1904-04-20

FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 70) respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Douglas.
Bill (No. 71) respecting the Ottawa, Brockville and St. Lawrence Railway Company.- Mr. Logan.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. POPE-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	Was there a commission appointed to investigate the weighing o£ butter and cheese ?
2.	It so, when was this commission appointed, and what was the name of the person or persons who constituted the commission ?
3.	At what places, if any, did the said commission hold sittings ?
4 Did they take evidence, and were reporters and newspaper representatives admitted ?
5.	Has the commission reported ? If not, why not ?
6.	At whose request was the commission appointed ?
Rt. Hon. Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT (Minister of Trade and Commerce) :: [DOT]lust a casual thought of his to send for this information-
I sent the geographer

That is, from the 733rd road mile, post.

the survey line turns south eastward by the
Metagami and other rivers to North Bay.
There is where the survey has been coining to and the only survey that has been made. They have surveyed from Winnipeg to White Earth Lake, 300 miles; the location survey-probably most of it bad already been done in the surveys for the Canadian Pacific Railway years ago, and then they have made some preliminary survey for part of the distance to where they want to diverge to North Bay. And that is the report that the Minister of the Interior reads to this House as a satisfactory report to be laid by tlie government before the House, upon which we are to determine so important a question as that now before us. Then the hon. minister goes on to speak of the increased guarantee as a matter of no importance-Mr. Toots would say it was ' of no consequence.' It was given to create confidence in the Grand Trunk shareholders, gentlemen who do not know as much as we do. It can make no difference apparently whether the guarantee is larger or smaller, for tlie road will pay its way ! And another gentleman adds, ' It will not cost us a dollar.' I shall have something to say later on about the question whether it will cost us a dollar or not. But I wish to read again, on page 799 tlie exact words of the Minister of the Interior I would like to give these words

Let us see where it comes from.
-consisting of agricultural material, dry goods, hoots and shoes and all class of merchandise that a new and rapidly developing country requires.
Where does the Grand Trunk get that class of traffic ? It is the cream of the business. It will get it in the province of Quebec, in the cities of the maritime provinces, in the province of Ontario and through the old settled districts. Oars that icome down loaded with wheat will go through these old settled districts and they will go back loaded with this merchandise. The Grand Trunk will not send that traffic 400 miles to the north. The oars will return by the route they have come by and the traffic will be by way of North Bay or the lake route. Mr. Hays knew what he was speaking of. He knew that these men, were aware that through the older provinces they reaped all their earnings and he was pointing out that the life of the new line, the line from North Bay to Winlipeg and onward, will be the return west-iound traffic that it will get to enable them ;o haul wheat cheaply to the east. But some ion. gentlemen ask : What have we to do vith what passes at the Grand Trunk meet-ng ? Surely hon. gentlemen in this House ,vho do not profess to be experts would like :o get the opinion of an expert like Mr. Hays. When Mr. Hays points out where the traffic svill come from, that it will come from these old settled portions of the country, that it s here that he gets all the best rates 011 Merchandise, boots, dry goods and clothing, everything that is lU&nuf&cturGd in oui n and and that he is going to take that up to :he west filling the returning cars lie has brought down with wheat surely he knows what he is talking about. He was pomt-ino- out to the shareholders of the Grand
n,m



$45,000,000. The Pacific Company have the power to give the Grand Trunk Company or anybody else, the whole $45,000,000, and if the Grand Trunk Company do not take all they can get, I ami very much mistaken.
There is another little clause in the new Bill just introduced which is very significant. In the original charter passed less than a year ago, it was provided that this Pacific company, which was going to have such an important undertaking on its hands, should begin operations when it had subscribed $2,000,000 of stock, and when $200,000 of it was paid up. That was not very much for such a company. One would have thought that they would have been content; but they were not content. Section 6 of chapter 122 of 1903, is amended by striking out in the first line thereof the word ' two ' and substituting the word ' one ; ' so that the company will have to get subscribed only $1,000,000 of stock before they begin this undertaking and the amount to be paid up is reduced to $100,000. The $2,000,000 was so startling that they had to come to parliament and get the amount reduced to $1,000,000 ; and when 10 per cent is paid on that, they will have $100,000 with which to begin the undertaking. I wonder if they expect the country to subscribe the $1,-. 000,000 and pay up the $lo0,000.
Then, there is the question of the $20,000.000 of rolling stock.' If that were to be paid for out of the bonds or stock, it would form part of the $60,000,000 I have mentioned. But it is not. A trust company is to provide that roiling stock, and no doubt it will be rented to the railway company. I do not wonder that the Grand Trunk Company wanted to have a few alterations of such an unimportant character as these. The right hon. First Minister said they were of such trifling importance that he thought it was hardly worth while for us to discuss them. That $20,000,000 is now reduced to $f5,000,000. I do not make much of that. Of course, the government were not obliged to sign their guarantee until the $20,000,000 of rolling stock should be-not paid for or acquired, but supplied : and all the security they will now have for the last five millions of the rolling stock, is the covenant of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company. But what is the value of the Grand Trunk Pacific's covenant. The whole thing is in the hands of the Grand Trunk Company. You cannot call on anybody to pay up stock, because the stock is all ' paid up There is no liability of the Grand Trunk, and the covenant of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company is not worth anything. Yet this is all you have got for your extra $5,000,000. It is a small point, but it is worth nothing !
, We pointed out last year that the clause relating to the rolling stock simply called on the company to equip the road with a


