1904-05-18

QUESTIONS.


Mr. CLARKE asked :: 1.	Did the Railway Committee of the Privy Council issue an order respecting the construction of a high-level bridge over the Esplanade at Yonge Street, in the city of Toronto ?
2 If so, what was the date of such order 7
3.	Has a copy of the order been served on the Grand Trunk and Canadian Pacific Railways 7 If so, on what date 7
4.	What is the cause of delay in proceeding with the work of constructing the bridge 7
5 Is the government taking any action, and if so, what action, to expedite the work 7
6. When is it expected that work will commence 7


Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals).: On the 14th January, 1904, an order of the Railway Committee

was made, but a question as to the legality of the order, in view of the repeal of the Railway Act of 1888, has arisen and is now being considered by the Department of Justice.


OFFICIAL CARS.
Mr. TOLTON asked :: 1.	How many official or private cars have been constructed, purchased or acquired, for the government, since the year 1896 ?
2.	For what purpose is each such car used ?
3.	Are any and which of the said cars allotted to any and what members of the government, respectively ? Or to any and what departments of the government, respectively ?
4.	What sum has been expended or appropriated in constructing, purchasing or acquiring the said official or private cars since 1896 ?
5.	What amount has been expended'in maintaining, using and operating the said official or private cars since 1896, including interest on cost of construction or acquisition ?
6.	Are such cars always used for official purposes ? If not, for what other purposes, and for what other occasions, have the official or private cars of the government been otherwise used during the past four years ?
7.	For what' purposes and on what occasions have the official or private cars of the government been used since the first day of January, 1900 7 And by whom was each such car used on each such occasion, and at what cost, and to what place was each such car despatched, and how many miles did it travel on each such occasion ?
8.	How many official or private cars are now in course of construction for the government, and what will be the cost of each of them ?
9.	Since the first of January, 1900, have the official or private cars owned by the country been used by others than ministers or officials of the government ? And if so, on what occasions, and by whom, and at what cost, for what purposes, and under what rules and regulations ?
10.	Have any of the official or private car3
been used by the ministers or officials of the government, or by any other persons, for unofficial or private purposes, since the first of January, 1900 ?	,
11.	If so, by whom, and on whose authority, and under what regulations or arrangements, and on how many occasions, and at what cost to the country, has each car been so used ?


Hon.  H. R.@: BMME'RSON (Minister of Railways and Danals). There have.been three additional cars acquired or built by the government since 1896. Two of these cars to take the place of other cars-one put out of commission and the other having been taken by the new general traffic manager of the government railway system. The third car was purchased' for the use of the royal party during their visit to Canada in 190i.
In connection with the government railways, as well as with all other railway systems. there are a number of official" cars, which are used chiefly for official purposes ; but are occasionally placed at the disposal of distinguished visitors to whom it is deemed proper to extend the courtesies of the Toad. Ministers of the Crown occasionally
make use of these official cars ; but in no case does such use involve any additional charge on the treasury. Where a minister uses one of the cars for other than official service he pays all expenses in connectlon therewith.
If further information is desired by the bon. member it will he necessary for him to make a motion.


COLLINGWOOD DRY DOCK.
Mr. BENNETT asked :: 1.	Is there on file in the Department of Public Works any report as to the. value of the Collingwood dry dock ?
2.	Has any payment of bonus or bounty, at the rate of three per cent on the value thereof, as provided by statute, been paid to the owners of said dock, or has an application therefor been made ?
3.. If such report has been made, as mentioned in paragraph one hereof, by whom was such report made on behalf of the Department of Public Works, and what valuation is placed on the said dock ?


Hon. OHAS. HYMAN.: In the absence of the Minister of Public Works, I beg to answer :
1.	Yes.
2.	No bonus has been paid yet, but an application for same has been received.
3.	Report made by Mr. Louis iCoste, C.E., who placed the value of the dock at $540,-
000.



DOG-FISH.

Mr. SINCLAIR asked :: In view of the fact that very large quantities of salted herring and other fish are being used year by year as lobster bait by the fishermen of the maritime provinces, and In view of the statement currently made by certain newspapers, and notably by the ' Coast Guard,' the chief organ of the fishing industry in Nova Scotia, that salted dog-fish could he used successfully as a substitute for such salted herring and other fish, has the government considered the advisability of directing the government cruisers to make official tests to ascertain the fact as to whether dog-fish can be successfully used for this purpose ? And if so, can the experiment he made early this season, so that, if successful, the fishermen may be put in possession of the facts early enough to he in a position to lay in a stock for use next year ?


Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: Yes ; and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries will at once give the necessary instructions to have the tests made by the government cruisers, so as to ascertain if dog fish can satisfactorily replace salted herring used as bait.



LIGHTING PARLIAMENT SQUARE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACLEAN-by Mr. Sproule-asked :
1.	Who has the contract for lighting parliament square and buildings ?
2.	What is the cost per light ?
[Stage Direction]
3.	When was the contract awarded, and under what circumstances has it been renewed ?
4.	Were tenders called for ?
5.	If not, why not ?
Charles Smith Hyman: In the absence of the Minister of Public Works, I beg to answer :
1.	The Ottawa Electric Company for the electric current; the gas is supplied by the Ottawa Gas Company.
2.	Electric lights : $2.25 per 16 c. p. light for 3.000 lights, and $2 per light for all 16 c. p. lights over 3,000. Gas for lighting purposes, $1.50 per 1,000 feet.
3.	1st February, 1898 ; renewed on same conditions.
4 and 5. Tender was asked from the Ottawa Electric Company. There was no other company from whom tenders could be invited.



STEAMERS BETWEEN CANADA AND FRANCE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CASGRAIN-by Mr. Sproule-asked :
1.	Has a line of steamers been established between Canada and France, in accordance with the contract laid upon the Table of the House in the course of last session ?
2.	Has the said contract been assigned by the original contractor to any other person or company ; and if so, to what person or company ?
3.	How many steamers have been placed upon the said line, and to whom do they belong, or by whom are they chartered ?
4.	How many trips or voyages have been made since the opening of navigation ; and between what ports ?
5.	After the said contract had been es-tered into between Mr. Colombier and the government, was the latter, or any member of the government notified by letter, correspondence, notification or transfer, or otherwise that the said contract had been assigned or transferred to one Carbonneau, then residing in Paris ?
6.	Has the said Carbonneau recently, and within the last six months, claimed that the said contract had been assigned or transferred to him, or that he had an interest in the same 1
7.	Is not the said Carbonneau now in correspondence with the government, or some of its members, in relation to the said contract, and to his said claims ?
8.	What decision has the government come to, or what decision does the government intend taking, in relation to the claims of the said Carbonneau ?
9.	Has any part of the subsidy voted last session towards and in aid of the said line of steamers been paid ? And if so, at what date, and to whom ?
Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister) :: 1.	No ; no line has been established between Canada and France within the terms of the contract.
2.	The contract has not been assigned in manner required by the contract.
3.	It is claimed that one steamer made a trip in the month of April. We have no information as to whom it belonged nor as to who chartered it.


Mr. MACLEAN.: 4.	The trip claimed to have been made was between the ports of St. Malo and Halifax, via St. Pierre Miquelon.
5.	Yes.
6.	Indirectly, by what purports to be an assignment from him to a company called
' Les Transports Canadiens, Limited.' No. direct communication was received from him.
7.	Have no knowledge of any such.
8.	No direct claim having been made by Mr. Carbonneau, the government has nothing to decide in connection therewith.
9.	No part of the subsidy has been paid.



LABOUR TROUBLES AT VALLEYFIELD.

Mr. CLARKE asked :: 1.	What steps have been taken by the government to collect the sum agreed to be paid by the municipality of Valleyfield in payment for the services of troops called out on the occasion of the labour troubles in that municipality in October, 1900 ?
2.	When were such steps initiated ?
3.	On what date was the offer of settlement made by the municipality, and on what date was such offer approved by the Governor in Council ?


Hon. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence) :: 1.	Lieut.-Col. Roy was instructed to effect a settlement with the municipality on the basis of the minute of Council with the least possible delay.
2.	23rd March, 1904.
3.	(a) 27th November, 1903.
(b) 10th March, 1904.



INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-TRAIN SERVICE.

Mr. O. E. TALBOT (Bellechasse).: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to call the attention of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Emmerson) to an announcement of ' Le Canada ' to-day. It reads as follows :



SUMMER SERVICE ON THE INTERCOLONIAL.

[Stage Direction]
The Intercolonial Railway will have this year a first-class service.
From the 1st of July next, two luxurious trains will leave Montreal every day, except Saturday, for Sydney and Halifax.
The maritime express, which under present arrangements, leaves at noon, will steam out at eight o'clock in the morning. As for the additional train, the Ocean Limited, it will leave at eight o'clock in the evening and reach its destination within twenty-four hours. The latter service will, no doubt, be very well received by the travelling public. The trip will be shorter, as the night train does not stop at all stations. Besides, passengers will for the first time view in broad day-light the magnificent scenery of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
Numerous visitors are expected this year. However, it is possible that the St. Louis exhibition and the presidential election may divert from the maritime provinces a goodly

proportloin of the tourists who visited them last year.
By this announcement we are told that there will be every day two express trains leaving Montreal, one in the morning and one in the evening, except on Saturday. I would like to know the reason why, if two trains are to leave Montreal on the Intercolonial Railway every day, we are not to have a service in our district on Saturday.
Henry Robert Emmerson: The announcement in ' Le Canada ' is in part true in respect to the proposal to put on an additional train between Montreal and Halifax. The trains going east have always left on Sunday both by the Canadian Pacific Railway and by the government road. It has not been suggested that there should be any change, and if an additional train is put on it would probably leave on the evening of every day excepting Saturday. That would be the present intention. My attention has not been called to any question as to that arrangement.


Mr. CASGRAIN.: Why not on Saturday ?


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and with the permission of the House, may I be allowed to remark that it is a great inconvenience and drawback to our district that people travelling from Montreal eastward should not have a train on Saturday. Business men and others going down to the seaside desire to go on Saturday. This is a great drawback to the people of the district of Quebec and I do not know any reason why we should not have a Saturday train. Trains leave the maritime provinces for the province of Quebec on Saturday, arriving on Sunday, and I do not see why trains should not leave the province of Quebec on Saturday for the maritime provinces, arriving on Sunday as well.



RAILWAY CONNECTION AT BROCK-YILLE.

Mr. GEO. TAYTLOR.: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called I would like to inquire from the hon. the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Emmerson) as to what progress he has made with the Grand Trunk and Canadian Pacific Railway Companies about making such connections at Brockville as will allow the mails to be carried through from the west on the day train. I brought this matter to his attention two or three weeks ago, but I have not had any report from him yet.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) did call my attention to it and I stated then as I state now that it is not a matter under the control of the Department 105	I



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
of Railways and Canals, that we have established a railway commission with large powers in connection with the railways of the country. The Department of Railways and Canals has control of the Intercolonial Railway, or of the government system, but it has not control of the other railways of the country. The question raised by my hon. friend is one which should be determined. I think, if at all, by anybody, by the railway commission. As I then stated to my hon. friend the attention of the commission was called to the matter. What it has done I am not in a position to state, but I presume that it is taking action in connection with the matter.
George Taylor: I would like to say that I
do not understand that the Railway Commission has anything to do in connection with the carrying of the mails. The government makes arrangements with railways for carrying the mails. We pay the Grand Trunk for bringing tjie mail from Toronto and it is supposed to be delivered to the Canadian Pacific Railway. The mails arrive at Brockville a little after three and they do not arrive in Ottawa until seven the next morning, whereas they should be here by five o'clock the same evening. I do not know whether it is the hon. the Minister of Railways and Canals or the hon. Postmaster General (Sir William Muloek) who is responsible, but somebody should see to it that the mail service is improved.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The Department of Railways and Canals has nothing whatever to do with mail contracts either with railways or in any other direction.


Mr. URIAH WILSON.: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon the Postmaster General (Sir William Muloek) at least, ought to see to this. Last year there was no difficulty. The mail train left Toronto early enough to make connection at Brockville and the mails came through. This year a change has been made by which the fast train passes the mail train at Kingstqn with the result that the mail train does not make connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway train for Ottawa at Brockville. This is a great incon-veaience to every person east of Toronto, because we cannot get our mails here by way of the Canadian Pacific Railway. I think it is worth the while of the hon. the Postmaster General to see that an arrangement is made, so that we can get our mails the same day as that upon which they are despatched. If proper connections were made, I could easily get letters written at noon at my own home at five o'clock the same day. Now I have to wait until the following morning. I think this is a great inconvenience and one which we should not have to submit to.


Hon.   S@: My hon. friend from South i.eeds (Mr. Taylor) brought this subject up
EDITION	..



'3315 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
some time ago and I made inquiry then.
I tound that the mails were despatched by the Grand Trunk express which reaches Brockyille at the hour named, and if it is on time they are transferred to the Canadian Pacific at Brockyille and brought to Ottawa. If the mails fail to reach Ottawa the same day it is not because of their not being on the Grand Trunk train, but it is because of the train not making connection.
Uriah Wilson: The Brockyille train coming to Ottawa leaves Brockyille before the mail train on the Grand Trunk reaches Brockyille.


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: No, it does not.


Mr. COCHRANE.: Yes, it does.


Uriah Wilson: I come here nearly every Monday, and I think I ought to know. The fast train passes the mail train at Kingston. We get that train to Brockyille and if we do not get there in time to make connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway, we have to go on to Coteau..


William Mulock: The mails for Ottawa that come from Toronto are transferred at Kingston junction to the fast Grand Trunk train due to arrive at Brockyille before the Canadian Pacific Railway is due to leave Brockville.


George Taylor: I think the hon. the Postmaster General is wrong except in regard to the Toronto mails. The mails gathered up at the different stations east of Toronto continue on the mail train until it arrives in Brockville. The fast train only makes three or four stops east of Toronto and passes the mail train at Kingston. If the mail train were permitted to run right through to Brockville it could get there in time to make connection. The train is held at Kingston to allow the fast train to pass, and the latter train does not take on any of tne way-station mail. I come down every Monday and I know that the passengers make connection, but the mails do not. If a mail bag from Toronto comes by the Grand Trunk Railway, it may be handed over, but there is no general mail delivery by the mail train at Brockville. I am sorry the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Harty) is not here just now for I am quite sure he would endorse this complaint. We are paying large sums to the railways for carrying the mails, and we might as well be living in the country as in the capital, where we can only get our mails [DOT]every twenty-four hours.


William Mulock: We offer the mails to every train that will carry them, and if this train does not stop after leaving Kingston until it gets to Brockville, I would like to know what can be done by us. The Grand Trunk Railway regulates its own time table ; it is running a fast express train between Toronto and Montreal which only stops at nine stations going west and four-Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
teen stations going east, although there are fifty-five stations on that line. The mails from the west by the morning train are transferred at Kingston to the fast tram that is due to reach Brockville before the Canadian Pacific train leaves there. Inasmuch as the fast train does not stop between Kingston and Brockville, I suppose the mail cannot be put off at intermediate stations. There have been frequent interruptions in the mail service at Brockville, because the Grand Trunk has been several times late, and the Canadian Pacific Railway has felt it its duty to start on time in order to make its own connections. I inquired from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, if they V: ould hold their train at Brockville, but they have replied that though they are anxious to oblige the public, they have to make their own connections at Smith's Falls and Ottawa.
I may say that I have received information which may or may not be correct, that passengers have frequently seen the Canadian Pacific Railway train steaming out of Brockville just as the Grand Trunk Railway train was arriving, and that in many instances passengers from the west have been subjected tp great annoyance because of this.


Mr. G. A. ALCORN.: The difficulty would appear to be, as the Postmaster General intimates, that the Canadian Pacific Railway train is not held sufficiently long at Brockville. This train sometimes stops fifteen or twentv minutes, or even a half an hour at Smith's Falls, but it will not postpone its time of starting from Brockville.


Mr. R. A. PRINGLE.: I call the attention of the Postmaster General to the fact that we have only one mail a day on the Ottawa and New York Railway between Ottawa and Cornwall. I can assure the hon. gentleman that this is a grpat inconvenience to the people of Cornwall and to the people living at the different stations along the line. I would suggest -to him that he should arrange that there should be a mail sent from Ottawa to Cornwall by the morning train as well as by the evening train, and that from Cornwall to Ottawa the two trains daily should be utilized for the carrying of the mail. If you mail a letter in Ottawa at six o'clock this evening, it will not reach Cornwall until about seven o'clock to-morrow night, and it is usually not delivered until the following morning. I have discussed this matter with the people of Russell, Finch, Chrysler, and other towns along the line, and they all agree that it would be a great convenience if the two daily trains on the Ottawa and New York Railway carried the mail. I ask the Postmaster General to give this matter his immediate consideration.


Edward Cochrane: I cannot see how the Postmaster General -can excuse the Grand Trunk Railway for the poor accommodation they are giving us east of Toronto. I have no feeling against the Grand Trunk or any other railway, but I suppose the

country pays for carrying the mails, and if so we should have a service adequate to our requirements. I can tell the Postmaster General, that for a great number of years the mail train from Toronto made connections at Brockville, and it can do so still if it starts from Toronto a few minutes earlier. There is great inconvenience caused to the people in my section of the country, at Brighton, Colborne and Grafton and other places because of the present arrangement. The very fact that the mail train remains over at Kingston to allow the express train to pass, accounts for the tardy delivery of the mail in Ottawa. If I understood the Postmaster General properly, he said that he could not control the carrying of the mails. Well, that is a sad plight for a Postmaster General to be in. If through him the country pays the railways for carrying the mails, surely he can insist that the country gets a proper mail service.


George Taylor: I see the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Harty) now in his seat, and I think he will corroborate what I state. 'I think the hon. Postmaster General is in error in saying that the fast train carries the mail. He has led us to believe that the fast train does not stop at Gananoque. It does stop there, but it takes on no mail. The mail train gets to Kingston a good many minutes before the fast train ; but it is held there for thirty minutes for dinner, whereas if it went on it could reach Brockville and deliver the mail to the Canadian Pacific Railway train ten or twelve minutes before its time of leaving. If the statement of the hon. Postmaster General were correct, that the mail was transferred to the fast train at Kingston, the people west of Kingston could have their mail carried to Ottawa ; but there is no mail clerk on the fast train and no transfer. If the hon. Postmaster General is paying the Grand Trunk for carrying that mail, he should insist that instead of staying at Kingston it should go on to Brockville, where it would arrive in plenty of time to deliver the mail.


