1904-05-13

FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 105) respecting the Lake Erie and Detroit River Railway Company.-Mr. R. F. Sutherland.
Bill (No. 106) to incorporate the Chicoutimi and Northeastern Railway Company.-Mr. German.
Bill (No. 107) to incorporate the Great Lakes and Northwest Transportation Company.-Mr. German.
Bill (No. 108) respecting the Canada Life Assurance Company.-Mr. Campbell.
Bill (No. 109) to incorporate the Montreal, Nipissing and Georgian Bay Railway Company.
Bill (No. Ill) respecting the Edmonton Street Railway Company.-Mr. Scott.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CHAMPAGNE moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 110) respecting the Ottawa Electric Company.
Mr. MACLEAN.: I would like to ask for a short explanation of that Bill.


Mr. CHAMPAGNE.: I am not quite familiar with the details of the Bill, but the substance of it is to increase the capital stock of the company.


William Findlay Maclean: Is power asked to consolidate with any other company ?


Louis Napoléon Champagne: No ; it is simply to increase the capital stock, so far as I can see.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 112) to amend the Act respecting the Navigation of Canadian Waters. He said : The reason of the Bill is to allow the Department of Marine and Fisheries to provide regulations upon which all mariners on the large lakes have agreed. The rules for years have been those adopted at the convention in Belgium about ten years ago ; but on the lakes the Americans have been following their own rules and the Canadian mariners also their own rules. That has created much inconvenience, and the Canadians have come to the conclusion that they had better agree with the Americans and have the same rules of navigation on inland waters.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: Will the rules be the same as those for the sea-board waters ?


Mr. PREFONTAINE.: No.


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

William Findlay Maclean: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I intend to call the attention of the government to a matter of great importance, and in order that I may do so, I beg to move the adjournment of the House.
The matter to which I propose calling attention is the nationalization of the telephone and telegraph systems in this country.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: A very urgent question.


William Findlay Maclean: A very urgent question and one which comes home to every one, and there is no time more opportune than the present. Every day's delay will increase the difficulty and involve a greater national expenditure and bring in a greater number of interests to be dealt with. The Postmaster General gave the public in a way to understand some years ago that he had such a project in view, and the Minister of Justice is on record as having pledged the government to introduce a general Act dealing with the telephone service, in which Act he was to provide for the nationalization of existing lines by the government, in so far as the trunk lines are concerned, and for the municipalization of local telephone services. So far, however, no progress has been made, and if for no other reason, I am warranted m making this motion and calling the attention of the government to their pledge. The telephone is one of the greatest conveniences of modern life. Its possibilities of usefulness and development are very great, but in order to realize these to their fullest extent, the system must be nationalized. We are confronted already with any number of difficulties in connection with the telephone service. In Ottawa the people voted for the municipalization of that service, but so far there is no provision in the law which would enable them to get a municipal system by taking over the Bell telephone system at a moderate price. Nor is there any provision to compel one telephone company to interchange its service with another, as in the case of railway companies. In Fort William and Port Arthur the people are suffering great inconvenience because of their inability to connect the first-class plant which they have established with the Bell telephone system or with the Canadian Pacific Railway and Canadian Northern Railway services, because of certain monopolies'enjoved by the Bell Telephone Company. The result of this is a deadlock in these towns and in a dozen other localities in Ontario. Down in Quebec there are several private lines owned by private companies which are anxious to do business with the Bell Telephone Company on fair terms, but the latter company refuses to give them any connection. There never will be any removal of these grievances until there is a general Act regulating the telephone companies and empowering the state to take them over. The experiment of nationalizing either telegraphs or telephones is not a new one. It has proved a great success in Great Britain. Only the other day Lord Stanley, the present Postmaster General, son of a nobleman well known to the people of this country, showed that he had picked up some political ideas in America, by proposing to nationalize the telephone system. 1-Ie introduced a measure in parliament providing for the taking over of the national telephone lines in England. Here is the despatch giving the information :



TO BUY TELEPHONE COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
Lord Stanley announced in the commons that the post office was negotiating for the purchase of the National Telephone Company. He asked for a small select committee to consider details and £3,000,000 for the work of the next live years. The post office system would cost a little under £8 per subscriber, though 90 per cent preferred the call system, at £6 10s., with penny messages. There were 110,128 miles of wire at present under London. The post office scheme would cost £2 less than the cheapest now in use. The London county council plan contemplated a plant sufficient for 40,000 subscribers, of which the post office had 15,299. The committee was given.
In London a national system is proposed, which the post office is to take over, and according to the first announcement they will give the public telephones for two pounds less per year than the public are paying to-day. But a still better instance of state ownership is to be found in Sweden, where the condition of affairs is summed up as follows :
Sweden is a sparsely inhabited country with a total population of slightly over 5,000,000. Telephones in Sweden are owned partly by private companies, but chiefly by the state-the number of instruments on the government system at the end of 1902 being 61,000, while the number on the other systems was estimated at about 30,000. This gives a telephone for every 553 of the inhabitants. As indicative of the rapid expansion of the state system it may be explained that the number of instruments in 1893 was only 16,000 and the increase in 1902 was upwards of 5,000, or nearly ten per cent. Although the capital expenditure has been about $6,700,000 the present debt on the state system is under $1,800,000, the difference of close on $5,000,000 having been paid out of surplus profits. It is evident, therefore, that in a short time Sweden will possess a valuable revenue producing asset free from all incumbrances, and which will have cost her nothing. In 1902 the gross receipts were about $1,325,000, and the working expenses under $600,000. After paying interest at 3 per cent equal to $55,000,
[Stage Direction]
the new balance of $670,000 passed to the credit of the sinking fund established for the repayment of the capital. There are about 107,500 miles of telephone wires in Sweden, of which the trunk and junction wires on the government system account for nearly 40,000 miles, or about half the total length of that system. The income averages about $20 per instrument, the proportion of capital cost per instrument being about $110. Very remarkable, too, are the rates of subscription, which run from $24 in Stockholm, with a population of 305,879, down to $13.75 in the smaller towns and villages. These rates cover an unlimited local service-i.e., there are no additional charges for local calls-and they extend throughout the area of the town-the radius covered by the rates at Stockholm is about 2J miles. The minimum charge for the use of the trunk or inter-town wires is 4 cents for three minutes' conversation, and the maximum charge is 26 cents.
On', this system you could talk from Ottawa to Montreal for from four to eight cents. It now costs $1.75 from Ottawa to Toronto by this Bell system.
With such rates there need be no surprise that telephones have been popularized in Sweden to an extent unheard of elsewhere.
The advocate of municipal ownership concludes : * But it is surprising and is an illustrative commentary on some of the arguments in use by opponents of public ownership and management that the Swedish government officials can in the circumstances produce such extraordinarily successful financial results.'
Mr. Speaker, my contention is that now is the time to nationalize the telephone and telegraphs of this country. At the present moment the telephone service is very poor, very unsatisfactory, no provision made for interchange of service, no regulation of tolls. The investment of the Bell and other companies is constantly increasing, making it all the harder to take these services over. And yet, this is one of the great conveniences of to-day, and the nationalization of the system was made a success in Sweden, in England and in other countries of Europe. The use of the telephone is being hindered all over Canada, by our present laws on this subject. I know farmers all over this country who would build independent lines if they thought they could get connection with the trunk line, and if they thought they could get connection with the railway station. But, so far, the law is such that the Bell Company is entrenched in a position that makes it a monopolist of this important service. Not only do I wish to remove this monopoly, but I wish to see something substituted for it on the lines of state ownership. It would cost but a small amount of money, and that it can be made profitable is a certainty. A national service can be given for one-half what is charged to-day, and the revenues will provide a sinking fund that, in twenty years will extinguish the debt, as it is being done in Sweden. That being the ease, why should we delay ? I suppose it will be said that this is in the direction Mr. MACLEAN.	i
of socialism. But that kind of socialism, I take it, is good for the country. It has proven successful everywhere it has been tried. Even in Canada, where the trial has been made, the results have been most satisfactory. It is more than successful in Port Arthur and Fort William. The city of Toronto is ready-and I appeal to the representatives of that city to say if I am not right- to municipalize the Bell system, to buy out that system at a fair value, if, in taking it over, it can get the use of the trunk lines. The position is somewhat the same in Ottawa to-day. There is an unfortunate condition of affairs here. Two companies are applying for the franchise. Nobody believes in rival telephone service in a town, except when no other remedy is possible. It is well to have one system ; it is better to have that system municipalized ; but it is best of all to have it made public property in the interest of municipalities and the government together. Here is a progressive measure, the carrying out of which will cost very little money and one on which I intend, a little later on, to take the opinion of the House. And so I give the government notice that at the first opportunity offered me when the House goes into Supply, I propose to present a motion to the House in favour of the nationalization of both telegraphs and telephones.
As for telegraphs, the government of every country in Europe almost, has made an enormous success of nationalizing this system, mainly in connection with the post office. They have cut the rates in two, doubled the number of words allowed for a fixed fee, extended the mileage, opened telegraph offices in every post office and in every little hamlet where there are private companies, refused to operate them and, with all, have made the system financially successful.
Public ownership will give every farmer in Canada who wants it a telephone in his house at $8 or $10 a year, and he cannot get it to-day at less than from $40 to $100. I know cases where farmers have been asked from $100 to $150 a year for connection with the Bell telephone service. If we can give every farmer in Canada who desires it a telephone in his house for $8 a year, and business men in towns and cities a telephone at $20 a year, as they have in other countries, let^us try to do it. Consider what a convenience a telephone is. It is away ahead of railway travel, l'ou can do more business by telephone than by personal interview. I can sit in my office in Toronto and, if I want to do business in Montreal, I can call up ten men within an hour. If I wished to interview those men personally it would take me a night's journey to Montreal and a night's journey back by rail, and it would take me all day in a cab to go round, and then I could not make the connection. Yet, if the telephone was under the control of the state,

I could, by an expenditure of two or three dollars, call up these people and do my business in a much more satisfactory way. True, you can do it to-day, but you do it at great expense, and, while this convenience is available to the people in the city, it is not available to the people scattered all over the country. A progressive government would have taken this up long ago. A Postmaster General who was following what the heads of postal system^ in other countries are doing could have taken it up long ago. A Minister of Justice who had promised to give relief with regard to the telephone situation, if he had studied the situation and desired to keep his pledge, would have brought in a Bill long ago curing these grievances, either on the line of a general Act regulating the telephone system, or by an Act making the telegraphs and telephones the property of the state. In view of the fact that all these grievances d.o exist to-day, that the towns of Port Arthur and Fort William are crying for relief, that the city of Toronto is crying for relief, that the farmers all over the country are desirous of using the telephone and demanding that they shall be free to use it on reasonable terms, it is time that something should be done. Why the same conditions exist in Quebec that we find in Ontario. A gentleman from the province of Quebec told me the other day that they already have miles and miles of independent lines in Quebec, and would build them all over if they could get access to the railway station, or if they could get a connection with the Bell system,
Mr. TALBOT.: They can get it.


William Findlay Maclean: How ?


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Private lines have access to the railway stations along the line *of the Intercolonial, and that is the only railway we have in our district.


William Findlay Maclean: But we have the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific Railway in our district.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: But the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) was talking about the province of Quebec.


William Findlay Maclean: I say that a gentleman from the province of Quebec came to me the other night-he is a man who is interested in telephones-and told me that they would extend the telephone lines greatly all over Quebec if they could get the use of the trunk lines for a reasonable toll. The Intercolonial is not the only railway in the province of Quebec. The Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific Railway are there also. Of course you can get into communication with the Bell people. But what I mean by a connection with the Bell system is not that somebody will take your message and carry it across tbe
way and hand it over to the person in charge of the Bell office, but that the Bell shall be obliged to give direct telephonic connection and charge a fee, of course ; but let that fee be under government regulation. But they do not propose' to do that. They propose to hold the people of Canada under monopoly as long as they can do it. And there is no way to break that monopoly and extend the use of the telephone except by nationalizing the trunk lines and making provision for the municipalities to take over the local services. Having said so much, I conclude by repeating the notice that I have given to the government, that, at the first opportunity I have on the motion for the House to go into Committee of Supply, I shall introduce a motion in favour of public ownership of telegraphs and telephones.


Hon.   C@: My hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) has given us notice that on some future day he will refer to this matter again. I will be very thankful indeed if he will be kind enough to give us the reference to that portion of any speech which I ever made in which I promised to bring in a Bill to provide for the nationalization of telephone lines.


William Findlay Maclean: I did not say he did.


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: Oh !


William Findlay Maclean: I said the Minister of Justice had promised a general Act regulating telephones and I would take it for granted that one of its provisions would provide for regulations of that kind. The hon. gentleman surely cannot withdraw the statement he made in 1902 that he would bring in a general Act for the regulation of telephones.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I brought in a general Act in 1902, which together with the Bill introduced by my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) was referred to a special committee. The result was that both Bills were held over in order that they might be referred to the union of municipalities, represented by their mayors. These gentlemen met in my office and I am sorry that I did not receive notice of my hon. friend's intention to make this speech to-day so that I might have brought here the stenographic report of the proceedings at that conference. The country might be enlightened by the position taken by the municipalities. The report shows that you cannot find two mayors of two municipalities to agree on what we should do. It cannot be said that there is any general opinion among them in favour of the nationalization of telephones. I never heard an opinion expressed, except by my hon. friend, in favour of the nationalization of telegraph and telephone lines. I never heard such an opinion expressed in this House ;

why does not my hon. friend bring in such a measure ?


William Findlay Maclean: I cannot introduce a measure involving an expenditure of money. The hon. gentleman is paid to study the progress of events throughout the world and he must see what they are doing in England, in Sweden, in Australia, and in fact in all countries.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Possibly my hon. friend will tell us the deficit in connection with the operation of the national telephone system in England in the last two or three years ?


William Findlay Maclean: There has not been any.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is a positive statement made with knowledge by my hon. friend is it ?


William Findlay Maclean: Yes.