Mr. BARKER.: trivial. Why, they were so trivial that it was a wonder these lion, gentlemen took any trouble to explain them at all. I believe that the right hon. the First Minister did say that the opposition were so perverse they would try to find some ground for objection, but he did not think we should find any. We should have swallowed the whole thing. That 1,000 miles of railway, built by the country, with the hard cash of the country; we should give free to the Grand Trunk Pacific for six or seven years, or whatever period elapses before the whole 1,900 miles are completed ; and then, when we come to make a lease for the whole division, they will have it for seven years more for nothing and three years after that on the same terms, because, according to the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. A. T. Thompson), capitalization does not count. And this is the marvellous third section of the supplemental agreement. I think that the Grand Trunk Railway must have laughed in their sleeves when they got that clause accepted by the government. I would like to see the private correspondence between Mr. Hays and the directors of the Grand Trunk Railway. If we could, by an order of the House, have Mr. Hays brought up here with his letter-book, it would be delightful reading to have his view of how successfully the government had forced the company to accept the use of this line during seven years for nothing. But that is only a trifle to what is coming. Take clause 4.
Well, Sir, the change made by this clause is highly important. And, read with clauses 5 and 6 of the supplemental agreement and with section 32 of the original agreement it is so far-reaching that not one gentleman on the other side has understood the effect of it. By the old agreement the government was to guarantee the bonds up to 75 per cent of the cost of the prairie section and the mountain section also, the maximum guarantee for the prairie section fo be $13,000 per mile and for the mountain section $30,000 per mile. But some notable changes have been made. The limitation of $30,000 per mile has been wiped out. Then the guarantee is to be not merely 75 per cent of the cost, but a guarantee of bonds to an amount that will produce the money on the market. I think that applies also to the $13,000 per mile of the prairie section. That point has not been discussed, and the charge was not made in the statement of the leader of the opposition. But I have no doubt at all tint the government is bound to guarantee the bonds that will produce that $13,000 per mile, which will mean a million and a half more-another little addition made by these trifling alterations. The Grand Trunk people say that the mountain section will cost $50,000 per mile. Let me call your attention to the fact that Sir Charles Riv-ers-Wilson had every motive not to add a dollar unnecessarily to the estimated cost.


Samuel Barker: tile ?ay add that if the bonds sell at 90. ftharantee for the prairie section will
be increased from $13,000,000 to $14,500,000. Although, as we do not pay seven years' interest there, it is not so important. I do not deal with any increase on the prairie section, because 1 am dealing mainly and particularly with the interest account which involves cash outlay.
I have already read from the words of the Minister of the Interior. It will be remembered that he said-page 799 :
By releasing the old provision and inserting provisions which can only come into effect in case of default which we do not anticipate.
That is all. They can throw the burden upon the country only in case of default. But the Minister of the Interior seems to be oblivious to the fact that whether there is default or not, if you increase the principal of your guarantee by $6,000,000 or $8,000,000 you have to pay the interest on that for seven years and you do not get it back. And yet, one after another these hon. gentlemen get up and boast, as the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) did, that these changes would not cost the country anything. At page 872, he says :
I wish to place myself on record as saying that the agreement as amended will not cost the Dominion one extra dollar.
It was as the hon. member for Haldimand said, as if they were backing the note of a millionaire and it would not matter. But if the millionaire wanted you to pay the interest on his note for seven years you would soon find out that it mattered ? The hon. gentlemen overlook the fact that under ne clause of the agreement, clause 32 I think, we agree to pay the interest for seven years upon every dollar we guarantee, and when you add six or eight million dollars to the guarantee you agree to pay interest on that amount for seven years. The hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) was satisfied that it was quite right to guarantee the additional amount. He said :
I think that this is reasonable ; I think It is fair that the government should guarantee the full three quarters of the cost and it was scarcely necessary that any discrimination should be made in this connection.
If the government bad said : 1 We are not to pay the interest for seven years on the increased amount,' then there would be something in the statement of the hon. the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) that it would make no difference, that the property was good for it. and that you were only guaranteeing it. But when the Gianu Trunk call upon you to pay the interest on Tie increase and without recourse, the laugh will be against the government.


Mr. CLANCY.: Or against the people rather.


Samuel Barker: The people will have to pay " That is one result of it. When the hon! member for Annapolis made that state-

ment and when the Minister of the Interior (Sir. Sifton) spoke on that subject and made the suggestion that the increase in guarantee really made no difference, the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) evidently approved, the Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) sat by his side and called out, ' hear, hear ' in stentorian tones, the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) was present and applauded ; he seemed to regard it as a happy thought; and all of the government supporters were applauding. I am sorry that the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) is not here. I intended to ask him if he was going to ask this House to validate this agreement without showing that I am mistaken in my statement that the interest on the additional amount of guarantee has to be paid by the government. How is he going to ask the House to adopt an agreement which puts that additional cash burden upon the people of this country when the hon. gentleman did not know that he was imposing any such burden? Is the right hon. the premier going to ask his followers to swallow that. Is he going to ask his followers to adopt an agreement which does not express what it was intended to express ? Is the right hon. gentleman going that far ? Is the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) going that far ? Is the Solicitor General (Mr. Lemieu.x) going to commence his career by dofng that ? What position will hon. gentlemen be in. They are either going to do that, or else they are going to say that they knew that this was the intention of the agreement, but they sat silent and applauded when the hon. member foi Annapolis (Mr. Wade) and the Minister of the Interior said that that was not the agreement at all. Is the right hon. the premier going to take the position that he had done right to deceive this House-not intentionally but to deceive the House in fact and to deceive the country, by representing that this change did not mean one dollar of additional expense to the country ?	Will they dare to say to
this House that they knew it did impose large cash payments upon the country and not only remained silent while the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) spoke but applauded him ? Surely not. I do not think that the right hou. the premier is going that far and if he cannot take either horn of the dilemma what is he going to do about it ? I would like to know what the government are going to do about this ? If we are to endorse an agreement that does not express the intention of the parties to it, what is the use of our being here ? The government might as well send us home and transact the business by Order in Council, and not put us to the ignominy of validating an agreement under such circumstances. We ought not to be asked to do it; the hon. gentleman's followers should not be asked to do it. I do not know whether they are going to respond to the whip and kiss the rod.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Yes, they are.


Samuel Barker: 
Mr. CAMPBELL.: Do not be alarm** about this side.


Samuel Barker: 
Mr. BELL.: He will vote all right.


Samuel Barker: 
Samuel Barker: Under tlie old contract the country knew pretty well where it was. We had nothing to do with the selling of the bonds under the old contract. We guaranteed them to the maximum amount of $30,000 per mile for the mountain section, and it did not matter to us in the least what the bonds were sold at. We guaranteed $13,000. per mile for the prairie section and it did not matter to us in the least what the bonds sold for.


Mr. WILLIAM ROCHE (Halifax).: How much of the bonds on the western section will be sold this year or next year on which the hon. gentleman anticipates there' will be a discount?