Sir WILLIAM MULOOK.: I will read a statement from the controller of the railway mail service :
Mails from Toronto and the west, and also mails received by the postal car clerks between Toronto and Kingston are transferred at Kingston Junction from the postal car train which leaves Toronto at 8 a.m. to the fast train which leaves Toronto at 9 a.m., to connect at Brockville with the Canadian Pacific Railway train leaving Brockville at 2.45 p.m.
Such connection has been missed seven times during the past month, which is no doubt due to the inclement weather, and the high water at different places along the Grand Trunk Railway between Toronto and Brockville.
The fast Grand Trunk Railway trains, operated between Montreal and Toronto, only stop at nine stations going west, and fourteen 1054
stations going east, and there are fifty-five stations between Montreal and Toronto.
The controller might add that there is seemingly no inclination on the part of either of the railway companies above mentioned to make connections at Brockville in cases when the trains of either railways are a few minutes late, and connections should be made, by trains of either railway systems awaiting five or ten minutes at Brockville.
I think it depends on the goodwill of the railways. If they were desirous of making connection at Brockville, they could make it in most eases.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN.

Mr. E. F. CLARKE.: I wish to ask the Prime Minister if any progress has been made in bringing down a return moved for a couple of months ago, respecting the correspondence in connection with the sale of the Garrison Common in Toronto.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: The Minister of Militia told me that it was understood between him and my hon. friend (Mr. Clarke), that the correspondence wTould not be brought down until it was completed. It is complete now, and will be brought down immediately.



GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 72) to amend the National Transcontinental Railway Act.-Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: May I ask my hon. and learned friend the Minister of Justice if he has come to any decision as to the amendment which I proposed to the committee last night.


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: We have had an opportunity to consider the amendment suggested by my hon. friend last night, and the conclusion we have come to is that we must amend the General Railway Act so as to make applicable to all railways in this country the provision which my hon. friend desired to insert in the Grand Trunk Pacific Act.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I do not think we can accept that suggestion at all. The railway now7 under the consideration of the committee is in altogether a different position from the railways in general in the country. It is called the National Transcontinental Railway.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The Grand Trunk Pacific.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: It was introduced into this House as the National Transcontinental Railway and the principal object of the government is stated to he to continue the Canadian or British policy of carrying the traffic from the west to our own eastern sea-board. If this policy is controlled by a board of directors the majority of

whom are not British subjects, we cannot believe that it will be carried into effect. But there is not the same reason for such a provision in the case of some railways that run from one province to another or through a part of the Dominion. In some instances it would cause great inconveniences to have the general railway law amended in the direction mentioned by my hon. friend. The question does not come up in the same way, and the same reasons do not exist. Why should it have been necessary to include in the Canadian Pacific Railway Bill the proviso that a majority of the directors shall be British subjects if it is not necessary to do the same thing in the Bill now under consideration ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I have only this observation to make in answer to the remarks of my hon. friend from Montmorency, that the government is of opinion that at this stage of the development of national railways in Canada, they should he operated by boards on which British subjects are in the majority.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Then there can be no objection to amending this law to that effect. I would call the right hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that this question came up last year, when in answer to my hon. friend from East Toronto (Mr. Kemp), he promised that the contract would be amended to that effect. But the discussion went on from day to day, and the contract was not amended. So that we find to-day that the promise my right hon. friend made was not implemented. I am sure it was not any fault of his ; it escaped his attention. But if it was so important last year that my right hon. friend promised the House that it would be done, it is equally important this year ; and in case it might escape the right hon. gentleman's attention before an amendment is proposed to the General Railway Act, I intend to press this amendment.


Mr. KEMP.: In view of what the right hon. gentleman promised last session, 1 think it is impossible for the government not to accept this amendment. If this Bill goes through and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway is built, we shall only have in this country two great railways-the Canadian Pacific, of which it is provided that the majority of the directors shall- be British subjects, and this railway. I want to draw the attention of the House to what the right hon. gentleman said last jear. On page 8066 of ' Hansard,' I moved :
That Bill (No. 64) he not now read the third time, but that it he referred back to the Committee of the Whole House for the purpose of amending section eight by adding thereto the following words : ' The majority of the directors of whom the president shall be one shall be British subjects.'


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: The Prime Minister then said :
If my hon. friend will accept a suggestion I would say that while I think his amendment is a good one and I do not see any objection to it, I think we had better introduce it into the Bill confirming the contract which will come later. I am prepared to accept this amendment, but I think it would be better to put it into the Bill confirming the contract with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company.


Albert Edward Kemp: I understand the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to say that this provision will be made a part of the contract ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes.
There are no two meanings to that language, and I do not think that the right hon. gentleman can successfully evade the question by saying there should be a general law governing it. We only have two great railway companies, and I would like to know if the Grand Trunk Railway have put their veto on this proposition. Has there been any intimation from the Grand Trunk Railway that the government must not consent to this thing, and that the directorate should not be compelled to be composed of a majority of British subjects ?


Mr. FIELDING.: My hon. friend is assuming that the right hon. the First Minister is objecting to this provision as respects this company, but I do not see that he has any grounds for his contention. What the Minister of Justice has said is that the government were prepared to adopt the principle as respects this and other companies as well. My hon. friend says that there are only two great railway companies in the Dominion ; but even if the others are not so great, conditions might arise [DOT]which would lead our neighbours on the other side of the line to desire to obtain control. If it be a wise proposal that the directorate of one company should contain a majority of British citizens, the proposition is equally wise with respect to other companies. It is difficult to see why it should be wise in the case of a line 3,000 miles long and not wise in the case of another line only 2,000 miles long. I fail to see any harm that will come if such a provision be applied to the smallest railways of the country as well as to the largest.


Albert Edward Kemp: How is it possible to make a general law governing the question ? How would you apply it to the Michigan Central, which runs between Michigan and Niagara Falls ?


William Stevens Fielding: That company operates under the charter of the Canada Southern, and there would be no difficulty in having a majority of British subjects on the directorate of that road. Of course, if there is any existing board of directors, on which there is at this moment not a majority of British subjects, I would not advise in favour of turning these men, who are not British subjects, out of office, but I take it

for granted that a reasonable provision will be made and reasonable time allowed for the reorganization of such a board. If the proposition be applied to all railway companies, I cannot see what possible harm can result.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: That is all right so far as it goes.


William Stevens Fielding: It could not go any further, could it ?


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Take the position of affairs which existed last year. We were then promised that this amendment would be added to the Bill and that a majority of the directorate would have to be British subjects. This year we have another promise. We are promised that a provision to this effect is to be added to the General Railway Act this session, but the leader of the House may go to the Yukon, and we do not know when he will return. The Minister of Railways may continue to be absent from the House, so that we will have nobody to look after the amendment. [DOT]


Mr. LEMIEUX.: The hon. gentleman himself may not be here.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I will be here to stay. If it is the intention of the government to put this in a general Bill, there can be no objection to putting it in this special Bill.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend seems to lack faith in the opposition. Even if some of the members of the cabinet should be absent, hon. gentlemen opposite will be here, and it will be their fault if the matter is not brought up.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: We cannot always do what we want.


Mr. BARKER.: I understand the Minister of Finance to give as a reason why this amendment should not be adopted that it is the intention of the government tc consider whether they shall introduce into the General Railway Act a provision to the same effect, which shall apply to all companies. That may or may not be a thing that will come to pass within the next few years, but whatever may be the position of the government with regard to companies generally, there are special reasons why such a clause should be inserted in the Act relating to this particular company. There are reasons why this provision should apply to this company, which perhaps do not exist with regard to any other company. This is called a National Transcontinental Railway, and if there is any company in existence which should have its board composed as this amendment proposes, it is this one. I think, whatever faith we may have in the Minister of Finance, we may have some hesitation in believing that it is likely he will carry out his good intention. I do not doubt for a moment his good
faith, but would ask him to consider this. Suppose he comes next year with a Bill to introduce this amendment into the General Railway Act, making it apply to all railway companies, where is he going to be with regard to the Grand Trunk Railway ? He will find a great many difficulties about applying his proposed amendment do that company. Almost every shareholder and bondholder interested in the Grand Trunk Railway is a resident of England or of one of the British islands. Those people have acquired for the last half century their interest in that company, knowing they had a board in England, knowing that the board met there, and that they could attend the half-yearly meeting of that board and discuss there their interests and criticise the conduct of every president and director. I think there might be a very strong case made out against the proposition of the government to make this clause applicable to every company. Certainly there would be very strong ground shown. I think, in opposition to making such a clause apply to the Grand Trunk Railway. If that be so, if there be one company to whom such an amendment might possibly be an injustice, is it not clear that we should now lose the opportunity of making this amendment apply to the one company to which we know it ought to apply ? And what is the company to which it ought to apply ? That is the point of the amendment and we cannot understand why hon. gentlemen should refuse. What possible objection can they have to providing that the board of directors who are to control this Natioual Transcontinental Railway shall be British subjects ? Are they going to leave it open to foreigners, aliens, to manage the policy of the Transcontinental Railway, the national railway of Canada ? That is the effect of the opposition to this amendment. Though it might be prudent and wise to make that clause apply to half the railway companies of Canada for one reason or another, there cannot be one sensible reason given for objecting to it with regard to this particular railway. And it is now. when we have an opportunity of applying it to this company that the government hesitates, and says no. I would like to know their reason for it. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) says that there :s no objection to it but he intends to do something else. That is no answer-no answer whatever. This company when it is floated should be floated on a distinct understanding as to the character of the board that is to rule it. The company should not be allowed to go upon the market, create their holdings, elect their directors, and then, we afterwards come and say to them :	You must change all that ; ' we
did not put it into the Bill when we had the opportunity to do so ; we left you free to take what course you pleased ; but nowr you must dismiss these alien directors.

I say this is the time when it ought to be clone. There may be in the future, many reasons why the Minister of Finance cannot carry out his proposition even though be would like to do so.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) says he cannot see any good reason why the majority of the board of the Grand Trunk Pacific should not be British subjects. In that statement we agree ; We know no reason why the majority should not be British subjects. But we see no reason why that should not apply to every state-aided railway in Canada.* And, if the hon. gentleman sees any objection to that, I would like to hear him state it. We can see no objection.


Samuel Barker: Why not adopt the amendment ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Wre say we will do it. But we say we cannot see any reason why the hon. gentlemen opposite should single out this particular railway for such an amendment. We mean to have it made applicable to all state-aided railways in Canada.


Samuel Barker: The reason is that this is the one railway incorporated in this country which, the Prime Minister and his followers tell us, is to be the National Transcontinental Railway. That railway has special obligations to this country ; it has enormous powers in the country ; it has powers on the very point that we have been discussing as to diverting our traffic from Canada; and for these reasons we do not want aliens controlling this company of all companies.


Mr.   BEEF@: It seems to me that the experience of the last year would indicate that it would be well to deal with this matter now. Last year a similar amendment was offered by the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Kemp), but, on the assurance of the Prime Minister that that provision would be incorporated in the Act, that amendment was withdrawn. That was a year ago; and still, although the Prime Minister asserted then, and asserts now, that he regards it as a matter of importance, in fact of necessity, that such a provision should be made, we find that a member of this House is again offering the same amendment, which proves satisfactorily enough. I should think, that the provision lias not been made. Now, it is quite possible that what has been neglected for a year may be neglected for two years ; and, unless some good reason can be shown why this provision should not be put in this Bill, it seems to me a case has been made out sufficiently strong to justify us in making this amendment to the Bill.


Wilfrid Laurier: The matter is simply this. A proposition was made last year by the hon. member for East Mr. BARKER.
Toronto (Mr. Kemp) and I acceded to it, and told him that I would make it a part ot the Transcontinental Railway Act. l am sorry to say it escaped my memory. Apparently, it escaped the memory of hon. gentlemen opposite also, for we were not reminded of it. We are reminded of it now, and we say we intend to apply this principle not only to this particular railway, but to every state-aided railway corporation.


Mr. BELL.: When ?


Wilfrid Laurier: This session. If we fail to do it, my hon. friend (Mr. Bell) will remind me of it.


Mr. SPROULE.: It does not seem to me exactly proper that this should be applied to every railway corporation, because there are some of them that, although built on Canadian soil, have been built largely with American capital, their principal owners reside in the United States and their earnings must go mainly to (hat country. It is only reasonable that the parties who raised the bulk of the capital should have some control (over the enterprise. Hut, if we make provision in the Railway Act compelling every railway company operating any portion of its line in Canada to have a majority of British subjects in its directorate, it would be unjust to many of these concerns. Take, for instance, the railway passing through the south-western part of Ontario, the old Canadian Southern, now the Michigan Central, it would be hardship to provide that a majority of the directors of that road should be British subjects. The old Grand Trunk itself, has nearly as much of its line in the United States as in Canada. But for the fact that the bulk of the capital put into it, outside of the assistance given by this government and the provincial governments, was raised in England it would be a hardship, perhaps, to insist upon such a provision in that case. There are cases where the bulk of the capital for the construction of a railway was raised in the United States, and the earnings should go to the people in that country. In such cases it would hardly be fair to compel them to have a majority of British subjects upon their directorate. But this Grand Trunk Pacific road is different from the others. From the very inception of it, the great claim made by the Prime Minister was that this was going to be a road not only Canadian, but every foot of it on Canadian soil, carrying traffic to build up Canadian ports and absolutely free from foreigh control. It was to be owned and controlled by Canadians or British subjects, and was to be the great defence of Canada should the United States do away with the bonding arrangement. In every wTay it was to be Canadian. For that reason, the Prime Minister says, we are justified in giving it very large assist-

since ami great consideration. But, as we have been assured that the object of giving that assistance was to make a road eminently and entirely Canadian, we ask that the necessary proviso be inserted in the Bill that the majority of the directors shall be British subjects so that we may be guaranteed against the danger of foreign control of what we are told is to be the great National Transcontinental Railway. And yet the Minister of Justice says that is not a proper thing to do.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Oh. no.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No. The contention of the government is that it is not a proper tiling to put such a provision in this Act. We claim that it is, and the objection to the contention of the Minister of Justice that this should be in the General Railway Act and should apply to all railways is that it could not be properly done, and it would be an injustice in many cases to foreigners who own and control roads in Canada to-day. If it were inserted in this clause it would be distinct and applicable to one road at least whereas it could not be applicable to all roads. I am told there is such a provision in the Canadian Pacific Railway Act, then why should there not be one placed in this Act ? It was not left to the Ceneral Railway Act in the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway, but was placed in a special provision in the private Act. The Canadian Pacific Railway, although it was a company in the interest of Canada, has some of its line in the United States, through the state of Maine and in the west. This road the First Minister claims, is wholly Canadian, and why should he object to adding a clause in the Bill by which the majority of the directors who control this road and Who would be responsible for its operation should be British ?


Mr. INGRAM.: There is a great deal in the contention of the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule). Reference has been made to other lines in Canada, built to a large extent by American capital. The Canada Southern has been mentioned. Every one who knows the facts in connection with that railway knows that the local traffic from the section of southern Ontario through which it runs wTould not support that railway at all. and that the railway would not have been built, if it had not been able to depend for its existence on the through traffic from the western states to the eastern states. It would not be fair to place that road on a par with the National Transcontinental Railway. I cannot see why. if the government say it should apply to all railways, they should refuse to put it in this Bill now7. That is beyond my comprehension. because it certainly ought to apply to this road. Little or no American freight is to pass over this road which is purely a Canadian national road, and if it
does not apply to this road, why should it apply to any in the country ? It is built by the money of Canada and I presume this is the proper Bill in which to place an amendment of that character.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Hon. gentlemen are surely borrow'ing trouble. When we come to introduce amendments to the General Railway Act we shall take care that all interests will be properly safeguarded. In the meantime it must be borne in mind that our desire is that this railway should be constructed, owned, operated and controlled absolutely by British subjects.


Andrew B. Ingram: Has the Grand Trunk Pacific any particular objection to a clause of that kind being placed in the Bill ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not know whether they have or not, nor do I care.


Andrew B. Ingram: As this is a government owned by the Grand Trunk Railway, I thought it might be worth while consulting them.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Not at all ; this is a question of public interest.
Amendment (Mr. Casgrain) negatived.


