr. Brunet, not the gentleman of that name who was formerly a member of this House.
Mr. MARCH, (Bonaventure). He is a large stone and marble dealer in the city of Montreal.


James Clancy: Has the cartridge company now any railway communication to this place ?


Thomas Christie: The nearest point is St. Phillippe. The company have spent large sums of money on this road, but owing to the heavy freight carried over it the road is in constant need of repair. I have several letters from the president of the company and other gentlemen who are anxious to see this branch line constructed.
To the Orford Mountain Railway Company for a line of railway from a point on its main line between Lawrenceville and Eastman to Lake Bonella, five miles; from Kingsbury to Windsor Mills, ten miles; and from Eastman to the town line between township of Bolton, east part, and township of Potton, 12 miles, not exceeding in the whole 27 miles.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: This is a small road in the eastern townships under a Quebec charter.


Samuel Hughes: Did this company get their charter amended here, and obtain a Dominion charter ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not think so.


Samuel Hughes: I think this was a Quebec charter that had very extensive privileges, and the promoters came to this House and endeavoured to get a Bill passed with all these privileges granted by the Quebec charter, and they failed. I would like to know how much of it is built ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This road happens to be in my neighbourhood, and I am well acquainted with the circumstances. It is a small road in the eastern townships, constructed by the Orford Mountain Railway Company, composed of local men entirely. It starts at present from the village of Eastman and runs northward to a place called Kingsbury. They are now seeking to build a branch line from a point between Lawrenceville and Eastman on their main line to Lake Bonella, where there are large lumbering operations carried on, and they wish to extend it from Kingsbury to Windsor Mills, on the main line of the Grand Trunk, between Montreal and Portland. They also wish to extend their line southwards from the village of Eastman, about six miles, in the hope of carrying it further at some future time to touch the International boundary line, where they can connect with American lines.


John Graham Haggart: Was not a part of this road abandoned once V


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No. not under the name of the Orford Mountain Railway. There was a railway company called the Missisquoi and Black River Valley Railway Company, that is now defunct. They built a few miles, but the rails have been taken up and the road has been abandoned. The Orford Mountain Railway desires to construct the portion from Eastman southwards partly on the old embankment of that road. But practically it is a new' construction entirely.
To the Atlantic. Quebec and Western Railway Company for a line of railway from GaspS to a point at or near Causapscal on the Intercolonial Railway, and from that point to Edmundston, N.B.. not exceeding 260 miles ; and for a line of railway from Paspebiac to GaspS as near the shore as practicable, not exceeding 102 miles. Total, 362 miles.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: As the House is aware, this charter was granted at the beginning of this session. The road starts from Paspebiac, in the county of Bonaventure, and will run along the shore as far as Gaspe Basin. Thence the road will go into the interior of the peninsula and reach Causapscal, on the Intercolonial, and from there will go as [DOT] far as Edmundston, in New Brunswick, where it will tap the American system. On the shores of the Baie des Chaleurs from Paspebiac to Gaspf; bay, there are from 20,000 to 25,000 people, who have hitherto been deprived of railway communication. This company has agreed to build that line at the urgent request of the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Mareil), and at my own request. They intended at first to build a railway only into the interior of the peninsula, where they have large interests. I may say at once that the Gasp6 coast is a very fine agricultural country, and the interior of the peninsula is very rich in natural resources of all kinds. To show the


Thomas Christie: bona tides of the company, I may say that before they procured this charter-because they were incorporated under a local charter- they made all the preliminary surveys, and diming last winter they expended a least .$60,000 or $75,000. I will read to the Committee a letter which I have just received from the manager of the road, Mr. Carpenter. Some gentlemen from London, England, are interested in this construction. Mr. Carpenter writes as follows :
Montreal, October 16, 1903. Dear Sir.-Now that our company has been assured they will receive a cash subsidy from the Dominion government, the directors feel justified in instructing their engineers to push forward the work with all despatch. Our engineer in chief is Mr. Henry O'Sullivan-
Who is well known to some lion, gentlemen in this House.
-who informed me last week that the preliminary or location survey was quite complete, and the draughtsman would have the plans and reports of the same from the Intercolonial to Gaspe Basin ready for us in the course of a week or ten days. In the meantime I have instructed Mr. O'Sullivan to get together the necessary staff of engineers, transit men, labourers, &c., ready to proceed to Gaspe and start the final survey for construction. Owing to the lateness of the season we do not contemplate being able to survey and complete the plan of more than three sections of the road before winter sets in. two in the county of Bonaventure and one from Gaspg, in all thirty miles. If we are not prevented by inclement weather we shall have these plans completed and be in a position to start construction on the above sections early next spring.


John Graham Haggart: How many miles?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Thirty miles at present, because, as the hon. gentleman will notice by looking at the report, the company has had imposed upon it very stringent conditions. For instance, the company is obliged to build concurrently the shore line and the interior line, and if the company does not build ten miles within a year, dating from the 21st of June, on which day the Bill was sanctioned by the Governor General in the Senate, their charter will lapse, not only for the shore line, but for the interior line as well.


John Graham Haggart: We will extend it; all you have to do is to come and ask for an extension of time and we w'll grant it to you.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am glad to receive the endorsation of my hon. friend and his promise of an extension. I thank my hon. friend for his support and I will say so to the electors of Gaspe.


Samuel Hughes: I suppose that the old G. N. Armstrong charter is abolished ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Armstrong charter covering all that ground as far as GaspS Basin has lapsed. This is a new company and lias nothing whatever to do with Mr. Armstrong. In fact it was fought by Mr. Armstrong.


John Graham Haggart: Will this road touch all the improvements we have been making in Bonaventure and Gaspe ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: It will improve the improvements.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are there any better prospects of this company building that road than there was of the Armstrong company building it ? The hon. gentleman has vigorously fought the old company for years and I would like to know if he is substituting anything better.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think so ; I can assure my hon. friend that the government and the two members most interested, the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) and myself, have taken all the precautions that were possible. In fact, I am positive that within the year we will have at least ten or twenty miles built. The gentlemen are quite in earnest and have the financial ability to carry out the project.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Who are the gentlemen ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
Samuel Hughes: What is the object of this ? I understand that it is running out to a mill owned by an hon. member of this House.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If an hon. member of this House is fortunate enough to own a mill I think we ought to be glad of it. We do not expect the members of this House to be dummies, but energetic business men.


Samuel Hughes: The rule with us is that when you want a siding you build it yourself.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is a spur at a point near River Trois Pistoles on the Intercolonial Railway to Mackenzie and Renouf Falls, RiviSre Trois Pistoles. A large pulp mill is being built there and there "are also large timber limits.


Richard Blain: In what county is that ? The MINISTER OF FINANCE. In Temi-scouata.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Who is the owner of this large pulp mill that is to be built there ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: It is a joint stock company of which Mr. Tobin, member I for Richmond and Wolfe is president.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I regard this as a very improper way to use public money. A year or two ago a subsidy was proposed for the Manitoulin and North Shore Railway, which goes through my county, and a portion of that goes through the township of St. Vincent and town of Meaford. It was proposed to build the Grand Trunk Railway down into the town of Meaford which would be probably two and a half miles and although a subsidy was given from that town to build around to Owen Sound and one end of this road would start practically at the wharf and the other extend towards Owen Sound, and although I did my best to get the government to allow a portion of that subsidy to apply to the building of the road down to the wharf, about one and a half or two miles from the end of the Grand Trunk Railway I was answered that the government was not subsidizing or using public money in that way, that this was only a short spur down to the wharf and that the people of the town should build it or that it should be built between them and the railway company. The people were obliged, notwithstanding the fact that a subsidy was given professedly to build a railway from that point, to raise the money to build it themselves. The government would not allow a dollar of the subsidy to be applied in that way and now we are asked to vote a subsidy to assist in building a spur or siding into a man's mill. Because that man happens to be a member of this House he is treated in this way. If these subsidies were given alike in all cases I would not have the same ground for complaint, but where it is emphatically denied in other cases upon grounds which if applied to this case would exclude this gentleman from such benefits, then I think it is unfair and that we have a right to object to it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not remember the other case to which my hon. friend refers, but, it is a mistake to refer to this as a siding; this is not a siding; it is a line that runs off almost at right angles with the Intercolonial Railway at a place where it is believed there will be a considerable development of business. Whether it is a proper subsidy to grant is a debatable matter, but it is not right to describe this line as a siding.


Samuel Hughes: In our country if a man wants a siding or spur into his mill he has to go to the cost of constructing it and the company charges him interest on the rails, besides which he has to maintain the spur. Here the government is to build a road which is really a part of the Intercolonial Railway and is paying a subsidy.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is practically a man building a railway into his mill and getting $7,000 to do it. If you would apply the same principle all over the country I would not have the same objection to it.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: 


The PRIME MINISTER.: In what year was the application of which my hon. friend has spoken, made ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In 1901.


Edward Cochrane: There is a principle involved in this case. Why should we, the ratepayers as a whole, be called upon to build two and a half miles of a spur or siding, whatever you call it, for the benefit of a member of this House ? Why should we vote public money for the benefit of a private individual or company. If a railway is developing a country, I would not oppose a subsidy for it no matter in what province it may be, but the government has practically gone insane in voting subsidies this year for little dabs of railways one mile and two miles long, to serve private individuals. The Prime Minister himself must see that this is absurd. Why don't these people do as we have to do in our section of the country, where these railways are built by the private individuals who want them. When these gentlemen on the other side of the House were in opposition, they objected to the name of a member of parliament appearing as an applicant for a charter, but now they sit complacently by and vote this money when a member of the government makes an application to the Minister of Finance for a subsidy. It looks to me a little fishy, and it is time we called a halt. We have gone so far to-day as to subsidize local roads that are chartered by the provincial government, and now we are subsidizing roads which serve the purposes only of some private corporation. How cau the members for Ontario go home and justify themselves in voting subsidies for these little tramp railways down in the provinces, when in our own province private individuals have to build their own roads ? If this were a colonization road I could understand it ; but there is no reason on earth why a man should not build his own siding to his mill.


Mr. TAYLOR.: As I understand it, this is a branch of the Intercolonial Railway which runs into some industrial establishments lying along that line. Is it the intention of the government to loan them the rails in addition to giving them this subsidy ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is no arrangement whatever between the Intercolonial Railway and this company. This is treated as an ordinary subsidy.


George Taylor: To whom ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: To the company.


George Taylor: Will this road bei operated by that independent company or by the Intercolonial Railway ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There has been no arrangement yet on the subject.


David Henderson: The acting Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Fielding) objected to this road being called a siding, but 1 find that in the application which was made by the company themselves, they designated it both as a siding and a spur line. Here is what they say :
Application to construct a spur line near the Trois Pistoles bridge.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


David Henderson: And here is the letter written to the engineer of the Intercolonial Railway by the government engineer who was sent to inspect it.
As per instructions received from you, I went to Trois Pistoles to go over ground and make report on whait is to be a siding or branch from the Intercolonial Railway to a point up stream, where a company own timber limits and water privileges on the main River Trois Pistoles. I found a preliminary location survey has been made by an engineer, sent there by Mr. Tobin and his company. I walked over ground in company with their engineer. The proposed branch or siding is about two and a half miles in length and begins at a point on the Intercolonial Railway about 700 feet east of Trois Pistoles bridge ; running south, crossing the public highway at about grade point, keeping the side hill, passing two large grist mills.
There is one feature of this subsidy which I dislike very much. The general public are not allowed to participate in the advantages of this railway at all ; they will get no benefit from the construction of this railway ; the private company will receive all the benefit. I object to these subsidies for a line simply to run into a granite quarry, to satisfy the desires of a minister ol' the Crown or any other persons with, whom he may be associated. This company tells the government that they have acquired all the water privileges and all the land within a very considerable distance, so that everybody else except the company is excluded from participating in the benefits of (his expenditure. This letter is a lengthy one, and I shall not detain the House by reading more than a portion of it. It says :
The company of which Mr. Tobin is promoter proposes building at once at terminus of branch, a large pulp mill, a shingle mill, and an electric power house. And at McKenzie's Palls, about
1.000	feet below, erecting a large paper mill. The electric .power house is for the purpose of lighting all the mills on stream below, two large grist mills, and Messrs. Price Bros, large saw mill, and also to light the town of Trois Pistoles by electricity. The company here have acquired all water privileges up this river for a distance of ten mies and have also control of
100.000	acres of timber limits situated on both sides of Trois Pistoles river and extending back in country considerable distance a,nd have control of all available timber lands for some miles back.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They have everything in sight.


David Henderson: That is the great objection. This company has oblained pos-453
session of everything in sight; no other person can go in there and acquire water privileges or piece of land, without dealing with this company. All the benefits which accrue from this subsidy must of necessity go to the company. It is a close corporation, and all the benefits the public get from it. is what may be doled out to the workingman in the shape of wages. It is altogether a -wrong1 principle to subsidize such a road as this. No doubt these 100,000 acres of land, and this long stretch of water-power privilege was obtained before there was a railway there, and at a cheap price because of the difficulty of access ; but when this company became possessed of everything in sight, they go to the government and ask them to spend $10,000 or $15,000 to make this property more valuable. They bought it at a cheap price because there was no railway connection, and now they want the government to give them railway connection, so as to enhance its value. Had the subsidy been granted before this company'acquired all the property there would be some fair play in it, because then others would have an opportunity of going in there and acquiring property on the same basis. This in undoubtedly a case which has no merit in it whatever. If these people want a siding two and a half miles long, let them do as we have to do in the province of Ontario. I know very well that in the province of Ontario when we want a siding on the Canadian Pacific Railway, we have to make the embankment, put- on the ties, and pay a considerable rental for the iron.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Any rebate allowed ?


