1904-05-10

REPORT PRESENTED.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Department of Militia and Defence for the year ended December 31, 1903-Sir Frederick Borden.

[Stage Direction]
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 103) to incorporate the Canadian Artillery Association.
He said : Mr. Speaker, in reference to this Bill I would like to explain that it is similar to a Bill introduced some years ago by me at the request of the Dominion Rifle Association, and provides for the incorporation of the Canadian Artillery Association, as the Bill to which I have just referred provided for the incorporation of the Dominion Rifle Association.
The object of incorporation is to enable tiie association to hold its property without the intervention of trustees, and to facilitate the carrying on of its educational work in connection with the Canadian field and gar-

rison artillery- The association works in harmony with the Artillery Branch of the Militia Department, and since February, 1S76, when it was first organized, has proved of great value in assisting in the training of the field and garrison artillery throughout Canada.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved :: That when this House adjourns on Wednesday hext, it shall stand adjourned until Friday the 13th inst., at three o'clock in the afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr.  E. B.@: O'SEER (West Toronto). Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I rise to make a personal explanation and to apologize to the House for occupying its time for a few moments. In my absence yesterday some members from the west saw fit to make a personal attack upon me, as they have done for the past four, or five, or six sessions. I have answered these gentlemen fully, fairly and squarely each year for these four or five years. As to the charges which these gentlemen have made, if the usages of parliament would allow it, they might be described in a word consisting of three letters only. Parliamentary procedure will not allow me to use that word. I would not on this occasion reply, were it not for the fact that last session I thought it proper to put on record a statement as to my original connection with these companies, because it was possible that a wrong inference might be drawn from the statements made by these members. I read a letter in the House last session one evening just before I had to take the train to keep an engagement in the west. After I had read the letter I locked my papers in my desk, left the House to catch the train. It appears that the official reporter, seeing that I was reading from a letter, quite properly did not take notes, and consequently that letter was not published, and it does not appear in ' Hansard,' although I read it in the House. On my arrival here last night I found that this matter had been brought up again, and, of course, I had not with me any of the papers referring to it, but I telegraphed asking that a copy of the letter I refer to be sent to me by telegram. The letter is written by Mr. Nichol Kingsmill,	a gentleman
known to most of the members of the House. I do not for one moment expect, or suggest, or anticipate, that the members who make this attack upon me would for a minute accept Mr. Kingsmiil's statement, or the statement of any one in this House, or out of this House, if it suited their mood not to do so. However, I am entitled to place on record the facts as to the early connection I had with these two roads in question. I have already stated tlia^ I was not an original promoter ; that I had nothing to do with promoting these roads ; that I was called in afterwards, and was not in any sense or way connected with the original promoters. Mr. Kingsmill, under date of the 19th of October last year wrote to me in answer to a letter which I sent to him, because I knew he had been familiar with the early formation of these companies. I asked Mr. Kingsmill to write me, as far as hie could his recollection of the particulars of the organization and the early history of these roads, and under date the 19th October, 1903, he wrote me as follows :
October 19th, 1903.
E. B. Osier, M.P., '
Toronto, Ont.
My Dear Osier,-Re Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railway Company.
This company was formed by an amalgamation with the South Saskatchewan Valley Railway Company, a list of the directors of which I now inclose ; also a list of the incorporators of the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railroad and Steamboat Company.
X was employed by the late Senator Mac-Innes and Mr. Andrew Onderdonk to endeavour to get the assistance of the government to this railway, after the first 25 miles had been built.
The affairs of the company were in a very low condition financially, and Mr. Onderdonk had been called in by the late Senator Machines to endeavour to undertake the construction of the railway. Mr. Onderdonk made an oiler to the government, but no arrangement was made, and it was, if I mistake not, some time subsequent to this that you lent your assistance and carried the railway to completion. I was acting for the contractors who constructed the road, but in this you had no Interest.
Now, there were two roads, as far as my recollection goes, because, personally, I had no interest whatever in the matter, and I only speak from memory. The late Mr. Gilbert Pugsley, and some of his associates in St. John, N.B., owned one charter, and they had constructed a road from Regina for twenty-five miles through the valley. They had got into trouble ; they had borrowed from one of the banks in Toronto-I do not think I am wrong in stating -that it was the Imperial Bank-$30,000 or $40,000 upon the whole of the issue of the bonds they were entitled to make, which I think was $250,000 on that twenty-five miles of road. They had organized a company and they had a certain amount of stock paid up. The road was going to be sold, and I remember the first I had to do with it was that the general manager of the Imperial Bank came to me and asked me if I could find out if there was any way in which the rails could be taken up and sold to pay their debt. Senator Maclnnes apparently had a charter covering pretty much the same ground. They had been a long time evidently without making any progress. I had returned from England, and the late

was

water it was then and water it is now. Qu'Apppelle and Long Lake jtock, anybody could buy, I suppose at half a cent on the dollar. But, for such comments to come form gentlemen who are supporting a water issue of $45,000,000 of Grand Trunk Pacific stock and objecting to any man on this side even suggesting that there should be restrictions placed on the handling of that $45,000,000, is it notr a little -well, what shall we call it, Mr. Speaker-is it not a little thin ?
Now, as regards the anonymous letters read in this House yesterday, I have only a word to say. When I was a boy-I was brought up on a farm in the bush-we soon found that there was a little animal we had better not meddle with. It had stripes down its back and a bushy tail


An hou. MEMBER. A porcupine.


Mr. OSLER.: No, that has prickles, but this has none. Well, I would rather hunt that little animal, with all its disagreeableness, than I would hunt or reply to the man who reads an anomymous letter. I do not propose to go into any long discussion of this matter. It seems to me a litttle tiresome. I dare say I may take these attacks rather as a compliment, as indicating that something I have said, some speech I have made, has been rather rankling in the minds or through the hides of some gentlemen, and they take their revenge by making personal attacks upon me and making statements that cannot be replied to in this House in language that might, and even should, be used elsewhere. But, Mr. Speaker, I hardly wonder at it. -The Prime Minister quoted the other day a famous passage and made a personal application of that passage to myself, much to my discredit if the application were true. Now, I have a somewhat indistinct recollection of a famous passage written by one of the Irish novelists. It was a description of a hunt in that country. There was a rather rough-and-tumble pack of hounds with all the mongrels and curs in the countryside following. The writer goes on to say that when the leader gave tongue, the whole pack joined in the halloo. The mongrels and the curs, following at the tail of the pack, yelping and yapping and thought that because they came last and had in view all the sport, they were the chief actors in it, and that the whole show had been got up for their benefit and so they yapped all the louder.
1 have not the least doubt that if the scene had been located by that writer in some sections of our great Northwest, the coyotes would have been also at the end of the pack howling and yapping and thinking they were the most important of all the pack because they made the most noise, and at all events the most disagreeable noise. I am always sorry when I have to make a personal allusion or an}' personal reference, but I deny absolutely Mr. OSLER.
and in toto, the statements made in this House yesterday by the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) and the member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis). The figures 1 have given to this House, the history of my connection with this transaction I have stated with absolute correctness. I am not ashamed of any connection I have had with either of those two companies. On the contrary, considering the time when the roads were built, considering the difficulties to be encountered, considering that at the time the credit of the Northwest was at the very lowest water, that land was unsaleable and that the country had not recovered from the effects of the rebellion, that there was a very strong desire on the part of the government to put those two railroads through, that many important men who had been connected with railway matters had been offered the opportunity to build this road on similar terms-in the case of the Calgary and Edmonton, 10,000 acres a mile had been offered and it had gone begging a long time-I consider that the terms upon which the roads were built were very favourable to the country. I took charge of this transaction in my capacity as a business man ; it was simply a business transaction of my friends. In connection with the lands, my Winnipeg office has had the management of that land ever since the companies were organised, and I think any land company or any individuals would be only too glad to have the same men admininster any such property for them. I beg to move the adjournment of the House.


Mr. WALTER SCOTT (West Assiniboia).: I dare say that the hon. gentleman will plume himself that his answer and explanation given this afternoon is a full and fair explanation, as he has said, the explanations given by him on former occasions have been. It will be the general opinion of gentlemen on both sides of the House, that the answer he has given to the indictment made in this House yesterday by myself and the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis), is such a miserable apology for an answer that it would not be necessary for any one to take any special notice of it, and were it not for the references the hon. gentleman made in his opening remarks in regard to the word made up of three letters, I should not take up any of the time of the House in referring further to this matter. But I do not propose that it shall be said that I have sat silent under an accusation of being a liar. My hon. friend in place of giving anything in the nature of a full explanation has attempted to substitute a reference, a sweet smelling reference, to one of the bush acquaintances of his boyhood days. What he has put forward by way of explanation, is a letter from a very respected gentleman in Toronto, respecting what ?

Not respecting tlie companies wlncli constructed these roads, but respecting defunct companies which were in existence prior to 1889, which did not construct the railways and which were succeeded by the two companies with which the hon. gentleman for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) is connected. I suppose it should be to us a matter of congratulation that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Osier) has seen fit, has seen it to be consistent with# his dignity, to rise at ail in the House arid to put up any sort of explanation. To that extent we have to be gratified, but let me say to him, that I am afraid that the people who are complaining at the present time because of the notoriously poor service over those roads, will not feel that it is a matter of particular gratification that that hon. gentleman who, as I have heard upon the authority of Sir Thomas Shaughnessy is the controller of one of these railroads, the one about which the chief complaint in now made, has seen fit to occupy more than one half hour of the time of this parliament this afternoon, and to make not the slightest reference to the unfortunate condition of the people in that country who aie suffering.
Notwithstanding the facts and the records which have been pointed to, the hon. gentleman has had the audacity to repeat this afternoon the explanation he made last year and to say that every statement he made last year was absolutely correct. He -has had the audacity to repeat here that he was not a promoter of either road, notwithstanding the fact that yesterday, in contrast to his statement that he was not a promoter and that he was not one of the people to obtain the charter for the Calgary and Edmonton road, I was able to point to the plain printed statute, chapter 84 of the Statutes of 1890, containing the name of E. B. Osier of Toronto. He has the audacity to _ repeat here that his statements as to the amount of the six years interest which was left in the hands of the bankers, was an absolutely correct statement, in face of the calculation that I gave to the House yesterday. The public records show that the proceeds of the bonds in connection with these railroads amounted to $9,283,053. Were the bonds sold at par ? I would ask my hon. friend if they were sold at par or at what percentage ? Those bonds were practically guaranteed by the Canadian Pacific Railway, a going institution. an institution whose credit at that time and at the present time I understand to be very good. A practical guarantee was given in the prospectus by the Canadian Pacific Railway that at the end of six years they would take up these bonds at 110. I would therefore ask whether the bonds were sold at par or at what percentage ? My hon. friend does not see fit to give any reply. At all events the proceeds of the
bonds amounted to $9,283,653, whereas, the gross, receipts amounted to $6,283,102. The hon. gentleman's statement last year was that the difference was the amount that had to be left in the hands of the bankers. That difference is an amount of $3,000,491. That is what he says was left in the hands of the bankers to meet six years interest upon what ? On the whole amount of the proceeds of the bonds, $9,283,653 ? Surely, as I stated yesterday, this great financier did not find it necessary to leave money in the hands of the bankers to meet the interest upon the actual money that was left there. Surely the money that was left with the bankers was sufficient to meet its own interest. If not, as was pointed out in one of the letters which I read yesterday-not an anonymous letter, a letter having the name of a substantial citizen of this country appended to it, a name which I did not have the privilege of giving to this House-why was the money not deposited with the Receiver General of Canada or with some institution in this country which pays interest on deposits? Would the hon. member for West Toronto be good enough to say why it was necessary to leave an amount in the hands of bankers to meet the interest upon the amount which was actually left in the hands of the bankers ? The hon. gentleman does not see fit to make any reply to this very pertinent question. We wfill take it for granted that the amount of money left with the bankers attended to its own interest. Therefore, what sum was needed to meet the six years interest ? Six years interest at six per cent on the sum that went into the roads would be a matter of $2,261,934. The cash subvention from the government of $80,000 per annum on each of the roads, a total of $160,000 per annum, would in six years, amount to $960,000. By the prospectus a portion of which I read yesterday some of the land grant was sold. As has been pointed out the government were to retain one third of the land grant given in connection with this Prince Albert road and if two-thirds of the 1,400,000 acres in connection with this Prince Albert road, were sold at one dollar an acre-and I take this figure of one dollar an acre because the hon. member for West Toronto last year rather hinted to the House that the land had to be sold at that time for about one dollar an acre-there is still a little bit of mystery connected with the people who got the land-it would bring $933,332. That with the cash subvention, makes $1,593,332. So that all that would be required to meet the six years' interest would be $668,002. But the actual difference between the bond issue and the cost of the road was over $3.000,000. There is a matter of very nearly $2,500,000 that the hon. gentleman makes no attempt to explain. Let me point again

to the statement which appears in the prospectus a portion of which I read here yesterday afternoon. It is stated that: '
Eighty thousand a year for twenty years will be paid over direct to trustees for the bondholders.
I would direct the particular attention of the House to the next sentence :
The company are further entitled to a grant of about 1.400,000 acres of selected lands ; a sale of a considerable portion has just been concluded, the proceeds of which will be paid to the agents of the loan, and will be sufficient to provide the balance of the interest on above bonds until first February, 1S96.
Anonymous letters are not required to controvert the assertions which the hon. member for West Toronto made in this House last year and which he has endeavoured to repeat this year. There is no necessity for using any letters. All we need to have are the public records taken together with these extracts from the prospectus issued by the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railway Company. Why did the hon. gentleman refer to letters, when, according to this statement issued by the company, the government subventions and the sale of a portion of the land grant were sufficient to provide the interest required for six years ? I ask the hon. member for West Toronto what became of the [DOT]86,000,491 if he dares to get up and endeavour to answer. It remains after all his explanation, entirely unexplained. What has become of the residue of the lands ? Only a portion of the lands were sold.
Let me say to the House and to the hon. gentleman himself that last year I made no personal attack against him. I said substantially that I accused the hon. gentleman of no wrong doing and of nothing beyond taking advantage of, I think I termed it improper, or at all events, unwise railway legislation which had been put on the statute books by the then government. I went so far as to state that the hon. gentleman in my opinion held his public position at a very considerable personal and financial sacrifice and I went on to say that it was an encouraging thing that men of his calibre, men of his extensive business interests were found willing to sacrifice their personal and financial interests to take public positions. Hon. members of the House may find that remark made by myself at page 14587 of last year's 'Hansard.' I was careful to state then that I was making and intended to make no personal reflection in any shape or manner against the honour, integrity or character of the hon. member for West Toronto. Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry to say that I am obliged now to revise that opinion that I placed upon ' Hansard ' last year. I have proved conclusively within the judgment of the members of this House, that the fact" which forced me to retract Mr. SCOTT.
some assertions made on the floor of this House last year were the inaccurate statements, the untrue statements that were made on a later occasion by the hon. member for West Toronto, who has been obliged to admit to-day that when I stated last year that he was a promoter and charter holder of this road I only stated the fact as is proved by the statutes of 1890, chapter 84, and until the hon. gentleman offers me the apology which is my due from him I shall be obliged to hold a different opinion regarding his personal honour to that which I took occasion to express in this House last year. By the attitude which he has taken during the latter part of last session and during the whole course of this session in regard to the Grand Trunk Pacific proposition, prostituting his position as a member of the Canadian Pacific Railway board


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I think the hon. gentleman is really exceeding the bounds of debate.


Thomas Walter Scott: I shall, according to your decision, Mr. Speaker, withdraw the word * prostituting.' Would the word ' abusing ' be in order, because, in my opinion, if I am not able to use the other word or the word ' abusing,' it will be simply impossible for me to express my true opinion regarding the hon. gentleman's conduct in respect to the Grand Trunk Pacific proposition ? Surely the word 'using ' is parliamentary-using his position in this House to block, to obstruct and to prevent the building of that railway into the very locality from which we are receiving telegrams complaining that they have no railway service at all. Now, the hon. gentleman himself and some others have complained about my methods in bringing this matter before the attention of the House and before the attention of the country. Let me say to him and to them that anything that I have had to say to him or about him I have used my place on this floor to say. I have not gone about the corridors of this House blackguarding any one else. I have not sat in clubs blackguarding other members of the House.
I have not had any partners going to news-papaer offices in Toronto, to put forward statements publicly through the newspaper columns that other members were liars and scoundrels. He has complained about not receiving notice when these matters were to come up. Let me ask him : Did he send me ' any notice last year when he intended to get up in his place in the House and call me a liar and falsifier and a slanderer. Let me just ask this : That if it has been a cowardly thing in any respect for me to bring up this matter affecting the interests of tens of thousands of people, if I have been in any sense cowardly in the manner in which I have brought this matter before the House,

I repent of it now. I am here to-day and he is here, and I say to him now in his presence, that I repeat emphatically everything I said last year and yesterday concerning his connection with these transactions. And until, the hon. gentleman brings some better evidence forward to refute the statements I made last year and yesterday, I shall be obliged to continue to believe that these statements are absolutely true. I am constrained to ask :	Who this member is
anyhow ; who is this man who sets himself up above so many of the other hon. members of this House ; who is this man who demands that we shall take his word in face of the actual printed statutes of this parliament ; in face of the information from the bondholders of the company ; in face of the mortgage deed of the Calgary and Edmonton Company; in face of all the other undoubted, indisputable facts which have been placed on ' Hansard ; ' who is he that asks us that we should take his unsupported word in face of all this proof? I am constrained to ask : Who this man is, that is so superior to the printed statutes of this country, and so superior to the printed records ?


