1904-05-25

Mr.  B. B.@: LAW (Yarmouth) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 119) to amend the Canada Temperance Act.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Will the hon. gentleman kindly explain ?


Mr. LAW.: The amendment proposed in the Bill is very simple indeed ; it gives the convicting magistrate the power to- imprison with or without hard labour, whereas, unde? the Canada Temperance Act as it at present stands, the magistrate can only sentence without hard labour.


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


Mr. SAM. HUGHES asked :: 1.	Was any arrangement arrived at between the government and the people, or the municipality of Carden township, in Victoria county, in relation to a grant of money to the township, in lieu of a bridge over the seventh concession ?
2.	What was the amount of money involved in the transaction ?
3.	To whom was the money paid ?
4.	Were the ratepayers of the township cpn-sulted in the matter ?
5.	By whom was this money expended, and how ?
6.	What would have been the cost of a high-level bridge over the canal at the seventh concession ?
7.	Is the government aware that many of the electors concerned were never consulted in the matter ?
8.	Is it the intention of the government to construct a bridge over the canal at this concession road 7


Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 
GLEN ROSS POSTMASTER.
Mr. PORTER asked :: 1.	Has the post office at Glen Ross, Ontario, been abolished or closed ?
2.	If so, what was the cause thereof ?
3.	Did the postmaster resign, or was he dismissed ?
4.	What reason was assigned, or what cause was found ?
5.	Was any person named or recommended by the late postmaster as his successor for the remainder of his term ? If so, whom ?
6.	Were the necessary bonds or other papers forwarded for signature by any person to continue such office, and to entitle him to assume the duties of such office ?
7.	If so, why were such persons not allowed to execute such papers and assume the duties of such office ?
8.	Was any communication had or received from B. O. Lott, Esq., or any other person or persons, in regard to such office ? If so, what was the nature of such communication, and where and from whom was it received ?


Hon.   S@: The post office at Glen Ross, Ontario, has been closed owing to the fact that the postmaster resigned and almost immediately afterwards left the place. No person was suggested by the postmaster as his successor, and no papers were forwarded by the department to any person for signature in connection with the office. No letter has been received at the department from Mr. B. O. Lott, or any other person, in regard to the office.


STOCK ISSUED BY C.P.R.
Mr.  J. J.@: HUGHES-by Mr. Calvert-asked :
1.	What is the amount of stock, ordinary and preferred, issued by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company ?
2.	When was such stock issued, and under what authority ?
3.	What was the amount of the bond issue of the said railway ?


Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 
SALE OF LANDS TO MR. BOSTOCK.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. CASGRAIN-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	Have any lands in British Columbia, owned by the government, been sold, leased, or rented to Mr. Hewitt Bostock, of Ducks, B.C. ?
2.	If so, how many acres, and where are they situated ?
3.	At what price per acre were the lands sold, leased or rented ?
4.	If leased or rented, for what length of time ?
5.	Are the lands agricultural or grazing lands ?
G. Was any report on these lands received by the government prior to the selling, leasing or renting ; and if so, from whom ?
Hon. CLIFFORD SIFTON (Minister of the Interior) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	607 98 acres, agricultural lands, were sold to Mr. Bostock. Of this area, 153-40 acres were sold at $2.50 per acre and the balance at $5 per acre. These lands are situate in the railway belt in British Columbia, west of the 6th principal meridian. Mr. Bostock was granted a lease for grazing purposes, the area of which is 8,813 8 acres. These lands consisted of parts of township 19, range 15 ; township 19, range 14 ; and township 20, range 14, all west of the 6th.
3.	The grazing lands are leased at a rental of 2 cents per acre per annum. The agricultural lands were sold at the prices mentioned in answer No. 2.
4.	The lease is for a term of twenty-one years from 1st June, 1903.
5.	The lands sold are agricultural, the lands leased are grazing lands.
6.	A report upon the grazing lands was received from the inspector of the Kamloops land district before the lease was granted, which showed that they were not fit for any other purpose than the grazing of stock. No report is necessary in regard to agricultural lands when sold at the regulation price of $5 an acre. Mr. Bostock was permitted to purchase 153-40 acres (part of land sale No. 699) at $2.50 an acre as the assignee of the original claimant, who was entitled to purchase the land at that rate, being the regulation price of land at the time he Made application.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-DISMISSAL OF EMPLOYEES.
Mr. RALPH SMITH asked :: 1.	Were Fabien Leger and F. B. Wood ever employed in any capacity ou or about the Intercolonial Railway at Moncton, N.B. ?
2.	When was each one employed, and in what capacity ?


Mr. EMMERSON.: 3.	Are they still in the employment of the Intercolonial Railway ?
4.	If not, when w-ere they dismissed, and why ?
5.	Were any complaints made to Mr. Pottin-ger, or to Mr. King, or to any other official of the Intercolonial Railway, or to the Minister of Railways, about either of these men ?
6.	If any complaints were made, what w-ere they, and when were they made ?
7.	What action, if any, was taken on the complaints ?
8.	Were the complaints communicated to Leger or to Wood, and what response or explanation, if any, w-as made by Leger or Wood ?
9.	If they were dismissed, upon whose order were they dismissed ?
10.	Has any request been made by either of the men, or by any one else, for the reason for their discharge ? If so, what reason or reasons w-as or were given, and by whom ?
11.	Was either man incompetent for the position he filled ?
12.	Has any report been made to the Minister of Railways, or to Mr. Pottinger, or to any other official of the Intercolonial Railway, upon the cases of these tw-o men ?
13.	Was Mr. Pottinger, or Mr. King (the master car-builder at Moncton), consulted upoD the competency of either Leger or Wood, before or since their dismissal ?
14.	Are political reasons allowed to operate as an excuse for discharging government employees whose competency is not in question ?
15.	Does the Minister of Railways consider Leger and Wood entitled to be told the reason or reasons, for their discharge ?
16.	Had the membership of Leger and Wood in trade union organizations anything to do with their dismissal ?
17.	^ Was the Minister of Railways asked for an investigation into the causes of the <Jis-missal of Leger and Wood, and by whom * What reply was given to the request ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Fabien Leger and F. B. Wood were employed in connection with the Intercolonial Railway shops at Moncton. The first named w-as employed on 4th September, 1893, in the. capacity of car repairer, and the second named was employed on 22nd February, 1882, in the capacity of a blacksmith's helper.
The services of these men were recently dispensed with for the reason that it was considered their further employment was not in the interests of the railway.
In view of the large number of men seeking employment and securing it, the management claim that their services may be dispensed with as occasion may demand without an investigation being conceded in individual cases. If any other policy w-ere adopted it would mean a continued series of investigations, with constant applications for reasons for dismissals. This would not 0e desirable in the interests of the railw-ay, of the public or of the men themselves! Employment is sought and obtained at the risk of the applicant, and there is no presumption that it shall be continued.
In the case of F. B. Wood, an application w as made by the Trades and Labour Coun-

cil of Moncton, by telegram dated the 20tli April last, for the cancellation, pending investigation of the dismissal which had taken place. The reply was in the nature of the answer which has been given in the preceding paragraph.
The question of labour organizations is in no sense involved in these dismissals.



RAILWAY ACCOMMODATION IN THE NORTHWEST.

Mr. WALTER SCOTT.: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are proceeded with, I wish to read to the House a telegram dated May 19th, which I received on Friday morning iast following the adjournment. It is addressed to myself, and reads as follows :-
Regina, N.W.T., May 19.
Walter Scott, M.P.,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
Last night at 8 o'clock the first work train crossed the valley at Lumsden, and this morning three special trains with bridge gangs and construction material left here for Saskatoon. Superintendent Brownlee certainly did remarkable work in getting the Lumsden break repaired much quicker than anybody had expected.
To-morrow (Friday) first passenger through train will go out and the road opened for settlers' effects and seed grain. Great relief.



P. M. BREDT,

[Stage Direction]
After the discussion which has taken place in the House within recent weeks upon the conditions which were brought about through the traffic tie-up on the Prince Albert Branch Railway, it is perhaps only fair that the House should be made acquainted with the fact that the western management of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company are entitled to great credit for the vigour with which they have taken measures to repair that extensive break ; and to Superintendent Brownlee, who, I am advised personally supervised the work of repair at Lumsden, and worked almost incessantly night and day until the break was repaired, a special recognition is due. While on my feet, I wish to read to the House a very brief statement upon the subject made by second Vice-president Whyte, of Winnipeg. I taken this from the Winnipeg 1 Free Press ' of Saturday last:
A large deputation of wholesale men, members of the board of trade, interviewed Mr. W. Whyte yesterday in response to a request from Prince Albert Board of Trade. The deputation urged strongly on Mr. Whyte that no delay should be allowed in opening the Prince Albert branch for business, as considerable freight absolutely required by the settlers and shipped from Winnipeg in March, has not yet reached its destination at points along that line. In some cases cars of goods, such as seeders, will be positively unsaleable this year, and will have to be carried for twelve months.
Mr. Whyte stated that the line was now open for delivery of freight to the broken bridge over the Saskatchewan, and that the neces-
Henry Robert Emmerson: sary material and machinery was now on the ground and "work "would he vigorously prosecuted. Officials expect the bridge to be ready for business in ten days. The company are ferrying from six to eight carloads a day at Saskatoon, settler's effects being given first preference. Mr. Whyte stated he had prepared a list of improvements, such as raising the grade at low points, that would have to be made by the owners of the road and in case the owning company failed to do this, the Canadian Pacifie Railway would hand the road over to the owners for operating themselves.
This statement, of course, requires no further comment.



GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the third reading of Bill (No. 72), to amend the National Transcontinental Railway Act.
Mr. G. A. CLARE (South Waterloo).: Mr. Speaker, a few evenings ago I gave notice to the House that I intended to move an amendment to the Bill which is now before the House ; and in the few remarks I have to make, I intend to speak as closely to the question as possible. A year ago, when this measure was before the House, I placed myself on record as opposed to the contract made by the government with the Grand Trunk Pacific Company. I also had the pleasure of making a few remarks in op-, position to the measure. I was and still am in favour of the extension of the Intercolonial Railway to the Georgian bay, and also to the Northwest and Pacific ocean. The government would then be in a position to control for all time the freight rates from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and vice versa. I believe it would be in the interest of the whole of the people of Canada to have government ownership of railways in this country, just as many other countries have it. The amended Bill which has been under discussion this session has postponed the government ownership of railways for fifty years longer than the Bill of last year. Under that Bill the Grand Trunk Pacific Company had the privilege of running the proposed road for fifty years. The amended Bill of this year gives them the privilege of running it for fifty years longer if they see fit ; so that this company will have control of this road for the next hundred years, and the public ownership of railroads will be put off for that length of time.
Before saying anything directly upon the question of the Alien Labour Law, I wish to state that I am in favour of a good immigration policy. I am in favour of bringing good, honest people from European countries to settle in our Northwest and to assist in developing the immense territories we have there. On the 13th of May last, we had a discussion in this House brought on by the hon. Minister of Labour (Sir William Mu-lock) regarding .the complaint of the civil

engineers of Canada that preference was given to foreign engineers on the surveys of the Grand Trunk Pacific. I do not know why the hon. minister chose that particular evening to bring on the discussion, unless he wished to bring it on before a thin House. On Friday evening a great many members as a rule, leave for home, and the hon. minister probably thought fit to take advantage of their absence and thus avoid the full discussion which would have taken place had the subject come up on another day. The hon. the leader of the opposition had made a motion asking for copies of letters and documents from the civil engineers, and the Minister of Labour knew that he had not done his duty when he failed to investigate the complaints which these men had laid before the government, and was anxious to avoid discussion as much ns .passible. But if the debate turned out disastrous to himself and his party, as it did, he has only himself to blame. In Ids attempt at defence, he tried to draw a herring across the trail by making a most unjustifiable and unfair attack on the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke). The course of that hon. gentleman on the labour question needs no defence, if there is a man who has stood by the labouring classes, it is the hon. member for West Toronto. He has not played to the galleries, as is the custom of the Minister of Labour, and as that minister did the other night when tie read the letters from the civil engineers. For many years that hon. gentleman was in this House before he became a minister of the Crown, and in ail these years he cannot show that he ever had anything to say in the interests of the labouring classes. But take the record of the hon. memker for West Toronto, and yon will find that for over thirty years he has been continuously identified with the labour	interests	of this	country.	Hegave his	energetic	aid to	the men tovindicate their right to organize themselves into	unions,	and that at a	timewhen the	political	friends	of the	Minister of Labour and his party were trying to crush the unions by sending men to jail, including the hon. member for West Toronto himself ; and never under any circumstances, was he known to have received one cent of money from any labour union for his services.
When the Minister of Labour charges my hon. friend with having made his living out of a labour commission, he makes a charge which he must know to be thoroughly unwarranted in fact. My hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) has had conferred upon him by the citizens of Toronto the highest honour at their command. In that city, where he is best known, he has had the honour of being elected mayor during four consecutive years ; in the Ontario legislature, he represented the city of Toronto during eight years ; and at the last election 109
he polled the largest vote obtained by anv candidate elected to this House and obtained the largest majority gained by any hon. member in the province of Ontario. I venture to assert that my hon. friend, who is a printer, and who knows the needs of the working men of this country, has done more to alleviate their condition since he has been a member of this House than the Minister of Labour and the cabinet which he belongs to ever dreamt of accomplishing. Does the Minister of Labour forget that it was the hon. member for West Toronto who brought up in this House year after year, the question of remuneration of the civil service ? Does he forget that it was my hon. friend who was the first to raise his voice in the interests of the trackmen of the Grand Trunk Railway, who were getting from ninety cents to one dollar per day ? And if the government have appointed an officer to examine into and report on the causes of all railway accidents in which life is lost, who was it that impressed on the government the necessity of doing this ? It was my hon. friend ; it was he who first brought that matter to the attention of this House. In connection with the civil engineers, the Minister of Labour tried to defend the work he had done. Last session the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) openly declared that the great majority of the civil engineers employed to make the surveys of the Grand Trunk Railway in the Northwest were Americans and aliens. Yet still the Minister of Labour has the assurance to ask what hon. members on this side have done for the workingmen. But, Mr. Speaker, it is not the duty of this side of the House to carry out the laws. It is to the government that duty is entrusted, and when this matter was brought up before the Minister of Labour a year ago, he should have taken some action to have an investigation and find out whether the report made by my hon. friend from North Victoria was correct. The hon. Finance Minister who was then acting Minister of Railways declared in the House a few evenings ago that he wrote to Mr. Hays that these complaints had been made and that Mr. Hays denied that they had any foundation. The Minister of Railways, or the acting Minister of Railways, even spoke to Mr. Hays, and Mr. Hays again denied that they had any aliens employed on the surveys. I bring these matters up to show that the Minister of Labour must have known practically the charges that were made, yet he took no action until the 19th of April to investigate whether they were true or false. Last January the Canadian Association of Civil Engineers wrote to different members of the cabinet, making these charges, ana in March they offered to the government to prove their truth, if the government would give them a chance to can witnesses. But all the minister did was write to the
ItEVISED EDITION-

Grand Trunk to find out wfietfier tney were employing aliens or not.
The Grand Trunk did not deny the charge, but sought to disarm criticism. A concern that will bring aliens into Canada under contract to labour, if it is willing to break the law in this respect, will be quite ready to make excuses for its action. In one of the communications from Mr. Hays written, not to the Minister of Labour (Sir William Muloclr), but to the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) Mr. Hays acknowledges the fact that aliens have been brought in to be employed in the service of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. That letter stated that 96 per cent of these employees were Canadians, and the others were Americans. Here in this very letter is all the proof required by the Minister of Labour (Sir William Mulockl if he really desired to put the law into effect. The other evening the Minister of Labour inquired tauntingly what bon. members on this side of the House had done to bring this matter to the attention of the House and the government. Well, Mr. Speaker, the House met on 10th March, and on the 15th March, the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) gave notice of motion for a return as follows :
For a return showing :-
X. The number and names of all persons employed by the government or otherwise in surveys for the purposes of the eastern division of the proposed Transcontinental Railway.
2.	The date of the employment of each such person, his salary, the nature and term of his employment, and the portion of the survey on which he has been employed ?
3.	Whether such person was so employed by the government ; and if not, by whom ?
4.	The nationality of each such person, and
his place of residence previous to such employment.	'	<*!
On March 17th the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) gave notice of this inquiry :
Have any protests been received from or on behalf of the Society of Canadian Civil Engineers, or from any person or persons, respecting the employment of aliens on the surveys being made in connection with the proposed National Transcontinental Railway ; and if so, from whom were such protests received, and when were they presented to the government ?	.
The Minister of Labour must have known all this, as these complaints were laid before every member of the cabinet; and surely, they tell each other what letters they receive -sometimes at any rate. On March 22nd the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) gave notice of inquiry :
1.	Is the government aware that survey parties are at work along the route of the proposed Transcontinental Railway between Winnipeg and Quebec ?
2.	Are these parties employed by the government or by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company ?


Mr. CLARE.: 3.	If by the railway company, is there any understanding that the government will adopt the surveys, and pay the expenses incurred in making them ?
4.	In case the cost will ultimately be met by the government, is it not possible to take some steps to remedy the grievances, if such exist, as set out in the petition received by the Minister of Railways from the Dominion Institute of Amalgamated Engineers ?
5.	Have any such steps been taken ?
Still, nothing was done. On the 23rd of March the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) gave notice of the following question :
1.	What answer, if any, has been made to the protest received by the government on the 16th March, 1904, from the Dominion Institute ot Amalgamated Engineers, respecting the employment of aliens on the surveys being made in connection with the National Transcontinental Railway ?
2.	Have any instructions been issued by the Department of Labour ? And if so, on what date, and of what nature, respecting the eif-forcement of the Alien Labour Law by the deporting of aliens, alleged to be employed on the surveys being made in connection with the National Transcontinental Railway ?
3.	Is it the intention of the government, in its new agreement with the Grand Trunk Railway Company, to provide for the employment of British subjects, as surveyors and engineers, in the work of surveying and construction of the new Transcontinental Railway ?
And so we see that day after day, this matter was brought before the Minister of Labour and still no action was taken by him. On the oth April the House began the discussion of the motion to go into committee on the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Bill, and on the following day the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) gave notice of the following question :
1.	Has the Minister of Labour received any communication from Mr. George L. Griffith, ot Winnipeg, provincial secretary for Manitoba of the Dominion of Canada Institute of Amalgamated Engineers, calling attention to the number of aliens employed on the surveys of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, and giving the names of aliens employed in connection with such work at Winnipeg and Edmonton ?
2.	When was such communication received ?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to take action upon Mr. Griffith's communication, and to order the deportation of the aliens complained of ?
That, Mr. Speaker, was on Cth April. Xo action whatever was taken upon it. On 11th April the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) gave notice of this inquiry :
1. Has the Minister of Labour received from the Dominion of Canada Institute of Amalgamated Engineers a request for the deportation of the following men, brought into Canada under contract by the Grand Trunk or the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company ?
Then follows the list of names which it it is not necessary that I should read. And the question proceeds :
2.	What reply has been given to the request ?
3.	Has the minister taken any steps to ascertain the total number of men imported under contract from the United States in connection with the survey of the proposed Transcontinental Railway ?
The Minister of Labour did absolutely nothing even after all these inquiries. On 25th April the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) gave notice of motion, and this was the first thing that led the minister to take some action in this matter, for it seems that, after this, at least a communication was addressed to Mr. Hays of the Grand Trunk Railway making inquiry on this subject. The notice of motion given by the leader of the opposition was as follows :
For copies of all letters, correspondence, memorials, petitions and documents, in the possession of the government, relating to the employment, or requesting the employment, by the Grand Trunk Railway Company, or by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, of British subjects as engineers in the surveying and construction of the proposed National Transcontinental Railway ; and generally, all correspondence and documents in the possession of the goverment, in any way complaining ot, or protesting against, the employment of aliens as engineers in railway surveying or construction on the line of the proposed National Transcontinental Railway.
On April 27tli the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Ralph Smith) gave notice of motion for return as follows :
For a statement showing the names of all American aliens employed in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific surveys in Canada ; the nature of their employment, and the reasons for their employment, to the exclusion of Canadians. *	|
You will notice. Mr. Speaker, that, in this notice of motion the hon. member for Vancouver takes it for granted-no doubt knowing it to be true-that aliens were being employed by the Grand Trunk Railway in making surveys on this line. I bare a letter here signed on behalf of the Dominion Institute of Amalgamated Engineering, for Manitoba, Northwest Territories and British Columbia to the Minister of Railways, in which the charges are made and reiterated. They also say in this letter that there are any number of civil engineers in Canada out of employment, a great many more than were required by the Grand Trunk Pacific Company.
Men trained and experienced in railroad engineering work are now employed in subordinate commercial positions here at inferior remuneration, who are anxious to secure engineering work, but could not do so and were compelled to resort to some other means of securing a living and maintaining their families.
If the government will grant us a commission of inquiry with power to take evidence under oath to send for persons and papers and to incur all necessary cost and sit on the investigation Until completed, we will not only 10$H
prove every general statement made but much more.
Later in the letter there is the following quotation from a letter written to the Prime Minister by Mr. Hays :
So far as I can learn, last year ninety-five per cent (95 per cent) of the Grand Trunk Pacific staff were Canadians or British subjects. It is represented that of the entire staff of ninety-four (94) last session, eighty-nine (89) were Canadians.
Discussing this they say :
If this statement be thoroughly and critically examined it can easily be proven to be absolutely untrue, either the Grand Trunk Pacific management are wilfully deceiving your government or the engineering oflieials are wilfully deceiving the management of the Grand Trunk Pacific.
To prove that the statement made by the Grand Trunk Pacific, that out of the entire staff of ninety-four, eighty-nine were Canadians, Is untrue, I herewith give part of the personnel of the Winnipeg and Edmonton divisions alone :
G. A. Kyle, divisional engineer, residence, 1320 North Yorkima, Avenue, Tacoma, Wash. ; G. M. Kyle, engineer, (brother of G. A. Kyle), residence, 1320 Yorkima Avenue, Tacoma, Wash. ; Allan, office engineer, residence St' Paul, Minnesota ; (a relative of G. A. Kyle or J. R. Stevens) ; Kellar, engineer, residence, Cleveland, Ohio ; J. Heaman, engineer, residence, Oklahoma ; Raymond Heckman, engineer, residence, Tacoma, Washington ; (nephew of G A. Kyle) William Meyers, engineer, residence) Portland, Oregon ; Nutting, locating engineer residence ; W. Mason, draughtsman, residence; M. H. Goodman, draughtsman (now transferred to Grand Trunk Pacific office, Montreal); Van Aradaile, divisional engineer, residence' Portland, Oregon ; McNeil, district engineer) residence. Indiana ; W. Jones, engineer residence, St. Paul, Minnesota ; Hare, engineer residence, Wisconsin ; Wm. Mann, Sr., engineer, residence, 1215 Stopple Street, Cincinnati, Ohio ; W. Mann, Jr., engineer, residence, 1215 Stopple Street, Cincinnati, Ohio ; Hicks, tran-sitman, residence, Tacoma, Washington ; Anderson, topographer, residence, Seattle, Washington.
. And several others. All these names were in the possession of the government as engineers from the other side who were brought in here to take the place of our men-our men who are willing to work-our men who are out of employment-but the Minister of Labour would not even make an investigation until a few days ago when lie telegraphed for one of these engineers to come down from Winnipeg when nearly one half of the surveying work in the Northwest had been completed.
In the year 1900, when I first became a member of this House, I had the honour to Introduce a Bill in the interests of labour. What I principally objected to and what the working people of Canada objected to was that while we had a law on our statute-books we bad no provision by which the people most Interested in the enforcement of that law could take