Mr. T. F. SPROULE (East Grey).: It seems to me that the situation to-day requires some interference either by state ownership or otherwise to secure to the public what they have undoubtedly a right to expect, that is equal treatment by corporations and the strict fulfilment of the duties which these corporations assume when they are given a certain right of eminent domain. They are given these rights in the interests of the public and these rights should be used for the benefit of the whole public, not for a portion of it, not in favour of one individual as against another or in favour of one corporation as against another. What we have seen during the last few months seems to give a special emphasis to this necessity at the present time. Look at the fight Port Arthur is putting up for the right to put its telephones into the Canadian Pacific Railway station there, a right which is improperly, and I think illegally, denied by the Canadian Pacific Railway. Following that is the application made to the Railway Commission and the decision which they have given upon that question, which, it seems to me, justifies the immediate interference by parliament to protect the people and to secure to them the rights to which they are entitled.
A very eminent authority, Black's Constitutional Law, in dealing with this question says :
The right to exercise this power may be delegated by the legislature to private corporations

	'
That is the right of eminent domain.
-which, although their business is pursued for purposes of gain, yet stand in such a relation to the public that they may be considered as promoting the public convenience, or discharging a public office or duty, or carrying on works which are of general public utility.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Then he goes on to say :
It is entirely proper, and in accordance with the principles of the constitution, that municipal corporations should be authorized to exercise the power of eminent domain for the benefit of their own restricted ' public.' . . . . The power of eminent domain can be exercised only in pursuance of legislative authority, and on the occasions and in the modes designated by the legislature, statutes authorizing the exercise of this power will be strictly construed-
A corporation gets its authority under a statute, and that gives it certain rights which it is to exercise in the interests of the general public and not in the interest of one as against the other. This constitutional authority lays down the law that these Acts must be strictly construed according to the authority that is granted to them.
-and those charged with the execution of the power will be held to a strict compliance with all the conditions and requirements of the statute. '
The right is given to a railway corporation under a statute to take over private property for the purpose of discharging its functions in the interests of the people. That right is, given to it under the authority of its franchise. Its franchise provides that it shall use these rights for the whole public and that every member of the public will have an equal interest in it, and that it will not be used to the detriment of one against another or of any company as against another. When they do that I respectfully submit they are going beyond the powers which they possess under the law.
It is also for the state, by its legislative body, to determine when the exigency arises which will justify calling this power into exercise. And it may likewise determine the specific objects to which it shall be directed.
Then further on he says :
Thus, if the charter of a corporation gives it the right to appropriate private property for certain enumerated purposes, it will possess no authority to take land for any other purposes.
Further he says :
The purpose for which the power of eminent domain is to be exercised must be public and not merely for the benefit of a private person.
Then he goes on further to say :
It must be also for the whole people, notwithstanding one or more individuals may be peculiarly and directly benefited. The purpose must be also within the sphere of the government exercising the power.
Now I simply refer to this to show that when the legislature exercises the power to give over the right of eminent domain to these corporations it gives that power to the corporation so that it may be used not for its private purposes but in the interest of the whole public and that the public must be treated alike with regard to it and that the company cannot exercise it in the interests



S025 MAT 13, 1904

[Stage Direction]
of one individual or one corporation to tlie detriment or the disadvantage of others. Now is that not exactly the case to-day? We have telephone lines springing up all over the country. I shall give an example in my own section. A private telephone line is being built there to-day which will be about 30 miles in length. It passes through several important villages and most of the business men in these villages do their business at the Canadian Pacific Railway station. That Canadian Pacific Railway station has a Bell telephone in it and the company will not allow the private company to place a telephone in the station. Now that railway corporation received a right and that right was to be exercised in the interests of the whole public. What right has that corporation to say that one individual who requires to do his business with the railway company shall not receive the same advantage as another individual ? I take the business men living along this line. I take the villages of Heathcote, Duncan, Kimberly and Wode-house, all of them within a radius of 20 miles through which this telephone line will pass.
Business men wish to receive information from that station, hut they will not he allowed to put a telephone into the station so that they may receive that information, because, forsooth, the Bell Telephone Company has acquired a monopoly of the right to do business through that station. The station was put there in compliance with the 'authority that was given to the Canadian Pacific Railway to do something in the interest of the public-the whole public -equitably as between and another. Then I say why has this corporation allowed a monopoly to one company and shut out all others ? But that is one Instance. There is another private telephone line extending a distance of twelve miles and passing through two very important villages. It connects large sawmills with the village of Markdale. They desire to connect this business with the railway station at Mark-dale but they will not be allowed to connect with the station because the Bell Telephone Company has a monopoly of the business there. Then, from Shelburne there are two or three lines extending for several miles east and west of the railway line. The merchants in the villages with which the telephone line connects wish to do business at the station. They desire to ascertain whether any goods have arrived for them, whether there is any freight consigned to them before they send out teams to Shelburne, to get it, but they are not allowed to get this information unless first they send a message to a private individual who will go into the station and make inquiries. I hold that should not be the case, but that these merchants should have the same right to secure information from the railway station as every user of the Bell Tele-90	'
phone Company's lines. That station has been put there for the benefit of the public and in connection with a public utility granted by the authority of this legislature, this company cannot set up one member of the community as against another. I have heard the threat made by a station agent that he would put an individual out of the grounds and that if he put his foot upon the station property he would become a trespasser which shows the very high handed way in which some people will act when they think they have a little authority. They have no more right to make such a threat to an individual upon the station ground than they would if that individual were on the highway. But they seem to think that they have the right to treat the public in a tyrannical way to the detriment of one and for the benefit of another and to prevent the people receiving the benefit from a public utility which they are entitled to receive and which it was intended they should receive when it was granted to this railway corporation. The result of the decision of the Railway Commission lately is that the people of Port Arthur cannot get their telephone into the station unless they pay a consideration for it as damages to the Bell Telephone Company. Does it not seem absurd that that should be so ? Does it not seem that we are a long-suffering people or we would demand and insist on parliament taking steps to bring these public corporations to their senses so that they would treat the public all alike. There is an urgent demand that some control shall be exercised over these corporations so that they may use their franchises for the benefit of the whole public and not for the benefit of a portion of it. It is these very questions which are so rapidly educating public sentiment up to the pitch that the people will demand that these utilities shall be taken over by the state so that the public will secure the benefits which they expected to-secure and to which they are entitled to assume they have a right to secure, but which they cannot obtain until means are found for controlling these corporations. This incident forces on the question of state ownership and state ownership mill be the ultimate destiny in this matter so that we may secure to the public the rights to which they are entitled. Events are rapidly shaping themselves in that direction. A large percentage of the whole of these telephone lines are private lines hut they are lines that are given over to the benefit of the public and they are intended to be used for the benefit of the public. These private corporations do not object to telephone lines being put into their offices so as to exchange messages. The telephone companies ought to be compelled to exchange messages just the same as railway companies are compelled to exchange
[Stage Direction]
traffic. Wlien we give a railway company authority to become a common carrier it carries with it the obligation to treat the public fairly and to exchange traffic from one line to another. In like manner when we give a company power to build a telephone line it ought to carry with it the same authority, the same right and the same obligations and if it does that it will be better in the interest of the country and beter in the interest of the corporation as well.
Motion (Mr. Maclean) to adjourn, nega-
Charles Fitzpatrick: That the word ' may ' in the 26th, 27th and 30th lines be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Charles Fitzpatrick: That the following words in section 2 be omitted, ' and any agreements heretofore made by the Grand Trunk Company for providing the deposit mentioned in the scheduled agreements, and the pledge of certain stocks and securities of the Grand Trunk Company for the purposes thereof, are hereby confirmed and declared valid.'
tived.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN-TORONTO GARRISON COMMON.

Mr. E. F. CLARKE.: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) if he will expedite the bringing down of the return which was moved on the 17th March last respecting the correspondence as to the transfer of the garrison common property to the city of Toronto?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.



GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 72) to amend the National Transcontinental Railway Act.-Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
On section 2 of the Bill,
And that these words be substituted therefor :
The Grand Trunk Company and its directors are hereby declared to have been since the eighth day of March, 1904, vested under the resolution of shareholders passed on said last mentioned day, with full power to engage the credit of the Grand Trunk Railway Company or to pledge its stock or securities for the purpose of providing the deposit mentioned in the scheduled agreement.
Notice of motion of this was given by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. The objection was taken that the Bill provided for the conformation of an agreement that was not submitted to the House for consideration, and that we are ratifying it in the dark. The intention of the amendment is to declare that the company has had power since the 8th day of March last to pledge the securities of the company for the purpose of raising the deposit of $5,000,000.
The directors of the Grand Trunk Company may carry into effect the agreement a copy of which forms the schedule to a National Transcontinental Railway Act, as amended by the said agreement, supplementary thereto, hereby ratified and confirmed (which said agreements are together hereinafter referred to as the * scheduled agreements ') so far as the said scheduled agreements relate to or affect the Grand Trunk Company; and may, for the purpose of aiding and assisting the Pacific Company in carrying out any of the provisions of the scheduled agreements, from time to time engage the credit of the Grand Trunk Company; and may enter into any contract of guarantee or indemnity, and may sell or pledge so much of any class or classes of stock of the said company, or of any securities held or owned by the said company, as is deemed necessary; and may apply any moneys so realized, or such stocks or securities or the proceeds thereof, for the purpose of carrying into effect the scheduled agreements; and any agreements heretofore made by the Grand Trunk Company for providing the deposit mentioned in the scheduled agreements, and the pledge of certain stocks and securities of the Grand Trunk Company for the purposes thereof, are hereby confirmed and declared valid.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I think the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) suggested some formal amendments to this clause which consisted of the elimination of the word ' may ' in two or three places.


Robert Laird Borden: The proposal to eliminate these words was submitted by me to the Minister of Justice and there is no objection to that. I would like to have an opportunity of considering the words proposed in substitution.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Very well ; that will stand.


Robert Laird Borden: I proposed another formal amendment to which I understood there would be no objection. It was :
That section 2 be amended by inserting after the word ' may ' in the first line, the following words:
Subject to and in accordance with the provisions of the National Transcontinental Railway Act and this Act.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Robert Laird Borden: That is all in section 2 that we can deal with just at present, hut I want to say one or two words on another matter. There has been a good deal of complaint from Canadian engineers and surveyors that they are being overlooked in the surveys made by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and that citizens of the United States, who possess no better qualifications, are being employed in this


Thomas Simpson Sproule: work. The complaint is perhaps somewhat aggravated by the fact that the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, or the Grand Trunk Company, I do not know which, has been making surveys over that portion of 1he line which extends eastward from Winnipeg, a portion oif the line upon which one would have supposed that the surveys would have been made by the government. These complaints have been brought to the attention, I think, of most members of the House, and I understand that they have also been placed before the government in a very formal way. If what has been said on the subject is correct, it seems to me that it should demand some intervention from the government, or at least some explanation to the House as to why it is that not only on that portion of the line which is to be constructed by the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, but also on a portion of the line which is to be constructed by the government, Canadian citizens have been placed very much in the background, and citizens of the United states are doing the work which our own people are fully qualified to perform. I do not know, of course, to what extent the complaints are justified by the facts ; but it is a matter on which we should have some declaration from the government. If we have in Canada men who are as fully qualified to perform this work, and I 'believe we have, as citizens of the United States, there seems to be no good reason why their claims should be overlooked, or why they should be compelled to seek their livelihood In other occupations, while the work is being performed by men brought from across the line by one or other of these companies ; especially in view of the fact that we are confronted in the United States with an alien labour law, which prevents our people from going there under contract to perform labour, and also in view of the fact that we have in this country a somewhat similar enactment which is designed to give a corresponding protection to the people of this country. I would ask. therefore, whether or not complaints of this character have been brought to the attention of the government, whether they have made any investigation, whether the complaints are well founded, and, if so, what explanation the government have to offer, and what remedy they propose ?
Sir WILFRID LAURIEiR. The matter to which my hon. friend has just made allusion was brought to the attention of the House some time ago. We received a circular from some association of engineers, which was distributed largely, I think, amongst the members of the House. Upon the receipt of that circular, we applied to Mr. Hays, manager of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, and he gave a very emphatic denial to the assertions made. Mr. Hays wrote to me that of the parties of engineers employed by the Grand Trunk Railway Company at the present time over 961
97 per cent were Canadian and British subjects, and less than 3 per cent were American. I handed over this correspondence to my hon. friend and colleague the Minister of Labour, who has been in further correspondence with Mr. Hays on this subject, and who, I think, will be able to give more information upon it than I can.


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: Since my hon. friend brought up the matter I have sent to the department for the file of correspondence up to date, and perhaps my hon. friend will allow the matter to remain in abeyance for a few minutes until the correspondence arrives, when I will read it to the committee, and it will throw some light on the attitude of the government and the position of the facts in regard to this matter.


Wilfrid Laurier: We can take up the subject later on, as soon as we have the correspondence.


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of Labour will perhaps remember that I moved for a copy of the correspondence.


William Mulock: The order was only passed on Thursday or Wednesday.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not saying that there has been any undue delay. I only say that, under the circumstances, the correspondence might perhaps be brought as soon as possible.
Section 2 of the Bill allowed to stand.
On section 3 of the Bill,
3. The directors of the Grand Trunk Company may from time to time, and as often as they deem necessary, enter into an agreement or agreements with the directors of the Pacific Company respecting the manner and the terms upon which the Grand Trunk Company shall or may aid or assist the Pacific Company in carrying the scheduled agreements into effect, and also respecting the consideration to he given by the Pacific Company to the Grand Trunk Company under the terms of any such agreement or agreements, and may guarantee the bonds, debentures or other securities of, the Pacific Company, and perform such other services for the Pacific Company as are agreed upon, and the Grand Trunk Company may receive and take as the consideration, in whole or in part, to be given to it under the terms of any such agreement, shares of the capital stock of the Pacific Company for such amount and upon such terms and conditions as are agreed upon.


Mr. BLAIN.: I beg leave to move in amendment that the following words be added to this section :
Every such agreement shall be subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, and a certified copy of every such agreement shall forthwith be deposited with the Secretary of State for Canada.
This is a very important concession that the government are giving to the company, and I think it is one on which we should have further explanation from the govern-

ment. We were told by the Finance Minister last session, when the original contract was under consideration, that a portion of the $45,000,000 of stock would he retained toy the government as a guarantee to the Canadian people for the fulfilment of the contract. Now we are asked to change that entirely, so that for any assistance which the old Grand Trunk Company shall give to the Grand Trunk Pacific Company it shall have the right to receive Grand Trunk Pacific stock. I will read :
And the Grand Trunk Company may receive and take as the consideration, in whole or in part, to he given to it under the terms of any such agreement, shares of the capital stock of the Pacific Company for such amount and upon such terms and conditions as are agreed upon.
This is giving very great powers to these two companies, which are but one company after all, so far as the Canadian people are concerned. We have been unable to get the government to connect the old Grand Trunk Company with the new company for the purpose of fulfilling this contract. What we are asking for by this amendment is that when these two companies shall enter into such agreements as they have power to enter into under clause 3 of the original Bill, such agreements shall be submitted to and receive the approval of the Governor in Council. It seems to me that that is quite a reasonable request. The opposition contended last session that clause 3 was pretty liberal to the Grand Trunk Pacific, and we are anxious now that no agreement shall be entered Into toy the two companies-which are but one after all-without the Governor In Council having the right to say whether such agreement is in the interests of the people. Bear in mind, Sir, that the Grand Trunk .Railway have their head office in London, England. It would be quite possible for the Grand Trunk Pacific to send a representative over, and the two companies might enter into an agreement without the consent and knowledge of the government. I think the clause we propose is one which the government should accept. I cannot conceive how the right hon. gentleman or his cabinet should be willing that the Grand Trunk Pacific Company should have the power to enter Into an agreement with the Grand Trunk Railway Company without first submitting that agreement for the approval of the Governor in Council. This matter was fully discussed last session and has also been discussed this session, and I do not wish to detain the committee further. I cannot refrain, however, from expressing my opinion that the Minister of Railways should be in his place to explain these matters to the Canadian people. When the right the hon. leader of the House introduced this supplemental agreement, he did so in a very polished manner. He endeavoured to create the impression that there was no very great difference between the old and the new agreement ;


Richard Blain: but when we come to investigate we_ find enormous responsibilities and liabilities placed upon the Canadian people, through the failure of the government to compel the Grand Trunk Pacific to fulfil the agreement which we passed last session. I do not wish to use strong language, or I would say it is a disgrace to the government to have the Minister of Railways come in and go out of this House from time to time without taking the slightest interest in this important agreement, which ought to be specially in his department, and which is imposing such ^enormous liabilities on the shoulders of the people. We were told that this was a business government, and as evidence we were pointed to the selection of an expert farmer to fill the post of Minister of Agriculture, and consequently we have the right to presume that in selecting a Minister of Railways the government did so because of his knowledge of railway matters. We have the opinion of the hon. gentleman who lately occupied the position of Minister of Railways reflecting on the government for having entered into this agreement, and now we have his successor, not attacking the agreement it is true, hut not taking the slightest interest in it. He evidently does not consider it worth his while to put upon record his opinion as to whether the changes proposed are in the interests of the people or not. In my opinion, when the government come to explain their policy to the people, they will find it difficult to account for this extraordinary conduct of their Minister of Railways. The amendment I have submitted Is one on which we are entitled to have the opinion of that hon. gentleman, yet he is as silent as if he had no existence. I am confident, however, the hon. minister's silence will not receive the approval of the people.