Samuel Barker: I can answer that very quickly. I do not think there will be a dollar's worth sold this year or probably next year, but I take it with the right hon. gentleman that there will be a heavy discount. I do not profess to say whether, it will be 1 per cent, or 5 per cent, or 10 per cent, but whatever it is the country takes the risk of it.


Mr. A. T. THOMPSON.: They may be at a premium.


Samuel Barker: You have to endorse the issue. You do not get any premium, but let me point out the position that the government have placed the country in. Supposing that four years hence, or at any time you like, the members of the syndicate dealing with these bonds come to the government and say :	We can get 95 for
these bonds. The government say : We think that is too big a discount ; we will not agree to that. What will the Grand Trunk say? They will say : if you, the government refuse to deal now when we can dispose of these bonds at 95 you must take the risk of it, and if we must sell them at a lower ra>te you will have to pay the difference and hold us harmless. We are more interested in this than you are. We say now that we have made a bargain with brokers to place these bonds at a certain rate. If you say you object to that rate you must take the risk yourselves. We may yet have to accept 90 for them.
You have not only guaranteed the 75 per cent of the cost whatever it may be, including interest during construction, but you have guaranteed that you will implement the loss in selling the bonds whatever it may be. You have virtually guaranteed that the bonds will produce par, although you do not control the sale. That is the practical working out of the operation. Well, Sir, taking it in as favourable a light as the first minister may choose to put it, the right hon. gentleman can hardly contend that he does not expect there will be a discount on these bonds. Having undertaken to implement that discount whatever it may be, what justification is there for the mem-


Samuel Barker: 
PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 33) respecting the Vancouver, Victoria and Eastern Railway and Navigation Company.-Mr. Morrison.
Bill (No. 10) to incorporate the Campbell-ford. Lake Ontario and Western Railway Companv.-Mr. Wm. Ross (Ontario).
Bill (No. 18) respecting the Manitoba and Northwestern Railway Company of Canada. -Mr. McCreary.
Bill (No. 25) to incorporate the Whitehorse and Alselr Railway Company.-Mr. Macpherson.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the proposed motion of Mr. R. L. Borden in amendment thereto.
Samuel Barker: As my hon. friend the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) is in his place, I desire to repeat to him a question that I put to my right hon. friend the First Minister before six o'clock. I had pointed out to the House that it was admitted-admitted beyond controversy-that under the supplementary agreement, the country was obliged to guarantee a larger amount of bonds than under the agreement of 1903. 1 pointed out that under clause 32 of the agreement of 1903, this country undertook to pay for seven years the interest on every dollar of the guarantee, and therefore that this country has had imposed upon it by the supplemental agreement, an additional cash obligation, amounting, on the basis of the cost of the mountain section, as estimated by the president o the Grand Trunk Railway, to $1,260,000. That is quite apart from the three yeais interest which is to be capitalized, and quite apart also from the additional amount which mav be imposed on this country under that unfortunate clause No. 6 of the supplemental [DOT] <vreoment, and I reminded the light hon. gentleman that in the discussion the other

158?
day, his colleague the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton), the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) and other gentlemen, asserted again and again that the amount of the guarantee undertaken by this country was of no consequence, that the property would pay its way, and therefore, whether the government guaranty was more or less, made no difference. I pointed out that the right hon. the First Minister and the Postmaster General (Sir William Muloek) and the Finance Minister himself applauded those remarks as expressing the truth.
The hon .gentleman was silent and never denied the assertion. The hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) said : What matters it ? The amount of our guarantee will not cost this country one dollar. And the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) was there and never denied the statement. He allowed that statement to go as one to influence us as representatives of the people in the decision we are to come to with reference to this agreement. I asked the right hon. gentleman then, and I ask the Finance Minister now. if he knew, when the hon. member for Annapolis was speaking, that the result of the increased guarantee was that the country had to pay for seven years the interest on that increase ?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: I will answ'er at once, if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) will allow me. I quite realize that we are to pay seven years' interest on our portion of that guarantee and, inasmuch as it is somewhat increased as respects the mountain section by this agreement, our seven years' interest is somewhat increased. I understood nobody to make any statement at variance with that; but if any one did make such a statement, I do no! agree with him.


Samuel Barker: I am glad to get that admission from the hon. Minister of Finance. But the hon. Minister of Finance was present when the hon. member for Annapolis said that it did not make a dollar's difference to this country, and he never


William Stevens Fielding: If the hon. gentleman will permit me-I have no recollection of hearing the hon. member for Annapoli.si make any such statement. I did hear him state, in general terms, that this enterprise would be profitable to the country, but I did not catch the observation to which the hon. member (Mr. Barker) refers. But if the hon. member for Annapolis stated what the hon. member for Hamilton attributes to him, I can only say that I do not agree with the hon. member for Annapolis on that point


Samuel Barker: lent
at
lion-


William Stevens Fielding: I heard no statenm variance with what I have stated.


Samuel Barker: I can say that the gentleman was present.	^


William Stevens Fielding: I was not P''eSa,ft throughout the whole discussion sorry to say.


Samuel Barker: The statement of tfte member for Annapolis was made presence and hearing of the Finance pjvit ter. I do not assert that he heard i j'.gteft' 1 do assert that he was present ana
Not in the sense
that"
mg.
Mr. FIELDING, out m luc 

	^


Samuel Barker: 
Mr FIELDING.: I have not had my attention called to this matter and therefore I do not fully apprehend my hon. fnend s question.	.


Samuel Barker: Now, Sir, I would ask the hon. the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) is this something that the other members of the cabinet have forgotten ? Has it been forgotten that these agreements which we are now supposed to be validating are to be subject to such an agreement being entered into by and with the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada ? I would like to know, Sir, whether the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada have entered into such an agreement with the government. They have not produced it; I do not know that they have even obtained the consent of the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway Company to the entering into such an agreement.


William Stevens Fielding: While I am willing to answer my hon. friend occasionally, I think he would find it inconvenient if he should occupy his time in catechising the members of the government. On tins occasion, however, I may say to the hon. gentleman that the time has not yet arrived for entering into that agreement. That agreement was to be made in accordance with the original contract and that contract having been modified we have not yet reached the time when it becomes necessary to carry out that agreement, and therefore it has not beep entered into. That is my recollection, I do not think it has been entered into.