Mr. CLANCY.: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) has no right to call, an hon. member of this House a man.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


James Clancy: That is scarcely an intelligent laugh from the other side. Such conduct quite becomes lion.* gentlemen opposite. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) has no right to refer to another member of this House, other than in the third person. That is my point of order. . Nobody* in this House would address the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) in the language in which he has addressed the hon. member for West Toronto.


Thomas Walter Scott: Well, if the friend and colleague of the hon. member for West Toronto considers that word ' man ' is not a proper term to apply-


Mr. TISDALE.: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) is now aggravating his language or I would not rise to object. He knows quite as well as you do, Mr. Speaker, that you can only allude to a member in this House in connection with his constituency. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) was called to order, and he starts out to break that rule of the House in a worse manner by making an insinuation against the hon. member (Mr. Osier). He acts in defiance of the rule of the House and attempts to put the hon. member (Mr. Osier) in a false position.


Thomas Walter Scott: I am the last man in the House who would endeavour to evade the
rules. I am perfectly willing to consider the objection raised by the hon. member for Bothwel'l (Mr. Clancy) and to withdraw the word ' man ' as applied to his friend and colleague from West Toronto and I now proceed to do so. But, Mr. Speaker, who is this member -who considers it within his dignity to attack the character, or to insinuate against the character of his fellow members ? Last year, in speaking of my colleague from Saskatchewan and myself, he used words something like these :
These members of such character.
I tell him now, and I ask him now, and I dare him now ; if he has anything to
say


Mr. TAYLOR.: Order. Address the chair.


Thomas Walter Scott: I am certainly addressing the chair. I ask him and tell him and dare him now, if he has anything to charge against me, to charge it right here on the door of the House, and not use methods which if it were parliamentary I might de-cribe, not use the methods which he has resorted to of making insinuations against personal character. I am nothing, Mr. Speaker, but a poor man whom the electors of West Assiniboia have honoured by sending me here as their representative, but as long as I am here as the representative of the people of West Assiniboia, I am not going to be deterred from ventilating their grievances on the floor of this House by the mere fact that I may possibly give some offence to the member for West Toronto, and to the corporations with whcih he is so closely associated. The statute of 1890 was put on the table yesterday, and it absolutely proves the assertion I made last year ; that this gentleman was a charter holder of the Calgary and Edmonton Company. The explanation he has made this afternoon, about the initial companies has no bearing at all upon the case. There were a half a dozen companies, defunct companies, each one of them out of existence, when these two companies were organized which proceeded with his aid to take up this business. The Calgary and Edmonton mortgage deed is in my desk, or at least a copy of it ; the Act relating to the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Company is to be found in the library. I have placed the material portion of the prospectus on the record. All these documents contradict absolutely and indisputably and beyond any question, the assertion which the hon. gentlemen (Mr. Osier); made here last year, and which he has dared to repeat in the House this afternoon. They contradict absolutely, the statement that the lands were sold with the bonds or that it was possible under the legislation passed for the lands to be sold with the bonds. And while it may be termed an anonymous letter because I was not able to divulge to the House the

name of the writer ; the letter of the bondholder which I read this afternoon proves that the lands were not sold with the bonds; and that the bondholders are reaping no advantage at all from the enormous land grant voted by this parliament to aid in the construction of these railways. But as I say I do not need the letters. The letters did not purport to contradict the assertions of the hon. member for West Toronto ; they simply contained certain comments which outside, people knowing the facts surrounding these transactions were able to make. One was a gentleman who bought some of the bonds and is a sufferer through this transaction which the hon. gentleman from West Toronto is so intimately connected with; the hon. gentleman who to-day is so fearful about the sacredness of Canadian securities in the old country money market. Let me repeat, that the case which I made yesterday does not in any way depend upon letters which were read, but upon documents of public record which I placed' upon ' Hansard ' yesterday, and which go to prove that besides making away with at least a couple 'of millions-at least two and a half millions of cash out of the bond proceeds, these creations of Conservative legislation ; these two companies of which the hon. member from West Toronto was, and is, I believe, a member, made away also with the greater part of the land grants. These public records prove that instead of giving the bondholders of the road the benefit of the land grants-and the information which is coming to us from the old country proves, that the Calgary and Edmonton last year sold more than half a million dollars worth of land, which did not go to the betterment of the road,-these companies I say, simply sold the lands to themselves. Two land companies were formed : the Calgary and Edmonton Land Company, and the Qu'Ap-pelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Land Company, and the hon. gentleman and his companies simply took the land in one hand and turned it over to the other hand, and made it impossible that the roads should ever receive any benefit from the resources which parliament voted to aid in and to procure the construction of these roads. But, after all, Mr. Speaker, the country will not be very much concerned with respect to my hon. friend (Mr. Osier) or with respect to myself. The people of that country are particularly concerned in getting some relief from the conditions under which they are actually suffering. There are thousands of people in that country at this moment who want seed grain, who want implements with which to work their lands and put in their crops, and if they do not get these things within a couple of week,s the whole year will be lost and great damage will be done not only to the people themselves, but to the whole people of Canada because of the injurious effect it will have on immigration.


Thomas Walter Scott: X believe it has been charged that in the remarks which I made yesterday I have been attempting to injure the cause of immigration by placing the facts before this House and before the people of this country. Well, I think it has been for a long time an exploded idea that the proper method of dealing with a sore is to attempt to cover it up and ignore it. The proper mode of procedure is to take the most immediate and effective steps to bring about a remedy; and it seemed to me yesterday that the most effective step I could take was to lay this very serious matter before the government, this House and the people of this country. I am only sorry that the hon. gentleman who controls the destines of the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railway, which for the last month has been out of business, and which during the last winter has not given a regular service, has not seen fit to say something from his place in the House which might give a measure of re-assurance to the thousands of people who have gone into that country, and who, at the present time are at the mercy of that railway. A bridge has been swept away and four or five miles of the railway are under water. Passengers and mails, however, are being carried over these breaks ; and, if so, the provisions and supplies which the people require can be carried over also, if the necessary efforts are put forth, if sufficient expenditure is incurred. The hon. gentleman represents the company which has received such enormous aid from the people of this country, and it is his place not only to say something but to do something to relieve the sufferings of the people who live along the line of that railway of his.


Mr.  F. F. CLARICE@West Toronto: Mr. Speaker, I do not desire to take up the time of the House,


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that the subject had better be left to the members who are immediately concerned.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


Mr. SPEAICER.: The remarks of these hon. members have been in the nature of personal explanation ; and I think it would be much more conducive to the good order of the House and the expedition of business if the discussion were confined to them. X do not want to give a ruling, but if I have to, I shall be obliged to rule to that effect.


Mr.  F. F. CLARICE@West Toronto: I will only ask the privilege of speaking a few minutes in order to draw your attention to the extraordinary position taken by the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Will the hon. member allow me to state what I understand the rule to be, and then, if it is the desire of the House that he shall speak on the subject, I

28G6-
shall say no more ? The rule, as laid down in Peel, is.
The discussion on a matter of personal explanation strictly limited to the members directly concerned. It is not in order for other hon. members to intervene.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: This Is on a motion to adjourn the House.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: On a motion to adjourn the House, the hon. member who moved it has a right to reply, but no other hon. member has a right to speak.


Mr. COCHRANE.: One ruling to-day and a different ruling yesterday. Choke people off one day and let people speak another day.


Mr. CLARKE.: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like the privilege of addressing the House for a few minutes, because 1 think the position taken by the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Seott) is a most extraordinary one, and some decision should be reached as to how much of the time of the House is to be wasted by questions of this kind being brought up time and again.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: That is tile reason I tried to stop a useless discussion at this time. I think I am doing my duty as presiding officer in trying to limit useless discussion, if I can.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I will not attempt to address the House if you decide that I am not in order. I desire to support your hands in preserving the rules of the House. If you declare that I am out of ?rder, I will not attempt to go on.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.
Mr. SPEAKER, I have not given a ruling. I have called attention to the rule, and if it is the wish of the House to hear the hon. member, I have nothing further to say.


Edward Frederick Clarke: 
Mr. DAVIS.: I wish to raise a point of order. The hon. gentleman is quoting from A past debate.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am drawing your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the statement which the hon. member for West Assiniboia made in moving a motion to adjourn. Under the plea of drawing the attention of the Minister of the Interior to the serious condition of affairs which he alleged to exist in that part of the Northwest Territories which he represents, he proceeded without any justification, to make a very foul and vicious attack on my hon. colleague from West Toronto.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. gentleman reiterated and re-affirmed to-day all he said yesterday ; and no hon. gentleman can read the statements contained in yesterday's ' Hansard,' in view of the repeated denials of them, without being convinced that they are vicious and unworthy statements.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I think the language used by the hon. gentleman is not parliamentary.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the language ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: In referring to the remarks of an hon. member as a foul and vicious attack.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If it is unparliamentary, I submit to your ruling ; but I draw hon. gentlemen's attention to the fact that similar charges have been made, not once or twice only, but three times, and every time they were made my hon. colleague has given them an emphatic contradiction. He has repeated to-day the same emphatic contradiction of the charges which were made against him yesterday by the hon. member for West Assiniboia. If you turn to ' Hansard ' of October 21 of last year, you will find that this matter was ventilated, and that my hon. colleague from West Toronto gave a full and ample and satisfactory reply to the allegations which were made against him on that occasion. After expressing his surprise that these attacks should be repeated, he said, at page 14587 :
I did not intend to make any reply to this renewed attack upon me, coming at this time of the session. I can hardly understand it, I have explained very fully mj connection with this road. I have pointed out where the figures that have been quoted are wrong. I explained that the land was sold with the bonds to a syndicate, which is a very common way of doing these transactions, and that the whole money realized was expended on the construction of the road and in paying the interest. The only point I would make now in reply is regarding my previous statement, which might be misconstrued, from the fact that my name is on the directorate of the present Calgary Railway Company. I made the statement that I was not directly or indirectly connected with the inception of either the Saskatchewan and Long



Lake or the Calgary and Edmonton Road. I was not a promoter, in any shape or form, of either of those roads. I came in after the original promoters had failed, and at the request of the late Sir John Macdonald. When I spoke on a previous occasion, I did not know thoroughly the history of the older incorporations ; but Mr. Nicol Kingsmill, K.C., whose name is well known to this House, and who had been connected with those two roads long before I had anything to do with them, has given me the following memo, concerning their origin and inception.
In his remarks this afternoon my hon. colleague from West Toronto saiil that this memo, which Mr. Kingsmill had prepared for his use was not to be found in ' Hansard,' and he explained that after he had spoken on the matter last year he bundled up his papers, put them aside, and had to leave the city on the evening train, and thus failed to send in to the ' Hansard ' office the memorandum which he had read. But the ' Hansard ' editor came to me the next day and I went to my colleague's desk and got the document, which Mr. Kingsmill had written, and handed it to the editor, and it appears in the revised edition on page 14588. It would be well to put Mr. Kings-mill's letter on record again to-day because it substantiates everything which my hon. colleague said this afternoon, and proves conclusively that he had no connection whatever with the oiiginal incorporators of these roads. To fair-minded men the statement which my hon. colleague has made ought to bring conviction, namely, the statement that his name only appeared in connection with these railways when he was called in-and my hon. colleague's word is as good as that of any one in this House or country-by the men who had secured these charters but had failed to raise the funds for the construction of these roads. It was then that my hon. colleague from West Toronto was called in, and he was called in at the suggestion of the late Sir John Macdonald. He became identified with these enterprises because of his ability to raise money in the old country to secure the construction of these roads, and he had to become one of the directors in order to represent those Who advanced the money. That statement surely can be appreciated by any hon. gentleman in this House who understands how these financial transactions are carried on. and every word which Mr. Kingsmill says in his memorandum corroborates everything that my hon. friend from West Toronto lias said, not only this afternoon but on every one of the three previous occasions when he was attacked for his connection with these roads. Was it a crime that the hon. member for West Toronto stood high in the financial world and that his aid was solicited by the then leader of the government to carry out projects that could not otherwise have been brought to completion ? Was it a disadvantage to the Northwest Territories that these roads should have been Mr. CLARKE.
constructed ? My hon. friend was not responsible for the conditions under which the charters were issued, and notwithstanding the allegations made by hon. gentlemen opposite that the incorporators were given unusually favourable charters, the fact remains that those who secured them were not able to finance the roads; and if those roads were constructed at all. it was because of the assistance given by the hon. member for AVest Toronto, which assistance that hon. gentleman was able to give by reason of his recognized financial stand-in,!.' and ability in this and the mother country. What does Mr. Kingsmill say in his letter ? His letter is as follows :
October 19th, 1903.
E.B. Osier, Esq., M.P.,
Toronto, Ont.
My Dear Osier,-Re Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railway Company.
This company was formed by an amalgamation with the South Saskatchewan Valley Railway Company, a list of the directors of which I now inclose; also, a list of the incorporators of the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railroad and Steamboat Company.
I was employed by the late Senator Machines and Mr. Andrew Onderdonk to endeavour to get the assistance of the government to this railway, after the first 25 miles had been built.
The affairs of the company were in a very low condition financially, and Mr. Onderdonk had been called in by the late Senator Machines to endeavour to undertake the construction of the railway. Mr. Onderdonk made an offer to the government, but no arrangement was made, and it was, if I mistake not, some time subsequent to this that you lent your assistance and carried the railway to completion. t was acting for the contractors who constructed tli* road, hut in this you had no interest
Re Calgary and Edmonton Railway Company :
As regards this company, as you are aware I was one of the incorporators, and have been upon its board ever since until two or three months ago, when it was passed over to the Canadian Pacific Railway ; and I am also aware of all the circumstances which preceded its construction.
The Calgary and Edmonton was preceded by a line called * The Alberta and Athabasca Railway Company,' incorporated July 20, 1885, The name of this company was changed afterwards to ' The Northwestern Railway Company of Canada,' in 1889. The original incorporators are on the memorandum I inclose, and the directors added by the Act of 1889, you will also find on such memorandum. This company was brought before capitalists in England, and Praed's Bank were interested in it ; one of the Lloyds was sent out to make an examination, and reported so favourably that it was supposed they would be able to finance the transaction ; they had a large land subsidy, hut no cash subsidy ; the land subsidy was 10,000 acres a mile. After attempting to finance the matter, they finally failed. 1 know this personally, as I went and saw the Praed people in London, and received a letter from them stating that they had been unable to do anything and must withdraw.
After this occurred the government, who were exceedingly anxious that the line to Ed-