Mr. LAYELL.: built and I think it is not too much to say that some of these branch lines will probably carry a larger proportion of the western traffic than will the extreme eastern section of this line. As a result, in all probability, the main line trade may be taken from the western section to our eastern ports and the various eastern points not by a continuous run along the eastern section, but by running along part of the eastern section to some one or more of the many branch lines that will be built. It also goes almost without saying that some of the branch lines that in all probability will be built will not be successful lines, and will be lines over which there will not be any of this main traffic. Under para-giaph 11 of the agreement, those lines oo which there has been no such traffic or along which no special business has been created will have to be taken over by the government at a price as agreed on. I am not discussing that or any questions of liability under that paragraph ; but I want to deal with the other lines for which no provision is made under this contract. As the Grand Trunk Pacific has, under -this agreement, haulage rights and very clear haulage rights after the fifty years have expired, and as they will have had their organization and their western connection, all of which is arranged for by this Act, this contract and the one passed last year, I think we can take it for granted that after fifty years have expired the Grand Trunk or the Grand Trunk Pacific, or whatever it may be at the end of that time, will have certain branch lines the operation of which is absolutely necessary to the successful running of the eastern section by the government. I submit this amendment largely on that account. It will be very essential for the government to have other connections than those which have proved a failure under Grand Trunk Pacific operation. The only branch lines for which provision is made for their taking possession of under the contract are those which have proved a failure to those who have operated the line during that fifty years or which are a failure at the end of fifty years. If this contract is left as it is and if it is clearly understood that the government have no right to take over the successful branch lines, the branch lines which are absolutely necessary to the successful operation of the eastern section, it will mean that the government will be so handicapped at' the end of the fifty years or that they can be so handicapped by the Grand Trunk Railway 'Company if they perfect their organization as they undoubtedly will that the government will almost be compelled to make a renewal of the lease under section 24, I think it is. of the original Act. Unless the government contemplate building parallel branch lines and making connections to points to which these successful branch lines of the Grand Trunk Pacific have carried Mr. IA VEIL.
trade. I therefore would submit that this amendment is a reasonable one and that it is not inconsistent with this contract ; nor can it in any sense of the word be said that its adoption would prevent the whole contract being carried out. I do not, for myself, admit the argument but it apparently has been used as an argument by the lion. Minister of Justice and other hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, that any amendment which materially interferes with the contract cannot be accepted. I submit that this is an amendment which does not materially interfere with the contract. It simply gives the right to the government to take possession of the lines which are absolutely necessary to the successful operation of the eastern section, and I would ask the government to take it into their serious consideration and to see if such a section could not be incorporated in the Act.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The object the government had (in view in connection with the project was ' to secure an outlet for the trade of the Northwest by the shortest, most commodious and most direct route to the summer ports on the St. Lawrence and to the winter ports in the maritime provinces. Then, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company chose to ask for permission to build branch lines from this main line from Winnipeg to Moncton, one of which would extend to Port Arthur, or to some other port on Lake Superior, another to North Bay and the third to Montreal. If at the expiration of the fifty year period the company chose to continue in control of their branch lines then to operate them successfully it will be necessary for them to use the main line of the government road and to that extent the government will benefit by the successful operation of the branch lines. Can it be imagined that these branch lines cannot be successfully operated ? The one to Port Arthur will enable them to communicate with water navigation at the head of Lake Superior, the second will enable them to communicate with their Ontario system and the other to Montreal places them in touch with an ocean port at the head of navigation. These branch lines must necessarily be operated by the company and operated successfully and in proportion as they operate these branch lines successfully the government, if the main line reverts to the government, will get the benefit of that operation. As far as the other branch lines are concerned my hon. friend (Mr. Lavell) has to remember that there is no present power in the company to build any branch lines beyond the three which I have mentioned. Their power to build branch lines is limited to the three which I have referred to. If in future it is their desire to build other branch lines which may not be operated successfully it will be for parlia-

inent when it gives permission to build branch lines to attach such conditions to the permission as will enable parliament to deal with the question before the lease ends. At the present time the lease is applicable only to three lines which I have mentioned.
Mr. LAVE LI,. Could they not get authority to build branch lines from Quebec or Ontario ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is another question.


John Reeve Lavell: I think that the indications are strongly in favour of the proposition that they can get that authority. I submit that no branch lines should come under this section unless the authority of parliament has been obtained. I admit that my amendment does not touch that. But. I had it in my mind that the company were able to get authority to build branch lines. It has been suggested that the line being built by the province of Ontario may be transferred to the Grand Trunk Pacific and if so it will be transferred simply under its Ontario charter. Again, there may be branch lines built in the province of Quebec to reach Montreal and in other directions. It is a little difficult to say what lines may be built fifty years from now, but, dealing with the point which the hon. Minister of Justice has affirmed, if these lines can be successfully operated by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company why should they not be more successfully operated by the owners of the eastern section ? We found in the discussion that took place when the orders of the day were called to-day, that it is not always the easiest thing in the world to make satisfactory connections between lines whose business interests may be separated for the time being and it may be possible that these branch lines which the Grand Trunk Pacific may get permission to build may be used for the purpose of bull dozing the government into giving them better terms. I think the whole argument comes down to this that if these lines are successful it is in the interest of the government to operate them in connection with the eastern section.


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Chairman, there seems to be a theory in the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite that some of these branch lines which are unprofitable will be left on the hands of the government, that we would have a complaint to make if the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company had the profitable lines while we had the unprofitable lines ourselves. 1 do not think it is conceivable that fifty years hence any branch line in connection with tiiis enterprise can be regarded as unprofitable. I think that even a moderate anticipation of the growth and progress of Canada for half a century might lead us to hope that any branch line built in connection with
this enterprise will have a fair chance of doing a successful business fifty years from this date. But, I would like to point out that it is quite possible that a branch line might be unprofitable to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and profitable to the government as owners of the main line. What I mean by that is that if a branch line is of short length it would not pay to operate it as an independent road, but it might pay to operate it in connection with the main line which the government would then hold.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Would that apply to all the branches ?


William Stevens Fielding: It might or it might not apply to certain branches, but the point suggested was that the Grand Trunk Pacific would leave the government in possession of the unprofitable branches. I would like the committee to take a more hopeful view of the conditions fifty years hence. It is hardly conceivable that any branch of the road could be unprofitable then.


Uriah Wilson: Then why put the clause in at all ?


William Stevens Fielding: Because, it takes two parties to make a contract, and in an endeavour to make a contract it must be a matter of give and take. This was one of the matters in which the Grand Trunk people thought they saw a concession which they might reasonably ask for. It reminds me of the story of the collier who, when he came before the magistrate and was asked why he allowed his wife to lick him, re plied : * It pleases her and it don't hurt I.' This is a matter that pleases the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and which, as far as I can see, does not impose any risk or liability on the government. But the particular point that I want to direct the attention of the committee to is that it is quite conceivable that a branch line managed by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company as an isolated and independent line might be unprofitable while it might be quite profitable as a branch belonging to the government who would be the owners of the main line.


John Reeve Lavell: I am -willing to be as hopeful as the Minister of Finance, and I trust that at the end of fifty years everything will be as he prophesies. But if so, why does not the government retain the right to buy* such branch lines as we can fairly assume to be the most profitable, and thus have a much more complete railway system under their control. To my mind it is very probable that at the end of fifty years, we will not be exporting a very great deal of our western grain from Canada. I am willing to believe that at the end of fifty years we will have as large a home market for our grain
s the British market affords us to-day.

If that should be the case then a great part of the western produce will be distributed amongst eastern consumers. I think it not only possible but even probable, that if everything progresses in Canada as we hope, many of these branch lines will in the end be carrying grain to eastern consumers, instead of carrying it to the seaports for export. If the government had power under this Bill to take over these branch lines, it would mean that they would have a much more complete railway system. I do not desire to make it compulsory or to add anything to the liability of the country, but the government certainly should have the power to acquire these branch lines if ever it should be desirable to do so.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This lease is for so long a period that it is practically equivalent to ownership of the government road by the Grand Trunk Pacific. At the end of fifty years it will have certain branch lines in operation, and we are giving the Grand Trunk Pacific the right to compel the government to take over at a fair price certain of these branch lines'. Surely it is a matter of. importance that the government should have such branch lines as are necessary in the interests of properly operating the main line. Surely the government should have the right to acquire whatever branch lines are necessary to the working of that transcontinental railway on payment of a fair consideration. That is what the amendment provides. You give the right now to the Grand Trunk Pacific to sell certain branch lines at the expiry of the lease, but you do not retain the right in the government to buy such lines as they may require for the successful operation of the road. That is a very shortsighted policy. If the Grand Trunk Pacific should have the right to dispose of certain branch lines they don't want, surely the government should have the right to buy certain lines which they require for the successful operation of the road.


Mr. MORIN.: The Minister of Finance has told us that we do not know what will take place fifty years from now, and he is correct in that, but nevertheless we can tell what took place thirty-five years ago. We can remember that the Drummond County Company which was a lumbering company, built a railway, and after they took the timber off the land they were threatened with bankruptcy, only they were lucky enough to find the government ready to buy their railway. Many of these branch lines to the Transcontinental railway will be built expressly to carry lumber, and we know that when you cut the trees once they do not grow again. Pfty years hence the timber country of to-day will be barren land, and the question will present itself, as to whether there will be a government so good as this one to buy these lines.


John Reeve Lavell: 


William Stevens Fielding: Not so good as this government.
Mi-. FITZPATRICK. You will never find the like of this government again.


Edward Cochrane: The country'will never be fooled again.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: What happened before may happen again, and it is well that we should take precautions to safeguard the interests of the country.


Samuel Barker: I fail to see where, in this agreement, the Minister of Justice can find one word which confines the provision to the purchasing of branch lines constructed under the authority of this parliament. The words are as broad as words can be.
In case, during the currency of the lease of the eastern division, the company shall have constructed a branch line or lines.
It does not confine it to lines constructed under the authority of the parliament of Canada ; the company can construct branch lines under other competent authority, and the government can be compelled to buy them. The Minister of Finance says that it is evidently doing something that will please the Grand Trunk and not hurt the government. That is a most extraordinary way of putting it. Let us suppose that there are four branch lines ; the Grand Trunk simply have to say to the government : You must buy branches, one two, and three, but the fourth is a paying line and we will keep it. That is what the hon. gentleman says is doing something that will please the Grand Trunk and does not hurt the country. The amendment simply is. that if the Grand Trunk should say that the government must buy one or more of these branches, the government shall retain the right to buy any other branches they may deem necessary. I cannot imagine two individuals making such a bargain as this where one would not claim a corresponding right granted to the other. This whole legislation is based on the principle that the Grand Trunk is entitled to everything and that the country is entitled to nothing. It is most surprising to me that the opposition to this amendment of my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) should come from the government who ought be most anxious to protect the rights of the people.
The hon. gentleman seems to think it matters not. He says : Oh, at the end of fifty years these will all be useful; the traffic will have grown up, and it will be a useful thing for the Grand Trunk to carry the traffic to and from the government road. But that may not be quite in the interest of the government. It may at that time be in the interest of the Grand Trunk to retain a particular branch so as to command the traffic, and coerce the government into giving its traffic to the Grand Trunk. Take the North Bay branch. The Grand Trunk runs from North Bay ; but there are other lines running from North



IS, 1904 I

[Stage Direction]
Bay also. At the end of fifty years tlie government might want to get that North Bay branch, to carry its traffic down to North Bay, where it would have the opportunity of giving that traffic to two roads. If the Grand Trunk Company retained that branch, it would have the sole connection with the government railway, and it could say : You cannot give the traffic to any one but us, unless you choose to build a branch paralleling our branch. If at the end of the fifty years the Grand Trunk Company proposed to sell all the branches but that North Bay branch, or perhaps the branch to Thunder Bay on Lake Superior, the government could say : These are the branches we want, because if we own the branch to North Bay, we will there connect with other railways as well as yours, and if we own the branch to Lake Superior, we will connect with the shipping. If this clause had been worded as the hon. member for Leeds proposes it shall now be amended, the government would be able to meet the Grand Trunk Company on these conditions; and when they proposed to sell the government some branches it did not want, it could turn around and say to them : If you want us to buy some branches that we do not want, we must have the branches that we do want. But the hon. gentlemen are afraid to accept anything for their own benefit lest it will hurt the Grand Trunk.
Mr. J. D. REID.: It is very extraordinary to find the government giving to the Grand Trunk Pacific Company the absolute right of saying what branch lines they must take. In other words, as the hon. member who has just taken his seat has said, the lines that may prove of no value, on which there may be an actual loss at the end of each year, they are at liberty at any time to unload on the government. Surely the goverment must realize that no business man would ever make an agreement of that kind. It is all one-sided. I am quite satisfied that no minister would make such a one-sided agreement in his own personal business. There is no question that when this railway is completed, there will be some branch lines on which the actual receipts will not pay. If the Grand Trunk Pacific can unload those lines on the government, it is to their advantage to do so. Why should the government not be in a position to take over other branch lines, so that by operating both they could balance matters and avoid actual loss to the country V This is only one of the clauses which the Grand Trunk people have been able to get inserted in this one-sided agreement ; and the government have had to submit in order to please the Grand Trunk. Surely the government should not hesitate to have this clause amended in the way proposed by the hon. member for Leeds. I have not heard any explanation yet from any minister of the Crown why they are
willing to increase the expenditure of the country by taking over lines that will not pay. Before the Bill finally passes, I hope the government will see their way to accept this amendment, because if the government has the right to take over the lines that will pay, the Grand Trunk Company will not be so ready to palm oft' upon them those that will not pay.
Amendment (Mr. Lavell) negatived.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I do not rise at this moment for the purpose of proposing any amendment to the Bill now being considered by the committee ; but I rise to call the attention of the House to a question that is becoming more and more serious as we go on ; and if you decide, Mr. Chairman, that I am not in order in the remarks I make, I will move that the committee now arise and report progress. The resolutions in connection with the National Transcontinental Railway were introduced into this House on the 5th of April last by the right hon. the premier ; they were supported in a speech by the hon. Minister of the Interior; and they have been before the House continuously since that time. Time and again, after speeches made on this side of the House, hon. gentlemen on the other side have thought it incumbent upon them to rise and answer the arguments which have been presented to the committee by those who sit on the right of the Speaker. But, Sir, we have not heard one solitary) word from the Minister of Railways. He has not thought fit to give his opinion as to the merits of the Bill or the resolutions. It is true, he signed the contract between the parties, but since the question has been before the House he has given no sign of life. In fact, every time this Bill comes before the House, the hon. -gentleman sees fit to leave the chamber. I am sorry he is not here today, and I hope that word will be sent to him in order that he may be present, because, although this is not a personal attack, I do not care to attack him, even in his official capacity, in his absence. The defence of this measure has been left almost entirely to my hon. and learned friend the Minister of Justice. I am not complaining that he has not done everything in his power to explain the merits of the Bill and reply to the arguments from this side, and I quite understand that in a matter of this kind the various amendments should be given the benefit of what light his highly trained legal mind can cast upon them. Now and again the First Minister and the Minister of Finance have interjected remarks, but the whole onus of the defence has fallen upon the shoulders of my hon. and learned friend. But apart from the legal points involved, apart from the effect of the different clauses of the agreement, from the legal point of view, there is also to be considered a ques-

tion which affects most materially the Department of Railways and Canals, and that is the general railway policy of this government as set forth in this contract. If there is a man in this House who should naturally be the exponent of that policy and its defender, it is the Minister of Railways and Canals. The government may say that they are entitled to conduct the business of the House as they deem tit and put up any minister they like to answer members on this side. That may be admitted to a certain degree, but there are limits to their discretion in that respect, and these limits are prescribed by constitutional usage and the circumstances of each case. The cabinet is divided into a number of heads, and this division cannot be set aside at the whim or caprice of the government, but is founded upon principle. I have taken the trouble to look at some of the authorities upon this question, which I consider a most important one affecting the constitutional responsibility of the government towards this House and the country. Speaking of the growth and progress of British constitutional methods, Lord Macaulay, in his History of England, says :
It (the ministry) is nominated by the Crown, but it consists exclusively of statesmen whose opinions on the pressing questions of the time agree, in the main, with the opinions of the majority of the House of Commons. Among the members of this committee are distributed the great departments of the administration. Each minister conducts the ordinary business of his own office without reference to his colleagues.
On the same subject, John Stuart Mills, in his ' Considerations of Representative Government,' says :
As a general rule, every executive function, whether superior or subordinate, should be the appointed duty of some given individual. It should be apparent to all the world, who did everything, and through whose default anything was left undone. Responsibility is null where nobody knows who is responsible. Nor, even when real, can it be divided without being weakened. To maintain it at its highest, there must be one person who receives the whole praise of what Is well done, the whole blame of what is ill.
lu Todd's ' Parliamentary Government ' I find the following rule laid down :
One prominent feature in the reforms recently effected in the public departments of Great Britain is deserving of special mention. It is the general substitution of concentrated responsibility in the hands of a minister of the Crown, for the indefinable and irresponsible authority of boards. Formerly it was the custom, in most of the public offices, to place the supreme controlling power in the hands of a board, consisting of several members, nominally of equal rank, and who in their collective capacity met together, at stated times, to transact the business of the department. The Treasury, the Admiralty, the Board of Trade and Plantations, the Board of Control for the government of India, the Ordnance, and the Board of Works, were all originally constituted Mr. CASGRAI.V	"	[DOT]
upon this principle. Gradually, however, it became the practice for the president, or other presiding officer, to transact the ordinary business of these departments, convoking the assistance of his colleagues only upon rare and unusual occasions. But while, in most cases, the outward semblance of a board is still preserved, enlarged experience in the practical working of government has led modern statesmen, with singular unanimity, to concur in condemning boards as instruments of executive authority, on account of their being impediments to prompt action, and destructive of personal responsibility, without offering any equivalent advantage.
Accordingly, with the' solitary exception of the admiralty, all the boards above enumerated have practically ceased to exist. The Treasury Board never assembles, except for certain formal or extraordinary business, its duties being transacted by the chancellor of the exchequer, aided by his colleagues and assistants at the Treasury. The business of the Board of Trade is performed by the president and secretary. The Board of Ordnance has been abolished, and its powers transferred to the department in charge of the new secretary for war. The Board of Control has also ceased to exist, upon the appointment of a secretary of state for India. The secretary for India is, it is true, assisted by a permanent council or board, composed of men who have local knowledge of Indian affairs, and who are possessed of certain specially defined powers ; but the secretary himself has supreme authority, and is personally responsible for everything connected with the government of India.
Thesq citations show that, according to the ruling principles of the British constitution, there must be for every department of state a head responsible to the sovereign, the House of Commons and the people. The same principles and rules have existed in this country for a number of years. It is so true that such a state of things exists in England that, although there should be probably only one Secretary of State, there are five ; and in this instance, as the authorities say, sometimes in urgent cases one Secretary of State can act for another. Todd, in his * Parliamentary Government in England,' says :
So far as regards the secretariat, an interchange of offices is easily managed. In a constitutional point of view, there is but one secretary of state and though the office now consists of five distinct and separate branches, the functions of either secretary, may, upon emergency, be discharged by another.
The same authority, in his book on ' Parliamentary Government in the British Colonies,' says :
It is usual to assign to each of these responsible ministers the charge of a separate department of the state, so as to place the entire public service under the superintendence and control of responsible administrative heads, who possess the confidence of the representative assembly.
As I have said, it was not in vain that this division of authority and control between the different departments of state was made.
*