344S
action to secure its enforcement. As the law stood at that time no action could bd taken without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada and X considered it my duty to bring in a Bill which would enable the law to be enforced without any expense by the people who were most interested in its enforcement. I shall read a few lines from ' Hansard ' of the statement I made in this House at that time .
The object of this Bill is to provide a simple way to carry out the law now in force, which was passed in 1897. I do not believe that the mechanics and labourers of this country wish to have high-salaried officers to carry out the Act, if a more simple, efficient and economical way can he found to enforce that law. As it is at present, the Act is entierly in the hands of the government to enforce it, and I do not believe that the government has enforced it in the interest of the labouring class and mechanics of this country. On the other hand, I believe that the officers who were appointed to enforce the law were engaged more for the purpose of keeping the government and the members of the government party out of trouble than of assisting the mechanics and labouring class	 I believe that if the Bill I am now discussing were enacted, the law would be more strictly carried out, and with not one cent of expense. My Bill provides that any person, for instance, any labouring man or mechanic who is interested, should have the power to lay information before two magistrates and so enforce the law. That would not cost the country one cent, for those who are most interested, the mechanics and labouring men, would see that the law is strictly enforced. I myself have quite a number of men in my employ. In my own business I am protected from foreign competition, and I see no reason why the labouring class and mechanics in my employ and in the employ of other manufacturers of this country should not be as well protected from foreign competition as I am, especially as the people to the south of us have a law to the same effect.
Had this Bill been allowed to go through this House we would not have had any discussion of this kind at present. There would have been no aliens working on the Grand Trunk surveys, for the men who are interested, the engineers of this country would have seen that the law as provided in my Bill was enforced, and the carelessness of the Minister of Labour would not have prevented the deportation of these aliens from this country. Unfortunately the Prime Minister refused to allow my Bill to go through. He side-tracked it and brought down a Bill on behalf of the government. This Bill while to a certain extent an improvement on the original Act had the very same objection as the Bill of 1897 ; that is, it put every possible obstacle in the way in order to make it unworkable. Instead of appealing to the Attorney General of the Dominion for the enforcement of the new law it was necessary to apply to the Attorney General of the" province of Ontario for a judge before the matter could be brought before the Mr. CLARE.	'
magistrate. The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) opposed this and moved a resolution both on the first and second readings and then on the final passing of the Bill. I wish to read what he stated at that time :
When the Bill passed the committee stage, through the courtesy of the right hon. the premier, it was allowed to stand for a day or two for the third reading in order that an opportunity might be given to consult those who are deeply interested in this measure as to the efficiency of the amendments which have been made to the Alien Labour law. I have taken the liberty, since the Bill passed the committee stage, of consulting labour men who are deeply interested in this matter. I have sent them copies of * Hansard ' containing the discussion which took place in the committee ; I also sent them copies of the amendment which I suggested should be made to the Bill ; and I am authorized to say-and their opinion is in accordance with my own-that the Bill will not be as efficient an instrument as it otherwise would be if it were amended in the direction suggested, that is, to give power to police magistrate to try cases of alleged infraction of the .law. I had hoped the right hon. premier, having gone as far as he has gone in amending the Bill, would have seen his way clear to have accepted the amendment which vas-offered on two occasions. As he has not done so, I beg to move :
That the said Bill be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the committee with instructions to strike out all the words after ' fifty dollars ' in section 1, and insert the following in lieu thereof : ' Recoverable in the name of His Majesty in a summary manner with costs, under the provisions of article 58 of the Criminal Code, 1892, before any police magistrate, stipendiary magistrate, judge of session or county court judge, having jurisdiction wffiere the offender is to be found or where the offence was committed.' *
This resolution was unanimously voted down by bon. members on the other side of the House, while every hon. member on this side of the House but one, I think, voted in favour of the resolution. I wish again to say that if that resolution, moved by my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke), had been carried and if it had been added to the Bill which the right hon. leader of the government introduced, the civil engineers of the Province of Manitoba and the Northwest Territories would themselves have seen that the law was enforced and we would not have been having American, alien engineers employed upon the road. I claim, Mr. Speaker, that the Alien Labour law as it is at present is a thoroughly political enactment, and that only when party advantages are to be gained is an attempt made to enforce it. In the election in 1900 in the riding of South Waterloo, which I have the honour to represent in this House, the Alien Labour law was put in force promptly by the labour party of the government. Why was it done promptly . Because there was a political party advantage to be gained at that time, and I say

again that it is ouly for political party advantage that the Alien Labour law is put in force. There was a certain firm in the town of Preston which brought in several men from the United States and gave them employment. My opponent in the contest telegraphed to the Labour Department and immediately an officer landed in the town. These people were not written to first to find out whether the statements in regard to them were true or not as were the Grand Trunk people, but a political advantage had to be gained and immediately a man landed there and these men were put out of employment. My opponent was expected to receive the credit for this great good that the Labour Department of Canada had done to the people of Preston. It is in this way that the Labour Department is being used. But I may say that the labouring classes of the good town of Preston saw through the flimsey dodge and gave me a majority of three hundred. The resolution that I intend to move will give the Hon. Minister of Labour power to suspend the restriction of labour on the construction of the road. This is done so as not to retard the completion of the road. It, however, does not give him power to allow alien engineers to make surveys and do engineering work on the road for the following reasons :
1.	We have in abundance of qualified engineers resident in Canada who are British subjects who can do the work. Many of these men are out of employment at present.
2.	Because Canadian engineers would not be likely to discriminate against Canadian contractors and manufacturers in connection with contracts or supplies for the road.
3.	Large numbers of the leading officials of the Grand Trunk Railway are Americans and their interests, sympathies and affiliations are American rather than Canadian.
4 With American engineers in charge of this work it is only natural the interests of their countrymen will not be overlooked.
5. Canadian manufacturers and contractors will be absolutely at the mercy of these alien engineers in the interpretation of the contracts or in the awarding of orders for supplies.	.
0. Because it is absurd that in a great national undertaking the money for the carrying out of which is supplied on the credit of the country, aliens should be appointed and employed to carry out the proposal and Canadians ignored and discriminated against.
These are the reasons for my resolution which I shall close by moving as follows :
In all cases where persons are employed in or in connection with the surveys for or the construction of the said Transcontinental Railway preference shall be given to British subjects by birth or naturalization.
It shall be unlawful to employ any person in or in connection with the surveys for or the construction of the said Transcontinental Railway. or any part thereof who is not a British
subject by birth or naturalization, or who, being an alien, has not for one year immediately preceding such employment been a bona fide resident of Canada.
Provided always that wherever it shall be made to appear to the satisfaction of the Minister of Labour that it is not possible to obtain labour for the construction of the said railway with reasonable despatch owing to the restriction aforesaid with regard to the employment of labourers it shall be lawful for the said minister by order in writing to suspend for such time and on such terms and conditions as may to him seem reasonable in the premises the operation of the said restriction as to employment of labour for construction purposes only. And a copy of such order of suspension shall be forthwith published in the ' Labour Gazette.'
For every violation of any of the provisions of this section the person, partnership, company or corporation violating it shall forfeit a sum not exceeding $1,000, nor less than $50, and a further sum of $50 for each and every day during which such unlawful employment shall continue.
The sums so forfeited may be sued for and recovered as a debt by any person who first bona fide brings his action therefor in any court of competent jurisdiction in which debts of like amount are now recovered.


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK (Postmaster General).: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House will not quarrel with the sentiment expressed in the amendment of my hon. friend from South Waterloo (Mr. Clare), I believe that I would be voicing the opinion of not only the House but of the country if I were to say, that the prevailing determination of the people of Canada is to protect Canadian labour whenever it is possible to do so. This is not a new question ; in former sessions as during the present session, it has been brought before the attention of the House more than once, and in the course of this debate my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, and I think the premier as well, intimated that it was the intention of the government to legislate this session ; not perhaps to the exact tenor of this amendment, but in a much more comprehensive manner. This amendment simply applies to the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific, including I presume the eastern division which is to be built by the government. So far so good, but why my hon. friend should limit the benefit of a good movement to but one line of railway, I am unable to understand. There are other railways and there are other enterprises which will be built or aided by public money and to which a law of the kind proposed in the amendment, would be equally applicable. If such a measure would be good if applied to the Grand Trunk Pacific, it follows that it would be better if it were more extensive in its scope. Before the labours of this session are ended, my hon. friends opposite will have ample opportunity to discuss a measure that will be far more comprehensive in its general application than would be this proposed

amendment if adopted. It would, therefore, seem inopportune ; unwise in fact to apply a measure of this kind to only one public work. While the government is unable to accept this amendment, I may say that it is because we trust to be able to secure the concurrence of parliament to a much larger measure of usefulness to the working classes of Canada-not only to the working classes, but to others whose services will be required in the operation and construction of public works. As to the charges "made against the Grand Trunk Pacific Company of having already violated either the letter or the spirit-perhaps both-of the Alien Labour Act ; and incidently with regard to my hon. friend's reference to myself ; perhaps it would not be expedient to protract the discussion on this matter by bringing in a subject not germane to the passage of the Bill itself. When, later on in the session, the larger measure which I trust parliament will assent to, comes before us, there will be ample opportunity for my hon. friend (Mr. Clare) to pay attention to me, and to any of my supposed shortcomings. As was said a few days ago, we have a conflict of statements as to the charges against the Grand Trunk Pacific. We have the accusations of those who say that tliei Grand Trunk Pacific has violated the law, and on the other hand we have statements made by the Grand Trunk, partially confessing, partially denying, but up to the present moment unsatisfactory. Since the question was last debated in parliament, further correspondence has taken place between the government and the Grand Trunk Pacific, but that correspondence has not resulted in a satisfactory elucidation of the question. The controversy raised is not yet satisfactorily adjusted and the government is of opinion that the charges and the denials of the parties are not sufficient to bring out the facts, but that a more thorough system of inquiry should be resorted to. Accordingly, I have to announce that already the government has directed the issue of a commission to inquire into the truth or otherwise of these charges.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Mulock: I am glad the announcement of that fact has received such approbation from my hon. friends opposite. They will no doubt be equally pleased when I inform them that the commissioner to inquire into these charges and denials is a getleman of high standing in the country :	His Honour Judge Winchester, county court judge of Toronto.
Some hon MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh !


William Mulock: I am glad that this announcement also meets with the approval of my hon. friends, because I am cor-Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
rect in saying that no judicial appointment by this government has received more hearty approbation from the public in general-not merely from those who may be politically in sympathy with us, but also from those who do not always give us their confidence-no judicial appointment I say, has ever been more heartily received by the public of Canada generally, than the appointment of Judge Winchester. He had for twenty years filled a semi-judicial position before he was raised to the high office he now occupies, namely that of senior judge of the great county of York including the city of Toronto. Judge Winchester is the gentleman who is entrusted with the inquiry into these charges and denials. The inquiry will be thorough and the inquiry will be speedy. My hon. friends opposite may perhaps think otherwise, but I can assure them that the government has no purpose to serve by, in the slightest degree, preventing the most thorough inquiry ; and if during the progress of that inquiry any gentleman on the other side, either here or elsewhere, has any suggestions that he thinks would add to the thoroughness of the inquiry, I am sure the most respectful reception will be given to such suggestions. At all events, the very debates that have taken place upon this question warrant legislation in the direction that the government proposes, even if it should happen that the report of the commissioner would not fully sustain the whole of these charges. The government is fully determined to protect Canadian interests, not only in respect to the construction of the National Transcontinental Railway, but with respect to all similar enterprises aided or carried out by the Canadian public. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, that I would be justified in prolonging the debate on this subject, and therefore I will say no more at the present moment, except that I trust that when this important measure has passed the House, and when we can give our attention to other matters, one of the earliest measures that will be submitted for consideration, and which will appeal to you for sympathy and support, will be a measure promoted by the government to protect Canadian labour and Canadian interests not merely in the construction of the National Transcontinental Railway, but as to all railways and public works hereafter aided by the public of Canada, either by land, by gift, by guarantee or otherwise. This is not the first occasion on which a question of this nature has arisen in connection with public works. In a contract that was made by this government with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company for the construction of the Crow's Nest Pass Railway a clause was included providing substantially for the protection which is now asked in the case of the Grand Trunk Pacific.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: Hundreds of men died from ill-usage (under that contract.


William Mulock: That is not the same question. That is a question of sanitary regulation. We are now discussing the question of providing for the protection of Canadian labour ; and I presume that my hon. friends will say that with that precedent, applicable to one railway only, why should we not pass to-day this amendment limited to the Transcontinental Railway ? Well, the wisdom of that measure has been manifested by the awakening interest in the whole subject; and whilst it might have been wise in the first instance to limit the provision to the construction of the Crow's Nest Pass Railway, yet we have now seen the beneficial effect of that provision, and that it should not be limited to this particular railway, but should be made more comprehensive. My hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Hughes) says that hlundreds of men died in the construction of the Crow's Nest Pass Railway. That is an entirely different point. That sad experience also was productive of good, in that it secured the passage of a law providing for the sanitary examination of men. The Minister of Agriculture has the enforcement of that law, which I think requires a medical officer to be appointed to give his personal supervision to the sanitary regulations in respect to working men employed on railways during their construction, and I presume that the deaths to which my hon. friend from Victoria referred would not have taken place had that law which has since been passed been the law at that time ; and we may not I trust experience similar unhappy results in connection with the further construction of public works.


Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend the Minister of Labour (Sir William Mulock) has disposed a little hastily of a very important question. It is a very important question for us in the city of Montreal and in the neighbourhood of that great city, *where we have a very large number of working men ; and I think it is our duty to secure for those important classes as much protection as possible in the construction of the great work which we have now under consideration. My hon. friend, I think has made a mistake in saying that the proposer of this amendment should have extended the terms of it to all the railways under constitaction in Canada. It is probable that my hon. friend who has moved this motion in the interest of the working classes and of the engineers of this country has been accustomed to consider, from the language that has fallen from the lips of hon. gentlemen who sit on the treasury benches, that this is essentially a national interest. We have been told that it was essentially an undertaking of a Canadian nature ; and viewing it from that standpoint, I for one consider that as far as possible and under the limitations indicated
in this amendment, since that great work is being executed, thanks to our money or our credit, none but Canadians should be employed in the work of construction. I would go, even further and say that it seems to me that the rolling stock of that great * company should be constihieted exclusively within the limits of the Dominion of Canada. It is being built largely with our money, and why should not that money be spent here, among our working classes, so long as we have everything that is necessary in Canada to furnish the whole of that rolling stock ?
I rose, Mr. Speaker, because I have said that in my part of the country, this amendment must be of intense interest to many, not only of the working classes, but of the educated classes as well. We have in the city of Montreal, as you are no doubt aware, thanks to the munificence of some of our wealthy citizens-one in particular, who is well known-probably the best equipped school of applied science on the continent of America. From that school, which is attached to McGill University, are liurned out every year young men who are most competent in every way to carry out the works referred to in the first part of my hon. friend's motion. We have also side by side with that school, but equipped far more modestly, I regret to say, attached to Laval University, in which Jbe people of my own province take a very great interest, a polytechnic school with excellent professors, who turn out yearly and deliver degrees to a very large number of our French Canadian young men ; and from what I see and have heard, and from the certificates that have been given wherever these young men have been employed, they are admirably fitted for engineering work in connection with this or any other railway. Why should not these young men be employed in preference to aliens ? My hon. friend the mover of this amendment has given the names and addresses of eighteen or twenty engineers who have already been engaged for work on the construction of this new railway. I had expected some explanation in regard to these men from my hon. friend the Minister of Labour. He has not vouchsafed to give us that explanation ; Gut surely the fact that these engineers have been engaged in the United States, and have been brought to this country to begin this work, ought to put us on our guard, and make us as careful as possible for the protection of our own Canadian interests in a matter of this importance. My hon. friend the Minister of Labour has gone so far as to say that under present conditions we require a general law more perfect than that which we have at present in order to exclude alien labour ; but if that is the case, I would ask my hon. friend why that law' has not been introdiuced before now ? Why has my hon. friend not taken the precaution to bring that law down, in order to save us the trouble of making

3455
this amendment ? Then, again, my hon. friend the Minister of Labour lias stated that in the construction of the Crow's Nest Lass Railway there was a clause included in the contract made between the government and the Canadian Pacific Railway, which I have now in my hands, but which I will not read to the House, which clause was intended to protect effectually, as this amendment does protect, our Canadian labourers and engineers.
If the government at that time thought it proper to insert such a clause in its contract regarding the construction of the Crow's Nest Pass Railway-a much less important contract than the present one- what objection can my hon. friend have to similar legislation in this instance ? We have a law against the importation of foreign labour, but, as every one knows, it is not carried out. Every day we read of infractions of it. Scarcely a day passes but in some of our newspapers we have facts which show clearly that our government will not in any way enforce that law. Contrast their laxness in that respect with the vigilance of the American government. The Americans take a very different view of the importation of aliens. Instead of seeking to increase the numbers of their population by any means whatever, they enforce a policy which is rather one of exclusion. No alien, no matter where he comes from, is allowed to enter their national family unless he is found in every way worthy to form part of it ; and if we were to follow a similar policy, we would be all the better off. Let me give the House one or two instances to show the strictness exercised at the American frontier. Since 1891 the Americans have been making their law more and more exclusive every year,, and their efforts culminated in the legislation approved on the 3rd March, 1903, which excludes from the United States not only labourers imported under contract, but every one who might become in any way a burden on the country and be the cause of material or moral deterioration. In volume 9 of the Senate reports of the United States, I find the report of an inquiry held by the foreign immigration commission of the American Senate upon contract labour and alien labour imported into the United States. Amongst other things, I find in that report that from the year 1892 to the year 1901, out of a total of 3,615,163 persons, who sought admission into the United States, there were debarred 20,031 ; and as being in violation of a law, which has existed since 1891, against the importation of contract labour, 6,119 aliens were prevented entering the United States. Since a couple of years the American government has greatly increased the number of officers employed by it along the Canadian border, to an extent of nearly 4,000 miles, to prevent any Canadian labour from entering the United States. Mr. Watchorne, superintendent of the American Immigration ser-Mr. MONK.
vice in the Dominion, has given the American government a very full report of his operations in that regard, and I find that in the year 1902, there were 275 aliens rejected as contract labourers and in the following year the rejections on that score numbered 1,903. I am quoting from the annual report of the Commissioner General of Immigration for the fiscal year ending 30th June, 1903. There is another statement of alien labourers excluded from the United States ; and last year the total from our country prevented from entering the United States amounted to 431. How many have we excluded who attempted to come into Canada from the United States ? As a matter of fact, our law excluding contract labour is not put into effect ; and until we can come to some more satisfactory arrangement with the American authorities regarding this exclusion of our labouring classes, it is our duty to apply to them the same treatment which they apply to us. I believe that at present, when these important works are being undertaken, we should see that Canadian engineers are given the preference. Look at our large cities, how many of our workingmen would find useful employment if protected by the amendment we are now submitting ? I have a report of the committee of inquiry held by the American Senate, and I was surprised to see in that report the deposition given under oath by Mr. Richmond, who has been for some time president of the Industrial Commission of the United States. Questioned by members of the commission, Mr. Richmond placed at the enormous figure of 70,000 French Canadians a year, those who left the province of Quebec to work in the United States.
It seems almost incredible, but that is what he deposes under oath, and as a result of most careful investigation made by himself and his assistants. Why do not we, in the construction of this great national work, endeavour, by the protective amendment introduced by my hon. friend (Mr. Clare) to keep here within our own territory and occupied on our own national works, these people, many of whom, as stated in the deposition, remain in the United States and never return to Canada ? These are working men, men who do not belong to the class of engineers to which I have already referred, but they are entitled to our fullest consideration. And let me, before I resume my seat, point out to my hou. friend the Minister of Labour (Sir William Mulock) that this amendment goes, and necessarily goes, beyond the law *which we have at present. It is quite possible that these seventeen or twenty engineers referred to by my hon. friend from South Waterloo (Mr. Clare) have come into Canadian territory without violation of any law whatever. What our law, as well as the law of the United States, forbids, is the importation of aliens under contract for the execution of labour. These engineers may have come

into Canada without violation of the general law. They may have come here hoping to obtain employment and without any special inducement, and, arriving here, have secured this employment quite legitimately. But my hon. friend's amendment goes deeper into the question and is more patriotic. By the terms of that amendment none but Canadians can be employed as engineers or in any way on the construction of this railway unless those who are constructing it can satisfy the government that they are obliged to have recourse to the help of aliens. It seems to me that, under the circumstances and in view of the character of the work and the amount of money we are spending upon it, the amendment is justified and should be adopted.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle).: It is not my intention to follow my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) through all his argument. But I wish to point out one slight difference between that argument and the amendment proposed by the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Clare). My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier has made a very strong plea in favour of the employment of Canadian labour. With the object of his argument I agree entirely, though I must say that, when it comes to the employment of scientific men for the construction of public works there is a further word to be said. Though I join heartily with my hon. friend in the desire that, as far as possible, preference be given to Canadian engineers, yet we must admit that if we made a stringent law that none but Canadian engineers be employed in the construction of railways we might be deprived, to our own injury, of the services of high grade engineers from other countries, who would not only be required for certain parts of the work, but whose employment might be actually a benefit to Canadian engineers. I do not think, therefore, that we should make a law so stringent that it would forbid either the Canadian government or a railway company or other corporations engaged in large scientific or industrial development, bringing from foreign countries for the time being first-class engineers who have made deeper and more special studies than may have been made in this country, or who have had experience in the construction of works of a specially difficult character that have not been constructed in Canada. But I will not dispute with my hon. friend on that point. He advocates the adoption of the amendment of the hon. member for South Waterloo in order to give encouragement to Canadian labour and Canadian engineering. But the amendment of the hon. member for South Waterloo is much broader. It says :
In all cases where persons are employed in or in connection with the surveys for or the construction of the said Transcontinental Railway, preference shall be given to British subjects by birth or naturalization.
This amendment, if adopted, would leave the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company free to employ engineers from England, Scotland, Ireland or any other part of the British Empire.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: 
Frederick Debartzch Monk: Perhaps my hon. friend (Mr. Bourassa) is aware that the most difficult parts of the Canadian Pacific construction

was carried out under two Canadian engineers, if I am not mistaken. One is the engineer who resigned from the company not long ago, and the other, Mr. Peterson. And he was assisted in that work by a French gentleman of Montreal with whom my hon. friend (Mr. Bourassa) is no doubt acquainted, but whose name I have for the moment forgotten. This gentleman built the most difficult part of the Canadian Pacific Bailway through the Rocky Mountains.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I do not dispute at all that some Canadian engineers are to be found equal to any to be found in any other part of the world. I simply lay it down at the beginning that, perhaps, we should not go too far in our restrictive laws as to engineering and other work. It is not that we have not the engineers we want, but that if we do not make the restrictive law to apply to all people but Canadians, then, we should have no. restriction at all. What I have suggested is that it might be dangerous to do so. The time might come when two or three engineers of great eminence may be sought by a railway company to superintend the building of a specially difficult section and they being employed elsewhere, it might be advantageous to the whole country to have the railway company left free to apply to the United States, Great Britain or any other country to secure the engineering skill required. But I say that if we adopt the principle of protection to Canadian work then it should be restricted to Canadian work. That is the principle I have laid down, and if my hon. friend would be logical, he would apply to bis friend from South Waterloo (Mr. Clare) and ask him to make his amendment a case of Canadian protection. When it comes to a question of protection to manufacturers we are Canadians and I think we are right to be Canadians. When it comes to a question, which is a more doubtful one, of protecting Canadian labour and Canadian engineering, then let our legislation be sincere and be a measure purely and simply Canadian, for Canadian work and Canadian engineering.
The quotation that has been made by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) showing the application of the American Alien Labour law is not, I think, a reason why we should follow their example. I have a great deal of admiration for the Americans, but I am not prepared to take all my lessons from the United States. For the greater part of their past national life, the Americans made the mistake that perhaps we ourselves are making, of not only opening their doors, but of calling loudly for foreigners to come in and people their land. 1 think they made a mistake ; and I shall never forget the words of warning that were uttered to me by a statesman of the United States, whom I cannot now name, because he is still in public life, but whom I Mr. MONK.
had the pleasure of meeting several times in Washington five years ago. He said : 'You have the great advantage on your side of the border of being able to look back at' the past life of our country, the United States, so as to avoid the mistakes that we have made and to take advantage of the good laws and the good measures we have adopted. If we have made a mistake it has been that at one time we called loudly for foreign-labour and foreign settlement to come into this country ; and if to-day the American nation is one which it is not easy to govern, that condition comes from the fact that we have been anxious to fill up our country too soon. Now we have gone to the other extreme, and have adopted restricting laws (hat certainly are not worthy of a civilized nation. You should take advantage of our past experience, and not be so anxious to import foreigners. In this way you will not be obliged later on to adopt restricting laws, as we have been forced to do.'
We are not obliged, as the United States now are, to guard every port of entry into this country in order to prevent a large amount of undesirable immigration coming in. So far as the highest class of immigrants are concerned, scientific men and engineers, my hon. friends may be content on one point, that the first-class engineers will not come, either from the United States or from other countries, for a number of years, because they make a much more satisfactory and profitable living in other countries. Therefore, I do not think it will be necessary to adopt the restricting laws that have been adopted in the United States, both as regards the highest immigration and ordinary immigration. But if we have to adopt such restricting laws, if they are imposed on us, let us be frank and let them be laws of restriction and laws of real protection for Canadian labour, and for Canadian labour only.


Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR (Leeds).: Mr. Speaker, I was surprised to hear the hon. the Minister of Labour (Sir William Mulock) make the statement a few moments ago that when this country gave a few millions, about ?f3,000,000 bonus to the Canadian Pacific Railway for the purpose of building the Crow's Nest Pass Railway, the government at that time took a great deal of credit to themselves for having introduced a clause into the Act, or the agreement with the Canadian Pacific Railway, that the company should employ nothing but Canadian labour in building that road. Yet here to-day the government are spending fifty times the amount of the subsidy which they gave to the Canadian Pacific Railway in constructing that road, but the Minister of Labour is put up by his colleagues in the government to call upon their supporters to vote down an amendment which gives protection to Canadian labour in building this road, upon which $150,000,000 is to be expended. The Minister of Labour, who should be the first

to say, either if he has to break away from this government, if the premier and his following, save and except the Minister of Labour, propose voting down the amendment-who should be the first one to stand up in the interests of the labouring men of Canada and say : I shall support the amend ment of the hon. gentleman.
The alien labour movement in Canada has a history, and the Minister of Labour is largely connected with that history. I had the honour, in the year 1890, of introducing the first Alien Labour Bill in this House. If you will look at the Journals of the House for 1890, you will find a report of a sub-committee to whom was referred the Bill which I then introduced. The report is as follows :
Your committee find, on examination, that this Bill is similar in all respects to a Bill passed by the Congress of the United States in 1885, and amended by that body in 1886.
Your committee have had before them witnesses from different points along the frontier, and And from their evidence (copy of which is annexed hereto) that the American Alien Labour law has been enforced in such a way as to compel many of our people to relinquish their employment in the United States, or to remove with their families, and reside there permanently, while citizens of the United States are permitted to work in Canada every day, and to return to their homes on the American side of the frontier at night, without interference from the Canadian authorities.
Your committee recommend that the attention of the authorities at "Washington be directed to the oppressive application to Canadians of the American Alien Labour law, and to allow of such representation being made, and to afford time for its due consideration, recommend that further consideration of this Bill be postponed until next session ; and if some suitable measure for granting relief to Canadians from the grievance complained of, be not passed in the interval by the American authorities, then your committee recommend that a Bill dealing with this question be introduced next session, and taken into consideration.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
(Signed) GEO. TAYLOR, Chairman.
That report was submitted to the House and adopted1. I do not intend reading al! the evidence that was attached to that report, but I shall read the evidence given by Mr. William Wainwright, of the Grand Trunk Railway.


Mr. CLARKE.: The same gentleman who is now connected with that railway ?


George Taylor: The same gentleman.


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: What became of the Bill ?


George Taylor: I shall give the history of the Bill later. Mr. Wainwright was called before the committee and gave his evidence. The chairman explained :
In connection -with the proposed Alien Labour Bill, which it is proposed to pass in
Canada, similar to that passed by the United States, the question comes up as to how it affected the Grand Trunk Railway at Windsor, and at points on the railway ?-Mr. Wainwright answered And at Niagara Falls and Point Edward.
By Mr. Lister
289.	Did the Grand Trunk Railway authorities give instructions to their men at Point Edward, working at Fort Gratiot, to cross the river and live ?-Yes.
290.	Why did they give those instructions ?- Simply because we were advised by our lawyers that if we retained them in the service, and allowed them to live on the Canadian side, we would be liable to a heavy penalty.
291.	Under the alien law ?-Yes.
By Mr. Taylor :
292.	You.did issue a notice to your men ?- That they must live on the American side or leave the service.
By Mr. Lister :
293.	Do you know as a fact, Mr. Wainwright, that a good many men did leave Point Edward? -I know that some did. I know one particular case at Windsor. I had to move one of our clerks from there, in order to give him a living, to Toronto. He could not make it convenient to live in Detroit with his family. He agreed to move to Detroit himself and board there, but that was not satisfactory. He had to move his family and his furniture. He could not do that, and he had the Chicago and Grand Trunk Railway service, and we took him back into the old Grand Trunk Railway service, and placed him at Toronto.
By Dr. Wilson (Elgin) :
294.	Have all your employees quit the service, or gone to the other side of the line ?- I do not think they have, but it is pretty general. I fancy some of them have not, but I cannot say that positively.
295.	Can you give us any reason why it has not been enforced ?-Well, I know of no reason. We have given the order. We are acting on the advice of our solicitors, and I do not know positively that this is not the case, I only heard so.
By Mr. Lister :
296.	You have a right to assume that your men obeyed the orders of the company ?-Yes ; these were our orders, and we had to take that ground on advice.
By Mr. Mulock :
Tlie present Minister of Labour who was at that time conversant with the state of matters on the frontier.
297.	How many men did leave Canada for the United States, in consequence of that order ?- I cannot tell you off-hand, Mr. Mulock, but I can give you the figures.
298.	You could not give us an approximate ? -No ; that would be of no advantage to you.
299.	Is this the same at other points ? Niagara Falls, Windsor, and Point Edward.
300.	These were the only three points on the border ?-Yes, where we have these men living in Canada doing work on the other side.
By Mr. Lister :
301.	Can you furnish that information as to the number, to the committee ?-I can furnish that to the committee by letter.
By Mr. Mulock :
302.	Do you know how it Is with any of the other public works in Canada. Take the Cana-

dian Pacific Railway for example or any of the manufactories ?-It is the same, Mr. Mulock.
I can tell you with regard to some of the steamship companies, which in the winter time have the steamers land at Portland, making a transfer to the Grand Trunk Railway. It has been customary for the Dominion and the Allan line to send men from Montreal to work in Portland. This year they had to employ American labour down there, because they could not send the Canadians there. The Canadians were not allowed to go down and do the work. This refers to all that class of business.
303.	The whole carrying trade ?-Yes. Where the men have their residence or domiciles in Canada and are called upon to do work in the United States.
304.	This is in the case of the temporary transfer during the winter season ?-Yes.
That is the state of affairs that existed then and this government have been playing with the alien labour question ever since.


Charles Fitzpatrick: What was done with it 1


George Taylor: I will tell my hon. friend what was done with it and what this government did with it. The last year that the Conservative government were in power


Mr. FIELDING.: What about the other six years ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: What about 1892 ?


George Taylor: I introduced a Bill in 1892. It was laid over. There were communications passing between the Canadian government and the American government, and I presume that my hon. friend will find the correspondence in the department. The two governments corresponded from year to year. In 1898, when I last introduced , my Bill-


William Stevens Fielding: What about the Other years.


George Taylor: I introduced it first in 1892.


Charles Fitzpatrick: But what my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) has been reading has reference to 1890.


George Taylor: The American and Canadian governments were exchanging correspondence and the Americans made certain concessions.


Charles Fitzpatrick: What are they ?


George Taylor: If my hon. friend will allow me to make my speech he can then get up and make his. The American government withdrew the application of the Alien Labour law as far as it affected the Thousand Islands and the River St. Lawrence. There was a common application of the American and Canadian laws between Kingston and Ogdensburg. That was one concession they made between 1890 and 1896. However, the negotiations were not satisfactory to the Canadian government Mr. TAYLOR.
and I introduced my Bill again the last session that the Conservative party were in power. The Bill did not go through. The right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), in making his appeal previous to the elections of 1896, issued his manifesto and said: Put us in power and we will introduce an alien labour law word for word with the American law. The people put him in power and he put up the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Cowan) to forestall the Bill that I had introduced. That hon. gentleman introduced a copy of my Bill word for word save and except the clause that made the Bill effective. That was left out. The Bills are on file up stairs where they can be found. Both of these Bills were referred to a special committee to report on. The Hon. Sir Louis Davies, now on the Supreme Court bench, was a member of that committee and I remember very well the fights that took place when these Bills were before the committee. The government had a majority on that committee and they carried their point. They introduced their Bill without the penal clause attached to it. The result is that instead of having an alien labour law, as the right hon. Prime Minister had promised word for word with the American law, you cannot enforce the Canadian law without moving the whole government. Before a prosecution can be taken it must have the approval of the Minister of Justice, the Solicitor General of Canada. No person can put the law into effect, whereas, in the United States all you have to do is to make a complaint before a customs officer or a justice of the peace and the law is enforced. The Bill I introduced had a similar clause in it but this government struck that out when they introduced their Bill. The Conservative * members upon that committee made a minority report in which it was pointed out that if the Bill were passed in the form recommended by the majority it would prove ineffective just as it has proved ineffective. I see by the Auditor General's Report that the hon. Minister of Labour (Sir William Mulock) spent $44,000 of the people's money last year -making believe that he was enforcing the Alien Labour, law.


William Mulock: Does the Auditor General's Report state that that was the expenditure in connection with enforcing the Labour Law ?


George Taylor: No, but the hon. gentleman pretended that he was doing something for labour and he has spent of the people's money $44,000. What has he accomplished by this expenditure for labour ? When an amendment is proposed by my hon. friend from South Waterloo (Mr. Clare! in the interest of labour he opposes it and calls upon his supporters to vote it down. Here is a sample of how he spent $44,000 of the peo-1 pie's money :

D. J. O'Donoghue, a special officer, trip to Ldvis anti St. John, Aug. 2 to 10, $34.40 ; trip to RiviOre Ouelle and Halifax, Aug. 12 to 18, $32.60.
And other trips making in ail for trips, tips and car service, $663.60. This gentleman who draws a salary of some $1,500 is employed in making these special trips. He is a special organizer for the Grit party ; that is all he is and every man who is named in this Auditor General's Report as participating in this expenditure of $44,000 is simply an organizer for the Grit party and not working in the interest of labour at all. I could read their names, but at a later stage I intend to deal with the whole subject of trips and tips. This lion, gentleman, having spent $41,000 for political purposes purely and not in the interest of labour at all, gets up and calls upon his supporters behind him to vote down an amendment which is the first step that has ever been taken to protect Canadian labour. He calls upon his supporters to vote it down and no doubt they will do it. Some of them will try to dodge the question, but, [DOT]when it is proposed to expend $150,000,000 upon a transcontinental railway he says that the labour employed may be Chinese labour, or any other kind of labour and that we will not put a clause in the contract as we did in the ease of the Canadian Pacific Railway, but we will make it applicable to all railways. This Grand Trunk Pacific Bill will go into effect right away, and I am informed that a great majority of the engineers employed on the line today are brought over from the United States by Mr. Hays, and these gentlemen are figuring so as to have their reports favourable to the contractors who may tender for this work, being Americans. I hope thef supporters of the hon. gentleman will not take his advice and vote down the first motion to protect Canadian labour that has been offered in connection with this measure.


Mr. R. G. MACPHERSON (Burrard).: I have listened with a good deal of pleasure to the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor). In view of the past history of Canada, it ill becomes Conservative members to get up in this House and impute motives such as they have imputed to the Liberal party. It does not lie in their mouths to accuse the Liberals in this respect, when they themselves have been the greatest sinners in the matter of allowing alien labour to be employed on Canadian national works. It is a recognized fact that the Canadian Pacific Railway, which to-day we ai'e all proud of, was built almost entirely by Americans and Chinese.


Samuel Hughes: No.


Robert George Macpherson: Mr. Rosser the chief engineer was an American, and he afterwards became I suppose a British subject ; George Brackett the contractor was an American citizen from Minneapolis. Mr. Stickney the general manager was an American, and he was superseded by Sir Wm. Van Horne who we all know was an American. Mr. J. F. Egan the general superintendent was an American ; he was afterwards in charge of construction, and I am told by a man who was working there at the time, that Canadian road masters were jAit out of business and Americans put in their places. The labourers to work on the Canadian Pacific Railway were brought over in carloads from Wisconsin and from the Mormon settlement in Utah, and in boat loads from China. Major Rogers who located Rogers Pass was an American, and I suppose no worse pass could have been selected. The Canadian Pacific Railway have great difficulty with it to-day, while on the other hand we all know that Canadian engineers located the Yellow Head Pass down the North Thompson river, which would have been an infinitely better route for the Canadian Pacific Railway to have adopted. The question to-day with us is however, not to recriminate about the past, but to recognize the mistakes that have been made and address ourselves to the task of providing that such mistakes shall not Occur again. I care not what political party introduced alien labour legislation, or what party did not ; the fact remains to-day, that the Canadian Alien Labour law, which I understand is taken almost word for word from the American Act, is not found to be workable. We have had a case in British Columbia, in which an engineering firm inserted an advertisement in the Seattle papers inviting workmen to come over to take the place of others who had gone on strike. The proprietors of this establishment were proceeded against by the labour people of the city of Vancouver, but the decision of the police magistrate, Mr. Williams, was against the labour union. An appeal was taken to the Supreme Court, and Mr. Justice Duff, one of our leading judges in British Columbia gave a decision which is so important that it is worth while reading to the House. It is as follows :
Mr. Justice Duff delivered his judgment yesterday morning in the suit of Downie vs. The Vancouver Engineering Works, which is of considerable importance in that it shows that the Alien Labour Act is unworkable. The judgment in full is as follows :



IN THE SUPREME COURT OP BRITISH COLUMBIA.

[Stage Direction]
Before Duff, J.
Vancouver-, May 17th, 1904.
In the matter of the dismissal of an information under the Alien Labour Act, styled Downie vs. Vancouver Engineering Works, in re the importation of Cornelle Mesere, contrary to the provisions of the Act, being an appeal from the decision of the police magistrate of Vancouver.

[Stage Direction]
This is a case stated for the opinion of the court by Mr. Williams, the police magistrate of Vancouver, on the hearing of any information charging the Vancouver Engineering Works Company, Limited, with an infraction of the first section of chap. 60 and 61, Victoria, Statutes of Canada, which section reads as follows :
' From and after the passing of this Act, it shall be unlawful for any person, company, partnership or corporation in any manner to prepay the transportation, or in any way to assist or encourage the importation or immigration of any alien or foreigner into Canada under contract or agreement, parole or special, expressed or implied, made previous to the importation or immigration of such alien or foreigner to perform labour or service of any kind in Canada.'
In support of the charge, it was proved that the accused had caused to be inserted in a newspaper published in Seattle, in the State of Washington, an advertisement in the following terms :
' Wanted-First-class	machinists. Apply
Vancouver Engineering Works, Limited, Vancouver, B.C.'
The magistrate Jias found as a fact that the accused company was responsible for the publication of. this advertisement. Chap. 13 of 1 Edward 7 Statutes of Canada, section 4 amended the 8th section of the last mentioned Act by substituting therefor the following, provision :	* It shall be deemed a violation of this
Act for any person, partnership, company, or corporation to assist or encourage the importation or immigration of any person who resides in or as a citizen of any foreign country to which this Act applies, by promise of employment through advertisement printed or published in such foreign country and any such person coming to this country in consequence of such advertisement shall be treated as coming under contract as contemplated by this Act, and the penalties by this Act imposed shall be applicable to such,' and then follows a proviso which is not here material.
The question submitted for the opinion of this court is :	' Does the advertisement, thei
terms of which I have read, contain a promise of employment. It is, I think, an invitation to apply for employment and nothing more. It was urged on behalf of the prosecution that the second clause of the 8th section of the Act as amended, in effect declares that where you have an advertisement published in a newspaper in a foreign country, which induces a citizen or resident of that country to come into Canada with the expectation of obtaining employment here, you have a contract within the meaning of the Act, but the advertisement referred to in the second clause of that section is plainly, I think, an advertisement of the character dealt with in the first clause of the same section, and obviously an advertisement dealt with in the first clause of the section is an advertisement containing a promise of employment. That argument, therefore, I think, begs the question. It is said that the enactment must be construed with reference to the practice of persons designing to obtain employees by means of a notice published in the newspapers, and that it is not in accordance with such practice that such notice should contain either an express promise of employment or any words implying or suggesting such a promise more forcibly than the words in question here. Now, I have not the materials before me to form a Mr. MACPHERSON.
judgment upon the point of fact, but assuming the fact, am I also to set up an assumed policy of the legislature, namely the intention to prohibit invitations to apply for employment as well as promises to employ, and in conformity with this assumed policy to assign a forced or unusual meaning to the terms which the legislature itself has selected to set forth its design. Parliament, not usually parsimonious of language, has in this case employed a precise phrase, and I must look to the words themselves for the policy of the legislature, not elsewhere. Nor can I agree with the argument of Mr. Bird that on this construction the amendment of 1901 adds nothing to the Act of 1897. Obviously the Act of 1897 reached those cases only in which the immigration was preceded by a completed contract of service. Before the passing of that Act, the Federal courts of the United States had more than once held that an enactment of congress framed in similar terms did not prohibit an agreement arising from offer and acceptance, where the immigration of the employees itself constituted or was an essential ingredient in the acceptance of the offer of employment. It is plain that the principle of these decisions would have no application to the limited class of cases embraced within the scope of the amendment of 1901, and to that extent that amendment has enlarged the restrictive provisions of the Act.
It was strongly pressed upon me that the legislation thus construed imposes no effective restraint upon the importation of foreign labour in times of industrial stress or emergency and that this result is altogether alien to the spirit and to the design which prompted these enactments. If so, the remedy must, I think be sought elsewhere. In ne case, least of all in a penal proceeding, can I press the words of the legislature^ beyond their fair and natural sense. The question submitted by the case will be answered in accordance with this opinion. With regard to^ costs, as the point now raised for the first time, is not without difficulty, I think it is not a case for costs.
In this decision Mr. Justice Duff holds that the Canadian Alien Labour law, which was framed after the law of the United States, is not workable. It is a well known fact that the amendment of 1901 to the Alien Labour law was brought in at the instigation of the Trades and Labour Council of the city of Rossland. A strike was on there, and they thought the amendment would make the law more workable. I believe the Act was more workable before that amendment was brought in. But the fact stares us in the face that people are allowed under our laws to bring in almost any one they wish. I do not think it is right or fair that persons should be brought in who will not become citizens of our country, to compete with our own citizens, or with persons who will become citizens. I would open the doors wide to men who will come in with their wives and families, and become citizens and make homes for themselves ; but I think it is a mistake to allow any one else to come in. I am glad to say that we have in power to-day a government who are alive to the interests of the labouring people of our country, as no previous government has been, and I trust that we

shall have an Act brought in covering, not merely one isolated case, but all cases. The labouring people of Canada have been handicapped by the fact that whenever a big undertaking has been started in our country, hordes of Americans have been allowed to come in and take the cream, leaving to our people the skimnnilk. But I believe the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific should be, as it is meant to be, iu the interest of the whole people of Canada. If we cannot get men enough in Canada to build it, then it will be time enough for us to go outside.
Edward Frederick Clarke: Is not that exactly what the amendment of the bon. member for South Waterloo proposes ?


Mr.   MAOPHERSON@: In my estimation, the amendment only goes half way. I am not criticising my hon. friend's remarks at all. I am speaking as a Canadian, and I believe that I am voicing the sentiments of the people of Vancouver and of the province of British Columbia. In that province we have had a curse which the people of eastern Canada have never had-a yellow plague, a blight on our country, which has done us more harm than can be undone by the good which any government can do for many years to come ; and if we are to be alive to the interest of our people, we must be alive to this question. The first thing done for us by any government was when this government imposed a tax of $500 a head on the Chinese coming into our country. We fought for that measure for a long time. If the Canadian Pacific Railway had not been built, we would not have had those people in our country. I am not saying anything derogatory to the Canadian Pacific Railway. It is a grand institution, which has done a great deal for British Columbia and for Canada. But ho corporation, be it the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Canadian Northern or the Grand Trunk Pacific, should be allowed to bring in a horde of aliens, whether Chinese, Japanese, Polanders or any others, whom we cannot expect to become citizens of our country. Therefore, T wish to see a general Act brought in by the government covering this whole ease. I do not want to see an Act applicable only to one railway or to one corporation, but an Act applicable to all. We have seen the evil of this thing in the province of British Columbia, where we have 35.000 Orientals and 165,000 white people. Not one of these Orientals is on the voters' list or is contributing to the support of churches or schools, or anything else that goes to make a nation.
I speak for the labouring men of the province of British Columbia, when I say that if an Alien Labour Act is to be brought in that will be workable and cover the whole ground, it must be such an Act that when our own men are turned out of employment, on account of a strike or other labour trouble, they will have some redress for their griev
ances, instead of seeing aliens brought in to take their places.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Might I ask the hon. gentleman a question ? He said that he believ [DOT] ed the amendment made to the Alien Labour law in 1901 was made at the suggestion of the Rossland Trades and Labour Council. What authority had the hon. gentleman for making that statement ?


Mr.   MAOPHERSON@: My authority is Mr. Foley, who was a member of the Rossland Trades and Labour Council at that time. He was my opponent during the last election, and he said he was the cause of having that amendment made. The hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Ralph Smith) is not here to day, or he would back up my assertion.


Samuel Hughes: The remarks of the hon. gentleman reminded me of a voter in the constituency which I have the honour to represent, who does my opponent all the harm lie possibly can : he invariably speaks for him, and invariably votes against him. Our hon. friend from Burrard (Mr. Macpherson) has spoken to the resolution of the hon. member for South Waterloo and intends to vote against it, thus doing it all the harm he possibly can. The hon. gentleman's parallel of the Canadian Pacific Railway will not hold. He has stated that the Chinamen would not have been in Vancouver if the Canadian Pacific Railway had not been there. Sir, there would have been no Vancouver if the Canadian Pacific Railway had not been there. Our friend himself would not have any constituency to represent if the Canadian Pacific Railway had not been built, and I dare say he would have been still in the eastern part of this country, or wherever he happened to be born, occupying a more humble position than he does in Vancouver.
Mi-. MACPHERSON. The hon. gentleman does not wish, of course, to misquote what I said, apart from the context. I said all these undertakings permitted the possibility of these people coming in.


Samuel Hughes: The words of the hon. gentleman were just as I quoted them ; I took them dow'n at the time. Furthermore, the parallel of the Crow's Nest Pass Railway, drawn by the Minister of Labour^will not hold. Medical officers were employed on construction works in this country long before the Crow's Nest Pass iniquity was perpetrated. The hon. minister suggests that that iniquity would have been ameliorated had their law been in force.
I want to tell the hon. Minister of Labour, what he must know, that the conditions pertaining to the construction of the Crow's Nest Pass Railway were a scandal to the Dominion of Canada. Men were treated there worse than horses should have been treated. Men died and were thrown on the dumps by contractors-not

Chinese alone, but stalwart young white men of Canada. When their friends sought for years to find out what had become of them, all they could find was that they had died on the works. And that was done under the auspices of the Minister of Labour.


William Mulock: I had not the honour of being Minister of Labour at that time.


Samuel Hughes: Had not the honour! Had not the dishonour, I would say, if allowed to express it. The question, to my mind, in connection with this engineering business is not one of an alien labour law. This great National Transcontinental Railway has been heralded all over the country as running from a Canadian seaport to a Canadian seaport, all the way on Canadian soil, and engineered by a Canadian company, when, as a matter of fact, not one solitary man on the engineering staff is a Canadian, but are all brought in from the United States, and not one of them is a man of any particular standing. Those who are conversant -with engineering work know that Canada has to-day a large number of engineers as competent as any in the United States. Take Mr. McLeod, the engineer who laid out and superintended the construction of the Crow's Nest Pass Railway. That work is reputed one of the finest pieces of civil engineering on the continent of America, and it was planned and superintended by a young Canadian boy who comes from the county I have the honour to represent.


Mr. OLIVER.: Is Mr. McLeod Out of a job ?


Samuel Hughes: Were these gentlemen brought in from the United States engaged simply because they were out of jobs ? If so. I regret exceedingly that the Grand Trunk Railway have been going around picking up the off-scourings of the United States-picking up engineers here and there wherever they could find one out of a job.


Frank Oliver: Is Mr. McLeod out of a job at present ?	.


Samuel Hughes: He is not, but if he were offered the salary these gentlemen are likely to get-$15,000 to $30,000 a year when incompetent officers get $10,000 a year-I have not the slightest doubt that Mr. McLeod would have been delighted to accept the position, of chief engineer of the road.


Frank Oliver: Does the hon. gentleman know that Mr. McLeod has resigned the position he holds, and does he know or not whether Mr. McLeod has been offered a position on the Grand Trunk Pacific ?


Samuel Hughes: He has not been offered the position of chief engineer, nor has it been offered to any other Canadian engineer. No Canadian engineer has been Mr. SAM. HUGHES.
offered directly or indirectly even the second position on the Grand Trunk Pacific.