David Henderson: No rebate at all. We pay the regular freight ail the same. I am not finding fault with this. I cannot expect the Canadian Pacific Railway to provide special privileges without being compensated for them. But we do not come to the government and ask them to give us these facilities. In the constituency I have the honour to represent, I know of a spur line which was built from the main line of the Grand Trunk Railway to a paper mill. The hon. member for Nipissing has been pleading here all afternoon in favour of supporting grants to paper and pulp mills. There is a very large and old paper mill in the constituency I have the honour to represent, and I do not think it ever secured aid for the construction of railway facilities for bringing out its output. A few years ago a spur line was built from the Grand Trunk to the mill. I cannot say whether it was done at the expense of the proprietors or at the expense of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. 1 am inclined to think that the proprietor had to assist ; but I am quite sure that the government were not asked to contribute one cent, although that was as meritorious a case as the one we have before us now. The



proprietor of that mill and his predecessors for the last forty or fifty years hare employed a great deal of labour ; their output is very considerable ; and if a paper or pulp mill is entitled to consideration, that one is as much entitled to it as those in newer sections of the country. I disapprove altogether of aiding private enterprises of this kind where the general public are excluded from taking any advantage of the investment. I do not think this case has any merit at all.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


James Clancy: With regard to the item 53, now before the committee, for a branch line to Mackenzie and Renouf Falls, river Trois Pistoles, not exceeding 2| miles, the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) asked what arrangement was made with the Intercolonial regarding the rails to be laid on that siding. It is surely not proposed to hand over to a private company-not a railway company at all-all these compensations. As pointed out by my hon. friend, they have grabbed everything in sight. They have secured the water-power and the timber limits and every concession possible before investing a dollar in the way of plant, and they ask the country now to construct a railway for them.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is no arrangement whatever between the government and this company with respect to the operation of the road. The subsidy is the same as any other subsidy and in no different position.


James Clancy: It is in a very different position from all others.


Mr. GAUVREAU.: Does the hon. gentleman say that the company have not spent anything at Trois Pistoles ?


James Clancy: There is no plant there.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: In my constituency, Temiscouata, $250,000 have been spent. There are three shingle mills in operation.


James Clancy: How long have the mills been in operation ?


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Two months. We expect to have five shingle mills at work, and in one year will export 1,200 cars of lumber by the Intercolonial.


James Clancy: Is this Mr. Tobin's company ?


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: It is an American company. The promoters are French Canadians from the States, and Mr. Tobin is the president. Those who have invested the most money are French Americans.


James Clancy: We are very glad to welcome them back to this country, and to
welcome the investment of capital in Canada, but there is no reason why the Canadian tax-payer should build sidings for Mr. Tobin or anybody else. We might as well build the mills for his company. This siding is essentially a part of the plant of the company, in which the public are not interested. This company want the government to build a road for them and at the same time loan them the rails and give them the balance of the outfit. We ought to know on what arrangement they are to get these other advantages apart from the subsidy.	.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman is making much ado about something which he considers entirely novel. I can assure him that he is mistaken. The grant of a subsidy for a small road-call it a siding if you will, but it is not a siding- two or three miles long, is by no means a novelty either under the present or former administrations. This company cannot do everything, and there will be a large population gathered around their industries which will give business to the railway. As to how the Intercolonial will arrange with the company later on, that is a matter for future adjustment.


James Clancy: There is a wide distinction between this and other grants to railways. This is not a road which the public can use. It is a private road in every sense of the word. If we are to take this subsidy as a precedent, there is not a mill-owner in Canada who is not entitled to have a siding built to his mill by the government.


Archibald Campbell: Why do you not move to strike it out ?


James Clancy: That is just the kind of suggestion I would expect from the hon. gentleman. He always throws a stone from behind the hedge and never comes out in the open. Did he ever move to strike out an item of that kind when contending against it ? If he did not, why does he ask me to move ?


Archibald Campbell: I never whined for a' couple of hours over an item.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman has whined over matters of much less importance, and the hilarity which his interruption excites, particularly on the part of the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Calvert), who had lame men in his riding employed as census enumerators, who had to be carried around in the villages to do the work, is very amusing. The fact that this is a small matter does not at all improve the quality of it. Members cannot come to this House and make demands for votes of public money for the benefit of concerns in which they are personally interested without violating a well recognized .principle of our parliamentary system.


David Henderson: This is the feature of it that it seems to me without a single redeeming side. I do not- expect to get better information than we have had, but I suppose that hon. gentlemen opposite will have to deal with the public later on.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We have been voting railway subsidies pretty freely, and very seldom have we on this side offered any serious objection to what was proposed, if there was anything like a justification for the vote. But in the multiplicity of these proposals, it cannot be wondered at that some do not meet with our approval. If we are to support the expenditure of public money it must be upon the basis of some reasonable belief that the expenditure will benefit the public, not an individual or a corporation alone, but the people. It never was proposed, so far as I know, that a subsidy should be given to a private firm or company to build a siding into their mill. Some years ago I applied to the government for some assistance by way of subsidy to build a line from the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway to an important village in our county. The distance would be about two or two and a half miles. We had the assurance of parties who were well able to carry out the work that if the government would give the usual subsidy of $3,200 a mile they would build the line to the village. It was an important village, a place that had been settled for forty years or so ; it contained a grist mill, a saw mill, a woollen mill and the usual other industries of a thriving village, as well as stores of all kinds. With all these, its trade was a very considerable trade indeed. I applied to the government for the subsidy and submitted the best arguments I could. But I was quietly told that such a subsidy would not be justified by the House, and that the minister would not feel justified in recommending it to the Council, for the reason that this was only a spur line. I was told that if I could show that the line would connect two railway systems, so that cars could be transferred from one to the other, it might he regarded as worthy of a subsidy. But, though the village might, be an important one and its trade large and growing, the conditions were not such as to justify the subsidy being granted. In view of that, I do not know how I am to go back to the same people and justify such a proposition as is made here, for this has far less merit in it in many respects. In this instance, practically everything in sight, the water-powers, the timber lands, the mill sites and everything else, is owned by a company, and the public have no substantial interest. We are not even told that this is a thickly settled country or that there are industries there in which the public are interested. But it would seem that this company has secured everything it can from the local government and. being still unsatisfied. it comes to the Dominion for fur-453*
ther assistance. For the purpose of carrying on their business they desire sidings to be 'built into their property, and they come to the government and ask for assistance to the extent of $7,000 or $8,000 for this purpose. It can well be admitted that this will be more profitable to the company, but I do not understand that it is even claimed that it is of any substantial benefit to the public. It seems to me that the government have wholly failed to make out a case in favour of this vote. They have not even told us that this railway is owned by a regularly chartered railway company, or whether this *road is to be built by the Intercolonial under the general provision of the Railway Act, which gives a company the right to build branches not more than six miles in length without special charter. The hon. member-(Mr. Gauvreau), who seems to be familiar with the locality, speaks of a eompany- Mr. Tobin's company. I did not understand whether it was a railway company, a general commercial company or a lumber company.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: It is a lumber company.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: So, no railway company wants this, but merely an association of capitalists engaged in the lumber business. Let me tell the acting Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Fielding) that if he adopts this principle to-night and we vote this railway subsidy, he can have at once a thousand applications equally meritorious from all parts of the country. And if he grants this, how can he refuse the others ? It seems to me that this is establishing a very bad precedent a precedent that the government of this country will find very troublesome in the future.


Archibald Campbell: The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) says that we are establishing a bad precedent in this case. Now, I do not know the merits of this case very well, but I contend that the precedent for it was established long years ago.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When ?


Archibald Campbell: By the late government. And the hon. member for East Grey has, over and over again, supported propositions just the same as this.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Give an instance.


Archibald Campbell: The Cape Tormentine Railway.	1


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I emphatically deny that I ever supported a proposition of this kind, knowing it to be such.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Let me say one word in explanation. Many of these railway subsidies were voted, the exact locality and merits of which we could not know. I may have supported such a proposition under these circumstances, but not under any other.


Archibald Campbell: But the hem. gentleman supported it just the same ; and if he did not know what he was supporting, he was not tit to occupy


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Tell me an instance.


Archibald Campbell: If the hon. gentleman will look over the subsidies granted by the late government, he will iina many cases of grants in cases such as this.


William Rees Brock: Mention one.


Archibald Campbell: I may say to the hon. gentleman for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) that I have already mentioned one. It was for Mr. Wood, who now occupies a position in the other House. He was supporting the government, and it was at his instance that [DOT] the subsidy was granted. It seems strange, therefore, that these men, when similar precedents have been established, and when they have over and over again voted bonuses to similar enterprises, should now rise in their righteous indignation and oppose this justifiable grant. The member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brook) will support bonuses where he is interested for $100,000 or $200,000. yet he will stick, and haggle and whine about a little tu'penny-ha'penny thing of two miles and a half that is in the public interest.


William Rees Brock: The hon. gentleman is putting his foot in it now. I am not whining about this at all, and I defy him to mention a ease where I supported a bonus that I am interested in myself. He is making a statement that he must know to be uot according to the facts.


Archibald Campbell: When hon. members sit in this House and allow subsidies to go through without a protest, without raising their voice against them, we may rightly conclude that they are in favour of them. Therefore, when they advocate certain bonuses, and do not vote against others, they are responsible for their passage. The proper way for a member of this House to do, if he is opposed to a grant and has the courage of his convictions, is to rise in the House and move that the item he struck out. That would be the duty of those hon. gentlemen who oppose this grant as the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) does so strongly ; he should rise in his place and move that the item be struck out, then he will be acting according to his convictions.


Henry Robert Emmerson: We are asked to name a case. I will give the case of what is known as the Harvey branch, which connects the Albert Railway, now known as the Salisbury and Harvey, with a private wharf which was owned by the late Hon. J. .T. S. Turner. He owned this branch, and he owned the wharf, and the parliament of Canada, somewhere in the 80's, under a Conservative administration, not only subsidized that siding down to the wharf, but gave assistance to a bridge.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 


James Clancy: What was the length of the branch ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Between two and three miles, about the same length as the branch in question. But he was a Tory, he was a member of a Tory government.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member has not made good his statement that it was a similar case, because in that instance the grant was given to a railway company, whereas this is being given to a commercial company.
The MINISTER OB' FINANCE. This is not being given to any company.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman explained it as being given to the Tobin Company, which he admits is not a railway company. Who applied for it ? Is it not the Tobin Company ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The Harvey branch was owned by one man. the gentleman I referred to, and it was no more of a publicrailway than this is to be.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There are many railways owned by only one man, and we have already voted subsidies to connect railways with a wharf


Henry Robert Emmerson: Not a private wharf.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We have wharfs by the dozen that are private wharfs, but the public use them all the time to ship their produce. Though this railway may have been owned by one man, it was for the public convenience to connect a water route and land route. Therefore it is not a similar case.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That branch was built for the purpose of permitting the gentleman who owned this wharf to ship his lumber down to that wharf over this branch or siding.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did not the public use it as well as himself, both for incoming and outgoing freight ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I presume the public-will use this in the same way.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Well it is not very likely. Now, the member for West York (Mr. Campbell), with his usual inaccuracy and braggadocio, says, I am going to give a ease, and he cites the case of Senator Wood. Well, did Senator Wood get a subsidy either as a private individual or as a corporation ? I deny it, and the hon. gentleman cannot confirm his statement. It was given to a railway company for the convenience of the public, and not to a private individual or a private corporation.


Mr. LEFURGEY.: I want to say that the Cape Tormentine Railway has nothing to do with the item which we are discussing. That railway received a charter be-casue it goes for 18 or 20 miles through a

very populous district, and serves a great number of people, while the instance under discussion is a private corporation which controls the whole river, which controls the whole area of timber limits, and the whole situation. It is simply a private individual. The Cape Tormentine Railway was also built to connect the winter service of Prince Edward Island with Cape Tormentine.


Archibald Campbell: The ease I refer to is several years old. The railway, as I remember, was a siding that went into Mr. \\ ood's sawmill, and was about a mile and a half long.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I do not know anything about Mr. Wood's sawmill. The hon. gentleman referred to the Cape Tormentine Railway, and I think there is no fair comparison with this item. While I am on this subject, and as I see the leader of the government in his seat, I would like to refer to the need of branch lines in Prince Edward Island. While we are giving subsidies to hundreds of branch lines throughout this Dominion, we have been unsuccessfully asking in Prince Edward Island for branch lines through populous districts, to serve the farming community, to serve cheese factories, and butter factories, and manufacturing industries throughout the Island. I have instanced a number of cases, and I have presented petition after petition in this House, with no result. During the three years I have been here I have presented petitions for a branch line from North Wiltshire to the southern coast, through a populous district, a line about twenty miles long, a line that will serve a great number of persons. I have also brought to the attention of the acting Minister of Railways and Canals another branch that was needed down to Elmira, and a branch from O'Leary to the western part of the Island. These branches are all much needed by a great number of people. I would like the leader of the government to take these matters in hand. The main line is a government line, and if we are going to get any railway accommodation at all we must get it through branch lines built by the government. While on the subject of short branch lines, I would also mention that I have brought to the attention of the acting Minister of Railways this year, as the board of trade of the maritime provinces have also done, the need of a spur running from the main line at Charlottetown down to the wharf front, which would serve not one private individual, but the whole commercial community of Charlottetown. And during the season of navigation, when the goods are brought into Charlottetown to private wharfs, every bit of that merchandise has to be carted across the town to the station at Charlottetown at a greatly increased cost and at great inconvenience to the shippers. We have been asking for a spur that would not be two and a half miles long and possibly would not be over one mile in length, and yet we have
been put off from year to year with the explanation that ' we will look into the case.' I wish that the acting minister would look into it with some seriousness.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is no relevancy at all in the observations of my hon. friend.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: There is a great deal of relevancy in them.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We are dealing with railway subsidies, we are not dealing with the construction of railways by the government. There has been no application from anybody in Prince Edward Island to my knowledge for the privileges which are proposed to be conferred on railway companies or other parties by these votes, and any discussion of the construction of branches by the Intercolonial Railway has no relevancy to this. These gentlemen would be very pleased indeed if we would build then a branch line of railway ; but the government do not propose to build them a branch line, simply to offer them tlie usual facilities in the way of subsidies and for the rest they must pay the money themselves. If any one in Prince Edward island wants the same privileges on the same conditions I fancy that the government would be ready to grant it, but, there is no such proposal from Prince Edward island and there is no relevancy in the point raised by my hon. friend (Mr. Lefurgey). If the hon. gentleman wants to advocate the building of a branch line in Prince Edward Island it would he a very proper subject at tlie proper time. If lie wants to convey the impression that this government lias not been dealing liberally with the province of Prince Edword Island, I am satisfied that there Is too much common sense among the people of that island, in view of tlie appropriations contained in the estimates for that province, to permit the people to treat ills remarks seriously.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: We are dealing with the public money of this country, and it makes no difference whether it is being expended for subsidies or for tlie building of lines. We do not ask for subsidies in Prince Edward Island ; we do not build branch lines in Prince Edward Island because the whole system is owned by the government.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: So is the Intercolonial Railway in this case.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: We want the government to build a line there, as they own the whole system and for that reason the subject is perfectly relevant; it is the expenditure of public money to suit the convenience of the people in the locality and to assist them in carrying on the enterprise in which they are engaged. This spur line in Charlottetown would not only lie a convenience to the shippers of produce, &c.. in Charlottetown, hut would benefit the Prince Edward Island Railway.