It was made with an object. In the quotations I have just given, there are three predominant ideas. The statesmen who constitute the cabinet must agree in the main on the pressing questions of the day, but there should be, apart from the general responsibility of the cabinet as a whole, the distinct and individual responsibility ol each member of the cabinet. Not only should the cabinet as a whole enjoy the confidence of the House, but each individual minister should share in that confidence. What this House and country have the right to know is whether upon this important policy the members of the cabinet are in unison. Last year, when this question was first submitted to the House, we had the announcement made that the then Minister of Bail-ways, Mr. Blair, had resigned from the cabinet because he could not agree in the policy determined on by his colleagues. It appears, however, that he was asked to continue in his seat in the cabinet as a silent member and allow one of his colleagues to move the resolution and the Bill in the House. Mr. Blair very properly said : I cannot do so; il' I am not in unison with my colleagues, if I do not agree with them, especially upon an important question of this kind, my obligation and my only duty is to resign from the cabinet. Sir, is it'possible that what happened last year is repeated this year, with less credit to the occupant of the position of the Minister of Railways and Canals ? It is true, the hon. gentleman signed the contract with his whole name, Henry Robert Emmerson. But did he sign it for the price of a seat in the cabinet, for the prestige and influence that goes with it, or even the salary that pertains to the position ? Is it the fact that, although he has signed the contract for the consideration I have mentioned, he has consented to sit dumb in the House-or, rather, not sit at all. but leave the House evqry time the matter comes up for discussion-in order that he may be able to go before his constituents, or before the people of New Brunswick or before the people of St. John where he met defeat a short time ago, and say :	It is true that the government,
of which I am a member, puts this policy before the country, but I am not personally responsible for it, and you will look in vain in the pages of ' Hansard ' to find a single line to show that I stood up in the House to defend that policy. I do not know whether that is the position, but it seems to me we have a right to hear from the hon. gentleman's own lips whether he agrees with his colleagues^ in putting this policy forward, and saddling the country with the enormous expense which must result from it. Of course, the cabinet as a whole is responsible, and every member ef it is responsible to the House and the country for this measure ; but I say that the country are entitled to give the praise or fix the blame for this policy more particularly on the individual
whose department it most conceims. Let us look at the past history of this country. What happened when the Canadian Pacific Railway resolutions were brought down in the session of 1880-81 ? If hon. gentlemen will refer to the first volume of that session, they will find that the resolutions were introduced on the 14th of December, 1880, by Sir Charles Tapper, who was then Minister of Public Works, having in his department the railways and canals, because a separate department of Railways and Canals had not then been established. Suppose that Sir John Macdonald, then Prime Minister, said to Sir Charles Tapper :	This is
a Bill which pertains to the department over which you preside, but I am going to place it before the House myself ; suppose that the Minister of Justice of that day had said that he was going to put these resolutions before the House ; knowing Sir Charles Tupper as I know him, I am sure he would have said : you have no confidence in my ability and you fear that I cannot move these resolutions or defend them, and I think he would have found in that a sufficient reason to leave the government of the day. Not only did he move the resolutions, but he took upon himself the weight of the debate. This 'Hansard' is full of speeches made by him at that time. He it was who bore the brunt of the battle, he it was who got all the abuse from his opponents, when they said that the Canadian Pacific Railway was an enterprise which was going to bankrupt the country. And to-day it is he who reaps the credit, I may say the glory, of having carried through this House a measure which has done so much to build up our country and make it great. When the Yukon Railway resolutions were introduced, it was not the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice or the Minister of the Interior who introduced them. The government then had a strong man at the head of the department of Railways and Canals, hon. Mr. Blair, and he it was who introduced the resolutions in this House. And when the extension of the Intercolonial was proposed, again Mr. Blair took charge of the Bill and piloted it through the House. This is the first time such a measure as this has come before the House without being fathered and conducted through all its several stages by the minister to whose department the question properly appertained. Let me put this question :	Supposing an
important measure appertaining to the department of the hon. the Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) had to be put through the House, does anybody suspect for a moment that that hon. gentleman would take a back seat and allow his colleagues the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Finance to introduce and conduct it through ? Suppose that some question of importance relating to the Department of Justice was to be put before the House, does anybody think for an instant that my hon. and learned

friend (Mr. Fitzpatrick), would allow anybody else to take charge of it-


Charles Fitzpatrick: AVhy not ?


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Because I think my hon. friend has too much self-respect to allow anybody else to take charge of a Bill relating to a matter in his own department. I can understand that, when this policy was to be inaugurated, being a great policy in the estimation of hon. gentlemen opposite, there was some excuse for the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) introducing it in the House seeing that he was practically without a Minister of Railways and Canals, Mr. Blair who was then at the head of the Pepartment of Railways and Canals, could not approve of it. But now that he has a Minister of Railways and Canals, and now that the policy has been inaugurated and it is simply a question of a measure to amend the contract, I' say it is strange that it should be in the hands of any member of the cabinet except the Minister of Railways and Canals. It appears strange not only to gentlemen on this side of the House, but also to hon. gentlemen opposite that, when this measure comes up, the hon. the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Emmerson) not only has nothing to say, but walks out of the House, as it were, snaps his lingers, treating this House with scant courtesy and certainly not with the respect which is due to it. I say that the Minister of Railways and Canals by his conduct has lost, to a great extent, the confidence of the House and of the country. Why is it that he is not here to defend this scheme ? If he does not disagree with his colleagues on this subject, I am afraid he will make the House believe, make those who sit around him believe, certainly w-ill make this side of the House and the country believe, that he is not able to defend this measure before the House, that he has not sufficient ability to do it. I would regret hon. gentlemen coming to that conclusion, but it is a conclusion which must of necessity impose itself on the minds of hon. members of this House. If it is so, he has lost that individual confidence which every member of the administration should have from his colleagues in this House. For these reasons I have thought it was only right that I should call the attention of the House and the country to a matter which is of serious import in the consequences it may have later on.


Wilfrid Laurier: As my hon. friend (Mr. Casgrain) has spoken of this' matter apparently in earnest, I think I owe him the courtesy of an answer,-though I may be permitted to say, at the outset, that I do not think there is much in the contention he has advanced to the committee or the criticism he has made of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Emmerson). It is quite true the government is divided into several departments at the head of each of which is Mr. CASGRAIN.
one member answerable for that department to his colleagues, primarily because his colleagues and himself are answerable to parliament. This applies chiefly to the administration of the departments, but it cannot apply in the same way to legislation. No member of the cabinet at the head of the department can take upon himself to introduce legislation unless he has had the view's of the whole cabinet upou it.
In matters of administration, of course he does many things on his own responsibility, of which his colleagues have no knowdedge, but for which they must take responsibility. Upon these the minister is entitled to the glory or the blame of his own acts. That is the sense of the authority which the hon. gentleman has quoted. In matters of legislation, whenever a Bill has to be introduced by a member of the government, whether it be of a purely administrative matter or otherwise, these matters are always debated in council before they are brought to parliament. In such a case I would like to know if when the Bill is introduced it is not altogether within the province of the government to determine what minister is -to take charge of the measure before parliament ? I would call attention to the fact that there is a difference between the English and Canadian systems in our method of administering the affairs of the country. An English minister has much more power of administration and of committing the government than a Canadian minister has. In England meetings' of the cabinet are of rare occurrence ; mouths and months may pass without a single meeting of the cabinet and the business of the government is carried on very largely on the responsibility of individual ministers. But under our system in Canada, according to the practice not alone of this government, but of all governments, meetings of the cabinet are frequent and the cabinet is consulted by every one of its members upon matters of pure administration very, very often. It generally occurs that wrhen a Bill is introduced it is introduced by the minister under whose department it should come. This measure should naturally have been introduced last year by the Minister of Railways and Canals. Unfortunately the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Blair) did not agree to the policy of his colleagues ; he withdrew- suddenly and it fell upon me to take charge of this measure and I did it of course to the best of the ability which I could bring to the question. If my hon. friend (Mr. Blair) had seen upon this question as his colleagues did, if he had agreed to the policy which was accepted by the cabinet, of course he would have introduced this measure. He did not agree and I have just given the reason why I took charge of the measure. This year I again took charge of it ; and why ? The reason is very obvious. Mr. Blair had withdrawn

from the cabinet ; we nad to select a successor and we appointed Mr. Emmerson, the present Minister of Railways and Canals. We appointed him just on the eve of the session. I would ask my hon. friend opposite if he thinks the criticism passed upon the Minister of Railways and Canals is fair and just to him? Do they believe that it was extraordinary that at the opening of the session, when he had just taken charge of his department, one of the heaviest perhaps in many respects the heaviest of the departments, the minister should not have taken charge of the measure which was simply an amendment to a previous measure as to which he had no concern and of which he had not studied the details as we had done. Does my hon. friend (Mr. Casgrain) believe it would have been fair to the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Emmerson) to ask him to take charge of that measure before the House ? Of course the Lon.- gentleman (Mr. Emmerson) was in sympathy with the policy of his colleagues ; he knew enough of the measure to accept it in toto ; but to defend it, and to defend it against the very minute criticism of my hon. friends opposite, required more t:me than he could give it. I am sure my hon. friend (Mr. Casgrain) will agree that thie hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Emmerson), taking charge, just on the eve of the session, of one of the largest and heaviest departments of the government, required a great deal of time and a great deal of labour to prepare for the work of the session, lo prepare his estimates, to carry on the administration of the department, and to carry on the administration of the Intercolonial. Under these circumstances, I told the hon. minister (Mr. Emmerson) that I would take charge of the measure myself. That is the reason why the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Emmerson) has not taken charge of this Bill as perhaps under other circumstances he would have deemed it his duty to do and as his colleagues would have deemed it their duty te have him take charge of it. That is a'l there is about this matter, and certainly there is nothing in connection with it to find fault with, especially to find fault with the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Emmerson). I would appeal to gentlemen on the other side simply to remember that the Department of Railways and Canals being so larg=>
as it is, having the canals, the Intercolonial and the general administration of the department, involves a great deal of labour, involves the mastering of a great deal of detail, and the minister. assuming charge of it just on the eve of the session, could not be expected to take up all of this work and also to take up the work of this legislation.
I have nothing to say as to the insinuat ion of my hon. friend from Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) a moment ago that the minister is not in sympathy with his colleagues
in this. If the present minister were not *in sympathy he would have done as a former Minister of Railways and Canals did, and have resigned his seat or not have accepted it.


Mr.   I@: My light hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) certainly admits, by the remarks he lias just made, that the continued absence and the continued silence of the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Emmerson) invite criticism, and he has endeavoured to make the best defence he could under the circumstances. One defence is that the Minister of Railways and Canals has not time. Well, my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has a department which gives him a great deal to do. and yet he takes a very active part in the work of this House, as active a part I suppose as any gentleman opposite, and he was able to come forward and defend this measure, while his colleague the Minister of Railways and Canals, the one whom we might expect would have charge of this measure, has not only- been almost continuously absent, but when here has not said a single word or indicated any interest what-ev er in the Bill, except occasionally by a little applause on the remarks of some gentleman sitting behind' him. He has left the Bill in the hands of the Prime Minister, and, more especially dvrring the committee stage, of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick). Both of these gentlemen have important dirties to perform as ministers of the Crown, and yet these duties have not prevented them from coming he e and taking some part in the discussion. The Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Emmerson) is new to his duties, we admit. The acting Minister of Railways and Canals last year (Mr. Fielding) was new to the duties of the, department, but that did not ! revent him from administering that department as well as his own until very shortly before the commencement of this session.
I do not think the excuse the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) makes is a valid excuse, so far as the entire attack of my hon. friend from Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) is concerned, because certainly, should we concede for the purposes of argument, and for the purposes of argument * only, that the duties of the Department of Railways and Canals are too onerous to permit the minister to come here and take charge of this Bill, nevertheless these duties are surely not too onerous to prevent hi n coming to this House and giving his opinion in regard to the Bill and giving that assistance which he alone of all the members of the cabinet might give. He has in his department a large number of experts, men trained and skilled in connection with railway matters, and they might give very great assistance to this House through the minister if he saw fit to come here and


Mr. JABEL ROBINSON.: Mr. Chairman, I think it is the duty of some of us to send a page boy to the office of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Em-merson) and notify him that an impeachment has been brought against him. I do not know whose duty it is to do that. I do not think it is mine, but I think it is some one's duty to send over word and not have him attacked in this manner behind his back. If there is nothing before the chair, excepting myself, I -would like to move an amendment. There have been a number of amendments moved on this question. Whatever is before the chair I think I perhaps am in possession of the secret of the absence of the hon. Minister of Railways and. Canals. A year ago, if I remember correctly, the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals was a strong disciple of mine. For him to get up in this House and go back on me is something more, perhaps, than he can stand, but, still, 1 would like him to be here and give the reason why he deserted me. As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, ever since I have been a member of this House I have been a strong advocate of government ownership and I understand that the present hon. Minister of Railways and Canals was that until a few months ago. But, Sir, he had the good fortune to be made Minister of Railways and Canals. I had'nt. If I had been made Minister of Railways and Canals I can tell you this, Mr. Chairman, that no man on this side of the House would have risen to speak against that contract if I had signed it, and fully believed it to be true without my having risen in my place to justify it. That is why I think the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals should have been here under all circumstances. But, I do not want to judge any man. No doubt the hon. minister has his own business to look after. No doubt the hon. minister, as he is a very important man, has important business in his office. I just feel like this that every minister when he is not engaged in his office should be here. I understand he draws his indemnity and if he does he should be here. I do not care whether he is the Minister of Railways and Canals or any other minister, it is his duty to be in this House when he is not engaged in his office. I am not reading a lecture to any one, but I am simply stating what I feel to be right. I did not expect to speak on this question again but I was in hopes that I would be able to say something that would bring this debate to a close. We have been debating here so long and so little progress has been made that I do think we ought to make an effort to bring this debate to a close. The gov-100
eminent, at the last division we had in this House, had some forty-five of a majority at their back, and they can call their' supporters in at, any time a division is-called for and they can defeat you ; so, what is the use of standing here V If you were only new from the constituencies ft would be a different thing, but some hon. members are here to vote and for nothing else. I am here for a different purpose. I am going to read this amendment and move it upon the third reading :
That after the expiration of ten years from the date the Grand Trunk Pacific contract is signed, whether the railway is completed or not the Dominion government shall have the power to expropriate the said railway and all its branches by the payment to the Grand Trunk Pacific of all moneys expended by them and terminate the lease respecting the eastern section.
That is very short. There is nothing ambiguous about it. I think it is exactly what the country wants. You are going to have government ownership before some of us are dead so let us prepare the way for it now. If my amendment is in order I shall hand it in and close my speech.


Mr. GANONG.: We can always be sure, when the First Minister speaks, that he will at least give us a pleasing address, if not a very logical one. Some of the propositions put forward by the right hon. gentleman this afternoon, if applied, would be rather interesting. It would certainly be very interesting to see the Minister of Marine attempting to tell us how to stuff chickens instead of the Minister of Agriculture, and it would be equally interesting to hear the Minister of Agriculture tell us how to kill dog-fish instead of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. That is what the Prime Minister's contention amounts to, if it means anything at all. He has stated that the so-called Minister of Railways is in hearty sympathy with the government on this Grand Trunk Pacific scheme. That may be, but if it is he has had a change of heart; he is following other gods than those he followed a short time since. Until a recent visit to New Brunswick I had no intention of saying anything in connection with this amended contract, which in every line of it gives greater advantages to the Grand Trunk and imposes more costly and onerous conditions on the country. All through the contract we have to depend on the merciless mercy of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. Since my visit to New Brunswick I have had an idea that I might be able to find the Minister of Railways up here. You cannot go through that country without Liberals and Conservatives putting a lot of questions to you : What has become of Em-merson ; is he still Minister of Railways ; is he off on a junketing trip buying railroads with a body-guard in training to defend his purchase ; or is he still down to Niagara



5347
Falls hobnobbing with the British aristocracy V The question is, whether New Brunswick has a representative in the cabinet at all, and whether this so-called Minister of Railways is really to-day Minister of Railways or not, although he was at the time of the signing of the contract. But we have had instances under this government in which certain Ministers of Railways did not see tit to stay in the government, and so people doubt whether the present Minister of Railways is in the cabinet or not. The Minister of Railways is not in his place to-day, neither has he been for one per cent of the time since this great scheme came before the House ; a scheme more important than any other since the Canadian Pacific Railway legislation ; a scheme that calls for a great expenditure of the Canadian taxpayer's money than ' has been.' The Minister of Railways has been very conspicuous by his absence. You see him flitting around the corridors here like a boy of sixteen ; you see him sidle into his seat, blush like a school girl if his name be mentioned and sidle out again. That is all you see of the Minister of Railways. 1 do not think it is his extreme youth that troubles the hon. gentleman; there must be some other power behind him to force him to this action. The ex-Minister of Railways (Mr. Blair), his political progenitor, did not shirk his duty, although that hon. gentleman had to face a scheme in the Drummond County Railway that he had nothing to do with ; a scheme that was originated before Mr. Blair accepted office under this government. Although it did not suit him, he stuck to it like a man. There was another scheme managed by the Minister of the Interior, the Yukon deal, which Mr. Blair had nothing to do with, and Mr. Blair supported that scheme, too, although his speech condemned the transaction by his faint praise, more than did the speeches of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House. Still, Mr. Blair had signed the contract, and he was ready to give reasons for the faith that was in him. It is true that later on Mr. Blair was put in the position of the poor fellow who, in the scriptures, fell among thieves, because the other ministers' stole his constitutional rights from him, and brought in this Grand Trunk Pacific scheme without consulting him. But Mr. Blair prayed long and earnestly with his colleagues, and not only that, but he sent forth that prayer of his, of which we have heard so much recently, and which is called the ' Blair memorandum.' He tried to dissuade them from making this useless and unjustifiable expenditure as he called it, but whether he prayed or not they went on with the scheme just the same. Mr. Blair did more than pray, he resigned. We have not heard of the resignation of the present minister (Mr. Emmerson) yet. although it may possibly be in the hands of the Speaker to-night. And not only did Mr. Blair resign, Mr. GANONG.
but he forced this government to put their seal upon the fact that he is the greatest railway expert in Canada, by making him chairman of the Railway Commission and he bolds the proud position, of having that en-dorsation from the First Minister, notwithstanding the fact that he, as a railway expert, condemned this Grand Trunk Pacific project of theirs. What of the present Minister of Railways V Up to the time of Mr. Blair s resignation the present Minister of Railways, in the House and out of it, supported in his stentorian tones his political progenitor. The present Minister of Railways supported the man who had made him politically and who had kept him in power. But there came a change over the Minister of Railways (Mr. Emmerson). He did not, as Mr. Blair did, stand by the principles he had advocated in this House and in the committee . he did not show that true manhood which the electors expect from their representatives in this House. Where do you find him to-day ? You find him just where the member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) says all of them are-following like sheep behind the Prime Minister ; no questions asked ; voting simply because their leader says so. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Emmerson) cannot claim even the same privilege as the man who was too lazy to say his prayers, and had them printed and hung up, and said : Don l, there are my sentiments. The Minister of Railways has two sets of sentiments. He had a set of sentiments before $7,000 a year was dangled before him, and the I rime Minister tells us to-day that he has another set of sentiments ; so it is difficult to say which of them the hon. gentleman would hang up if he wished to pray to his gods. It is altogether likely though that the $7,500 would carry off the day. Can we, by any means, induce the Minister of Railways to come into this House ? We have one, two, three, four ministers in the chamber now we had seven of them a little while ago and I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, if you could direct these six ministers, headed by the First Minister, to go out and constraiu the Minister of Railways to come in here. Just seat him down where he belongs, and keep him for a little while. I do not believe that even then you could get anything out of him, unless you used him like a French doll, and squeezed him ; and if you did, the first thing you would hear in mechanical tones would'be : Papa Blair expressed my sentiments. Squeeze him again, and you would hear : Must keep quiet or quit office. That is all you would ever get out of the hon. gentleman ; that is all you will get out of him this session. It would be interesting for us to have some record of the appointment of this gentleman to the Department of Railways. The First Minister told us to-day how hard worked he is-we judge so from the way he walks around the corridors. The First Minister told us that he is only a little while in office-whose fault is that .
33*9