Frank Oliver: My information is that even if Mr. McLeod were offered a position on the Grand Trunk Pacific with an increased salary, hs wohjld not take it and give up the one he has.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman has no evidence of his statement. A.11 he lias is mere rumour. We have, in addition to the McGill University and the Laval University, the Royal Military College of Canada, which has turned out some first-class engineers. We have also the School of Practical Science in Toronto, for a young institution, has turned out a very large number of competent engineers. It is an anomalous condition of affairs when Canadian engineers, graduates from such institutions- particularly graduates from the government owned institution, the Royal Military College-should be passed over simply to give offices to Americans who happen to be out of employment. There is another matter to which I wish to refer. Our hon. friend, the member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) always bristles up whenever anything British happens to be mentioned. Whenever the subject of British connections comes up, his hair stands out like bristles on a prickly porcupine and he jumps into the arena and shouts for Canada. Let me tell him that Canada is part and parcel of the British Empire and intends remaining so. Let me tell him that the British empire gives to our university graduates and young engineers from our Royal Military College positions in her service. Let me point out that many of the finest officers in the British navy are Canadians, and that in the British civil service position after position is open to young Canadian engineers and officers trained in our universities'. Britain reciprocates with Canada in these respects, but the United States will not reciprocate with _<us in any sense. Just imagine a Canadian getting a position as engineer on the staff of the United States government. The thing would be preposterous. Any one travelling over the border to the United States will see an American alien labour officer passing through the train and inspecting every passenger; and if there is a young fellow going through who has not a return ticket, he puts him through a careful examination to ascertain whether he is going in under contract, and if he does not furnish evidence that he is an ordinary traveller, he is deported at once. I remember when the Minister of Labour was one of those responsible for having placed this bogus Alien Labour law on the statutes, under which it is impossible for us to turn a labour alien out of the country. I had no intention of speaking further on this subject than to point out to our good friend from Labelle that it would be well for him to look at the matter seriously and realize that Canada is going to remain part

and parcel of the British empire, and in matters of .appointment to office and legislation generally, I have no doubt that the bonds of the union will be made a little tighter and the colony and the mother country drawn closer together rather than further apart.


Mr. A. W. PUTTEE (Winnipeg).: I have a copy of the decision read by the hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Macpherson). It is a decision of Mr. Justice Duff, of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, delivered only the 17th of this month, which completely nullifies one of the principal sections in the Alien Labour law.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Which section ?


Arthur W. Puttee: Section 8. That suggests to me the advisability of including in this Bill a section or clause similar to that proposed by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Clare). It seems to me necessary that something should be put into the Bill to bring to the mind of the company, as well as the judges, our intention to have the Alien Labour law applied in this case. The effect of the Alien Labour law has been nullified by the judgment. The hon. member for Burrard was not in the House in 1901 when that law was amended by a Bill bro*ught in by the First Minister, and the introduction of that amendment I believe was due to a strike in British Columbia, during which the miners were brought in wholesale from the United States, in reply to advertisements printed in all the mining camps of the United States. It was asked by the Trade and Labour Congress that a clause should be drawn which would make the inserting of an advertisement in an American paper evidence of a contract. In introducing this clause 8 to the House, in 1901, the First Minister said :
The labour organizations would insist-and this is a proposition, which I think perfectly reasonable-that the Act should be so framed, so constructed and so interpreted as to make it impossible, when there is a dispute between employers of labour and their employees, when there is a strike on or any difficulty of that kind, to advertise in the United States, and' thereby get a supply of labour for the market here while the dispute is going on.
That is exactly what was done in Vancouver last year. When the strike was on the company advertised in the Seattle papers, the advertisement being in these words, as already read to the House :
Wanted. - First-class machinists. Apply Vancouver Engineering Works, Ltd., Vancouver, B.C.
This is the very kind of thing that we tried to make illegal and to subject to a fine. And, on the seventeenth of this month, the judge of the Supreme Court nullified that section, in effect, by declaring that that kind of advertisement is not the kind of advertisement that we intended to specify, because,, 110
as a matter of fact, it does not promise employment. Now, that is the way our Alien Labour law has been interpreted. Ordinarily, I should accept as perfectly satisfactory the statement that has been made to-day by the Minister of Labour that a general Bill will be introduced to cover these matters. Under ordinary conditions I would assume that this is the proper thing to do. And perhaps it is. But the very fact of this decision in British Columbia makes it imperative, in my opinion to state in this Bill that we are now passing, which is for the benefit of the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Grand Trunk, exactly what we mean, so as to impress it upon these companies that we are bound to give protection to Canadian labour, in preference, at all events, to alien and United States labour. Now, I notice that the Minister of Labour (Sir William Mulock), this afternoon has told to us that the complaints that have been made by a certain interest as regards the employment of engineers and surveyors' have not been satisfactorily explained, and that a commission is to be appointed or has been appointed to inquire into the matter. So far no good. But we had at one time, an alien labour officer of the department. What has become of him ? We were under the impression that these eases were investigated, that we had an officer whose salary we were paying, and I suppose are paying yet, called the Alien Labour Law Officer. Surely it would be better, cheaper and quicker to have that officer investigate these complaints as they arise, instead of letting them accumulate and then taking them in a bunch to be investigated by a judge.
During this debate the hon. member for South Leeds (Mr. Taylor) has seen fit to attack the Labour Department to some extent, and one of the officials of that department, D. J. O'Donoghue, he charges with being nothing but a Grit heeler and organizer. Now I have not taken part in any party stripes, in this House or this country, and do not intend to do so. But I want to advise the hon. member for South Leeds that it is not possible to make political capital iu this country by attacking the character of D. J. O'Donoghue. That man has a record for forty years as a labour student and labour worker. Speaking for practically all the labour people, not only those and his frffends but his enemies, I can say that they have confidence in D. J. O'Donoghue, and all regard his record as a credit to the labour movement in Canada. If the government have many men in their employ so keenly alive to the interests in their charge, so conscientious in the performance of their duties, they are indeed fortunate. I repeat, you cannot make political capital in Canada by attacking the character of D. J. O'Donoghue.


Mr. ARCH. CAMPBELL (West York).: This subject is one that excites a good deal of interest not only in the House but in the

in that direction. I cannot conceive why the member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor), who has been so notoriously sat upon by his friends this many years when they had an opportunity to pass an alien labour law that he could scarcely find a single supporter for the Bill which he introduced in this House year after year, should complain of the course of this government in this matter. The hon. member who introduced this motion (Mr. Clare) differed very much from the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor). The hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Clare) said that in his own town the Alien Labour law was enforced and that several men were deported. The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) told us it was an abortive measure, that it was no good, that it was not workable. Thus there is a difference between the mover of the resolution and the hon. member for Leeds. I think myself that the Alien Labour Act has been a good thing for this country. Possibly, as I said before, it might go further. But at all events it has been a step in the right direction and has, with the regulations which have been enforced, done so much for the workingmen that I think the government which introduced it and carried it into effect deserve, and I am sure receive, the best consideration of the workingmen of this country.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at 8 o'clock.
PRIVATE BILLS.	v



NICOLA, KAMLOOPS AND S1MILKAMEEN COAL AND RAILWAY COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 48) respecting the Nicola, Kamloops and Similka-meen Coal and Railway Company.-Mr. Galliher.
Charles Fitzpatrick: Is this undertaking declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada ?


Archibald Campbell: No, I do not see that it is.


Mr. SPROULE.: It must be because it is an international line. Part of it is in the United States and part of it is in Canada.


Mr. HYMAN.: This is an amending Act. It may be in the original Act. I beg to move :
That the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again to-night.
Motion agreed to and committee rose, and reported progress.



NOVA SCOTIA PERMANENT BUILDING SOCIETY AND SAVINGS FUND.

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee on Bill (No 8) respecting the Nova Scotia Permanent 1104
Building Society and Savings Fund.-Mr. R. L. Borden.
On section 1,
Robert Laird Borden: I thought that this clause had been reported in an amended form, or I would have given notice of the amendment which I am about to propose. This society is not incorporated under a special Ac-t of the province of Nova Scotia, but under a general Act. That general Act was amended at a recent session of the Nova Scotia legislature; and by the last two clauses of the amending statute, it is provided that the Act shall not affect any subsisting society until the Governor in Council declares by Order in Council that it shall apply. It was also provided that upon the application of any subsisting society, established or constituted under the Act thereby amended, the provisions of the amending Act should apply to such society. At present that Order in Council has not been passed, so that the amending Act does not apply to this society and will not until application be made in the month of September or October next. For that reason, as it is desired by this Bill to confer upon the society all powers which it shall acquire under the amending Act recently passed by the legislature of Nova Scotia, I desire to move that this first clause, be amended by striking out in the 17th and 18th lines thereof the words, ' immediately before the passing of this Act ' and to substitute therefor the words ' or shall hereafter have'; and in the 19th line insert immediately after the word ' thereto ' the words 1 heretofore made'; and also by striking out the word ' now ' in the last line but one.
The effect of these amendments will be to confer upon the society, when it obtains the Order in Council, in the provinces of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, the same powers which it Will have in Nova Scotia under that Order in Council and under the amending Act. Some objection was made to the amendment, when suggested in the committee, on the ground that we are giving effect to subsequent legislation. M e are not, but we are merely giving effect to legislation already passed, which is not yet applicable to this'society, but will become applicable to it upon the passing of the Order in Council by the executive council of Nova Scotia, which of course will be merely a formal matter, upon the application of the society.


William Stevens Fielding: When this amendment was brought up in the Committee on Banking and Commerce, some doubt was expressed as to its effect, and as my hon. friend was not able to be present at that committee, it was agreed that the Bill should be reported without this amendment, and then my hon. friend would have the opportunity of presenting his amendment in the House and stating its purpose. The doubt

expressed was whether the amendment would not have the effect of confirming, not only the existing powers of the society, hut any powers that might hereafter he granted, but as my hon. friend has explained that that is not the purpose and intent of the Bill, there can be no objection to the amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 69) to incorporate the Monarch Life Assurance Company (Mr. Osier) considered in committee and reported.
Mr. OSilMR moved the third reading of the Bill.
Mr. S. BARKER (Hamilton).: I call the attention of the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) to one of the clauses providing that a person who has paid one year's premium may he a voter at the meetings of this insurance company. I am not sure whether I am right in my understanding of the clause, hut if it is as i have stated it, I think it is apt to lead to abuse under the practice that is now in vogue among insurance companies. It is well known that many people who get a policy on a supposed payment of a year's premium really do not pay a dollar for that year. The whole of the first year's premium is frequently returned to the applicant. In the strife for business, the companies frequently allow their agents, as a reward for obtaining a risk, the equivalent of the first year's premium, and the agents, in their rivalry among themselves, allow to the applicant the whole or nearly the whole of that premium. Under that condition of things, it is perfectly clear the policy-holder of a year's standing may have no interest whatever .in the company, not having paid a dollar into it, or, if he has paid anything, it may be a very small sum indeed. I think it is very doubtful policy to allow a person who has merely obtained a receipt for one year's premium to vote as if he had invested to the extent of a share in the company. T think the Finance Minister will understand perfectly the point I make, and will see that this provision is an objectionable one in the charter of any insurance company.


William Stevens Fielding: I quite realize the truth of what my hon. friend (Mr. Barker) says. Still, the condition that he speaks of, while it might occur, I fancy would be the exception rather than the rule; in fact, it would hardly arise in the ordinary course of business. It would be a matter between the policy-holder and the company, and I question whether we could successfully deal with it by legislation. The spirit of the law undoubtedly is to go as far as is reasonable in the interest of the policy-holders. As soon as he has paid . Mr. FIELDING.
money he has the right to vote. It sennas better to err in the direction of liberality to the policy-holder than to err on the other side. At any rate, that has been the theory on which we have acted in the past. I will discuss the matter with the superintendent of insurance in view of the suggestions of my hon. friend (Mr. Barker). But I should think, speaking off-hand, that it would be better to err in the direction of liberality to the policy-holders rather than in the other direction.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 50) to incorporate the St. Maurice Valley Railway Company.-Mr. Bureau.
Bill (No. 52) respecting the Manitoba and Keewatin Railway Company.-Mr. Stewart.
Bill (No. 68) respecting the Hudson s Bay and Northwest Railway Company. Mr. Oliver.	_ .,
Bill (No. 83) respecting the Nepigon Railway Company.-Mr. McCool.
Bill (No. 85) to incorporate the Alberta Railway and Irrigation Company, and to amalgamate therewith the Alberta Railway and Coal Company, the Canadian Northwest Irrigation Company, and the St. Mary s River Railway Company.-Mr. Oliver.
Bill (No. 45) respecting the Home Bank of Canada.-Mr. Osier.
Bill (No. 67) respecting the Ontario Acetate TnonpQnrtD Cnninnnv.-Ml'. W. S. MaC-
laren.
Bill (No.. 114) respecting the Western Assurance Company.-Mr. McCarthy.
.Bill (No. 115) respecting the British America Assurance Company-Mr. McCarthy.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 116) respecting certain Patents of the Canadian General Electric Company, Limited, and others.-Mr. Grant.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the third reading of Bill (No. 72) to amend the National Transcontinental Railway Act and the proposed motion of Mr. Clare in amendment thereto.
Edward Frederick Clarke: Mr. Speaker, before the vote is taken I would like to say a few words on the amendment introduced by the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Clare). This amendment is further evidence, if further evidence was needed, of the abiding interest that hon. gentleman takes in the welfare of Canadian workingmen. It is not the first time that he has placed the toilers of this country under obligations to him by introducing legislation to promote their best interests. If the Bill introduced by the hon. member

in 1901 to amend tlie then existing Alien Labour Act had become law the difficulties with which we have had to contend from that time up to the present would not have been encountered. The amendments which he proposed were simple and would have been effective; they woiuld have provided the simple machinery necessary in order that those aggrieved by reason of the importation of alien labour could take advantage of the law and by summons proceed against the violators before police magistrates in cities and towns throughout the country. The amendment which the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Clare) endeavoured to have made to the Alien Labour law having been set aside by order of hon. gentlemen opposite, a further attempt was made when the Prime Minister in 1901 introduced his Bill amending the Alien Labour Act. to simplify its provisions by providing machinery similar to that contemplated under the Bill introduced by the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Clare). But that attempt met with the steady united opposition of hon. gentlemen opposite, and although the opinion was ventured from this side of the House that without some such amendment as was then suggested the Alien Labour Act even as amended by the Prime Minister would become a dead letter, yet hon. gentlemen opposite turned a deaf ear to the suggestions and recommendations, and from 1901 up to the present time attention has been drawn again and again through newspaper reports to the fact that the Alien Labour law as we have it on the statute-book to-day is to all intents and purposes a dead letter. My hon. friend from South Waterloo (Mr. Clare) has taken, in my htumble judgment, the best possible way to deal with this matter. He has striven from his place in the House to make the Alien Labour law effective. He has failed in those attempts, but by the amendment which he has now introduced he proposes to go a step further than has been taken in any law which has been passed by the Canadian parliament in the direction of securing an efficient Alien Labour law. I congratulate the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clare) on the position he has assumed. His amendment is so fair and so reasonable that I am astonished that any opposition is made to it.
It is a singular fact, Mr. Speaker, that while every hon. gentleman opposite who has spoken on the amendment of n>y non. friend from South Waterloo (Mr. Clare) has approved of it practically, every one of them proposes to vote against it and for what reason ? Because they allege that the government propose to introduce some general legislation upon this subject. Well, Mr. Speaker, there is no reason why we should not give favourable consideration to the legislation of the government when that legislation is submitted to us. For my part 1 shall be glad, if I have the pleasure of being present in the House when the legislation
conies down, to support the hands of the Hon. the Minister of Labour if the legislation is in the direction which he intimated this afternoon. But in the meantime this most important measure Which has been before parliament for weeks, and which is now in its last stages before the House, ought not to be permitted to pass beyond our purview without our making it clear beyond per-adventure and beyond the decision of the courts of this country that if the people of Canada are to provide by the credit of this country for the construction of an ocean to ocean railway on Canadian territory, Canadian professional, men, engineers and surveyors, as well as Canadian labourers, shall be given the preference in the construction of that work. Is there anything inconsistent in the adoption of that proposition with the introduction later on of the general legislation which the Hon. Minister of Labour proposes to bring down ? The fact that a provision such as my hon. friend from South Waterloo suggests is incorporated in the Bill which we are now discussing will strengthen the hands of the hon. the Minister of Labour in bringing down a measure which will make the law applicable not only to this undertaking but to all undertakings of a similar kind which may come before the parliament of Canada in the future. My hon. friend from South Waterloo has good ground for the introduction of this measure. He has had before him and we have seen upon the statute-books of the great commonwealths to the south of us for years legislation of a similar character. The statesmen to the south of us, whatever may be said of them, have the courage of their convictions when matters affecting the welfare of the working classes of the republic are concerned, and for years past in nearly all states of the union enactments have been on the statute-books providing that the preference shall be given especially on works to which the state or the municipality contributes to citizens of the republic or to those who intend to become citizens of the republic. Let me quote for the information of hon. gentlemen some of the laws which I have found to be in existence on the statute-books of several of the states of the union. I obtained this information from the second special report of the United States Commissioner of Labour. Referring to .New York, at page 771, he says :
In all cases where labourers are employed on public work in this state preference shall be given to citizens of the State of New York.
There is no reason why, when this Bill which makes provision for the construction of a national transcontinental railway is passing its last and final stage as far as this House is concerned, we should not make a similar provision with respect to the work to be done upon it.
Laws of New York, 1902-Vol. 2, page 1099 : * In the construction of public works by the

state or a municipality or by persons contracting with the state or such municipality, only citizens of the United States shall be employed. . . . Each contractor performing work shall keep a list of employees, &c., &c.
Then follows the penalty :
A violation of this section shall constitute a misdemeanour and shall be punishable by a fine of not less than $50 nor more than $500, or imprisonment for not less than thirty days or more than ninety days, or by both.
There is no uncertain sound about that language. There is no doubt as to what it means, and if we were to make a simple provision in the contract we are now dealing with to the effect thait none but Canadians or British subjects shall be employed upon the work, and that any violation of this law shall be punishable in the same way as it is dealt with under the statutes of the state of New York, the time of the House would not be taken up with a discussion as to the best means of enforcing the Alien Labour law respecting matters with which the people generally have to deal. The state of Illinois, another great empire state, makes this provision :
It shall he unlawful for any hoard or commission or any officer or other person, or for any municipality in the state, or any contractor or sub-contractor to employ any person other than native born or naturalized citizens of the United States, or those who have declared their intention of becoming citizens, when such employees are to be paid in whole or part, directly or indirectly, out of any funds raised by taxation. Any treasurer or disbursing officer is personally liable if he knowingly pays alien employees employed on such works.
The state of Pennsylvania makes this provision p. 993 :
None but citizens of the United States shall be employed in any capacity, in the erection, enlargement or improvement of any public building or work within this commonwealth.
Idaho, pp. 229'and 233, makes this provision :
No person not a citizen of the United States, or who has not declared his Intention to become such, or who is not eligible to become such, shall be employed upon any state or municipal work nor shall any such person be employed by any contractor to work on any public works of the state or any municipality.
New Jersey makes this provision :
It shall not be lawful for the state or any municipality within the state, or for any board, committee, commission or other organization having charge of any public work or any construction to employ as a mechanic or labourer thereon, any person who is not a^ the time of such employment a citizen of the United States.
The penalty for the violation of this law is a fine of ?100. The state of California provides that :
No person except a citizen of the United States shall he employed in any department of Mr. CLARKE.
the state, county, city or town government in this state. It shall be unlawful for any person, whether elected, appointed or commissioned to-fill any office in either the state or any municipal government in the state, to appoint or employ any person to perform any duties whatsoever exeept such person be a citizen of the United States.
I might go on and multiply evidence culled from the laws of the several states to prove that the rule on the other side is that citizens of the United States shall be given the preference upon works in which the state or national government or the municipality is interested. I think, in view of the statements which have been presented to this House as to the audacious employment of aliens in the work of surveying this new National Transcontinental Railway, the most effective method that can he adopted is not to wait until the government bring down an alien labour law hut to make a concrete provision in this contract that will prevent the employment of aliens on a work that the people of Canada have to pay for.
I think it was the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), who, in his speech this afternoon, expressed sympathy with the remarks which fell from the lips of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk); but then he desired that there should be no embargo or prohibition placed upon the admission of men, eminently skilled in the professions, into this country to assist in the development of any national work or undertaking. There is a special provision in the Alien Labour law at the present time to meet such cases ; but Mr. Speaker, it is little short of an insult to say that we have not in Canada to-day engineers of sufficient capacity, of sufficient experience, of sufficient ability to do any work in engineering or surveying that may be required upon this new road. If the allegations made by the engineering profession in Montreal and Winnipeg are founded upon fact, and if we have these experienced and well qualified professional men in Canada who are aiding in bearing the burdens of this country, it is little short of a shame and a scandal if they are being discriminated against. They are surely entitled to fair-play. In my judgment, and in the judgment, I believe, of a majority of the members of this House, they are entitled, other things being equal, to the preference ; and if the amendment of the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Clare) meets with the approval of the majority of the members of this House, they will get that preference after this contract has been ratified by both branches of the parliament of Canada.
This afternoon reference was made to the action of the government in providing in the Crow's Nest Pass Railway contract that native Canadians should be given the preference upon that work. The construction of the Crow's Nest Pass Railway was an important work,

but it sinks into insignificance compared witb the gigantic undertaking which the people of Canada are now about to assume. Millions and millions of dollars more are involved in the construction of the National Transcontinental Railway than were involv ed in the construction of the Crow's Nest Pass Railway ; and if it were a commendable act to provide in the Crow's Nest Pass Railway contract that the work should b^ given to Canadian labourers instead of to foreigners, surely we are justified in arguing that the non-appearance of a similar clause in this contract is an evidence either that the government were remiss in their duty to the people of Canada in not inserting a similar provision in this contract, or that the government were in the hands of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, and that the Grand Trunk Railway Company refused to allow such a clause to be inserted. Whatever credit the government may have been entitled to for inserting such a clause in the Crow's Nest Pass agreement, they are to be condemned in still greater measure by the people of Canada because, having taken credit for that act of six or seven years ago, they obviously neglected their duty in not insisting on a similar provision in this National Transcontinental Railway contract.
There is another phase of this matter to which I desire to refer very briefly. Sneering and unworthy references have been made to the action of my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) in connection with our Alien Labour law. He has been charged with not being honest and sincere in his advocacy of that measure. He has been charged with being amenable to the party lash in years gone by, because at the request of his leaders he did not press to a division the Alien T.abour Bill which he introduced. But 1 would draw attention to this fact-if I am not stating a fact hon. gentlemen opposite can contradict me-I draw attention to the fact that on every occasion that the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor), prior to 189(1, introduced his Alien Labour Bill, not one Liberal member who then sat in the House stood up to support him. It surely does not rest in the mouth of the Minister of Labour, who was then in the House, to condemn the member for Leeds, because during all the time the member for Leeds was fighting for the passage of an Alien Labour law the Minister of Labour sat absolutely dumb in his seat. And what can I say of my hon. friend from West York (Mr. Campbell) V He was a colleague of the member for Leeds in this House every ses sion that Bill was being considered. 1 Hansard ' fails to show that on any one occasion the member for York (Mr. Campbell) assisted the member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) in the slightest degree to make that measure law.


Archibald Campbell: There were very few on your side who supported it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That may be quite true: but, at all events, those who were in favour of the Alien Labour law and the principle of protecting Canadian labour were to be found amongst the party which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) supported. Not one single man amongst the Liberals could be found to assist the member for Leeds in the work which he undertook of giving necessary protection to Canadian workmen along our frontier


Mr. ALEX. JOHNSTON.: It would be interesting to know why the Bill was not passed.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. gentleman (Mr Johnston) is not as simple as he looks. The obvious reason why the Bill did not pass is that the member for Leeds could not get sufficient support to pass it. If my hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. Johnston) had been in the House, no doubt he would have broken through party trammels and support- ' ed the hon. member for Leeds.