The MINISTER OF1 FINANCE. The hon. gentleman is trying to convey the impression that by these subsidy resolutions some privilege is being granted to other provinces that is not granted to Prince Edward Island.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: They certainly are.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They certainly are not, because no one in Prince Edward Island has sought the privileges that are granted by this.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: They cannot.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: 
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is no more impracticable for them than for people living along the line of the Intercolonial Railway. If' the hon. gentleman says that subsidies are refused to his province, he is wrong ; but if he is not seising railway subsidies how can he complain if he does not get them.


Samuel Barker: The hon. Minister of Finance seems to be worked up on the question of irrelevancy. He did not seem to be so much concerned about irrelevancy when the hon. member for West York (Mr. Campbell) got up and referred to something done many years ago by another government.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: By a subsidy I understood.


Samuel Barker: We might infer from the words of the hon. member for West York that if a minister twenty years ago had picked a man's pocket that would justify the right hon. gentleman who now leads the government in committing a burglary. That seems to be his argument. The Minister of Finance says this is not a matter affecting the Intercolonial Railway ; it is a matter of public concern, a subsidy to be granted by this Dominion. I think the facts are just the reverse of what the Minister of Finance states. This is particularly a matter affecting the Intercolonial Railway, and I think it is absolutely ridiculous for an hon. gentleman to stand up in this House and say that a two and a half mile side track on the Intercolonial Railway is a matter affecting the Dominion, for which a Dominion subsidy ought to be granted. If this is a siding or a spur track that is useful to the Intercolonial Railway why has not the Minister of Railways and Canals dealt with it ? If that hon. gentleman, as acting Minister of Railways and Canals, thinks that this two and a half mile track is a necessity for the Intercolonial Railway, surely he could have dealt with that subject as a railway manager deals with every application of the kind. The very fact that it has not been -brought up in that way, that the Minister of Railways and Canals has not so dealt with this two and a half spur track Mr. LEFURGEY.
to a timber limit, owned by a private Individual, is the strongest possible evidence that we can have that this is not a matter that ought to be paid for by the Dominion at large. The hon. gentleman could, if he nad chosen, have dealt with this as he has dealt with many other cases where the Intercolonial Railway is interested in a side-track for a spur track or anything of that kind. If he thought the business with this private commercial enterprise justified the Intercolonial Railway in connecting its line with that enterprise by a side track; he could have dealt with it by (agreement. The people interested in that enterprise would have entered into a contract with the government and would have undertaken to pay to the government the cost of that siding. Probably there has been some side influence in this case which leads the government not to deal with it, as the Grand Trunk Railway or Canadian Pacific Railway or any other large railway company would deal with such a case; the hon. gentleman has not dealt with it as a departmental matter but has turned it over to the Dominion, and he gravely asks parliament to grant a subsidy for two and a half miles of railway as if a connection with this private timber limit were in the interests of the whole of the Dominion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that the immortal feature of this transaction should command the attention of the Minister of Railways and Canals. The law governing the independence of parliament provides that no member of parliament can receive money from the country and the only way in which he can evade the consequences of the law is by being connected with a company. The principle we have laid down is that we will assist railways, but in this case we are departing from the salutary principle and now we are going to help commercial companies to build railways into their own premises. I want to submit this feature :	How can Mr. Tobin, who is a
member of this House, be an independent member of parliament and vote against any government measure during this session when he is a suppliant at the door of the government for this subsidy ? How can lie be expected to do so ? It is not in human nature to expect it. It is unreasonable, and while Mr. Tobin may not deliberately violate the independence of parliament Act he is actually violating the spirit of it if not the letter. No member of parliament can be as independent as he should be when he is here seeking a subsidy of money from which he himself will be the principle beneficiary and the largest share of which will go into his own pocket. It seems to me that the government should refrain from doing that kind of thing and that this is a very bad precedent and an improper thing to do.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My bon. friend (Mr. Sproule) worries his soul over

the morals of the members In this respect. How does he justify one of his colleagues who sits usually immediately behind him and who is a director of the Canadian Pacific Railway, although we are voting subsidies to the Canadian Pacific Railway ? My hon. friend does not worry over that member's morals in the slightest degree.


Samuel Barker: I would like to ask the hon. minister if he has ever known the hon. gentleman to whom he refers to sit in this House and vote upon the question of a bonus to the railway to which he refers ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I did not discuss that question. Mr. Tobin, the hon. member for Richmond and Wolfe is not sitting in this House, voting on this question, yet his name has been used freely, more freely than I have used the name of the hon. the junior member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier). It seems to make a great difference whose ox is gored. The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) is very much worried because some of these votes are not expressly to	railway companies. It would be a dreadful thing if we should vote money to any company that is not a railway company. This is not a vote to any company, it is a vote for a line of railway. It is in the same position as any other line of railway where no company is mentioned. My hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) was not always so squeamish about these things as he is now. The hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) says that if some one picked some one else's pocket years ago, that would not justify another person in committing a burglary now. No, but if a person who committed a burglary years ago, suddenly becomes virtuous, and howls when another person commits a burglary, there is something very suspicious about it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We are not looking for virtue from that side.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman expects all the virtue to be on this side of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We are complaining that there is no virtue on that side of the House.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We are just ordinary plain people over here, and we do not profess to have that high degree of morality, which enables us to single out the member for Richmond and Wolfe, to lecture him on morals, without looking at the vacant seat behind the hon. member for East Grey. But if there is any degree in morals, we suspect Strongly that the member for Richmond and Wolfe is not the bigger sinner in these transactions. I find that in 1888, a vote was made of rails and fastenings ; which are money ; which stood in the public accounts as an asset for $4,335; these were voted, not to assist a railway company, but to assist a cotton company in the city of Halifax. That is commonly known in my city as the cotton factory
siding, and this line was built for the special advantage of the Halifax Cotton Company. My hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) told us the other night that he was here for a quarter of a century, and we were all glad to congratulate him


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Might I ask the hon. minister if that was not an arrangement made with the Intercolonial Railway ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The Intercolonial Railway is the government -of Canada.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is a different thing altogether.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It does not make it any better or any worse, whether it was an arrangement made with the Intercolonial Railway or not, and I have a pretty strong suspicion-but I do not like to mention names without having an opportunity to verify the record-I have a pretty strong suspicion that some of the members of parliament who sat here when that subsidy was voted, were members of the Halifax Cotton Company. But right alongside that last vote, I find that another appropriation is made of rails and fastenings, which are money, which stood in the public acounts as an asset representing $11,964.56. Was that voted in blank to someone else with the possibility of getting it taken up by an incorporated railway company ? No, it was voted to a company which was not a railway company, but which was known as the Steel Company of Canada. This grant was given for a branch, or a siding to their factory.


James Clancy: What were the general conditions in connection with that ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The only general condition is, that they would put down a certain quantity of rails themselves.


George Taylor: And all for the benefit of the Intercolonial Railway.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This proposed vote will be for the benefit of the Intercolonial Railway ; this is a branch of the Intercolonial Railway. What is the difference ?


Samuel Barker: Will the hon. minister allow me to ask him a question ? Will the hon. gentleman say that the rails he refers to there are not to-day the property of the Intercolonial Railway ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I cannot tell, but I can tell that these resolutions granted the rails to the Halifax Cotton Company, and to the Steel Company of Canada. Here is what it says :
To the Halifax Cotton Company of Nova Scotia, a grant as subsidy-the road to be first laid with new steel rails weighing not less than 56 pounds per lineal yard, and after an Order in Council has been passed authorizing their transfer to the company-of 233 tons of used iron rails and fastenings, loaned to the company



Some lion. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Hold on: they first loaned them, and that was not bad enough as a matter of .morals, but they went further and then gave them afterwards.
-two hundred and thirty-three tons of used iron rails and fastenings loaned to the company, which rails and fastenings stand in the public accounts as an asset for $4,335.
This is a grant to the Halifax Cotton Company.


Samuel Barker: It is a loan.
The MINISTER OF FINA'NCE. No ; it says they have already been loaned, but this is a grant.


Samuel Barker: Could the Steel Company or the Cotton Company dispose of these rails as being their property ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is a grant given to them here. If there is a grant of anything given to the hon. gentleman by vote of this parliament, he can do as he likes with it. We have it plainly stated :
To the Halifax Cotton Company of Nova Scotia a grant as subsidy. &c.


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman knows perfectly well, that what he has read is the ordinary transaction whereby a railway company issues its old second-hand rails as a loan to an enterprise that it wants to assist, by allowing a siding. They lend their rails, but the rails belong to the company lending them, and the siding cannot he used for any other purpose than for connection with the railway that lends the rails. Hoes the hon. gentleman suppose, that in addition to that resolution which he has read, there is not a contract with the Intercolonial Railway, that the Intercolonial Railway does not control that siding as any railway company controls the sidings that are made to connect with its main line ? The hon. gentleman knows that is probably the case. But what is the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fielding) doing by this resolution which we are considering ? He is giving a subsidy in hard cash to a private individual who is building two and a half miles of track, and that individual, whoever he may be, will receive that money in his own pocket.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman does no credit to his professional ingenuity when he makes such a weak argument as that. This is a grant to the Halifax Cotton Company and the Canada Steel Company. It is not anything but a grant. We have to take it just as we find it: as my hon. friend has just to take what he finds in the present resolution. We are proposing to grant certain aid to this road down at Trois Pistoles. In these resolutions I have quoted, the government


William Stevens Fielding: of the day brought to parliament a proposal to grant aid, and whether they granted it in rails or cash it made no difference, because the rails represented cash, and it is stated here that they stood in the assets of Canada as so much cash, and they must be brought down to the basis of hard pan in cash value.


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman knows that the Railway Department of that day had no power whatever to lend these rails, without coming to parliament and getting authority. They came here and they got authority to lend these rails for the purpose of that siding. If the hon. gentleman will undertake to state that that was an absolute gift of these rails, I have nothing further to say. But the hon. minister has admitted that lie cannot say that. The langauge he has read from the resolution does not show more than that parliament had authorized the granting a loan of rails to that company.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend is mistaken. The resolution distinctly states that these rails are granted to the company. These rails had already been loaned to tbe company, and it did not need an Act of parliament to loan tbern.


Samuel Barker: Certainly it did.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Then they had loaned them before, and whether they had loaned them by an Act of parliament or not I do not know.


Samuel Barker: They loaned them without authority, and they had to come to parliament to get the authority.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) is standing here to abuse tbe late government, by saying that it did these things without authority.


Samuel Barker: Certainly.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I protest against this attempt of the hon. gentleman to escape responsibility by attacking the late government. I do not believe the late government would do such thing. I do not believe they would lend the property of the Crown without authority. I am bound to believe that the minister of that day, who, I think, was the hon. member for Lanark (lion. Mr. Haggart) was a man who observed the law and in his absence to-night I want to defend him against this calumny.


Edward Cochrane: He does'nt want your defence.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The resolution distinctly states that it is to be a grant of 233 tons of used iron rails and fastenings loaned to the company. They already had them. They were In their possession ; they were loaned to them ,and this resolution gives them a free gift, and it gives that gift to them at the net cash price in which it stood in the assets of Canada.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I wish to draw attention to the comparison that the acting minister (Hon. Mr. Fielding) has made between this case and the case of the member for Toronto (Mr. Osier), who is a director of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Let me point out that the Canadian Pacific Railway is a railway which is over 4,000 miles long.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: How does that affect the question of morals ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It affects the question of morals a great deal. This is a railway of 4,000 miles, which has its ramifications all over Canada, supplying the needs of the people, and handling the commerce of the country whether it be the product of the farm or the product of the manufacturer. That company which is engaged in building a highway of commerce for the people of every part of Canada, deserves assistance from this government. There is an hon. member of this House who happens to be a member of that corporation, and because a subsidy is given to that great international railway enterprise, the Minister of Finance thinks that member is as guilty as the member who receives a subsidy for no railway corporation whatever, and a subsidy which is not given for the beneiit of tin1 public, but for the private beneiit of that member. It does not ask a dollar of it for the accommodation of the public. The public have no interest there, because this corporation owns the land, the timber, the water-power and everything else in the locality.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is what the Canadian Pacific Railway does when it gets a chance.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is begging the question to cite that as a parallel case. It is a very unfair comparison to say that the hon. member for West Toronto is doing an equally immoral act to sit in this Plouse when a subsidy is being voted the Canadian Pacific Railway, as the member who represents this company, and who goes to the government and asks for this bonus. It goes largely, you might almost say solely, into his own pocket, whereas the Canadian Pacific Railway is building railroads all over the country.


Samuel Barker: What year was it in which that loan of rails was made ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I cannot say in what year the loan was made, but the year from which I quoted was 1888.


Samuel Barker: I desire to call the attention of the House to the rather peculiar circumstance that the acting Minister of Railways and Canals justifies this grant for two and a half miles of railway by a precedent of fifteen years ago. The hon. gentleman has been looking up the records. He has felt that this subsidy is something very unusual; he has been conscious that he had to
justify it, and he has looked back fifteen years to find a case which would justify what he is doing ; and what has he found? He has come here with a report of 1888, and lie has taken very good care not to look into the agreement entered into then to ascertain whether it was a loan or not.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The Act fixes that.


Mr. LOGAN.: In reference to this loan of rails to the Steel Company of Canada, having some knowledge of the matter, I wish to state that these rails were taken by the steel company, put on their own land, treated as their own property, the company went into liquidation, its assets were sold, and among the assets sold were these same rails.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They were not loaned ; they were granted, and the company had a right to sell them.