They were hunting around to find some one to give the office to. They did not know whether he was to be trusted with it or not. It is not the fault of this House or of the country that the right hon. gentleman has a minister who cannot defend his position. It is his own fault. They sent for him (Mr. Emmerson) and brought him to Ottawa, they took him to the fit-reform room, where they fit those fellows who have no shape. They looked him over and said : You look as if you were made to be a statesman ; we will tell you what we will do : we will give you the chance that many a poor fellow has had who has since gone to the poor house :	we will let you
sign documents. Come and be Minister of Railways, and we will let you sign all the contracts ; but don't you dare to open your mouth afterwards. Now, I am speaking from a provincial standpoint, and I say that no greater outrage was ever committed upon the province of New Brunswick than the appointment and the action of the Minister of Railways. In times past that province has been represented by ministers Who could stand before the House and defend the principles they advocated. To-day we have the Minister of Railways flitting around the corridors to avoid being asked why he signed a contract committing this country to an expenditure of $150,000,000. I say it is an outrage on the province, which has been represented by such men as Tilley, Foster and other men who were able to defend their positions. You can imagine the scene that took place between the Minister of Railways and the First Minister. You know how suave and polite the right hon. the First Minister can be. There is no doubt that he attempted to make the hon. gentleman believe that he was a statesman of the first water. But one of two things must be true : he either hypnotized the hon. gentleman, which I doubt, or he imposed some condition when he gave him the office. He probably said to him :
I have not any doubt, Henry, that you have many times expressed Blair's views, in the House and out of it. Now, unless you repent, you cannot have the office. Whose views ? Why, the views of the greatest railway expert in Canada ; and still he was condemned by them. But, Sir, what is the answer the hon. gentleman gives ? He says :	Please
Sir, for that $7,000, I have made speeches recanting all the heresies I have ever uttered against	your gods Cox and
Hays ; give me the $7,000, and if you say so, I will never speak again on either side. He was willing, as the hon. member for Annnapolis (Mr. Wade) said, to follow like a sheep over all the unexplored mountains of New Brunswick, and through the impassable morasses and muskegs between Quebec and Winnipeg, provided that $7,000 was dropped in his lap. There is one thing that must strike people as peculiar, flint is, the difference before and after that $7,000 was hung up. The hon. gentleman 106*
made a good race for it, and we in New Brunswick were rather glad he had obtained the prize ; but we also hoped that he would give an equivalent to the country for the amount he was receiving. No doubt the right hon. the First Minister gave him advice. The right hon. gentleman was amply able to give him advice. He could have told him very readily: You had better take advice from an older man than yourself. , You had better take advice not only in talking but in acting, and I would suggest that you take advice from the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart), who at one time said to you don't-don't do it again. That perhaps is the reason the hon. Minister of Railways has not spoken. He has depended so much on the good advice given by the hon. member for South Lanark that he has concluded not to do it again. Whatever may be the reason -whether the government dare not allow the Minister of Railways to speak, or whether he is lacking in courage, it makes no difference which, I claim that it is an insult to *the province which that hon. gentleman is presumed to represent. Now, the hon. gentleman has some powers, and we cannot very well afford to ignore them. He has displayed some of them, too, since he has been in office. He has one power especially. I regret that he is not here, because he would perhaps appreciate it more than any one else in the House. He has the power of vindictiveness. After his recent defeat in St. John, the hon. gentleman showed it very plainly. He did not have to do any talking then to defend the railway. The St. John election had condemned the railway, but there were two good Liberal voters down there neither of whom voted, and the hon. gentleman saw pretty soon that they lost their jobs. There have also been two or three at Moncton since that time. But we need not be very much surprised at these assassinations, for we had it on the word of the right hon. First Minister, who at that time perhaps had not received his knighthood, that no officials would be displaced without due examination, and the opportunity to defend themselves. But there has been no time since then, when these political assassinations have not been taking place. All over the country there has been a cutting off of the heads of gentlemen holding government positions who happened to be independent. We know down in the province of New Brunswick the Minister of Railways was only , carrying out the tactics which he had followed in his own local elections. He kept himself in power by the same means. He had two kinds of ballot papers printed, and he had his minions at the polls, and any government employee who did not cast a certain ballot was dismissed.
It is notorious that since this government came into power, they so conduct provincial politics in the city of Moncton that they have had their' rail-

way employees furnished with ballots and hauled to the polls, and if these employees do not deposit the ballots furnished them, their occupation is gone. And in the city of St. John, Mr. McKeown and his representatives stood at the polls, and woe befell the man who did not present the proper ballot. But, Sir. if the mills of the gods grind slowly, they grind exceeding fine, and they ground Mr. McKeown so fine politically that he will never be heard of as a candidate again. We had hoped to have a defence of this scheme put up by the Minister of Railways himself, and perhaps the right hon. the First Minister will not disdain to accept a suggestion which I make him in all humility. I would suggest that he should go out into the byways and the highways or the corridors or such other places as his hon. colleague may frequent and see if it is not possible to find him and induce him to come to this House and defend this scheme, which so far nas been so poorly defended. Why, take even the defence made by the Minister of Justice, what kind of a defence was it ? He has told us that he is not a railway expert and virtually knows nothing about this proposition from the point of view of a railway man. But he is only in the same boat as the rest of his colleagues. Only a year ago they signed a memo, saying that they knew nothing about the subject, but no doubt they will corral all their followers behind them, when the proper time comes, and these followers will vote straight, and continue to support the government from year to year until the perfume of these wild roses, which are flourishing away out in the northern parts of Ontario and Quebec, has been dissipated.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is rather a strange thing that we are witnessing in this nouse to-day, one the like of which this country has never been treated to in the past and let us hope, will never witness in the future. We are witnessing the pitiful spectacle of a minister of the Crown, either unable or unwilling to give such explanations of the business inaugurated by bis department and proposed to be carried out under his control as this House requires in order that it may pass an intelligent judgment. We have to-day a head of the Department of Railways and Canals-but what kind of a head ?


Mr. BENNETT.: A deadhead.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: A deadhead, says my hon. friend, and the term is not at all inappropriate. But we might also describe him as a titular head, a figure head. According to Webster, a titular head is one existing in letter or in name only, having the title and the honour, but discharging none of the functions of the office. Does not that definition exactly describe the head of the Railway Department to-day-a man who has the name and the honour, but who dis-Mr. GANONG.
charges none of the functions of his office. What is the object in having the government divided into departments ? No doubt the object was to have some responsible head in each department-some one who will be particularly responsible to the House and the country for the conduct of his de-' partment and explain, when required, the work.
What is being done by it. In the Department of Railways and Canals, the particular minister, who is put at the head of that department, should be responsible for every cent of money expended by it, and for the policy which it carries out. And when the policy of the government, which particularly affects that department, is being discussed in the House, that particular minister should be here to explain and defend it. He is supposed to be more conversant with the details than the other members of the cabinet, but what have we in the present instance ? We have a gentleman at the head of the Department of Railways and Canals who is merely its titular head, who knows nothing about his duties, and who does not discharge the functions of his office. He might as well be a merely honorary head. He is not here to explain, he evidently has not familiarized himself with the details of his departmental work, and what information we have obtained regarding the business of that department has been given us, not by the one who. is its responsible head, but by some one whose duties and responsibilities lie particularly in another department. When we have a question to ask in connection with this transcontinental railway scheme-this scheme which comes particularly under the control of the Minister of Railways and the agreement in relation to which has been signed by him-that hon. gentleman is not here to reply. If he were in the upper chamber, we could_ understand somebody being appointed in this House to reply for him. But he is not, he is in this, the popular chamber, yet he is conspicuous by his absence. If this precedent were to be followed, what would become of the business of the country ? We have a Minister of Agriculture to answer questions regarding the Agricultural Department and to explain the policy carried out by his department. We have a Minister of Marine and Fisheries to explain the policy of that department. When anything comes up relating to the Finance Department, we naturally look to the Minister of Finance for information. In matters affecting the customs, we have a Minister of Customs to give us what explanations we require. And so with the Departments of Trade and Commerce and Inland Revenue, the responsible head of each explains' to the House the work and the policy of each. But supposing that in each of these_ departments, the responsible head persisted in remaining silent, and some other minister,

who had nothing to do with his department, had to reply in his place, what result could be expected from such a system. It could only result in confusion worse confounded. Yet when a policy is submitted affecting particularly the Department of Railways and Canals, the carrying out of which must be controlled by the minister of that department, we search in vain for that gentleman. When we have to discuss the details of that policy, that particular man is not to be found. Is not that a travesty on constitutional government ? Is it not treating parliament and the country with contempt ? He is doing that, and that is the only thing. The strength of a government is in proportion to the intelligence, the interest and the businesslike ability with which the members of it manage the details of their several departments. That being so, this minister can certainly bring no strength whatever to the government, because, if he does not manage the details of his department well, we know nothing of it for he gives us no information. .When we ask for information to enable us to judge whether his department is well managed or not, he is not here to answer. What is the explanation of his absence and silence with regard to this most important question ? Is it because of cowardice ? Is it because his colleagues dare not allow him to discharge the functions of his department ? Is it because he is wanting in moral courage to assume responsibilities of his own work before this House ? Is that the explanation ? It may be ; I am not going to say it is. Is it because his colleagues are afraid to trust him, knowing that on this great question he was not in harmony with them a year ago, that he was favourable to government ownership as the policy that should be adopted with respect to railways ? Are they afraid to trust him to-day for fear he might be found not to be in accord with them ? Or is it because he knows nothing of the affairs of his department ? If so, then the government should relieve him from his office and put some one in his place who will master those affairs. Is it that they are afraid that he cannot give the explanations asked for, and that some one else would have to rise in his presence and give them ? Is it because he does not know anything about the aims of this policy when carried out ? Or is it that he will discredit the government in the event of their allowing him to answer the questions ? Which is it V
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 55) respecting the Canadian Northern Railway Company.-Mr. Davis.
Bill (No. 60) respecting the Kettle River Valley Railway Company.-Mr. Gailiher.
Bill (No. 61) to incorporate the Thorold and Lake Erie Railway Company.-Mr. German.
Bill (No. 62) respecting the Welland and Grand Island Bridge Company.-Mr. German.
Bill (No. 71) respecting the Ottawa, Brock-ville and St. Lawrence Railway Company.- Mr. Logan.
Bill (No. 90) to incorporate the Bessemer and Barry's Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Northrop.
Bill (No. 96) to incorporate the Crawford Bay and St. Mary's Railway Company.- Mr. Macpherson.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (107) to incorporate the Great Lakes and Northwest Transportation Company.- Mr. German.
Bill (No. Ill) respecting the Edmonton Street Railway Company.-Mr. Oliver.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 72) to amend the National Transcontinental Railway Act.-Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr. Chairman, at six o'clock I was endeavouring to find some reasons for the continued absence of the Minister of Railways from this chamber. Several possible explanations occurred to my mind, but on analysing them I have come to the conclusion that they are probably incorrect. The Minister, of Railways cannot be absent because of cowardice, because he usually displays a moderate share of courage. It may or may not be, that the ministry are afraid to trust him to explain their policy, hut upon that subject we have no information. Judging from the remarks of the First Minister this afternoon, it may be that the Minister of Railways knows nothing about the scheme, and that he would discredit the government if permitted to explain it. The premier told us that the Minister of Railways was only recently appointed, and in consequence he had not time to familiarize himself with the work of his department and master the details of this legislation. Well, if this were a matter suddenly sprung upon the House, that explanation would be reasonable, but we must remember that during last session which lasted seven and a half months, this important measure was debated week after week and month after month ; that the government had cabinet council after cabinet council over it, and that they had consulted their supporters in this House and familiarized them with its details so that they might defend it as best they could. In fact, Sir, any member of this parliament with even moderate

ability could not help, but master the details of the measure. Last session the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) was an active participant in the discussion on this Bill in the Eailway Committee and in the House. When a charter was first proposed to enable the Grand Trunk to build from North Bay to Winnipeg, the hon. gentleman opposed it on the ground that such a measure would not meet the needs of the maritime provinces, and he contended that what they wanted was the extension of the Intercolonial Railway to Georgian bay, then to use the great water stretches up to the head of Lake Superior, and thence enter that western country. He intimated in the Railway Committee, that Mr. Blair also held that view, and the general assumption was that the member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) was put up to express Mr. Blair's views, because Mr. Blair being then a minister could not record his antagonism to any scheme that might be under the consideration by the government. The member for Westmoreland advocated that principle up to almost the very moment that Mr. Blair resigned, and until there was a portfolio iu sight he never uttered a word in favour of the present Grand Trunk Pacific scheme. Last session in a lengthy and desultory speech that might be dignified by the name of argument, he endeavoured to defend this so-called National Transcontinental Railway, but his whole defence was that the scheme should reach to the maritime provinces, and he did not say a word to condemn the policy which he had advocated over and over again in the Railway Committee. Is he afraid to advocate this scheme now, because of the former convictions which he announced against it in the Railway Committee ? Or, is it that he does not wish to condemn his predecessor in otfice, his political godfather who made him anything he is to-day in public life ? It can hardly be that the Minister of Railways is out of accord with the cabinet, because ministerial responsibility demands that he should be in harmony with his colleagues or else resign. Is it that the Minister of Railways is willing to swallow his convictions, and te sit silent here so long as he can draw the salary and emoluments attached to his office ? I hardly think the hon. gentleman would be guilty of such a thing. Whatever may be the reason, no explanation has been vouchsafed to us by the government. It sometimes happens that when ministers are not in accord with the cabinet, by some strange process of reasoning they bring themselves to the conclusion that the right thing to do is to keep out of the House, we have seen some of the ministers for days and days remain away from this chamber, and in common parlance they are on strike. Is the hon. Minister of Railways Mr. SPROULE.
on strike ? I do. not know, but his conduct looks very much like it.
Whatever it may be, this House should know. Is the hon. gentleman afraid to swallow his convictions 1 If so, he ought to undertsand that when he assumes the responsibility of a portfolio, no matter what his position may have been before, he is bound to defend the measures introduced by the government of which he is a member, whether he is stultifying his previous record or not. So I think that cannot be the explanation. What is the explanation ? No matter how charitable we may be, we must reach some conclusion, and the only conclusion that seems reasonable is that given by the Prime Minister this afternoon-that he does not know anything about the measure. That is the sum and substance of it-that he has not been long enough a minister of the Crown to make himself familiar with the measure which has been before this House for two sessions, and which has been engaging our attention week after week and month after month. He has had at his command all the information available to a minister of the Crown, and he has had subordinates to help him to hunt up information. Surely he should be able to master the details of the measure and to answer questions upon it in this House ; but he has not done so. Therefore I say that we are justified in making this motion as a protest against the government keeping in their employ a minister who is unable to occupy his seat in the House and answer the questions which he should be in a position to answer as the head of an important department, or else resign. We are entitled to make this motion. We do it in order to call the attention of the country to this condition of affairs-to the discreditable spectacle to which we have been subjected for several days, and to which we do not desire to submit any longer. We think it is desirable that it should be exhibited to the country, that the press should take notice of it, that the people should know it, and visit the consequences of it upon the government when the opportunity comes. There is no doubt that the hon. gentleman is a very weak minister, or he would take his place in the House. Why was the Minister of the Interior put up to defend him ? Why is his deputy, the Minister of Justice, put up to argue the case that he should argue ? The Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and even the Minister of Agriculture, if my memory serves me, have all spoken on the measure ; and yet the important Minister of Railway and Canals has not had a word to say upon it yet. He is as dumb as an oyster which has gone back into its shell and closed it. It is said that a horse is no better than the most unsound leg he has got and that a ship is no better than

the most rotten plank on it. So a government is no stronger than the weakest minister in it ; and if you judge this government by the Minister of Railways and Canals, I have no doubt that the country has condemned it long ago.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: There are two or three amendments standing as to which the government were to come to some conclusion. One of them is that moved by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) in regard to the apportionment of earnings.