Samuel Barker: At page 3 of the correspondence brought down by the government there is this clause :
The terms upon which the Grand Trunk is to acquire the common stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific and the liability to be incurred by such acquisition to be fully determined and made the subject of an agreement.
Are the hon. gentlemen keeping that open ? Is that to be a subject for further consideration ? We have been discussing last year and this year the terms upon which the Grand Trunk Railway is to acquire that $25,000,000 of stock. Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) mean to say that they have got to this stage of the negotiations and do not know what these terms are to be, although the Grand Trunk Railway point out in this correspondence that it must be settled ? Is there any understanding as to what the Grand Trunk Railway is to give for that $25,000,000, or is that something that is forgotten ? I think, Sir, that this is very much like the payment of the seven years' interest, they never thought of it. It is perfectly new, the hon. gentlemnn (Mr. Fielding) has never discussed it, and he knows nothing about it. It is like the surveys on the eastern division, the government were ignorant of it. Minister after minister stood up in this House and told us they knew nothing about the surveys on the Grand Trunk Paci-Mr. BARKER.
fic. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Em merson) told us the surveys were goin, on upon the branches. The Minister of .to* Interior (Mr. gifton) told us that the nvv from Winnipeg to the boundary line 1 tween Ontario and Quebec had been tu [DOT] and completely surveyed. Which are we believe ? The hon. gentleman (Mr. 1ie* ^ jng) said he knew the seven years' intei [DOT] had to be paid.


William Stevens Fielding: And so did every Per' son else.


Samuel Barker: 
An hon. MEMBER.: Three.


Samuel Barker: I beg pardon.
An bon. MEMBER. Four.


Samuel Barker: Yes, four. Sometimes we have only one. But, they are never the same. It is somewhat of a kaleidoscope. They are constantly changing and you are never quite sure who is taking care of the interests of the government or of the country. I think there is hardly an hon. gentleman who sits on the treasury benches at this moment who was here in the afternoon -not one. AArhen we are discussing a question involving an obligation of $155,000,000 upon this country we cannot get any two of them to agree. The bon. Minister of the Interior gets up and makes an assertion which is immediately seized upon by his followers, one after another. The hon. member for Annapolis endorses the hon. Minister of the Interior. The hon. member for Hants (Mr. Russell) endorses the bon. member for Annapolis and the bon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Thompson) tells us a story about a man who backs the note of a millionaire. This is the sort of business that we have in connection with this enoinious tians-action the greatest, as hon. gentlemen will admit,' that we have had since Confederation. Last year the minister said :
We think it important for several reasons- He didn't mention the reasons.


Mr. A. W. PUTTEE (Winnipeg).: Mr. Speaker, when the main question of this contract was before this House last year, I took occasion at considerable length to