James Clancy: The acting Minister of Railways gave my hon. friend from Prince a distinct challenge, and I understood him to say that if application were made from Prince Edward Island under similar conditions, it would be granted. I want to ask the hon. gentleman now if he has dealt with every case of a siding along the Intercolonial Railway in the same manner in which this is being dealt with. If the hon. gentleman is following out a rule that has obtained for many years, whether it is a good rule or a bad one, he will have some excuse for the course he is taking.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Let me first note the remark of the hon. .gentleman that I said that if an application were made from Prince Edward Island, the same privilege would be granted. I did not say that. I said it would be time enough to consider an application from Prince Edward Island when the application came. So far we have not had any.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman is not so generous as I thought he was.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not want to be generous ; I want to be reasonable. I want to point out that I have no right to promise in the name of the government that these things will he done. When applications come forward each one will be dealt with on its merits, and one province will be treated as well as another. The hon. gentleman wants to know if we are dealing with all these cases alike. Yes. where subsidies have been granted for small branch roads, they are granted in the same way ; and my hon. friend sat in this House yesterday and voted-and I am glad he did- for the following item :
For a line of railway from Debert station on the Intercolonial Railway to Coal Mine, not excoding 4f miles.
A difference of a mile or two makes no difference, and if I had time to go through the books I could find a number of cases

in wliieli small branch lines have received subsidies. I think I have answered the hon. gentleman's question.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman has not answered it at all.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Not in the way the hon. gentleman wanted.


James Clancy: The way I want is a direct answer to a direct question. The hon. gentleman has so far evaded it. I shall repeat the question again. There are constant applications for sidings or branch lines ; you may call them either. Has it been the policy in the past and is it still the policy of the government of the day to treat all these applications alike ? If the hon. gentleman is prepared to admit that that is not the case, he is out of court.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have not been dealing with the question of sidings. I am confining myself to branches, and I am pointing out that in granting a subsidy to aid a road two and a half miles in length, we are not doing anything that is new.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Cardwell).: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman, if after the railway is finished, this company which owns this timber and this land, exercises the privilege of selling the railroad as well as the land, will it become their property ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This appropriation does not go to any particular company. It stands exactly in the same position as any other railway subsidy, and arrangem'ents would have to be made to have a contract as far as possible under the same terms and conditions as in the case of other subsidies. We have not made any arrangement which enables me to answer my hon. friend's question, except to state the general policy in relation to all roads of a like character.


Robert Johnston: Will this branch belong to the country or to this company, and will the subsidy raise the value of their property provided they want to sell it ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It will stand in exactly the same position as all these other appropriations to companies. These roads will belong to the respective companies subject to the terms and conditions of the Railway Act.


Robert Johnston: I am asking the minister a very plain question, and I would like a plain answer. If this timber company sell the property shortly after the road is completed, will they sell the bonus which this country is giving them ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It will stand in exactly the same position as any other railway company. It will be in the same condition as respects this bonus as the Canadian Pacific Railway will be with re-Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
spect to the $3,300,000 which we gave it for the Crow's Nest Railway. The principle is the same, the amount is nothing.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am afraid that the next thing will be an application for money to buy out this branch of the Intercolonial. We will pay the subsidy and then buy the road back.
To the Matane and GaapS Railway Company for a line of railway from a point at or near St. Octave on the Intercolonial Railway to Matane. not exceeding 30 miles.


The PRIME MINISTER.: This is for a railway from the Intercolonial at Metis down to the St. Lawrence at Matane. The distance is thirty miles. There is no communication at all for these people after navigation Is closed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was there a company chartered for this ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes. it has had a charter for several years.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to find out how many lines of railway are subsidized by these resolutions in each of the provinces, and what is the aggregate of the money voted for each of the provinces respectively in these railway subsidies V


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have not made any statement from a provincial point of view.
Mr-. SPROULE. Could not the hon. gentleman get that ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Is it necessary ? Why should we be provincial ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is not for the hou. gentleman to say whether it is necessary or not, if 1 desire the information. I am asking what is reasonable. There may be nothing wrong, and I am not saying there is ; but if it were only to satisfy ordinary curiosity, the question is a reasonable one to ask.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am afraid that if I make out a statement by provinces, my own province will not look well, and I will be accused of having been unfair to it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I want to get the information in some way or other and in other lines as well. We are entitled to it, so as to be able to make comparisons. It will not take much work for the hon. minister io get it if he desires to be agreeable.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I like to be agreeable.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then the hon. gentleman will agree to give it ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I had rather my hon. friend would make it himself. I might make at mistake and I want him to be responsible.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Tliat is a little lower than we would expect from the hon. gentleman, to treat a member of the House in that way. I do not think it is proper treatment. The question is a reasonable one and he can get the information in a short time.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to consider it and not ask me to make a promise ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I want to know if I can get it. If I do not get it I will have to analyse these subsidies.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Do not stop, go on, we have not heard from the hon. gentleman this session.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has the hon. gentleman awakened ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: We are in the eighth month of the session. The hon. gentleman has spoken several times every day these eight months. Do not deprive us of the pleasure of hearing him again in the dying moments. Let him continue to make himself a standing nuisance until the end of the session.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That statement is absolutely untrue. I tell the Postmaster General that to his face. He should be the last man to make such a statement. I am asking for what I regard as proper information and I desire to know whether I shall get it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not think it is a very proper question, but ) am not refusing the request. I cannot prevent his getting the information because he can make out the statement himself. Therefore my answer does not prevent his getting It.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is not treating hon. members with even ordinary courtesy. If the hon. gentleman had been asked something very unreasonable, I might be met with such a reply ; but I am not, and I respectfully submit that the ' put-off ' style of the hon. minister is not what we might expect from him. He has granted many more requests much more difficult to comply with. I want to know whether he is prepared to give this information, which he might easily get ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We can both easily get it. My hon. friend and 1 and anybody else can get it in half an hour, but what I do not like is the hon. gentleman insisting on looking at these things from a provincial point of view. I know that he can take larger views. I do not refuse to give him the information, and he can get it even if I did refuse.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Only a few years ago we had a very lengthy discussion in which the right hon. the First Minister took part. The right hon. gentleman then showed conclusively to my judgment, that in the distribution of money for public works he had
made what I regarded as a very fair distribution among the provinces-much fairer than the Conservative party did when they were in power. In my own campaign I admitted that I believed it was a fair distribution. It was quite proper for the hon. gentleman to do that, and 1 do not see why it should be improper for me to go into the same inquiry. I am not contending that there is anything wrong, but 1 desire to ascertain how far the distribution of these subsidies complies with the principle laid down by the right hon. gentleman some years ago, which I thought perfectly defensible in every particular. Surely if I can point to so high an authority for dealing with the question in the manner I suggest, I am not making an unreasonable request.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In view of the very handsome manner in which my hon. friend has acknowledged that this government has made a very fair and equitable distribution of the public funds as regards the different provinces, I will give him the information he requires.
To the Chateauguay and Northern Railway Company for a line of railway from a point on its main line at or near L'Epiphanie. passing by way of the parish of St, Jacques d'Achigan to the village of Rawdon, not exceeding 16 miles.


The PRIME MINISTER.: At this moment there is a railway being built from Montreal to Joliette to join Montreal to the Great Northern at Joliette by way of the Bout de l'lle bridge, which is intended to provide for a branch from 1'Epiphanie up to the village of Rawdon in the county of Montcalm, which section of country is not provided at all with railways.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is there a company prepared to build this ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: The company is described in the resolution-the Chateauguay and Northern.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is any of the road built now ?
The PRIME MINISTER, The road is now under construction. This is a new branch.
For a line of railway from the line of the Montreal and Atlantic Railway Company at St. Guillau-me to the River Yamaska to join with the South Shore Railway, a distance not exceeding 12 miles.


The PRIME MINISTER.: This is a railways to connect two railways. There is a railway passing St. Guillaume, the name of which I have forgotten at the moment and another road, the South Shore Railway, and a bridge on the Yamaska to connect the two and serve this section of country. The distance is 12 miles.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The company has a portion of the road built ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: No. this is an I independent road. The South Shore skirts

the St. Lawrence, ibut St. Guillaume is inland.
For a line of railway from La Tuque on the St. Maurice river to a point on the Lake St. John Railway near the River Jeannotte, not exceeding 35 imiles.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The Lake St. John Railway, as I explained on a previous vote, runs from Quebec to Lake St. John. This proposed railway is a branch westward, from a point on the Lake St. John road to the St. Maurice river, opening up a new section of country. It will be a good colonization road.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is there a charter for the road ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am informed that there is. *


Thomas Simpson Sproule: A provincial charter ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I understand so. but I have no personal knowledge.
To the Montreal Northern Railway Company for a line of railway from a point at or near Ste. Agathe des Monts station towards the township of Howard, in the county of Argenteuil, passing near Lake St. Joseph.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: This is a colonization road entirely.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Starting from Montreal ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No, but from Ste. Agathe des Monts, 63 miles from Montreal. It opens up a country that has neither railway nor water communication. Half the road is already built, having begun early in the spring. The charter is a local one.


Robert Johnston: Has the
local government given assistance to this road ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Not a cent as yet.


Robert Johnston: If the local government gives the charter, and a subsidy is needed, the local government should begin the subsidizing. If a further subsidy is needed this government may be appealed to. But it is not a .good condition of things to have the charter granted iby the local government and then the company come here for assistance. If this is a local line, it should not get a Dominion subsidy. It certainly should not receive a subsidy unless the province gives one.
To the Beersville Coal and Railway Company for a line of railway from Adamsville on the Intercolonial Railway to a point at or near Brown's Landing or Beersville, not exceeding seven miles.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This line is intended to open up a new coal district. There have been some operations in coal mining in New Brunswick in recent years, and it is represented that there is a deposit Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
of coal near Adamsville, in tire county of Kent. This is to assist the line to develop the mining.


George William Fowler: This is one subsidy that is justified by the circumstances.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear. bear.


George William Fowler: I am glad to see that that brings a smile to the faces of hon. gentlemen opposite. The fact is that this railway will enable the Intercolonial to obtain coal much more cheaply than at present. They must now haul coal from Nova Scotia, but, with this road built, they will be able to get coal of a superior quality and much more conveniently. Of course, it would be much better if the Intercolonial would build this road themselves. That would be my choice by all means. I believe that the Intercolonial should own all these branches. They should own the Central Railway, the Albert Railway, the Kent Northern and all these different branches. These roads could be operated much more cheaply than at present, for one staff would do for all, and" they could be operated much more beneficially to the people of the district. As to this proposed road, I believe it will be a saving to the Intercolonial to build it.
To the York and Carleton Railway Company for a line of railway from its present terminus westerly, not exceeding five miles.


Mr. GIBSON.: This line runs from a point in the county of York to the St. John river. It runs in a westerly direction. The total proposed line is about 40 miles in length. The company have six miles huii.lt and running, and this will assist them to extend *it five miles.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this owned by a railway company ?


William Gibson: Yes. the York and Carleton Railway Company.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is the one the hon. gentleman (Mr. Gibson) himself owns ?


William Gibson: No, I have no interest in it at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is the one that is generally called


William Gibson: The hon. gentleman is thinking of the Canada Eastern. This is another company altogether.


George William Fowler: Does this rnn from a point on the Canada Eastern ?


William Gibson: Yes, Cross Creek.


George William Fowler: And runs to what point ?


William Gibson: Perth.
To the Midland Railway Company, Limited, for a line of railway from Truro northerly towards Brule, not exceeding 34 miles.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is a line of railway, the promoters of which anticipate. I think, making Brule

the point of another crossing to Prince Edward Island.' Many years ago Brule was a point for crossing to Prince Edward Island. However, of late years other points have been used. The promoters, I think, will attempt to re-establish a line from Brule to Prince Edward Island.
For a line ot railway from' St. Peters to Louis-burg, not exceeding 50 miles.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is a road on the south side of Cape Breton island. Hon. gentlemen who were in the House many years ago may recollect that there was what was called a battle of the routes as to which side of the island the railway should run. The government line was constructed by the central route. At the southern portion of Cape Breton island, quite a large territory, was for some years without any railway communication. Some years ago a company composed chiefly of Americans obtained a charter for a road down that coast. They have built from the Strait of Canso as far as St. Peters. The line has recently been put into operation. This will give them a right to extend the line from St. Peters down on the south side of Cape Breton island to Louisburg.


Mr.   BRAIN@: I notice that in their application they request a subsidy for bridges. Do the government propose to do anything in respect of bridges ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The company's application covered considerably more than we are giving them, and I am afraid that can be said of a good number of applications-we have not given all they have asked. As they have now built as far as St. Peters, we have given them this grant down to Louisburg.


James Clancy: Is not a portion of this to be used for the construction of bridges '!
The MINISTER OB' FINANCE. No, this is for an ordinary railway appropriation.
To the Kootenay Central Railway Company for a line of railway from Golden to the international boundary line, via Windermere and Fort Steele, and crossing the Crow's Nest Railway at or near Ellso. not exceeding 106 miles.


William Alfred Galliher: In connection with this subsidy, I may say that the company have a charter for a line from the international boundary to Golden, which was this year extended to Fort George, on the Fraser river. That line starting at the international boundary line, crossing the Crow's nest line at Elko, passing through what is known as the Wigwain river country, a rich district of the south-east Kootenay, goes up to Fort Steele, passes along the valley of the Kootenay river through a rich mineral district where we have mines in an initial stage only waiting for transportation. It also passes through a ranching country, and a country where there are some very fair timber limits. Then it continues on from
Windermere and goes down the valley of the Columbia river to Golden, passing also through a country where we have the rich Paradise mine, and the Ptarmigan mine, both producing and shipping mines ; also through a country settled by ranchers, from the town of Golden to the town of Windermere. That will open up a district which is now entirely without railway communication, and will connect it with the Canadian Pacific Railway. In fact it will he within easy reach of the Great Northern Railway on the south, which runs now from Jennings, Montana, up to Morrisey mines, in British Columbia, also connecting with the Crow's nest line at Elko, and with the Canadian Pacific Railway line at Golden. I speak of these two mines as being in the producing stage. There are a number ol' valuable properties there only waiting for transportation facilities.
Mr. B'OWLER. Is there any lumber there V


William Alfred Galliher: There is lumber all along the valleys of both the Columbia and the Kootenay rivers. The Columbia Lumber Company have lumber interests all through both valleys.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is there any portion of this built ?


William Alfred Galliher: None as yet. We got our Dominion charter this year. Surveys have been made over a portion of the road. The parties connected with this railway have strong financial backing in London. Mr. Pollen is one of the chief men in the transaction, the others are mostly local people, Fort Steele people. An application was made to the provincial government of British Columbia during the last sesion. The session lasted a very short time, and a number of railway subsidies that had been applied for were cut off, they did not come up. But I am told that they have reasonable assurance of aid from the provincial government.
To the Kettle River Valley Railway Company for a line of railway from Grand Forks to a point fifty miles ud the north fork and west fork of the north fork of Kettle river, not exceeding 50 miles.