Charles Fitzpatrick: As the Minister of Finance explained to the House, the impression we have on this side is that the Railway Act goes far enough to meet that case ; but in order to avoid any doubt on the subject, we intend to extend the provision of the Railway Act, so as to make it abundantly clear that that can be dealt with by the Railway Commission. There was another amendment with respect to the control of leases made by the commissioners, moved by the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett). My intention is to move an amendment to the following effect:
Notwithstanding anything in the third clause of the agreement hereby ratified and confirmed, no lease under the rights and powers thereby conferred shall be made or granted until the same has been submitted to and approved by the Governor in Council. A copy of every such lease, as soon as executed, shall be deposited with the Secretary of State.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not observe any difference in substance between the two amendments. Therefore, with the assent of my hon. friend from Simcoe, I would say that we will accept that of the Minister of Justice in lieu of the one my hon. friend has moved.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I took the amendment of the hon. member for Simcoe - and handed it over to the gentleman who drafted the Bill to put it in his own words, and I think the amendment he has drafted fits in better with the general terms of the Bill.
Amendment of Mr. Bennett withdrawn ; amendment of Mr. Fitzpatrick agreed to.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I move to amend the Bill by inserting as section 6 (a) :
Notwithstanding anything in the third clause of the agreement hereby ratified and confirmed no lease under the rights and powers thereby conferred shall be made or granted until the same has been submitted to and approved by the Governor in Council, a copy of every such lease as soon as executed shall be deposited with the Secretary of State.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Robert Laird Borden: That the Bill be amended by adding thereto the following section :-
1. In the event of any complaint being made that any of the terms and provisions of the
41st, 42nd, 43rd, 44th and 45th clauses of the agreement, a copy of which forms the schedule of the National Transcontinental Railway Act, are not being duly complied with and observed, such complaint and all the circumstances connected with such non-compliance and non-observance, shall be immediately investigated and reported on by the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, and their report with the evidence shall be laid before parliament forthwith ; or, if parliament be not in session, within the first ten days of the following session, for such action thereon as parliament may deem expedient.
2. The Pacific and Grand Trunk Companies shall be duly notified of any such investigations, and shall have the right to appear and to be heard thereat.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend will remember that last night there was some controversy between myself and my hon. friend and the Minister of Finance over this amendment. The Minister of Finance argued that the Railway Act would ehable these complaints to be dealt with. I have looked over the Railway Act and have come to the conclusion that while the Act might permit of an investigation, it does not provide for any report or for any action, and it ought to be amended so as to meet absolutely the point raised by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition.


Robert Laird Borden: It may be desirable to amend the Railway Act in that regard, but I think it is even more desirable to have a special provision inserted in this contract, of which all persons interested shall take notice, and which shall stand as a formal notice to the companies who are mainly concerned in this measure, that parliament may take action if for any cause traffic is diverted from Canadian ports to ports in the United States. For that reason I would not acquiesce in the suggestion of my hon. friend, but must insist upon this amendment being pressed to a division.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I think that we both have in view the same object, namely, as far as possible to force Canadian trade through Canadian channels from the place of production to the sea-board. There is a difference of opinion regarding the scope of the Railway Act, and I thought it would be proper that I should indicate the amendments I intend proposing to it, so that we may be better able to discuss them in connection with the amendments to be submitted by my hon. friend on the third reading.


Robert Laird Borden: That is a very fair suggestion. Of course, there may be one point of difference between us, and it is this. We desire by this amendment to point to parliament in future as the body which shall determine this matter, and do not content ourselves, so far as this particular aspect of' the contract is concerned, with any report that may be made or decision arrived at by-

the Board of Railway Commissioners of Canada.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I understand my hon. friend's object to be to have a report for the information of parliament, parliament being the arbiter in the last resort. That is what I have in my mind. On looking over the Railway Act I find that the Railway Commission have power to investigate, but there is no provision empowering them to report, and I think that a report should be made so that parliament may be in a position to deal with the matter.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. FITZPATRICK moved that the following be added to section 2 :
And the Grand Trunk Company and Its directors are hereby declared to have been, since the 8th of March, 1904, vested, under the resolution of the shareholders passed on the sai last flientioned date, with full powers to en gage the credit of the Grand Trunk Railway or pledge its said stocks and securities for th purpose of providing the deposit mentioned in the scheduled agreements.


Robert Laird Borden: No very substantial criticism occurs to me at the moment. I will, however, reserve the right, upon the third reading, if I find it necessary, to make some further remarks upon that clause as (amended.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Robert Laird Borden: There is one more amendment, of which I gave notice last night.


Charles Fitzpatrick: If my hon. friend will permit me, I was just going to make an observation about that amendment We have had that question under consideration already, but I must confess that, since the notice was given last night, I have not had the opportunity to fully consider the matter, and am not in a position to add anything to what I have already said. If the hon. gentleman thinks well of it, the amendment might be voted on in the usual way, but I would like to reserve my own further considered opinion until the amendment is put on the third reading. I do not think that any good purpose can be served by having the discussion now.


Mr. R. D. BORDEN.: I am ready to acquiesce at once in the suggestion of the hon. Minister of Justice. In considering these matters in committee benefit is to be gained only when both sides are ready for the discussion. I will agree that it should be put In the way suggested, and we shall discuss it further on the third reading.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I wish to keep the door open for myself to withdraw. .


Robert Laird Borden: Notwithstanding anything in the scheduled agreements, or in this Act, or in the Act hereby contained, it is hereby declared and enacted Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
that in the event of the government determining to undertake the operation of the eastern division upon the termination of the said lease the government shall be entitled for a further period of fifty years to such running powers and haulage rights over the 'western division, or any portion thereof and over any branch line or lines running from any point or points in the eastern division as may be necessary or expedient in the opinion of the government upon such terms as may be agreed upon between the government and the Pacific Company, or as may from time to time in case of failure to so agree be determined in the manner provided by clause 24 (2) of the original agree ment which is hereby made applicable to cases arising under this section.
Amendment negatived.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Are these all the amendments that hon. gentlemen opposite have to offier V


Robert Laird Borden: I think that is all ; yes.
Section 7 agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.


Frederick William Borden: Why did we leave section 2 7


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: There was an amendment to propose.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Some days ago, when this Bill was under discussion in committee, my hon. friend from Dorchester (Mr. Morin) raised the question with respect to the construction of the road. I understood him to say that it would be desirable to have the line located and construction proceeded with from a certain point. At that time I said I would have a clause added to the Bill providing for construction from different points, and. in fulfilment of that promise, I have drafted the following clause, which I move to add to the Bill as section 9 :
The work of construction on the eastern division of the Transcontinental Railway shall be commenced as nearly as may be simultaneously at Moncton, at Quebec, - at the point of junction of the eastern division with the branch southerly to a point at or near North Bay or Nipissing junction, and at Winnipeg, and shall be carried on westward from Moncton, eastward and westward from Quebec, eastward and westward from the point of junction aforesaid, and eastward from Winnipeg in such a manner that the section between Winnipeg and Quebec and that between Quebec and Moncton shall he completed, as nearly as practicable, at the same time.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like to ask the Minister of Justice if that means that contracts will be called for for the several divisions immediately ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: The commissioners will control the giving of contracts, subject, of course, to the approval of the government. But I apprehend that there will be no

question of letting contracts until such time as proper survey and exploration has been made of the route and location of the lines. This, I take it, is simply a direction to the commissioners as to the intention of parliament with respect to the construction of the road. From this the commissioners will understand that the road shall he constructed between Winnipeg and Moncton in such a wav that the several parts shall be completed, as far as possible, at the same time.


John Dowsley Reid: That is the desire of parliament, but will the commissioners have instructions that these surveys shall be completed at the same time also ? They may not go on with the surveys. They may carry on the surveys from Winnipeg westward and give the contracts from Winnipeg westwards, but if the surveys on the eastern portion are not completed construction cannot go on, and we do not know when they may be completed. Is it understood that the surveys are to go on and that they will be completed within a reasonable time ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend will understand that, so far as the commissioners are concerned, they have nothing to do with the construction westward of Winnipeg ; it is only from Winnipeg to Moncton that the commissioners have authority.


Samuel Barker: I would like to ask the Minister of Justice what he meant by this addition to the Bill. As I understand the argument advanced by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton). the surveys for the section between Winnipeg and North Bay junction have so far advanced that practically the surveys of the route, showing grades and curves, and all particulars, have been so far advanced that the hon. gentleman was able to tell us. upon the certificate of his geographer, exactly what that section was going to cost; and yet. from the province line near Lake Abitibi, to Quebec, and from Quebec to Moncton, not (one man has been put on the work of survey. I would like to understand exactly what the minister means when he says that a section of the line which has been already surveyed, not simply surveyed in the past two months, but surveys made years back by the old Canadian Pacific Railway by the Ontario government and completed apparently by the Grand Trunk Railway, within 12 months past : that that section was so far advanced that practically two years work had already been done, is to proceed pari passu with sections of the road on which not one dollar has as yet been expended. Looking at it from a practical point of view I should say that we start with the section from Winnipeg to North Bay at least two years ahead of the other sections and with regard to that, I would like to ask the minister, from a practical point of view, how he is going to proceed by equal steps.


Charles Fitzpatrick: 
Samuel Barker: In March and again in April, several gentlemen on this side of the House, endeavoured to ascertain what information the government had in reference to surveys of this eastern division of the road. I myself asked on more than one occasion for some information and I know that several other gentlemen were very anxious to find out what the government l-new about this, and an answer was made,
I think by the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Emmerson) which led us to suppose that the government had not the first item of information about the surveys. We did know that the Grand Trunk were making surveys, but the government said that they had no knowledge of it and we spent some time in pointing out that although the whole people of Canada knew* through the newspapers that the Grand Trunk were surveying that portion between Winnipeg and . North Bay junction, the

?364
government did not know it. The government which ought to know and the Railway Department which ought to know all about this, did not know as much as the>
casual reader of the newspapers did. The Minister of the Interior has told us, much to our surprise, that owing to what he seemed to characterize as the negligence of the Railway Department he had been induced to send out on the spur of the moment the geographer of the Interior Department to see a Mr. Stevens, at Montreal, and get some information. He got a shorthand report from this geographer, Mr. White, which was the only information the government possessed, and now when the government are asking us to accept an amendment which provides for the pari passu construction of the several sections of the eastern division, we are asked to assume that they knew a great deal about it. Surely this parliament was entitled to have known all the government knew, and if the government knew no more than they conveyed to us they knew absolutely nothing. I think that is absolutely clear, and when for some purpose which would be worthy of the strategy of a .Japanese general, they want to introduce this clause now to satisfy the public, they ask us to assume that they knew all about it. We know what has taken place east of Quebec. It would have been very satisfactory to us to have had some of the information a year ago.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The right lion, the Prime Minister mentioned it a year ago in the House.


Samuel Barker: I would like to have the remarks in which he communicated the information.


Charles Fitzpatrick: There is an official report published to which he can refer.
Mr. BARKER, We heard of roses that bloomed 230 years ago; we heard of mountains of information, but we would like to have definite information of the plans and surveys laid upon the table. We have heard from the Minister of the Interior that for the last 12 months actual surveying has been going on. We have heard that about three hundred miles of actual location survey has been completed so definitely that the engineer in charge can tell almost to a dollar, apparently what the line is going to cost, and yet we cannot have laid upon this table a copy of these plans. If the gentlemen sitting about this House were shareholders in a com-'pany anBtead of representatives of the Dominion of Canada, and we were asked bi accept assurances of that kind, we would -say :	Lay copies of these plans of the
'Grand Trunk Company about which the geographer of the Minister of the Interior was able to get information, on this table, and we would be able to see for ourselves


Samuel Barker: what the Minister of Justice tells us from information, and to have a record upon this table how far those plans have proceeded to this date. Why, Sir, if the information that we have be correct, these plans and these surveys are so useless up to this day that no railway company would undertake SI .000 of obligation upou the strength of them. It has been charged, I do not mean to say it is true, but it is charged, that the instrumental surveys that have been taken by these engineers of which we have heard so much, were so affected by the nature of the country through which those surveys were made that they were absolutely unreliable ; that the Ontario government engineers when going through that country could not rely upon their instruments owing to magnetic differences caused apparently by the ores that were in the soil. If that be so we have got very little information.
For the purpose of one clause of this agreement the hon. Minister of the Interior assures us that it is all right, that we have the most absolute information. When we come to another point we have no information. When we are discussing one branch of the agreement we are told that we have information from Winnipeg to Lake Abitibi, or to the province line, but when it comes to another branch of the agreement we find from the hon. Minister of Justice that we have information not only from Winnipeg to the province line but apparently we have substantial information from the province line to Quebec and from Quebec to Edmonton. Why is it that we have not had that information laid upon the table ? Does the right hon. leader of the government think that it is right and fair and just to the members of this House, to those sitting behind him as well as to those sitting on this side,- that we should be called upon to decide such a question as this is in the absence of any information that it is within the power of the government to furnish us with ? I think not. If what we have heard from the hon. Minister of Justice be accurate, according to the information that is giVen to him, we ought to have had these surveys laid on the table. Some of us, perhaps, would have taken the trouble to have examined the plans. The right hon. leader of the government laid books upon the table containing mountains of information. I took some days to examine those books. I took some time to examine the epitome of these books prepared by a gentleman employed by the government and I must say that the kind of information I got from that epitome was more like a mole hill than a mountain. I mentioned last year the most specific information as to that country which I discovered in the epitome of the mountains of information and I asked anybody to point out anything more

promising or hopeful than that to which I referred. I recollect that no hon. gentleman on the other side of the House was able to find anything beyond what I had found. If I recollect aright the information that was given to us about the agricultural capabilities of that wonderful section was based upon the authority of a gentleman who had once lived at Sorel, and who had been living in this district for some seventeen years, where he had been in charge of the agricultural department of the company by which he was employed. This gentleman had given information as to the agricultural capabilities of the district and he was quite sanguine that the country was capable of producing vegetable products of various kinds. He knew that it would produce vegetables and he had no doubt at all that it would be able to produce wheat. This gentleman, you ascertain when you read on, had been in charge of the tremendous agricultural district of seven acres of land. I went through a good deal of the book and outside of that seven acres I was not able to obtain any information of the many millions of acres through which this railway runs. I then asked some hon. gentleman on the other side of the House who was a better mountaineer than I was and who was capable of going through this mountain of information to say that there was more than I had pointed out, but, I never heard hon. gentlemen opposite say one word on the subject. That is the kind of information we are getting all the time from the government about this project. We ask for information at one stage about the division from Winnipeg to Lake Abitibi and the hon. Minister of the Interior gets up and says that he has it all. He admits that it was very negligent on the part of the railway department not to have it, but he, feeling that that branch of the government was being .sadly neglected takes it upon himself to send his geographer down to Montreal. He does not even ask the Railway Department to give him an experienced railway engineer to go down and look at these plans but he sends a gentleman down who is employed in drawing maps. This gentleman goes down to Montreal. He does not tell us that he saw any of the plans, he does, not tell us that he saw a note of one of the purveys, but he says that he had a conversation with this gentleman, Mr. Stephens, imported from the United States who tells him that it is most satisfactory. He says that up to White Earth Lake he has a location survey. that upon another section he has a preliminary survey, and that upon another section he has no survey but he has no doubt as to what the survey will disclose, and the hon. Minister of the Interior, varnishing that in his usual happy manner, tells us that he has a survey of the whole route to the province line. But, he does not
pretend that he has anything beyond the province line. The hon. Minister of Justice tells us that we have a great deal more, that we have a survey to Quebec, but when we read between the lines of the remarks of the hon. Minister of Justice, we find that we have only a survey, apparently, of the St. Maurice River valley and these surveys, I fancy, were not made with the view to the building of this railway at all. These are surveys that have been made in connection with some of these colonization projects of the province of Quebec from the city of Quebec northward up into the Lake St. John district.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The St. Maurice district.
' Mr. BARKER. Well, I am very much afraid that no business man will take such surveys, made for such a purpose, as a basis upon which to judge what will be the route, or what will be the cost of this great National Transcontinental Railway. There is just as much difference between the two as it is possible to imagine. There is as great a difference as there is between the old fashioned corduroy road and one of the later style of roads that we have in this country to-day. There is no comparison between a mere colonization railway for the purpose of opening up a back settlement and this magnificent highway, this Transcontinental Railway that we are to have with four-tenths of one per cent gradients and no more than three degree curves, all of the very highest class, which is going to take sixty to eighty cars on every train and which is going to haul them at a dollar per mile according to the experts on the other side of the House. Why, it is absolute absurdity to depend on such statements as those in dealing with the question before the House. But, the hon. gentleman speaks of Edmundston. What about the crossing to Moncton ? I recollect some time ago having a conversation with Sir Sandford Fleming who had surveyed that district across New Brunswick to the Tobique mountains and Sir Sandford Fleming said that it was absolutely impossible, within reasonable limits of cost, to obtain gradients over these mountains that would enable through traffic to be carried at a cheap rate. The hon. gentleman with a push and an enterprise that may be national and that may be characteristic proposes to bind the country to do that, work before he knows that it can be done. It may turn out to be an absolute impossibility but yet the hon. gentleman is going to put it in an Aet of parliament that it shall be done.


Charles Fitzpatrick: As far as practicable.