monton should he constructed, as a preventive to further troubles with the Indians, 'asked Mr. Ross to take up the project, and the Act Incorporating this railway company was applied for and obtained at the instigation and request of the government of the Dominion. This I am personally aware of, as I had the conduct of the negotiations with the government at the time, and the making of the contract. It was, if I mistake not, at this juncture, that you first had anything to do with the transaction ; and you and Mr, Ross went to England and raised the necessary money. The government were so anxious that this railway should be constructed that they passed the original,Order in Council for the subsidy, subject to the sanction of parliament, before such sanction was obtained, and it was upon this order that the financial arrangements in England were commenced.
These facts are shown in the draft petition of right which we were about filing against the government, for the purpose of obtaining a settlement of the land grant, a settlement which was afterwards made, I inclose you a draft of the suggested petition of right, the value to you of which will be that you can absolutely depend upon any statement that is made in this draft being correct, it having been made up for the purpose of having the opinion of counsel. There is a good deal of it which is merely historical, and has relation to the land dispute with the government. Be good enough to send me back this printed draft petition of right in the Exchequer Court, as it is the only copy I have.
# Trusting that this will supply the information you needed, believe me,
Yours very faithfully,
(Sgd.) NICOL KINGSMILL.
Then there Is a list of the incorporators of these various companies, which were Anally merged into the Qu'Appelle and Long Lake and the Calgary and Edmonton roads : South Saskatchewan Valley Railway Company, incorporated by 43 Victoria, chapter 66 assented to May 7, 1880.	'
Names of persons incorporated Andrew Robertson, Donald Maclnnis, John Ross M H Cochrane, Duncan McIntyre, J. R. Thibaudeau' James Turner.
Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railroad and Steamboat Company, Incorporated by 46 Victoria, chapter 72, assented to May 25, 1883.
Names of persons incorporated :-Robert Douil, Wiliam B. Scarth, Oliver T. Stone, John A. Mackenzie, J. J. Foy, Edgar Dewdney, Gilbert R. Pugsley.
Alberta and Athabasca Railway Company, Incorporated by 48 and 49 Victoria, chapter 88' assented to July 20, 1885.
Names of persons incorporated :-Henry B. Beard, George F. Jackson, William W. Huntingdon, John S. McEwen, Louis 'Sands, Arthur T. H. Williams, R. p. Russell, A. B. Nettle-ton, Samuel P. Snider, C. C. Colby.
Directors added by the Act, assented to April 16. 1889, 52 Victoria, chapter 65 :-
Mackworth Bulkley Praed, John Maurice Lloyd, John Dale and James Lloyd, all of London, Eng.: Charles T. Drummond, William White and C. C. Colby.
If I apprehend correctly the purport of Mr. KingsmiH's letter, It is a summary of 911
the origin of these companies and gives a list of the directors or incorporators; and among these the name of my hon. colleage from West Toronto does not appear. My hon. friend last year, after having read this statement of Mr. Kingsmill to the House, made the following further statement:
I do not wish to take up the time of the House at present. The facts are as I have stated. My previous statements as to my connection with these companies, and as to the disposition of the land and of the money received, are absolutely correct ; and so far from being a company promoter, so far from my having had anything to do with the original conception of that road, that road was forced upon the attention of Mr. Ross and myself afterwards by the late Sir John Macdonald. I shall not weary the House with going into this long petition of rights, but I may say that it contains letters from Sir John Macdonald to Mr. Ross urging him to take the road up and to go forward at once on the Order in Council, apd promising that a subsidy would be voted by parliament, and declaring that he would be perfectly justified in submitting his proposition to the capitalists in London. That was done, and the securities were disposed of as I have said, and the money realized from the securities provided for the construction of the railway and for the payment of the interest of the bonds and other debts. Two years ago, when this matter was brought up, I explained very fully my connection with the company. I have only to repeat that every statement I made with respect to that road is absolutely correct.
I have quoted from the official debates of last year the reply of my hon. colleague to the allegations then made against him. In the statement he then made he said that two years previously he had contradicted similar statements, and to-day for the third or fourth time he has most emphatically contradicted the allegations made bv hon. gentlemen opposite that he was identified with these original charters or had anything to do with procuring either land grants or subsidies from the government for the construction of these roads. The hon. member for Assiniboia admitted this afternoon that last year he said that the hon. member for West Toronto had nothing to do with the companies which constructed the railways or with those which originally received the grants. He has not charged my hon. colleague from West Toronto with having been instrumental in any way in obtaining the grants of lands or subsidies, nor has he denied the statement of my hon. colleague that he only became connected with these roads after those who had obtained the land grants and subsidies were unable to finance them. It was only after they had failed that my hon. colleague was brought into communication with these roads and it was because of his financial standing and ability that he was asked to assist the companies to raise the monev necessary to build them.


Thomas Walter Scott: It was in the same year, 1890, in which the charter of incorporation

2S72
was granted tlie Calgary and Edmonton, that the land grant was voted by this parliament to this company, and the words with which the hon. gentleman has credited me within the last couple of minutes are words I certainly never used.


Thomas Osborne Davis: He is drawing a red herring across the trail.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am not in the habit of drawing a red herring across the track. I am speaking what I honestly believe to be the case. I am advised that this road was incorporated in 1890, but that in reality three charters had been given to practically the same people for the construction of a line between Calgary and Edmonton. That statement is susceptible of proof, or it is not. If it be true, as I believe, it completely disposes of every allegation or suggestion of unfair, dishonourable, disreputable tactics on the part of my hon. friend from West Toronto. The hon. gentleman knows whether a charter was given prior to 1890 or not for the construction of a road from Calgary to Edmonton and whether this was the third charter issued or not. If he knows it was, surely he will rise in his place-if lie is an honourable man, and I presume he 'S -and withdraw these allegations of wrongdoing and these suspicions to which he has given expression regarding the connection of my hon. colleague from West Toronto with these roads. I was at a loss to know where the animus of these attacks upon my hon. colleage originated, but I think that the hon. member for Assiniboia in a weak moment this afternoon gave us the explanation. He let the cat out of the bag. He said that iny hon. colleague abused his position in this House. Why ? Because he thought fit to disagree with the proposition presented by the government for the construction of another transcontinental line. But my hon. colleague has a right to express his opinions on every matter which come before parliament. He has not only the right but it is his duty to do so, and in opposing the proposition which the government have submitted he is acting strictly within his right, and discharging his duty. Does every hon. gentleman who disagrees with the government upon this great question abuse or prostitute his position 1 Is it not the inherent right of every member to express his opinion, and will my hon. friend from Assiniboia say that the opinion of my hon. colleague from West Toronto is not as valuable as that of any other hon. member of this House ? Especially so when we consider the position he holds in the financial world and the connection he has had with that great transcontinental line, the Canadian Pacific Railway. I regret that the hon. member for Western Assiniboia should have used the language he did in reference to my hon. colleage who is opposing this road on conscientious grounds. He believes as we all do on this side, that the Mr. CLARKE.
contract with the Grand Trunk Pacific is an improvident contract which ought not to be ratified. Of course, if my hon. colleague from West Toronto had supported the government in their Grand Trunk Pacific scheme, he would have been their white headed boy. But because he considers it in the interest of the people to oppose that scheme, is that in itself sufficient justification for the hon. member for West Assini-boia to reiterate statements made in this House regarding the connection of my hon. fi lend with certain roads in the Northwest which have been denied as frequently as they have been made. The conduct of the hon. member for West Toronto both since and before he came into this House will bear the closest scrutiny. Every word he has ever uttered in this House respecting his connection with these roads is worthy of credence and will be accepted throughout the length and breadth of Canada wherever my colleague is known. He has refuted the assertions made by the hon. member for West Assiniboia, and I think that the hon. member is in all honour bound to withdraw the statements he has made regarding rny hon. colleague, reflecting on his connection with these roads, and I hope he will do so before the debate closes.


Mr.  T. O.@: DAVIS, (Saskatchewan). As I am one of the parties concerned in this discussion, I claim the right to say a few words. I am much surprised that the senior member for West Toronto should have tried to draw a red herring across the trail by discussing old charters out of date. V e are not interested in the old charters granted twenty years ago for a line between Calgary and Edmonton, but in a charter granted to the company that got a certain amout of land and money to do a certain amount of work. We asked the junior member for West Toronto yesterday where the money and lands went to. In reply to that we have the hon. member (Mr. Osier) discussing some old charters which had been granted years before the charter on which the road was actually built. What are the facts ? My hon. friend says that last year the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) made a declaration in this House denying certain statements made by the hon. member for West Assiniboia and on that occasion my hon. friend from West Assiniboia was obliged by the rules of the House to withdraw the statements he had made.
My hon. friend (Mr. Scott) had accused the senior member for West Toronto of being one of the promoters of the Calgary and Edmonton road. In reply to the statement by my hon. friend from Western Assiniboia, the hon. junior member for West Toronto made this statement
A new charter was obtained by some people. I was not one of them.

My hon. friend from Western Assi-niboia bad made the statement that tbe -bon. gentleman from IV est loronto was a promoter of the company. But when tbe bon. member for West Toronto made tbe statement I have read, that be was not one of tbe gentleman who bad obtained tbe charter, my bon. friend (Mr. Scott) was obliged, under the rules of tbe House to withdraw tbe statement be had made. But, yesterday my bon. friend from Western Assiniboia was able to place on tbe table tbe Act of incorporation in which tbe name of the hon. junior member for West Toronto appeared. Under these circumstances, it seems to me, an apology is due to tbe bon. member for Western Assiniboia. It amused me to bear tbe statement made by the bon. junior member for West Toronto with reference to these roads. He read us tbe names of a lot of gentlemen-Nettleton, 1 think, was one-who bad something to do with tbe old charter, a charter that is out of date and that nobody knows anything about. Well, I would like to ask tbe bou. gentleman bow much Mr. Nettleton or anybody associated with him got out of this *enterprise. Tbe bon. gentleman (Mr. Osier) was one of those who secured the charter under which tbe road was built and this land grant was voted for them. They went on and constructed tbe road. As shown by my hon. friend from Western Assiniboia, this land grant was divided among certain land companies. One was called tbe Calgary and Edmonton Land Company. They secured the largest amount of these lands, and we find, on looking up the record that tbe hon. junior member for West Toronto was one of tbe directors of that company that secured something like 800,000 acres of this land. And it has been shown by tbe bon. member for Western Assiniboia, that half a million dollars 'worth of these lands have been sold this year, and no doubt, a certain amount of tbe proceeds went into the pocket of the bon. junior member for West Toronto. That bon. gentleman Ms failed to give an explanation as to whether be got any of tbe proceeds or not. We do not ask anything about old charters granted to other parties in years gone by. These things have no bearing whatever on the case. What we want to know is what became of certain lands given to certain companies with which the hon. member for West Toronto was connected. It has been shown that the bonds were sold at par. The hon. junior member for West Toronto acknowledged that he had bought certain of these bonds at par. The member for Western Assiniboia has shown that the proceeds from the sale of the bonds was enough to build the road, pay interest for six years and have a good surplus. We find this land, 6,400 acres a mile, given over to certain land, companies. What did the land companies do with the land or with
the money they got with it 1 Why was it not used for making betterments on the road, constructing proper bridges and so on? Surely, that is a fair question. The hon. member for West Toronto gets up and reads something signed by a gentleman by the name of Kingsmill-who, I understand, is a respectable man-telling about thq old company. It would appear that Mr. Pug-sley had built a road of twenty-five miles from Regina to Long Lake. One of the complaints that we make is that this Regina, Long Lake and Saskatchewan road was built over a route of 253 miles. The hon. junior member for West Toronto explains that the company had to take over these old works of Mr. Pugsley's company. Why should this new company take over these old useless pieces of road? The country was large, the hon. gentleman could have got another charter to build over a route which would bring him to Prince Albert in 190 miles. No ; it suited the purposes of these gentlemen to build a crooked road, because, by so doing they got more acreage. They sold $3,800,000 odd worth of bonds, in round figures, and the stock was $210,000. The cost of the road was about $2,500,000, as shown by the report of the Minister of Railways and Canals. Well, take the sale of the bonds and the stock, and it will leave a surplus of about $1,500,000 after building the road. The hon. junior member for West Toronto says that they had to provide interest for six years. Well, take the interest for six years from this surplus, and you still have about $500,000 left unaccounted for.
I would like to ask the hon. junior member for West Toronto if the bondholders have been paid anything since the expiry of the six years. If so, that would account for part' of the money. But I fancy the hon. gentleman will not say that more interest has been paid. The bondholders, I understand, were paid this interest for six years and nothing more, except $80,000 a year paid by the Dominion government. So, we have here a balance which has not been accounted for. The hon. junior member for West Toronto tells us that he submitted to Morton, Rose & Company, the government's plan-that is the late government's plan- for the building of a road into that country. But he did not make it plain what the plan was, what the amount of the bonds was to be or how much they were sold at, or how much was realized. He took good care to keep away from that point. He said that Morton, Rose A Company said that $10,000 a mile would be paid for building the road. In his speech of last year the hon. gentleman did not mention this $10,000 a mile, but gave the House to understand that the'contractor, Mr. Ross, had some interest in the road. He tells us now that it cost a lot of money to take over the old road. He never told us that before. I ask again, why ? These peo-


Thomas Osborne Davis: Last year the hon. member for West Assini-boia accused certain gentlemen of making a certain amount of money out of the construction of two roads in the Northwest Territories. He went into the facts and gave figures to show the amount of bonds issued, the amount of money realized, the area of lands given ; he mentioned the fact that certain gentlemen made money out of these lands and I think that he mentioned the name of Mr. Osier. When the junior member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) got up to make his explanation he contradicted that and said he was not a charter member at all, he had nothing at all to do with it. and so strong were his colleagues in upholding what he said that one of them, the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) went so far as-to say :
On his word of honour as a gentleman, Mr. Osier declared he was not a promoter or a charter holder.
' On his word of honour,' the member of East Elgin says, the junior member for Toronto said he was not a promoter or a charter holder, yet the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) has proved to the satisfaction of the country and to the members of this House that he was a charter holder.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Thomas Osborne Davis: What is the point of order ; you are so ready with points of order, state the point.


Mr. LENNOX.: When an hon. member in this House gives his statement to the House that certain facts alleged against him are not true, an hon. member is bound to accept that statement.


Thomas Osborne Davis: We know the rules. Last year my hon. friend (Mr. Scott) accepted that ruling and withdrew the statement he made, but now we find the junior member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) acknowledging that my friend (Mr. Scott) was right and he was wrong. .


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no, nothing of the kind.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Nothing of the kind ? I will read the statement from the revised ' Hansard.' He said specifically- :
A new charter was obtained by some people ;
I was not one of them.
The statute contains the name of the hon. gentleman as one of them he acknowledges it, so the member for Assiniboia is right and he is wrong.


Mr. INGRAM.: To what charter does the hon. gentleman refer ?


Thomas Osborne Davis: The Calgary & Edmonton.


Andrew B. Ingram: The one issued in 1890 ?


Thomas Osborne Davis: The one issued in 1890, the charter under which the road was built. I

did not refer to any charters granted a few years ago. These gentlemen go away back to these old charters and dodge around trying to get away from the point of issue. They put me in mind of a man who went on a farm to work it, but after a while, finding he did not succeed, he left it and another party took possession and at once carried off the fences. On being told that he should not take the fences, he said : Blame the fellow who took possession first. That is about what it means. We haye nothing to do with the gentlemen who got the first charters ; we are alluding to the gentlemen who got the last charter under which the road was built and under which this land grant was obtained. The hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) said :
On his word of honour as a gentleman, the hon. the junior member for West Toronto has declared he was not a promoter nor a charter-
There may be quibbling as to whether a gentleman whose name appears in a charter is a promoter or not, but we have here the two words

not a promoter or a charter holder.
If the hon. gentleman gets away from one point he can take the other, he can accept whichever horn of the dilemma he chooses. I suppose the hon. member for West Toronto is too big a man to be a promoter, but at any rate his name appears as.a charter holder. I submit that the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) has proved his case. The hon. junior member for West Toronto said he was not interested financially and had nothing to do with these lines. The hon. member for West Assiniboia and myself yesterday produced the Act of Incorporation of the Calgary & Edmonton Land Company in which my hon. friend (Mr. Osier) appears as a director. That company got in round figures 800,000 acres of that land grant, and they disposed of some of it for $1 an acre so Mr. Osier says. Who sold it and who bought it ? I suppose that Jack solid it to Jill, it was like taking a dollar out of one pocket and putting it into the other. However the Calgary and Edmonton Land Company became possessed of that land and we would like to know what they paid for it, from whom they jiurchased and where the money went. We would like to know further if the bondholders ever got any money out of the land grant, if any money realized from the land grant was given to the bondholders of the Calgary & Edmonton Railway or of the Saskatchewan and Long Lake Railway. That is a question which we have a right to ask, and which the country will expect the hon. member (Mr. Osier) to be in a position to answer. The position in a nutshell is this : Two roads were built. Some old charters bad been given years ago for the construction of railways. The roads were not built but in 3S90 a new company came in, acquired a
charter for the construction of the Calgary and Edmonton Road and purchased the right of some gentlemen in the Qu'Appelle and Long Lake Railway. The company went to the government and received a large land grant. In addition to the land grant they received $S0,000 a year for carrying the mails. They issued a prospectus and went to the old country where they raised sufficient money to build the two roads. Not only did they raise enough on these bonds to build the two roads, but they raised enough money to pay the interest for six years which was all the interest that was ever paid. They also raised enough to leave a surplus and never gave one acre in pledge to the bondholders. The land has disappeared ; we see it in the name of the Calgary and Edmonton Land Company, the Osier and Hammond Company and all these different companies. We have proved that the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) is connected with these companies, that this land has been sold, that $500,000 worth were sold this year and that Osier, Hammond and Nanton have been selling it for years, and we want to know into whose pockets and whose coffers this money goes.
Does it go into the pockets of the Calgary and Edmonton Land Company, or does it go to the bondholders ? Does it go into the pockets of Osier, Hammond and Nanton of which firm the hon. member for West Toronto is a senior partner? The bon. member for West Toronto has taken exception to this question being brought up in the House, but I think that the people have a right to expect an answer. I think this is a question that we have a right to discuss. Here are two roads that arc supposed to serve a great tract of the country, Northern Assiniboia, Northern Alberta, a portion of Southern Alberta and Saskatchewan. They were built at an en-oimous cost to the people qf this country. It is all right for the hon. member for West Toronto to get up and say that the land was not' worth a dollar an acre or that some Of it was not worth 25 cents an acre, but I defy him to show that his company have ever sold any land at a dollar an acre or 25 cents an acre. They have sold it at $3 and up to ten dollars an acre. That road is in a wretched condition. As was stated yesterday the bridges have gone out. When we get up and' place before the House a: statement regarding the finances of these roads, we are taken to task by the hon. junior member for West Toronto for bringing his name up in connection with the matter. I do not know that the hon. junior member for West Toronto is any more exempt in that respect than any other member of this House. He may consider that he is of more importance than any other member ot this House, and that it is beneath his dignity to have to reply to the statements which have been made regarding him. it

will be remembered that he said on one occasion that he would not have noticed this matter as far as he was personally concerned if it had not been for an article that appeared in the Toronto * Globe.' If the hon. gentleman imagines that he can stand upon his dignity, or that he can travel through this country on his shape without making an effort to explain these facts which we have placed before the House, lie wild find that he is greatly mistaken. The people want to know where this money and this land went to, and if it is not satisfactorily explained the hon. junior member for West Toronto will find that there will be in the minds of a great majority of Canadian people the idea that he has greatly benefited by these transactions. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that we have had to take up the time of the House.