William Alfred Galliher: This is also in my district. It is what is called the Hot Air Line. We are asking for a subsidy to continue that line further into the country. We hope to he able to make use of it in exploiting the mountains of mineral up in the North Fork district. This company, in the first place, have already built a road from Republic, in the state of Washington, crossing the boundary at Cascade, and continuing on to Grand Forks, in British territory. It is about sixty miles to Grand Forks. A portion of that is in Canadian territory. They have received no aid so far, but thev are now asking for aid to continue that line from Grand Forks up the North B'ork of the Kettle river, to the confluence

of what is known as the AVest Fork of the North Fork, and then to continue up that West Fork, in all a distance of fifty miles from Grand Forks. That also taps a rich mineral country, rich in gold, copper and silver. Further, it taps a fine coaking coal district, a necessary item in southern British Columbia for smelting purposes. They are asking for this bonus to aid in the construction of this proposed line of road for fifty miles. It is an expensive line to build.
For a line of railway from Wellington to Union Bay, not exceeding 55 miles.


Mr. MORRISON.: That line is in the northern part of Vancouver Island. It is an extension of the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway and connects the important coal fields of Comox and the mines at Alberni on the west coast of Vancouver Island with the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway system and Victoria and Vancouver.


Samuel Hughes: That line is at Wellington now.	,


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: Yes, the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway extends from Victoria and Nanaimo to Wellington and tills is an extension north.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I want to call the attention of the Minister of Finance to the fact that just the same number of miles of road would give to the county of Colchester great satisfaction. I do not wish to oppose this item excepting in order to solicit the sympathy of the gentlemen who are pressing this item for the county of Colchester. I received a letter a few days ago from a leading Liberal in my county. The Liberals there have such confidence in me that if they want any solace they write me. The Minister of Finance will know the name of this gentleman and will communicate it to him in confidence, but as his letter is a private one I cannot mention the name publicly. This gentleman says :
I am sorry to say we are going to lose some more of our good citizens. I. B. Morrison, Mr. Finley Corbett, Silas Corbett and son leave shortly for the west, probably California. Never in the history of West Colchester has there been any such exodus and disgust that exists along the shore as has taken place in the last two years. If this thing goes on for five years more the west end of the county will contain nothing but a few old men.
Now, I do not like to read what follows, coming from a Liberal, because it is sad.
If a change of government will accomplish anything the sooner it comes the better.
That is the opinion of a very fine Liberal who is forced to say that I have no doubt, owing to the bitter fact that he has seen his neighbours leaving the country. This man lives on Cobequid bay. an arm of the Bay of Fundy which separates Cumberland from my own constituency. Formerly the coach line ran along there and all of the roads went down this bay and this was then the centre of population. People depended on Mr. GALLIHER.
the water for their transportation. When the Intercolonial Railway was built it was swung about fifteen or twenty miles to the east of these people and they soon found themselves side tracked. All the business formerly done along the shore of the bay is now done along the line of the Intercolonial Railway and the result is now as this gentleman tells me, that these people are emigrating and that in four or five years there will be nothing but old men in as fine a section of country as there is in Canada.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: How far are they from a railway ?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: We want a road from Truro to Parrsboro. Near Truro the Intercolonial Railway will not be more than two miles away, but as you get down eight or twelve miles from Truro it is perhaps ten miles away, and down near the shore ihe average distance would be fifteen or twenty miles. The shore country in the old days was most fertile. At a railway meeting there last year, one farmer, a very line gentleman, assured the meeting that twenty two years ago he had inherited an estate from his father which was valued by- the executors at $6,000. It is a large estate containing marsh, and it was on the through road and he said that now he could not get $2,000 for it because there was no railway near; all the trade had gone back twenty miles to the line of the Intercolonial Railway so that the property along the line of that railway which was formerly considered of no value is now worth more than his fine marsh farm. The hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) must be interested in this matter because when the railway gets to Parrsboro it will enter his county and ultimately be extended along the shore so as to make a continuous connection with the Intercolonial Railway. It is only fifty-five miles and is through a very level country, in fact the Intercolonial Railway was originally surveyed over this route going south of the Cobequid mountains. The interest of the iron mine at Londonderry and the Springhill mines at that time required the railway to be taken across the Cobequid mountains and as the people on the shore at that time had the water communication it was thought better to take the Intercolonial Railway over its present line ; but these people have found that the value of their property has dwindled away. I may say of the gentlemen who are referred to here that Mr. Morrison was a leading Liberal. Mr. Corbett, I think, is a Conservative. These men are middle aged, forty or fifty, and they are taking their families away from what were formerly beautiful farms. This extraordinary state of affairs exists simply because we are backward in building railways. Young people will not stay now ten or fifteen miles from a railway. They want the mails and want the brightness of the trains and they want to have travellers going through. A

railway brings brightness and lightness to a community. Owing to the absence of railways this is now almost a deserted country although it was formerly one of the finest countries in the world.


Mr. McCREARY.: Why does not your local legislature subsidize a railway ?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: The local legislature will, but I want this Dominion government to set the example and then we will force the local to follow suit. I know that the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) will agree with me that this proposal is most meritorious in every particular and one which will aid a number of lumber industries. The road will go straight past the furniture factory of which I spoke the other night as needing a light on the wharf and the whole country would then be restored to prosperity. Then if we had another short line from Brookfield to Stewiacke, thirty or forty miles, it would open up a great country. The minister will recollect that Stewiacke is in a fine country but it is to-day thirty or forty miles from a railway and the young people are leaving it. The county of Colchester, during the census decade 1S90-1900, lost over 4,000 population although it is one of the best counties in Nova Scotia. If the people will not stay In a country like that owing to the want of railways they will not stay anywhere where there are not railways. Therefore I have taken the position in this parliament that the time has come when we must have railways. The railway is the modern highway and is today as necessary to the community as the old high road was thirty or forty years ago. We must come to that view and adapt ourselves to the situation. I would ask the hon. minister to give some consideration to this Stewiacke railway. I am in the awkward position of not supporting the hon. gentleman politically and therefore I am not as much in touch with him as I should otherwise be, and I do not know that I have any other way of approaching him or if he would care to have me approach him in any other way, but I would like him to consider my application and to iisert something like reasonable subsidies. We should be liberal in these matters. Some people think that $3,200 a mile is a great temptation to build a railway. Unless the railway has an immediate commercial outlook, $3,200 is a trifling inducement and I would urge upon the minister to consider that the railways to which I have referred would serve our part of the country and would make the population there happy and contented, would induce them to stay at home and would lead to an increase in tne population and the subsidy ought to be at least doubled. That is what this country wants.
1 thank the minister for granting the subsidy for the Midland line. And I hope it will succeed in getting that railway started.
But these two railways to which I have referred are equally important, and I think 1 may say for my colleagues surrounding me, that they would have no objection if the Minister of Finance would agree to insert two subsidies for them in these resolutions. I have calculated that we will probably have $10,000,000 more next year than we had this year, giving us a total revenue of $75,000,000 or $76,000,000, and consequently we need not be penurious in these matters. These railways would be of the utmost importance to this large section of the country. They are both in the Stewiacke section and the Londonderry section, in which the stalward Liberals of the county reside. I would therefore ask the Finance Minister to include in these subsidies a double subsidy for thirty-four miles and another double subsidy for fifty-five miles, which subsidies would result in great advantage to the Dominion of Canada, because they would result in making that part of Nova Scotia happy, and contented, and cause it to enter on a career of prosperity.


Hance James Logan: I endorse what the hon. gentleman has said as to the need of a railway between Truro and Parrsboro, running from Truro through Economy and Five Islands to Parrsboro. This important part of the country is very badly in need of a railway. It is not only a long distance from any existing railway, but it is separated from that railway by a chain of mountains.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Yes; I forgot to mention that.


Hance James Logan: I do not know any part of Canada that is in more need of railway facilities than that which the hon. gentleman lias just mentioned. I endorse what he has said, and I urge upon the government the importance of providing better railway accommodation for th,e people of this section of the country. '


William Forsythe McCreary: It is a reflection upon the agricultural capabilities of Nova Scotia, to say that men will leave that province because they have not a railway within ten or twelve miles of them. How did we settle the province of Manitoba and the prairies, when the people had to carry their wheat seventy and eighty miles to a railway station ? It is not until within the last four or five years, when the province of Manitoba itself bonused roads, that the majority of settlers have been able to get a railway within ten or twelve miles of them. Yet here is the province of Nova Scotia, settled for a hundred years before Manitoba was known, and it comes to the Dominion and asks for subsidies when the inhabitants already have railways not more than ten or twelve miles away. I was told by one of the ministers this session, that the reason why there were such large grants to the maritime provinces for wharfs and breakwaters. was because the means of locomo-

1449(1
tion in the maritime provinces was by water. Now I see that they come here and ask us for large grants for railways as well. In the province of Manitoba, which is to-day yielding more revenue to the Dominion of Canada than any other province in confederation per head of population-


William Alfred Galliher: No.


William Forsythe McCreary: I am making the statement, and I know what I am saying. Take our bank returns, post office returns, inland revenue returns, customs returns, and they are ahead of any other province per capita.


William Alfred Galliher: Except British Columbia.


William Forsythe McCreary: We exceed British Columbia by $100,000, according to population.


William Alfred Galliher: No you don't.


William Forsythe McCreary: I will leave it to the Minister of Customs, the Minister of Inland Revenue or the Postmaster General. Our post office revenue to-day is nearly as much as for the .entire province of British Columbia.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Oh.


William Forsythe McCreary: I know what I am saying, and notwithstanding that, all that is voted for the province of Manitoba here is practically thirty-six miles of railway. I will ask the minister next year to seriously consider relieving the province of Manitoba from the large obligations which they have undertaken to build railways. If they do it for other provinces, there is no reason why they should not do it for Manitoba.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: How many miles of railway did you say were subsidized in Manitoba this year ?


William Forsythe McCreary: Thirty-six.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Look at the list and you will find 139 miles.


William Forsythe McCreary: You are talking: about the Territories. There are only 36 miles for Manitoba, and that is a re-vote.


Hance James Logan: You can scarcely throw a stone in the province of Manitoba without hitting a railway.


William Forsythe McCreary: We built them ourselves.


Hance James Logan: I will guarantee that my hon. friend from Colchester and myself will be perfectly satisfied if we get one-quarter the railways in Nova Scotia that you have in Manitoba.


William Alfred Galliher: I desire to correct my hon. friend (Mr. McCreary) and to state that the province of British Columbia contributes more money to the Dominion treasury per capita than does any other province in the Dominion of Canada.
For a line of railway from Midway to Vernon, not exceeding 150 miles.


William Alfred Galliher: This railway runs from Midway in the Boundary country ; or rather the charter is from Midway to the town of Vernon. It starts from Midway, goes up the west fork of the Kettle river, thence east of the Okanagan lake to the Okanagan falls, five miles from Vernon, where it will join with what is now known as the Shuswap and Okanagan road, running from that point to join the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway at Sicamous Junction. That will connect the great farming, ranching, and fruit growing district of the Okanagan around Vernon, Armstrong, Kelowna, En-derby, Peachland and White 'Valley, with the mineral districts of the south, thus affording these districts access to their natural market. The government could not possibly give a subsidy which will produce better results, than this very subsidy under consideration.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is there any company ready to undertake this work ?


William Alfred Galliher: Oh, yes ; the Midway and Vernon Railway Company have applied for this.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They have not built yet ?


William Alfred Galliher: No. I may state that there is a provincial subsidy for this line amounting to $4,500 per mile, payable in provincial bonds.
To the St. Mary's River Railway Company for a line of railway from Spring Coulee, crossing St. Mary's river to Cardston, sixteen miles, and from a point on this line to or near the intake of the Irrigation canal, about sixteen miles, in all not exceeding 32 miles. Total, 48.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is what is known as the Galt road.
, Mr. HUGHES (Victoria). Did they get a charter this year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, they have built a considerable portion of the road. This country is being settled up a great deal and splendid results have followed the irrigation works established by the company. I am satisfied that this road is worthy of every assistance we can give it.


George William Fowler: 1 do not quite understand about mileage here. In the margin it says forty-eight miles, but in the resolution it says : In all not exceeding thirty-two miles.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think there is an error there. We will make it thirty-two miles.
Resolution, as amended, agreed to.
For a lime of railway from Dawson city to Stewart river, passing at or near Grand Forks, not exceeding 84 miles.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is a proposal to build a road as described in the


William Forsythe McCreary: item. Application is made on behalf of the Klondike Mines Railway Company, by its solicitor at Ottawa. I understand that it is a very substantial company. This road, if constructed, will be the most northern road on the continent of America. 1 think we are all anxious to develop the Yukon country, and if we can give the people internal railway communication, even though we have not yet a connection with the Yukon, I think it will be very desirable.


George William Fowler: What is the object of the road ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is a general railway to provide communication between different sections there.


Samuel Hughes: In view of the fact that Canada has no entrance to the Yukon and no port to the Yukon on the Pacific ocean, are the government taking into their serious consideration the advisability of building a railway to the Yukon through Canadian territory ? I wanted the Prime Minister a year ago to pledge himself that he would build a road from Kitimat Arm.


The PRIME MINISTER.: We will have to do that now since the award.
To the Canadian Pacific Railway Company for a branch line from a point on the main line between Moosomin and Elkhorn, north-westerly to a point in the neighbourhood of the Pheasant Hills, not exceeding 136 miles.


Mr. SCOTT.: I am going to ask the minister if he will let this item stand. I fear there are some questions which I shall have to ask concerning the proposal.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman will have a chance later on when the Bill is in committee.


Thomas Walter Scott: I would like to ask the minister who is the applicant for this ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The Canadian Pacific Railway Company.


Thomas Walter Scott: Like my hon. friend from Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) last night, I am to a considerable degree surprised to hear that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has been an applicant for a subsidy, in view of the fact that we have been told by a prominent director of that company in recent years that it opposes the principle of parliament granting railway subsidies. Was the company the only applicant ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: For this particular road, yes.