Charles Fitzpatrick: On closer observation my hon. friend will see that clause 3, which we are now considering, has not been made necessary by anything contained in the amendments. Its object is purely and simply to give to the Grand Trunk Railway the authority to do those things which the original contract requires it to do. For instance, it is obligatory on the Grand Trunk Pacific to obtain the endorsation of the Grand Trunk Railway with respect to the first and second issue of bonds, hut the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway has, under its charter and existing legislation, no authority to give this endorsation. In addition, the Grand Trunk Railway has to take over a certain portion of the stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and this provides for giving authority to the Grand Trunk Railway to do that. There are other obligations which the Grand Trunk Railway must assume. For instance, the Grand Trunk Pacific had to deposit $5,000,000 before its organization was completed, before its stock was issued, or anything done. It was therefore absolutely necessary that it should obtain the

money necessary to comply with the conditions of the contract. That money was obtained with the aid of the Grand Trunk Railway and could not have been obtained otherwise. In addition, it will be necessary for the company, during the progress of the work, to finance the undertaking. Under the terms of the original contract, there is no obligation on the part of the government to come to the assistance of the company until the whole work is completed. The government may come to its assistance, but is not obliged to do so. But during the construction of the work and pending its completion, it will be necessary to finance the undertaking, and the Grand Trunk Pacific will require aid, and this clause is intended to give the Grand Trunk Railway authority to come to its assistance. With respect to the amendment, there is one part which I think ought to be accepted, namely, the part which provides that the agreements should be- deposited with the Secretary of State, so that the country may know the character of these agreements and their contents ; but that they should be submitted to the Governor in Council for approval, is not necessary. No benefit or advantage could be derived from that. My hon. friend will remember that in the Joint Stock Company's Act it is provided that paid up stock may be issued in payment of real estate, which maybe held for the purposes of a company, and in that event, if stock is issued for that purpose, provision is made that the agreement under which the stock is taken must be deposited with the Secretary of State. There is no provision for confirmation of the terms of the agreement ; but for the convenience of the general public, the agreement must be submitted to the Secretary of State, and I am disposed to accept the amendment to that extent.


Mr.   BRAIN@: The hon. minister tells us that the government are prepared to accept the unimportant part of my amendment, but the important part, the part in which we are most interested they refuse.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I think the last part is very important.


Richard Blain: 
Charles Fitzpatrick: They are mere domestic arrangements between the two companies in which we are not interested. My hon. friend (Mr. Blain) himself has pointed out that they may be of a mere temporary character and may not last a month.


Richard Blain: But they are about handing over the stock.


Charles Fitzpatrick: We will deal with that under another amendment. It is absolutely necessary that this company should be in a position to deal with its stock. If. it is not, I do not see how it is ever to finance its enterprise. Where is the money to come from ? We have $5,000,000 of their money in our possession, and they have to provide from that for stock. They have no available assets and will not have. They v ill have to provide $20,000,000 of rolling stock. Where is that to come from ? They will have to provide for any deficiency with respect to the second issue of bonds, for that issue cannot possibly realize par. They will have to provide for terminals, for telegraph lines, for telephone lines for ships-for all manner of things. They cannot do this otherwise than from stock. They must realize the cash to enable them to do the things which power is given them to do by their Act of Incorporation.


Mr. BARKER.: I understand the Minister of Justice to say that clause 3 of this Bill is not inserted in consequence of any change in the agreement ? That being so, I would like to know why any thing more was required than clause 7 of the Act of last year ? That clause enabled the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada to acquire, hold, guarantee, pledge and dispose of stocks, bonds and so on of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. Why is anything more necessary in this Bill ? I think we need some further explanation from the minister.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Perhaps it would be more in line if I were to ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) to point out in what respect this goes further than the clause of last year. It seems to me a modification of the power conferred on the 1 company by last year's Bill.


Samuel Barker: That is pretty much the point I am making. We ought not to pass and re-pass clauses year after year. If there is nothing more intended than there v, as last year, what was the need of passing it over again ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: The only difference between this clause and the clause of last year is in the concluding lines, in the words, ' The Grand Trunk Company may receive and take as a consideration, in whole or in
part	shares of the capital stock
of the Pacific Company.' In effect, they had that under the old statute. They want it in the present form, and I see no objection.


Samuel Barker: I thought that was the reason. I can imagine just how the new clause came to be inserted. We discussed clause 7 last yeftr at considerable length. Several gentlemen on this side pointed out that, under the charter of the Grand Trunk Pacific coupled with the section of the Transcontinental Bill, it was quite possible for the Grand Trunk Pacific to hand over to the Grand Trunk Company, as paid up stock, any amount of capital stock of that company without receiving a dollar for it, giving it for some privileges or what the two parties chose to call privileges. But the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) pooh-poohed that idea. He was very emphatic ; said it was absolute nonsense-I think he went as far as that-to suppose that the Grand Trunk were not going to pay the value of the stock, and that they would have to pay the market value. How the Grand Trunk was to pay the market value of a stock which had not been on the market, stock that it was to acquire before it got on the market, we did not quite understand. But there was this difficulty, that the right hon. gentleman's argument was a solemn declaration from the Prime Minister that the Grand Trunk would have to pay for the stock. I have no doubt the Grand Trunk were rather concerned about taking stock after that declaration, and so they have come here now and have asked for this new clause with this little sentence at the tail end of it, providing that they may take stock in consideration of the guarantees that they are going to enter into ; the very thing we said last year that they intended to do. The Grand Trunk feared, and very properly feared, that the words used by the Prime Minister would put them in a very awkward position if they attempted to hold the stock, that they would probably run the risk of being put by the parliament of Canada in precisely the same position as any other subscriber of stock, that is, subject to calls of one hundred cents on the dollar. Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson, in the correspondence that has been laid upon the table, pointed out the necessity for an understanding about the terms upon which the Grand Trunk were going to acquire that Mr. FITZPATRICK.
stock. No agreement has been entered into on that score-we have asked for it over and over again-but it was pointed out in the correspondence as an essential thing to be settled. And it is to be settled by this innocent-looking clause which, the Minister of Justice tells us, refers to mere domestic arrangements between the companies, merely a ' domestic arrangement ' involving $45,000,000 of capital. This the minister thinks is a ' domestic ' arrangement that the country is not concerned in. Why should the .government take any interest or have any care with regard to the terms upon which $45,000,000 shall rank as paid up capital against this company ? Well, Sir, I think the hon. gentleman from Peel (Mr. Blain) was quite right in moving his amendment. We do not hope-we cannot hope with such a majority against us-to prevent this clause passing. But we say that the government of Canada should have opportunity to know exactly how many millions the Grand Trunk are going to get from the Grand Trunk Pacific for these arrangements and guarantees, and they should not be allowed to receive these millions without the approval of the government of Canada.
The people of Canada are interested in it and the government ought to be interested in it, and should be compelled, even against their wishes, to look into this matter and see that no unreasonable or unjust bargain is made between these two companies that will and must injure the people, out of whose pockets sooner or later the dividends on this stock will come through the rates they will have to pay on the railway. What object have they in creating $45,000,000 of stock unless they are going to receive dividends ? The hon. gentleman says they will have to sell the shares in order to do certain things. How are they to sell unless they are going to pay dividends, and who is to draw the line as to dividends ? The charter of the company says it will be paid-up stock. What does paid-up stock amount to ? One hundred cents on the dollar. The Grand Trunk will have obtained that stock in consideration of its having guaranteed $15,000,000 worth of bonds, and having obtained the stock without paying a dollar, it will sell it, and where will the money go ? Into the coffers of the Grand Trunk Pacific ? No, into the treasury of the Grand Trunk. It will be the property of the old Grand Trunk, stock belonging to it, that will be sold, and the proceeds of the sale will not go into the treasury of the Grand Trunk Pacific. That is what the hon. gentlemen are enabling the two companies to carry out as a domestic arrangement. The Grand Trunk will be able to take the proceeds of the sale of that stock even to pay dividends on Grand Trunk Railway stock. It will be their own money. There cannot be any question about this, and hon. gentlemen know it. The Grand Trunk Railway are not going to sell stock belonging to the Grand Trunk

Pacific Company, but to the Grand Trunk Railway, and the Grand Trunk Railway will take the proceeds. Does the minister suppose that after becoming the owners of that [DOT] stock, and selling it, selling their own property and receiving the proceeds the Grand Trunk Railway is going to use the money in building branch lines or buying ships for the Grand Trunk Pacific ? No, they will use that money for the benefit of the Grand Trunk Railway proper ; it will be its own money and it is a mere pretense to say that this stock will be sold to enable any of these works to be carried on.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Despite the intimate knowledge that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) possesses of every detail of this agreement and of every line of the contract and of the Bill for the incorporation of the Grand Trunk Pacific he deliberately tells the committtee that this stock will be sold or handed over to the Grand Trunk Company and that not one single dollar will ever be paid for it. He says that in the light of the fact that he knows, must know and does know that $5,000,000 has been put up by the Grand Trunk Pacific Company as security for the carrying out of the conditions of the contract. Where does that money come from ? Where did the Grand Trunk Pacific get that money ? How can they possibly expect to return it out of their assets ? Must that money not necessarily come out of the company? Now as to the construction of the road assuming the position which we take to be correct- as we hold it is and has not been very firmly denied by hon. gentlemen opposite- that they must provide equipment to the extent of $20,000,000. Where do the $20,000,000 come from ? How are they to be provided ? Assuming that the bond issue is not more than sufficient to enable the road to be constructed, that is the bond issue to the extent of $50,000 a mile on the mountain section and $20,000 a mile on the prairie section and as hon. gentlemen opposite have argued that the first issue guaranteed by the government will not realize more than 90 cents on the dollar how much will the second issue guaranteed by the Grand Trunk realize ? Can it be expected that it will realize more than 80? Where is the amount required to make it up to 100 to come from ? It can come out of nothing but the company's capital. Where are they to obtain money to provide, for instance, for terminal facilities, and to provide the thousands of miles of branch lines which they have to construct? Where is that money to come from except from the $45,000,000 of capital ? I say. so far as this contract is concerned, read in the light of the .Act of incorporation and of existing legislation which requires that the capital stock issue shall be limited to $45,000,000, that to carry out the purposes
for which this company is brought into existence $45,000,000, even if every dollar's worth of stock is sold at 100 cents, will not be sufficient to do it. The hon. gentleman with the great authority he possesses in this House makes statements which it seems to me are at variance with the facts. If he reads section 11 he will find that they have no right to give away anything ; they have no right to give away their stock for nothing. They have no right to give it away, they must get a dollar or a dollar's worth in exchange. The hon. gentleman's statement is entirely at variance with section 11 of the Act of incorporation. What does section 11 say ? And unless they have the authority under section 11 to dispose of this stock the stock must be subscribed for and paid in full. That is the general law under our Railway Act, so that unless they get authority under section 11 they cannot dispose of it at all. Section 11 provides :
The directors of the company elected by the shareholders may make and issue as paid up stock, shares in the Company, whether subscribed for or not, and may allot and hand over in payment for plant, rolling stock, docks, elevators, wharfs, warehouses, vessels or materials of any kind, or as consideration for rights, powers and privileges acquired, and also for the bona fide claims of contractors and engineers, such an amount of such common stock as shall be a fair and bona fide value for the property purchased, or for the rights, powers and privileges acquired, or services rendered, as aforesaid, other than promotion services, due regard being had to the then market value of the stock. ******
This clause, down to ' engineers and contractors ' with the exception of the words ' rights, powers and privileges acquired ' is the law as we have it up to last year. They have not the power under this clause to hand over their stock, without consideration so that while they have under this clause authority to hand over their stock for other consideration than money considerations I say that the result of the Act of incorporation and of the obligations under the contract will be that in order to carry out their contract and the obligations that they assume under this. Act of incorporation, it will be necessary if they do not get 100 cents on the dollar in cash to get what is contemplated by section 11, something equal in value to 100 cents on the dollar.
I followed the remarks of the hon. Minister of Justice as closely as possible and it seems to me that the president of the Grand Trunk Railway Company either did not know what he was talking about when addressing his shareholders or the remarks of the hon. Minister of Justice do not in any way accord with the remarks of the president of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. Bet us see what he says in regard to these $25,000,000 of stock. After speaking of some



S039 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
slight obligations which he says the Grand Trunk Railway Company incurred, he continues :
I must not forget to mention that in return for the support which we ask you to accord to the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, the Grand Trunk Company will retain a controlling interest in that company, and will become the possessors of the whole of the common stock, amounting to $25,000,000 or £5,000,000.
He again goes on to say :
What may be the prospective value of that security, or when it may acquire a substantial value, I cannot precisely predict, hut you must bear in mind the certain and rapid development, of the Northwest on the one hand, and the actual and very profitable results on the other hand.
The hon. the Minister of Justice says that this $25,000,000 of stock is to be held by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company for the purpose of raising the money to expend on the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway when it is clearly shown by Sir Rivers-Wilson that this $25,000,000 of stock is to be handed over absolutely to the Grand Trunk Railway Company as its return for some slight obligations which it incurs. The hon. the Minister of Justice says that it cannot be handed over except for cash, that there is to be an equivalent in cash given for this stock. The legislation which we are dealing with now-and I might just refer the hon. the Minister of Justice to clause 3 of the present Bill-gives to the Grand Trunk Railway Company the very power it wants to take over this $25,000,000 of stock simply for guaranteeing some bonds and giving some other slight concessions to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. Section 3 is as follows
The directors of the Grand Trunk Company may from time to time, and as often as they deem necessary, enter into an agreement or agreements with the directors of the Pacific Company respecting the manner and the terms upon which the Grand Trunk Company shall or may aid or assist the Pacific Company in carrying the scheduled agreements into effect, and also respecting the consideration to be given by the Pacific Company to the Grand Trunk Company under the terms of any such agreement or agreements, and may guarantee the bonds, debentures or other securities of, the Pacific Company, and perform such other services for the Pacific Company as are agreed upon, and the Grand Trunk Company may receive and take as the consideration, in whole or in part, to be given to it under the terms of any such agreement, shares of the capital stock of the Pacific Company for such amount and upon such terms and conditions as are agreed upon.
Under that clause of the Bill it is perfectly competent for the Grand Trunk Railway Company to enter into an agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and as Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson says, they will get the whole of the $25,000,000 of -common stock as a consideration for guar-Mr. FITZPATRICK.
anteeing the bonds of the Grand Trunk Facific Railway Company. The hon. the Minister of Justice has referred to section 11 of the Act of Incorporation of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. By section 11 the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company have the power to part with the stock for a consideration such as is mentioned in clause 3 of this Bill. I say it was perfectly idle for the hon. the Minister of Justice to make this statement that this $25,000,000 of common stock is to be sold for so many dollars. That $25,000,000 of stock passes out of the hands of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and into the hands of the Grand Trunk Railway Company simply for the consideration that the Grand Trunk Railway Company endorses the bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, just as has been stated by Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson. As Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson says, it is hard to say what the prospective value of the stock may be, but the Grand Trunk Railway Company will be in a position to put one-half of that stock on the market at such a time as it deems advisable, realize the money on that stock and put it into the hands of the corporation. I submit that the amendment as moved by my hon. friend from Peel is a proper amendment, a wise amendment, an amendment in the interest of the people of this country, providing that before the Grand Trunk Railway Company and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company enter into any agreement in regard to this $25,000,000 of stock the agreement shall be submitted for the approval of the Governor in Council. I think it is wise that that should be done. The hon. the Minister of Justice says that this is a domestic arrangement in regard to this stock, but it is a domestic arrangement which vitally affects the producers of this country. It is a domestic arrangement by which $45,000,000 of stock will become some day a burden, and a heavy burden, on the people of this country, because, some day they will be called upon to pay dividends on this stock and the producers of this country will have to furnish the money to pay these dividends.
Mr. CLANCY.: Mr. Chairman, I desire to call the attention of the hon. the Minister of Justice to the answer that Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson gives to the speech which he made just a moment ago. He contemplates nothing of what the hon. gentleman has stated here this afternoon. He tells a story to his shareholders directly the opposite of what the hon. gentleman has stated to be the condition this afternoon. This is what Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson said to Mr. Allen who had moved a resolution :
I will only take one instance of the inaccuracy of his criticisms. He boldly states that the liability upon the Grand Trunk will amount to nine millions sterling, and he divides that nine millions sterling into three millions liability in respect of guarantees, five millions

in respect of rolling stock, and one million in respect of the deposit. As regards the three millions of guarantee, that, as 1 stated to you, will undoubtedly he a liability, and, as I stated to you also, will swell the liability of the Grand Trunk Company. As regards the five millions for rolling stock, it is not five millions -it is estimated at three millions. With that the Grand Trunk has nothing to do. That rolling stock will he provided by the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, and. as the general manager will tell you, they have laid their plans for providing that rolling stock by a trust fund. Therefore, you may wipe it out and call it four millions. And as regards the one million deposit, that deposit will not cost you one single half penny.
Now I would ask the hon. Minister of Justice to reconcile the statement that he made a moment ago that the stock was required, first, to produce the deposit and next to provide for the rolling stock, with the statement of the president of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, who tells him that there is no particle of fact at the bottom of such statement. It is a very astonishing thing that he should make such a statement when the president of the Grand Tiunk Railway Company, whose case he is pleading this afternoon, tells him that he does not require the stock for any such purpose. The country will have some difficulty in reconciling the statement of a man who ought to know, a man who does know, a man, who, unless he is deceiving his shareholders, unless he is playiug a false part, is stating the matter correctly, with the statement of the Minister of Justice. The country will be able to understand the diffierence between the position taken by the hon. Minister of Justice and the position taken by the Grand Trunk Railway Company as announced through their president who knows the conditions, knows the plans, knows the relations between the two companies, knows how they are going to secure their rolling stock, knows how the deposit is to be put up and who tells us that their liability amounts to $15,000,000, practically, and that there is no liability beyond that. An hon. gentleman reminds me. that the $5,000,000 is merely held during the period of construction, and the Minister of Justice knows perfectly well that they have entered into an agreement with the Grand Trunk Company, in good faith I hope, to aid them by guaranteeing interim bonds during the period of construction. The government are going to finance the whole thing, and yet the Min ister of Justice says, that for the purpose of finding the money to provide for the interest on the portion of the bonds guaranteed by the Grand Trunk Railway Company they need not sell these bonds. Bu* the Minister of Justice has not said that the Grand Trunk Railway may not. if they think proper, sell these bonds and put the money in their pockets. I leave the country to judge between the statements, made
by the Minister of Justice in his defence of the Grand Trunk Railway, and the statements of Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson, which aie exactly the opposite of what the Minister of Justice says.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I have as onerous a task, as I want in trying to perfect this contract and legislation, without assuming the defence of the Grand Trunk president. I hold no brief for that gentleman. My hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) says I do, and of course he never says anything that 'S not correct, and that he does not know of l.is own knowledge. However, so far as my own knowledge of my own affairs goes, I am of the opinion that I hold no brief for the president of the Grand Trunk Railway.