Edward Cochrane: 
Haughton Lennox: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, (Mr. Davis) was sorry three times for having occupied so much of the time of the House yesterday and I suppose we may assume that he is also very sorry to-day. I do not know that I am bound to allude to anything the hon. gentleman said yesterday. I am not confronted with any rule in reference to that, because a comparison of what he said to-day with what he said yesterday may be interesting to some of his family in seeing that he said practically the same thing, but life is too short for us to peruse the documents. The hon. gentleman says that this is an important question. The point which arises is:	Which question?
Which is the important question that the hon. gentlemen who have spoken on the other side of the House have been discussing ? They have alluded more or less to every question which has come up in parliament during the present session, and to a number of questions which have not come up in parliament during the present session and it would be difficult for any one to ascertain what the question is particularly that they are discussing. If the discussion yesterday was as broad as It is to-day it is hard to understand what the object of opening up the matter was. But. perhaps a glance over the .field at what transpired last year and what transpired during the last week will enable us to size up and realize what it is that these hon. gentlemen are after. It is not alone, it seems to me. a question of attacking the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier), although that seems to me a particularly sweet morsel for the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott), referring to it as he does from year to year now for four or five years. I think we will come to the conclusion that there are certain characteristics which point, not to the hon. member for West Assiniboia, and not to the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, as being the originators of this movement, but to the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) and to the government itself as instigating and bringing forward these questions at particular times.
Last session when the government got into an unfortunate position with regard to the transcontinental! railway, we found these matters cropping up ; this year when the people of the country are excited over the mismanagement of the same scheme by the government, and when the government do not know exactly what the next move is to be, these matters are again brought up to try to divert public attention from the acts of the government. To use a homely phrase, these tactics of gentlemen opposite are for
the purpose of drawing a herring across the trail. Now, when we have come to the stage that the government is confounded and bankrupted in its policy, up rise their supporters with questions which generally emanate from the opposition, and they resort to the expedient of moving the adjournment of the House. I believe that the public will realize what they are up to.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Who moved the adjournment of the House to-day ?


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I want the attention of the House. I suppose there is no difference ef opinion that the discussion has been out of order all afternoon.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Mr. CASGRAIN.: What was the Speaker doing ?


Peter Macdonald: It is no reflection upon the Speaker at all. The Speaker called attention to the disorder two hours ago, and I am sorry that he was not sustained by those who should sustain the Speaker when he wishes to enforce the rules.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Peter Macdonald: But now the Speaker is not here and the Deputy Speaker is here, and I am going to see whether this House will sustain the ruling of the Dephty Speaker, that the House has been losing time all this afternoon and has been discussing a previous debate which took up seven hours yesterday. Hon. gentlemen have been reading the discussion of yesterday from the printed ' Hansard,' and consequently on that ground alone they are wholly and entirely out of order. There are no two opinions about that, and so that we may get down to do some work, and do it in a dignified way. I wish to bring the House hack to order. The House has been out of order in regard to the manner in which the explanation was made to-day. If anything is said against a member, he has a right to explain when the Orders of the Day are called ; and especially if anything has been said affecting his individual character, the House is always indulgent to give him full and ample scope to explain every point, but the House cannot enter into a general discussion on the question to which he refers. When my hon. friend from Toronto this afternoon made that full and explicit explanation, he was perfectly in order. After the explanation was made and he sat down, then those who made the charges might have made some remarks upon his explanation, and then the rule Is that the discussion must cease and not broaden out generally amongst the members of tbe House.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to know where the authority for that is found, Mr. Speaker ?


Mr. SPROULE.: The adjournment of the House was moved.

2SS4


Peter Macdonald: That was an Irregularity also. The adjournment of the House Is only moved as a substantive motion when there is some important question to discuss, tout if there is an explanation to be made in regard to an attack upon an hon. member's character, or in regal'd to his reputation, these explanations are usually made without a motion to adjourn, and when they are made there cannot be any general discussion.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Mr. Speaker


Peter Macdonald: Just allow me to finish.


Edward Frederick Clarke: May I ask you a question ?


Peter Macdonald: 
Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: That is not the question.


Peter Macdonald: Order. Will the hon. gentleman please tell me the question ?


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: The question is on the adjournment of the House, Sir.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And the right of a member to bring up any question on that motion.


Peter Macdonald: The adjournment of the HoUse is only moved when there ip an important question to be discussed.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Not at all.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is more important than that the member for Toronto should refute the attack made on him yesterday ?


Peter Macdonald: That may be.
Mr, CASGRAIN. A motion to adjourn is always in order.


Peter Macdonald: Substantive motions for the adjournment of the House ought to be reserved for occasions when it is necessary to discuss questions of gravity. They are not unfrequently proposed in the Canadian Commons with a view of bringing before it some question in which a member is immediately interested, but even then this practice which is liable to abuse has its limitations. No member will be permitted on such motion to discuss an Order of the Day, or a notice of motion on the paper, or a motion which was dropped owing to a count out, or what has taken place in a former debate.
Now, there was discussion continually this afternoon on a former debate.


George Taylor: There was nothing read.


Peter Macdonald: There was something read, and the House went out of order on both sides in discussing what took place yesterday. Therefore, on that question, as I said before, the House is out of order, Mr. SPROULE.
and I must bring it hack. It is evident to everybody that the discussion this afternoon is the same as that which took place yesterday. Extracts were read from the debate of yesterday, and that is certainly not within the rules of the House.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will you permit me, with the utmost respect, to draw your attention to one feature of this debate which you seem to have overlooked ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I can surely ask a question ?


Peter Macdonald: I will allow the House to discuss my ruling before I finally decide in the matter.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: What is your ruling ?


Peter Macdonald: I have not as yet given my ruling. I am going on to show that the House is out of order. This is one of Peel's decisions.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: That is too old.


Peter Macdonald: It is up to 1895, and it says :
The discussion on a matter of a personal explanation is strictly limited to the members directly concerned. It is not in order for other members to intervene.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: That's right, so far as it goes.


Peter Macdonald: Now, the hon. member from Toronto this afternoon got up to make a personal explanation-


Edward Frederick Clarke: Before you rule, let me draw your attention to what I believe to be an important omission.


Peter Macdonald: Order.


Edward Frederick Clarke: 1 am in order.


Peter Macdonald: You can discuss it when I get through. I have given you the evidence to show you that, in my opinion, the House has been out of order : but before I finally decide, I invite discussion on these rules.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Mr. Speaker, as you have mentioned me as one who persisted in being out of order after explanations had been made by the hon. gentleman who moved the motion to adjourn to-day, I wish, with the greatest possible respect, to draw your attention to this fact, that after my hon. friend from West Toronto had to-day reiterated his denial of the statements made yesterday by the hon. member for Western Assiniboia, that hon. gentleman repeated and reaffirmed what he had said yesterday, and he was not called to order. Under these circumstances, I think I have a prefect right, on the motion to adjourn


Peter Macdonald: I am acting now on my own responsibility. If the hon.

member refused to accept the statements made by the bon. member from West Toronto, be should have been called to order at that moment, and the point should have been settled then.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think it would be very unfortunate, at this moment, after this debate has been going on upon a very delicate subject, if any hon. member were deprived of the right which he thinks he has of expressing his views. For my part, I think we have been so far out of order that the best sentiment of the House would be consulted if we allowed the debate now to go on and be concluded as soon as possible.


Robert Laird Borden: I for my part do not at all concur in the view of the order of the House taken by the Deputy Speaker. The references to Mr. Speaker Peel's decisions were brought to my attention by the Speaker in the chair. I have examined every one of them, and in not one case was there a motion to adjourn the House. A motion to adjourn the House is always in order, and the subject brought up on that motion can always be discussed. The references to Mr. Speaker Peel's decisions had no more to do with the question which we are discussing than the rule in Shelley's case, if I may use a legal phase. The question this afternoon is upon a motion to adjourn the House, and the debate cannot be restricted except in so far as it relates to the matter brought up by the member who makes that motion.


Peter Macdonald: Am I to understand, then, that the House is of opinion that by making a motion to adjourn, a member can reiterate and rehash all the arguments used in a previous debate ?


Robert Laird Borden: No.


Peter Macdonald: If not, then this discussion is absolutely out of order.
Mi-. SPROULE. I think the hon. the Speaker is rather confounding a question of privilege and a motion to adjourn. There are different occasions on which a member may bring a question to the notice of the House. It is always in order to do it on a motion to go into Committee of Supply, and the only opportunity is on a motion to adjourn when the orders of the day are called. The hon. member for West Assiniboia brought up the question of the condition of the settlers on a motion to adjourn, and a debate followed on that question. To-day, when an effort is being made in the same way by another hon. gentleman to bring before the House a question which he regards as of vital importance, the same rule should in my judgment apply. Had he brought it up as a question of privilege. it would have been iu order to confine the discussion to him and the hon. member for Western Assiniboia, but not when
he has brought it up on the motion to adjourn.
'Mr. JABEL ROBINSON. Mr. Speaker, I do not think you can accuse me of being out of order. I have sat here during the last two days and listened, not with interest, but with pain. You, Sir, were not in the chair all the time, or you might have brought the House to order before this. I approve of a good deal of what you have said. You express my sentiments. There seems to have been a conspiracy on botji sides of this House to kill time, and the tragedy is now pretty well completed. Now, I think it is time we were done with what men did years ago, and went on with the business of this country. It is the duty of the government and the Speaker at all times to see that nothing but business is done in this House. The value of time should be considered. I had an opportunity of going into southwestern Ontario last week, and I can assure you that the people of that section of the country are looking to this government to see that as little expenditure is incurred as possible.


An hon. MEMBER.: They are looking the wrong way.


Mr. JABEL ROBINSON.: They ought to look this way. There will not be sufficient fall wheat in that section this year to supply the people with bread. Their expenditure may be the same as in other years, but the purchasing power of money is reduced ; and they are looking to this government to assist them to keep down the expenditure. Last year, when there was only talk, talk, talk, I pointed out that according to my 'calculation all this bombast was costing this country ?28 a minute. It is time the government put a stop to it.


Haughton Lennox: Now, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks.


Peter Macdonald: No, thank you.


Haughton Lennox: Then I will speak to the question of order.


Peter Macdonald: According to the rule, the hon. member must sit down when I am addressing the House, whether he is out of order or not. I have taken the stand I have done at this moment not hurriedly nor inadvisedly. I am satisfied, if I can interpret the rule at all or read English that the whole discussion this afternoon is out of order, whether the motion to adjourn was in order or not. Assuming for the time being that it w-as in order it is out of order to discuss a previous debate upon a motion to adjourn, and it is a previous debate that has been discussed this whole afternoon; therefore I rule the discussion out of order. I make that decision, and if the House takes the opposite view-, I shall have to accept it. The decision is made, and there can be no more discussion on it.


Haughton Lennox: Mr. Speaker, you said you would allow me to speak on tlie question of order, and I claim my right. I liad the floor when the Speaker interrupted me in the first place, and I of course had to sit down. Other lion, gentlemen in the meantime intervened. I have the right', whether you will allow me to continue my remarks or not, to address myself to you, Mr. Speaker. I submit that I was not transgressing any of the rules you have referred to. I have not referred to the debate of yesterday, I have not quoted anything from the debate of yesterday, but was simply replying to lion, gentlemen who have spoken on the other side. Under these circumstances, even if others were out of order, I am not. Let me call your attention, Sir, to another matter. While it is perfectly true that a personal explanation should be confined to the individual member himself who makes it, yet, when, as in this case, the motion to adjourn was made, that restriction cannot apply. AH that I propose to do is to continue the debate upon the lines followed by the parties immediately concerned. I have no desire to do as lion, gentlemen opposite have done. I have no de ire to branch out into questions which are not involved in the question before the chair. I wish to say, in reply to the hon. gentleman who described an imaginary unfortunate condition of things in the west, that there can be nothing more detrimental to the interests of Canada than to describe the Northwest as the hon. gentleman has done. There can be nothing more detrimental than to spread broadcast the assertion that the west as a whole is not in a condition to attract settlement, but this is the kind of political tactics resorted to by hon. gentlemen opposite. That, however, is not unusual 011 the part of the hon. gentlemen opposite. It was the policy which was followed by them in opposition, and today when they realize that the control of the affairs of the country is gradually slipping from their hands, and that the day is nigh when they will have to make way for better men, they are resorting to their old policy of decrying the country so as to make the task before their successors as difficult as possible. We cannot too vigorously denounce tactics of that kind, and I think the country will realize that if these gentlemen resort to such tactics it is because they feel that they are right up against it and do not know which way to turn, it is because they realize that they will not have the management of public affairs very much longer, and desire to prevent if possible the onward march of prosperity which we expect to see under the new regime.


Mr. OLIVER.: I think the charge of maligning the west and doing this country harm comes with bad grace from gentlemen who. during last session and this session, have used every effort to show that this
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER,
country is not capable of supporting another transcontinental railway. It would come with better grace from others than from men who are doing all they can to show that such a railway is not a necessity and is bound to be a eommmercial failure.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Frank Oliver: Hon. gentlemen opposite are better with their voices than with their arguments. I think I heard an hon. gentleman on the other side declare that the opposition of his party to the Transcontinental Railway was a matter of conscience. It however is a matter of curiosity to hon. members on this side to understand how hon. gentlemen, who find thas transcontinental scheme too great a stretch for their consciences, are able to justify on every occasion a railway transaction which, as we have been told time and again, has subjected this country to a loss of some $10,000,000, that being the amount of subsidy given a company for the building of 555 miles of a second or third class prairie road, in excess of what it cost to build it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Peter Macdonald: Order. I am resolved to test the sense of the House on this question. If the hon. gentleman is going to discuss a question which came up yesterday, I rule that he is out of order.


Frank Oliver: The question which came up yesterday was the connection of the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) with these transactions. I do not wish to touch on that point at all.


Peter Macdonald: I hope the hon. gentleman will bear in mind that not only the connection of the hon. member for Toronto with this railway was discussed, but almost every other conceivable question that could have any possible relation to it. I do not think that anything new can be said about that matter to-day, and I rule any reference to it as out of order. If the House is going to disagree with my ruling, let us have a vote, so that I may know exactly what the opinion of the House is.


Frank Oliver: The chair can protect hon. gentlemen opposite against my arguments much better than they can themselves.


Peter Macdonald: The question is on the motion to adjourn.


Andrew B. Ingram: Before you put the motion, Sir, I desire to offer a little explanation.


Frank Oliver: May I ask if the hon. gen-is not out of order '! I can finish my remarks before six o'clock. I want to put-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Frank Oliver: I want to put, in three words


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.

Mi-. DEPUTY SPEAKER. I do not know whether my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) was on his feet when I rose to put the motion or not. I will leave that to himself. But there was nobody on liis feet on the other side of the House, and I declared the motion lost.


Frank Oliver: I am most anxious to speak to the motion before the chair.


Andrew B. Ingram: I ask you, Mr. Speaker, who has the floor ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Peter Macdonald: When hon. members are called to order, they are supposed to sit down.