Samuel Hughes: He will do so tonight.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am sure that to-night he will record his vote in favour of the amendment of the hon. member for -South Waterloo. But, Mr. Speaker, public opinion had to be educated in favour of such an Act. I must confess that legislation of the kind is foreign to the statute-books of British colonies ; it was a new departure so far as this parliament was concerned, and it was not until the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) was able to convince, not only the majority in this House, but also the great thinking people of the provinces of Canada that an injustice was being done to Canadian workmen, that he secured sufficient influence to have a measure granting protection to Canadian workmen passed by this parliament, lion, gentlemen opposite take great credit to themselves that the Alien Labour Act became law during the regime of the present government. Whatever credit there is lor the passage of that Act they are certainly entitled to it; but I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that in 1896, when the Liberal party came into power, my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) was not deterred ; he persisted in introducing his Bill, and if the Bill did not become law in 1896, it was because of no lack of zeal and no lack of energy on the part of the member for Leeds-it was due to the fact that the right hon. the Prime Minister-asked. my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) to withdraw the Bill for a specific reason. The remarks of the right hon. the Prime Minister will be found in 1 Hansard,' second session, 1896. pages 932. 933 and 934. It is unnecessary to quote all that the Prime Minister said, but I extract the following from his remarks :
Therefore, I am disposed to view with some favour the Bill of my hon. friend. But I will claim the privilege of asking him not to pro-



S487 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
ceed further at the present time. The hon. gentleman has stated, what I was not aware of, that correspondence has taken place between the American authorities and the Canadian authorities upon this subject ; and before the hon. gentleman proceeds with this Bill I think it would he advisable for the government to look into this correspondence and see whether it is not possible to avoid such unfriendly legislation. But, if, after taking cognizance of this correspondence, we find there is no way of escaping the conclusion at which my hon. friend has arrived, I will give him every opportunity at the next sitting of the House to press his Bill, if he thinks proper. Therefore I will move the adjournment of the debate.
In the face of that statement of the Prims Minister, I appeal to the hon. member for Oape Breton ; aye, and to the hon. member for West York, is it fair to charge my hon. friend from Leeds with dereliction of duty, when year after year he persisted in bringing this matter before the House? And when in 1896, at the request of the Prime Minister, his Bill stood over until 1897, he had the assurance that if the statements made by him were found to be correct-and they were -the Prime Minister would give him an opportunity in 1897 of introducing and passing the Bill which he had prepared, and which was line for line, and word for word, and letter for letter, as far as applicable. a copy of the Alien Labour law of the United States. Sir, it is only *doing the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) scant justice to say that if Canadian labour has received any protection by the passage of an Alien Labour law. my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) is entitled primarily to the honour-he is entitled to the credit for that legislation, and anything hon. gentlemen opposite may say to the contrary will not deprive him of that credit.
The Alien Labour Act was passed in 1897. The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) introduced his Bill in that year, but another bon. member introduced a Bill on the same subject at the same time, and both Bills were referred to a special committee of the House-with what result, Mr. Speaker ? With the result that the Bill of the hon. member for Leeds was shorn of its principal provision, which would have made it a workable measure, and a compromise Bill which came from the hands of the committee was the enactment made. That Bill passed this House without division, and found its way to the Senate. What treatment did it receive there at the hands of the colleagues of those hon. gentlemen who ask the workingmen of the country to give them the credit of taking an interest in organized labour ? When that Bill, which passed this House with practical unanimity, went to the Senate, the leader of the government in the Senate did all that it was possible for him to do to prevent it becoming law. Was that done designedly or by accident ? We have had before us in this House a measure to provide for the Mr. CLARKE.
recognition of the union label. That measure passed this House again and again only to be«killed in the,Senate, and the responsibility for that action was placed on those who constituted the majority of the Senate until last session. A similar attempt was made with regard to the Alien Labour Bill in 1897. It passed this House practically unanimously, but an attempt was made in the Senate to kill it. so as to throw the responsibility for its defeat upon those who constituted the majority in the Senate at that time. Hon. gentlemen opposite would then be able to say : See where the friends of organized labour are ; the majority in the unregenerate, unreformed Senate will not allow this Bill to become law. But now the boot is on the other leg, and it remains to be seen whether the present majority in the Senate will be prepared to pass the Bill recognizing the union label the next time it goes before them. The hon. the Secretary of State, in dealing with the Alien Labour Bill in the Senate in 1897, is reported at page 693 of the Senate Debates to have said :
If we put this on our statute-book, it is an announcement of what our intentions are. Do we propose to follow them up ? I do not think we do.	I notice our Act is
in no way similar to that of the United States. There the officers, such as DeBarry, stationed on the line between Canada and the United States, at Buffalo, Detroit, Ogdensburg, Niagara and several other points, have arbitrary powers and can deport a man without the intervention of a police officer or any judicial authority. We do not propose to lay down any such rule. On the contrary, no action can be taken under this legislation except by the Attorney General for Canada.
On page 694, he is reported to have said further :
What I fear is that by our adopting a law of this kind we will only make matters worse. They will say : ' You adopted a similar law, and it is a justification for us to go on and enforce ours to the extreme letter that we are authorized to do.' That might be the effect of it ; and I do not think it would be really wise to pass this Act. * I do not think it is likely to be enforced, and when it is not enforced it is a pity to place it on tlio statute-book. because it is not on a'line with the views of the people of Canada.
Further on he said :
I advise that it be dropped, because it is not a Bill which should be enforced, unless there was machinery provided, unless we authorized somebody with arbitrary power to act where a man, for instance, crosses from the United States into Canada over the suspension bridge. If we had an officer there who would say : ' You are coming to work in Canada ; we have a law against it, and will force you to go back,' there would be something effective about it. But under this Act persons can come in by the thousands, and it is only when a report is sent

to the Attorney General and he makes inquiry, that any action -would be taken ; and of course the party would by that time be absorbed in the community, and that would be the enl of it. It is something which we do not propose to carry out.
I am sure that my hon. friend from Cape Breton has never read this volume of the 'Senate Debates,' or he would have been shocked at the divergence of opinion which seemed to exist over a matter of such importance amongst hon. gentlemen occupying seats in the same cabinet.
What more need I say in reference to this matter ? I am glad personally to learn that the government has decided to appoint a commission to investigate the causes of complaint respecting the employment of aliens as surveyors and engineers on the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. Let me emphasize if I can what my hon. friend from South Waterloo so effectively said this afternoon, that the employment of surveyors and engineers who are aliens will practically put Canadian contractors and manufacturers out of court. At any rate, Canadian contractors and manufacturers would feel safer in the hands of competent Canadian engineers of experience, who knew the conditions, than they would feel in the hands of aliens whom they do not know, and who may, for aught we know, be interested in construction companies or companies of other kinds' existing in the United States.
Let me say a word with regard to the appointment of his Honour Judge Winchester. My hon. friend from Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) eulogized Mr. O'Donohue, one of the officers of the Labour Department, in his speech this afternoon. I have nothing to say in rebuttal of the high opinion which the hon. member for Winnipeg expressed of Mr. O'Donogliue. I have had the pleasure of the acquaintance of Mr. O'Donoghue for more than thirty years, during which time he has taken an active interest in organized labour in this country. But taking hon. gentlemen opposite at their appreciation of Mr. O'Donoghue, may I ask, is he not the fair-wage officer of the Labour Department ? If so, why was he not sent up to investigate the complaints made by the Canadian engineers and surveyors 1 He is familiar with the work ; he has had experience in inquiring into and reporting upon complaints made from time to time as to violations of the Alien Labour law. Would it not have been fair and reasonable, in view of the multiplicity of these complaints, for the government to have appointed this trained officer of many years' experience, or the Deputy Minister of Labour, Mr. King, who has also had a great deal of experience, to investigate these serious complaints ? But no, they would rather employ an overworked though eminent judge of the County Court of York. The
government would have been entitled to a great deal more credit if they had appointed men of experience, whom the working classes of this country know, and in whom they have confidence in matters of this kind. The government have only appointed a commission to inquire into these serious allegations at the eleventh hour. When the Minister of Labour spoke last, he did not think the matter was as serious as he now thinks it is. He has acted hurriedly in appointing a commission. Why ?. Because, I am safe in saying, the evidence has accumulated to show that the charges which have been made are worthy of serious investigation. Whatever may be the outcome of this investigation or whatever may be the report of the commission, hon. gentlemen on this side of the House are at least entitled to a measure of credit for having forced upon an unwilling department and a derelict government attention to a matter of great importance to the Canadian working people. It is high time, unless this Alien Labour law is to continue a dead letter, that something should be done with it. I have in my hand clippings taken from papers during the past two days giving publicity to several different complaints in respect of this matter-complaints that would be dealt with if we had an efficient labour law or some efficient supervision of aliens coming to this country. The first extract which I shall take the liberty of reading is from the Toronto ' Star.' I am sure the hon. the Minister of Labour will not say, when I quote the ' Star,' that I am quoting from a paper unfriendly to himself personally or to the administration of which he is such a distinguished member. On the 23rd of May, the ' Star ' published an interview with Mr. Basso, on Italian immigration :
Mr. Michael Basso is a well-known citizen of Toronto, of Italian origin, but a British subject. He is a gentleman so highly respected that he acts as court interpreter from time to time in matters involving the interests of his countrymen. Let me say here that we have in Toronto and many other parts of the Dominion thousands of citizens of Italian birth. They are among our best citizens in Toronto and elsewhere. We have no objection to Italians coming into the country, provided their moral and physical condition is unobjectionable, and provided they settle among us, become citizens of Canada, and assist in bearing the burdens which a young country must necessarily bear. But the class of Italians to whom Mr. Basso refers are not that class ; and I take the liberty of drawing the attention of the Minister of Labour to what Mr. Basso says. Mr. Basso is a well known citizen, responsible for anything he says. If he cannot substantiate the statements I am about to read, the public ought to know it. If he can, the minister ought to be indebted to him, and to myself for that matter, for drawing his attention to a condition of things
[Stage Direction]
which does not bode well for the working people and which should be put a stop to at the earliest possible moment:
Italians duped by countrymen.
Michael Basso condemns wholesale navvy importations to Canada. -
Mr. Michael Basso, the well-known Toronto Italian, condemns in strong terms the wholesale importation of Italians to Canada, which has resulted in the flooding o£ Montreal with navvies from Sunny Italy.
'It is a shame how these Italians are brought over and duped by their countrymen,' said Mr. Basso. ' With a few exceptions, the native Italian consuls on this continent are nothing more or less than aiders and abettors of the pernicious padrone system. Those who do not actually connive to induce Italian labourers to come to America wink at the system, which is practically an Italian slave system. It is a disgrace. It is not a nice thing to have to say, but I want to tell the public that the English-speaking Italian consuls on this continent, such as Dr. Harley Smith, the Toronto consul, take more real interest in the Italians than the men who are sent here by the Italian government.
' The majority of those Italians now destitute at Montreal are men who were induced to come here by a man who is connected with a society supported by the Italian government, which is supposed to aid destitute Italians to get back to Italy and to look after them generally here. This man is in the pay of a railway. He gets $5 a day for providing the railroad with navvies, yet he bleeds the workmen and the sub-bosses, too. He advertised last winter that he had work for thousands of workmen, yet I am sure that he did not actually have places for a hundred. Then, when the Italians were brought out from Italy on his representations, the men in charge of the gangs had to pay him from $25 to $75 to procure work for their gangs. This same man, too, charged the individual Italians from $1 to $3 for registering them on his employment register.
' I am afraid that this influx of Italians will create trouble in Toronto next winter. Last winter the city was overcrowded with Italians. The boarding-houses could not accommodate them, and I know of one case where seventeen Italians lived all winter in two rooms. This man has an agent in Toronto, and he is bringing in these new Italians to take places that should be filled by Toronto Italians. The superabundance of Italian labour has already cheapened wages here, and if an extra thousand or two of Italians are left in the city over next winter I do not know what we will do with them.' I
I ask the attention of the hon. Minister of Labour to this statement particularly. It is a statement which okigbt to be investigated at once and its truth or falsity established. In the ' Mail ' of yesterday, there is a despatch from Sault Ste. Marie, dealing with the operation of the Alien Labour law' in that part of Ontario. Might I ask the hon. minister if he has not had his attention drawn to infractions of that law at the Sault ?
Edward Frederick Clarke: 


William Mulock: 1 am not aware of my attention .having ever been called to that subject.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If it has not, it ought to be at once, and I call his attention to this statement because there is' some foundation for the allegation that American citizens are employed on public works, for which the people of Canada are paying, on the Canadian side of the Sault, while Canadians are debarred from earning their livelihood on the American side. That is a state of things w'hich ought to be put a stop to. We ought at least to have reciprocity on both sides :



ALIEN LABOUR LAW A DEAD LETTER.

[Stage Direction]
Sault-Ste. Marie, Ont., May 23.-Considerable feeling has been worked up in the Soo ' over the exercise and non-exercise of the Alien Labour laws along the international border. On the American side the officials have been very strict as regards the enforcement of the laws against the Canadian labourers who would go across the river to work, while there has been on this side almost a total neglect of the Canadian law, with the result that many Americans are earning money in Canada and spending it in the United States.
Americans are even employed to a large extent on government works in this vicinity. For instance, two of Hickler Brothers' dredges are just now employed on a contract of widening out the channel above the ship canal, and on the two dredges about sixteen men are at work. Investigation has revealed the fact that out of eight men employed on one of these dredges there is only one solitary resident Canadian. Five of the crew are Americans, and two are said to be British born, but are residing in the United States. On the other dredge three of the crew are American citizens. There are a good many men in the Canadian ' Soo ' who have been out of employment for some time, who are capable of filling, and who would be glad to have, the places of the Americans who should now find it easy to get other work at home, since the immigration officers across the line are sending home all the Canadians they can find.
Every morning and evening a number of boats cross the river between the veneer mill on this side and Neasville, a suburb of the Michigan ' Soo,' carrying Americans who work at the mill to and from their homes across the river. There are said to be several other flagrant violations of the law continually going on.
The people of this town would not feel so keenly over the matter were it not for the manner in which the American officers are enforcing the laws of their country, after which the Canadian laws were framed as a measure of protection. So long as the Canadian people were allowed to work across the river, there was no great objection (o allowing the much more numerous army of American workmen to come here. But now that the United States refuses to allow Canadians to earn a living in the American * Soo,' it is held that it is absolutely necessary that the labour market here be kept for the people of the town, and not those of a foreign country.
I am sure we all agree In the closing sentiment of this article. If our people are not

permitted to obtain employment on tlie American side, they certainly should be given tha preference on their own side. If they are displaced on the American side and their places taken by citizens of the United States, when they return to Canada they shohild not find themselves displaced at home also by Americans. The last report I shall read is from the Ottawa 1 Citizen.' X could read dozens of statements made in newspapers published in almost every part of the country complaining of this condition of things, but 1 shall rest my case on what I have just read and what I am about to read from the Otttawa ' Citizen ' :
Deported to Canada.
Ogdensburg, N.Y., May 24.-Eleven persons, former residents of lower Canada, have been arrested by United States Immigration Inspector Farrell and deported to Canada. They had all become public charges.
If we are to have an Alien Dab our law, we ought to enforce it ; we ought to make provision that it can be enforced ; we ought to make it easy of enforcement ; we ought to make it of speedy enforcement ; we ought to make it inexpensive to enforce. If we do not, it will be absolutely a dead letter, for the reasons given by the Secretary of State when he asked the Senate, in 1897, to throw out the Bill. If Canadian workmen feel aggrieved, if Canadian workmen feel that their places have been unfairly taken by Americans, unless they have immediate recourse to the police court, where having made affidavit to the facts they can have a summons issued and the offender brought before the court, the Act cannot be enforced. No matter how earnest, no matter how zealous, the Minister of Labour and his officials may be he will find the Act, in his hands, a dead letter. There can be no doubt, I repeat, of the effect of the law if the amendment which the hon. member for South Waterloo has presented is adopted by this 'House. In the construction of this great National Transcontinental Railway, involving an expenditure of from $100,000,000 to $150,000,000, provision will be made that our own people shall get the first opportunity of employment ; that, so far as the professional work is concerned, surveying and engineering, it shall be done by Canadians and not by aliens and foreigners. Imagine, if you can, Mr. Speaker, any state in the union pledging its credit to the extent of $100,000,000 or $150,000,000 for the construction of a public work, and Canadian engineers and surveyors being brought over there to displace American professional men. How long would the people of any state, or all the states, tolerate such a condition of affairs ? Not for one minute. But if the suggestion of my hon. friend from South Waterloo (Mr. Clare) becomes law, in this great national undertaking, involving such an immense expenditure raised upon the public credit, Canadian professional men
and Canadian labouring men will have the first opportunity of employment-and they are entitled to it, they should have it. But, if it is found-and this shows the great care and wisdom with which this resolution has been drawn by my hon. friend from South Waterloo-that sufficient labour of Canadian or British origin cannot be had to expedite the work, then, upon the certificate of the Minister of Labour that such workmen cannot be found, the provision for the employment of Canadian and British workmen shall be relaxed so that outsiders may be employed and the work proceed as expeditiously as the most ardent promoter of the enterprise could desire. I hope the Minister of Labour will withdraw his objections to the amendment. It will strengthen his hands in this House and strengthen his position before the people of this country if he allows this provision to be incorporated in the contract. It will be an evidence that hon. gentlemen opposite intend that this shall be a truly national work. Would it not be a disgraceful thing to be said in years to come that this road was constructed, that this great national highway from ocean to ocean every foot on Canadian soil, was surveyed and engineered by foreigners and constructed by alien labour ? If the amendment of the hon. member for South Waterloo prevails, it will be impossible to make that statement. We have competent engineers in Canada, and we have hundreds and thousands of able bodied workmen, and our solicitude and our care should be that these men should be given the first consideration, and only after they are fully employed should aliens be given an opportunity to work upon an undertaking the money for which is being provided upon the credit and at the expense of the people of Canada.
Charles Fitzpatrick: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) referred to the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Alex. Johnston) a few moments ago and was good enough to tell that hon. gentleman that he was not nearly so simple as he looked.


Mr.   CLARICE@: I did not mean any offence to the hon. gentleman.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I am sure the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) did not. But when he said that, I wondered if he was under the impression that, either in this House or out of it, there are many men who think that he is as sincere in this matter as he professes to be. As evidence of his sincerity he commends the action of the hon. member for South Leeds (Mr. Taylor) because forsooth that hon. gentleman, in 1890, introduced a Bill on the eve of a general election, which Bill he knew perfectly well would never go through.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I beg the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Fitzpatrick's) pardon,-he must

not misrepresent me, and I am sure he does-not desire to do so. The hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Clare) introduced the Bill in 1901, just after he lirst catered this House.
Mr. FITZPATRICK The hon. gentleman is careful again-I will not say to misrepresent me, but 1 cannot think of a better word at the moment. I referred to the hon. member for South Leeds (Mr. Taylor).


Edward Frederick Clarke: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The hon. member for South Leeds introduced the Bill in 1890, on the eve of a general election. And, for having done so, he receives commendation from the hon. member for West Toronto {Mr. Clarke). He knew very well that the Bill would not go through ; it was never intended to put it through. And he knows full well that from 1890 to 1896 he never succeeded in bringing in another Bill into this House until the eve of another general election, when he brought in another Bill.


George Taylor: I am sure the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fitzpatrick) would not wish to misrepresent me. I introduced the Bill before 1890, one or two years preceding the election. And I got a special committee of the House, the report of which I read this afternoon. That committee reported in 1890, recommending that until the government and the authorities at Washington had had a consultation, the Bill should not again be introduced, and I did not introduce it.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I accept the amendment, or the correction rather. The Bill was introduced for the first time a few years before 1890. But the hon. gentleman was careful not to reintroduce it before 1896.


George Taylor: I introduced it for two years in succession before I got the committee. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Fitzpatrick) had better learn the facts before he undertakes to misrepresent an hon. member of this House.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I am taking the statement of my hon. friend this afternoon. He said he introduced the Bill in 1890.	1
should be delighted if he would tell me in what years, from 1890 to 1896, he introduced it again. It was re-introduced in 1898, if I mistake not, on the eve of a general election. And then again it was reintroduced in 1896, during the short session that was held after this government came into power. And these are the facts on which the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) commends the hon. member for South Leeds (Mr. Taylor) as a champion of organized labour. And it was because, in 1897, the year after this government came into power, something was actually done to prevent the Introduction of alien labour that the hon. gentleman taxes us with bad faith. But he Mr. CLARKE.
goes further. In order to justify the position taken by the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Clare) he refers to the legislation adopted in the United States. Can he point out a single contract in the United States made with a public company, in which a provision such as he seeks to include in this contract is found V


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will the hon. member allow me to answer ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Certainly.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I have given the authority to show the provisions that are made In this point in the United States. The books are in the library, and they are available for the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fitzpatrick) as for the rest of us.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) does not misunderstand me. I am asking if he knows of a single contract in which a clause was introduced such as is here proposed, and he refers me to the general legislation of the United States.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fitzpatrick) allow me 7 I have quoted from the statute laws of the states of the union. And what we ask is to have a similar provision made in this contract.


Charles Fitzpatrick: A similar provision will be introduced and this government is bound to do it. But there is no provision in any contract made in the United States such as the hon. gentleman seeks to introduce into this contract. Why does he single out this enterprise for special treatment V Why is not organized labour as much interested in other works as in this V


Edward Frederick Clarke: Does the hon. gentleman wish an answer ? He may be sure that declamation does not affect the case. [DOT]


Charles Fitzpatrick: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) knows on which side the declamation is.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Hon. gentlemen opposite take credit for inserting in the comparatively trivial contract for the Crow's Nest Pass railway a similar provision to this, and all we ask is that they give an evidence of good faith by inserting this provision in this con-, tract, especially when the people of Canada are guaranteeing practically all the expenditure that will be made on the undertaking.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend will not escape in that way. Why does he single out this company for special treatment ? Why does lie not wish general legislation to be adopted in this country similar in terms to the legislation of the United States to which he referred us a moment ago ? Has he got friends with whom he wants to deal specially ? Does he single out this particular corporation because he seeks to create the impression

that the government are identified with the Grand Trunk Pacific in such a way as to injure the interests of organized labour ? Has organized labour nothing to do with all the other concerns in this country ? Has organized labour nothing to do with the other public enterprises that are being carried on ? Has organized labour not as much interest in those concerns as in the present contract ? Why does he seek,
I ask again, to single out this concern for a special treatment ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to answer ? Of course if the hon. gentleman does not wish me to answer I will take my seat.


Charles Fitzpatrick: If he has an answer to give, I pause now for that answer.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am under no obligation to answer the hon. gentleman, but if he asks a question I presume he is in good faith. Because under the present laws for the protection of Canadian workingmen, complaints have been made for the past two months with regard to the special contract with which we are dealing and nothing has been done. The amendment of the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Clare) will make provision to guard the interests of Canadian workingmen.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Complaints have been made with respect to this particular contract and with respect to other enterprises also and my hon. friend is not unaware that reference has been made to the fact that the Canadian Pacific Railway had imported American contractors to carry out their enterprises in Manitoba and the Northwest Territories. Under these circumstances-why have special treatment, I repeat again of this corporation ? I ask the House to reject this amendment, I ask the House to reject it because it is the firm determination, it is the settled policy of this government to introduce such legislation at this session as is necessary to protect the labourers of this country with respect to all enterprises that receive any measure of public assistance.


Samuel Hughes: In case this general law of which the minister speaks should be placed upon the statute-book after the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill and this contract should be ratified by the parliament of Canada, would the general law be retroactive and apply to this company ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend (Mr. Hughes) need have no anxiety about that. The law will be made sufficiently ample and. fdll ,!to meet requirements of this kind. The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) spoke of complaints about the treatment meted out to Canadians with respect to this enterprise. Our answer is that provision has been made and is being made now to investigate these complaints,
and if they are found to be justified and accurate such steps will be taken as will justify the conduct of the government since 1S97. The conduct of the government has been actuated by the principle that organized labour throughout the country is to bo protected within the limits of what is right. There is not one class only to be protected in this country. I am speaking for myself. I want to do what is right for organized labour, but when I want to do what is right for organized labour, I want to respect vested interests and the rights of corporations and capitalists. It is our settled policy that so far as all enterprises carried on with the aid of public money in this country are concerned, there should be ample provision made by legislation of a general character, to protect the labourer and to give him that to which he is fairly entitled, the advantage of a preference under equal conditions. That is what the Canadian labourer is entitled to and what he should receive. We should so frame our legislation-and it should be introduced almost immediately and before this Bill has been sanctioned-that it should have for effect to protect the Canadian labourer within the limits of what is right, so that he should have the benefit of any expenditure that is being made in this country, and that he should have the preference. Not only should that apply to the Canadian 'labourer ; it should apply also to the professional men, so that all expenditure connected either with engineering or with labour, should be so made that Canadians should have first choice and Canadians should have the advantage. That is the settled policy of the government; it has been settled for some time and in so far as this country is concerned, that policy will be placed on the statute-book before this Bill becomes law.