James Clancy: I did not say you did.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not know what the gentleman meant to say, hut I do know what he did say.


James Clancy: If the hon. gentlemau kept his ears open, he would know what I said.	[DOT]


Charles Fitzpatrick: I am not concerned with any statement made by- Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson. I will be judged, and the government will be judged, not by his statements, hut by this legislation. The construction which Sir Rivers-Wilson may put on the agreement does not add to, or take away one feather's weight from what the agreement itself says. If Sir Rivers-Wilson had in contemplation some of the things which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) said he had, that is his business, and he can carry out his intention if the contract permits him, but not otherwise. My hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) said that the- intention of the government was to finance this enterprise pending construction The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) no doubt knows what the intention of the government is, and it may be I have not the same facilities for ascertaining it as he has, but in the meantime I have to consider the agreement. I cannot foresee what will be done ; I can only see what the agreement authorizes to be done.


James Clancy: I did not say the Minister of Justice held a brief for the Grand Trunk Railway; but I can tell him that he could not appear to greater advantage in their behalf if he were the solicitor for that company. His argument means that it would be unfair to the Grand Trunk to take any other view of this matter, than that which he entertains. Is the Minister of Justice not pleading their case ? The hon. gentleman denies and I believe he is right in denying that he is the advocate of the Grand Trunk Company. I did not say he was. but at the same time his speech has been a defence of the Grand Trunk and of the president of that company, and not a defence of the people of Canada.


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of the Interior, in his speech on the motion to go into committee on these resolutions, assumed that some person had argued that the Grand Trunk Company would give away thirteen millions of the stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific, which we said they would acquire for practically nothing. Upon being corrected upon that point he said :
The suggestion that the Grand Trunk Railway Company are going to make an enormous sum of money, is one that should have a moment's attention. There is $13,000,000 worth of common stock.
The hon. gentleman was minimizing it a good deal, because the Grand Trunk Company is to receive .$23.000,000, at least of the common stock, as declared by its president. He continues :
I have pointed out the obligations that the company have incurred. The Grand Trunk Railway Company, in the first place, have guaranteed the second mortgage bonds; they have entered into a contract which we are all familiar with in regard to traffic; they are bound to see that the working capital is provided, that the necessary betterments from time to time are furnished, and as against that they have $13,000,000 of stock which at the time is no value whatever.
I ask the Minister of Justice to point out, where the obligation is upon the Grand Trunk Company to provide the working capital and the necessary betterments.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Except in so far as it is necessary for them to'provide it out of the twenty-five millions of stock they have to take over. Assuming that the $20,000,000 is altogether for the rolling stock, then there is nothing left except the $25,000,000 stock, and my argument and theory all through is: that the company having only the capital stock available, of course whatever money is available for the betterments of the road must come out of that capital stock.


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of Justice has not met the point. This arrangement is very ingenious. We have the Grand Trunk Company which is to get the stock, as the president of the company has said, in consideration of certain support which they are to give to the Grand Trunk Pacific


Charles Fitzpatrick: I can quite understand some other hon. gentlemen arguing from the standpoint of what the president of the Grand Trunk has said, but I have a perfect right to ask my learned and honourable friend to argue it from the standpoint of the agreement.


Robert Laird Borden: I am perfectly willing to confine the argument to the terms of that agreement, and that is what I am doing. The position is. that Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson and others on behalf of the Grand Trunk Railway Company representing that company, will be making a bargain with Sir Mr. CLANCY.
Charles Rivers-Wilson and others acting as directors of, and representing the Grand Trunk Pacific Company. Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson has told us, not only in his speech but in a carefully prepared circular to the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company:
It should be mentioned that in consideration of the guarantees and other assistance given to the Grand Trunk Pacific, the Grand Trunk Railway are to receive the whole of the $25,000,000 common stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company.
The other assistance to which he undoubtedly refers is the putting up of the deposit of $5,000,000 and with regard to that, (quoting again from the official report of the meeting of shareholders issued by the Grand Trunk Railway itself) ; he says :
As regards the one million deposit, that deposit will not cost you one single halfpenny.
And it is not costing a halfpenny, because, under the arrangement made with the government, interest is not demanded or received. What I come back to is this. There is a very ingenious arrangement. The Grand Trunk Railway Company does not enter into a contract at all. It creates tihe Grand Trunk Pacific Company, -autTlt guarantees certain bonds of that company and receives $25,000,000 of its common stock. The Minister of the Interior, speaking for the government and with all the authority of a minister of the Crown, has declared that it is the proper thing for the Grand Trunk Railway Company to receive, not as he says, $13,000,000 of Grand Trunk Pacific stock, but as he should have said, $25,000,000, and to make money out of it, because out of that money it will he obliged to do certain things, including the provision of the working capital and the necessary betterments. These are not idle words. They are the carefully considered words of a minister of the Crown speaking for the government, and I think we are entitled to know from the Minister of Justice what .the government, speaking through the Minister of the Interior, meant by those words. I find no such provision in the contract. Did the Minister of the Interior speak without the book ? It cannot be assumed that he intended to mislead parliament or the people of this country ; yet, If you cannot find something in the contract beyond what I have been able to discover, the language used by him is absolutely misleading. I would like to know from the Minister of Justice whether in all candour he is able to agree with the Minister of the Interior ; and, if so, will he point out the clause of the contract, or any clause of the statutes, which obliges the Grand Trunk Railway Company to do that which the Minister of the Interior said it is obliged to do ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: The only answer I can give to my hon. friend is this. It may appear to be a repetition of the same thing over and over again ; but I really cannot

state it otherwise. The common stock of the company is limited to $45,000,000. Assuming our construction of the contract to be the correct one, $20,000,000 of equipment is to be taken out of the common stock. That leaves $25,000,000. Under the agreement this must be taken over by the Grand Trunk Railway Company in order to enable the Grand Trunk Pacific Company to carry out the purpose for which it is created-to provide money for the construction of the road, additional equipment, betterment, and so forth. If this stock is taken over by the Grand Trunk Company and the money is taken out of it for these purposes, -the money must, inferentialiy, come out of the Grand Trunk Company. That is the only explanation I can -give.


Mr.   R.@: I,. BORDEN. My hon. friend must see that that is no explanation of the language of -the Minister of the Interior.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It may be a bad explanation, tout it is the best I can give.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not doubt that it is the best explanation my hon. friend can give ; but the Minister of the Interior distinctly said that the Grand Trunk Railway Company would be entitled to dispose of at least $13,000,000 of common stock and make what money it liked out of it, because it must have money in hand to perform certain obligations to be found in the contract. I say I cannot find these obligations in the contract, and no man in this House can find them. That speech of the Minister of the Interior was hailed as a remarkable defence of the financial portion of this scheme, and there are two or three arguments in it which will demand our attention before we get through. This was one of the most remarkable statements in it, and if the hon. Minister of Justice cannot give any explanation of it, I think we had better send for the Minister of the Interior and have his explanation. Unless you can find these obligations in the contract, and no man can find them, it was absolutely wrong for the Minister of the Interior to make that declaration to parliament and the country.
The argument of the Minister of the Interior merely supplements that of Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson to the shareholders of his company. That gentleman said distinctly, in the circular from which I have quoted, that this stock was to be handed over to the Grand Trunk Company in consideration of the guarantee and other assistance given to the Pacific Company. The Minister of Justice accepts that, and justifies it on the ground that the Grand Trunk Railway Company is bound to make some provision out of that money. I say that the Grand Trunk Railway Company is not bound to make any provision out of that money. But does not all this point to the necessity of the amendment proposed by my hon. friend from Peel ? What is the position ? I
mentioned it a moment ago. Certain gentlemen, acting as directors of the Grand Trunk Company are to make an agreement with themselves acting as directors of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, about a matter of vital interest to the people of Canada, and we are asking by this amendment that that agreement shall at least be made subject to the approval of the Governor in Council. We ask that because it has been declared by eminent authorities in this country, authorities respected by this government, that if that stock goes to the Grand Trunk Company for no consideration except the support afforded toy the guarantee and the making of this deposit afterwards, when the stock goes into the hands of bona fide holders who have paid ninety or one hundred cents on the dollar for it, it will be necessary to have the rates kept up to such a point as will enable them to receive dividends on that stock. There can be no question about that. Every dollar of bonds and every share of stock should be made available in cash as near the par value as possible. There is no doubt that such is the public interest. If this stock is disposed of for a mere nominal consideration such as the giving of a guarantee, are not the people of this country vitally interested in the raising of the rates which will be consequent on that ? When the Minister of Justice says this is a mere matter of domestic concern between the two companies, surely he forgets that very important consideration upon which stress has been laid, and upon which stress must be laid if we are to have any regard whatever to the rates which this company shall be entitled to ask from the Railway Commission in the future. Does not the Minister of Justice think that when such a mater is left to two companies who are controlled by the same body of directors, the government should have some supervision over the agreements they make as to the price at which stock shall pass from one to the other ? Is not that a reasonable proposition ? Can the Minister of Justice controvert it ? If not, will he not reconsider his position, and assent to the moderate and reasonable proposal of the hon. member for Peel ?


William Findlay Maclean: Let me give an illustration of what the leader of the opposition says. The Toronto Street Railway Company is capitalized at $6,000,000. The promoters of the company did not pay a dollar for that stock, and now the railway runs from five o'clock in the morning till twelve noon to pay dividends on that watered stock. In the afternoon the railway runs until five o'clock to pay the interest on the bonds that were issued for the construction. After that it runs on to midnight to pay thg., wages of the men. But the half of the day that street railway is running to pay interest on watered stock. If that watered

stock did not exist, tlie people could travel for lialf the fares they pay now, or the city's proportion of the earnings would be ever so much larger. It is a matter of vital interest that, if stock be issued, the proceeds should go to the railway. Otherwise an unnecessary tax will be put on the traffic. The traffic on every railway has to pay for the watered stock, bonds and everything else, and if the proceeds of any stock which is given out do not go into the railway, that only increases the charges which the traffic has to bear.
Mr.,R. L. BORDEN. I really think my hon. friend the Minister of Justice ought to show why some such amendment should not be inserted, inasmuch as the agreements relating to stock may prejudice the public interest. If the interests of the two companies alone were concerned, I would accede at once to the argument of my hon. friend, but he will not deny that the public interest is also at stake. I would ask him the question now, whether or not he contends that agreements between these two companies relating to the terms upon which the stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific may be handed over to the Grand Trunk Railway, do not concern the public interest.


Charles Fitzpatrick: In what respect will such an agreement affect the public interest to a larger extent than the agreement provided for in section 39 of the Railway Act, which may be made under similar conditions ?


Robert Laird Borden: That is probably the best answer which my hon. friend can give, but does he not realize that, as a matter of public policy that provision was struck out of the General Railway Act ? Why then should it be inserted in this special Act ? Why should this company receive any special advantage over other companies, as it will, inasmuch as the provision upon which my hon. friend relies has altogether disappeared from the general law of the land.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I would not like to make the statement absolutely, but my recollection is that similar provisions to section 11 are to be found in other private Acts. I think that such a provision is in an Act passed this very session. Section 11, in its entirety, must be construed as meaning that the company is obliged to give out this stock either for cash or the equivalent of cash- for money's worth. There is a somewhat similar provision in the legislation of the United States. In England a joint stock company may pay out its stock in return for real estate to be used by the company itself, and the agreement which is made between the directors and the owners of the real estate, once it is put in writing, is conclusive between the parties. Similar legislation exists in the United States, but there the agreement is not conclusive. The whole matter is at large and may be investigated.


William Findlay Maclean: My argument is that section 11 provides that bona fide value must be given, either in cash or its equivalent, and that being the case, I do not see what the government has to do with the arrangement. Hon. gentlemen emphasize the fact that the Grand Trunk Pacific is an enterprise in which the government is largely interested, but the government is largely interested in every railway built in Canada. True, the government guarantees the first issue of bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific and is liable for the interest during several years, but in other cases the government pays out large bonuses and subsidies, for which It gets absolutely nothing in return. Again, in connection with ordinary railway corporations, the public is interested as regards the question of rates.
I have looked carefully through the Railway Act and the decisions, and can find nothing which justifies the statement I hear constantly made that the stock is to be taken into account when rates are to be determined. There is no authority for that statement, but it probably has some basis, since it has been made by those who have given some consideration to the matter. 1 can find no justification for it, and should be glad to have some one give me a reference.


Mr. HAGGART.: I do not think any one ever said it was to be found in an Act of parliament, but the authority for the statement is the Postmaster General and the exMinister of Railways (Mr. Blair), who always argued in that direction before the Railway Committee in this House.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is the limit of the authority.


Robert Laird Borden: It is not a very limited authority when we consider that the ex-Minister of Railways is chairman of the commission which is going to fix these very rates.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I have to accept my hon. friend's statement, but I never heard of it before.