Frank Oliver: Certainly.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Peter Macdonald: Now that the hon. member (Mr. Oliver) has resumed his seat, he has a right to rise and explain.


Frank Oliver: I have no explanation to make


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Wilfrid Laurier: What I said to you, Mr. Speaker, was said because you were not in the chair when the motion was moved. I merely directed your attention to the fact that the only motion before the chair was the motion to adjourn. .


Robert Laird Borden: But certainly, Mr. Speaker, you gave us on this side the impression that some other motion was to be put first.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is the reason I called your attention to the fact, as you were not in the chair at the time the motion was made, that the motion was one to adjourn.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, what motion did the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) understand the Speaker was about to put to the House ?


Mr. FIELDING.: He was proposing to put to the House the question of his judgment being sustained, and I myself said there was no question as to that, and that the only motion was the motion to adjourn.


Peter Macdonald: The motion was put and lost.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no ; yes, yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: Mr. Speaker, I again ask you who has the floor ?


Peter Macdonald: The motion was put and declared lost, and no person has the floor.


Robert Laird Borden: I understood, Mr. Speaker, that when you rose-and I must say that I think we should have better order if the Speaker would remain seated in the chair more than he has done this afternoon- I understood, and so did other gentlemen on this side, that you were going to put some notion in regard to the ruling of the chair. But something passed between you and the right hon. leader of the House (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) which I did not catch, and then you put the other motion. You had declared the whole House out of order-just how that was I cannot understand-and you said you were going to put some motion to the House with regard to the Speaker's ruling. I did not understand how that could be done, and I did not know what motion you were going to put. But, as I say, something went on between you and the right hon. gentleman which I did not catch. As a result, it was announced by you that the motion to adjourn had been put and lost. But hon. gentlemen on this side did not understand that that was the motion to be put. And my hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Oliver) was trying to protect his rights, and the hon member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) was on his feet and you were on your feet. No one could tell exactly what had happened. So I should think that under the circumstances, the motion to adjourn should be declared lost.


Robert Laird Borden: Then I think my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) will agree with me that as the Speaker rose to put one motion and then decided to put another, without resuming his seat or giving us any indication of his change of mind, we could hardly be expected to understand that the motion to adjourn was put.


William Stevens Fielding: He mentioned Mr. Clarke's name.


Robert Laird Borden: He may have mentioned it ; but there was great confusion at the time. The change in the mind of the Speaker was in consequence, apparently, of something that passed between the Speaker and my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) which I did not understand. My right hon. friend was perfectly right in making the suggestion to you that he did, Mr. Speaker. I agree that it was a wise suggestion. But what I am criticising is the circumstance that the motion to be put to the House was changed without your resuming the chair in the meantime.


William Stevens Fielding: There was no other motion. The Speaker himself had raised the question whether his judgment was to be sustained. But there was no motion.
Mr. R, L. BORDEN. Of course, I knew there was no othet motion, and that no other could be put regularly. But Mr. Speaker said that


Peter Macdonald: There appears to have been a misunderstanding. I put the motion clearly enough. I said : ' Moved by Mr. Osier, seconded by Mr. Clarke, that the House do now adjourn.' But if there has been a misunderstanding, I would not stand in the way of setting the matter right. If the motion, though properly put, was not

understood, I would be the last to force my view upon those who had misunderstood the matter. I called the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) to order so that the point of order might be tested.


Andrew B. Ingram: While I was addressing the chair


Frank Oliver: I would ask the privilege of speaking my


Some hon. MEMBERS: .. Order.


Peter Macdonald: If the discussion is to continue, the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) has the floor, provided he remains in order.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at 8 o'clock.


Frank Oliver: At six o'clock I was addressing some remarks to you, Mr. Speaker, as to a matter of conscience on the part of our friends on the other side of the House, the gentlemen who, during two sessions of parliament, have found their consciences such an awkward thing that they cannot see their way to support the transcontinental proposition of the government, a proposition which will give Canada a railway 8,600 miles in length, which will develop new and at present unknown areas of Canada. Their delicate condition of conscience in regard to this Transcontintnal Railway project, causes them to bring forward arguments as to possibilities and eventualities which nobody but themselves ever thought of. Compare that with the condition of conscience which has permitted them to take part in the institution of and to support one or two little railway transactions In the Northwest with which we are acquainted, and the circumstances of which it may be worth our while to recall. These gentlemen find that the Dominion of Canada is throwing away its good money because it proposes to bonus the construction of a railway 3,600 miles in length to the amount of somewhere between $12,000,000 and $20,000,000, and they are further in trouble because they are afraid that something will be' done with that $25,000,000 of common stock which the company may issue and which may not result in profit to the people o* Canada. These ideas would be all very well if they came from somebody else, but they are not when they come from gentlemen who have been parties to a transaction which according to the returns, stand to cost the promoters $6,600,000 -as against a cost to the country of $22,600.000; and these are figures In the report of the Department of Railways and Canals. The Calgary and Edmonton and the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan railroads, cost $6,600,000, and I find that the country has paid in respect of these two roads
ilf , DEPUTY SPEAKER.
the following amounts in land and cash : In land to the Calgary and Edmonton, 1.920,000 acres, and in land to the Prince Albert line, 1,600,000 acres.	This land
Is valued at $3 an acre, and no man can buy an acre of it for three dollars, so that in one case the land is worth $5,760,000, and in the other $4,800,000.	They also
received a bonus in cash of $80,000 a year for 20 years, which is equivalent to a capitalization of $1,000,000 to each railway. The stock issued in respect to the Calgary and Edmonton road which was paid for by the Canadian Pacific Railway, amounted to one half million dollars. The bonds on the Calgary and Edmonton amounted to $5,474.000, and the bonds on the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan to $3,800,000. The Calgary and Edmonton railroad stands to cost the people of this country in cash, land and bonds, $12,734,000, and the owners of the road only say that it cost them $3,600,000. The people of Canada are the people who are buying those lands and as I have said already, they cannot buy an acre for $3 or for less than $4 according to the best information I have. It is the people of Canada who pay the interest on the stock arid the interest on these bonds, in the business which they give the road so that wherever the money came from in the first place, wherever it has gone to since, the interest on the whole cost comes out of the people of Canada and the whole cost to them in respect to the Calgary and Edmonton railroad is. $12,734,000. In regard to the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railway, the total cost was $9,600,-G00, or on the two railroads, $22,334,000, on 550 miles of railroad which cost the owners $6,600,000. This 550 miles of prairie railroad, or second-class prairie railroad, one line of which is to-day and has been for a month out of commission, by reason of inefficiency of construction-because I venture to say the alleged $12,000 a mile was never put into the road. The difference then between what the people of Canada have got and what the people of Canada have given in respect of these two railroad enterprises, is the difference between $22.300,000 and $6,609,000. a difference of $16,000,000, which this country has given and for which it has not a cent's worth to show. Yet the party which put through this transaction in the first place, which has stood by it through thick arid thin, which to-day in this House has hurled accusations against members on this side because they ventured to speak of it, this party which put this country to an unquestionable loss of $16,000.000. in respect of 550 miles of prairie railroad, finds Its conscience strained to the breaking point, holds up its hands in holy horror, sets the hether on fire from end to end of this Dominion because the government undertakes to secure the building of a railway 3.600 miles in length, partly over mountains and through an un-

known country at a cost to this country of $15,000,000. These are the same gentlemen who have in the press and in the House (-and we understand they propose to take other weeks and possibly months in amplifying the question-these are the gentlemen who are agonized to their inmost souls because there is to be an issue of $25,000,000 of common stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific, a railroad company which must build a railroad 1,800 miles in length across the prairie, over the mountains to the Pacific coast, a railroad company which must provide rolling stock, which must provide financial resources for the operation of a railroad not only 1,800 miles in length but 3.600 miles in length. They expect apparently that this company has only 10 hold up its dish and the clouds will rain money into it. They are horrified to think that besides having the privilege of issuing $20,000,000 of preferred stock, when the company has to put $20,000,000 worth of rolling stock on the railroad, they should have the further privilege of issuing $25.000,000 of common stock, when out of that common stock, the company must provide for the financing of their whole railway, foi all increase in operating plant, and for all betterments in the western division.


Mr SPROULE.: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question ot order. I wish to have vour ruling as to whether the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) can take advantage of a motion to adjourn to anticipate an order on the paper that we have to deal with a future date ; that is to discuss the Transcontinental Railway.
House, who, in the protection of the interests which they are sent here for the purpose of protecting, adversely criticise this very remarkable transaction. I only just wish to make the point that these lion, gentlemen, who are so horrified at the idea that there should be $25,000,000 of common stock issued in respect to this enterprise-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order.
Mr. OLIVER-and when there is not a man


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order.
Mr. OLIVER-can suggest the idea that such an enterprise will not need that and more to carry it to success, calmly see $1(5,-
000.000 of the money of the people of this country sunk, gone nobody knows where and nothing whatever done for it, and were parties to a transaction which gave this country 550 miles of railway at a cost of $22,000,000. If every cent of that $25,000,000 of common stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific were stolen-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order.
Mr. OLIVER-still the country would be no further behind, there would be nothing worse in the transaction and nobody suggests that such a transaction would take place as has taken place in regard to this Paltry 550 miles of prairie railway every atom of which every lion, member on the other side of the House is prepared to stand up and defend and not only to stand by on its merits but to abuse any lion, gentleman who dares to criticise the transaction.


Frank Oliver: In reply to the hon. gentleman I might say that I am merely following the lines adopted by the hon. gentleman who preceded me.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was not aware that any one had discussed the Transcontinental Railway. I ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The point of order raised by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) is no doubt right and I would ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) to try and confine his remarks to the subject under discussion and not anticipate the next order of the day which is the consideration of the National Transcontinental Rn ilway.


Mr. OLPV ER.: I was not wishing to argue the question of the Transcontinental Railway. I was arguing the question of conscience on the part of lion, gentlemen opposite who find that their conscience was badly strained in accepting this proposition in regard to the issue of bonds and yet who are able not only to stand by this arrangement whereby this country has gone to the bad to the amount of $1(5,000.000 and who have not only justified it as far as their ability has gone but have abused and vilely abused lion, gentlemen on this side of the


Andrew B. Ingram: Mr. Speaker, having given way to my amiable friend from Albert (Mr. Oliver) good naturedly, in order that he might have an opportunity of siding in with the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) and the hon. member for Western As-siniboia (Mr. Scott) the hon. gentleman has taken advantage of that to defend the Transcontinental Railway scheme as introduced by this government. I do not intend to deal with that question further than to say that the hon. member for Alberta when the very same matter was before the committee of this House, denounced the scheme as an outrage because the projected railway line only went to Moncton instead of going to a seaport. The hon. gentleman is very much exercised over our conscience on this side of the House. Will the hon. gentleman tell us how he satisfied his conscience on the Transcontinental Railway scheme. It is quite evident that if the hon. gentlemen opposite, who brought up this very serious state of affairs in the Northwest and who evidenced a desire to help the settlers who are now in very bad straits, I admit, being mi need of seed grain, implements and pro-isio' s in order to keep them alive during the hood that is now existing in the North-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I wish to refer for a few minutes to the extraordinary spectacle with which we are now confronted. It is the undoubted right of the opposition to bring to the attention of parliament, important questions by a substantive motion to adjourn the House, and usually the supporters of the government do not bring forward such motions, for the reason that if they have grievances to ventilate, they can more effectually accomplish their object by going privately to the members of the government and calling their attention to the needs of their constituents. But for the last few weeks, we have had members on the government side, moving the adjournment of the House and wasting the time of parliament in reference to questions which it would not take them more than fifteen minutes to settle with the government. A few days ago one hon. member (Mr. Morrison) brought up the question of duty on lumber, and after wasting the whole day, the Einance Minister rose and said : the hon. gentleman must know that we cannot give him any information until the Budget speech is delivered, and if what we do is not suitable to the requirements of his people, then it would be in order for him to bring this matter to the attention of the "House. That hon. member was clearly guilty of wasting the time of parliament, and yet the Minister of Finance gave him but a very mild rebuke indeed. The conviction is forced upon our minds, that the supporters of the government have deliberately set themselves to waste the time of parliament. Yesterday the greater part of the day was taken up with a debate which appeared to be premeditatedly intended to waste time. An unfortunate occurrence took place in the Northwest Territories by which a railway bridge had been swept way causing an interruption of traffic. The member whose constituency was affected instead of going to the Minister of the Interior or the government and asking for relief, spoke for some hours in a strain which was calculated to advertise throughout the world, that a disaster had occurred in that western country, and that it was not a fit place for immigrants coming from the south of the line. And, Sir. while this hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) used less than one page of ' Hansard ' in dealing with that unfortunate occurrence he used exactly twenty-four pages of the same ' Hansard ' 92
to abuse the hon. gentleman from West Toronto (Mr. Osier). It was quite clear that it was not the relief of the unfortunate settlers in his constituency that the hon. member (Mr. Scott) desired, so much as a colourable pretext to abuse a member of this House who in pursuance of 'his undoubted right, had expressed his opinion against the government on an important part of their policy. We complain that the time of the House should be wasted in that way. We complain that it is not treating parliament properly, and we complain that the government and the right hon. gentleman who leads the House, do no't conduct the proceedings of this parliament with that dignity which we have a right to expect. The hon. gentleman from Western Assini-boia knew that his speech would injure immigration ; he knew that it would give the country a bad name ; to use a familiar expression he knew that his conduct might be compared to a bird fouling its own nest, but he was willing to take chances on all that in order to have an opportunity of attacking an hon. member on this side of the House.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And who was absent at the time.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, and who was absent at the time. The hon. member for Western Assiniboia was willing practically to defame his own country ; to injure immigration into his country, and to give strength to those who are endeavouring to prevent emigration from the United States.


Thomas Walter Scott: I rise to a point of order, that it is not competent for the hon. gentleman to charge me with defaming the country. I have not done so in any shape or form.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I said that the hon. gentleman could have accomplished all this without-


Thomas Walter Scott: I ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: What is the point of order ; I did not hear it on account of the noise.


Thomas Walter Scott: Is it within the right of the hon. gentleman to charge me with attempting to defame the country ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I cannot see any point of order about that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What I contend is this, that if the hon. gentleman did not want it to go to the outside world, that the settlers who have recently come into the country were in such an unfortunate condition, he could have accomplished all he wanted bv a private interview with the members of the government, instead of ventilating in the House, and having it go to the world



end no doubt quoted by Americans who desire to keep their people at home and prevent them going into the country. And this is what they will do. They will quote wliat the hon. gentleman has said in this House yesterday to show' their people that our country is not the Eldorado which it has been claimed to be. But the hon. gentleman could have kept that argument from them by going quietly to the premier or the Minister of the Interior and giving them the information which he has given to the House, and requesting them to do something to relieve the condition of the unfortunate settlers of whom he speaks.


Thomas Walter Scott: Does the hon. gentleman actually think that with the wide awake Americans who are in that suffering district, my abstaining from mentioning the unfortunate circumstances in this House would have kept the information from being sent to the western states ?
Mr. SPROULE, I cannot hear the hon. gentleman's question.


Thomas Walter Scott: I will endeavour to put in another form. In my opinion that information is hound to ho sent to the western states in any case, and it seems to me that it is the part of wisdom to have the matter so placed before the government and this parliament that immediate steps will be taken to change the unfortunate conditions that exist.


Mr SPROULE.: I cannot understand what the hon. gentleman says, but what I claim is that the hon. gentleman could have accomplished all he desired to accomplish by going privately to the government and asking them to do something to relieve the situation. By taking the course he has taken, he is furnishing the Americans with arguments against immigration to this country, thus destroying the good reputation of his own country. I shall be very much surprised if the western people do not call him severely to account as soon as they have the opportunity. I complain that the time of this House should be taken up for that purpose, I believe designedly, in order to afford the hon. gentleman an opportunity of attacking another hon. member of this House, because he disliked what he said with regard to another important question before the House. The hon. gentleman gave one page of his speech to the condition of the people of the country and twenty-four pages to abuse of the hon. junior member for West Toronto, although every word of those twenty-four pages had been given in this House last year. This shows the animus of the hon. gentleman. It shows that his desire was not to relieve the suffering people, but rather to attack the hon. junior member for West Toronto for having said something that did not meet with his approval. Although the statement made Mr. SPROULE.
by the hon. member last year was contradicted by the hon. junior member for West Toronto, and although the rules of the House compelled him to accept the contradiction, yet he claimed to show by the statute tr.at wnat he had said was substantially correct, that is, that the hon. junior member for West Toronto was not only a charter holder, but a promoter of that railway.


Thomas Walter Scott: What is the difference ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did the hon. member show it ?