Robert Laird Borden: I think that the Minister of Justice must have been hit pretty hard by the remarks of the hon member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) ; otherwise we would not .have seen this petty display of temper. A measure designed to overcome the present injustice is to be brought down by the government and it has been in the contemplation of the government for some time. That is the statement of the government through the hon. Minister of Justice. It is a remarkable thing, if this has been in the contemplation of the government so long, that not one word with regard to so important a subject was said in the speech from the Throne, and not one word has been heard with regard to it until within the past week or ten days when the matter was brought up from this side of the House. The Minister of Labour has told the House and the country that all he has done after these complaints have been pouring in upon him for weeks, is to write certain letters to the officers -of this company. After all that has occurred;

after complaints of this kind have been heard from all over the country for months, then, for the first time, we learn from the government that they have had this general legislation in contemplation for a long time. It is a pity that they had not taken parliament and the country into their confidence in the speech from the Throne, because an important matter of that kind was more worthy of mention in that speech than many of the trivial subjects mentioned in it. As a matter of fact we have every reason to believe that the government have not had this matter in contemplation. We accept the words of the Minister of Justice that the government have had this in contemplation for some time, but we are entitled to give our own interpretation to the words ' some time ' and we do not give these words that extended meaning which the language of the Minister of Justice might be interpreted to attach to them. My hon. friend (Mr. Fitzpatrick) says that the member for Toronto (Mr. Clarke) shall not escape him. Well, I have not observed any particular disposition on the part of the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Clarke) to escape the Minister of Justice or any one else in this House. Has the Minister of Justice observed any intense desire on the part of the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) to escape him ? I have not observed it, and I do not know thaj; any one except the. Minister of Justice has observed that desire on the part of the hon. member (Mr. Clarke) at any time. He wishes to know why special treatment should be meted out to this particular company. Might I answer the question by asking another question of the Minister of Justice ? Why was it that special treatment was meted out to the company that built the Crow's Nest Pass Railway ? In the contract which has been laid before the House, provisions to all intents and purposes the same as those proposed by the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Clare) were inserted and were made binding on the company that were building the Crow's Nest Pass Railway. If this was a good subject for a general law, why was not the course now proposed to be adopted, carried out in that case ? Why was not a general law framed in that instance ? Why was that company singled out for what the Minister of Justice considers invidious treatment in regard to this important question ?
We would be very glad to have this general legislation passed. When it is placed before the House, it will meet with our support if it is designed in proper language to remedy the great grievance which is now being complained of. Ret me say. however, that in the meantime while this investigation is going on and while this general legislation is being framed by the hon. Minister of Justice and is being passed by parliament we should not forget that j -the surveys on this road are being made by I Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
engineers from the United States, and that Canadian engineers capable of performing that work are going without that employment to which they are entitled out of the moneys voted by this parliament for the purposes of the government. This is not the first occasion upon which we have heard of amendments to the general law resulting from discussions we have had. We have had suggestions from the hon. Minister of Justice with regard to more than onei subject. All that I have to say is that if the opposition have succeeded by the arguments which they have addressed to the House in inducing the government to make these changes in the general law, I think they are entitled to the gratitude of the country and especially to that of those Canadians, whether engineers, or1 whether labouring men, or whether belonging to other occupations who during the past five or six or seven months have been excluded from working upon this railway and have seen that work performed by men from the other side of the line. I did not intend to take part in the discussion upon this subject but I thought it only right.in view of what the hon. Minister of Justice has said to make these few remarks and to point out to him as I have done that we need not go to the United States of America as he has asked my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) to go in order to find safeguards of this kind, because, as I have already said, he has only to look back to the contract respecting the Crow's Nest Pass Railway to find that exactly the same provisions were made, not in regard to all companies in the country, but in regard to the company then performing a public work, which certainly was of very minor importance to that which is now proposed to be undertaken by the people of Canada.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr. Speaker, I want to say one word in regard to the argument which is advanced in this House as a defence for voting down this proposed amendment. It is an argument which has been addressed to this House ou more than one occasion during the present session. When we have a special Bill before us and when we desire to put into that Bill some special provisions to provide for something that ought to be provided for there and no where else, we are told that it requires to be put in a general Act, that this should be allowed to pass and that a general Act would contain a provision for it. V,'lien the amendment was moved to control freight rates in connection with this road we were treated with a similar argument to the effect that such a provision should go into the Railway Act and not into this special Act. Now then when we desire to make a special provision to protect the labouring interests of Canada we are told that it ought to go into a general Act and not be put into this special Act.

It is the special Act that we have before us now and it is for us to deal with one thing at a time. This is a great and important public work for which the people of Canada are paying and paying almost absolutely, and therefore it is most proper that a special provision should be placed in this Act instead of a general Act being introduced for that purpose. But suppose we were willing to take the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) at his word, in view of the history of the past, what confidence would we have that he would be likely to introduce a Bill that would answer the requirements ? We were *told exactly the same thing when my hon. friend from South Leeds (Mr. Taylor) introduced his Alien Labour Law. The government said that the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) would introduce a Bill that would have a general application to all parts of the country. He did introduce that Bill. Of whati use is that Bill to-day ? I have a report from a paper in British Col-unmbia, regarding a prosecution under that law, and what is the report from that province ? The Bill is practically worthless. What reason have we for believing that the general Bill to be introduced by the government would not be equally worthless some months hence ? Why should not we have a special provision in connection with this great undertaking ? This is a special Transcontinental Railway for which the country is paying and it is in connection with this undertaking alone that we should deal with the question at the present time. Afterwards, if the government desire to go further and introduce a general law, I have no doubt whatever but that it will receive* the support of hon. members on this side of the House provided it commends itself to their judgment as a useful measure. But if the government introduce a law similar to that which they introduced before for the purpose of deluding and misleading the labouring class of this country they are not likely to get the support of hon. members on this side of the House. I remember very distinctly that the defects and weaknesses of that law were pointed out and that it was positively and emphatically declared that none of the evils were likely to occur that we said from this side of the House would occur. What has been the experience since that law was adopted? The law is worthless to-day. If any one attempts to carry on a prosecution under it what is the result ? He has to ask the permission of a judge or a police magistrate and if there is no police magistrate in the district, he has to get the authority of die Minister of Justice or the Solicitor General and these officers may not give him the necessary authority. How many prosecutions have taken place under the law ? When an attempt is made to prosecute, it is found, as in British Columbia at the present time,
that the law is of no value whatever that they cannot prosecute under it with any hope of securing a conviction and that they cannot turn aliens back from the country who have come here in open violation of the law.
Mr. RALjtrf SMITH (Vancouver). Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I had not the opportunity of being present at the debate this afternoon, and I did not hear any of the speeches on this question excepting the speech of the hon. senior member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke). The subject of the debate on the third reading of the Bill is similar to the subject that was discussed in committee. I just desire to occupy the time of the House for about a minute and to say that I cannot believe that there is any sincerity in any proposition that will place a I'estriction upon the operation of a single company in this country, especially as the question with which it deals affects the whole country. As I said before, when discussing this matter the question is one that calls for general legislation. What does it matter to the workingmen of this country that the Grand Trunk Railway are restricted as to the employment of certain labourers, while the Canadian Pacific Railway are employing certain labourers, while the whole of the coal mines are employing alien labourers and while the manufacturers who are subsidized by a protective tariff are employing alien labourers ? What does it matter to the workingmen of this country if all the industries are to be permitted to employ those whom they like and one industry is singled out and restricted 1 I desire to say that I do not think any hon. member in this House will question my sincerity


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Mr. RALPH SMITH.: Any more than I question the sincerity of my hon. friend from West Toronto. I believe that my hon. friend from West Toronto is quite sincere in desiring to do something in the interests of the working men. I do not care very much whether the members of the opposition believe that I am sincere in that interest or whether they do not. All I have to say is that I feel sincere and I do not think tne workingmen of this country would consider favourably for one minute the proposal that has been presented to this House and which discriminates not at all in their own interests. The men working for different factories and different railways want to know where they come in. What does it matter to them if the industries that employ them are not to be restricted the same as the industry which is referred to in the amendment ? General legislation is the real remedy and I want to say that I shall vote against that amendment.
I will do that for the reason that the Minister of Labour, some weeks ago dis-

cussed this whole matter with me ; I expressed my anxiety for legislation of this kind, and he promised to introduce it, and of course I believe the Minister of Labour is sincere, while lion, gentlemen opposite do not seem to think so. In the debate to-night, there have been insinuations against the operation of the labour bureau, and insinuations against the efficiency of the Alien Labour law. Let me point out that in 1888 the United States passed an Alien Labour law, and although the Conservatives were in power many years after that, they never passed a similar Act. As to the labour bureau, it is well known that for many years there was an agitation in this country for the establishment* of a labour bureau, but the Conservative party then in power never brought such a bureau into existence, although it is true that prior to one general election they promised a commission. In view of the history of both political parties in reference to labour legislation, and when we find the Conservatives at this particular time supporting an amendment of this kind against one particular industry, I believe that we have every reason for questioning their sincerity. The Minister of Labour has promised that he will bring in a law that will apply to all industries. That is the right kind of legislation; that is the legislation I will support. I will oppose the amendment because I believe the government will bring in general legislation which will prove a remedy for the whole of this grievance. _


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did the hon. gentleman support the general legislation that was brought in before by the present government ?


Ralph Smith: I do not quite understand what the hon. member refers to.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I refer to the amendment to the Alien Labour law brought in by the present Prime Minister.


Ralph Smith: Of course I supported it, because it was an improvement on the existing law, but we have now the decision of a judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia to show its weakness, and I am prepared to use my influence with the government to have the existing law strengthened.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In view of the experience of the past, is not the hon. member (Mr. Ralph Smith) a little chary in taking the word of the government that they will introduce a general law which will be effective ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Question.


Mr. E. D. SMITH. (South Wentworth).: There is a very painful phase of this whole matter, and that is, that no matter how good a proposal may be, if it comes from a member of the opposition, it is opposed and voted down by the supporters of the government. We have now before us an amendment Mr. RALPH SMITH.
brought in by a member of the opposition, and it is opposed by the government and its supporters, who have not given a single good reason why they should vote against it. First, we had the Minister of Labour, and he opposed this amendment because, as he said, he would bring in a similar measure, wider in its scope. He does not for a moment say that the amendment is not for the benefit of the country, but he asked his followers to vote against it, simply because he promises to bring in a general measure at some future day. Well, we have such a general measure now on the statute-book, and the labour people of the country know how extremely ineffective it is. Here we have a great corporation receiving greater privileges from the government than were ever before accorded, and is this not the time and place to pass special legislation to protect the Canadian workingmen who have to pay the taxes to build this railway ? We have complaints which are undoubtedly well founded that at the present time this Grand Trunk.Pacific Company is violating the existing Alien Labour law, and does it not appeal to the common sense of the House that such violation should be put an end to at once ? Then we have the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) opposing the amendment. He did not oppose it because it was unwise, but because forsooth it does not exclude British subjects as well as aliens. Whenever any proposal is made in this parliament to further solidity and cement the ties that bind the various portions of this great empire, it acts on the member for La-belle like a red rag on a bull, and he at once rises to oppose such a measure. Then we have the member for Burrard (Mr. Mac-pherson) who thinks the amendment is wise and salutory, but he announced he would vote against it because the government he supports was the first to put a tax of $500 upon Chinese. Next, the hon. member for West York (Mr. Campbell), opposed the amendment, and his only reason was that the government introduced an Alien Labour law, and which we all know has proved inadequate to exclude contract labour from the United States. Then we have the Minister of Justice announcing that he will oppose the amendment and his opposition is apparently based upon the grounds, that the member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) introduced an Alien Labour law just previous to an election. Not one of these gentlemen opposite has ventured to give a common sense reason why he will vote against this amendment. As I have said, we have this great corporation receiving immense privileges from the country, and yet it is undoubtedly true that they are at present employing in the surveys of this route a very large number of foreigners. I have in my hand a circular, presumably authentic, from the Amalgamated Society of Canadian Engineers who allege that the work now being done in Manitoba-a part of the country in which

the engineering difficulties should not be great-is extremely expensive to the Grand Trunk Pacific Company.
It is natural that it should be so. The engineers employed being strangers to the topography of the country, it is quite natural that they should commit blunders which Canadian engineers more conversant with the topography of the country would not make. Is this not a deplorable condition of affairs that ought to enlist the sympathy of the government ? I am glad to hear that an investigation is to take place; but why was not Mr. O'Donoghue sent to investigate this matter as soon as the complaint was made, nearly a year ago ? We spend hundreds of thousands of dollars every year in bonusing industries-what for ? To provide employment for Canadians. Yet here is an opportunity by which we can provide for the employment of Canadians without the expenditure of a single dollar. These American engiueeers who are carrying on these surveys will no doubt endeavour as far as possible to bring their friends in to work for them instead of employing Canadians in their parties. But further than that we all know that engineers engaged in surveying in the country have great opportunities of knowing where profitable contracts can be got. They have opportunities to give tips to manufacturers and.contractors which no other class of men have. Is it not natural to suppose that these men. if Americans, will give that information to their friends on the other side of the line instead of to Canadians ? What an advantage it would be to this country to have Canadians occupying these positions instead of Americans, for this reason alone ? And what a disgrace it would be in future years if it could be said that this great Transcontinental Railway, which was to be a national undertaking- that was one of the chief arguments in its favour at the beginning-had been engineered entirely by foreigners ? Is it possible that we have not in Canada engineers capable of surveying and building a line of railway such as this ? Has Canada not given to the world dhiring the last thirty years more eminent engineers than any other country in the world in proportion to its population ? Have we not as good schools for turning out engineers as are to be found on the continent ? I believe the School of Practical Science in Toronto and the School of Science in connection with McGill University are equal to any others on the continent. and they have turned out engineers who are filling the highest positions not only on this continent, but in Europe. The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) is quite satisfied that his countryman, that eminent engineer, Sir Percy Girouard, should find employment under the British flag; he is quite satisfied, no doubt, that hundreds of millions of capital to build this raiway shall come from British hands; but at the same 111
time he wishes to prevent British subjects from other parts of the empire from coming in here, and would treat them exactly as he would foreigners. In view of the fact that we have engineers who are the equal of any in the world, I think it would be in every way to the financial advantage of the country that we should employ Canadian engineers on the proposed railway. Is it not the duty of the government of the day to take advantage of this opportunity, and not wait until a better general law is passed, which may be a year from now ? because we have not had any notice of it until this evening.
I propose to vote for the amendment, not because it is moved by the hon. member for South Waterloo, who sits on this side of the House, Mut because I believe that this House should take every opportunity it can to throw trade and work into the hands of Canadians. Here is an opportunity that will cost the country nothing. We are doing many things that cost us hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars, to throw work into the hands of Canadian people. Here is an opportunity to throw work into the hands that will cost the country nothing. Why, then, should we not be Canadians in this matter ? Not a word has been said by any hon. gentleman opposite in contradiction of the arguments advanced by the hon. member for South Waterloo ; but hon. gentlemen opposite will' vote against the amendment because it emanates from a member of the opposition. I trust that this spirit will not always prevail. The hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Ralph Smith), who poses as the sincere friend of- labour in this country, intends to vote against the amendment, because he says, forsooth, that he thinks it is insincere. Is that an argument that will influence any one who is open to conviction ?


Ralph Smith: Will the hon. gentleman permit me to say that I never gjfve that as a reason. My reason was because it did not apply to all the industries of this country.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: The hon. gentleman will no doubt have an opportunity later on, if the government bring in a genera! measure, to vote for that measure ; but in the meantime here is a measure that applies at once, and that we know will be effective. I have no sympathy for those men who pose as the friends of labour, but who, when an opportunity presents itself, find some flimsy excuse for failing to support a measure in the interest of labour. Because his party, or that party which he always votes with, opposes this amendment, the hon. gentleman forsooth cannot find it in his heart to vote for it. Mr. Speaker, I trust that a different spirit will prevail, and that when an amendment is proposed in this House, there will be some men independent enough, whether they call themselves independent



or not, to vote for it on its merits, and not simply because it emanates from one party or the other.


Alexander Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to participate in this discussion this evening, but some of the observations made by hon. gentlemen opposite are sufficiently interesting to cause members on this side of the House to make some remarks. I desire to say at the outset that it is interesting to have from members on the Conservative side of the House the admission which we have had tonight, namely, that during the eighteen years that the Conservative party were in power, they absolutely refused to do anything whatever to benefit the workingmen of this country. I want to call the attention of workingmen throughout the entire length and breadth of this country to the admission made by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) this, evening, that notwithstanding that his party were in power here for many years, yet they refused year after year to do anything for the benefit of the workingmen of Canada. It is all very well for my hon. friend to come forward here and say that the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) was doing his whole duty.
In my judgment, the hon. member for Leeds was not doing his entire duty. On divers occasions he had introduced alien labour legislation, but had he been sincere he would have pressed his Bills to a conclusion, and thus ascertained who are the friends and who are the enemies of alien labour legislation. Not having done this, he did not, in my judgment, do his whole duty. The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) went further. He said that in 1896, after the present government came to power, the hon. member for Leeds still persisted in introducing his Alien Labour Bill, and my hon. friend then proceeded to enlighten the House regarding what transpired in the Senate. He would have this House believe that the Liberal party in the upper chamber were opposed to labour legislation. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that if the Senate were desirous of passing such legislation in the year 1897, there was nothing to prevent their doing so. When they found it advisable to throw out government measures in the Senate, they did so in 1897 and in some subsequent years. The hon. member for West Toronto need not hug the delusion that the people are not familiar with the record of the Conservative party on this subject. The working people in this country know very well that year after year before 1896, when hon. gentlemen opposite held office, these people, who are now so anxious to show their sympathy with labour, did nothing. Yet to-night we have them proclaiming that they are the true friends of labour. The hon. member for West Toronto expressed the hope that when the time came for a vot * Mr. E. D. SMITH.
on this particular amendment, I would be found supporting it. Mr. Speaker, I shall not be found supporting it; and if I do not, it is because it is not such an amendment as the workingmen desire us to pass ; but I may here say that when legislation is introduced in this House that is really in the interests of the workingman, that is intended to meet the requirements of the workingmen, that will apply, not only to one corporation, but to every corporation of this country, I will be found supporting that legislation. That is the legislation which, to my mind, is required by the workingmen of this country, and which, I trust, will be introduced and pressed to a conclusion by this government.


Mr. LANCASTER.: Why did the hon. gentlemen not support the resolution of the hon. member for South Waterloo In 1901, if he is always ready to support legislation in the interests of the workingmen ?


Alexander Johnston: I propose to give ample justification for any vote I have given upon this question ; and I tell my hon. friend that if it be shown that the Alien Labour law is defective, I am here to ask the government to bring forward, at the earliest possible moment, legislation which will be effective and meet the requirements of the case. It is important that the workingmen should know the position occupied by the Conservative party on this particular question. That is the point I desire brought home to the people, and upon which the working people are being educated. Long ago they reached the conclusion that if they have any friends, it is not in the Conservative party they will be found. The hon. member for West Toronto speaks a great deal about the union label legislation introduced last year. I want to ask him to real from the Montreal ' Gazette.' That paper is the leading organ of the Conservative party in the jirovince of Quebec, and is also the organ of hon. gentlemen opposite. The hon. gentleman has not treated this House to any extracts from that Conservative organ. Let him take up the files of the ' Gazette ' and ' Industrial Canada,' the organ of the manufacturers, and find out what they have to say about this question. He will do so no doubt at a future date. I suppose he has carefully collated all these extracts, both from the Montreal ' Gazette ' and ' Industrial Canada,' and at a later date will read them to this House. The workingmen of this country know well that before 1890 there was very little security for them on government contracts. I desire to call the attention of this House to the fact that since 1897 provision has been made by this government that railway contractors and all contractors receiving government aid shall be obliged, first arid foremost, to pay the wages if the men. That was not the case before 1890. Did it ever occur to the Conservative party, during their long term of eighteen

years in power, that the workingmen of Canada did not deserve treatment of this kind ? Not at all. It never dawned on them for one moment. A contractor could go and get his money and subsidies whenever he wanted them, and no question was asked. He was not asked whether he paid his workingmen or not, and it is notorious that in many instances. before 1896 the contractors left this country and left their labourers unpaid. This government very wisely provided that these things shall not occur hereafter. These are some of the things that, in my judgment, will condemn the opposition. The hon. member for West Toronto was deeply interested on behalf of the Canadian manufacturers. He fairly wept over the fate that would overtake the Canadian manufacturers as the result of the contract with the Grand Trunk Pacific. I want him to take that contract and compare it with the contract which the government he supported entered into with the Canadian Pacific Railway for the construction of that railway, and then let him point out whether the contract we are considering to-night provides better terms for the Canadian manufacturers than the contract his friends entered into with the Canadian Pacific Railway. What stock did the Canadian Pacific Railway or the government of that day take in the Canadian manufacturers ? We have provided that the manufacturers shall be looked after. The contract we are considering takes notice of them. The contract that we are discussing here to-night provide i that the Canadian manufacturer shall be recognized.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Why should it not provide that Canadian labour should be recognized ?


Alexander Johnston: The contract provides that in the construction of this railway, recognition is to be given to all industries of Canada, the labour industry included. Therefore, it is that I desire that the labourers of this country should know that better treatment is assured them as a result of this contract than was ever assured by a contract entered into by a Conservative government. I wish to point out that the Canadian manufacturer receives better treatment than he ever received at the hands of a Conservative administration. It is for these reasons that the contract that we are considering commends itself to the judgment of every class in this country.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? If this contract commends itself to the judgment of Canadian workmen, why are they applying to the Canadian government to prevent the employment of alien labourers on this great work, to the detriment of Canadians ?


Alexander Johnston: The Canadian workmen have not applied to this goveru-1114
ment' or to any other authority for such legislation as has been proposed by the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Clare). And I want to say, further, that if the hon. gentleman submits that legislation to any body of organized labour in this country he will be told that that is not the legislation that the workmen of Canada demand.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Have not the Society of Civil Engineers requested the government to deport the Americans who are now engaged on this work, and who outnumber Canadians on the work two to one ?


Alexander Johnston: I am not going to permit my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) to get away from the question I am discussing and the question which he himself asked and I answered. The hon. gentleman will not rise in his place and say that any body of organized labour, engineers or others, came before any authority in this country and asked for legislation on the lines of the resolution proposed by the hon. member for South Waterloo.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Alex. Johnston) says that no body of engineers has made such representation. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if it is not true that a memorial has been sent by the Society of Engineers to every member of this House ?


Alexander Johnston: If memorials have been sent, they have not asked for legislation dealing with a particular corporation. The men interested in labour legislation in this country are not behind this amendment. The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) had his opportunity to promote legislation beneficial to the working classes of this country. For eighteen years his friends were in power. And what is the record of the hon. gentleman during that time ? Did he ever rise in his place to support the proposals of his desk-mate the hon. member for South Leeds (Mr. Taylor) ? There was a time when the hon. gentleman was a great man in the councils of his party previous to 1890. Did he ever demand from the party of which he was a faithful follower that justice should be done to the workingmen of Canada ? It is not in the records. But when his desk-mate stood up and pretended to be doing something in the interest of the workingmen, my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) gently pulled his coat tail to get him to sit down again.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Johnston, Cape Breton) is misrepresenting me, whether ignorantly or deliberately I do not know, but he is doing it all the same.


Alexander Johnston: Do I understand my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule! to say that he was supporting the legislation introduced at different times previous to 1S96 by the hon. member for South Leeds ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not know what the hon. gentleman understands. It would be a very difficult thing for me to judge.


Alexander Johnston: But, fortunately for us, we have the record of what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) was thinking about. And that record shows that for eighteen years the hon. gentleman never rose and proposed legislation that would benefit the workingmen of this country.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I tell the hon. gentleman distinctly and deliberately that the record does not show anything of the kind, and I say now, and say it advisedly, in the face of the statement I have made, that the hon. gentleman is deliberately misrepresenting me.


Alexander Johnston: Then I understand that my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) was supporting the legislation introduced by my hon. friend from South Leeds (Mr. Taylor). Are we to understand that ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not responsible for what the hon. gentleman understands.


Alexander Johnston: It would be interesting for the members of this House and for the people of this country to have a statement from the hon. gentleman to-night as to whether he was supporting the legislation introduced by the hon. member for South Leeds previous to 1896 or not. It is true I have not examined the records very carefully. It may be that ' Hansard ' will reveal that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) stood up and made several long speeches, as was his wont, supporting this measure. If the hon. gentleman will say that that is the case, if he will point out to us that he ever stood up and, in the face of his party leaders, pressed this legislation to a division, I will take back all that I have said on this phase of the question. But, if he cannot show that he has done that, I think I have a perfect right, and the people have a perfect right, to conclude that my hon. friend from East Grey, notwithstanding his protestations, was not sympathetically disposed toward the legislation of the hon. member for South Leeds. All I have to say about this question is that, in my judgment, the present government, which has held power since 1896 has done something to recognize the rights of labour in Canada. It may well be that much remains to be done. But, so far as I am concerned, I am satisfied that the government will in the future, as it has in the past, see to it that proper provision is made with regard to the labourers of this country, and that the protection which is rightly theirs will be given them.


Mr. ROBERT A. PRINGLE (Cornwall and Stormont).: Mr. Speaker, I promise not to detain the House for more than a moment. I had not intended to take any part Mr. A. JOHNSTON.
in this discussion. But after the remarks that have fallen from the lips of the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Alexander Johnston) I feel constrained to say a word or two. I think the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Clare) should be very highly commended. To my mind it is an amendment that should receive the support of every loyal Canadian. I am much surprised at the attitude taken by hon. gentlemen supporting the government. The hon. member for Cape Breton rose to reply to the hon. member for South Wentworth (Mr. Ernest D. Smith) yet he made no reply, but wandered off to a consideration of what certain members of the House had done years ago. Why should the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Johnston) refuse to support an amendment to the effect that preference should he given to British subjects. Is it not wisdom that a preference should be given to our own people in connection with this great national work into which this country is to put some $150,000,000 ?