John Graham Haggart: I have heard it again and again from the ex-Minister of Railways and from the Postmaster General. The Postmaster General is now in his place, and can state whether the reference to him is correct.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend the Minister of Justice takes this position. He says that this must be an agreement for va'lue. Well, that rather emphasizes the need for supervision by the Governor in Council. Who are to fix the values? The directors of the Grand Trunk Railway, on the one hand, and of the Grand Trunk Pacific on the other, and the former appoint and control the latter. You have these gentlemen meeting together and making an agreement. How can that agreement be questioned ? Will the Minister of Justice tell me who will question it ? I do not know of any principle at present which would justify any one

interfering, unless it would be some one interested in one or the other company. Perhaps the Minister of Justice can point out to me that the Attorney General of Canada might interfere. I would not think he could, but I have no strong opinion on that question.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Any shareholder or creditor.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes. That just brings us down to this, that no person representing the general public interest can interfere. But ought you not to have some person to represent the general public interest ? Is it not fair and reasonable that any such agreement, inasmuch as it may affect the rates, ought to be subject to the supervision of the Governor in Council ? I am sure my hon. friend, if he were not constrained by his position in defending the contract, would accede to the reasonableness and moderate character of this provision, t'Ut I appreciate the fact that he must defend this contract, and therefore must make out a case; but with all his ability and ingenuity it does not seem to me that he is making a strong defence against the amendment of my hon. friend. It is eminently reasonable that there should be some power representing the.people which would control in the public interest the terms of any such agreement.
I do not need to put it higher than that- it is an agreement which may affect the interests of the people of Canada. Because, when that agreement has once been made without supervision-I think the Minister of Justice and I are at one upon this point-it cannot be interfered with in the interest of the people of Canada ; it can only be interfered with at the instance of some one having an interest in one or the other of these companies And if you do seek to investigate, with what are you met ? You are bound to show before you can succeed that the agreement is not bona fide. How difficult it would be to prove that these directors were not acting in perfect good faith in making an agreement of that kind. It would be an almost impossible task. And so, any safeguard of that kind that we may have is really no safeguard at all. AVho could venture to say that the directors of the Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk Pacific might not think that this guarantee was perfectly good consideration for the stock, even though the opinion of the people of Canada might be that it was no consideration at all '!	*
Then after all, what is the objection to this amendment ? What objection should there be on the part of the Grand Trunk to having government supervision over an agreement of that kind ? And, even if they do object, why should the government, representing the people, object to undertaking supervision of that kind, which is absolutely in the public interest.


Charles Fitzpatrick: With respect to the control of freight rates, has the attention of the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) been called to sections 39 and 19 ? Section 39 provides that the rates of toll to be levied are to be under the control of the Governor in Council of the Railway Commission. And section 19 provides that, lor the purpose of enabling the government tc determine the cost of construction of the railway or any portion thereof, or the cost cf the equipment supplied, or the net earnings of the railway of any part or parts thereof, the government shall have the right, from time to time, to appoint agents and investigate. Does not that put this corporation in a somewhat different position towards the government from the position occupied by the ordinary railway ? I offer that additional suggestion. I do not intend to be discourteous to hon. gentlemen on the other side, but really, when I have made my argument, I have done it to the best of my ability, and I do not see that anything is to be gained by repeating it. But in answer to the suggestion that it may be possible for the company, in consideration of the services rendered by the Grand Trunk Company, to hand over its stock for something less than the value of that stock, where are they going to get the money for the purposes for which they are incorporated, to create their terminals, to buy equipment, to provide all the things that their Act of incorporation says that they shall provide ? Where are they to get all this money, if their stock passes out of their hands without consideration ? Is not the capital stock provided by the Act necessary to raise means to carry on the purposes for which this incorporation is given ? The hon. leader of the opposition says they will get it out of the trust fund. Well, for instance, will they get out of the trust fund the money to make up the deficiency on the second issue of bonds ? Why. even the first issue, guaranteed by the government, will not yield par, and this second issue is not expected to yield more than eighty.


Robert Laird Borden: If my hon. friend would permit, me, I would say that so far as deficiency on the bonds is concerned. it would be made up by the issue of larger amounts of bonds. .


Charles Fitzpatrick: There is no authority for it.


Robert Laird Borden: Why not ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Because the Act of incorporation limits the issue of $50,000 a mile for the mountain section and $20,000 a mile for the prairie section. And ns 1 understand it. the argument of hon. gentlemen opposite was that this was not

nearly enough to enable them to carry out the undertaking.


Robert Laird Borden: I never argued that


Charles Fitzpatrick: I understand that to have been the line of argument taken by lion, gentlemen on the other side.


Mr. PRINGLE.: The Minister of Justice has said that he knows of no authority to the effect that capital stock is to be taken into consideration in fixing the rates of transportation. I do not know what opinion the Minister of Justice has of hon. Mr. Blair, ex-Minister of Railways and Canals and at present chairman of the Railway Commission, but we know the opinion that the Prime Minister of this country has expressed, for he lauded that gentleman very highly as a most efficient and competent man, and a man of the greatest experience in railway matters. Now, we have the opinion of this chairman of the Railway Commission on the question of capital being-taken into consideration in fixing rates. Let me refer to this memorandum of the exMinister of Railway and Canals to that portion of it headed ' The promoters' rake-off ' :
The present disturbed state of public opinion with regard to railways and transportation arises from the feeling that tolls are excessive and discriminative. This feeling exists not only west of Lake Superior, but in Ontario as well. West of Lake Superior the great distance to ocean ports is a serious handicap, and any new transcontinental lines should he built under conditions which would make every dollar of bonds and every share of stock available in cash as near of face value as possible. If bonds may be disposed of by companies at a large discount, and stock distributed gratuitously, or on terms which produce little or no cash at all

That is what we have done. This $25,000,000 of stock is being issued not for the purpose of raising cash, but to give to the Grand Trunk Railway Company for guaranteeing these bonds.
-for construction and equipment purposes- which has been forbidden by law-the business such railways may do will, for dividend purposes, be always unduly burdened and will be a grave handicap for all time to the development of the interior.
With capital shares and bonds ultimately coming into the hands of innocent buyers at prices increasing with the growth of the railway traffic, it will be impossible for either the Railway Commission or the government itself to reduce tolls below a dividend paying basis. An appeal from the holders of the company's bonds and shares, to fixed tolls sufficiently high to insure a moderate dividend cannot easily be resisted, and as a consequence the country through its business and traffic is in effect as much charged, though Indirectly, with the weight of these obligations as if the amount was covered by an issue of government bonds.
Now, I would ask the Minister of Justice if he agrees with the statement of the exMinister of Railways and Canals which I Mr. FITZPATRICK.
have just read ? But this chairman of the Railway Commission and ex-Minister of Railways and Canals goes a little further. He says :
Moreover the system is not sound. Why should a few people be allowed to make themselves millionaires in such a way? No one now-a-days puts his money into the capital shares of a railway company at the inception of the undertaking. It has been done hitherto: it is not done now, and why not? Because with government assistance supplementing the sale of bonds the railroad can be built.
Just exactly what is being done in this case.
And yet capital shares are issued by the million and appear later, when the enterprise becomes a success, in the hands of the purchasers who clamour for dividends upon them.
Now, the Minister of Justice has stated repeatedly that this money was required for the purpose of buying rolling stock, providing terminals and so on. I would like to call his attention once more to the statement of the president of the Grand Trunk. He says :
As regards the five millions for rolling stock it is not five millions-it is estimated at three millions. With that the Brand 'trunk has nothing to do. That rolling stock will be provided by the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, and, as the general manager will tt 11 you, they have laid their plans for providing that rolling stock by a trust fund. Therefore you may wipe it out, and call it four millions. And as regards the one million deposit, that deposit will not cost you one single halfpenny.
The Minister of Justice lays great stress on the five million deposit, which he said would be a burden on the Grand Trunk for which reason they will have to have the stock sold. I would like to get an expression from the Minister of Justice as to whether he agrees to the statement made by the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, the present chairman of the Railway Commission.


Mr. FOWLER.: The Minister of Justice quoted sections 19 and 39 as meeting the point respecting this $25,000,000 of common stock issued. Neither section 19 nor section 39 meet the point at all. Section 19 says :
For the purpose of enabling the government to determine the cost of construction of the said railway, or of any portion thereof, or the cost of the equipment supplied, or the net earnings of the railway, or of any part or parts thereof, pursuant to this agreement, the government shall have the right

and so on. That does not give the government the right to inquire into the value of what was given for this $25,000,000 of common stock handed over to the Grand Trunk; it does not give the government the slightest right and I challenge the Minister ol Justice to find under section 19 any such rights given. Then he also cites section 39 of this contract. The contract wou'd

aland on exactly tlie same footing if section 39 was not in at all, because section 39 provides for what is already in the general Act. Section 39 provides:
The rates and tolls to be levied and taken by the company upon any part of the said railway shall be under the control of the Governor in Council, or of such authority, commission or tribunal as is designated or constituted under any Act of the parliament of Canada for the regulation or control of the business of railways.
If that section were not there at all, this i ail way would be in exactly the same position as it is with this section. The hon. gentleman did not seem to consider the authority of the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Blair) and the authority of the Minister of Labour (Sir William Mulock) \ ery strong with respect to the common stock being taken into consideration when Ihe question of fixing the rates was being considered. I could quote for him authority that perhaps he would consider of some im-iortance, the authority of the right hon. the Prime Minister, who last session, when this was under consideration, took the same view and admitted as will be found in the debate of last session that this would have to be taken into account. I fail to see why it should not be taken into account. On what are you going to base your rates if not on the outstanding debt against the road, and surely the common stock must be taken into account ? The common stock can sell at par only because it is earning a dividend and the holders of that stock would have a right to come before the commission and be heard if the question of tjie fixing of rates was being considered. If the stock was purchased by them bona fide, and if the road was only capable of paying a fair dividend at the existing freight rates, then the persons applying to have the rates reduced would fail in their object and it is only reasonable they should fail. It is of extreme importance that the Grand Trunk Railway should have the power to obtain $25,000,000 of the common stock for what would have only a fictitious value, simply because they loaned the eiedit of their financial responsibility to the Grand Trunk Pacific in floating 'one-quarter of these bonds, necessary to complete the road. They are not under any greater responsibility after all than is the country, because the three-quarters and the one-quarter are placed together, and if the road was in liquidation the Grand I milk Railway would bear only their proportion of the loss and the country would have to bear three-quarters of the loss. Therefore I say that it is very important that this amendment should be accepted and I feel that it would if the government had at heart the interests of tiie people- and one would be sceptical of that when one stes how considerate they are of the interests of the Grand Trunk and how they
are losing sight of the manifest and plain rights of the people.


William Findlay Maclean: Let me point out why the government should protect the public interest in this case. Perhaps the Grand Trunk would not object to the government having the ratification of the agreement provided the present government were in power, but a government might come into office that knew not Joseph and then when the interpretation of this agreement came to be- passed on by the government there might be a government in office prepared to take the people's side of the question and to see that consideration was given for the stock. Therefore the Grand Trunk object to having the agreements between the two companies passed before the Governor in Council, and they have a real interest in having no such clause put into the Bill. It is in the interest of the public that this precaution should be included in the Bill. I cannot understand what objection the government can have for inserting an amendment that is absolutely in the public interest.


Mr. LENNOX.: What the opposition proposes is that there should be an additional safeguard on behalf of the people. What the government objects to is that there shall be that supervision by the government which shall be for the benefit of the people. In the multitude of counsels on tiie other side of the House arises the great 'difficulty with which the opposition have from time to time to contend. At one time we have one line of action advocated by one minister and then we have an entirely different exposition made by some other minister. Take for instance the utterances of the Minister of Finance last session and contrast them with the statements of the Minister of Justice to-day. We cannot fail to be struck with the very complete right-about-face exhibited by the government. The leader of the opposition (Mr. R L. Borden) has been pointing out that we are dealing with a case where practically the same men will constitute the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Grand Trunk Railway Company. The Minister of Justice does not seem to be impressed with the importance of that argument or to admit, as the leader of the opposition argues, that these two companies while nominally two companies are practically one company. Now during the whole discussion of this session we have had very prominently enunciated by the government, so far as they have spoken, the theory that we are dealing with two distinct companies. It is important to their position to-day, but it did not appear to be important to their position last session. The hon. Minister of Finance distinctly declared exactly what we contend to-day and what my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has been contending this afternoon. At page 8571 of last

session's 1 Hansard ' the Hon. Minister Of Finance said :
It is a new company nominally, but the more you look into it, the more you see that it is one company.
That is what we say. There are nominally two companies, there is nominally a new company but the more we have looked into it, the more we have handled it and turned it over the more evident it has become that it is in reality one company, as the hon. Minister of Finance has said, and as my hon. friend the leader of the opposition lias said it will be the president of the one company dealing with the president of the other company, the manager of tthe one company,, dealing with and making bargains with the manager of the other company, and so the public will fail to have that protection which they should have, making it abundantly evident that the request of the opposition should be granted in the interest of the public.
I do not object

-says the hon. Minister of Finance
-to the statement made by- the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals when he said that these two companies were all ' the same red-headed boy.' We are rejoicing in the fact that these two companies are practically one, and that when we submit. this project to the people of Canada, we are not submitting a project of irresponsible promoters, but a project endorsed not only by the good will and pious resolve of the Grand Trunk

Whatever that may be. We have had the prayers of the right hon. the leader of the government and the pious resolve of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, whatever that is worth-
*-and pious resolve of the Grand Trunk, but the Grand Trunk put their guarantee and all their resources at the back of the undertaking of the Grand Trunk Pacific.
That makes it pretty evident that what has been contended on this side of the House Is true ; in fact, that this is one company and that is therefore the most cogent reason for requiring that when one branch of this company are dealing with another branch of this company there shall be some body to intervene on behalf of the people, and I think a most reasonable request is the request of the opposition embodied in the amendment which proposes to have the contract submitted to the Governor in Council. But, the hon. Minister of Justice says that sections 10 and 39 control the rates, and that even if there was something that we would not wish in regard to these stocks, still, the rates are controlled by these sections. We need not argue these sections any further. It is not a question of words. We have words, words, words in certain parts of the contract, but what has been pointed out Mr. LENNOX.
over and over again and what the ministry well know is that if you have watered stock and if you have this stock acquired by the Grand Trunk Railway Company for a nominal consideration, or for any consideration, and if this stock passes from their hands into the hands of bona fide holders you will have these people clamouring for dividends and in face of tbe fact that they paid 100 cents on the dollar or more for this stock you cannot by means of the Railway Commission or otherwise reduce the freight rates upon the railway. We have the hon. Minister of Finance discussing that branch of the subject as well and I will venture to read a few sentences from what he says in regard to that. But, before doing so let me say that in reference to the argument as to the Railway Commission controlling rates it was only the other day that we had a discussion in the House upon that subject. Is it not a notorious fact that only this spring the rates of the Grand Trunk Railway Company have been increased without application to the Railway Commission and that the same thing occurred last year ? Control is all very well in words but what yon want is effective control. If, Mr. Chairman, you will call it six o'clock I would rather not refer to this other matter before recess.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 51) to incorporate the Okotoks and High River Lumbering and Development Company.-Mr. Oliver.
Bill (No. 92) respecting certain Patents of William A. Damen.-Mr. Campbell.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 93) respecting a certain patent of E. A. Small, -Mr. Logan.
On section 2,
Mr. LOGAN.: I have an amendment to offer to this clause. The clause now reads :
If any person has, in the period between the 15th day of March, 1904, and the date of the first of the certificates hereinbefore authorized to be issued, commenced to manufacture, use and sell in Canada the invention covered by the said ..patent; such person may continue to manufacture, use and sell such invention in as full and ample a manner as if this Act had not been passed.
Tlie word ' commenced ' is used in this clause. If some one had commenced illegally

to manufacture, even a day before the first date mentioned, he could continue to manufacture, although he commenced to do so in an illegal way. I also wish to provide for the case, for instance, of an employee of the E. A. Small Company who has been manufacturing during this period under the instructions and consent of the firm. My amendment is, that the following words.be added :
Provided always, that such exemption shall not extend to any person having commenced the construction or manufacture of the said invention before the 15th day of March, 1904, without the consent of the estate of the late E. A. Small, or since the said date, under contract with or by the instructions or consent of the said estate or its representative or agent; but in such case the said patent shall have full force and effect.
This is the usual clause that is added to similar Bills. The language used in the Act of last year to confer on the commissioner of patents certain powers for the relief of the Standard Truck Company, is exactly the same as in this amendment. I do not think there can be any objection.


Mr. INGRAM.: I did not catch what the hon gentleman meant by the word ' commencement. '


Hance James Logan: If my hon. friend will read the clause as it is in the Bill, he will see that if any person commenced to manufacture this article between the 15th of March and the date of the first of the certificates authorized to be issued ; he could still continue to manufacture in spite of the fact that Small and Company had its patent. The Bill as printed covers the case of a man who commenced between these dates, but suppose he commenced to manufacture at any time before, even though he would be doing so illegally, the clause in the Bill would allow him to continue to manufacture. All I want is, that any one who might have been illegally manufacturing before that date should not be given any right he is not entitled to. If an employee of Small & Company has been, between these dates, manufacturing that article under their instructions and with their consent, we do not desire that this clause should give that employee power to continue to manufacture that article in spite of the patent.