Mr SCOTT.: No, he failed to show it so far.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I fail to see where the hon. gentleman made his point in any particular. Because the hon. junior member for West Toronto is a member of the land corporation which handled the land of those who raised the money to build the railway, it does not follow that be is either a promoter or tlie owner of the railway.^ Surely the bon. member for West Assiniboia ought to be fair enough to give the bon. member for West Toronto credit for what he is doing in the interest of the settlers out there, rather than abuse.
Some bon. MEMBERS. Ob, oh.


Thomas Walter Scott: He is not only a member of the land company, but an original charter member of tlie railway company, according to the Statutes of 1890. chapter 84.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That statement reminds one of the old saying that a lie which is all a lie can be met and fought outright but, a lie that is half a truth is a harder matter to fight. The bon. gentleman says that be was a member of the original company of 1890. The original company was not in 1890, but in 1885 or 1886.


Thomas Walter Scott: I must protest-


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I must ask the hon. member to keep better order.


Thomas Walter Scott: Is it not my privilege to protest against the hon. member misquoting my words ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. gentleman is clearly out of order.


Thomas Walter Scott: Surely it is the right of a member to protest against bis plain words being misquoted and twisted.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The only right of the hon. gentleman is to put a question with the permission of the hon. member who has the floor, or to rise to a point of order. Outside of that, no hon. member has a right to interrupt.


Thomas Walter Scott: Mr. Speaker. I rise to a point of order. I wish to take the point that the hon. gentleman has deliberately misquoted the last statement which I made.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman apparently does not know what a point of order is. I am in the judgment of the House as to whether I have correctly quoted the hon. gentleman or not. He made his statement iess than five minutes ago, and the House will know whether I have misquoted him. There would be no object in any one desiring to misquote the hon. gentleman, for ha leaves himself quite open enough by his own reckless misstatements. My recollection of the history of those roads is this. In 1885, the unfortunate troubles which occurred in that country made it very desirable to push railways into the far Northwest as rapidly as possible, and the government of that day desired to build a line towards Prince Albert and another towards Edmonton with all possible despatch. Charters were given and the government offered substantial aid, but no capitalists could be found to supply the money. Unavailing efforts were made from time to time to raise the money to build those railways but without success, until finally the First Minister, Sir John Macdonald, applied to my hon. friend from Toronto West (Mr. Osier) for assistance to finance this scheme. He took the matter in hand, with some of his friends, and they succeeded in getting an English company to raise the money required. But the parties who advanced the money were unwilling to do so unless my hon. friend (Mr. Osier) and his associates would take sufficient interest in the road to see that the money was properly spent, and also to look after the management of the land. My hon. friend was therefore obliged to become a member of the land corporation ; but in administering the land he did so, not for his own benefit, but for the purpose of safeguarding the people who had put their money into the railway. That was the reason his name appeared in connection with that company, and not for the purpose of making money out of it himself.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: My hon. friend did not own that land, not at all. It was owned and held by the parties who raised the money. Hon. gentlemen opposite, when they criticise past transactions, forget to refer to the fact that land in those days had nothing like the value it has now. They point to land values to-day and then enlarge on the great profits which these show at present. But it must be remembered that these railways were built at a time when there was not trade enough to support them. I remember being in the other chamber listening to a discussion on the Canadian Pacific Railway. and I heard an hon. senator estimating the land given that company at $2 an acre, so as to show how much it had got to build the road. Mr. R. B. Angus, who is one of the largest shareholders in the Canadian Pacific Railway, was seated beside me, and said : We would gladly take seventy-five 924
cents an acre for that land to-day. As a matter of fact, the land was then practically not saleable at all. You could not get even seventy-five cents an acre for it.


Thomas Osborne Davis: That was because a Tory government was in power.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Because what ?


Mr. BENNETT.: Because he lived out there.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Probably because it was so easy to get hold of half-breed scrip and blanket whole tracts of land, it was not so valuable then as it is to-day, and it is very unfair for hon. gentlemen to take the land at present prices in order to exaggerate, the profits which the railway companies are making. The land could not have been sold at that time for a dollar an acre, and I question if seventy-five cents would have been obtained for it.
My hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Osier) succeeded in financing the scheme, and the parties who advanced him the money desired him to be one of the trustees who would handle the land, so that they would know that the assets would not be squandered. To say that the hon. member has made millions out of this road is simply abusing the intelligence of the House. Why, exclaimed the hon. member for West Assini-boia the other night, here are $9,000,000 which have gone to somebody, and by implication he was trying to make out that the hon. member for West Toronto had a large, share in that amount. Was that fair, correct or truthful ? Why. the hon. gentleman does not know how much that land was sold for. He did not tell us what the bonds of the company were sold for, or what the company realized out of them. But everybody knows that the Canadian Pacific Railway bonds would not begin to sell at near par then and for a long time after. Yet the hon. gentleman takes these bonds at par and the land at the price it is worth some fourteen years after the date referred to, in order that he may be able to say that my hon. friend from West Toronto made immense profits.
Suppose the people are not getting good service, you cannot hold the hon. member from Toronto responsible. He is not in any way to blame, but rather ought he to be commended for what he endeavoured to do years ago. He should certainly be praised for having obtained railway facilities for the people when there was no other man who could have done so. At the time when there was not enough traffic, when the transportation rates were so high that no one could afford to go to the country, and when the country was not sufficiently settled to make a railway pay, he succeeded in obtaining railway accommodation for the people, and is now abused for what he did. I think that, on the contrary, he ought to be commended for having endeavoured to do some-

thing for the people when the people could not help themselves. In any event, he has nothing to do with these roads to-day, and this land, and if there is anything to complain of, it is not the hon. member for West Toronto who is responsible, but the company which is operating the road at present, Why does the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr! Scott) not complain of the company ? It is because that would not answer his purpose. What he desires is to get at the hon. member for West Toronto.
I say it is very unfair to a fellow member of this House and to an opponent; it is most unfair towards the people of the west whom these hon. gentlemen represent. And when those people read ' Hansard ' and see what has been said here, I do not think they will thank these hon. gentlemen very much for the attack they have made on an hon. member of this House. The hon. member for Western Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) speaking of the junior member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) said he had the ' audacity ' to say so and so. It. requires great audacity, does it not, for an hon. member of this House merely to state the truth ? The tone adopted by the hon. gentleman from Western Assiniboia himself is enough to show that if the charge of audacity is to be made against a member of this House, it certainly should not be made first against the junior member for West Toronto. The hon. member for Western Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) defending his course in ventilating grievances before the world felt it necessary to meet in advauee the charge that he was preparing arguments for those who would try and injure the character of our country and to show that our Northwest was not a good place for immigrants to go to. His answer was :	Is a
sore to be healed by covering it up ? The hon. gentleman does not take that way of curing a sore. There is a form of practice known in medicine as similia similibus eur-antur morbi which translated in English means " Likes producing likes cure disease ". The hon. gentleman seems to proceed upon that theory he says : Here is a sore ; I am going to probe it, keep it open, irritate it, and cure it in that way. Whether that is a proper method of curing a sore, I leave to hon. members of this House who happen to be members of the medical profession. I can only say to others that it is not the practice that is resorted to by the majority of members of that profession for the curing of wounds. I do not desire to go further in this matter, but only to say in conclusion that, if it is the aim of the government to waste the time of this House by putting up friends day after day to bring up these questions and keep the discussion of them going, the people had better know it ; they had better understand that the government are not prepared to go on with their measures, or, for some other reason they prefer to fritter away the time of the House and to provoke ill feeling by making attacks on hon. mem-Mr. SPROULE.
bers on this side. If the business of the House is to be delayed, it is only fair that the people of the country should know the facts, so that they may know where the fault lies.


James Clancy: It has been stated more than once on this side that this has been a profitless discussion. I agree, with that view in the main. But I think that the House will conclude that we can learn a lesson for our future guidance by the errors of these two days. The hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) is about leaving the chamber. I hope he will not do so just now ; I have something to say that, perhaps may be of interest to him.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I want to tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) that I do not take much stock in what he does say.


Edward Cochrane: The hon. gentleman (Jlr. Davis) believes that
He who fights and runs away,
May live to fight another day.


James Clancy: It is creditable to the government that not a single minister of the Crown has thought proper to champion the cause of the gentlemen who, to some extent, have been disturbers of the peace of this House for the last two days. I was glad to see the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) with a blush of shame on his cheek as he .listened to what was said this afternoon and had nothing to ray. I appeal to the right hon. leader of the House (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) if I do not say what is exactly true when I call to his attention the fact that, if he allows discussions of this kind to commence and continue there is not a single member of this House who is safe from attack. Under the most miserable pretexts, an attack has been made and repeated upon the hon. junior member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) notwithstanding that hon. gentleman's repeated denials and explanations. Decency was disregarded and patience exhausted that these unseemly attacks might be made and repeated. And to what purpose? No person can divine any purpose but one. These hon. gentlemen have been permitted or are unrestrained by the Prime Minister-I know not which, and I know not which that right hon. gentleman would choose-to go on attempting to blacken the character of an hon. member of this House in the face of the strongest denials upon his part. What would be the honourable course in a matter of this kind ? Hon. gentlemen opposite have the majority ; they can choose committees :	they can
institute investigations. I appeal to the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) who presides so ably over his department and who mainly represents the Northwest country in the cabinet if he would not be the first man in this House to rise in his place and challenge the maker of such a charge against him to have that charge investigated by a committee ? And, if that would be the

proper course in the case of the hon. minister, why should it not be a proper course in the present case ? Yet, the hon. minister has sat silent and with folded hands while these charges were being made in this House. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sifton) squirmed in his seat while his friends were speaking, whether with pain or pleasure I do not know. Only one thing is certain, and that is that he did not attempt to make any protest against what is going on.
I said a moment ago that I desire the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) to remain for a moment. I have no intention of inquiring into the hon. gentleman's personal affairs, and if I refer to them, it is not at all for the purpose of challenging his conduct. It has been stated in this House over and over again that he has purchased halfbreed scrip at merely nominal prices, in some cases far below its value. I do not assert that that is the case. I am going to assume that the hon. gentleman purchased at the going- price-that he gave what this scrip was worth in the market. Now, would it not be just as reasonable that that hon. gentleman should be called upon to account to the little children of the halfbreeds, who, in a sense are wards of the state and should have the suppport of the government and those supporting the government, as to ask that the hon. junior member for West Toronto should explain the result of his own personal business transactions ? I am not saying that the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) obtained half-breed scrip by improper means. But I do say there is no doubt that men who purchased that scrip have made large sums of money. But the hon. junior member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) obtained certain stocks or bonds. There is no suggestion of suspicion that he obtained them in other than a legitimate way. But, according to these hon. gentlemen opposite, the hon. junior member for West Toronto must account to the country for the result of his purchase. I ask if there is an hon. gentleman on the other side of the House who would be willing to have that rule applied to him ? Not a man. The whole sum and substance of this case, as it has been stated and restated is that the hon. member for West Toronto engaged in a perfectly legitimate transaction. According to his own words- and there is absolutely no proof set up against what he says-he was engaged in business as a financial agent and acted as such in the case under discussion. He did not seek anything more than customary fees or commissions, and he did not even receive these in connection with the railway company and the land company, because, as he explained this afternoon, the land company were unable to pay the cash commissions to which he was entitled and he was forced to accept lands.
If those lands went up in value afterwards, was that a crime ? Is that to be elevated to the dignity of a crime in this country ? I want to say that I know of no more scandalous transactions ever taking place in this House than what we have seen to-day. I want to say to the Prime Minister that his character is not worth a penny if he permits this sort of thing in this House.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


James Clancy: Let the gentlemen who now protest, be sensible. I am not making any charges against the Prime Minister. I simply wish to tell hon. gentlemen that their characters are not worth anything if they are to be attacked in that way. I am not alleging anything ; I would be the last man to do so, but I want to say that if that sort of thing is permitted in this House, there is no man on either side who may not be made an object of attack of the most vicious and unmanly kind.
Motion (Mr. Osier) to adjourn, negatived.



THE MILITIA ACT-RATES OF PAY.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on the following proposed resolution :
1.	Resolved, that the general officer commanding the militia shall he paid at the rate of $6,000 per annum ; the adjutant general, at the rate of $3,200 per annum ; and the quartermaster general, at the rate of $3,200 per annum.
2.	Resolved, that the permanent force shall be entitled to daily pay and allowances at the rates prescribed by the Governor in Council ; and that the pay of privates shall not exceed 75 cen^s a day, and of buglers under 18 years of age 40 cents a day.
3.	Resolved, that officers, warrant officers, and non-commissioned officers of the active militia, other than the permanent force, shall be entitled to pay at rates prescribed by the Governor in Council ; and that the pay of privates therein shall be at the rate of 50 cents a day on appointment, which may be increased to a maximum of $1 a day during the third year of service.
4.	Resolved, that an allowance of one dollar per diem, or such other rate as may he prescribed, will be paid to each officer and man for every horse actually and necessarily used by him, when on active service, during a period of annual drill and training, or when otherwise on duty as aforesaid.-Sir Frederick Borden.
Robert Laird Borden: Are we to pass all of these clauses together, or to pass them clause by clause ?


Wilfrid Laurier: My impression is that when we were in committee on this resolution before, the first two clauses were agreed to, but the third was not. I remember now that when this was before us the word ' enlistment' was substituted for the word ' appointment ' in the third resolution.


Robert Laird Borden: Why is it that we have something printed here for us to pass that is uot correct ? I want to know in the second place whether we are passing these

resolutions one by one, or whether we are passing them altogether.


Peter Macdonald: The first, third, and fourth resolutions have already been passed ; the second resolution still remains to be passed on account of some addition, I think, that was to be made to it. The Minister of Militia will explain it to the committee.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Was the third resolution passed with this error which we now have in the printed Order of the Day ?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: The word ' appointment ' is an error.


Peter Macdonald: The amendment was made and placed on the margin of my copy so it must have been carried.


Frederick William Borden: In the second clause I wish to insert the word ' ordinary ' before the word ' pay, ' so that it would read :
Resolved, that the permanent force shall be entitled to daily pay and allowances at the rates prescribed by the Governor in Council ; and that the ordinary pay of privates shall not exceed 75 cents a day, and of buglers under 18 years of age 40 cents a day.
I explained when the House was in committee on the Bill the reason why the words ' ordinary pay 'were put in there. We have this last year included in the permanent force what wrns formerly the stores department, the men of which are paid at a higher rate than 75 cents a day, because while in the ordinary permanent force the privates receive barracks and rations, &c., labouring men in the stores department get nothing but their pay. Therefore the word ' ordinary ' should be inserted before the word ' pay, ' and I move the resolution with that amendment.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Am I correct in the understanding that there are members of the force who get more than 75 cents a day ?


Frederick William Borden: Yes. And this is the ordinary soldier who is being provided for.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You are not providing for the extraordinary soldier ; how do you provide for him ?


Frederick William Borden: That is already done by a vote under the head of ' pay and allowances. ' That vote was taken last year and will be taken this year.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Would the 75 cents a day be paid immediately after enlistment or after a man has served for some time ? I think the minister will remember there was some question of the payment of men in the permanent force who re-enlist after serving five years.


Frederick William Borden: I explained to the committee that it is proposed to fol-Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
low the plan followed in the Northwest Mounted Police, by which the pay on enlistment begins at 50 cents and increases by 5 cents each year for five years after which the pay remains at 75 cents. That is the system adopted in the Northwest Mounted Police, and the system we propose to adopt in the permanent force.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Does that resolution make provision for that resolution to be carried out ?


Frederick William Borden: Yes, the resolution is simply the authority to pay the money. When we come to consider the Militia Bill, provision will be made there for carrying out the proposal which I have just mentioned.


Andrew B. Ingram: WTe are discussing resolution No. 2, I understand.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: There is no mention made of the non-commissioned officers pay. Corporals only get seventy cents per day. A private soldier who has six years service at his credit gets seven cents per diem extra for good conduct pay, but as soon as a man is made a corporal, he ceases to draw good conduct pay. Why should a man forfeit seven cents a day by promotion?


Frederick William Borden: In the first part of the resolution, officers and noncommissioned officers are covered by the fiist words which leave in the hands of the Governor in Council the rate of' pay to be fixed.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It is only the rate of pay of private soldiers that is fixed ?


Frederick William Borden: The rates of pay of others is to be fixed.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then non-commissioned officers are provided for ?


Frederick William Borden: Yes. I move that the word ' ordinary ' be inserted in the third line of the resolution before the word ' pay.'


Peter Macdonald: That has already been amended.


Andrew B. Ingram: I understand the hon. minister to say that non-commissioned officers are already provided for. I am pointing out to the hon. gentleman that these officers have complained that the pay is not sufficient, that an injustice is done them to the extent I have named and they ask that the law shall be changed.