' 1599 COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
state my position with regard to it and with regard to the policy which 1 thought ought to be adopted in place of this contract ; and I concluded by moving an amendment calling for government ownership and operation of railways in Canada. 1 am still of opinion that the government would have been well advised if they had accepted that amendment; and there are many other gentlemen in this House, and many more in the country to-day than there were at that time, who believe that would have been the best course for the government to have taken. I do not intend, Mr. Speaker, on the present occasion to deal nt any length with that subject. We are discussing, or should be discussing, a number of concessions that are now to be granted to the Grand Trunk Pacific Company in the contract which was made last year; and you will have noticed, Mr. Speaker, that the various members on the government side who have spoken in this debate have paid very little attention to those concessions.
But before each one of them seems to rise this very natural question : Why not own the line as well as pay for it ? It is also noticeable that all those who supported the contract last year are going to support the concessions. That, I think, is a fair conclusion to draw.- All those gentlemen who could bring themselves at this date, under present conditions in this country, to support a contract between the government and a private orporation for the construction of a new transcontin-ential line, will no doubt be prepared to accept and endorse all the modifications that have since been made to it. The principle appears to be that the tail goes with the hide. The concessions made are material, important, and valuable, and yet the supporters of the contract have, with few exceptions, failed to deal with the details of| those concessions. It is one of the defects of this system, which I pointed out last session, that in this, the first year of the life of the contract, before operations have started at all, we are called upon to consider a batch of concessions to the company. Some gentlemen argue that that shows that the contract which was made was not in favour of the corporation, but more in favour of the government. I [DOT] could not see it in that light last session and cannot now'. One of the defects of n contract of this kind is that we have go1 to measure our progress, our rule of development in this country, by what some faraway investors think of our prospects. It was not because the contract was not a good one that the Grand Trunk Railway directors did not dare go before their shareholders with it as it was. The Grand Trunk Railway shareholders in Great Britain have never been supposed to be optimistic regarding the future of this country. It is Mr. PUTTEE.
not possible for us to suppose that they would have the same appreciation of 1 prospects, the same trust in its future, * our own government and people, and yet W these concessions we are practically putti * our future into their power. We are ask to assume now practically an unstated J bility. By the contract of last year were to guarantee the bonds on the uio ^ tain section to the extent of 75 per cent its cost, but we are now asked to leave the other parties the power of determin. to what extent we will be liable. We to vacate, to forego the right of foreclos ^ and adopt some other system, and a sys foreign to this country. It is evident to that the directors of the Grand Trunk „ way were watching the debate in this V liament last year and came to the con sion, from the mountains of information P t dueed and the discussion on both sides. T A it was very uncertain whether .this P ]jne will be carried through and whether the 1 from Winnipeg to Moncton is going T t)JjS constructed. We have evidence ot ^e in the fact that they are now asking 0f granted the privilege of renting a Palrig)jt that line, which means getting the of using that part of the line from! ' peg east, which will connect with eXbranch to North Bay, and thus ^-est' actly what they asked for at first, a ^ek ern system with connections with gD eastern system, leading to their P° the other side of the iiue.	, jn
We had the proposition put fprwa this House last year that this covears-meant government ownership in fifty * ',]ot That it did not necessarily do s0..feDtiy to the point, but the company eV yifih thought there was some danger hi ^jj) and they are now providing that th« a be guaranteed the use of the roaci ^ ai-hundred years. It seems to me tu< ^gjSS. though from this on the work maJstacleS mence under this contract ; as o J 'Jiag-arise, as they will do in works of tn* ^ to nitude, this government will be a ' gtil* meet them again and again and nj a further concessions. That seems t tj,at natural conclusion, and the very _ jngtance the government has yielded in tnis jpcf6' will but strengthen them to ask r 0f tb® Our position is analogous to the jeada farmer in the story, who undertook ,eI- t frisky and rather fractious bull- H pull- % make more sure of going with t" podA tied the rope securely around his o	"
Presently the bull began to run roacke, ter across the country, and as it flI p ealIe, a neighbour's farm the neigho goiIJ^p out : Hello, Smith, where are ,-(il.oUnd TjiTt And as the bull took a short cut p. t corner, Smith replied : Ask the ^n)j o seems to me that before we c< ^.e n where this contract will bring . gha have to ask the Grand Trunk t holders.
[Stage Direction]
-The government supporters very properly oave dwelt on the fact that the carrying ut of a large work of this kind should do ~ great deal for the building up of this OUntry. By giving employment to our own ie°Ple and furnishing a market for manu-actured products, this undertaking would , ® of incalculable benefit. But some two or hree years ago complaints were made that, hcier its new management, the Grand i'unk Railway was becoming American-I have never had any acquaintance the Grand Trunk Railway, and am uling to agree to all praise given by both bifS to l'13! company for what it has done, "t there were complaints made some two " three years ago that in its new rnanage-^eht, and in its officials at all events, the '"Pany was becoming Americanized. Last ear i drew the attention of the then act. Minister
of Railways, the Finance
3er'f"Ster, to the likelihood of our being sub-gcted, under this contract, to an invasion tj. Pe°ple from across the line to take up tv best positions on the construction of "is road.
Pointed out at that time that, as a ^atter of fact, the Canadian Pacific, in ajj engineering department, had practic-jj.y. become Americanized. The Finance 1 .'hster admitted that he had heard some-qj?S of the matter and promised to in-into it. During the last year, it jqbears, these fears have been more than '"titl ed' Many rumours have been current w many statements made on the sub-g I am not prepared to say that they i]vj correct or incorrect; but I have been hi	at all events, by men who are
e0l" far better position than I to know the tuition of affairs, that, as a matter of iiiy ' ,We were already subjected to this Zpq^ion, and that our own Canadian citi-W competent and equipped to do the were idle during the past year, while No^'cans were engaged on these surveys.
th
°w,
iat , ,r know-I suspect at all events- uttfinthis matter has been brought to the hq(1 7'°h of the government. I thought ws in0(1 ,a right to know whether the govern-took . Were inquiring into the matter. I to for granted that they would be keen rtl "eck-mate such a move and to check-Seeu !*[DOT] early. I was informed, on what Mtogp'1.to me fairly reliable authority, that tioq|etaer, on the eastern and western sec-470 surveyors were at work in the °®ly °f the Grand Trunk, of whom Mivi, were Canadians. I do not know fkat is true or not But, like "t'dgal other members of this House, I etntllpOhred to ascertain whether the gov-tJUt knew anything of this matter. T I'tliey bcstions on the order paper, as did 'he otembers. But so far, it seems to me, w'di n^mment has been loath to give oiis ' fair reply. On March 28th, I asked . 5*Uestion.
1.	Is the government aware that survey parties are at work along the route of the proposed Transcontinental Railway between vVinnipeg and Quebec ?
2.	Are these parties employed by the government or by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company ?
3.	If by the railway company, is trjre any understanding that the government will adopt the surveys, and pay the expenses incurred in making them ?
The Minister of Railways replied :
1.	The department is aware that survey parties are in the field north of North Bay and Port Arthur surveying branch lines to connect with the proposed Transcontinental Railway between Winnipeg and Quebec.
2.	These parties are employed by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company.
It will be observed that the minister stated that he was aware that the Grand Trunk employees were surveying branch lines, these being purely Grand Trunk branch lines. And, of course, I bad to take that as a sufficient reply. Less than a week after that, when this debate had begun, the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton), in the course of his speech, told the House that, as a matter of fact, the Grand Trunk had been surveying the main line, and had been carrying on the work all winter ; and he regretted that their survey was not sufficiently complete to be laid before the House. He told us that he had sent an officer of bis department to overlook the report of the surveying officers and to present to him a report which he presented to the House. In that report, which was based upon information furnished by Mr. Stephens, it was stated :
During the summer of 1903 preliminary surveys were made of the line between North Bay and Winnipeg and location surveys were made of a large portion of the line between Winnipeg and White Earth lake, about 200 miles. The extraordinary wet weather not only interfered with the work and movements of the survey parties but made the carriage of supplies extremely difficult and expensive. Enough work has been done, however, to show that it is possible to get a line from Winnipeg to the point at which the North Bay branch diverges from the main line.
Later on, there are reports made of the survey by sections of about one hundred miles each, showing that surveys had been made covering about 530 miles. And it is evidently on these surveys that the parties are employed who, the amalgamated engineers of this country claim, are in fact, aliens brought in by the Grand Trunk officers to do the work, Canadians being discriminated against. There is in the possession of many hon. members of this House, I believe, a considerable mass of literature on this subject, the same having been sent to us. But it has the fatal defect that it bears no signature, so that nobody has to take the responsibility of
[Stage Direction]