Andrew B. Ingram: This is to renew the patent.


Hance James Logan: Yes,


Andrew B. Ingram: If a person acquired any rights previous to this being granted, you do not intend to take these rights away.


Hance James Logan: No ; not from the time the patent expired. But suppose he had commenced to manufacture before the patent had expired, he would be doing so illegally, and we do not wish to allow the person who 97
[ had been manufacturing illegally to continue.


Andrew B. Ingram: That is after the patent lapsed.


Hance James Logan: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: If he continues to manufacture after the expiry of the patent why should he not have the right ?


Hance James Logan: Let us suppose that previous to the lapsing of the patent some one had begun to infringe the patent; though it were only a day before the patent actually elapsed. The person fvho owned it, and whose legal rights became extinct on the lapse of the patent, would not be able to stop the infringement which had commenced previous to the lapse of the patent. 11 other words, we should not give encourag-ment to any one who has commenced illegally to manufacture this article. This is the common clause which I think is in all patent Bills which we have passed in this House.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is the hon. gentleman sure that it is the common clause ? I do not think he will find the word 1 commencement ' in the common clause at all. If this man commenced to manufacture before the patent lapsed, the courts could stop him ; but if he commenced after the patent lapsed, he would be acting legally, and you would be taking away from him a right.


Hance James Logan: You are taking away a right that he has illegally obtained. This matter has been threshed out in this House on several ocasions. I have not had time to look up the different Bills which have passed ; but this' Bill contains exactly the same language as the Act which I have already quoted.


Haughton Lennox: What is the effect upon a person who commences to manufacture a day after the patent lapses ?


Hance James Logan: The law as it stands allows him to continue to manufacture.


Haughton Lennox: If the man who commences to manufacture the day after the patent lapses is allowed to continue, why should the person who commences to manufacture the day before the patent lapses be in a different position ?


Hance James Logan: All we ask is that if a man commences to manufacture illegally while the patent is in existence, he shall not be given exemption under the Bill.


Haughton Lennox: I cannot see as a logical consequence why the man who commenced a day earlier should be in a worse position than the man who commenced a day later. He commences every day. Probably he would be liable to a penalty for manufacturing on the first day ; but otherwise I think he should be on the same basis as anybody else.


Hance James Logan: Because we protect the honest man who commenced to manufacture when lie had a right to do so, I do not think we should protect the dishonest man who commenced to manufacture when he had no
right to.	[DOT]


Haughton Lennox: I do not think it follows that a man is dishonest because he commenced to manufacture a day before the patent lapsed. I do not see on what line the hon. gentleman is proceeding.


Hance James Logan: I do not think there is any objection to this provision from any source, and it is the usual practice in these Bills.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, section as amended agreed to, and Bill reported.
Mr. LOGAN moved the third reading of the Bill.
Robert Laird Borden: This Bill apparently has not been drafted with much regard to the usual forms of legal expression. I do not understand how an estate can make a petition, nor do I understand how the terms of the amendment can be properly used. In a Bill of this kind I think it would be better to adhere to the usual form, and speak of the executors or representatives of an estate as petitioning.


Hance James Logan: The representatives, the widow and the children, have petitioned.


Robert Laird Borden: I know, but it is not so stated in the Bill. It is not perhaps of much consequence, but it is a careless form, of legislation.


Hance James Logan: I may say that the Bill was drafted by one of the leading legal firms of Montreal. I do not know anything about it myself. It was only put into my hands.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the third time and passed.
grand trunk pacific railway.
House in Committee on Bill (No. 72) to amend the National Transcontinental Railway Act.-Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
Haughton Lennox: 

MAT 13, 1904 3061

[Stage Direction]
the Grand Trunk Railway acquire that stock at a comparatively small sum and afterwards float It on the market at a higher sum, that would be a proceeding .which might be open to objection.
That was the attitude of the hon. minister last year. But how does the matter stand to-day ? The Grand Trunk is to ac-
Now he says :
They have undertaken to do certain things, and we have the assurance of their officials! which, I presume, will be carried out in regular official form as required by this Act, that they will do these things. We have assurance that they will take and hold certain common stock of the company.
quire that stock and to have the right to float every dollar of it on the market. It may sell out every vestige of interest in that stock, so far as the pecuniary interest is concerned, and is bound to reserve only the power of voting on it so that the danger which the Minister of Finance apprehended has actually arisen, and has arisen, not by chance or by something which the government could not control, but by the act of the government itself. My hon. friend went on to say :
The Grand Trunk Railway must not only take this stock, but hold It for all time; they cannot put a dollar of it in the market. It is absolutely impossible to buy a share of that stock; it must be held by the Grand Trunk Railway itself, and no person can buy or sell a share. Where, then, comes in the chance of speculation? We are not so much concerned, I say, as to what the Grand Trunk Railway pays for it.
That was in August, but the hon. gentleman spoke again in September, when he took a still more pronounced attitude on that point. At page 1185, he said :
However, we have no doubt what they will do then. Now, my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has suggested, as respects certain things, that it is well to stipulate that we shall only do our part when they have done the things set out in the Bill
Robert Laird Borden: When they have agreed to them.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Therefore we insist that they shall acquire, take and hold that stock. We think the country is in a better position to have its interest protected if the Grand Trunk take and hold that stock than if they were to put it on the stock market as in the case of other stocks. They having assured us that

Again in close consultation with the Grand Trunk.
__they will do that, we shall be right, before
we do anything, before we give a guarantee or accept responsibility, in requiring them formally, in their capacity as a corporation, to do that thing, and that, is secured by the amendment to which we have already agreed. Then, the Grand Trunk Company have assured us through their officials that they will do another thing, that is, to guarantee the bonds.
Now, Sir, the Minister of Finance pointed out that the government were in close consultation with the Grand Trunk, that they were satisfied tvith that arrangement last time and they were practically satisfied with the amendment introduced by the opposition last year providing that there should be a contract signed before we committed ourselves to this expenditure of money. This year the benefit of our amendment is swept away, and the safety which existed then is totally removed by the action of the government. The Minister of Finance further says :
I want to point out, however, that, beyond any peradventure, the Grand Trunk Railway Company were in close consultation with the government through the whole progress of the debate last year, knew exactly what attitude was being taken by the opposition last- year, knew exactly what position was being taken by the government. It is monstrously unfair, that having said last session, we will take all we can get, now to come back and say that the very guarantee which enabled this to get through-because I must assume that hon. gentlemen supporting the government considered these matters to some extent-that the very safeguards which probably enabled some wavering supporters to vote for the government last year are now withdrawn and they have to go one better than the undertaking of last year. The Minister of Finance further said at page 11852 of ' Hansard
It was fully understood, I think, between the Grand Trunk and the government that our interpretation of the contract and theirs is the same. However, without reviving a Previous discussion, I may say that this is what the Act requires, and that they have assured us that they are prepared to do what the Act requires.
Now, there is no uncertainty about that language. It is a definite pledge by a Minister of tbe Crown to the parliament of Canada and to tbe people of Canada that there has been a final arrangement made between the government and the Grand Trunk Rail-war Company and that, if parliament will go so far as to sanction that arrangement,


Haughton Lennox: 
Mr. BLANCHET (St. Hyacinthe).: (Translation). Mr. Chairman, I listened with a great deal of interest to the speeches delivered on this question for the last three or four weeks. The stand taken by our lion, friends on the other side of the House under the circumstances is the express condemnation of that which they had taken since the beginning of the session.
I just stated that I had listened with much interest to the numerous utterances of the hon. members on the other side concerning this question ; but I must say that not one of those speeches contained a word of praise regarding' the construction of that railway. One of two things, either the opposition were sincere in the speeches they made heretofore, or they were not. If they were sincere, I will ask them to answer a simple question. The Grand Trunk Pacific Company have taken on their shoulders heavy liabilities, they say, liabilities exceeding two hundred million dollars, since the government's share is put down at about one hundred and fifty millions, and the company will have to contribute at any rate forty millions, twenty -0011110118 of which represent the cost of the rolling stock they are to supply. Besides they will have to meet the interest at three per cent on $200.000,000, and, in the event of the bonds selling at par, that would involve a payment of $6,000,000 yearly. The capita] -stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific is put down at $45,000,000. Now, leaving aside the interest which the Grand Trunk Company may have ill the Grand Trunk Pacific, is it likely that, in case this company offered its bonds for sale with such heavy liabilities imposed on it, people could be found to supply the money required for the construction of the road ? If the company cannot find any investor- and we may rest assured that no offer will be made from the opposition side, the scheme being such an unpromising one-if the company, I say, cannot find any one to take hold of its capital stock subject to the liabilities assumed by it, would there be any sense in the Grand Trunk Company acquiring this stock without paying anything for it ?
It has been -stated and it is being repeated over and over again, that the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Grand Trunk are one and the same thing. Supposing that to be the case, I have just stated that if the Grand Trunk Company took no interest in the building of that road, there could not be found any investor willing to acquire these bonds, since he would thereby, as a holder of capital stock, become responsible for the whole expenditure on the Grand Trunk Pacific- Well, the Grand Trunk, under its charter, had no power to acquire stock in any other company. It was therefore necessary to confer on them power to do so, and that is what this Act is intended to do. But on what terms may the company buy this stock ? On the same terms as outsiders. There is nothing in the Bill to say that the Grand Trunk Company may buy on specially

306S
favourable terms. Now, as I stated a moment ago, admitting that the Grand Trunk Company should have no interest, they would have at any rate to dispose of their capital stock. To whom would they offer it for sale ? They would put it on the open market. And what would they get for it ? The price which people would be willing to give. Well, the Grand Trunk Company, having authority to acquire that stock themselves, will purchase it, but in the same way and on the same terms as outsiders may do.
I would like that those who are opposed to this Bill-and I see just now my hon. friend the member for Dorchester (Mr. Morin) who for one understands French and can follow my argument-would stand up and answer these two objections.


Richard Blain: The hon. Minister of Justice made the statement that he was prepared to accept a portion of the amendment. May X ask what he proposes to do about it ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: *
That section 3 be amended by adding thereto the following words, ' and a certified copy of every such agreement shall forthwith be deposited with the Secretary of State for Canada.'
He said : In effect I adopt the last part of the amendment of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain).


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John Graham Haggart: A few words in reference to this clause in answer to what the hon. Minister of Justice has said as to the effect of it. The clause is virtually a change from the agreement of last year and extends the power of giving stock. The hon. Minister of Justice said that under clause 11 of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company's Incorporation Act the directors of the company elected by the shareholders had the right of giving stock-for what purpose ?
The directors of the company elected by the shareholders may make and issue as paid up stock, shares in the company, whether subscribed for or not, and they may allot and hand over in payment for plant, rolling stock, docks, elevators, wharfs, warehouses, vessels or materials of any kind, or as consideration for rights, powers and privileges acquired, and also for the bona fide claims of contractors and engineers, such an amount of such common stock as shall he a fair and bona fide value for the property purchased.
His argument from that was that before they could issue that stock it must be shown that there was bona fide value given for it. These powers enabling the company to give contractors, engineers and others this stock were not sufficient and this clause in the Bill now before us extends it to the guarantee as the clause in the Grand Trunk Pacific charter did not cover that. This clause In the Bill simply allows the Grand Trunk Mr. BLANCHET.
Pacific Railway Company to transfer stock to the directors of the Grand Trunk Railway Company for all the reasons assigned in clause 11 of the charter and besides in return for the guarantee by the Grand Trunk Railway Company of the bonds, debentures or other securities of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. This is simply extending the powers which were granted last year. The guarantee was not covered by the charter of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company of last year and this is simply an extension of those powers. The hon. Minister of Justice asks : What are you going to do with the S45.OO0.OOO of stock ? It is barely sufficient for carrying on the enterprise. They have to put $20,000,000 worth of rolling stock on the road, they have to build branches, they have to build a branch to Lake Superior, they have to build a branch to connect with North Bay, they have to build a branch to connect with Montreal, and they have to build a branch from Chipman to St. John. We ought to be in possession of all the knowledge that the hon. Minister of Justice has. If there is an agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company that they are to build lines to Lake Superior, to North Bay, to Montreal and from Chipman to St. John as their charter allows, and if that is one of the conditions of issuing $45,000,000 of stock this House ought to know it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: They are not bound to build these branches.


John Graham Haggart: They are not bound to build them but the hon. Minister of Justice assumes that the $45,000,000 of stock would be required to do that. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company have the right of issuing bonds to the extent of $30,000 a mile on every mile of the branch roads which they build to Lake Superior as well as to the other points which I have mentioned. Besides that in the province of Ontario they have a provisional subsidy of $2,000 in cash and 6,000 acres per mile. If it is the intention of the government of this country to subsidize any of the branch lines to connect with Lake Superior, North Bay, Montreal or the line between Chipman and St. John this House ought to know it. We ought to have the whole undertaking presented to us. We cannot understand the financial arrangements. The $45,000,000 worth of stock may not be sufficient and it may be more than is required. They will not require one single dollar of that stock for the purposes mentioned by the hon. Minister of Justice. When the gentleman who presides over the affairs of the Grand Trunk Railway Company states to his shareholders that the only possible liability that the Grand Trunk undertakes is in reference to guaranteeing one-quarter of the bonds for the building of the prairie and mountain section, it will be seen that the contention of the hon. Minister

of Justice is not well founded. The deposit of money as security for the performance of the undertaking is nominal as it will be returned or taken again and put into the rolling stock company. The Grand Trunk ltailway Company have no liability except the one of $15,000,000.
As to	the	issue	of bonds	for	thepurpose of building lines, are the Grand Trunk Railway' Company going to undertake any liability in reference to that ? If they	do	the	statement	of	Sir
Charles Rivers-Wilson to his shareholders is untrue and no gentleman like that would make a statement to his shareholders in England knowing it to be untrue. This is simply an extension of the powers granted under the Act which was passed last year for the purpose of allowing the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and the Grand Trunk Railway Company to enter into an agreement for the mere guaranteeing of the bonds. What bonds are they ? The only bonds that they can guarantee are those that are secured by a first mortgage on the road if the statement of Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson is correct. The hon. Minister of Justice says that we are not bound by the statements of Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson, that we are only' bound by what is in the Act of parliament. Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson says to his shareholders : I do not require your guarantee, I do not require any responsibility to be undertaken by the shareholders of the Grand Trunk except that which I have mentioned. What is to become of the stock to the amount of $45,000.000 ? Twenty-five million dollars worth of the stock was by the arrangement of last year to be given to the Grand Trunk Railway- Company for what reason ?-because they gave their sanction, virtually, to the enterprise. Because they guaranteed what were in the first place second-class bonds, but which are now first-class bonds ranking pari passu with government bonds. We ought to have from the railway department an estimate of the cost of the whole undertaking, how the money that is to be got from the people of this country is to be expended, what amount is to be expended upon the whole undertaking, what the whole undertaking involves and why they want this $45,000,000. The hon. Minister of Justice says : They want that for the branch lines and to put the rolling stock upon the road. Surely this parliament of Canada has a right to know what arrangements the Grand Trunk Railway Company' have made with the government in reference to the building of these branch lines, whether the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company are to build them entirely with this stock with the bonds that they issued and with the provincial subsidies, and whether there is an arrangement other than this one with the government of the country. Mr. Hays, the general manager of the Grand Trunk Railway', said in his speech :
We expect to get assistance for these branch lines from the provincial and Dominion authorities. We ought to know that. We ought to know the financial position of the whole undertaking ; we ought to have a report from the responsible officers of the railway department showing the estimated cost, the amount likely to be put into this undertaking by the corporation ; the amount required to build branch lines and the probable subsidies to these branch lines. We are entirely in the dark ns to the stock of the road, and how it is to be applied. The Bill gives power to the directors of the Grand Trunk to deal with the directors of the Grand Trunk Pacific who are one and the same. We empower the Grand Trunk Pacific directors to make an arrangement with the Grand Trunk, and we don't know what the arrangement is going to be. The Grand Trunk Pacific may hand over that $45,000,000 to the Grand Trunk, and the only saving clause is the statement of the Minister of Justice, that such a thing cannot be done, as it will have to go to the rolling stock. Sir Rivers-Wilson takes a different view, and he says they will get the rolling stock under a trust fund. We know how the deposit was made ; we know there was a letter sent to the government saying that there is a deposit paid into their Bank of Montreal which the government may draw upon six months' notice ; or in other words, it is a credit giy'en to the Grand. Trunk which they can arrange for at any time within six months with the Bank of Montreal. The bald fact is, that we have no knowledge of what they are going to do with the $25,000,000 and as to the $20,000,000 we have only the statement of the Minister of Justice that they may apply it to rolling stock. We should have a detailed statement as to this whole transaction. The amendment offered by us will be satisfactory to the stockholders of the Grand Trunk, because it will ensure that any agreement made between the Grand Trunk Railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific would be satisfactory to the government. The amendment is a simple one, but it has been voted down. What the country desires, and what the opposition desires, is a plain statement of the financial position of the undertaking, and that we have not received from any minister yet.