Thomas Walter Scott: I am not satisfied that this item should be adopted. Yesterday evening the hon. Postmaster General gave a piece of very god advice to the House. He said that if any hon. member objected to the policy of subsidies in general or to any particular subsidy in particular, be should move against it, and I fear that it will be necessary for 454
me to make such a motion in regard to this particular proposition, which I am bound to say does not meet with my approval. I am not opposed in general to the policy of granting subsidies ; but there are certain conditions which I think are necessary to make the granting of subsidies justifiable. I am willing In all cases to vote for proper and reasonable assistance for railways in districts where people require railway ac: cominodation and cannot obtain it in any Other way. My information concerning this particular proposition may not be full or precisely accurate ; but my impression is that the greater part of the line for which this subsidy is proposed to be voted is already constructed. This is for a branch line of the Canadian Pacific Railway commencing at a point called Kirkella between Elk-horn and Moosomin, just on the boundary line between Manitoba and Assiniboia, which runs northwesterly from the main line of the Pacific. The construction of the road was commenced eighteen or nineteen months ago, and my impression is that practically the whole of the 136 miles mentioned here have been graded and nearly 100 miles have been ironed. My recollection also is that we have been told in the Railway Committee on more than one occasion by representatives of the company that this particular line was being constructed without any aid and that they did not propose to ask for aid.


James Clancy: Was the charter for that road applied for during the present session ?


Thomas Walter Scott: No.


James Clancy: Then it surely did not come up during the present session.


Thomas Walter Scott: This particular road has been mentioned in connection with other charters applied for by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and by other companies, and my recollection is that the representatives of the company stated on more than one occasion that this road was being built without any aid. It does seem to me a strange proposition to grant a subsidy to procure the construction of a road for the benefit of the people when in fact the road is already constructed. It does not seem to be necessary to aid it ; and, with my present information, I am bound to say that this proposition does not appeal to me as being a proper one.


James Clancy: Has not the bon. gentleman voted for several schemes of the same kind ?


Thomas Walter Scott: Not to my knowledge.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: When I am supporting a subsidy, speaking for myself, I do not take into consideration so much the company which is to be benefited as the interest of the public in the section of country which is to be served by the railway. I do not think we should



lay too much stress on statements male by individuals in the course of their arguments In the Railway Committee or even in this House ; because they have no authority to speak for the company or for the public in that particular district. No member of this House, I suppose, is particularly anxious to grant a subsidy to any railway company, even the Canadian Pacific Railway; but some years ago there was a great demand by the settlers in this district for further railway accommodation. As the House well knows, no subsidies were granted a year ago, and when the people of this district were asking for further railway facilities, they were probably told that they would receive the same consideration from parliament and the same recommendation from the government as other sections of the country where the government felt that further railway facilities should be provided. They proceeded with the construction of this road, believing that they would receive the same treatment as any other responsible company, the road is opening up a good district of country, and i do not think my hon. friend should press his objection.


Mr. INGRAM.: I take it that this railway is to run through the constituency of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Scott). When he reads ' Hansard,' the hon. gentleman will find that the remarks he has made with regard to it were very guarded. If he will subtract what he thinks and his impressions and recollections, there will be very little left. Before he attempts to furnish us with information, he should be more definite and state the actual facts. I do not think it is any argument that because a director of any company is opposed to subsidies, we should not give his company a subsidy to which it is entitled. One of the directors may be opposed to subsidies and the others may be in favour of it, and the public also, and we must not consider simply the one dissenting director. The hon. gentleman to whom the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) referred, is not present. He may have no personal knowledge of this subsidy or anything in connection with it, and it is hardly fair to make his presumed dissent a reason for opposing the. grant, if it be a deserving one.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Am I to understand that the railway is already built ?


Thomas Walter Scott: It is a matter of common knowledge that its construction was begun in the early part of last year. My information is that the line for this distance is all graded, and that the greater portion of it is already ironed. In fact the people in the districts along this route were assured a year ago that the line would, by the end of this fall, be constructed to a much greater distance than these 136 miles. Hon. members must recollect that this particular Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
line was the subject of very considerable discussion in yearS gone by. Two years ago it occupied a considerable portion of the time of this House. Three years ago a contract or agreement was entered into by the company to build year by year a certain portion-twenty-one miles, if not more, it appears to me that the fact that such an agreement was entered into without any stipulation that aid should be granted in the way of a subsidy, ought to weigh very considerably with this committee. The idea that aid is to be granted for the construction of this road will be a matter of very great surprise to everybody in the district. Three or four years ago, when the people had been waiting for years ajid appealing for years to the government and the Canadian Pacific Railway to take some steps which would secure the building of this line, the proposition to grant it a subsidy would then have been understood, but the appeals of the people did not have much weight with the Canadian Pacific Railway and the government until now. After more encouragement in the way of business, I suppose, had been offered to the company, they decided over a year ago to begin the construction of this railway, and this particular mileage has been, to all intents and purposes, completed. To the people along the route, it will be a matter of very great surprise to learn that parliament, at this late day, determines to grant aid to a proposition which is practically completed. If the proposition were to grant aid to 136 miles of road from Pheasant Hills westward, and thus give railway facilities to communities which are still without the means of transportation, it would be one we could understand, but no reason has been advanced yet which leads me to consider that the proposition before us is in any sense justifiable.


The PRIME MINISTER.: It is quite true that this railway was commenced last year and is nearly completed. It would have been subsidized last year, but no subsidies were then granted, and the company went on in the expectation of getting a subsidy as soon as subsidies would be granted.


James Clancy: Had the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Scott), when we heard the resolution to subsidize a road going through the St. John district, given attention to what was going on, he would have seen that the committee regarded the fact tl\at the road was under construction as rather a favourable indication that the project would be carried out, and were all the more disposed to grant the subsidy. I know nothing about the merits of the road in question, but the best security which the country can have that the promoters are in earnest, when asking for a subsidy, is the fact that they committee regarded the fact that the road will open up a new district to colonization, and is deserving of a subsidy, the fact that

it is partially or wholly constructed does not detract from its claim.


Richard Blain: I might remind the hon. gentleman from Assiniboia that we have granted a subsidy to a short line of railway
which was completed last spring.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: From my personal knowledge of the people living out along this line, this road is very much needed. We have been trying to get a road built through that district for the last twenty years. Twice a portion of that road has been built, but somehow or other the company burst up, and the enterprise failed. There are many farmers, with whom I am well acquainted, who went out there some sixteen or twenty years ago, and who, up to last fall, have been without any railway convenience, and I do think, from my knowledge of the country, that this railway will certainly be of great advantage to the people and is deserving of aid.


Thomas Walter Scott: In view of the chorus of disapproval which came from the opposite side last evening in general against the policy of granting subsidies to railway companies, it is rather surprising that when an hon. gentleman gets up and submits practical objections against some particular item, he is greeted from the other side with a chorus of commendation of the whole policy of granting subsidies and especially of the particular item under consideration. I feel impelled to accept the advice given by the Postmaster General last evening. This proposition is not one which I can conscientiously support, and I beg to move that this item be struck out.
Amendment negatived.


Samuel Hughes: The only thing I see to criticise in this subsidy is that the road runs from a point between Moosomin and Elkhorn. Why not say Kirkella Y The railway is necessary, and I do not object to the bonus. In fact, I think it is a very proper and necessary road to assist. But I do not like this coming down and deceiving the committee. The road starts from Kirkella.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think that is what it means.


Samuel Hughes: Then why not say so ? The road is already built. We all know that. '


George William Fowler: 1 enter my protest against this vote. I agree with what has been said by the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott). This road, I understand, is built through an important part of the western country. I believe that it will pay its running expenses and interest upon the investment. It has already been built without subsidy or promise of a subsidy. And yet this House, in its generosity, proposes to grant a subsidy for 136 miles through a country so rich and of such promise that the 454J
company has begun the work and practically completed it before even asking for a subsidy. We do not it seems confine ourselves to granting subsidies to encourage the building of roads, but we grant subsidies for roads already built. I am sorry the motion of the hon. member for West Assiniboia did not carry, for it seems plain to me that this subsidy should not be granted.


Samuel Hughes: Here is an opportunity for the government to control rates under an actual agreement, not the visionary control of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, or the still more visionary control of this less effective and far more corruptible body, the proposed commission, but a genuine control under agreement. I do not agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Fowler) who sits beside me. I believe this bonus should be given, but I believe also that some control of rates should go with it. I happened to have an instance of what can be done brought before me the other day. A young man came from the North-west who was proposing to open a route to connect with the Pasqua branch of the Canadian Pacific Railway in Dakota. A part of the route would be covered by steamer transportation on a long lake that crosses the boundary. It was estimated that it would cost only three cents a bushel to bring the grain from the district to be served by this route to the Pasqua branch. At present they have to haul the grain twenty miles to the Canadian Pacific Railway. By the new route they figured they would save from four cents to seven, cents a bushel. The matter was brought before the Minister of Customs, and it was decided that it would not be possible to allow the arrangement. But it was pointed out that if the farmers in that district gave the seven cents per bushel that they would save on three season's crop, they could build a road to connect with the Canadian Pacific Railway. Now, this road that we are bonus-ing runs through a farming section, and I take it to be the government's business to see to it that the farmers of that country get the benefit of this $3,200 a mile that we vote ; and the way to secure that benefit for them is to properly regulate the rates. If that is not done, what is the use of voting this money ? If the farmers pay as high rates as ever, we might as well withhold our assistance. Every road that receives a subsidy should have its rates controlled, not, as I say, by this visionary organization, the railway commission, or by the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, but by a hard and fast agreement under the Bill.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I see that section 6 of these resolutions provides that ' the Governor in Council shall have absolute control at all times over the rates and tolls to oe levied and taken by any of the companies, or by any of the railways, hereby subsidized.'


Samuel Hughes: The Governor in Council doesn't amount to a hill of beans, so far as the controlling of these rates is concerned.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am afraid the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes, Victoria) is not loyal to the Crown.


Samuel Hughes: Not if the Crown is supposed to mean the Prime Minister and the fellows behind him, who are pulling on all sides. The Mackenzie & Mann road, the Canadian Northern, affords an illustration of what I want. They have an agreement with the Manitoba government that the rates shall be controlled thus and so. The people are behind the agreement, and no matter how much the government might like to please the railway company by allowing the rates to remain high, the voice of the people controls and the law has to be observed.


The PRIME MINISTER.: This is the law also, and the voice of the people is behind it.


Samuel Hughes: The right hon. Prime Minister knows well that the moment you mention ' Governor in Council ' the people bow. They demand nothing ; they are afraid.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The people, including Colonel Hughes ?


Samuel Hughes: I am only one of the people, and I am not in the Northwest.


Thomas Walter Scott: As the House is apparently unanimous in favour of this grant, it may be superfluous for me to say anything further. But I feel that notwithstanding that my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Hughes) did not give me any support, I ought to support his contention in this case. This session a very considerable amount of ai'd was granted to another company, the Canadian Northern, to extend their present line to Prince Albert and Edmonton, and a hard and fast contract was demanded of that company, was forced upon them, providing that they should haul North-west wheat on a ten-cent basis from Winnipeg to the lakes. It seems to me it is not fair to make fowl of one company and flesh of another. If it is fair to compel the Canadian Northern to give a contract for maximum rates, then aid granted to this other company should carry with it a similar condition. In this case we should make a contract with the company with regard to the rates to be charged to the people in the district.
For a line of railway from a point at or near Medicine Hat on the Canadian Pacific Railway to the coal fields in or near townships 12 and 13, range 6. west of fourth principal meridian, not exceeding eight miles.


George William Fowler: Let us have an explanation of this.


Thomas Walter Scott: This is an item which I think is entirely justifiable. The aid is being granted to a road from the town of Medicine Hat, in a southwesterly direction, to the coal fields about eight miles distant from the town. A land grant was voted for this road some years ago, but that has been cancelled.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) should know more about it than I do. But I thought this road ran northerly, that it was part of the old road intended to run to Buffalo lake and up to the coal lands. But the exact direction is immaterial. The road will open up large coal mines near Medicine Hat, the opening of which is very necessary for the people of that community.


George William Fowler: Might I ask in what direction the road is to run ? Does it run north or south ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The material point is that it runs to the coal fields.


Andrew B. Ingram: This is opening up a new policy entirely. Is it the policy of the government to grant bonuses for the purpose of extending railways to coal fields ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is not wise to adopt general policies in these things. This case may be taken on its merits. But the extension of railways to coal fields would not be a bad idea if it were made a general principle.


Samuel Hughes: The coal mines are in townships 12 and 13, range (S, north of Medicine Hat, down the river.


Thomas Walter Scott: My hon. friend is mistaken about this. I am perfectly certain that the road runs in a southwesterly direction.


Andrew B. Ingram: The minister says it might be a good policy for the government to adopt. I would like to draw attention to the fact that the press of Canada has been calling upon the government of the Dominion, as well as upon the territorial and provincial governments, to assist in building lines that will enable the people to procure fuel, which is not plentiful In that western country. I agree with the hon. gentleman when he says that it is an important thing to assist railways to these coal mines, because it is a well known fact that large portions of that new territory [DOT] are so thinly populated that it would not pay a railway company to build a line to these coal fields without public assistance. I trust the government will take that matter into consideration, because it is in the interests of the people who are being sent in there. They have little or no wood, with which the people in the older provinces are well supplied. I believe the coal in the territories is well adapted for domestic use, but the mines are situated at a great distance from the railways.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: To the Lake Superior, Long Lake and Albany Railway Company for a line of railway from Peninsula harbour in a northerly direction, not exceeding 10 miles.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is opening up a new district from Peninsula harbour, on Lake Superior, in a northerly direction. The provincial government, at its last session, granted a subsidy of $3,000 a mile for 10 miles. The road is chartered to run to Albany river north.


George William Fowler: Who makes the application ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The application is signed by John W. Cheesewood, of Toronto. This gentleman signs himself on behalf of the syndicate.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: He is the solicitor for the company.


George William Fowler: Does the Minister of Public Works know who is the moving spirit ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No. I am not sure whether the solicitor was introduced to me when these representations were made. A memorandum was given to me of the Act of incorporation, and of the grant by the provincial government.
I know Mr. Cheesewood to meet him. I did not ask him who the directors of the company were. It is quite a large undertaking. and the provincial government thought it of sufficient importance in that new country to grant $3,000 a mile for 10 miles, and we duplicate the grant. I may say with regard to the great majority, if not all, the subsidies that are granted in Ontario, that we have been guided a great deal by the representations made by the municipalities and the provincial authorities. I do not believe there is a single subsidy granted that is not made to supplement a grant made by municipalities or by the provincial government. The people in the various localities who are more directly in touch with the local authorities, have succeeded in convincing them of the necessity and importance of these works, and we have thought well to be guided by that fact in supplementing local aid with Dominion subsidies. We have, therefore, good assurance that the railways will be proceeded with. I have no knowledge personally of tbe incorporators of this company, nor have any records been submitted to me.