it, A good deal of information it contains is similar to that given to me at various times during the winter. I have here a copy of a petition that has been forwarded to the Prime Minister and members of the government. I understand that it is _ properly signed on behalf of the Dominion Institute of Amalgamated Engineers. It is a somewhat lengthy petition, so I shall not read it all through, but will merely give some of the points, which, it seems to me, justify any hon. member in insisting that the government should be prepared to give us some assurance either that investigation has been made and has dis-pioved these statements, or else that the matter will be thoroughly investigated and the correctness of these statements ascertained. I am aware, perfectly well aware, that complaints of this kind often dwindle very considerably in the light of investigation. But I am also aware that on works of this kind that are far from centres of population, investigation often exposes facts which prove that the complaints are well founded or even that the grievances are greater than they have been represented to be. The petition says :
The wholesale importations o£ college graduates from American- schools has been effected, said graduates possessing absolutely no experience nor requisite training for the responsible positions and large salaries given them.
The greatest secrecy has been adopted in filling up all the survey parties in the field by large numbers of youths from American schools and none have been employed from any one of our own universities.
These imported employees are all strange to the existing conditions of this country, and their work performed east of Winnipeg has totalled an expenditure largely in excess of work done over similar ground by Canadians ; in addition to this these surveys were in most cases worthless.
It seems to me that the importance of tl.ds charge lies in the fact that it is made by a Canadian society of engineers. I should attach hardly any importance to such a statement If it were made by persons not actually and practically in touch with this work. The petition goes on :
Winnipeg from its. central position in the Dominion has been made the main recruiting ground and focussing point for the immigration of American youths as draughtsmen, and even stenographers have been imported from the United States and been pressed into service in place of Canadians and local men, willing and competent to fill the positions, and at a time when, owing to the long and arctic winter, such work would greatly assist and provide support for local men.
Many thousands of dollars worth of surveying instruments and supplies, manufactured in the United States have been brought for the use of the engineering department and 33 per cent duty paid theron, but not one bona fide British or Canadian manufacturer has been asked to tender for same.
We mention this fact particularly for the reason that the spending power of one hundred Mr. PUTTEE.
and fifty millions of dollars will be P'ace „ry the hands of these men who will use e effort to monopolize the control of this e mous sum, involving thereby great loss ana triment to the people of this Dominion.
The petition then goes on to call a^te^s tion to other things, such, for instance, Q that free passes are given to men come from the other side of the line, s j, of whom travel thousands of miles to re ' the scene of their work, while the men who are engaged in Canada, e it they have to travel from east to far west, must pay their own travelling t "	" most m1J
ponses-apparently a case of
,etiif
discrimination. The conclusion of the P tion reads :
Your petitioners earnestly believe that investigated, the above statements ® but can not only be thoroughly substantiated*.^ that it will also become evident that tlie.?elltlf railroad scheme is being exploited (ev_iustv'e unknown to your government) for the exc benefit of American engineers, A.merican t„ tractors and American interests in gene 'na-the exclusion, if possible, of everything .>iat dian or British, and your petitioners Pray oUr you will earnestly take this matter int^ most serious consideration at an .early u We have the honour to be, sir,
. Your obedient servants,
THE DOMINION INSTITUTE OF AMAUO' ^ MATED ENGINEER
for	rth'veSl'
British Columbia, Manitoba and No Territories.
Per GEO L. GRIFFITH  .@: agreement first, and insisting tliat their followers support that agreement as something hy which the country is already bound, -to the extent to which the executive may bind parliament,-have taken an unwarranted course. The difference between the two courses is so vast that no minister could hope to have passed through this House, in the form in which it was passed, the Bill of last session. This subject is treated of by Mr. Todd, in volume 1 of his well-known work, where after discussing certain methods by which the executive is allowed certain rights of quasi-legislation by the issue of Orders in Council, minutes of committees of council, and departmental regulations, he says :
There are certain forms of procedure, of ordinary occurrence in the administration of public affairs by the ministers of the Crown, which need to be strictly confined within constitutional limits, lest they should become the instruments of oppression or misgovernment. These are The issue of Orders in Council and royal proclamations ; and of minutes of committees of council and other departmental regulations; and (in the next chapter) legislation by public departments ; and the entering into contracts by government departments for the public service.
He then gives a history of the contest which took place in the imperial parliament-with regard to the length to which the executive might go in the way of this quasi legislation, and shows that that parliament, after a long discussion on the question, adopted certain standing orders by which parliament was afterwards guided. He says, at page 488 ;
An important question-kin in principle to that which has been just considered-has arisen of late years with regard to contracts, to be entered into between any department of the executive government and other parties, for the performance of any work or service, the undertaking of which has been, or may afterwards be, authorized by parliament. It is manifest that the responsibility of entering into such contracts properly rests upon the executive alone. But it is equally clear that the government have no constitutional authority to make a contract which shall be binding on the House of Commons, by whom the necessary funds for carrying on the contract must be supplied ; and that the consent of parliament should be first obtained to all new contracts.
At page 492, speaking again with regard to the standing orders to which I have alluded, and which were made in consequence of certain contracts with reference to ocean postal service which had been the subject of discussion in the House, and with respect to which the authority of ministers who had made them had been questioned, the author continues :
Though confined, in the letter, to a particular class of contracts, the above-mentioned resolution,-requiring that parliament shall be notified of the intention of the government to enter into contracts which involve prospective expenditure, not limited to the service of the current financial year-embodies a principle which is susceptible of general application.


Mr. ALCORN.: That is a striking instance ; and it seems to me that the matter under discussion discloses a no less flagrant departure from proper methods.
The second ground which I propose to urge, very shortly, with regard to this measure, is that the scheme ought not to have been brought down until it had been examined and reported on by the transportation commission or some similar board. Hon. gentlemen are aware that, for over three years, this government had been promising the country the appointment of a commission to be composed of master minds on Questions of transportation, the best experts whose services could be secured. Presumably the recommendations of expert minds of that description given after the most minute inquiry into the whole subject, would be a most valuable state document. We should then have precisely what hon. gentlemen on this side of the House have always been asking for ; full information. We on tl.'is side of the House have never stated that there should be no railway, or that a railway should not be constructed over a route to some extent approaching that described by the government though under very widely different conditions. But we have said, we continue to say, and we must say' in the future, that we consider it impolitic, unwise and. improper to call upon the parliament of Canada to vote means ior the enormous expenditures which this scheme will involve without one particle of adequate information upon the thousand and one points which present themselves for consideration, and of which the members of the House should be seized before they are called upon to exercise their judgment by way of voting either for or againslt the scheme presented. If that commission had been appointed ; if it had taken evidence, as it was represented that it would, if it had examined all phases of the transportation question, we should have had full information. We were told that they were to examine the entire question of transportation by land and by water-transcontinental and other. That is what the country expected. On the 9th of May last, this government issued an Order in Council very full/, very wisely and very adequately dealing with the entire question, promising the appointment of this commission, prescribing the purview of its duties, and stating that upon the report of the commissioners it was hoped the government would be able to take adtion with regard to the transportation interests of Canada. The members of this House and the electors of Canada relied as they had a right to do, upon the representations made in that Order in Council. It seems to me, in the light ci subsequent events, that this Order dealing with the transportation question in the intelligent manner in which it did, was, in all probability, the product of the gentle- J man who subsequently left the government