William Mulock: Before six o'clock I said, in answer to the leader of the opposition, that there had been some correspond- , enee between the government and the Grand Trunk Company with reference to certain rumours that the Grand Trunk Pacific were employing aliens upon their surveys. I have the file of papers with me now. I will not go through. the whole file now, but I will read enough of the correspondence to indicate the view of the government with reference to this matter. The hon. leader of the opposition stated that it was rumoured that a very large number of aliens had been

employed in this work, to the exclusion of Canadians. I may say that charge had been communicated to the government not with respect of the Grand Trunk Railway only. For example, it was said that the Canadian Pacific Railway offends in the same way. Early in April, 1904, I received a letter from Mr. Geo. L. Griffith, of Winnipeg, secretary of the Dominion of Canada Institute of Amalgamated Engineers, calling attention to that statement, and he named eight persons, who. he says, are American aliens, and are employed on the Grand Trunk Pacific. Prior to this letter to me, he had written different letters to various ministers, hut the matter was placed in my hands for consideration, and going through the correspondence I extracted a list of persons, who, he said, were aliens from the United States, and were in the service of the Grand Trunk Pacific or engaged on their surveys. On the 19th of April I wrote a letter to the general assistant and controller of the Grand Trunk, in the following words :-
stitute of Amalgamated Engineers has called the attention of the government to the employment of a number of American aliens by the Grand Trunk Pacific, and has requested that steps be taken for their deportation to the United States, alleging that their employment has caused, and is causing considerable suffering among the families of a number of Canadian first-class qualified engineers who are out of employment. The persons named in the communication from the secretary of the Institute of Amalgamated Engineers, as being employed in violation of the provisions of the Alien Labour Act, and their respective positions are as follows:-
G. A. Kyle, engineer, Tacoma, Wash., emr ployed at Winnipeg.
M. Kyle, engineer, Tacoma, Wash., employed at Winnipeg.
Mr. Allen, engineer, St. Paul, Minn., employed at Winnipeg.
Mr. Keller, engineer, Cleveland, O., employed at Winnipeg.
- Mr. Van Arsdaile, engineer, Portland, Ore., employed at Edmonton.
Mr. McNeil, engineer, Indiana, employed at Edmonton.
W. Jones, engineer, St. Paul, Minn., employed at Edmonton.
Mr. Hare, engineer, of Wisconsin, employed at Edmonton.
Wm. Myer, of Portland, Ore., assistant engineer.	[DOT]
W. H. Goodman, draftsman, from Tacoma, em! ployed in the Montreal office.
W. Mason, draftsman, Des Moines, Iowa, employed at the Winnipeg offices.
Assistant engineer Orde, employed east of Winnipeg.
Raymond Hickman, from Tacoma, Wash., engineer, employed west of Winnipeg.
Mr. Hicks, transitman, from Ohio, employed west of Winnipeg.
Mr. Anderson, topographer, from Seattle, Wash., employed west of Winnipeg.
I would be pleased to hear from you as to whether the statement made by the secretary Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
of the Institute of Amalgamated Engineering, in regard to each of the persons named in his communications, is, or is not, well founded.
Yours faithfully,



WILLIAM MULOCK,

[Stage Direction]
Minister of Labour.
Not receiving an answer to that communication, I wrote to Mr. Hays, tbe general manager under date of the 26th April, 1904, as follows :	[DOT]
Dear Sir.-As you are aware, various complaints have been made to the Premier, the Minister of Railways and myself, as Minister of Labour, that aliens from the United States are being employed on the Grand Trunk Pacific surveys, to the exclusion of Canadian citizens. Prom time to time the various ministers have brought these complantis to the attention of your company, and have made known to the representative of the complainants the explanations and denials of your company. These explanations and denials have not been accepted as satisfactory, and the matter in the judgment of the government, is one of such serious importance as to demand prompt and satisfactory treatment. The various ministers who have heretofore been communicated with o|n| the subject, and the government as a whole, have requested me as Minister of Labour, to take up the matter, and I therefore do so in the earnest hope that your company will at once remove all ground of complaint.
I inclose extracts from a communication, dated the 18th inst., from Mr. George L. Griffith, secretary of the Dominion Institute of Amalgamated Engineering for Manitoba, the Northwest Territories and British Columbia, specifically charging the Grand Trunk with violations of the Alien Labour Act. You will observe that in this connection Mr. Griffith states that the following employees are American citizens :
G. A. Kyle, divisional engineer, residence, 1320 North Yorkima Ave., Tacoma, Wash.
G. M. Kyle, engineer (brother of G. A. Kyle), residence, 1320 N. Yorkima Ave., Tacoma, Wash.
-	Allan, office engineer, residence, St. Paul, Minnesota (a relative of G. A. Kyle, of J. R. Stevens).
-	Kellar, engineer, residence, Cleveland, Ohio.
J. Heaman, engineer, residence, Oklahoma.
Raymond Heckman, engineer, (nephew of G. A. Kyle), residence, Tacoma, Washington.
William Myers, engineer, residence, Portland, Oregon.
-	Nutting, locating engineer, residence.
W. Mason, draughtsman, residence.
M. H. Goodman, draughtsman (now transferred to Grand Trunk Pacific office, Montreal).
-	Van Arsdaile, divisional engineer, £q-sidence, Portland, Oregon.
-	McNeil, district engineer, residence, Indiana.
W. Jones, engineer, residence, St. Paul, Minnesota.
-	Hare, engineer, residence, Wisconsin.
Wm. Mann, sr., engineer, residence, 1^15
Stopple St., Cincinnati, Ohio.
W. Mann, jr., engineer, residence, 1215 Stopple St., Cincinnati, Ohio.
-	Hicks, transitman,' residence, Tacoma, Washington.
-	Anderson, topographer, residence, Seattle, Washington.
Mr. Griffith also charges that Mr. J. R. Stevens, assistant chief engineer of the Grand

Trunk Pacific, and Mr. Burt, chief superintendent of construction, are American citizens.
A communication (as yet unanswered) which I sent to Mr. Walnwright on the 19th inst., a copy of which I herewith inclose, oc-ts. forth a list of fifteen persons, stated to be American *citizens in the service of the Grand Trunk Pacific. I may say that most of these are Included in the list mentioned in the accompanying extracts, but the following are not, namely :
Mr. Nutting, locating engineer.
W. Mann, sr., of Cincinnati.
W. Mann, jr., of Cincinnati.
You will observe that the institute asks for a commission to inquire into the facts, and if there be any dispute as to whether there has been a substantial disregard of the provisions of the law, it would seem reasonable that some such tribunal be appointed to inquire into the facts, and thus to lay the foundations for the enforcement of the law.
I would ask you, at the earliest possible moment, to furnish to me a statement showing the names, nationality and place of residence of the various persons from time to time employed, down to the present, by the Gland Trunk Pacific or by the Grand Trunk in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific surveys ; also a list of all applications of Canadians for employment in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific surveys, such statement showing a list of Canadian applicants refused employment, and those to whom the same has beeh granted.
I would he obliged were I to receive an ans-swrer to this communication at the earliest possible moment.
Yours truly,

[Stage Direction]
Minister of Labour.
To this communication I received a reply from Mr. Hays, dated 26th April, lf-04, in which he states that he has written the premier on the subject, and he mentions that his communication to the premier is to be considered as confidential unless I have the consent of the premier to make it public. There is nothing private in the communication, but as a matter of etiquette Mr. Hays did not deem it proper, I suppose, that I should n.ake public a letter sent to the premier without his consent. The document itself is of quite a public character, and the premier has given the substance of it in his remarks to-day, namely, that Mr. Hays, after giving a list of the employees, stated that 96 per cent or thereabouts were Canadians and about 3 or 34 per cent Americans. However, that communication did not satisfactorily answer my question, and I sent another letter to Mr. Hays under date of May 3, 1904, in the following words :
Dear Sir.-I have received your letter of the 29th ult., containing copies of correspondence between yourself and the premier, and yourself and Mr. Griffiths, on the subject of the employment of aliens to the exclusion of Canadian citizens on the Grand Trunk Pacific surveys, dealt with in my communication to you of the 26th ult.
As mentioned in my letter of that date, the government has placed this matter in my hands,
and I would point out that the correspondence ! inclosed with your communication does not afford a satisfactory reply to the points dealt . with in my letter of the 26th ult.
In that letter I asked to he furnished with a statement showing the names, nationality and place of residence of the various persons from j time to time employed down to the present, by the Grand Trunk Pacific or the Grand Trunk, in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific surveys ; also a list of all applications of Canadians for employment in connection with thb Grand Trunk Pacific surveys, such statement showing a list of Canadian applicants, if any, refused employment, and these to whom the same has been granted. I also set forth |th'e names of eighteen persons in the company's service at the present time, all of whom are alleged to be American aliens.
I have again to request that the statements asked for in my previous letter be supplied at the earliest moment, and that in regard to the several persons named, an explanation he given as to whether or not they are American aliens, and if so, why, in each case, the appointment was made to the exclusion, if such he the fact, of Canadian citizens.
I notice in your letter to the premier, that it is stated that a very large percentage of the men employed on the Grand Trunk Pacific surveys are Canadians, and that only a small percentage are Americans. In this connection I beg to observe that it is not sufficient to show that a large percentage of the employees a're, Canadians or British subjects, for in the opinion of the government, in no instance should aliens, not being actual and bona fide residents of Canada, be employed to perform work' on the projected line, if it is possible to procure it being done by Canadians or bona fide re-' sidents of Canada.
I notice, also, that in the case of one or two Americans whose employment by the company is admitted, there is a statement indicating that they were engaged at points in this country. Whilst the employment of aliens by engagements entered into with them in this country may not technically constitute an infraction of the Alien Labour Act, yet it is substantially a disregard of the principle that the work, wherever possible, should go to British subjects, or to persons who are making Canada their home.	.
The construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific is an undertaking of the first, national importance, and its national purpose should be kept constantly in view. It is to be expected that settlement and colonization will accompany the construction and development of the new road, and necessary work in connection with this construction should he used in every way to further this very desirable end. Nothing could more effectively defeat this purpose than the employment by the Grand Trunk Pacific of citizens of another country, whose interest in Canada is not an abiding one, and who may be expected to leave the country as soon as the occasion of their temporary employment is at an end.
I would again repeat the request that particulars asked for in my letter of the 26th ult., and repeated in this communication, he sup-I plied with the least possible delay.
Yours faithfully,

[Stage Direction]
Minister of Labour.
[Stage Direction]
On the 6th of May I received a letter from Mr. Logan, assistant to the 2nd vice-president, in these words :-
This will acknowledge your favour of the 3rd August, addressed to our 2nd vice-president and general manager, Mr. Chas. M. Hays, with reference to the employment of aliens in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific surveys
Mr. Hays is now absent in the west hut is expecting to return to Montreal in the early or latter part of next week, when your communication will have his personal consideration.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) R. S. LOGAN.
On the 7th of May I received another letter from Mr. Griffith-I am not now reading all his letters-having further reference to this subject, and on the 9th of May I wrote Mr. Hays as follows :
Dear Sir,-I am to-day in receipt of a letter dated the 4th instant, from Mr. J. L. Griffith, wherein he states as follows :-* The executive consider it advisable to inform your government that we have a further list of twenty engineers and assistants employed on the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway.' And further on he states:
' In addition to the above we have received to-day a further list of fifteen names of men who have been brought over from the States lately.'
Further on he states : ' Mr. H. Talbot Cros-bie, a qualified high-class British engineer, has been unable to get employment, and has been in my office begging me to help him to sell his engineering instruments so that he might get sufficient funds to return to Great Britain, or at least to New Brunswick, where he thinks he might be able to get temporary employment with some friends.'
Mr. Griffith also incloses me a letter signed by Mr. Harris, a copy of which I herewith send, and with reference to this gentleman Mr. Griffith states :
' In further corroboration of the very serious position in which Canadian and British engineers are placed in Canada to-day, by reason of their exclusion in favour of aliens, I beg to inclose you, attached herewith, a letter from Mr. R. Harris, a British subject resident in Canada for about four years: and by profession a civil engineer.'
I would be glad if you would let me have at your earliest convenience a complete list of all aliens from the United States heretofore or at present employed in connection with the work of the Grand Trunk Pacific, either in the field, in the office, or elsewhere, with the dates of their employment, their remuneration, and nature of their employment.
I would also be glad if you would inform me if either or both of the two engineers mentioned in Mr. Griffith's letter (Mr. Crosbie or Mr. Harris) applied for employment on the Grand Trunk Pacific, and if so, what action was taken in respect of their applications.
On the 7th instant, I received a communication from your assistant, Mr. R. S. Logan, acknowledging my letter to yourself of the 3rd instant, and stating that it yrould receive consideration on your return to Montreal the middle or latter part of this week. It is unfortunate that in a matter of this kind there Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
should be so much delay in hearing from your company, and I hope, in view of the delay wTiich has already occurred, that you will be able to give me a very prompt and complete answer to my letters of the 3rd instant, and of this date.
It is the policy of the government to protect Canadian labour in connection with public works, or works like the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, aided by guarantee or grant of public moneys, and it seems to me that a recognition of this policy at this date might obviate more serious trouble later on.
This morning' I received the following letter from Mr. Hays :
Montreal, May 12th, 1904.
My dear Sir,-On my return from a ten days' trip to the west I find your favours of May the 3rd and 9th in further reference to the complaints of Mr. Griffith on the alleged employment of aliens to the exclusion of Canadian citizens on the Grand Trunk Pacific surveys. I fear I cannot add to my letter of the 29th ultimo on this subject (in which I gave the names, nativity and occupation of all parties employed on our surveys) without at least taking some time to get the greater detailed information required. You will readily understand that since it is our practice to give Canadians the preference and employ others only when we cannot secure Canadians having the experience and ability considered requisite, we have not thought it necessary to keep a record in such detail as would enable us to give you off-hand the information you now desire, and as at present our men are widely scattered in the field, some of them miles off the line of railway, it will necessarily consume some time to comply with your request.
I may also say the same as to applications for positions, of which there have been a great many verbal and a great many written, some of both disposed of, to the satisfaction of the applicant, others declined without hesitation. These matters, as you will understand, are dealt with, not here at the general office by either the assistant chief engineer or myself personally, but by the division engineers who are responsible for their parties, employ the best men available and put them in the field, utilize them as long as they give satisfaction and dispense with their services when they cannot perform their duties properly.
I imagine a majority of the complaints you are receiving have their origin, as is the case with Mr. Griffith from parties who have been in our employ, hut who, for various reasons, have been relieved from the service and on that account are seeking to create trouble by alleging discrimination.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) CHAS. M. HAYS.
To this letter the following reply was sent :
Ottawa, 13th May, 1904.
Dear Sir,-I regret that your letter of the 12th just received was not at all an answer to my communication of 28th ultimo and 3rd and 9th instant. While you may not be able to give me all the information asked for, I presume from the tenor of your letter of the 29th ultimo to the premier, that you are at least in a position to give information regarding the specific cases to w'hich your attention has been
[Stage Direction]
307S
called in my various letters. Of these specific cases your letter just received makes no men tion whatever.
It is alleged that the following persons, for eigners and not resident in Canada, have been employed by the Grand Trunk Pacific in the capacities hereinafter named. I would like to receive at once a statement in regard to each of the persons named, showing whether such persons are or are not aliens, the date of their employment, and the reason for their employment to the exclusion of Canadians.
Tlieu followed a list of the persons mentioned in former correspondence.
As this list is a definite one, there should be no difficulty in supplying without delay the particulars asked for in regard to each of the persons named therein. I would like also to receive, as soon as the same can he prepared, the other statements asked for in my letters of the 26th ultimo and the 3rd and 9th instant.
That Is not the whole of the correspondonce bearing on this question which will be brought down with the return, but it is the latest correspondence and indicates the attitude of the government. I am not able myself to understand how the Grand Trunk Pacific can justify the employment of non-residents of Canada. non-British subjects, to the exclusion of Canadians. I do not say at this moment whether or not they have done so, but it is our duty to ascertain the facts. I think that if the Grand Trunk Railway bad been industrious, they could have furnished that information at an earlier date, and why they have not done so, I do not know. Certainly, they -will not be allowed,_ so far as I am concerned, to prevail in the matter ; and. if the information is not forthcoming in a fair, frank way, to enable us to consider the facts, it may be found that there are other ways by which that information can be produced.
Samuel Hughes: I would like to ask the hou. Minister a question. There are twenty-two names. Are they all of engineers, or are they of Chinamen, levellers and so on ? Because, I dare say the boys who hold the chains and chop the wood may be Canadians, but the engineers are, I think, nearly all Americans.