James Clancy: I think the government ! may be congratulated upon having shown a disposition to colonize northern Ontario. This is the fifth or sixth line that has been granted a subsidy all leading from tbe Canadian Pacific Railway north into that country. They will all act as feeders for tbe Canadian Pacific Railway, and will all offer facilities for the colonization of that country, and for taking out the pulp wood and other timber products. We have the satisfaction of knowing at least that full provision has been made both for colonization and other railways in that country. I shall repeat what I said last night, that we have no longer any fear of that country not being abundantly supplied with railways for settlement and general trade, and there will now be no hurry for the line between Quebec and Winnipeg for the purposes of colonization. This is a very satisfactory feature, even at the close of the session, and it is a very great pity that this had not been considered before hon. gentlemen entered upon that unfortunate enterprise of constructing the road, where they are constructing it, from Quebec to Winnipeg.
. To the Cumberland Railway and Coal Company for a line of railway from Parrsboro' station to Riverside wharf, not exceeding one mile.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is to furnish a link between the water and rail communication at this point. The boat from Wolville on the other side of the bay lands at tbe government wharf. The Spring Hill and Parrsboro road ends at the private wharf of the company abou.t a mile away, so that passengers have to walk that distance and it is thought advisable to avoid that interruption.


George William Fowler: This will accommodate the coal company.
The MINISTER' OF FINANCE. No, this will accommodate the travelling public ; the coal company would be quite content to have our people walk down a mile from the railway to the wharf.


George William Fowler: I suppose this will include the whole cost ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Oh, no, $3,000 will not build a mile of railway any where in Canada.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: This is a first class railway and I think from what I know of it that it is essential from the public standpoint.


Hance James Logan: This mile of railway is not a part of the National Transcontinental Railway but it is very important to Parrsboro which is a town of three thousand inhabitants. At present the railway from Springhill to Parrsboro does not run nearer than a mile to the public wharf, and all goods have to he trucked from that wharf a mile to the station at Parrsboro. The purpose of this is to have the road carried to the wharf so that goods will no longer have to be trucked.


Edward Cochrane: Here is a case of a wharf being built by the public and then to avoid the expense of hauling the goods for one mile the country is expected to build a railway for these people for that distance. I think, as I said before, that the government has gone mad on subsidizing railways. This is not in any sense a colonization road

and it is most absurd. If the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce were litre his heart would go faint and sick to see a vote of this kind.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would draw attention to the fact that this is a parallel case to the one I mentioned before, the case of Meaford, where the people of the town had to raise $25,000 of their own money to build a railway two miles to their wharf.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: The coal company run a railway down to Parrsboro and that ia all they want ; they do not care for anything else. There is a mile between the terminus of that road and the shore of Minas Basin. The steamer goes there with passengers and the passengers have to walk one mile.


George William Fowler: Does this company not ship coal by this wharf ?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Not by the public wharf; they have a private wharf. I think it is demeaning to the province that strangers and tourists should have to walk a mile. The company have no object in building this railway, it is purely in the interest of the public.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It makes the case exactly parallel with the case I mentioned in Meaford, in which the government refused to grant any aid.
To the Indian River Railway Company for a line of railway from a point at or near the north end of Lake Megantic, thence southerly along said lake to a point on the international boundary. not exceeding 19 miles.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The description of this in the vote gives about as much information as any one can give about it, describing the points between which it will run.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This road is intended to connect the Quebec Central Railway at the end of its Tring branch on Lake Megantic with the boundary line, at Rangeley with a railway that goes up from Rumford. This little extension to the State of Maine will enable the farmers in that district to communicate with the lumber camps in the State of Maine. It practically affords a straight line for the Quebec Central Railway into the United States.


George William Fowler: This is an independent company is it not ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, it connects the Quebec Central with this company at Rangeley.
Towards the construction and completion of a railway bridge and approaches over the Nicolet river at Nicolet, in lieu of a grant under chapter 8 of 63-64 Victoria, item 39 of section 2, $15,000.


The PRIME MINISTER.: This is a revote of a subsidy which was granted in 1900, for the South Shore Railway bridge on the Nicolet river.


Edward Cochrane: 


George William Fowler: What has this bridge cost ?


Tbe PRIME MINISTER.: In tbe neighbourhood of $100,000.


Samuel Hughes: I suggested the other day that it would be a great advantage if these railway bridges were so constructed that they could be used for passenger and vehicular traffic. In all the bridges over tbe Mississippi river, they are so constructed that they can be used by the general public as well as by railways.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OE MARINE AND FISHERIES.: That cannot be done in this case, because tbe piers have already been constructed, and it has not been provided for.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Heretofore the principle lias been laid down, that the government would grant about 15 per cent of the cost of these bridges. On what principle are we proceeding here ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: The principle is that we generally give 15 per cent except when bridges are very expensive, and in such a case the subsidy is calculated on tbe cost of the bridge, and is an arbitrary one.
Towards the construction of the steel superstructure of a railway bridge on the St. Francis river, in the county of Yamaska, in lieu of a grant under chapter 8 of 63-64 Victoria, item 38 of section 2, hut subject to the same conditions as expressed therein, payable to Canadian Bridge Company of Walkervi'lle, as their claim may appear for work already done on said bridge, $50,000.


The PRIME MINISTER.: This subsidy was voted three years ago, and a contract was entered into between the South Shore Railway Company, and the Canadian Bridge Company of Walkerville, for the steel superstructure. The superstructure is there today, but there are no approaches to the bridge. Th,e bridge will be of no use to anybody unless it is completed. We ask parliament simply to revote tbe item, so that the bridge company can receive its money.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We have not given them any money at all ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: They have received no money yet.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In this resolution you speak of the superstructure only, and in the other resolution you speak of the bridge as a whole. What is the distinction ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: The Walkerville Bridge Company will receive $48,000 and the other $2,000 will be to pay some claims against tbe bridge.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then you ar,e voting this to tbe bridge company, and not to the railway company ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: We are voting it to pay the bridge company, because they are really the parties entitled to it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much has this bridge cost ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I do not know what the masonry cost ; but the bridge must have cost considerably more than $100,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If it cost $100,000 we are giving 50 per cent.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am sure that it cost more than $100,000.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am safe in saying that it will cost over $200,000. It is a two-story bridge, providing for vehicles and passengers, as well as the railway, and it can be used by the municipalities on both sides of the river.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it free to the public ?
The Minister of marine and FISHERIES. Yes.


George William Fowler: Does this pay all the charges which the bridge company has against the bridge ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes, except as is provided in the next resolution.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did the provincial government give any assistance to this bridge ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes, the provincial government has given so much a year for ten or fifteen years.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is only proper that the provincial government should aid such a bridge, especially as it affords facilities for the travelling public.


James Clancy: I understand that this money will not be earned until all the work is done.


The PRIME MINISTER.: It is not the intention to pay until the approaches have been completed.


James Clancy: It is very proper that the Walkerville Bridge Company should be paid for the superstructure, but have we any assurance that the balance of the work will be done ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: That is exactly what w,e provide for in the next resolution.
To the Canadian Bridge Company of Walker-ville. To strengthen and complete the foundation and approaches to the bridge over the St. Francis river subsidized to the South Shore Railway Company by section 3, chapter 7, Victoria 62-63. a sum of $35,000, which amount shall remain the first Charge on the road, and to be recouped to the treasury out of subsidies earned or to be earned, $35,000.


The PRIME MINISTER.: As I have just stated that the Walkerville Bridge Company have put up the superstructure, hut the
bridge is in the river without any approaches. The railway company is insolvent, and we thought we should take some precaution to have the bridge completed, so that the public could have the benefit of it. We agreed with the Walkerville company to give them a subsidy of $25,000. First of all we provide that they shall strengthen the piers. Our engineers have reported that the piers would have to be strengthened, so as to provide against the ice. We then provided that for this amount of $25,000 they should complete the approaches. When they have built the approaches and strengthened the piers, then they will be paid the $25,000, and the $48,000 which is due for the superstructure.


James Clancy: Who is In possession of this road ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: The railway company is still in possession of the road, but they are insolvent.


Samuel Hughes: The railway has . not reached there.


The PRIME MINISTER.: It has.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: They have ten miles graded on the other side.


The PRIME MINISTER.: We have provided this sum of money not as an extra subsidy but as a charge on the road to be recouped by the government.


James Clancy: 1 do not quite understand how this is to he returned by way of earned subsidy.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I have just explained that the railway is completed to the bridge. There are between four and six miles of the railway for which the subsidy has been earned, but not paid, so that we have nearly $20,000 which we can apply to recoup ourselves for the further subsidy which we are giving for the completion of the bridge.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood that this bridge would cost over $100,000. We are giving $85,000 to build a bridge which is to cost a little over $100,000.


The PRIME MINISTER.: We do not give $85,000. We give $50,000, and we advance $115,000, which is to be recouped.
To Uie Chateauguay and Northern Railway Company. In' addition) to the subsidy for the Bout de L/Tle 'bridge granted by chapter 8, section 33, Victoria 63-64, $50,000.


The PRIME MINISTER.: This bridge was also subsidized two years ago. It is now in process of construction, and is partly built, but it turns out to be far more expensive than was supposed. It was estimated to cost between $500,000 and $600,000. The report we have is that It will cost probably $700,000. The condition of the country has

been found to be such as to make it much more expensive, and the plans had to be changed.


Samuel Hughes: What bridge is this ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: It is at the eastern extremity of the Island of Montreal, connecting it with the main land on the north side, crossing the two branches of the Ottawa river.


James Clancy: What was the subsidy two years ago ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: One hundred and eighty thousand dollars.
To the Tilsoniburg, Lake Erie and Pacific Railway Company for a line of railway from Woodstock northerly to a point on the Grand Trunk Railway at Berlin, or from Ingersoll to Stratford. or to any point on the Grand Trunk Railway between these places, not exceeding 35 miles, being in addition to, and continuation of the nine miles mentioned in Item one of this section. [DOT]


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This item was allowed to stand at the request of the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule). I telegraphed to the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), and he says that the wording here was adopted after full consideration by the directors of the company, and he does not like to authorize a change. I have consulted the hon. member for East Grey, and I believe it will meet the views of the committee to allow it to pass if the bon. gentleman will withdraw his amendment.
Amendment of Mr. Sproule withdrawn, and item agreed to.
On resolution 4,
The subsidies hereby authorized towards the construction of any railway or bridge shall be payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada, and may, unless otherwise expressly provided in this Act, at the option of the Governor in Council, on the-report of the Minister of Railways and Canals, be paid as follows :- (a.) upon the completion of the work subsidized ; or
(b.) by Instalments, on the completion of each ten-mile section of the railway, in the proportion which the cost of such completed section bears to that of the whole work undertaken ; or (c.) upon the progress estimates on the certificate of the chief engineer of the Department of Railways and Canals, that, in his opinion, having regard to the whole work undertaken and the aid granted, the progress made justifies the payment of a sum not less than sixty thousand dollars ; or
(d.) with respect to (b) and (c), part one way, part the other.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I move that this resolution be amended by substituting in subsection 0. $30,000 for $60,000. The object is to make the subsection correspond with the Act adopted this session. $60,000 would apply in the case of large enterprises, but in the case of a shorter road it would be a very large sum. There Sir WILFRIP LAURIER.
are times when you cannot certify that the road is completed, but the general progress made gives such assurance of completion that it would be quite legitimate to make payment on a progress estimate.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: With regard to the resolution we have just passed, resolution No. 3, relating to bridges, the hon. minister is aware no doubt that a dispute arose between the Auditor General and some company with regard to the cost of a bridge. Has the government made any additional provision for ascertaining accurately what the cost of any bridge is, because when we are paying a percentage the cost may be made out greater than it really is. That is what happened in the case I referred to.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We could not put any legislation on the statute-book which would broaden the powers of the government in this respect. That is a matter for inquiry by the engineers.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Have you adopted any additional safeguards in these resolutions than are to be found in the others ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The resolutions are the same, but in the light of experience the department will adopt additional safeguards where the necessity arises. There is no legislation required to broaden the powers of the department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It was suggested that there was a defect in the regulations or in the carrying out of them. When the attention of the government is drawn to it, 1 should think they would he more careful in the future.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: The powers of the government seem to be sufficiently broad. The only thing that might be suggested is that parliament might impose a specific mode of inquiry on the officers of the department before they could act on the provisions of section 3. That may or may not be necessary, and I do not offer any opinion with regard to it. I do not know whether or not there is in these resolutions any provision to ensure the operation of the railway after it is constructed. I do not know that it is very easy to insert such a provision but i1s necessity was brought to the attention of the government this session by the fact that two railways which had received aid from this government and the provincial government, had not been in operation for several months, and one of them is not in operation yet. Under section 4 of these resolutions, a railway company may procure its subsidy in very small amounts from time to time, and there does not seem to be any stipulation which will ensure the final completion of the road. I do not know whether the form of contract and the safeguards therein provided give any assurance that a road, after receiving subsidies over a certain mileage, will be really completed. It is desirable that the

country should have some assurance that any road which receives the assistance of the government should be operated after completion. The ex-Miuister of Railways said at the time it was a matter for serious consideration but he did not know of any measure which could be adopted that would aid us in that regard. Has the subject received the consideration of the government, because it seems closely connected with the provisions of section 4 ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The matter has received some consideration. Although the statute does not deal with the matter particularly, the practice of the department has been to insert a clause in all the contracts, requiring the company to operate the road. Still while that clause is there, we have not always found it possible to discover the means of enforcing it. 1 have referred the form of contract to the Justice Department to see whether we cannot strengthen the clause in any way, and I am awaiting its opinion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems that there is a very lax method of paying out the subsidies on bridges. They may be paid out on pro-' gress estimates, certified to by the chief engineer. This section provides that payment may be made of a sum not less than $30,000, but it does not say that this payment shall bear any proportion to the cost of the work.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The engineer will see to that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think he will be more likely to attend to it if he has something to guide him.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The section says ' having regard to the whole work undertaken and the aid granted.' That means a proportionate sum.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If they had $30,000 worth of work done in the judgment of the engineer, he would be justified in certifying to the progress estimates to that extent.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is not done. The practice is exactly what my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) wishes. It must be a reasonable proportion of the whole work.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No proposition is stated here.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, the engineer must be satisfied that it is a reasonable proportion of the whole work.
On section 5,
The subsidies hereinbefore authorized to be granted to companies named shall, if granted by the Governor in Council, be granted to such companies respectively ; the other subsidies may he granted to such companies as establish to the satisfaction of the Governor in1 Council their ability to construct and complete the said railways respectively ; all the lines for the construction of which subsidies are granted, unless they are already commenced, shall he commenced within two years from the first day of August, 1903, and completed within a reasonable time, not to exceed four years from the said first day of August, to be fixed by the Governor in Council, and shall also be constructed according to desc-riptionis, conditions and specifications approved by the Governor in Council on the report of the Minister of Railways and Canals, and specified in each case in a contract between the company and the said minister, which contract the minister, with the approval of the Governor in Council, is hereby empowered to make. The location also of such subsidized lines shall be subject to the approval of the Governor in Council.