Frederick William Borden: I may say to the hon. gentleman that it is the intention to revise the regulations which provide for the pay. As soon as this Bill is through it is the intention to revise all the pay-lists and fix the rate of pay upon proper, fair, and I hope, generous lines. I am not able to say what the rates will

be now, but I think there will be no doubt whatever that in some cases at least they will be increased.


Andrew B. Ingram: As I understand, if we pass these resolutions, a Bill later on will be put before the House and that Bill will deal with several questions affecting the militia.


Frederick William Borden: Precisely, the whole question of pay will be before the committee again when the Bill is before the committee.


Andrew B. Ingram: I also understand that several changes suggested by the hon. minister, when the Bill was before the House, have been added to by the hon. gentleman since then, and that he is going to introduce a great many amendments. Therefore, I think we would not require to be crowded in passing that Bill through the House, be cause hon. gentlemen desire to be able to make a comparison of these amendments with the Bill as it was originally.


Frederick William Borden: These are simply the resolutions upon which the pay is founded.	_


Edward Frederick Clarke: What pay do the sergeants and corporals receive now in the permanent force?


Frederick William Borden: I have not the list with me ; I will give these particulars when we go into committee on the Bill.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And give us an idea of what the pay of corporals, sergeants and so on will be under this revised section.
-Resolution as amended agreed to.
On resolution 3,
Resolved, that officers, warrant officers, and non-commissioned officers of the active militia, other than the permanent force, shall be entitled to pay at rates prescribed by the Governor in Council ; and that the pay of privates therein shall be at the rate of 50 cents a day on appointment, which may be increased to a maximum of $1 a day during the third year of service.


Frederick William Borden: I want to make a change in the third resolutiou. The intention of the third resolution is that the pay of private soldiers shall be increased from fifty cents, the rate at which enlistment took place, up to one dollar, but I believe the reading of this clause as it is now would prevent any increase between the date of the enlistment and the third year which is not intended. Therefore, I propose to move in amendment that the last half of the resolution shall read as follows :
And that the pay of privates therein shall be on enlistment at the rate of fifty cents a day, which rate may be increased as may be prescribed to a rate not exceeding one dollar a day.
This will permit of a gradual increase, the intention being, as I have explained already, that supposing a man enlists the day the camp begins, at the end of the first camp, after twelve days service, if he has made good progress, has behaved himself well, has taken up rifle shooting and has performed his duty satisfactorily, he shall receive twenty cents extra making seventy cents or perhaps seventy-five cents for his first year. I want to change this resolution so that the department will be enabled to make this increase.


Andrew B. Ingram: Does that apply to the permanent forces as well as to the militia ?


Frederick William Borden: No, just to the active militia.


Mr. McCOLL.: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence a question in regard to this resolution. It states that upon enlistment the pay which commences at fifty cents a day may be increased as may be prescribed. Do those who have been in the service for two or three years commence at fifty cents a day or one dollar a day or at what rate ?


Frederick William Borden: The intention is that the increase shall begin after the passage of this law. It is not intended that the law should be retroactive but it is intended that after three years service, from and after the date on which this Bill becomes law, privates shall receive one dollar per day, including the third year and for every year thereafter.


John B. McColl: Then, do I understand all those who have been in the service in the past for probably ten or fifteen years will be in no better position than those who enlist now?	.


Frederick William Borden: Probably not.


John B. McColl: I may say that that question has been asked by some of the militia authorities in our town, and they think that would be unfair. * They think that those who have been in the service for some time ought to commence now with the increased pay and not to be put upon the same footing as those who are enlisting for the first time.


Frederick William Borden: The hon. gentleman will see, if he looks at the Bill, that a provision has been made which will to some extent meet the case.


Mr. KATJLBACH.: Which clause ?


Frederick William Borden: Section 35.
For privates, on enlistment, at the rate of fifty cents per diem, which rate may, by regulation, be increased for good conduct and efficiency, &c.
So that a man who has served before, whose conduct is good and who is efficient will immediately, during his first camp,

receive twenty cents or twenty-five cents a day in addition to his fifty cents a day.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will that increase be limited to veterans ?


Frederick William Borden: No, not at all. A new man will receive that increased pay.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How about the old man ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Those who come at the eleventh hour are treated the same as those who come at the first.


Andrew B. Ingram: Would the hon. gentleman tell us the difference between the pay of a permanent private and a private militia-man ?


Frederick William Borden: The permanent force man will begin at 50 cents a day just as the active militia-man, and they will be increased five cents each year of five sears up to 75 cents, which is the limit; whereas the active militia-man will receive 50 cents on enlistment, and at the end of the first camp probably 70 cents a day ; at the end of the second year, probably 85 cents a day, and at the end of the third year, and hereafter, probably $1 a day.


Robert Laird Borden: So far as the burden upon the revenue of country is concerned. section 65 would need to have the same language as the resolution ?


Frederick William Borden: The amendment meets that. The Bill amplifies the idea which is entailed in the resolution.


Robert Laird Borden: That may be, but it cannot extend the burden.


Mr. A. T. THOMPSON.: I am not quite sure that the wording of this resolution would carry out the idea expressed by the minister. We will have going out to this present camp, a number of men who enlisted more than two years ago, and who are now in their third year of service. The wording of tbe resofntion is, that * on enlistment ' they will draw 50 cents with probably a further sum for good conduct, and proficiency in shooting. But these men have already been enlisted for some years.


Frederick William Borden: It is not retroactive.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: More is the pity that it is not. If this resolution means anything, it means that a man who has served in the militia, and who, being of good conduct, has acquired a certain efficiency in rifle shooting, is worth a certain amount to the people of Canada. In spite of the scriptural foundation which the right hon. the Prime Minister gave it, it seems a little unfair that the tried soldier should receive only the same pay as the untried recruit. Owing to the busy state of the country


Frederick William Borden: this year, it will be very difficult indeed to get anything like a full turn-out of the country corps. There is no aid so valuable to recruiting as to have the old hands come back, and to induce these old hands to come back increased pay is absolutely necessary. I spoke last year as forcibly as I could on this subject, and I feel grateful to the minister and to the government that they are going to implement the pay of the force ; but it does seem to me, that they might go a step further and make this retroactive in order that those who have served some years, and served well, should get that increased pay. I do not believe that this year we will have more than 30,000 all told in camp, to 10,000 of whom probably this increased pay would apply, and I have figured it out roughly that $36,000 would suffice. That is a very paltry sum in consideration of the good that will be done. Do I understand that this section is wide enough to enable the minister to make a regulation which would meet the case I have in view ?


Frederick William Borden: Yes; I think so.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: If that be so, I would be quite satisfied. It seems to me, it should be retroactive.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Are we to understand that this section will enable the minister to confer the increased pay on active militia-men who are good shots, and have served faithfully for three years or for more ?


Frederick William Borden: That was not the intention, but in view of what the hon. gentleman (Mr. A. T. Thompson) has said, I should be very glad to consider the matter. In view of the heavy additional charge upon the revenue, I hesitated about making it retroactive, but it may be that there is power in this resolution to fix the pay by regulation.


Robert Laird Borden: It does not seem to me that the expression ' retroactive ' is a happy one. It would be a retroactive law if it proposed to increase the pay of men during past years, but it is not retroactive, if it simply provides that certain men, having fulfilled certain conditions, shall in the future receive certain pay.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: That's right.


Robert Laird Borden: It would appear to me, that the language of the resolution would be better if it said ; that the pay of privates during the first year of service shall be so much, and during the other years of service so much. In connection with that, it could be provided for by a subsection, that those who have already served two, or three, or four years, shall be entitled to the benefit of that provision. There is nothing retroactive in that. It is simply describing the qualification of the men who in re-

speet of the future, not In respect of the past, are entitled to the increased pay? If the principle be accepted, it would be a simple thing to make the necessary amendment without in any way establishing a precedent in the way of retroactive legislation.


Frederick William Borden: I thought it was desirable to leave 50 cents as the starting point, and to give whatever is to be given additional as a reward for good conduct, which you could not do if you fixed the amount in the statute. I wanted to have something for the men to look forward to by way of reward for well-doing. I wanted to have them know that at the end of the camp, if their conduct was good, and they had made progress in rifle shooting, they would receive the additional amount on the recommendation of their officers. I believe that is a sound principle, and I believe it will have a good effect on the militia.


Robert Laird Borden: The phrase ' on enlistment ' does not seem to be a very happy one to describe men who have been perhaps eight, or ten years, in the service. A better expression might have been found.


Frederick William Borden: I think so myself.


Wilfrid Laurier: The intention of the minister, if I understand it aright, is this, that from the very date a man enlists he shall be paid at the rate of 50 cents a day, and that there shall be a limit of the increase at $1. The increase is not to be gradual, but is to be for merit. If a man goes to camp and is reported by his officer to be a good man, his pay can be increased immediately to 75 cents.


Frederick William Borden: That is the intention.


Robert Laird Borden: There are two matters to be discussed. One is the question of principle that was referred to by the hon. member for West Northumberland. If we are to carry out what has been suggested by the hon. Minister of Militia, the expression 1 on enlistment ' is not a very happy one. It would be better to say ' on enlistment, or, if already enlisted, then during the period of one year after this Act comes into force.' Otherwise you 'would not include these men at all. I can appreciate what has been said by the Minister of Militia, that he wants to make a starting point now, and let the question of merit determine the increase of pay in the future.


Frederick William Borden: That is the whole point.


Robert Laird Borden: There is possibly some logic in that position ; but, on the other hand, there is considerable force in what has been urged by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, namely, that it is hardly fair to put men who have served six or seven years on a level with men who
are enlisting for the first time. Would it not be possible to allow some discretion by way of regulation to deal with cases of that kind ?


Frederick William Borden: I think there will be power in the regulations to deal with them.


Mr. TALBOT.: A man who' is in his second year in camp is debarred this year and next year from any increase in pay, because he is already enlisted for three years. I think the words suggested by the hon leader of the opposition should be added, so as to make this provision include men on enlistment and men already enlisted.


Frederick William Borden: What need is there of having the words * on enlistment ' at all ? Would it not be sufficient to say that the pay shall be at the rate of 50-cents
a day ?


Andrew B. Ingram: Not being myself a militia-man, I took the pains of sending out this Bill, and I have received some communications with reference to it. I have one very important communication with respect to non-commissioned officers. They claim that it is unfair and unjust that their pay should be subject to Order in Council. They would prefer to have it made permanent by Act of parliament. In the document which I hold in my hands these men give their reasons for that; and, as they are not able to speak for themselves in this House, I would ask permission to read this document and put it on ' Hansard,' so that the hon. Minister of Militia can look at it. It is as follows :
As far as regards the pay of the privates so far, I find that they are satisfied at . the prospect of 50 cents, rising to 75 cents per day as pay. This with their good conduct pay payable at end of service will be a splendid increase to their pay, but no more than they really deserve.
No mention is made of the non-commissioned officers' pay. Corporals at present only get 70 cents per diem. But they are handicapped. A private soldier as soon as he has six years service draws 7 cents per diem extra for good conduct pay, but as soon as a man is made corporal he forfeits the 7 cents per day, or in other words, ceases to draw good conduct pay, a conundrum none of us can ever solve. Why should a man promoted for good service and ability lose 7 cents a day by promotion ?
Sergeants receive 80 cents a day, and as in corporal's cases receive no good conduct pay. Their work is pretty stiff. Sergeants must be qualified for higher promotion, musk hold certificates, and as all non-commissioned officers are, they are always on duty.
Drill sergeants receive $1 on appointment, rising in rank to warrant officer and rate of pay $1.75 per day, and a good pension. They are the best paid of the entire list, and no increase should be given them. They only work about four hours a day and in 90 per cent cases less, wfipv are often detailed for provisional schools at outlying districts for which they get a good increase in pay, are attached to various battalions at camp, for which more extra remuneration is given. They never do any barrack

work such as orderly sergeant, or take charge of a guard, and 75 per cent of them do not earn an honest days work in the week.
. The quartermaster sergeant has the stores to keep, issue all clothing, keep sets of books, issue coal, wood, fuel, light, superintend issue of all rations, and make out the monthly returns. He must be an expert penman and book-keeper, as well as soldier, if a pipe bursts, a window is broken, coal runs short, or grass Brows too long, 'tis the quartermaster sergeant who is looked to to keep things in order. He is at everybody's beck and call, must know everything and do everything, and when anything goes wrong he is the scapegoat, being also blamed for everything. Still he only receives SI per diem. He is senior to a drill sergeant who rises to warrant rank, yet he receives less pay, an anomaly that would be hard to explain, and to say the least of it a gross Inlustice. A quartermaster sergeant should at least get as much as a drill sergeant, and promotion on similar lines. He should be the first for promotion to sergeant major instead of at present being jumped by a junior quartermaster sergeant instructor.
The sergeant major should receive at least $2 per diem. His rank as a warrant officer entitles him to it. He is the senior non-commissioned officer and is both the commanding officers' right hand man as well as the adjutant's. He makes out all duties for non-commissioned officers, has a general superintendence of all drills and parades, is a regular walking encyclopedia. He must know everything, King's Regulations and Army Act, Militia Act, and so forth, from beginning to end, attend all parades and never has a moment's rest from daylight to dark.
Orderly room clerks. Their pay should be at least $1 a day to start with irrespective of working pay and should rise in promotion and increases in pay as drill sergeants do. Their work is more onerous than others. They are confined most of the time at clerical work, returns, correspondence, &c., have always to be present and seldom if ever get a chance for a vacation.
All non-commissioned officers should get good conduct pay or deferred pay at the rate of 5 cents per diem, payable at the end of each term of service.
At present the scale is :
Cents.
1st year	 2
2nd	"	
33rd	"	
44th	"	
55th	"	
66th	"	
7
and it remains at 7 cents afterwards. But when a man is promoted to the rank of corporal he loses his good conduct pay, for what reason no one has ever been able to say. But it is another mysterious question one would like to have answered or solved in some way.
Men at present are buying their discharges thoroughly disgusted at the treatment they are receiving. Some of the permanent force depots are 30 or more under strength and no signs of any amelioration in the present state of affairs. Certainly with plenty of work outside and good wages one cannot be expected to work for 40 cents per day.
These are a few points when the Bill comes up again, Sir. Another thing the Bill says, which I notice the pay is only as regards ' pri-Mr. INGRAM.
vates,' nothing about the non-commissioned officers' pay. They presume to settle it by an Order in Council, hut pay for all ranks should be settled by the House itself, which should be the supreme power in dealing with this most Important question.
I must apologize to the House for having lead this document, but it puts the facts better than I could state them.


Frederick William Borden: The House will see how impossible it would be to set forth in an Act all the intricate details referred to in the letter which the hon. gentleman has read. The concluding portion of ihe letter referred to the pay of the private, which is now 40 cents per day. Well, we are increasing it to 75 cents. Three or four years ago the permanent force had no provision made for pensions, but to-day there is a pension provided for the man who has served twenty years. Of course, the pay of the noncommissioned officer will be increased relatively or to a greater extent than that of the privates. The non-commissioned officers are being treated exactly as the officers. The Governor General in Council will fix their pay just as the King's regulations fix the pay in the British army. I think the sergeants will fare better in the way I propose than to have the amount paid them tied up by Act of parliament. Times are changing and wages are increasing and it is desirable that as much elasticity as possible should be left to the department in dealing with matters of this kind. My own first idea was to leave the whole pay to the Governor in Council, as is done in Austi'alia. but on second thought I deemed it wise to fix the rate of pay for privates by Act of parliament. The whole desire of the officers in command of the militia is to reward good men, and none of those non-commissioned officers who are zealous and anxious to do their duty need be afraid that they will not be fairly treated under the provisions we propose.


Andrew B. Ingram: In view of its being difficult to get men, I thought that by doing away with the system by Order in Council the men might receive more pay than if it were fixed by Act of parliament. I would like to draw the attention of the hon. minister to the fact that to-day it is difficult in many cases to get men to do anything. They are either scarce or require very high pay. If that is a difficulty outside, how much more difficult must it be for the department to secure good men for very low pay. As I understand it now, the minister has not given a definite answer, but has said he will consider the matter, and when the Bill is before the House he may change his views.


Frederick William Borden: I shall be glad to consider it. One word more with reference to pay. "While it is quite true that it is more difficult for the government to get

men, it is not desirable that the government should compete with the regular industries of the country. I shall read the letters in ' Hansard. '
Hon. Win. BOSS (Victoria, N.S.) There should be some distinction between those who have served a year or two in camp and those who go into camp for the first time. The Prime Minister has quoted the case of the man who came in at the eleventh hour and got the same wages as the one who had worked all day, but that caused great dissatisfaction in the ranks. They were not pleased with the Master. The same-thing will happen here. Unless you give the men who have served two years somewhat better pay than the green hands, there will be dissatisfaction in the ranks.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Respecting the pay of the district officers commanding, is there any provision made to increase it 1


Frederick William Borden: Later on that is dealt with.