Samuel Barker: Oh, as far as practicable ; the Minister of Justice knows that almost anything is practicable, if you put lots of

money into it, but we are speaking now of a business proposition. We are using words we expect to stand by, and if this government undertakes to construct tbe section in the east without regard to common sense or reason as to the practicability of it, what is the common sense of binding us to go on with this section from Winnipeg to North Bay 7 It ail hangs together ; a chain is no stronger than its weakest link, and if you And in any part of this 1,900 miles of this eastern division that you cannot get the grades that are essential, you knock to pieces the whole structure. And yet the hon. gentleman would propose to bind this whole country to go on as far as practicable, and in the meantime a contract is to be entered into with the Grand Trunk Pacific that we are going to do it. They will be encouraged to spend millions of money with our guarantee on the western division, relying on outdoing what is practicable in the east. Does not the minister know that a thing may be practicable, but at an unreasonable and enormous cost; and the Grand Trunk can turn around by and by on us and say ; You have got back after all to our original proposition ; you cannot do this work that you propose for the purpose you intend; we. have our line completed over the mountain and prairie sections, and you have got what we know is practicable, namely, the Winnipeg and North Bay section, and you will have to stay there, and you will compensate us for not giving us that wonderful thing in the east which the right hon. gentleman told us was a ' mine of gold ' to us. Before this House is asked to pass such an amendment as this the hon. gentleman is bound to give us some reasonable information to the effect that what he proposes to do can be done within reasonable limits.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I quite agree with the motion moved by my hon. friend the Minister of Justice; but I have got an amendment here which is a little sharper on the edge than is his. However, if the hon. minister will make a trade with me, I will make a trade with him ; if he will accept my amendment 1 will accept his, and I am sure I will lose nothing in the bargain. I propose :
That the proposed section 9 moved as an amendment to the Bill be amended by adding thereto the following at the end thereof :-
And the said railway after crossing the St. Lawrence river and the Quebec bridge shall run in a southeasterly direction through the counties of Levis and Dorchester, following the course of the Etchemin river up towards Etche-min lake, thence easterly through the province of Quebec to the city of Moncton.
My object in moving this amendment is to show to the government and to the House the necessity for running this railroad along the route that I have been praying the government to adopt. In order to prove to the government the utility of this amendment, let me explain the conditions in the county of Mr. BARKER.
Dorchester, the county of Beauce and all the counties east of Dorchester, lying between the St. Lawrence river and the state of Maine. The area of the county of Dorchester is 602,000 acres, and it comprises seventeen parishes, only two of which are served by a railroad. These two parishes have an area of 35,000 acres, so that 570,000 acres in the county of Dorchester are without railway accommodation. The same remark would apply to the counties of Beauce, Bellechasse, Montmagny, L'lslet and Ka-mouraska. There are probably 3,000,000 acres of land in these counties that are without railway communication, and yet they have been settled for over one hundred years. You can go to the flourishing village of St. George, in the county of Beauce, and in the graveyard you will see there oil the tombstone a statement to the effect that such a man died in 1796 at the age of 89 years ; and at Frampton, in the county of Dorchester, you will see the same thing, showing that these parishes have been settled for over one hundred years, but still they are without railways. The same thing applies to the counties of Bellechasse and Montmagny.
Why-do I say so ? It is because my ancestors settled there in 1636, and several generations of the Morin family have been born and died in that country. By that you can see that the people there have been in what you might call in a quandry for many years, waiting for help from the government, i remember that on the 15th of September, 1895, the right hon. leader of the government-he was then Mr. Laurier, the leader of the opposition-was in the parish of St. Anselm, and he said that if he got into power, his government would be a government of reform and of example. I find no fault with that; but we are waiting for the example, we have been waiting for the railway, and now we are waiting for the reform. My right hon. friend must not be like some of his colleagues, who, if we put a question to them, always reply, the Conservatives did it before. That is no answer at all. My right hon. friend must not say, the Conservatives never gave you a railway. If the Conservatives misbehaved, that is no reason why he should do the same ; because the Conservatives have been voted out of power for their bad doings, and if my right hon. friend does as they have done, he may be voted out of power too. That is reasonable, is it not ? Now, here is another reason why I am asking for the railroad, and you will see what common sense there is in it. Some time ago I put a question on the paper to my hon. friend the Minister of Railways. I asked him how much the Quebec Central Railway Company paid to the government for the use of the Intercolonial Railway from Harlaka Junction to Levis, a distance of five miles. I got no answer. I do not know whether the hon. minister was on strike or not. However,

hon. gentlemen know very well that the Quebec Central Railway Company pays something to the government for the use of that road. I have often heard employees of the Quebec Central Railway say that this year the company paid to the government $10,000 ; sometimes they will say $12,000, and sometimes $15,000. I do not know how much it does pay. If you look at the Auditor General's Report you will see that it paid to the government last year $71,925 ; but the book does not explain what this payment was for. I want, as far as I can, to find that out. so as to give the government the point I want to make ; but as I am unable to state what it is, I will give you an idea of it. The route which I have proposed to the, government is this. Start at the Quebec bridge, pass through the parishes of St. Chrysostom and St. Lambert, in the county of Levis, the parishes of St. Isidore, St. Henedine, St. Claire, Ste. Marguerite, St. Malichi, Hampton, and Standon in the county of Dorchester to lake Etehenfln; then follow the Etchemin river through the Alleghany mountains to the south side of the mountains in the county of Bellechasse ; there you strike the Black river that empties into the St. John river ; and continue on the south side of the Alleghany to Lake Pohen-agamook in the county of Kamouraska. That is the route I proposed to the leader of the government last year. Now, the Quebec Central Railway Company got a subsidy last year to aid it to build a railway from a station called Scott in the county of Dorchester to the Quebec bridge, a distance of twenty-two miles. If you build a road by the route I suggest, that company will only have to build four miles of the road, because if the government allow them, they can use this new road which is now before the House. If the Quebec Central Railway Company pay the government $10,000 a year for the use of less than five miles of the road, how much will they pay if they use eighteen miles ? There is a problem that can be solved at any time. The distance from St. George in the county of Beauce to Lake Pohenagamook is 11S miles, according to the map. If the government adopt the route I am now proposing, they will build about eighteen miles of that road. Then, the Quebec Central Railway Company is the owner of both the Quebec Central Railway and the Temiscouata Railway, and they have been trying to build a road on the south side of the Alleghanies. That company is not very wealthy, but it would like to have a connection on the south side of the mountains. If the government build the road I am now asking for, -the Quebec Central will build a branch from St. George to connect with this new road, about twenty or twenty-two miles in length. They could still use the proposed railroad, and they would pay the government in proportion-I do not know how much, but time will tell.
Now, I have brought a good map. If the leader of the government would like to see
it, I will show it to him. Some one says the route that I am laying down is too roundabout. I will admit that it is roundabout. but all the eastern, provinces have contributed to build a railway to the west in order to colonize Manitoba. They built that railway and now they are asked again to help to build another road especially for the people of the west. I believe in being good but not in being too good. It is time that the government should give some help to the people of the eastern provinces as well as to the west. If the government will build the road where I am asking them to build it, they will serve these counties I have mentioned as well as the west. Some people may say that the location I recommend is roundabout. Well, your road will start at Port Simpson and go south-east to Winnipeg and then from Winnipeg to Lake Nepigon. If you will draw a line from Port Simpson to Lake Nepigon, you will find that it will run 175 miles north of Winnipeg, and then from Winnipeg to Lake Nepigon you go a roundabout of forty miles. If you can go forty miles roundabout in the west, why should you not build a road through the county of Dorchester some ten or twelve miles of a roundabout ? Last year the government granted the Quebec Central a subsidy to build 22 miles of road from the Quebec bridge to this place called Scott, and they also granted a subsidy to build a road from St. Francois to St. George in the county of Beauce, a distance of ten miles. I would be very well pleased if the government would insist on the Quebec Central building that ten miles from St. Frangois to St. George. That is very much needed, because the town of St. George is a very flourishing center. It has, however, no encouragement and has been without railways for the last 200 years. The country is a great timber region, with splendid water power and good streams to float the logs down to the St. Lawrence. If a railway were built to St. George, the logs could be collected in a boom there and a mill would be built there to saw them. I do not know whether the government has any power to compel the Quebec Central to build this ten miles of road, but I should be glad if they would use every influence they have to cause that road to be constructed.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I have to congratulate my hon. friend on his conversion. It may appear somewhat of a death-bed conversion, and possibly my hon. friend may not receive that reward which went to the labourer who came in at the eleventh hour. However, it is satisfactory to know that he is converted and realizes the importance of railway construction through that part of the country. I quite appreciate the value of my hon. friend's information. It goes to corroborate the statements made by those interested in the Bill when it was originally introduced, and shows how necessary it is,

from the standpoint of a practical man such as my hon. friend is, for the development of these counties, that this road should be constructed gt the earliest possible moment Of course, after this road leaves Quebec and. crosses the Quebec bridge to the south side, it must of necessity go through the counties of Levis and Dorchester, then to the county of Bellechasse, and on through the other counties down to Ed-mundston and thence to Moncton. But it is impossible to expect that without accurate location surveys, the government can decide on the route to be selected. All I have to say is that it is intended now, as it was at the very inception of the project by the government to build the road in such a way that all the counties mentioned in my hon. friend's amendment will be beneficially affected.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: If the government is going to build a road to satisfy this man or that, the Lord only knows where it ever will be built. What I ask is that before accepting any route, even mine, a survey should be taken and the best location chosen. If the location I advocate is the best, let the government adopt it. But if not, let the government refuse it. That is fair enough. So far I do not see any opposition to the location I suggest. We have here the members from the lower counties. We have the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Talbot) who always has his gab open. Here is the hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. La-vergne), the hon. member for L'lslet (Mr. Carbonneau), the hon. member for Kamou-raska (Mr. Lapointe)-if they object to the route I propose, let them say so. So far not one has said anything except the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Talbot) and he is always open for a bad job.


Mr. MONK.: I do not think my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) is quite fair in stating that the confession of my hon. friend from Dorchester (Mr. Morin) is a death-bed repentance, because I can vouch for it that since the project of the transcontinental line wras mooted in this House, the hon. member for Dorchester has endeavoured, in every possible way, to ob-'tain from the Minister of Justice a sincere confession that this railway was going to pass through the county of Dorchester, but without having succeeded. Speaking of my hon. friend's motion, as well as the suggestion conveyed in the amendment made by my hon. friend from Dorchester, I would say the feeling expressed by my hon. friend from Dorchester is the feeling entertained by most of the people who take a warm interest in the province of Quebec, and in the time of construction as well as the location of this very important line through that very important province. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice has made an attempt this evening, undoubtedly, to give an Mr. FITZPATRICK.
answer to reassure those who entertain this widespread feeling to w'hich I have given utterance more than once in this chamber. But my hon. friend does not go far enough.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The hon. Solicitor General says ' Hear hear,' but we would say ' Hear, hear,' with a great deal more pleasure if there was something more positive, something of a more perfect character in the suggestion of motion of the Minister of Justice. We have an absolute date as to the construction of the western end of the line. We have made a contract there with the Grand Trunk Pacific, and we have discussed at great length the question of the date for the completion of the western division. But when we come to that part of the railway that interests the province of Quebec my hon. friend the Minister of Justice, knowing that there is a feeling there that our hopes may not be realized for a great many years, has put in an amendment tending to say that, in the opinion of this House the government part of the line should be begun as soon as practicable and at certain points. I intend to test the feeling of this House upon this question, whether, in justice and fairness to the province while the Grand Trunk Pacific is building its end of the line, we should not have our end of the line built simultaneously, so that the object endeavoured to be realized by this Bill shall be realized from one end of the country to the other at the same time. And I intend asking the House to state its opinion, when this Bill comes up for the third reading that, as the line will be finished throughout the western plains-where everybody claims it should be finished as soon as possible-it should also be finished as far as Quebec at any rate on the eastern division ; and I hope, to be able, when arguing that point before the House, to prove that we have a just claim to the completion as far as Quebec at the same time that its construction is completed in the mountain section. As to the location, knowing my hon. friend from Dorchester, as I do, and being aware of the special information he possesses, I am sure there is no man from the district of Quebec who is so well acquainted with that part of the route which passes south of the St. Lawrence as he is himself. He has studied the question fully and has spent a year at the work, and that part of the country, so little known to most of us, unfortunately not enough known to members of this House, he knows absolutely well. He comes before the committee with a proposition, backed by the knowledge he possesses of that part of the country, that the line should go eastward to his own county, follow the course of the Etchemin river to Etchemin lake and thence eastward. My hon. friend from Dorchester has more than once endeavoured to draw not

only the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier) but the Minister of Justice on that point, and I think it is perfectly right and perfectly fair that, before voting upon this important point he should get a declaration, a certain and categorical declaration, from the members of the government whether or not that line is to pass along that direction at any rate without indicating the precise point, where he desires it to pass not only in the interest of the country but in the interest of his own constituency. For my own part, I think that, before this matter is finally disposed of, we should have a declaration from the government, and I intend to invite one as to the course, approximately, that this line is to follow from its entrance into the province of Quebec. We have had it stated on one hand that it is to pass beyond the height of land, beyond the civilized portion of Quebec, and in a direction where, for many years to come, it will not be of any use to the present population of the province. I believe we are entitled to know whether that is the policy adopted by this government, or whether the government will not, more wisely in my opinion-at least that is what I intend to submit to the House-have the line pass in a more southerly direction and located in that part of the province as to which we have absolute and certain knowledge, and where it can be-perhaps not to the extent which a transcontinental line might have been if carried out on other lines-of great value to the province of Quebec. I sympathize with the proposition of the hon. member for Dorchester. I think he has good reason for it, and I intend to vote for it. And I may say that, although I am glad to hear the Minister of Justice admit the principle that we are entitled to state now upon this most important measure that there must be simultaneous construction upon the line at certain points. But his motion is not categorical enough, it does not specify the time with sufficient clearness. I intend voting against it, reserving my right on the third reading to make a motion that will make it certain that the work will be carried out according to the intent of the Prime Minister when he announced the Bill, that it is to be from the outset and throughout its execution a transcontinental railroad from wrhich every portion of the country will profit at the same time.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend has further convinced me that as the end approaches more light is breaking in upon the hon. gentlemen opposite from the province of Quebec. If my hon. friend is in sympathy, as he apparently is with the object the government had in view of constructing this Transcontinental Railway so that it may benefit Quebec and the maritime provinces.
I think he might usefully employ his time in converting his friends and associates on that
side of the House. The hon. gentleman is not forgetting the statement made by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) who prayed heaven that this road east of North Bay would never be built. My hon. friend does not forget that to-night the argument of the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) was altogether in opposition to the construction of the line or any necessity for the construction of the line east of North Bay. I can quite understand that my hon. friend from Dorchester has a large amount of information with respect to the country east of Quebec and between Quebec and Edmundston. And it is because of the information he possesses that his opinion is so valuable. He is urgent, he is insistent, that this road should be built. We agree with him up to that point, we know he is correct, we know that his information is accurate, we know that he speaks from his own personal knowledge, and that the information he has is the result of an investigation which he made, prompted, no doubt, by the suggestion of the government last session that this road would be built. Now, the only point of difference between the hon. member for Dorchester and myself is this-he insists on a specific location of the line after it crosses the River St. Lawrence going eastward.
Undoubtedly, to any one who knows anything of the geography of the country between (Edmundston and Quebec, this line must of necessity go through Levis, and through Dorchester, and through Bellechasse, and through Montmagny, and through L'lslet, and through Kamouraska. It cannot get to Edmundston otherwise, owing to the geographical conditions. But as to the precise location within these general lines, it is impossible for the government, however great their confidence in the opinion of the hon. member for Dorchester may be, to accept his location. We have to trust to the engineers for that. We know very well that when the time comes to locate the line definitely we will have the advantage of the views of the hon. member for Dorchester, and we know him to be patriotic enough to put that information at the disposal of the engineers, and to do all he can to enable the engineers to locate the line. It may be-and I speak from my personal knowledge, for, as the hon. member for Dorchester knows, I have some acquaintance with the geography of that district-that my opinion would concur with his respecting the location ; I think the location which he pointed out is an admirable location, but I would not attempt to set my opinion up when it is a question of engineering. This is a matter for the engineers to finally determine,, and that is all we can say. So far as the construction of the eastern section is concerned, it is the desire of the government to proceed as rapidly as possible. Not only is it their desire, but their fixed determination, to have that road ready as soon as the

33 70
road west to tlie Rocky Mountains is built. That is our fixed determination, and we will have that road built in such a way that it may be of the greatest good from a national standpoint; not that it may be a benefit from any sectional standpoint, but in such a way as to be a benefit to the whole country from Winnipeg to Moncton. What we wish is to consider the road as one unit, from the standpoint of the general interests of Canada, and X trust I am sincere in the wish that whatever government may be in power once the country is committed to this project that road will be constructed in its entirety, notwithstanding some hasty expressions of opinion from the other side to the effect that if the opposition came in this whole scheme would be cancelled. I hope the scheme will be carried out in its entirety, from the standpoint of the country at large and to the general interests of the whole community.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not think my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) is quite fair, whenever an effort is made on this side of the House to make this measure as perfect as it can possibly be made, to repeat that light is coming to this side of the House, that we are all gradually becoming converted to this scheme.


Charles Fitzpatrick: And we welcome the converts.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is a joke that may pass muster once or twice, but it becomes stale after a while. For my own part, I have listened very patiently to very long speeches in this House upon this important subject, and I feel that I am obliged to say I have not changed my idea at all from the beginning, but I take it that it is going to beoome law. I meet people every day who ask me if there is any chance of this Bill passing this House, and I always say there is a very great chance. Taking that view, I desire to see it as perfect as possible. 1 do not think the Minister of Justice is quite fair to the member for Dorchester (Mr. Morin). The member for Dorchester knows that this transcontinental line may pass through a corner of his constituency, but he has given study to the subject, and as early as last year he developed, not only before this House, but to my hon. friend the Minister of Justice individually, the theory which he has developed this evening, that the railway, to be a good railway, should be located as he has stated, not across the corner of his constituency, but down through the heart of it, along the Etchemin river. The minister has had time since last year to make up his mind as to whether the plan advocated by the hon. member for Dorchester is a good one. ' As regards the location and the time of construction, my hon. friend last year knows there was a great difference between the situation between the western and the eastern divisions. The Grand Trunk has been limited to a certain number of years, Mr. FITZPATRICK.
but we cannot get any limitation in regard to the line passing through the older provinces. We have simply been told that it was the intention of the government to build the eastern section, and this evening the only assurance we have from the Minister of Justice is that as far as practicable the eastern division will be begun simultaneously with the western division. Surely we are entitled to have some precise date fixed by the government, and are justified in asking the government to tell us, on the third reading of this Bill, whether the section from Winnipeg to the west will be built throughout at the same time as the section from Winnipeg to Quebec. I, for one, believe, as I believed when I spoke on the second reading of this Bill, that it would have been better in the province of Quebec to spend the same amount of money in another way upon railway construction, but I take it whatever we thought of that subject has been brushed aside. We are going to have this railway built upon the general principles laid down when the Bill was introduced last year, and under those circumstances I say that we in Quebec are entitled to a categorical declaration from the govern ment embodied in this Bill that it will be located according to certain lines in Quebec, that it will pass in a certain known direction, and that it will be built within a certain specified time.
Amendment (Mr. Morin) to the amendment (Mr. Fitzpatrick) negatived.
Amendment (Mr. Fitzpatrick) agreed to.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I have another amendment to propose. I beg leave to propose :
That the following clause be added at the end of the Bill entitled an Act to amend the National Taranscontinental Railway Act. Section 9 of the National Transcontinental Railway Act is hereby amended by striking out the word * three ' in the fourth line thereof and substituting the word ' fourth.'
The intention is to provide for four commissioners as was suggested by the right hon. Prime Minister last night and for the reason explained by him.