Robert Laird Borden: How is that carried out in practice ? Is any notice given to persons or communities interested ? Complaint has been made to me during the present session of unfair location of railway lines which are receiving aid from the government, and it is said that this is done without any notice whatever to the municipal body or to the people of a community where there is no municipal organization.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Complaint is likely to arise in matters of this kind where there are conflicting interests. But I have not had my attention called to any grievance as to lack of notice. My own observation is that wherever a road is being surveyed a very lively interest is taken in the location of the line, and if all parties are not satisfied, complaint is likely to he made. There is no special rule as to notifying any of the parties concerned, but, as I say, I do not think there is any grievance arising out of that lack of notice.


Robert Laird Borden: I refer to cases of this kind : Suppose a town situated practically upon the proposed line of railway, and the railway located in such a way that instead of running to the town, it runs at a distance of two or three miles, the result being that the property of persons in the town is much less valuable than it would otherwise be. In such a case the tendency is gradually to transfer the town to a point near the line of railway, and the people owning property in the town, rightly or wrongly, feel aggrieved. It may be that, in such cases, there is good reason for locating the line of railway as it is located ; I am not discussing that, but I am discussing the allegation which is said to be literally true, that lines are located in that way without notice to the municipal governments or the people of the town. Whatever may he said as to the merits of any particular case, the people of the town should be notified before the location is fixed by the government. I do not know whether the facts are as represented to me ; I am asking for information.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If the line were first located so as to run to a town and before construction the proposal were made to change it, that is a thing, it seems

to me, that would interfere with vested rights on which the people should be heard. But where you are dealing with the first location the case would hardly be the same. But I think that, so far as notice is concerned, the first appearance of a surveyor in the region attracts attention and arouses interest, and if the location fails to meet the wishes of the community generally, we find that representations are very promptly and freely made through various channels. But I have never had any complaint made of lack of information.
On section 6,
The granting of such subsidies, and the receipt thereof by the respective companies, shall be subject to the condition that the Governor in Council may at all times provide and secure to other companies such running powers, traffic arrangements and other rights, as will afford to all railways connecting with those so subsidized, reasonable and proper facilities in exercising such running powers, fair and reasonable traffic arrangements with connecting companies, and equal mileage rates between all such connecting railways ; and the Governor in Council shall have absolute control, at all times, over the rates and tolls to he levied and taken by any of the companies, or upon any of the railways hereby subsidized.


Robert Laird Borden: I observe that the Governor in Council is given control over rates. Is that intended to be in contradistinction to the powers to be exercised by tbe new Railway Commission? It strikes me that there Is something a little inconsistent in this; at all events, we should have some definition as to when the rates are to be fixed by tbe Railway Commission and when by the Governor in Council.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We have followed the phraseology of the old Act In this respect, and I am inclined to think that before this Bill is finally passed we shall have to adapt it to the provisions of the Railway Commission Act.


Robert Laird Borden: I notice that the expression * Governor in Council ' is used throughout these resolutions. In some cases, no doubt, it is tbe proper expression, but in other cases it may be necessary to make an amendment.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It may be that, in following the wording of the old Act, we have not made the changes made necessary by the new. Before tbe Bill is finally disposed of, I shall see to it that that shall be looked into.


Robert Laird Borden: Another point relates to the terms of the proposed covenant to be inserted in the contract, which is to be in addition to, or in substitution of, the powers conferred upon the Railway Commission. It seems to me that such matters are pretty well covered by the terms of the Railway Act passed during the present session. I do not say that it would be wrong to insert them in this Bill as well, but we should see Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
to it that tbe language with regard to running powers, traffic arrangements, &e., is made absolutely to conform with tbe provisions of the Railway Act. And very probably it will be found that the Railway Act, having been altered in some respect, and this Bill having been founded on the former Act, the language is not exactly in conformity with the new law.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I agree that the terms should correspond exactly with those of the Railway Act unless we find something to add. In this case, it may be agreed that, while we can take the exact provisions of the Railway Act, there is advantage sometimes in making them a matter of contract. They would Tie, in a sense, a matter of contract under the conditions of the statute. But sometimes it is an advantage to have them under the hand and seal of tbe company, as then the company is not in a position to contest them. At any rate, tbe language should conform to that of the Railway Act.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, a company may have successors, but I never knew it could have assigns, as we find in this section. Is there not a provision in an Act passed during the present session witli regard to some matters dealt with in this section ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: 
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think this section is covered by the Railway Act.


Robert Laird Borden: Would there be any objection to an amendment or an additional clause by which the Auditor General could also have a perusal of the books of the company during construction ?


Tbe MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not think any practical difficulty could arise there.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There was the case of the bridge, where the Auditor General said the bridge did not cost the amount that was claimed, and he saved the country a considerable sum of money.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is no difficulty in the Auditor General getting

all the information he desires. He employed experts in the particular case referred to, and there is no difficulty under the statutes in the Auditor General getting all the information he wishes.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: He can get such information as he thinks necessary.
I think, after all the Auditor General is a law unto himself.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think, if I remember right, the government were not giving him that assistance that he ought to have to ascertain the cost of the bridge, and he took the law into his own hands.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There was a difference between the Department of Railways and the Auditor General, but I think I am correct in stating that in that case there was no difficulty in the Auditor General getting all the information that he wanted.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was it not a fact that that department was quite willing to pay a bonus on the bridge at the exorbitant price that the company claimed it cost, and but for the fact that the Auditor General refused to pay and went into an inquiry himself, that bonus would have been paid and the consolidated revenue would have been that much worse off.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There was a difference of opinion between the Auditor General and the department, but 1 do not recall all the facts.


Robert Laird Borden: It is not a power that a public officer would abuse, at least we could not presume that he would abuse it. While it can do no harm, there might possibly be a case where it could do good to give him that power, which would be of benefit to the country. I think we gave some power to the Auditor General in the Act relating to the transcontinental railway, which was somewhat analogous to the power I am asking for now.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have no doubt that if the Auditor General were to say that he wished to get access to the books of a company for the purpose of examining into a claim, the Minister of Railways, I think, would be bound to give him authority to do so ; I have no doubt he would. There has not been any difficulty of that kind that I know of. This provides that the Minister of Railways or any other person appointed by him may examine all the books. If the Auditor General were to say that in consequence of information he had he wished a person appointed to examine the books, I am sure that any Minister of Railways would authorize that person to represent him for that purpose. I do not think it needs any amendment.


James Clancy: I think I had incidentally brought to my notice during the present session, that the Auditor General did suggest something like that and that the minister, without mentioning who it was, took a very different view, and if it depended upon authorizing an examination of the books under such circumstances no examination would be made. It would be weil to make it clear that it was the duty of the Auditor General to make such a demand, and the duty of the minister to accede to the demand.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am afraid I could not agree with my hon. friend as to the theory of the matter. I think responsibility in all these things is on the minister and not on the Auditor General. Theoretically I differ with my hon. friend ; but there is no practical difference, because no difficulty on that score has occurred. I do not think the Auditor General complains that he could not get information.
I think we all know he is pretty thorough in these things. So far as I am aware, he has always got all the information he desires.


James Clancy: I have had occasion to hold different views from the hon. gentleman as to what constitutes ministerial responsibility. Ministerial responsibility cannot go so far as to be of any advantage or security to the public in repairing harm after harm is done, or loss has occurred. I think I have stated before that ministerial responsibility does not always make restitution. The better way is to provide by statute against loss to the country through an officer whose duty it is to look after these things. To say that the minister is responsible is not enough. We might just as well say, and it would be carrying the argument to its legitimate conclusion, that each department over which a minister presides should take the responsibility therefor, and that there was no need of an auditor. A minister has a right to say, I am responsible for that, and I do not think an officer should interfere. I think, on the other hand, a safe anrl healthy course to take is to secure a scrutiny by an officer whose business it is to do that work.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Mr. Chairman, before you report these resolutions I want to remind the committee that in connection with one of the items for a subsidy in British Columbia an error occurred and that we have a separate resolution to add to the item. We have dealt with the matter and discussed it, but we must correct the error. In order to do that we will have to formally report these other resolutions ; I shall then ask the committee to sit again. This is in connection with the item for the Kootenay Central road.
Resolutions reported, read the first and second time and agreed to.



KOOTENAY CENTRAL RAILWAY-SUBSIDY.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of the Minister of Finance House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution :
That it is expedient to provide as follows That the Governor in Council may, in addition to the mileage of railway proposed to he subsidized by item 66 of the resolutions respecting railway subsidies now 'before this House, grant a further subsidy to the Kootenay Central Railway Company, for the line of railway in the said item mentioned, not exceeding eighty miles, making the whole length not exceeding 186 miles, instead of 106 miles. (Correction of clerical error).
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is to correct the error to which attention has been called. As we have fully discussed the matter I move that this resolution be formally agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to, reported, read the
first and second time, and agreed to.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 270) an Act to authorize the granting of subsidies in_aid of the construction of the lines of railway therein mentioned.
Motion agreed to. and Bill vend the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER informed the House that he had received a message from the Senate respecting amendments made by them to Bill (No. 21) an Act to consolidate and ameuu the laws respecting railways as follows
Tuesday, October 20, 1903. Resolved, that a message be sent to tlhe House of Commons by one of the Masters in Chancery, to inform that House, that the Senate doth accept the amendments made by the House of Commons to the Senate amendment No. 51 to Bill No. 21, intituled : ' An Act to amend and consolidate the law respecting railways,' and that the Senate doth not insist upon their amendments Nos. 6, 33, 45, 46 and 60 to the said Bill ; but doth insist upon their amendments Nos. 2,
3 and 4, for the reason that the clauses 5, 6 and 7 of the said Bill were an Interference with provincial and municipal rights which the Senate amendments minimized, while giving ait the same time jurisdiction to the board on all subject matters essential to the satisfactory working of the purposes set forth in the original sections 5, .6 and 7 of the said Bill,
The Senate doth also insist on its amendment No. 11, for the reason that in all tribunals there should be an appeal on points of law. It is equally in the interests of the individual and the company, especially when the appeal qan only be granted by leave of the board or of two judges of the Appellate Court.
The Senate doth insist upon its amendment No. 31, for the reason that the clause In its original form involves an interference with municipal rights.
William Stevens Fielding: The Senate doth also insist upon its amendment No. 40, for tlhe reason that cases may arise where the agreement was fair and just to the employee. The Senate suggests as an alternative to the words proposed to be inserted by the following amendment :-
' Unless such agreement is conformable to the law of the province in which it is made and is authorized by the board.'
The Senate doth also insist upon its amendment No. 70, for the reasons set forth in the objections to Nos. 2, 3 and 4.
Attest.



SA'M'L E. ST. O. CHAPLEAU,

[Stage Direction]
Clerk of the Senate.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved that:
A select committee composed of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Hon. Mr. Fielding, Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick and Hon. Mr. Blair, be appointed to draw up reasons to be offered at a conference with the Senate for disagreeing to certain amendments made by the Senate to Bill (No. 21) entitled an Act to amend and consolidate the law respecting railways.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I presume the desire of the government is to confine that committee to the members of the Privy Council in order that it may have the greater authority. I observe that all of the (members of the committee are members of the Privy Council except the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals.


Robert Laird Borden: He is a member of the Privy Council.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I would suggest the name of the hon. senior member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker).


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There can be no objection to this.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not objecting.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is quite unintentional that the hon. member (Mr. Barker) was omitted.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is my mistake. I drew the resolution up hurriedly.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If the leader of the opposition would be willing to act, we would be pleased to have his assistance.


Robert Laird Borden: I would be glad if I could give any assistance. It may be that this being a government measure, it is the precedent that members of the government should represent members of the House.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is not a controversial matter, and I will be glad if the House will allow me to move to add the names of the leader of the opposition and the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker).
Motion, as amended, agreed to.



QUEBEC BRIDGE-PAPERS.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I beg to lay on the Table of the House certain papers with respect to the Quebec bridge. They are printed and will be distributed immediately.



ADJOURNMENT-ALASKAN BOUNDARY COMMISSION.

[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER moved the adjournment of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: position to place this matter upon the Table. It is important that at this juncture the House should be made acquainted with the communication to which my right hon. friend has referred in the extracts which I have read. As the right hon. gentleman has stated that the correspondence _ is ail ready, I presume there will be no objection to place it before the House to-morrow ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: With regard to the several questions which my hon. friend has asked, I have to say that the only information I have at the present moment as to the award, is a telegram from Mr. Sifton which I will communicate to the House tomorrow. This telegram informs me that the award has been rendered, and gives me succinctly the terms of the award.


Robert Laird Borden: With regard to the dissent and the statement of the Canadian commissioners ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I have no information on that except that our commissioners have dissented. With regard to the correspondence which led to the treaty, there is no objection on the part of this government to laying that before the House. I am not sure that I shall be in a position to do so to-morrow, but I hope to do so before the end of the session.


Robert Laird Borden: Several months have expired since my right hon. friend hoped to be able to lay that on the Table of the House at once. I hope he will be able to lay it on the Table so that we may have an opportunity of reading it and possibly discussing it before the end of the session. Will my right hon. friend also state what business is to be placed before us tomorrow ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I hope to clear the paper of everything. We will commence by moving to go into Committee of Supply, when I understand my hon. friend from Pic-tou intends to move a motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12 o'clock midnight.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, October 21, 1903.