George Oscar Alcorn: 
Mr ALCORN.: 
Mr.  E. B.@: Borron, on page 70, says .
He expresses the opinion
This is evidently a summary written by somebody else, probably by some official of the government.
He expresses the opinion that a tract of dry and fertile land extends across the territory from east to west not less than 400 miles l0"S and 50 miles wide, comprising 20,000 square miles or 12,800,000 acres. Making every reas<oii-able deduction for lakes, marshes, swamp , muskegs and unarable land, a very large quan
tity is fit for settlement, '^"o? husbandry favourable to a mixed system of husbandly ,
stock-raising and dairy iaimiut, most successful.
The summary thus continues . there
Enable river than on any other, the Keno-garni excepted.
go we find these Ontario surveyors brought back wliat no doubt they knew



Company for the carrying out of this great enterprise. But, Sir, I admit that m one respect we are fortunate. We are fortunate in this, that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition spoke and concluded by putting his ideas in the shape of au amendment. We are fortunate in this, because, in my humble judgment, and again in this I place myself in the judgment of the House, the best justification, the fullest vindication that we can have as to the policy for which we are now asking the support of the House is the very speech and especially the amendment made by my hon. friend. I must say at once, however, that I would not pronounce this ' encomium upon the whole policy introduced by my hon. friend because the policy of my hon. friend, as it has been embodied and crystallized into the amendment which he has submitted to the House and upon which we shall be called upon to vote in a few minutes, is like the coat of Joseph. It is of many colours. There are more hues in it than in the rainbow, but like the rainbow it is evanescent, fluid. It has been designed and devised to give pleasure to one corporation, to give hope to some of the friends of my hon. friend and to prevent some from falling from discouragement into despair. There is in it enough not to close the door altogether to the friends of my hon. friend in the maritime provinces because my hon. friend, in regard to the Moncton branch, says that he will have no objection to the building of it provided the grades are sufficient. There is in it something to give some hope, at any rate not to discourage absolutely, the friends of my hon. friend in the province of Quebec because he says that he is ready to build the section between Quebec and Winnipeg provided the land is found of o-ood quality. But, there is everything in it to give the most pleasant anticipations to the shareholders and directors of the Canadian Pacific Railway. It is not necessary at this time that I should review the whole policy of my hon. friend. It will be sufficient if I dwell upon one or two particulars. First, let me say that my hon. friend does not object to the Grand Trunk building a railway across the prairies. He is quite satisfied that the present System of the Grand Trunk Railway Company should go into the prairies and there help t0 develop that great growing country, taking its share of the traffic, but my hon. friend objects, and to this I call especially the attention of the House, that the Grand Trunk Railway should reach the praine by a line which it can control itself. The plan of my hon. friend is that the Grand Trunk Railway should reach the prairie by using the line of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The plan of my hon. friend is that the government and the people of Canada out of their own resources and tuxes should buy the part of the line of the Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
Canadian Pacific Railway from >>oi ,.'e to Fort William, improve it and thus i ^ a highway that can be used by a ,g ways, including the Grand Trunk. is a proposition so extraordinary . n(j to do no injustice to my hon. 1 it
i-O <X JI1. UjA/OlllUll	


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: The same place as
now.	,
WILFRID LAURIER. My horn friend (Mr Hughes) says : the same place as nowfand I think him for the interruption.

Let it be understood then that from this moment, the Canadian parliament and the Canadian nation, have to choose between the plan of the leader of the opposition, which would force the Grand Trunk to carry its freight on the Canadian Pacific Railway line from Winnipeg to North Bay, and thence to American ports ; and the. plan which we propose that we should have a line of our own, every inch of it in Canadian territory, and carrying the trade to Canadian seaports.


Samuel Hughes: It would still go to Portland.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: 
Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.	p0t


Wilfrid Laurier: 
Mr R. L. BORDEN.: 
Wilfrid Laurier: 
Mr It L BORDEN.: Does my right hon.
f,lend wish me to answer now?
Si,' WILFRID LAURIER. My hon. friend

i04i
of explaining wliat he means. 1 or my part I have read his speech carefully, and I must say-it may he my fault and I shall be glad to be illuminated-if he will explain how, having brought the freight from the west to North Bay, he can send it on to St. John and Halifax, over the Grand Trunk, I will be glad to hear him.
Mr. *R. L. BORDEN. 1 am quite ready to give the answer.


Wilfrid Laurier: 
Mr.   R.@: 101S
to ocean, such as we have imposed upon them, but it was, as stated by my hon. friend from East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) simply to build a railway from North Bay to the west. But, Sir, we told the Grand Trunk that for that proposition, for the building of a railway from North Bay to the Pacific Ocean, so long as the present government was in office, they could not have a dollar of public money for such a line. We told them we were anxious to have their railway extended into the prairie country, that we were anxious that their immense system, connecting as it does with all parts of old Canada, having a station in every city, town and village in Ontario and Quebec, should have connection with the Northwest. We told them we were anxious to have them extend, to take their share of the trade of the growing country in the west and to help in the development or it. But we told them that the trade collected from that section would have to be taken not to Portland, as on their old system, but must be taken over a new system every inch of which should be upon Canadian territory, to tide water in the maritime provinces. That is the policy imposed upon them ; that is the policy upon which we stood then, it is the policy upon which we stand now ; and upon that policy-I declare .it as the head of the party-upon that policy we stand or fall.
Upon that policy we stand or fall. But fall we shall not. The heart of the people is with us.