Alexander Johnston: The hon. gentleman asks why I refused to support the proposition before the House. I said I refused to support it because it did not meet the case at all. I say that not only should this legislation apply to one particular corporation but to every corporation in Canada and when legislation of that character is introduced I will support it.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: I think that the answer of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Johnston) only shows his insincerity. Last session I had the honour of introducing a motion in this House to the effect that all supplies should be purchased in Canada that might be required to construct equip and operate, &c. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Johnston) then supported that motion. He supported it on the ground that it would be a protection to our Canadian manufacturers and incidentally to Canadian labourers and Canadian mechanics. That motion was voted down. The hon. member for West York (Mr. Campbell) was opposed to it and nearly every other gentleman who has risen to-night to speak against the amendment of the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Clare) opposed it, but when the agreement came down we found that notwithstanding the fact that these gentlemen had voted against it almost identically the same clause had been put in the contract. Then all these gentlemen raised their voices in praise of this clause which had been put in the contract to protect Canadian manufacturers and Canadian labourers although they had voted it down when the motion emanated from this side of the House. If the hon. gentleman was consistent then when an opportunity was given him to-night to do something to protect Canadian engineers, Canadian labourers, Canadian workmen, he should take the same course that he took last year in regard to the Canadian manufacturer, and should

have supported the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Clare). I was not surprised at the hon. member for West York (Mr. Campbell) voting against the manufacturers last year because his course in this House has always been inconsistent in regard to the manufacturing industries of this country. We find him going down to Montreal and making protectionist speeches ; then he comes back into the House and always votes against anything in favour of protection when it emanates from the opposition. As far as I am concerned I see no reason why this amendment should not pass and become part of this Bill. The amendment introduced last year was on exactly the same principle. It was voted down by hon. gentlemen supporting the government with the exception of the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Johnston) and one or two others but was afterwards adopted by the government and placed in the Bill. The amendment which is now introduced by the hon. member for South Waterloo (Sir. Clare) is exactly on the same principle. The hon. member for Cape Breton (Sir. Johnston) says that no organized body has asked that this amendment should be moved or that legislation of this sort should be asked. 1 care not whether they have asked or not, we are here to safeguard the interests of our Canadian people and it is our duty to be on the alert and see that provisions are put into this Bill which will amply safeguard our people. But I say they have asked. There is not a"'member in this House who does not know that the engineers in this country have represented to them through circulars which have been sent to every member that to-day American engineers are being employed in all the important positions in connection with the surveys that are now going on and I say that now Is the time to act; before this Bill passes away from us, before we finally vote on it we should introduce an amendment, and When this Bill becomes law it will become effective, and then a preference will be given not to the Americans but to our own British subjects.
House divided on amendment (Mr. Clare).
 YEAS :
Messrs.
Johnston (Cardwell), Kemp,
Kidd,
Lancaster,
Lavell,
Lennox,
Leonard,
McGowan,
Monk,
Morin,
Osier,
Porter,
Puttee,
Reid (Grenville), Richardson,
Clarke,	Robinson (Elgin),
Cochrane,	Rosamond,
Culbert,	Smith (Wentworth),
Daniel,	Sproule,
Donnelly,	Taylor,
Earle,	Thomson (Grey),
Gilmour,	Tolton,
Halliday,	Vrooman,
Henderson,	Wilmot,
Hughes (Victoria),	Wilson.-50.
NAYS :	
Messrs.	
Arehambault,	Laurier
Bazinet,	(L'Assomption),
Beland,	Lavergne
Bickerdike,	(Drummond & Artha.)
Blanchet,	Lavergne (Montmagny),
Bourassa,	Law,
Bourbonnais,	LeBlanc,
Brodeur,	Lemieux,
Brown,	Loy,
Bruneau,	Macdonald,
Bureau,	Mackie,
Calvert,	MacKinnon.
Campbell,	MacLaren (Huntingdon),
Carbonneau,	Macpherson,
Champagne,	McCarthy,
Christie,	McGugan
Costigan,	McLennan,
Delisle,	Malouin,
Demers (Ldvis),	Marcil (Bagot),
Demers (St. John),	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Desjardins,	Mayrand,
Douglas,	Meigs,
Fielding,	Monet,
Fisher,	Mulock (Sir William),
Fitzpatrick,	Murray,
Fortier,	Oliver,
Gallery,	Prefontaine,
Galliher,	Riley,
Gauvreau,	Rivet,
Geoffrion,	Ross (Ontario),
German,	Ross (Rimouski),
Gervais,	Ross (Victoria, N.S.),
Gibson,	Ross (Yukon),
Gould,	Russell,
Harty,	Scott,
Harwood,	Sifton,
Heyd,	Smith (Vancouver),
Holmes,	Stewart,
Hughes (King's, P.E.I.)	Tobin,
Hyman,	Tolmie,
Johnston (Cape Breton).Tuelfer,	
Lang.	Turcot,
Lapointe.	Turgeon,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),	Wright.-86.
PA	RS :
Ministerial.	Opposition.
McEwen,	Sherritt,
Logan,	Lefurgey,
McColl,	Ward,
Eramerson,	Fowler,
Sutherland (Oxford),	Haggart,
Dugas.	Tarte,
Kendall,	Roche (Marquette),
Wade,	Gourley,
Guthrie,	Maclean,
Morrison,	Hale,
Roche (Halifax),	Hackett,
Proulx,	McIntosh,
Talbot,	Seagram,
Thompson (Haldimand)	Casgrain,
Johnston (Lambton),	Maclaren (Perth),
Grant,	Ingram,
Cowan,	Pringle,
Alcorn,
Armstrong,
Avery,
Ball,
Barker,
Bell,
Bennett,
Blain,
Borden (Halifax), Brock,
Broder,
Bruce,
Carscallen,
Clancy,
Clare,


Mr. SHERRITT.: I am paired with the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. Mc-Ewen). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.
Mr. riiINGI/E. I am paired with the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Cowan). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. HAUGHTON LENNOX (South Sim-eoe).: I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Jabel Robinson :
That the Bill be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to Committee of the Whole with instructions to amend the same by adding thereto the following section as section No.	:-
(1)	It shall be lawful for the government at any time hereafter upon six months' notice to the Pacific Company to expropriate, acquire and take over the whole undertaking, railways, branch lines, terminals, appurtenances, rolling stock, equipment, hereditaments and real and personal property of the Pacific Company, including the unexpired term of the lease of the eastern division, but not including moneys, securities for moneys and choses in action, and to own and operate the said railways and branch lines and other property.
(2)	Immediately upon the expiration of six months from the date of service of such notice upon the Pacific Company the government may enter into possession of, and the Pacific Company shall deliver to the government possession of the said railways, branch lines, terminals, appurtenances, rolling stock, equipment, hereditaments and real personal property.
(3)	If in such case the government and the Pacific Company shall fail to agree upon the amount of compensation to be paid to the Pacific Company for the property so expropriated, acquired and taken over by the government, the same shall be determined by arbitrators to be appointed in the manner provided in the 47th clause of the original agreement. *
(4)	The arbitrators in considering, arriving at and making their award, shall have regard to and take into account the following matters :[DOT]-[DOT]
(a.) No allowance shall be made or sum awarded for, or on the basis of past or future profits or earning powers, or by wTay of good will or upon any speculative basis or for disappointment or by reason of the sale being compulsory, and the gross amount to be allowed or credited to the Pacific Company before taking into account deductions and sums of money to be retained, shall not in any case exceed the actual value of the property taken over, having Mr- PRINGLE.
regard to and on the basis of the matters immediately hereinbefore provided for.
(b.) Account shall be taken of the total amount of all payments, outlays and contributions by the government whether as money, land, interest paid without recourse, or otherwise on account or in connection with the property taken over and the gross sum otherwise payable by the government shall in addition to any other deduction to be made, be reduced in the proportion which this sum bears to the total cost of the property taken over. Such total cost shall be based upon and shall include the original cost of construction as defined in the scheduled agreements, together with any subsequent expenditure (not being working expenditure) upon capital account for betterments.
(c.) The arbitrators shall take an account of all bonds, mortgages and debts constituting a charge upon the property taken over, and also of the amount of the liability of the government for the Pacific Company by guarantee or otherwise, and the government shall thereupon be taken to have assumed direct liability as between the government and the Pacific Company for the payment of all these debts, charges and liabilities, and to have undertaken to indemnify the Pacific Company from liability or action, and this being done the total amount of these debts, charges and liabilities so ascertained shall by the a ward be set off against or deducted from the sum of money otherwise payable to the Pacific Company, and the balance shall be awarded to be paid by the government to the Pacific Company, or by the Company to the government as the case may be, with interest at per cent from the. date of taking possession.
(5)	The government shall not exercise the said power of expropriating and acquiring the said undertaking, railways, branch lines and other property of the Pacific Company unless and until parliament shall have first made provision by an Act or Acts to be passed in that behalf, for authorizing the raising and payment of the compensation to be awarded by the arbitrators as aforesaid.
(6)	In case the tenth parliament of Canada shall at its first session make such provision, and in case the said power of expropriation shall be exercised within one year after the prorogation of the first session of the said tenth parliament, the gross sum to be allowed or credited to the Pacific Company as compensation as hereinbefore provided, shall not exceed the actual cost to the Pacific Company of the property expropriated, acquired or taken over by the government, and an addition of ten per centum of such portion thereof as shall be actually payable to the Pacific Company after deductions and set off as hereinbefore mentioned.
I propose to say something with regard to this important amendment; an amendment which, in fact, goes to the substance of the whole transaction, which has occupied the attention of parliament now for such a long time. I may explain that, knowing, as I did, that the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Robinson) intended to introduce an amendment along the same lines, I asked the hon. gentleman to second this amendment, and his name appears upon the paper which I have just forwarded to you. Mr. Speaker. The right of expropriation -is regarded as an extraordinary remedy; to some extent as a power to be exercised only in

exceptional cases. But we are now dealing with an extraordinary state of things, as I think has become very evident during this debate. It is a measure that is to be resorted to, of course, only where the interest of the public demands that such a course should be taken. I believe that the interests of the country are sufficiently at stake here to warrant parliament in determining that such a remedy should be open to the people of Canada at a future date, and perhaps at a very early date, as indicated by the last clause of this amendment ; a clause which has direct reference to an appeal to the people for their verdict upon this question ; and, failing that, at all events, reserving to the people of this country the power at some future time to take over this undertaking and work it for the general advantage of the people of Canada as a whole. This proposal differs from the ordinary remedy of expropriation in this particular, that usually it is the case of the government, or of some large corporation, taking over property that absolutely belongs to another, but in this case we take over a property in which the company is interested to the extent of about 10 per cent, and in which the country is interested to the extent of about 90 per cent. We are the sole owners of the eastern division, and as to the western division, I am safe in saying that we contribute at least 75 per cent of the entire expenditure, so that I am probably correct in saying that Canada has invested 90 per cent of the entire money required for this huge project. The necessity for expropriation has become very manifest during the progress of this debate. Let me say right here that I think I can, with very great show of reason, adopt the language used by the Prime Minister when he introduced this measure, and say that the proposals in this amendment are so fair and reasonable in themselves ; so manifestly in the interests of the country, that I can appeal, even at this late hour, with some degree of confidence, to the government and their supporters to take this matter into their favourable consideration and adopt . the amendment.
X need hardly remind old parliamentarians that this is not. a new system of legislation, that provision for expropriation was included in the old Act of Incorporation of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, and that in a number of statutes passed In Canada in earlier times, provision for expropriation by the government was inserted. It is true that in later years we have not adopted this method, but having regard to the fact that in all the lighter railway enterprises in England and in the matter of tramways, provisions of this kind occur, and in the light of the fact that every day the tendency towards government ownership is developing and becoming more pronounced, I think that the time has evidently come when, in connection with a new undertaking
such as this, there is good reason to ask the government when granting such large concessions to this company to accept the amendment which I now propose. I do not distinguish between the Grand Trunk Railway Company and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, because in this regard I entirely adopt the language of the hon. the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) of last session. There is one company to all intents and purposes; as he was forced to admit it is the same red-headed boy. I say that when we reflect that the company we are dealing with is a company whose interests are antagonistic to the interests of the people of Canada, a company whose interests in the east as well as in the west are identified with the interests of the United States, a company whose chief official, as far as management is concerned, is a man whose interests are identified in a very pronounced way with the interests of the United States, when we reflect that we are dealing practically with a foreign corporation it is clearly in the interests of the people of Canada that this provision should be made. It is necessary also in the interests of the people of the west. The speech in which the right hon. gentleman who leads the House introduced this measure last session, although he would like to have it forgotten, has not been forgotten. The urgency that he portrayed on that occasion has not been lost sight of by the people of the country, although it has been lost sight of in the amendments introduced this session. In order that we shall have, not what the government propose to give us now-the possibility of a railway being constructed in the west within eight years-in order that we shall have what the government promised us a year ago -the rapid construction of this railway for the purpose of easing the congestion of the west, of bringing relief to the people of the west and providing for the every day increasing resources of that great territory, and in order that we shall have the prompt and speedy construction of that railway it is necessary, I believe, that we should have the provision which I have taken this opportunity to move. If anything is required to emphasize the fact that both the Railway Companies and the government have come to a complete halt in this matter, it is found in the fact not only that the government have extended the time for an additional period of three ' years, nearly doubling the time originally given, but in the fact that the railway company have found it necessary to make a special provision in regard to leasing a portion of the line showing, what probably the government do not desire to admit, that it is not contemplated either on the part of the company or the government that there shall be a rapid construction of this line such as was proclaimed by the right hon. the leader of the government, when he introduced his measure last session.

Therefore, I say that there is a necessity for adopting this measure in order that we shall have some method of taking over such portion of the railway as may be completed, and to enable us to carry out and implement the policy announced by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) last year that we propose in the immediate future to carry to the people of the west the relief they require and give to the people who are going into that country abundant facilities for transporting their produce from their homes to the markets of the world. It is a necessity also that we should adopt this method in order to safeguard that great national asset the Intercolonial Railway. We have invested our money in that enterprise. This government since their advent in 1896 have been spending large sums of money upon that railway. We have come to the position now that the Intercolonial Railway, while not exactly a remunerative investment in a direct sense, yet affords special facilities to the people down by the sea and having been placed upon a splendid basis of equipment, has arrived at the period when it is practically a concern paying its own way. Therefore, we are met at this, a most unfortunate time, by the government proposing to sacrifice that work by the construction of the eastern division of this Transcontinental Railway. As a matter of safeguarding and protecting the Intercolonial Raiway which is a great national asset we are also justified in adopting the measure I have introduced. I also urge it as a means of checking the reckless extravagance which is announced by the government in the matter of pushing that line down to Moncton. If this measure is adopted and if we have these expropriation powers, there will be yet time to prevent the government from going on with such a reckless waste of money as to push the line from Quebec to Moncton. But, above and beyond all this, above and beyond the mere question of money, and I do feel that there has been a most recklessly extravagant bargain made by the government, that they have utterly failed to safeguard the interests of the people, there is one matter that is of greater and of more far reaching importance and that is the question of securing a national highway such as that proclaimed by the right hon. gentleman who leads the government-of making this in fact as well as1 in a name a national highway. I therefore, in introducing this amendment, have in mincT that whatever waste of money there may be-and there inevitably will be, I suppose, a waste of money by the manner in which the government have proceeded with this work, the provision which I introduce is the only remedy now left us by which we can secure what the right hon. gentleman promised when he introduced this measure, namely, the transportation of Canadian pro-Mr. LENNOX.
duce across Canadian territory and through Canadian ports.
This has practically been abandoned by the government during the discussion of this1 matter. They have practically abandoned the contention of last session that there is any means by which we can compel this railway to be in any true sense a national highway. They have practically abandoned the contention that we can, by any means which lie within the four corners of this statute or this contract, compel the Grand Trunk Pacific or the Grand Trunk to carry our* produce to a Canadian shipping port. Therefore 1 say that important as the money question is, of transcendent importance is the question of controlling the transportation of this country across Canadian territory ; and whatever might have been done had the government adopted a wise policy in the beginning, there appears to be no remedy left now other than the adoption of the system which is provided for by the amendment now moved, namely, the taking control of this matter into our own hands, and thus preventing any diversion of our traffic to American territory. We need this also as a means of expressing and enforcing the people's will. It has always been understood by the people of this country-for they understand the theory of responsible government-that any new departure, any great measure involving a question of policy, must be submitted to the people for their approval before it is adopted by parliament. On this occasion, the parliament of Canada, have seen fit to ignore this practice. The government saw fit last session to tell us that by reason of the immediate necessity of the case, the urgency that existed, they would have to dispense with that practice, and put this measure through without submitting it to the people. I hope by means of the amendment which I have moved to give the people an opportunity, late as it will be, of pronouncing on this question as soon as the government dares to submit the matter to the people. I hope, in common with others of the Conservative party, to hold out to the people that there is yet a chance of having their voice heard at the polls, and of undoing partially, though not completely, the wrongs committed by the government in connection with this contract. For these reasons I thmk we have good grounds for submitting these amendments to the consideration of the House. If the matter stood as it did last session, there would be abundant reasons for saying that there should be an appeal to the people ; but, bad as the contract was last year, it is more than doubly bad to-day, owing to the amendments that have been made in it. You cannot take one clause of the amended contract and not find in it evidence of a complete surrender by the government of

the .interests of the people of Canada to the interests of the Grand Trunk Company. This is emphasized in almost every speech made in this House during this discussion by ministers of the Crown, who declared that they had to accept the terms dictated by the Grand Trunk Company. Looking at these amendments in the contract, we find the most glaring instances of the government surrendering not only everything the company asks, but in many instances more than they ask. Where last session we had $20,000,000 of rolling stock provided for, it is now reduced to $15,000,000. The guarantee of $5,000,000 which was to remain as security for the performance of every part of the contract is now to be released at an early stage and is only to form a security for the performance of a part of the contract by the company. The need for haste which was described in such graphic language by the right hon. leader of the government last session is now no longer in existence, but at the mere suggestion of the company three years are added to the time, even with regard to the prairie section, as to which at all events no excuse can be given for increasing the time. Additional concessions have been given to the company by the increase of our liability for the mountain section of from $8,010,000 to $10,000,000 so far as the guarantee is concerned, and an actual payment of .money to the extent of $2,000,000 ; and there is a complete collapse by the government, so far as the control of rates is concerned, and the control of the bonds provided for by last year's agreement. I do not want to quote again the language of the Minister of Finance ; but it is still fresh in our memory what he said last year about the control of rates that we would retain by reason of the fact that not one dollar of that stock should be disposed of by the Grand Trunk Pacific, that he had arranged with the Grand Trunk for the retention of that stock for the protection of the people of the country, and in order that the rates might be effectually controlled in the interest of the people. Yet with all these professions of a year ago, the government, as an additional misfortune for the people, have completely surrendered that protection -so far as it was any protection-whether in the matter of rates or in the general control of Canadian traffic through Canadian channels to Canadian ocean ports. Now, if there is anything that should add to the condemnation which I feel ought to be meted out to the government in regard to this measure, it is the time they selected for introducing this measure, and for forcing on the ipeople, unnecessarily, this great burden. It was just at the time when the Canadian Northern Railway had got into a position with added equipment, to control and handle a large portion of the trade of the west. It was a time when the government, by a large
expenditure, both upon our waterways and upon our government railway, had put our national highways in a position of comparative efficiency. It was a time when we had arrived at what is now called an era of government ownership, when the attention of the government ought to have been arrested by the fact that other countries, some of the most progressive, such as Germany, Italy, France, Belgium, Russia, Australia and South Africa, had all adopted the principle of government ownership-when government ownership was in the air-when the doctrine of government ownership of public utilities was being discussed in every part of Canada, and the people had expressed in no uncertain tone their desire < to have that principle introduced in * all our larg(e undertakings. It was at a time when the ex-Minister of Railways (Mr. Blair) drew attention in a most specific manner to the importance of extending the Intercolonial to Georgian bay. and ultimately to the west, and at such a time it was the duty of the government, before committing themselves to the Grand Trunk Pacific, to have formed a policy on this question and submitted it to the people for their verdict. I therefore fefel that in proposing an amendment which will enable the government to take over the lines of railway on giving reasonable compensation-not allowing the companies to actually lose, but on the other hand not allow them to unduly profit-the opposition are doing their duty by the people. The adoption of such a measure will not offer a complete remedy because there will still be a large concession made to this company. We cannot escape serious loss in any event, but we should submit the question to the people, and if the people approve the policy, the government should hasten to give effect to their desire.


Mr. JABEL ROBINSON (West Elgin).: I would not attempt to address the House at this late hour were it not for the fact that a few days ago I proposed an amendment, and said I would move it on the third reading. It is now near mid night and the House is very thin, scarcely sufficient being present to make a quorum. I am strongly in favour of the amendment I moved a few days ago, which is on the same lines as the one now submitted by the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox). The amendment of the hon. member may be somewhat more elaborate than mine, drawn up in lawyer's style, and might perhaps be better understood, but since it contemplates government ownership, I think that the government should consider well the propriety of taking over this railway within ten years at least. But according to the argumeut it seems that the company will be allowed control a hundred years. Unless I am very much mistaken, the people will be sorry in-

deed if any government should have granted power to a corporation to run across our continent and treat us as they please without the government having the opportunity of taking over the road, so that they may have a competing road with the other two lines, one of which is already built and the other is being rapidly completed. No other government has ever had such an opportunity of showing the people that they are in earnest. What is the reason they do not embrace this opportunity ? Is it because the opposition have submitted the policy, and the government are determined not to accept any advice from this side of the House ' I think the government ought to consider this amendment, and if they will accept it there will he no need for me to move mine. In "any case 1 may as well drop my amendment, as if this does not carry, mine is sure to be thrown out. But these lion, gentlemen opposite who, when in opposition always held up both hands in favour of giving the people their rights now will not do anything except follow in the footsteps of previous administrations. It has been the custom of all governments, since time immemorial, to protect wealthy corporations. Since the days when Joseph cornered all the grain in Egypt, and since the days when Saul wTas king, a few people have always had the pull on the party in powTer. A few people have the pull now, and it is time that those people who are always professing sympathy for the public, should do something for them. How can they do it ? They can do it by having a provision inserted in the Bill which will give the government an opportunity of owning a railway across the continent. I do not expect that the government will accept the amendment. Should it be put to the vote, the House will fill up in a few minutes and men who have not heard the arguments and know nothing about the subject will vote against government ownership. Some people say that if we adopt this principle of government ownership it will lead to socialism. AVell, we own our canals, is that state socialism ? We own 1,500 miles of railway, have we ever had a complaint made that the government own such a railway ?
We carry all the mails through the country ; is that socialism ? We build public buildings in almost every town and city for the public benefit; is that socialism ? Whatever can be done in the interest of the people may be called socialism. Never mind what it is called, what's in a name ? What we want is a great highway across this continent to compete with these wealthy corporations to whom the government-other governments, not this government-have given away nearly all otir country-and now this government is following in the same footsteps. I have some further notes but I do not wish to take up the time of the House. All I would ask of the government is to consider this matter and see if they Mr. JABEL ROBINSON.
cannot insert a clause so that before sopie of us shuffle off this mortal coil, we may have the pleasure of seeing a railroad owned and worked by the people in the interests of the people across this great continent. I want to do what I think is for the best interest of my country, that is what we are here for ; if any man is here for anything else you had better pay him off as soon as you can-and there are plenty here, it seems to me, for something else. There are some individuals who think they ought to own not only the whole earth but everything that is on it and these men who are trying to make the government help them are just that class of individuals. They want to own the soil, they want to own the whole country and make us pay tribute. Europe is owned by a few individuals, the United Kingdom is owned by a few individuals. And how do they own it ? Just by monopolies starting in early days just as these are being created to-day and as others have been created within the last thirty years in this country. We are going to have this country owned by a few men in very short order if we insist on carrying out the schemes whereby we are now trying to develop the country. It is aristocracy and moneyoeracv that is going to rule and the people who have votes will have nothing to say about it because they will always vote straight party every time and will never vote for the interest of the country. While there are two strong parties as we have to-day whichever party is in power will get these corporations to contribute the money for them and will so be able to carry the country. I am not speaking for or against one party or the other but we know that to be the fact. It is going to be the same next time ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
Mr. JABEL ROBINSON, f hope not. I have no apology to make but I notice it is after twelve and I do not wish to occupy your time any further because all the argument that may be brought in this House would not budge the government one inch, and it would be the same with the opposition if they were on that side. There is no reason why I should accuse the government but I do hope they will consider this matter and before one hundred years, before fifty years, before ten years yoki may have an opportunity of owning that railroad.