Wilfrid Laurier: I would suggest that an amendment be made by striking out all the words after the word ' allowances ' in the second resolution and inserting the following
Shall be at the rate of 50 cents a day, which rate may be increased as may be prescribed by regulation to be approved by the Governor in Council, but not to exceed the maximum of one dollar per day.


Edward Frederick Clarke: This is a yearly increase ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Not necessarily. The regulation may provide for a yearly increase or an increase for merit also.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I think the amendment suggested by the Prime Minister to section 3 is an improvement. At the same time. I feel that few persons would be willing to engage in a service of this kind unless they got the ordinary pay that they can get outside for other service. I think $1 per day is a small maximum and might be increased While I am on my feet, if I am in order, I would inquire what is to become of the general ? Will the Minister of Militia explain-
Sir WILFRID LAURIER, We will come to that presently.
Resolution reported and agreed to, and referred to the Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 5) respecting the Militia of Canada.
House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution :
Resolved, that the director general of ordnance shall be paid at the rate of $3,200 per annum.- Sir Frederick Borden.


Frederick William Borden: I move that the word 1 director ' be struck out and the word ' master ' be inserted instead thereof. This is in accordance with the latest phraseology in the English army. The master general of ordnance will be paid $3,200 per annum, which, I may explain, is his present rate of pay.


Robert Laird Borden: What are the duties of this officer ?


Frederick William Borden: To deal with stores of all kind-ammunition, rifles, ordnance, and so on. The inspection of clothing and the issuing of clothing to the force all over the Dominion and the care and issuing of rifles, are under his control.


Robert Laird Borden: He is a military officer ?	*


Frederick William Borden: Yes. Until a year ago this department was in the civil branch of the service, and was known as the stores branch. It is now called the ordnance branch, and is placed under the supervision of the general officer commanding. It was formerly directly under the control of the minister.


Robert Laird Borden: Who fills the position ?


Frederick William Borden: Colonel Macdonald.


Andrew B. Ingram: Did not district No. 1 have an officer of this kind at one time, to look after the rifles, armouries, and so on ?


Frederick William Borden: No ; Mr. Dawson, who was in charge of the stores, was an officer of the stores branch. He is now an officer of the ordnance branch. The hon. gentleman is speaking of London ?


Andrew B. Ingram: Yes. I understood that he was an officer whose duty it was to inspect the various armouries in that district.


Frederick William Borden: That is the district staff adjutant. That is a matter of inspection, which is a different thing from this.
Resolution reported as amended and agreed to, and referred to Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 5) respecting the Militia of Canada.
House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution,
That the pay and allowances of the officers of the general staff, headquarters staff, and district staff, respectively, not provided for in the Bill respecting the Militfa of Canada, shall be fixed by the Governor in Council.-Sir Frederick Borden.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I do not know whether the Minister of Militia contemplates, under this resolution, to consider the propriety of increasing the pay of the district officers commanding, but it must be within his knowledge that those officers are receiving ' very small remuneration, considering their position and the cost of living in their position. I would like to ask some explanation from the Minister of Militia as to what he intends to do in this matter ?


Frederick William Borden: At present some of the officers of the headquarters staff, the three to whom I have referred, are provided for ; there is power under the present law to provide for others by Order in Council. Several are receiving salaries of $2,400 and I think $2,800. is the highest. As the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) says the district commanding officer's pay as provided for under the present law is altogether inadequate. It has been possible by liberal allowance of various kinds to bring it up to something like what it ought to be, but the pay of the district officer commanding has been only about $1,700 or $1,800. By certain allowances in the way of light, fuel, and so on, some of these officers are now getting about $2,400 or $2,500 but it was thought wiser to leave this matter to the Governor in Council because there are some districts in Canada where the cost of living is much greater than in others. There are some districts too where the work is much greater than in others and therefore it is almost impossible by an Act of parliament, in view of the constant changes that are going on in a growing country like this, to provide properly or justly for new conditions which are bound to arise within the next five or ten years. Therefore it was thought wise to leave this matter to the Governor in Council as is done in the Imperial army, as is done in Australia and I believe almost everywhere else. I may say, in a general way, that, while I am unable to state the amount now, there will undoubtedly be an increase and, I hope, an increase which will be satisfactory to the officers and will bear some proportion at least to the honourable and responsible position which they occupy.	.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Will those three parties named in this section take the position of a general ?


Frederick William Borden: Oh, no, there is still another one coming. [DOT] [DOT]
Resolution reported, read the second time and agreed to, and referred to Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 5) respecting the Militia of Canada.
House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution :
Resolved, that there may be appointed an officer who shall hofld rank not below that of colonel in the militia, or in His Majesty's regular army, who may be, subject to the regulations and under the direction of the minister, charged with the military inspection of the militia ; and such officer shall be paid at such rate, not exceeding six thousand dollars per annum, as may be prescribed.-Sir Frederick Borden.


Mr. WARD.: Why has the change been made making this permissive instead of obligatory ?


Frederick William Borden: This is an entirely new clause. My hon friend is per-Mr. CLARKE.	*
haps thinking of the clause which provides for the appointment of a general officer commanding. This provides for military inspection corresponding to what exists under the new system which has been adopted in England since I introduced my Bill. The officer would be known as the Inspector General.


Henry Alfred Ward: I have mistaken the clause.


Frederick William Borden: I will make a very brief explanation because this matter will all be discussed on the second reading of the Bill or in committee.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Who performs the inspection of militia now ?


Frederick William Borden: There is no inspection in this sense at all. I may say that in England since the report of Lord Esher's war office reconstruction committee has been made, the British government, with the approval, I may say, of the whole British peopie have adopted a new system which briefly means that there is to be an army council composed of four leading military men, the secretary of state for war, the deputy minister or rather the under secretary, the accountant general or financial member of the war office, seven men. These compose the army council as it is called. The leading military member of this council is known as the chief of the general staff. He is charged with the duty of advising as to the military policy of the country, and the operations which would be necessary to lit an army for action in the field are under his control The services of the commander in chief at the war office are dispensed with, and there is no longer a commander in chief. There is, however, an important officer, known as the inspector general, whose duty it is to inspect and report to the minister and the army council on the exact condition of things. The inspector general is an independent officer appointed by the government, and he is called upon to report as to the progress which is being- made in carrying out the policy which the army council adopts. I think it is desirable that in this country while we are passing a new militia law, we should make provision in this law to enable us, if we choose, to adopt the system which has just been adopted in England. Therefore, I have introduced this resolution. I have given notice of a similar resolution in reference to an officer to hold the military command, but it would not be intended or expected that in times of peace or under ordinary circumstances both of these officers would be under employment at the same time, and therefore, although there might be an apparent increase in the authority required for the expenditure of money in reality both offices would not he filled at the same time. It would, however, be inconvenient not to have the power. I gave notice on the 18th April-which notice

will be found in the votes and proceedings of that date-of an amendment to the Bill by which the alternative of appointing an officer to command or inspect might be open to us. Upon further consideration I thought it better to introduce two different resolutions because an emergency might arise under which it would be necessary, in the event of a rebellion or any very serious riots, to appoint a general officer commanding although the policy might have been adopted which has been adopted in England of utilizing an inspector general for the pui-pose of inspection. This power under the clause which I proposed would not have then existed, and there would have been no power under which the government could appoint a general officer commanding. Now it is proposed to provide for these two officers, but the understanding is that if the English system be adopted, and I must say that I favour it myself very strongly, there would not be a general officer commanding ordinarily but there would be an inspector general. Under this clause we take power to pay him at a rate not to exceed $6,000 per annum. I may say in this connection that it is my opinion, and I think the whole country will approve of this too, that to fill the important position of inspector general an imperial officer of standing and experience should be appointed.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Are you making provision that he shall be an imperial officer by this clause ?


Frederick William Borden: No, that he may be.	.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Am I to understand from the hon. minister that there is to be no general officer commanding under this new scheme, but that we are to have on a small scale a council of war established, consisting of the hon. the Minister of Militia and Defence and three or four military officers, and also a financial adviser? I understand that it is the intention of the hon. minister to adopt the scheme that has been reported by a commission which had been appointed to investigate the condition of the English war office, but which has not been tried yet. It has only recently come into force. There has been very little experience as to its working as yet. In the meantime is it the intention of the hon. minister that there shall be no general officer commanding, but that power shall be taken to appoint two officers, one an inspector general and another a general officer commanding ?


Frederick William Borden: What I said, and I will repeat it, is that a new system has been adopted in England and we have been in the habit in this country of following the English system. I presume we shall continue to do so as long as we remain a colony of Great Britain. It is very desirable that we should do so, because, if a British army is ever to co-operate with a Canadian
army on Canadian soil, it is exceedingly desirable that the system shall be as near as possible the same in both armies. 1 said it would be undesirable to do anything which would interfere with our power to appoint, a general officer commanding, but I did think it would be a wise thing in view of what has taken place in England and in view of the fact that we are passing a new law which may be supposed to remain in existence for many years to come to. take power to adopt the English system if we think it desirable to do so.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I understood from the hon. minister that the inspector general was to be the head of the military organization except in times of war.	[DOT]


Frederick William Borden: No.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Who is to be the head ?


Frederick William Borden: Well, probably the minister will be the head assisted by the chief of the general staff who will be the chief military adviser of the government. He would more nearly take the place of the general officer commanding than any other officer. The command would then devolve very much more than it does now upon the commanding officers in the different districts. The commanding officers of the different districts to-day are more or less officers who register the views of the officers at Ottawa. They have very little, almost absolutely no power. Provided the scheme were adopted which has been adopted in England very much more power of initiative would be given to the officers of the different districts, but, as I said, this question would require no doubt very considerable discussion and as there are several hon. gentlemen who are not here to-night who would be interested in taking part in it, perhaps it would be better to leave it until the Bill comes up for a second reading. In the meantime no harm can come of this because all I am asking is to take power to make this appointment in case we wish to do so.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I do not offer any opposition to the hon. minister having the power or to having the resolution passed. I am asking for information. Are we to have two officers, one a general officer commanding, and the other an inspector general, or is it the intention that in case of emergency the inspector general shall be the officer commanding and that he shall assume the duties of that position and direct the forces?


Frederick William Borden: No. At the present time we have a general officer commanding. We may continue the general officer commanding. If we continue to have a general officer commanding as we have now we will not take any action under this resolution at all, but if later on it is possible to adopt the English system

then it will he necessary to appoint an inspector general and in that case the general officer commanding would not be necessary.


Frederick William Borden: Of course I have all the difficulties of one who has not very much acquaintance with military matters, but it would seem to me that we may get a little too much machinery in connection with our military affairs if we closely follow the enactments in tha mother country, where they have a very large standing army and where, I suppose, they have a very much larger militia force than we have. They will have under these various officers in the mother country a standing army of 300,000 or 400,000 men and a very large militia force, but do we really require quite so much detail ? Do we require so many boards and such a variety of officers as seem to be contemplated by this statute ? We have at the present time a general officer commanding. Well then this Bill makes provision for some other kind of an officer, and I myself confess that I am a little puzzled as yet to know just why you should call him one thing at one time and call him something else at another time, because, apparently, he has corresponding powers in times of peace with those that the general officer will have in times of war. Is that not the case ?


Frederick William Borden: The Inspector General has nothing to do with policy ; he simply reports carefully on the facts so that the government may know from a qualified officer whether the policy is being efficiently carried out.


Robert Laird Borden: The General Officer Commanding has some duties to perform at present, and he is supposed to be of some service to the country. If this change is made who will perform these duties in time of peace ?


Frederick William Borden: The council will act. In England the council is composed of the minister as chairman, the first military officer who is Known as chief of staff, the adjutant general, the quartermaster general, and the master general of ordnance. These military officers are appointed for four years. While it is true that the militia in England far exceeds ours, numerically, and the British army exceeds by 200 times our small permanent force, yet there is no part of the military system so important as to have an efficient staff and to have in that staff all the requisites which might be necessary in the event of the militia being called to take the field. It never can be effective unless it has the machinery at the very heart and centre of it, by which an army can be efficiently operated. Of course we would not need the number of officers they have in England. There the adjutant-general would have under him half a dozen directors-general ; in Canada Sir F. W. BORDEN.
he might only have one or none at all. The quarter-master general in England would have numerous subordinate officers while i'l this country he might only have two, and so also in the case of the master general of ordinance who would have under him a technical director of artillery, and we have that officer now. I may say that the adoption here of the British system, would not I believe increase the expenditure one dollar, although perhaps we might have to provide one additional officer. I would ask my hon. friends who take an interest ir the matter to read this War Office report.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will you send us copies of it ?


Frederick William Borden: I will send the hon. gentleman a copy with pleasure.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: I have read this report, and I think I have a fairly good understanding of the system recently established in Great Britain.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How long has the system been established ?


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: Just recently. I agree that it is a matter of some doubt as to whether it will be as great an iin-provenment as is hoped for, but if the horn gentleman (Mr. Clarke) reads that report, I think for the time being he will be convinced as I was. I have, however, some little difficulty as to its application to Canada. This inspector general has been called in England, ' the eyes and ears of the army council,' but I do not find anything in the resolution which speaks of the establishment of an army council in Canada.


Frederick William Borden: 1 have given notice.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: Of course there would be no use of having an inspector gen-eial unless you had an army council.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What does the General Officer Commanding do now ? Does he not go about and inspect the camps, and make reports to the minister as to efficiency and so on ? What duties would be discharged by the inspector general that are not now discharged by the General Officer Commanding ?


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: The Commander in Chief in England, whose office has been abolished, did the same thing. I fancy the object is to somewhat lessen'the rather too numerous and too onerous duties which rested on the General Officer Commanding.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Who would be the officer commanding in England in case of a crisis ?
Mr. a. T. THOMPSON. In the event of war, one would be appointed. In the meantime. each officer commanding in the eight district into which the British Isles are

divided, is in ms way the general officer commanding in that particular district; while at the same time the inspector general inspects these districts and reports to the army council. For instance, Colonel Otter in Toronto would be the general officer commanding in that district, while the inspector general would rejjort on all the districts. I am not arguing as to whether it would be advisable for us to adopt the army council system or not, but X understand the minister says we can discuss that on the Bill.


Andrew B. Ingram: Would not that imperial officer in Halifax be in command of the forces here in case of war ?


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: The new Bill does away with that anomaly, because the officer in Halifax might be the junior of the general officer commanding in Canada.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And if we follow the English system we would have a military council here ?


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: Quite so. That is the point I elicited. You cannot have an inspector general without a council, because there would be no one to whom the inspector general could report.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The Minister of Militia will be the war Lord ?


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: Quite so.


James Clancy: What conditions exist in Canada which would make the English system applicable here ?


Frederick William Borden: Our organization has always been an imitation of the organization of the war office, and as they have changed we have changed. They tried for many years to get along with a commander in chief, and in 1890, the Hart-ington Committee which went into the matter very carefully reported against the existing system and recommended very much the same organization as that recommended by the Esher Committee.


James Clancy: Was that owing to its great magnitude ?


Frederick William Borden: No, it was owing to the fact that the Secretary of State for war was responsible to parliament for the condition of the army, but as a matter of fact, he could not be responsible because a great deal of the time he did not know what was going on, as proved to be the case during the Boer War. It was to cure a fatal difficulty of that kind that this 'system was adopted. In a word, the British government has now adopted the system which has been in force in the navy for a century, and which has been found to work admirably*. Germany and the United States have both adopted the same system.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: It appears to me that
there is a great deal in what the hon. minister has said in regard to the proposed changed condition of affairs in his department, and I have every confidence that his interest in. and knowledge of his department is such as to effect an improvement upon the past. But it seems to me that there is a great deal of machinery employed that might he saved; for instance, the council consisting of seven, all of whom must be paid.


Frederick William Borden: Not one of them. They are all paid officials now, and there will be no additional expense.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: That lessens in part the objection which I had. The inspecting ! officer is an independent officer, but he is subject to the dictation of the council.


Frederick William Borden: No, he is appointed by the council and must report to the council ; but he reports on the cold facts as he finds them.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: That I approve of. It appears to me that the general officer commanding should be an imperial officer, one well up in the art and tactics of war, a man who is equal in every respect to the duty he assumes. I think we would place ourselves in a better position by appointing such an officer in general command than we would if we appointed one from the militia who had not seen active service and had never had the smell of powder. I think that should be one of the primary objects in framing the Bill now before the House.
Resolution reported, read the second time and agreed to and referred to Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 5) respecting the Militia of Canada.
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, House adjourned at 10.45 p.m.

Wednesday, May 11, 1904.