An hon. MEMBER.: Oh, oh.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not care lot the jibes that may come from the other side of the House. Blind is he who does not read the signs of the times. Blind is he who does not realize that the Canadian people have made up their mind that they will have another transcontinental railway.
Fifty years ago, when the Grand Trunk was first projected the terminus -was in the city of Montreal. But the harbour of Montreal, unfortunately, is closed with ice for five months in the year. An extension [DOT]had to lie made somewhere, to some Atlantic port. Where should it be ? There was Portland within 300 miles of Montreal, but in foreign territory. There were Halifax and St. John almost double that distance away but in British territory. Where should the winter terminus be ? It was decided, unfortunately, so go to Portland and not to St. John or Halifax. The railway should have been extended then, as it was extended afterwards, by the building of the Intercolonial.
And instead of sending the railway to a foreign port it should have been sent to what was not then a Canadian but was a British port. This was not done. There were men at that time as there are now on Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
the other side of the House, biased a perjudiced and with a false idea of econoffi. [DOT] It was cheaper to send the road to Portlan' and this was done; a great mistake wasma commercially and politically, chiefly P01 _ cally. Then the Grand Trunk Railway w* extended westerly to Chicago, and so it pens that the Grand Trunk, the company which has more of Canadian traffic ta any other company and which to-day " its foothold in every city, town and vim * of Ontario and Quebec, has both its . mini in foreign territory. We represent to the Grand Trunk that these errors ot past must be corrected. We represented them that they must become a national co puny, that they must extend their line to Northwest, to the prairie country and . come here a great factor in the develops of our national life, but that the same they must build eastward to tide water Canadian territory. Our voice was heedc.j the project has been accepted, and thei is now for confirmation or rejection by * gt Canadian parliament. Friend and foeIU admit that during the last fifty years t Grand Trunk Railway has done a 8 .je>
deal for the development of Canadian t But it is nothing but the truth to say g during the next fifty years the Grand J-1 p will do more for that development tha has done in the past. It will no a foreign company ; it will become a dian company with its termini at Cana , ports on both oceans, at ,Port Simpson ^ at St. John, Halifax and Quebec, and years from'to-day, no, less than fifty, 1,1 fifteen or twenty years we shall * another transcontinental railway, f* jjn-inch of it in Canadian territory, with ^ mense terminals on both the Pacific *	.
the Atlantic, with the trade flowing g it, not of Canada alone, but of E!lS t0. Asia towards Europe, and of Europe j wards Asia. This is the statement win te make to the House ; this is the man * which I have to give to the House a'1 ^g. the people, and I repeat what I said 8* lflj ment ago, upon that policy of a na ^el-railway from east to west on Canadiai ritory, we stand or we fall.	,


Adam Carr Bell: 
Mr. COCHRANE.: severed.
And cannot be au-


Mr.   BULL@: ehiinds me of a story of a gentleman ho had a guest to whom he offered a bottle Wine. He said 'This is very good f'he; it is twenty-five years old.' The !,,!end, who had a good appreciation o.. '"'e, looked at it and said, ' Well, it striker e that it is very small for its age.' Now, it 'h'ikes me that the amount of evidence
*hich
* me uiai. liiv	

Gilmour,	Thomson (Grey),
Hackett,	Tolton,
Halliday,	Vrooman,
Henderson,	Ward,
Hughes (Victoria),	Wilmot, and
Ingram,	, Wilson.-61.
Johnston (Cardwell),	
NAYS :	
Messieurs	
Angers,	Law,
Archambault,	LeBlanc,
Bazinet,	Lemieux,
Beland,	Logan,
Bickerdike,	Loy,
Bianchet,	Macdonald,
Borden (Sir Fred'k),	Maekie,
Bourassa,	MacKinnon,
Bourbonnais,	Maclaren (Huntingdon),
Brodeur,	Macpherson,
BrUneau,	McCarthy,
Bureau,	McColl.
Calvert,	McCool,
Campbell,	McCreary,
Carbonmeau,	McGugan,
Champagne,	Mclsaac,
Christie,	McLennan,
Copp,	Marcil (Bagot),
Costigan,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Cowan,	Matheson,
Delisle,	Mayrand,
Demers (Ldvis),	Meigs,
Demers (St. John),	Mignault,
Desjardins,	Monet,
Douglas,	Morrison,
Emmerson,	Murray,
Ethier,	Oliver,
Fielding, .	Parmelee, .
Fisher,	Paterson,
Fitzpatrick,	Power,
Fortier,	Prefontaine,
Gallery,	Proulx
Galliher,	Puttee,
Gauvreau,	Reid (Restigouche),
Geoffrion,	Riley,
German,	Rivet,
Gervais,	Roche (Halifax),
Gibson,	Ross (Rimouski),
Girard,	Ross i victoria, N.S.),
Gould,	Ross (Yukon),
Grant,	Rousseau,
Guthrie,	Russell,
Harty,	Schell, '
Harwood,	Scott,
Haszard,	Sifton,
Heyd,	Sinclair,
Holmes,	Smith (Vancouver),
Hughes (King's, P.E.I.),	Stephens,
Hyman,	Stewart,
Johnston (Cape Breton),Sutherland (Essex),	
Johnston (Lambton),	Talbot,
Kendall,	Thompson
Lang,	(Haldimand & Monck)
Lapointe,	Tobin,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),	Tolmie,
Laurier (L'Assomption),Tucker,	
Lavergne	Turcot,
(Drummond & Arth.),Wade, and	
Lavergne (Montmagny),	Wallace.-116.
PAIRS :	
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Davis,	Boyd,
Beith,	Brock, * i
Brown,	Ball,
Lewis,	Tisdale,
Ross (Ontario),	Hale,
Dyment,
Erb,
Cartwright,
Wright,
Mulock,
Dugas,
McEwen,
Sutherland (Hon. J.), Turgeon,
Lovell,
Malouin,
Charlton,
McCormick,
Maclean,
Tupper,
Rosamond,
Northrup,
Tarte,
Sherritt,
Haggart,
Robinson (North'd), Roddick,
McIntosh,
Kendry.
Amendment negatived.


Mr. SPEAKER.: X declare the motion carried on the same division reversed.


Arthur W. Puttee: I object to having ^ motion carried on the same division versed, because if it is put to the vote * must vote against the motion also. .
House went into committee on the PrCr posed resolution.
Progress reported.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved the adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: 
Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 1.55 a.m., Thursday.
[Stage Direction]
Thuesday, April 21, l^O-*-