Charles Fitzpatrick: This amendment calls for a very wide departure from the principle of this Bill and I am quite sure the mover and seconder do not expect the government to adopt it. I am sure it is moved simply as a forecast of what is to come because coming events cast their shadows before them. Necessarily this amendment involves government ownership and hon. gentlemen are Simply preparing for something in that direction. These are the things they voted

against last year and this year they will be prepared to vote tor them. It is not necessary for me to go further than to say that it is quite impossible to accept this and I am sure my hon. friends are not disappointed when I make this statement.
Some hon. .MEMBERS. Yes we are.


Mr. JAMES CLANCY (Bothwell).: I rise simply to assure the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fitzpatrick) that we are greatly disappointed. I might go further and venture the statement that the people of Canada will be greatly disappointed at the airy manner in which the hon. gentleman has waved this important amendment aside. The hon. gentleman has lost sight of the fact, whether he has forgotten it or not, that this is a question involving great considerations to the people of Canada. It is a flat refusal on the part of the hon. gentlemen and the government of which he is so distinguished a member to permit the people to express themselves upon such a grave question as this. I would ask the right hon. gentleman who leads the House if he feels that he is warranted in asking his supporters in this House, at the end of a parliament constituted as this parliament is, to assent to a measure involving such great considerations, one of the greatest measures ever presented before a parliament, without giving the people of the country a single opportunity to express themselves upon the question. What mandate has the right hon. gentleman or his government to ask the people to accept this measure and to tell them afterwards :	It
is all done, it was done by a majority of the representatives in this House and therefore you must accept it. I deny that the right hon. gentleman or his government has any right or mandate from the people to undertake a measure of the magnitude of this one. If at the time of the last election the people had had any intimation that a measure of even half the magnitude of this one was to be proposed it would be a fair thing to say that they had some warning. As it is they have no warning. The only answer I would expect to this criticism-because no better answer could be given worthless as in my judgment that answer would be-is the excusing question :	Can Canada afford to
pass an Act of this kind and put a clause of repudiation in that Act when passing it ? I say the peojjle of Canada have rights just as well as any great corporation in Canada. The people of Canada should be treated in the same manner as any great and wealthy corporation should be treated. What has been the history of this matter ? The Right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) said it was a matter of life and death that this matter should be taken up and pressed through to a thorough consummation at the earliest prssible moment.
A solemn contract was made and confirmed by a vote of a majority of this House, but I
am glad to say very much against the will of the minority, and I believe much against the will of a majority, of the people, who had not been consulted. What followed Y After that - contract was signed, sealed, and delivered, within six or seven months, that corporation came back, not to the people of Canada I am sorry to say-because the people of Canada had no opportunity to speak, the government not being disposed to allow them a voice in the question-they came back to the government and said :	We absolutely repudiate
every line we put our hands to on a former occasion ; give us better terms or we will throw up the whole thing. Should the people of Canada be accused of repudiation or of action that would tarnish the credit or the. honour of the country, even if they were to put a clause of this kind in this Bill, so that this company and all the world might understand, that the people of Canada do not feel themselves more bound than the Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk Pacific felt themselves bound a few months ago ? No. This contract is pregnant with the most important issues ever brought to theattention of any parliament of Canada. The case is one exceptional in every way.
I venture the statement, and, I am confident, without danger of successful contradiction, that in the whole history of railway building on the continent of America, and I might go further and say, in the whole history of railway building in the world, no parallel case can be found to this. Here is a government entering deliberately into partnership with a great corporation. They are doing more-they are sacrificing every single interest of the people of Canada affected by this contract. They surrendered everything to the demands of the corporation, yet I defy hon. gentlemen opposite to point out a single concession that has been given in return for all the concessions that we are granting. Now, without prolonging this debate which, I see, is perfectly useless


Hon. WILLIAM ROSS.: Certainly.


James Clancy: Some hon. gentleman says ' certainly.' Surely it cannot be my hon. friend from Victoria (Hon. Wm. Ross), a prominent member of this House, a gentleman who occupied a responsible position in former days under a distinguished leader of the Liberal party whose record, upon the whole, is a creditable one, and who, I am sure, would never have supported a transaction of this kind. I am sure that if my hon. friend (Hon. Wm. Ross) were to follow the dictates of his conscience at this moment he would not support this contract. There is no man with his sense of honour or appreciation of the duty belonging to his position but must feel a desire to repudiate every line of this contract which he is now forced, by his loyalty to his party-and, 1 was going to say. by want of loyalty to his country-to support.


William Ross: We will hear what the country has to say about it by and by.	.


James Clancy: What would the hon. gentleman from Victoria think of applying that rule in private life-for the agent to bind his principal to a bargain which that principal would not approve and then defy him to undo it or change it V If the hon. gentleman Is in earnest in what he says-and 1 believe he is-let him vote for the proposition of my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox). He will then give the people some means of speaking and speaking effectively. But the friends of the hon. gentleman seek to muzzle the people and then defy them to tear up this contract. I thought when my hon. friend said ' certainly,' that is was a cry of despair, because the hon. gentleman knew perfectly well that the majority would pass the measure quite irrespective of its merits. I repeat that I know of no occasion when it was more clearly the duty of the leader of a great party to give the people the right to declare themselves upon a public question instead of passing the measure and telling the country that the thing is done and they might as well make the best of it. That is practically the position taken by hon. gentlemen opposite.


Rt.   H@: I listened with care to the-what shall I call it ? well-the speech, of my hon. friend (Mr. Clancy). It was sentimental ; I do not wish to qualify it with any adjective. But I doubt that the hon. gentleman has read the amendment or listened to the speech of his neighbour who moved it or of the hon. gentleman who seconded it. He spoke as though the amendment were to keep the contract in suspension until it had been referred to the people, and a declaration that we should not bind the people until the people had an opportunity to pass upon this question. That is not the tenor of this amendment. It is simply to provide that the government should take power to expropriate the railway at some future day.


James Clancy: Yes.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: The hon. gentleman so understands it ? Then, he will permit me to say, it is impossible to understand the tenor of the comments he has made upon it. I will have a civil answer to give the hon. gentleman and one to satisfy his conscience if it can be satisfied, that the position he has taken is absolutely without foundation. The right of expropriation is a paramount right of the government.


James Clancy: I know that.


Wilfrid Laurier: Then, if that is the case, there is no necessity for this amendment. To-day this parliament has power to expropriate the Canadian Racittc Railway ; we have power to expropriate the ' Mr. CLANCY.
Grand Trunk-and we are advised every day to do it. We have power to expropriate the telegraph and telephone companies, and we are advised every day to exercise that power. When the charters were given to the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway and to the various telegraph and telephone companies no restriction was put upon the government's power to expropriate them, a right which, as I say is inherent in the government. If we were prepared to accept a new doctrine for the Conservative party, to adopt the policy toward which they are going-or, rather, I should say, towards which they are pushed by some agitators on their own side-we could use the power we have to expropriate all these companies. But we do not believe in that. Should there be, in the future, a government of Canada that wishes to expropriate the railways and administer them for the benefit-or the injury-of the state, it will always be in their power to do so, whether this amendment is passed or not.


Haughton Lennox: Will the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) permit me to ask him a question ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Certainly.


Haughton Lennox: Does not he see that that amendment would become a portion of the contract, and, whereas we have the right to expropriate in every ease, we would, in this case, have that right by contract, and, if we exercised it nobody could say we exercised it unfairly ?
Sir- WILFRID LAURIER. Nobody could say we exercised it unfairly at any time. But if this government or any government were to adopt the policy of government ownership, it should adopt it With regard to all companies and not with regard to one company only.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But there is this difference. We are assisting fo build a very expensive railway, providing for it about nine dollars out of every ten. The time when we are giving that assistance would be the proper time, I should imagine, to lay down the principle of taking that railway at some future time, if we desire to do so. The Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) says we have the power to expropriate. It is true we have that power. But it is also true that we have not yet exercised it. But, with the growing sentiment of the country in favour of government ownership, and with the large sum we are paying for this railway, it seems proper that we should lay down the principle as part of the contract that we may take the road back in the future if we desire to do so, and upon what terms. If that were done, and the company accepted the assistance upon that condition, it could not be said that any injustice was done, if we took back the railway upon these lines.


Samuel Barker: Mr. Speaker, X wish to say one word as to the observation made by the right hon. gentleman who leads the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) in regard to the right of expropriation. The right hon. gentleman seems to think that the Grand Trunk Railway Com pany and other companies were incorporated without any right of expropriation. If he will look at the statutes incorporating the Great Western Railway Company and old companies afterwards forming the Grand Trunk Company, he will find that they contained provisions almost identical with that which has been moved by my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox). The Great Western Railway Company's Act of Incorporation certainly had that provision, and I know that several other railways that were incorporated at that time had a provision in their charters enabling the government to expropriate the property and take it over.


Wilfrid Laurier: Since confederation ?


Samuel Barker: It was before confederation.


Wilfrid Laurier: That may be. I do not dispute that.


Samuel Barker: One of the reasons for that practice was that in the early days of railways it was supposed that they could be treated as public highways. That became an absurdity, and the public came to think that it would not be possible or expedient at any time for the government to own railways, and so such clauses were omitted in later statutes.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Samuel Barker: There has been a change, and a very , great change, in public opinion since those days, and probably we will come back before long to the old-fashion of putting in every charter a provision such as that which it is proposed to put into this Bill. That is, that there should be the express power of expropriation. If you have a charter without express terms as to expropriation, the owners of a property may claim from arbitrators very much higher compensation than could reasonably be claimed if they took their charter with the express provision that their property was subject to expropriation. That is just the object of this amendment, and the whole of the terms of the resolution proposed by my hon. friend from South .Simcoe point to that very thing. You will find in the tramway Acts and other similar corporation Acts in England the like provision.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It is contained in the general law.


Samuel Barker: Yes, there is that same right as to all of them. The right hon. leader of the government says that you have the
right of expropriation without any express provision ; and so he asks why put it in this Act, if you have it already ? The object is to let everybody who takes stock in the corporation know before hand that the property is subject to expropriation. Everybody will understand that when arbitrators are asked to fix the value of a property owned by people who knew when they acquired it that it was expressly subject to expropriation they will not allow such damages or compensation as would be given to persons who entered into a speculation having no notice or knowledge that the property was subject to expropriation. That is the ground upon which this resolution is moved.


Haughton Lennox: That is all specially provided for.


James Clancy: And it is for this reason that the hon. gentleman made provision in regard to running powers. Although he had the right to take running powers over this road, the hon. gentleman made the same provision with regard to running powers over the western section.
Amendment (Mr. Lennox) negatived on the same division.


Mr. WM. BENNETT (East Simcoe).: Mr. Speaker, the resolution proposed by my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox), and which has now been disposed of, is one that perhaps may be termed sweeping in this, that almost before this company has commenced their operations the government of the day might intervene and take possession of the road under the expropriation clause proposed. I propose to move an amendment, under which the right of expropriation may be exercised upon the happening of certain contingencies, and after I have read the resolution it will be seen that the contingencies anticipated in this regard are the same that have been dwelt upon at great length in the course of this debate. One of the strongest reasons advanced for the construction of this line of railway has been that it would be purely and essentially a Canadian system, and that we would have the advantage in years to come of seeing all the trade of the west pouring through Canadian territory and finding an outlet through Canadian ports. I therefore beg to move this resolution, seconded by Mr. Armstrong :
That the Bill he not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole House with instructions to add the following section thereto :-
(1)	In case the government after due inquiry and investigation is satisfied at any time that the Pacific Company is not, or that the Grand Trunk Company in controlling the policy of the Pacific Company is not fairly and honestly carrying out and performing the covenants, stipulations and agreements in the 41st, 42nd, 43rd, 44th and 45th clauses of the original agreement contained, or that traffic is not being routed by but is being directed from Canadian channels

and Canadian ports, it shall be lawful for the government at any time thereafter upon six months' notice to the Pacific Company to expropriate, acquire and take over the whole undertaking, railways, branch lines, terminals, ap-purtenaces, rolling stock, equipment, hereditaments and real and personal property of the Pacific Company, including the unexpired term of the lease of the eastern division, but not including moneys, securities for moneys and choses in action, and to own and operate the said railways and branch lines and other property.
(2)	Immediately upon the expiration of six months from the date of service of such notice upon the Pacific Company, the government may enter into possession of and the Pacific Company shall deliver to the government possession of the said railways, branch lines,1 terminals, appurtenances, rolling stock, equipment, hereditaments, and real and personal property.
(3)	If in such case the government and the Pacific Company shall fail to agree upon the amount of compensation to be paid to the Pacific Company for the property so expropriated, acquired and taken over by the government, the same shall be determined by arbitrators to be appointed in the manner provided in the 47th clause of the original agreement.
(4)	The arbitrators in considering, arriving at and making their award? shall have regard to and take into account the following matters :-
(a.) No allowance shall be made or sum awarded for or on the basis of past or future profits or earning powers or by way of good will or upon any speculative basis or for disappointment, or by reason of the sale being compulsory, and the gross amount to be allowed or credited to the Pacific Company before taking into account deductions and sums of money to be retained, shall not in any case exceed the actual value of the property taken over, having regard to and on the basis of the matters immediately hereinbefore provided for.
(b.) Account shall be taken of the total amount of all payments, outlays and contributions by the government whether as money, land, interest paid without recourse, or otherwise on account or in connection with the property taken over, and the gross sum otherwise payable by the government, shall in addition to any other deduction to be made be reduced in the proportion which this sum bears to the total cost of the property taken over. Such total cost shall be based upon and shall include the original cost of construction as defined in the scheduled agreements, together with any subsequent expenditure (not being working expenditure) upon capital account for betterments.
(c.) The arbitrators shall take an account of all bonds, mortgages and debts constituting a charge upon the property taken over and also of the amount of the liability of the government for the Pacific Company by guarantees or otherwise, and the government shall thereupon be taken to have assumed direct liability as between the government and the Pacific Company for the payment of all these debts, charges and liabilities, and to have undertaken to indemnify the Pacific Company from liability or action, and this being done the total amount of these debts, charges and liabilities so ascertained shall by the award be set off against or deducted from the sum of money otherwise payable to the Pacific Company, and the bal-Mr. BENNETT.
ance shall be awarded to be paid by the government to the Pacific Company, or by the company to the government, as the case may be, with interest at per cent from the date of taking possession.
(5)	The government shall not exercise the said power of expropriating and acquiring the said undertaking, railways, branch lines and other property of the Pacific Company unless and until parliament shall have first made provision by an Act or Acts to be passed in that behalf for authorizing the raising and payment of the compensation to-be awarded by the arbitrators as aforesaid.
In support of this amendment dealing with the question of expropriation, I cannot add much to what has been said by the mover and seconder of the preceding resolution, but I have just this to say, that I quite agree that if the country is to have any opportunity of pronouncing upon this proposal, involving as it does such a huge expenditure, if such a resolution is passed it will have this effect that should there be a change of government, or even if there should not be, this company will have their eyes wide open as to the terms and conditions upon which this charter has been granted. In the province of Ontario this question of government and municipal ownership is a very live question ; in fact, ;t has been exercised to a very great extent in the cities _and towns in reference to gas plants, waterworks and electric light works, and so strong has been the feeling in that regard that we have now in Ontario legislation which prevents any corporation from engaging in the business of establishing electric plants, waterworks or gasworks, where there are existing going concerns Another reason that strongly prevails in Ontario in* favour of government ownership is the fact that most of the railways throughout the province have been largely subsidized and bonused by municipal corporations. These bonuses have, in a good many cases, been received from municipalities, and seeing that these railway companies are now paying very well and doing a profitable business, the .large bonuses which they have received in past years, as it were, come to naught. Had these companies been organized by the municipalities, or placed upon a business footing under government or municipal ownership, the municipalities to-day, taking into account what they have paid out, would have practically owned them. I would accentuate what has been said by other gentlemen, that while under the general law the government may at any time expropriate for public purposes, still it would be hardly fair to the company to take advantage of that. It would be much fairer that this condition be incorporated in the charter, so that investors might have before their eyes the fact that at any time the government of the day could exercise the privilege granted in this amendment. I beg to move the amendment, seconded by Mr. Armstrong.


Mr. JOSEPH E. ARMSTRONG (East Eambton).: This Mr. Speaker, is one of the roost important amendments which have been proposed during the discussion. I think you will agree with me, Sir, that it will provide a safeguard for the people in reference to the shipment of our western trade over the Grand Trunk Pacific and through Canadian ports rather than through foreign ports. The government propose that the Grand Trunk Pacific shall develop trade through Canadian channels, but it does not impose a penalty if said trade is not carried to Canadian ports. This amendment places a penalty on the Grand Trunk Pacific if the trade is not directed to Canadian ports. We are not asking to take an unfair ad* vantage of the Grand Trunk Pacific. We are not asking the government of this country to do anything that will not be for the best interests of the people of this whole country. We are asking the representatives of the people of our land to assist in placing on our statute-book legislation that will prevent trouble in future.
There is not a man in this House who wants to see the trade of our great west go to a foreign port. We all believe in Canada for the Canadians, then let us guard the rights of our country with zealous care. Let us not take any chances of our trade being diverted to foreign channels. If our people have to pay the bulk of what it takes to build this road, surely we should have a right to demand that its operation will be conducted in our interests.
The members on this side of the House have presented some 25 amendments to the original contract, every one of which if accepted, would be in the interests of the people of this country. This amendment is one of the most important, for without it the traffic may be diverted to foreign ports, while with it we hold the reins of poweir. Let us in this contract make the meaning of it so plain that a wayfaring man though a fool, could not mistake the meaning of the words therein. Let us call a spade a spade, with regard to every line and every syllable of it, and let us not leave to future generations any doubt as to the meaning of every word in this contract. Clause 1 of the amendment states that if the Grand Trunk Pacific does not fairly and honestly carry out and perform the covenants, stipulations and agreements containtd in clauses 41. 42, 43. 44 and 45 of the original contract, or if traffic is being routed in an unfair and dishonest manner, to a foreign port, when it should have been carried over the Grand Trunk Pacific to St. John and Halifax ; it will then be the privilege and the duty of the 'government of this country to assume the whole undertaking. If I understand this question aright, the proposed Grand Trunk Pacific is being built for the benefit of the people of this country. There is not
a man in this House who will dare to vote one penny towards the building of this road if he cannot satisfy the people of his constituency that the trade will be carried through Canadian ports.
Clause 2 gives the government of this country power to take over the road by giving the Grand Trunk Pacific 6 months notice, and proving by Act of parliamnt that the Grand Trunk Pacific is not complying with the contents of clauses mentioned. The 3rd and 4th clauses of the amendment provides for the appointment of arbitrators and stipulates the course they are to pursue. Clause 5 refers to the duties of parliament with reference to the measure. Every clause in the amendment is safeguarding the people's rights, while not imposing any unfair demand on the Grand Trunk Pacific. I hope the hon. gentlemen opposite will see the justice of our claim and allow this amendment to become law.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The amendment means that the government, one of the parties to this contract, would have the right to investigate the conditions unuer which the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, the other party, is operating the scheme ; and if on this ex parte investigation the government came to the conclusion that there is a failure on the part of the company to comply with the conditions of tile contract, the government has the right to enter into possession. In terms, the amendment is that one party to the contract is to be a law unto himself as to what the obligations of the other party are. Would any reasonable man in this House enter into a contract with such a clause in it, if he were honest and sincere in proposing to carry its terms out ?


Mr. DANIEL.: Is there not an exceptional condition in this contract, inasmuch as the one party supplies a very large proportion of the funds which will build the road ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend is confounding two things that ought to be kept apart. The money is provided by the aid of the credit of the government, as well as the aid of the credit of the Grand Trunk Company. If the contract is a success, the money is not to be paid by the government, but by the railway company. If a man endorses a note to enable his neighbour to get money, and if the neighbour pays, the endorser does not have to pay. What does the hon. gentleman mean by the question ?


John Waterhouse Daniel: If the Minister of Justice wishes me to reply. I would state that as regards the larger part of this railway we finance it out and out and pay for it, and as regards the other part we are liable for three-fourths of its cost.


Charles Fitzpatrick: We finance the eastern division and build it, and own it; that we cannot expropriate. So far as the western division is concerned the road is constructed and financed by the joint action of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, and the government, and the party to the contract who pays for it is the Grand Trunk Pacific. The Grand Trunk Pacific and the government are the parties to the contract, and this amendment is intended to give the government the right to determine whether or not the Grand Trunk has fulfilled its share of the agreement. If the government, one of the parties to the agreement comes to the conclusion that the other party is not fulfilling the conditions of the agreement, then the government would have the right to refer the matter to arbitration.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. minister will remember that in the motion of the hou. member for South Simcoe, as well as in the one which I proposed, as a condition precedent parliament must supply the funds in the event of an arbitration being held ; so that there is not only the other party interested, the government of the day, but also parliament itself as an appeal court, and as having to provide the money.


Charles Fitzpatrick: There is no use of confounding the government and parliament. In effect, what is the difference between the two ? The government is only a committee appointed by parliament to carry on the work of the country.


William Humphrey Bennett: But there is the intervention of parliament, which is not supposed to be so hide-bound that it will perpetrate a wrong upon a party irrespective of the government.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Why lay down a principle that a wrong may be done ? I can understand the preceding amendment, because it involves government ownership, that is to say, it gives legal effect in the contract to the constitutional right vested in the government of entering into possession of any government work. My hon. friend says there is a provision in England with respect to the government taking possession of tramways. The hon. gentleman is aware that under Sir Robert Peel's government a general law was introduced made applicable to all railways, which authorized the government, twenty years after a charter was granted, to enter into possession ; but has any effect ever been given to that law ? Never. I defy the hon. member for Hamilton to cite a single case.


Samuel Barker: I have no doubt some tramways have been taken over by the municipalities.


John Waterhouse Daniel: 


Charles Fitzpatrick: Not under the general law.


Samuel Barker: Yes, under the same provision. The county of London can take over tramways to-day under the provision of the General Acts.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend, it seems to me, has entirely overlooked sections 41, 42 and 43, taken in conjunction with section 47. If there is a failure on the part of the company to perform any of its obligations under the contract, there is a reference to arbitration provided,' not a forcible entry.


Samuel Barker: In the case of an arbitration under section 47, as to the routing of the traffic, and the arbitrators find against the company, what is the remedy ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Failure as to the condition of the whole agreement.
Mr. BARKER, Some man whose goods were sent to Portland instead of Halifax might be asked what damages he should get.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is not the question. I would ask my hon. friend from East Simcoe as a business man whether he would enter into an agreement which would give the other party the right to determine whether he had fulfilled the conditions of the agreement or not ?


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman is overlooking the fact that the First Minister has told us that parliament can expropriate without any clause. So that it is not extending the power further to say that we can do it for cause. The whole object of this clause is to give the parties due notice. That it may be on the face of the contract. The right hon. First Minister tells us that we can do it without any contract at all, and there is no doubt that we can. All we say is that the parties should take their charter and enter upon their work on the distinct understanding that this can be done, and that in the event of these clauses not being honestly observed and carried out, the remedy of the people of Canada will not be to seek some trifling damages, but to take the contract off their hands. That is the remedy we want to have.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that it is desirable for this reason, that the company assumes certain obligations, and in the event of their failing to carry out those obligations, there is no remedy.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I put it to my hon. friend as a fair-minded man, is it fair to give one party the right to determine whether the other party is fulfilling its obligations or not ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Tlie government which is furnishing the money to build the railway ought to have more rights than the company. In the absence of any penalty I think it is important that the government should have some greater right than it has, and that is provided for in the proposed amendment.


Haughton Lennox: This is a partnership matter, and the amendment only proposes to give the partner who has the larger share in the contract the greater right. The partner who has the larger share is the country, and the country should have the right to say through the vote of its representatives in parliament on their hono*ur whether or not this contract is being properly carried out. It will be found in the contract that there are certain instances in in which the decision is left to the Governor in Council ; it is not unfair that this matter should be left to the decision of the representatives of the people in parliament when the people have nine-tenths interest in the transaction. It is not, as the Minister of Justice says, a one-sided matter, left to one of the contracting parties. There is a substantial difference between the parliament and the government. The parliament is supposed to have the interest of the country at heart and it represents the Grand Trunk as well as the other people of Canada, so that I do not think there is anything unfair in this proposition. It is however rather refreshing to find that the government have so little to say on important subjects, and yet cavil over small matters. They did not discuss the main question involved in the amendment just disposed of, but, evading the issue, the right hon. gentleman urged that we have already the right of expropriation, but that is not what we are asking for. We are asking for contractual rights. We are not yet committed to the Grand Trunk Railway beyond redemption and are endeavouring to save the people from the clutches of that company. The Minister of Justice said he would not allow the hon. member for "West Toronto to escape him. Well, what we are asking is that he should allow the people to escape to some extent from the Grand Trunk Railway, and we can do this if we embody the amendment proposed in the agreement.
Amendment (Mr. Bennett) negatived on the same division.


Mr. ROBT.: JOHNSTON moved the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, House adjourned at 12.55 a.in., Thursday.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 26, 1904.