Robert Laird Borden: Before the amendment passes I would like to say that I do not regard it as necessary or wise. I do not regard it is necessary because I think three commissioners can do this work quite as effectually and quite as thoroughly as four can. I do not regard it as wise, because, if an even number is appointed, there may be possibly an equal division of opinion, two on one side and two on the other. I am under the impression that the change has been influenced not so much by the public interest as by the political necessity of hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House.


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Chairman, I see in one of the papers that the appointment of

this additional commissioner has been made for the purpose of making a position for the hon. premier of the province of Quebec. I see his name mentioned and 1 see it stated that the government had to settle with him. I understood when discussing this matter some time ago that the government had decided to take over the charter that the premier of Quebec holds for a road from Quebec to Winnipeg. I thought they had settled with him in that way without giving him this position as one of the commissioners.


Wilfrid Laurier: What charter does the hon. gentleman refer to ?
Mr. .1. D. REID. Is there not a charter for a road between. Quebec and Winnipeg- for the Trans-Canada Railway ?


Wilfrid Laurier: He has no interest at all in that.
every hon. gentleman knows that every minister who held a portfolio was able to defend his portfolio and defend any Bill for which he was responsible.


Mr. A. JOHNSTON.: You did not think so at the time.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman knows that it was not necessary to ask a minister to do that, that , he did it upon his own responsibility.


Peter Macdonald: I hope


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Peter Macdonald: I hope that the discussion which took place in the afternoon on the motion that the chairman leave the chair will not be revived because we have disposed of it. The question now is on the amendment before the committee.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is all in the hands of your friends.


John Dowsley Reid: I understand that the premier of Quebec controls that charter.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Not to the extent of a farthing.


John Dowsley Reid: 
John Dowsley Reid: I am speaking to it. I was explaining the position of the ministers and the change that has taken place to-day as compared with their course when they first assumed power. We have a government bringing forward this Bill and there are only three ministers running the government-the right hon. leader of the government, the bon. Minister of Finance and the hon. Minister of Justice. These are the only ministers who are competent


Peter Macdonald: I hope that the hon. gentleman will not require to be reminded again that the question under discussion is the propriety of changing ' three ' to ' four.'


John Dowsley Reid: Well, I am trying to get some information in connection with this matter. I would like to know if I am not in order in asking why it is that the lion. Minister of Railways and Canals is not present. We have not been able to get any information whatever on the amendment which the government have moved. The right hon. Prime Minister, the hon. Minister of Justice and the hon. Minister of Finance are the only ministers who have been taking part in this debate. Am I not in order in asking for information from other ministers, who are responsible for this Bill ?


Peter Macdonald: Yes, the hon. gentleman is perfectly justified in asking for information, but if they do not wish to give the information the hon. gentleman has no right to go on and discuss a question not under consideration at the present time.


Mr.  R. L.@: BORDEN, i think my hon. friend the member for Grenville (Mr. Reid) is perfectly in order in calling attention to the fact that a minister of the Crown charged with the Department of Railways and Canals is not here to give the information which he should be expected to give There is no doubt of that. He is absolutely in order.


Peter Macdonald: I cannot see it in that light at all. We had a discussion this afternoon when the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) ashed an lion, gentleman to move a special motion for the purpose of getting it in and if the hon. gentleman is now in order in speaking upon that motion again I do not understand what the rules of the House are.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend is absolutely in order in asking for information from the hou. Minister of Railways and Canals upon a question as to whether three commissioners are not more in the public interest than four commissioners and in calling attention to the fact that the lion. Minister of Railways and Canals is not here for the purpose of giving information upon that and other subjects in connection with this Bill.


Peter Macdonald: Certainly, he is perfectly at liberty to go that far.


John Dowsley Reid: That is the very point which I am making, but if the lion. Minister of Railways and Canals is not present, if the right hon. leader of the government sends him out of the House-the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals was here a few moments ago and he has now disappeared-we cannot get the information from him. If the Prime Minister, or the Minister of Finance, or the Minister of Justice, cannot give us the information-


Wilfrid Laurier: What is the information ?


John Dowsley Reid: I want to know why you are appointing four commissioners instead of three. An amendment to that effect has been moved without a single word of explanation from the First Minister.


Wilfrid Laurier: The hon. gentleman has been upbraiding some ministers with not being present in the House, but if he himself had set the good example of being in the House yesterday, he would have heard the explanation which I gave last night.


John Dowsley Reid: I may not have been in the House at the moment


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


Robert Laird Borden: The right hon. gentleman said that the whole matter would be discussed on the Bill, and that is what my hon. friend (Mr. Reid) is doing.


Wilfrid Laurier: He wants information which I gave last night, and if he wishes me to repeat it now, I shall be happy to do so.


John Dowsley Reid: Well, I would like to hear it again.


Wilfrid Laurier: I stated last night that if four commissioners were ap-Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
pointed there would be one for Ontario, one for Quebec, one for the maritime provinces and one for the west.


Andrew B. Ingram: The right hon. gentleman selected three commissioners in the first instance, but he has not told us it he had discovered any further work for them to do which requires a fourth commissioner. It is due to the opposition, the House and to the country, that the Minister of Railways should be here to answer these questions. We do not know whether he approves of this amendment or not. ,


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend (Mr, Ingram) is not so ignorant as he wants us to believe. He knows very well the opinion of the Minister of Railways on this subject; he knows that if the opinion of the government was not the opinion of the Minister of Railways, he would resign.


John Dowsley Reid: It is currently reported throughout the country that not only the Minister of Railways, but several other ministers are not in accord with this scheme.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Don't believe it.


John Dowsley Reid: And as a proof of that report we have the fact that the Minister of Railways will not appear in the House. It is also reported that these ministers will either have to vote for this measure or resign their positions, and that they are swallowing their principles to remain in the cabinet. The only thing we know from the Minister of Railways is what he stated in the Railway Committee last year, and his statement then was in opposition to this measure. Why does not the Prime Minister let the Minister of Railways and Canals come into the House ? I am very glad that the Minister of Railways has at last appeared, and I want to know from him why a fourth commissioner has been appointed at additional expense to the country when three commissioners are sufficient ?


Alexander Johnston: What particular section of the country would the hon. gentleman deprive of representation ?


John Dowsley Reid: I would choose three of the best men in the Dominion irrespective of what province they might come from. Dwould not use the job for political purposes, the same as the government did when they appointed the Railway Commissioners.


Andrew B. Ingram: The Prime Minister has given no sufficient reason why a fourth [DOT]commissioner should be appointed. He has not answered the proposition, that suppose there should be an even division of opinion amongst the four commissioners ; two being ranged on one side and two on the other, how would the difficulty be met ? If the

result is going to be like the Alaska Boundary Commission, then we want none of it. We are found fault with because we want information from the Minister of Railways, and the right hon. gentleman told me that I had the right to assume that the Minister of Railways agreed with the cabinet on this proposition. I point out to the Prime Minister that the records of the House prove that I have no right to assume any such thing, because I can quote from the statement made by the Minister of Railways last year, language in direct opposition to the amendments moved by the Minister of Justice. In the debates that occurred in this House last year, the Minister of Railways and Canals used this language :
You may put in this charter, or add to it a clause which you may think would guarantee to the people of Canada an all-rail route over Canadian soil, and guarantee that the exports shall go through Canadian ports, but you wil cot accomplish what you purpose to do.
The amendments moved by the Minister of Justice to this Bill are not in accordance with that statement ; and I ask the Minister of Railways and Canals if he will get up to-night and say that he entertains the same view now that he entertained last year on this question. If he will not, I have a right to assume that he is not in accord with the amendment moved by the Minister of Justice to-night. What other conclusion can we arrive at ? If the right hon. leader of the government has ordered the Minister of*Railways and Canals not to say a word on this question, then I would like to know if that is the position the cabinet has taken. I ask the Minister of Railways and Canals to tell what is the additional labour to be performed by this fourth commissioner. The hon. gentleman is at the head of the department; will he give us an answer ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Question, question.


Andrew B. Ingram: The government are certainly in a very peculiar position. I am going to put it as the ordinary elector puts it. The people of this country are paying a large salary to a cabinet minister who fills one of the most important positions in the government, and who will r.ot rise in his place to answer a question on -a matter involving an expenditure of thousands of dollars. I ask the right hon. leader of the government what he would have done previous to 1896, when occupying the position of leader of the opposition, if the Conservative government of that day had had a minister in the same position as the hon. Minister of Railways. In 1894 or 1895, when a certain hon. gentleman be longing to what was called the colony, spoke o" some of the cabinet ministers of that day as being green grocers, and not 1071
fit to fill their positions as cabinet ministers, what did the hon. gentlemen opposite say ? They upheld that hon. gentleman in making that charge. Yet I am in a position to state that no Conservative minister ever refused to the opposition an answer to any civil question they asked in this House during the time I have been a member. Let us be as courteous as we please, are wo to be told that a minister occupying the important position of Minister of Railways, is going to refuse to answer a civil question which the members of the opposition have a right to ask ? Is that the position the government are going to take when they go to the people, and when tlie right hon. gentleman is asked, as he will be asked, whether he had a minister in his cabinet who refused to answer a civil question.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: It was answered fifty times.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman from West York (Mr. Campbell) would fill the position better. The hon. gentleman talks while he is sitting, but the Minister of Railways will not speak either sitting or standing. I ask the hon. gentleman if he xv ill give us an answer ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I gave my hon. friend an answer a moment ago, and he said that the answer was not good and sufficient. That is his judgment. In my judgment it is good and sufficient. It is the answer of the government, in which all members of the government are unanimous. That is all I can say. In my judgment it is a good answer ; in my hon. friend's judgment it is not. How-are w6 to decide ? It wil! be for the people to judge between us, whether it is a good answer or a bad answer.


Andrew B. Ingram: The right bon. gentleman will admit that we are quite within our right in asking w-hat the duties of that commission are to be. The right hon. gentleman has not stated, unless it be to^get Ontario, and Quebec, the Maritime and Noi'thwest provinces each a representative on that commission.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: In the course of the remarks of the hon. gentleman representing Grenville (Mr. Reid), he said that he w-anted to get information ; but he took a very peculiar course in seeking for information, w-hen he stated that the Prime Minister of the province of Quebec was the owner o1 the Trans-Canada charter from Quebec to Lake Winnipeg. I happen to know something about the affairs of the Trans-Canada Railway Company, more than any other man in this House, and probably more than any man outside of this House ; and I can make the statement that the Prime Minister of the province of Quebec, Mr. S. N. Parent, never had anything to do with the Trans-Canada Railway Company, and

lias nothing to do with it at this moment.
I can further state that the promoters of the Trans-Canada Railway somewhat resented the attitude of the Prime Minister of the province of Quebec towards that railway in this respect, that up to the last moment, he would not promise any land grant to help them to promote or finance their scheme. This simple fact is clear evidence that he never had anything to do with it. The charter of the Trans-Canada Railway Company is still in the possession of the same people in whose possession it was two years ago.


John Dowsley Reid: Does the hon. member know who the president of that road is ?


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: William Price, lumber merchant, of the city of Quebec.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Getting back to the question before the committee, as to whether the number of commissioners for the construction of the eastern division of the Transcontinental Railway should be three or four, I must say that I have listened very carefully to the answer given by the right hon. leader of the government, but that I am not very deeply impressed with the reason which he has advanced. Not long ago we had an important commission appointed in connection with railway matters under the Railway Act. Three were appointed-one to represent Ontario, one, Quebec and another. New Brunswick, but it was not thought necessary that any commissioner should be appointed for Manitoba or the Northwest. It seems to me that the government should have followed that precedent. However, I do not care whether the number be three or four, if the cost he not increased. I apprehend that the gentlemen appointed commissioners will be paid very handsome salaries for a very considerable number of years-from seven to ten years. If it is the intention of the government not to increase the aggregate cost, of the commission when the number of commissioners is increased from three to four. I would have no objection to the. increase in number, though I think three commissioners quite sufficient, more especially as the greater part of their work will be reviewed by the Governor in Council.


Wilfrid Laurier: The addition of one more member to the commission would mean the addition of one more salary.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What is to be the salary?


Wilfrid Laurier: It. is not fixed yet ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has the government any idea of what it will be ?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER, Yes, but I would not like to commit myself.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: This is an important point, as the commission will last some eight Mr. TALBOT.
or ten years, and we are entitled to the information.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER, Certainly.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think that this commission will involve very considerable cost, but I would be prepared to acquiesce in even another commissioner being appointed, if their tenure of office was independent. They are, however, to be removed at will. They should hold exactly the same position as the Auditor General. At any rate, they should not be removed without cause, which cause should be denounced to parliament as in the case of a lieutenant governor.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER, I will take my hon. friend's suggestion into consideration and advise parliament at the next stage of the Bill. Last year when a similar question was raised, the government undertook, before the Bill was finally passed, to announce what the salary would be. That course will be pursued on the present occasion. The government will announce on the third reading what the salaries will be.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Hear, hear.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What new light have the government received on this subject this last year which has induced them to appoint four instead of three commissioners ? The only explanation given by the First Minister is that the government desire to have each province represented. That would seem to indicate that they have a greater regard for tlfe distribution of patronage than the fitness of the men, because otherwise there would be no reason why these men should be selected from three or four provinces. I am convinced that the best results would be obtained by selecting men on account of their fitness regardless of where they live.


Wilfrid Laurier: I stated yesterday that one of the important duties of the commissioners would be to have surveys made and a route located. All parties are anxious to see the railway built from Winnipeg to Moncton, and in order that every section of the country may be served, we have been advised that every province should be represented on the commission.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is there any reason to suppose that four commissioners would build the road more rapidly than three Y ,


Wilfrid Laurier: Doubt has been expressed again and again regarding the extension of the line to Quebec and Moncton, and we want to absolutely assure to every section that the whole road will be built.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why not make the number ten ?


Wilfrid Laurier: There are not ten sections.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If parliament orders the road to be built, we have the assurance of the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister that it will be, and that should, at least in the opinion of the government, be sufficient assurance to the country. I wish to ask another question. There will be some intermediary between this commission and the government. Will they do their business through the Railway Department or direct through council.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is a point that I have not considered at all-whether they should report direct to the Minister of Railways or to council. I suppose they would report to the Minister of Railways, but I must say frankly to my hon. friend that we have not considered that.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like to ask the minister if this commission will sit as a board and will have power to decide locations after having had surveys laid before them V And in ease they were divided equally on any matter, what would the result be-how would the matter be finally decided ?
'Sir WILFRID LAURIER. If they are divided, there will be nothing decided. They will have to make a recommendation to the government. They are not to sit as a board ; they simply advise the government. They cannot give a contract above $10,000 unless the contract is sanctioned by the Governor in Council.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Since they must report to the government in some way, I would suggest that they should report direct to council. The evidences we have of the Minister of Railways having lost his voice, or being unable to deal with this important transaction, must lead us to believe that the commission would be more successful if they did business direct with council and entirely ignored the Department of Railways and Canals.


Mr. CLANCY.: I was surprised to hear the right hon. First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) make an announcement that was equivalent to expressing a want of confidence in the commissioners. He told us, if I mistake not, that the object of appointing four commissioners was that there might be no difficulty, and that everything might be carried on fairly for all the sections. Does the right hon. gentleman give the committee to understand that any of these commissioners would perform his duty any less in regard to one section than to another V Surely he is not going to appoint any one who would for a moment think of giving one section advantage over the other. I should imagine you could find men who could be depended upon, and I am unable to see that there is any more security in four commissioners than there would be in three. No section of Canada is more interested in this road than another. British Columbia is interested in
having the western section completed, but it is also interested in having the road built across the prairies and so to the Atlantic coast. The same is true of the Northwest Territories, of Manitoba and the other provinces. Why create a sentimental halo over this whole project ? It seems to me there is no reason in that. Surely, if the right hon. gentleman appoints commissioners," they ought to be capable men, and men above suspicion that they will help one section as against another. If they would consider one section above another, they would be corrupt and utterly unworthy of being entrusted with such important 'duties as these commissioners will be expected to perform. While I listened with interest to the reasons the right hon. gentleman has given, yet those reasons seem very extraordinary. They are a sad reflection upon the three commissioners. His reasons for adding a fourth were a statement, in as plain English as could be well used, that the three commissioners are not to be trusted.


Wilfrid Laurier: The commissioners that we shall appoint. I am glad to say, will be above reproach. More, like Caesar's wife, they will be above suspicion. I cannot be sure, of course, that they will not be suspected by my hon. friend (Mr Clancy), but I am sure there will be more security in four commissioners than in three.


Robert Laird Borden: I would remind my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) that Caesar had only one wife, not four.


John Dowsley Reid: The reason given by the Prime Minister for appointing four commissioners is that he desires to assure the different parts of the Dominion that the government intended to carry this railway project through from the maritime provinces to the Pacific coast. Is it necessary to do this in order to assure the people that the road will be built V Surely the Prime Minister must suppose that every province takes it for granted that he means what he says when he asks parliament to put this Bill through. In that case, it should not be necessary to appoint another commissioner in order to give confidence.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am sorry to isay that, though we have given our best attention to this measure, and though we have shown that we were very much in earnest, still, sitting near my hon. friend (Mr. J. D. Reid) there are those who tell us that it will not be built. There are some doubting Thomases on the other side of the House.


John Dowsley Reid: The only part there was any doubt about was the part from Quebec to Moncton, and I have been trying all evening to get some information with regard to that part of the road : but I am sorry to say the Minister of Railways is still muzzled and is not able to give us

uriy information. I suppose it is to give assurance as to that part of the road that the extra commissioner is to be appointed, and that he will be from the province of New Brunswick.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I take it that the Prime Minister hopes to establish confidence on his side of the House by appointing this extra commissioner. If that is his object, it seems to me he might as well save the salary.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Bill as amended, reported.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved the adjournment of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: Shall we proceed with the third reading to-morrow


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.15 p.m.
,	HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thtjesday, May 19, 1904.