William Mulock: The statement is that a good many are engineers or assistant engineers. Some are said to he in offices.


William Findlay Maclean: Draughtsmen ?


William Mulock: Draughtsmen, I think.


Samuel Hughes: They will be boys.


William Mulock: I should not think that we should allow even the highest commissions to go to them. But at the same time the same principle runs through the whole question. It is not a question "of percentage. In my judgment, it is not an
answer for Mr. Hays to say that only three per cent of them are brought in in infraction of any law or contrary to the spirit of any law-


Edward Frederick Clarke: How can they be brought in if the law is enforced ?
Sir WILLIAM MULOClv. Mr. Hays says in this memorandum ' engaged in Canada.' But, under the Alien Labour Law, which was a retaliatory measure-I do not know what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) means. I say the Alien Labour Law


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. gentleman says he does not know what I mean. I have been paying the closest attention to what he says. It seems to me the question is what he means.


William Mulock: I say the Canadian Alien Labour Law was a retaliatory measure, and I thought the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) was dissenting from that. If he was, I say that the Canadian Alien Labour Act which was passed as a retaliatory measure corresponds with the Alien Labour Acts of certain states of the Union.


James Clancy: Will the hon. minister permit me ? Was it not provided in our Alien Labour Law that skilled labour might be brought in and, if there is such a provision, could not these professional men, these engineers and assistant engineers and draughtsman come in under that Clause ?


William Mulock: I think there are exceptions in our Act-speaking from memory, for I have not looked it up lately-hut which do not permit the employment even of experts from abroad unless there are none in the country. If our own country cannot furnish them, that may he an exception. But I am sure it is not an unqualified exception. I was going to say this, that it is not sufficient to say that there is only a slight infraction of the law. If there is any one at all introduced here without justification, that is if Canadian labour is left unemployed and aliens brought in, even if it is only one case, that case is in violation of the law. I was speaking in answer to a remark made by my toon, friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) that the Canadian Alien Labour Act makes it penal to import under contract certain foreign labour. And I should judge from some remarks made in the list furnished to the Prime Minister that the Grand Trunk are endeavouring to evade Jtoe Act by picking up these people in Canada.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Who are endeavouring to evade the Act ?


William Mulock: I say I can well understand that a hint might be given to a foreigner to come to Canada and, when he came here, he might be engaged, and in that way an attempt made to defeat the

30S0
Act. If that should turn out to be the case, or, if the Act is weak in that point, it ought to be strengthened, even if we have to go beyond the Act of the state of New York, "the Act which gave rise to the Alien Labour Law which we have in Canada. If the Grand Trunk Pacific, or the Canadian Pacific-because the Canadian Pacific is not blameless, but is equally violating the law as I am informed-if any of these railways that have been so largely aided by public grants seek to evade the spirit of the Act to-day, and if they can evade the spirit of the Act by arranging some way for people whom they wish to employ to come into Canada and then make a bargain with them, we cannot too soon correct the law and stop that mode of evading it. However, I suppose it is reasonable that we should get at the facts. I hope this discussion will make Mr. Hays realize that this is a serious question, a live question, and that it is to be dealt with as my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) rightly said, not by evasion but by a frank statement of what the position is, and thus, at the threshold of the question let this company and, all companies quite understand the spirit in which public works are to be carried on. And I think that a strong, firm stand at this stage, will be productive of lasting good in connection with this and similar enterprises ? It would not, in my judgment, be sufficient to meet tiie case to simply provide in this Bill that this work must be dealt with in a particular way. The general law, if weak, should be strengthened, and whatever would be the correct principle to apply to the case of the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific, would be equally applicable to other public works aided by public money, whether they be of greater or lesser importance.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I desire to say just a few words in connection with the remarks of the hon. Minister of Labour (Sir William Mulock). If I am correctly advised, the government of Canada were informed in January last by a memorial from the Canadian Association of Civil Engineering that the condition of affairs which they complained r.f existed in connection with the surveys being made by the Grand Trunk Company. Once or twice since the present session was convened the government were asked if they had any information from surveying parties, if they had anything to communicate to the House as to the surveys being made in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific. They had not a particle of information to give. Responsible ministers in reply to the questions stated that they had no information, that the government had no survey parties out. and consequently the government were not in a position to know the facts. If I understand anything about this contract which we have been dis-Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
cussing this week, the government of^ Canada are to assume the entire responsibility for the expenditure on the eastern division of the road, the whole expenditure necessary to construct the road from W innipeg to Moncton. The Minister of Labour must know, for it is a notorious fact, that for a year past the Grand Trunk Company has empolyed engineers, surveyors and their assistants in surveying the line east of Winnipeg, notwithstanding the fact that the government of Canada are to assume all the responsibility and pay all the expenditures in connection with the work. Yet, no action has been taken up to the present time to see to it that Canadian engineers and surveyors are not discriminated against. The minister has made a statement that a law exists in many States of the Union prohibiting the employment of alien labour. That is a well known fact. But, so lethargic lias this government been respecting the employment of alien professional men in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific work that it is only after their attention has been called again and again to the matter since this session convened that they have made a single move. The Minister of Labour (Sir William Mulock) has read us a whole lot of- correspondence beginning with the 2nd April, between himself, I think, and the officials of the Grand Trunk Railway. If I heard the Minister of Labour correctly the first letter he wrote u as to some under official of the Grand Trunk, and to it he never received any reply, not even an acknowledgment. The Minister of Labour, whose duty it is to protect Canadian citizens by enforcing the Canadian Labour Law, writing to a subordinate railway official about a matter respecting which complaints have been made again and again-a subordinate official of the Grand Trunk in the sense that he does not occupy so prominent a position as Mr. Hays-receives no answer; his letter is absolutely ignored; and it is onlv on the 26th of April, after he writes a second letter that a reply is received. But here again the minister is treated contemptuously, for the reply which in all courtesy and in all honour should have been sent to him is sent to the premier, and it is of a confidential nature. We are told here that as a matter of etiquette-these gentlemen are great on etiquette when they want to get around a pretty sharp corner-it would not have been quite in good form to pre-1 sent this letter to the House, because, while the answer was due to the Minister of Labour it was sent to the Prime Minister. That letter is not in the correspondence which the Minister of Labour (Sir William Mulock) read to-night.


William Mulock: It will be laid on the table no doubt.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It should have been on the table to-night when he made the state-

ment to which we have just listened. But the notorious fact is that notwithstanding that the Canadian Society of Civil Engineers memoralized this government in January last and drew their attention to the fact that they were being turned down, that a preference was being given to aliens in a national work to be paid for by the people of Canada, absolutely nothing was done until April last, Until last month, although these surveys had been, going on for more than twelve months and specific allegations had been made again and again, and some of them had been read in this House giving particulars, giving the names in many cases, of these aliens. Did ever an hon. minister present a more humiliating spectacle than the Minister of Labour has presented here to-night in trying to make a case. What has he done ? He has forwarded communications which were received by him from Canadian engineers who feel aggrieved that they should have been discriminated against and been ignored, he has sent these communications to the Grand Trunk officials and asked them if the statements contained in these communications were correct; and I think he himself will admit-he practically did so to-night-that he has not even yet received satisfactory replies to the communications which he addressed to these officials. What was the duty of the Minister of Labour when these complaints were first made ? He must have known that the Alien Labour Law which we have on the statute-book was being violated because he and his colleagues were in communication with the Grand Trunk authorities for months in connection with this project. He must have known that they were employing large numbers of men and sending out surveying parties over the projected route. Was it not his duty to see that the men employed, especially when the government paid for the work, were Canadians or British subjects. He has done absolutely nothing except to write some two or three letters to the Grand Trunk. I am in the sense of this committee when I say that instead of writing these letters asking Mr. Hays and some other officials of the Grand Trunk whether the allegations made by Canadian engineers were true or not, he was in duty bound to send some officer of his department-and X think there are sufficient officers employed to enable him to send one for this purpose-up to the west, whence these complaints emanated, and to have obtained for himself, for his own satisfaction, information on the ground as to whether these complaints were well founded or not. Is it satisfactory to be told after numerous complaints extending over a period of several months, that the minister himself is not satisfied with the replies he has received from Mr. Hays ? Is it not his bounden duty now to send some officer from
the Department of Labour to investigate these complaints ? In matters of much less consequence, when the Labour Department was in its infancy, officials were sent here and there throughout the country to make reports ; but now, in a matter of vital and national importance, when complaint after complaint has been filed by Canadian engineers who are out of employment, nothing has been done except to write two or three letters to Mr. Hays and to be insulted by Mr. Hays by not having replies made and not having the in-fomation sent to him as it should have been sent. On March 22nd last I got a communication in connection with this matter :
The employment of aliens when good Canadians can be had, on practically government work, is certainly a crying shame, and no government should allow it	A considerable
number of engineers employed by the Grand Trunk Pacific on their surveys in the west are citizens of the United States brought over to displace Canadian engineers, especially in the high-salaried positions.
It is just as the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) said. If Canadians are employed, they are chain men and axe men.
These aliens are employed, not because the Grand Trunk Pacific cannot get Canadian engineers capable of filling the positions, but because the manager of the Grand Trunk Pacific is himself an American, and is now showing his leaning for his native land by employing engineers from the United States, and thereby keeping Canadian engineers from getting employment to which they are entitled	
They had any amount of applications from capable engineers ; they did take on Canadian engineers, but only to fill interior positions, such as assistant engineer, levellers, rodman, &c., but filled all the good positions with aliens from the United States, chief engineer, district engineer and division engineers. These are all positions of responsibility, and could only he filled by aliens; and another thing, these engineers, who in their own country only filled inferior positions, come over to Canada and are put in good positions over the heads of good Canadians capable of filling the places.
This letter Is signed by J. E. Martin.
The following are some of the positions filled by aliens on a road built by the government of Canada: Assistant engineer, Montreal, he is practically the chief engineer; district engineer, Winnipeg; district engineer, Edmonton; district engineer, British Columbia; division engineer, Edmonton; division engineer, Yorkton; division engineer, Peace River, and some others.
On the 24th Marc-h I had a. letter from Mr. George L. Griffith. Winnipeg, Provincial Secretary for Manitoba of the Dominion of Canada Institute of Amalgamated Engineering, in which he says :
I beg to assure you that the state of affairs is much worse than you can possibly imagine; a large number of inexperienced and incompetent men have been brought into Canada and been placed in positions of responsibility at large . salaries, while we have numbers of experienced

men out of employment and their families suffering in consequence. I have a list of engineers (156) all Canadians or Britishers, anxious to get employment. Enclosed with this letter I send as a specimen one from your own constituency ; yet this British-Canadian, with 19 years' experience, cannot get an engagement, although numbers of Americans grossly incompetent and inexperienced are being brought over and placed at large salaries.
This is signed ' Geo. L. Griffith.' In the correspondence which the Minister of Labour presented to the committee this evening, Mr. Hays made an insinuation that this Mr. Griffith had been in the employment of the Grand Trunk Railway and that his services had been dispensed with. That at least is the conclusion I came to from hearing the statement made by the Minister of Labour. I am informed that that definite statement was made. If that is the case and if the strong statements which Mr. Griffith has made again and again to the minister and his colleagues have no foundation in fact, it would have been easy for Mr. Hays and those with him to have stated that fact and to have disproved them. From the vacillating, oscillating, shuffling course which has been pursued we are forced to the conclusion that there is a great deal of truth in the allegations that have been made and repeated so often in the last few months.
On the 2nd of April Mr. Griffith wrote me again and inclosed a copy of a letter he had forwarded to the Minister of Labour. The inclosure is dated the 2nd April. He also sent a copy of the 'letter which the hon. gentleman has read to the committee, and which I need not read again.


William Mulock: The first time the matter was brought to my attention was by that letter.	*


Mr.   CLAREE@: I took the opportunity of bringing the matter before the attention of the government and before the attention of parliament by asking a question respecting this very matter a few days after the House was convened. The hon. gentleman must have forgotten that, I presume.


William Mulock: No, I have not.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am advised that the Canadian Society of Civil Engineers, whoso meeting was held in January in Montreal, made representations to the government about this very matter. If that is the case, surely these representations should not have been pigeon-holed, but they should have been sent to the proper department, which, I presume, is the Department of Labour. The hon. gentleman will be able to ascertain from the officers of his department, or the officers of the Railway Department, whether these complaints were made, and whether they reached his department. In addition to the statement which the hon. Minister of Labour has presented to us as having been Mr. CLARKE.
received from Mr. Griffith on the 2nd April, there 'is this further document, which is attached :



CANADIAN ENGINEERS IN CANADA.


[Stage Direction]
We beg respectfully to inform you that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company has divided the territory between the Pacific and Atlantic into divisions, each of about two hundred (200) miles In length.
The following engineering officers, all Americans, a number of whom we are satisfied are Incompetent, have been brought over here with the utmost secrecy and appointed on each division :-
One chief division engineer.
One assistant division engineer.
One office engineer.
Four assistant engineers.
One chief office draughtsman.
The assistant engineers are those who have charge of a survey party in the field. Each field party has heen made up of at least eight American engineer graduates under control of an assistant engineer as follows :-
Chief of party, transit man, levellers,
All American engineers.
. Topographer, draughtsman, Commissary, front picket man,
Head chainman,
Youthful graduates from American colleges.
With about twelve (12) more men for axe work, &c.
The majority of the eight (8) men named above are simply waiting until the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway agreement is passed by your House when they are to receive appointments as assistant engineers and construction engineers, thereby making room for about another fifty or sixty American graduates to take their places, who have all heen selected and are waiting instructions to come over. Only a very few of these men have had any experience on railroad or any other engineering work or have the slightest intention of permanently residing in the country, but simply wish to get experience at the expense of Canada and the Canadians, so that they can further American interests elsewhere, American engineering instruments being provided for their use free of charge.
In the meantime we have in Canada a large number of Canadian and British engineers with their own complete equipment of engineering instruments, experienced railroad men out of employment, with their families almost in a state of destitution, and a large number also in the States who have been driven out of Canada by the American officers of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and are praying for an opportunity to return under the old'flag. Gentlemen, give them a chance.
This is all from the appeal Mr. Griffith made to hon. gentlemen opposite.
We note on reading a copy of the ' Orders of the Day,' No. 12, House of Commons, that the Hon. Frederick D. Monk, M.P., has given notice of motion,-
' For a statement of all sums expended since the 1st October, 1903, on surveys and explorations in connection with the eastern division of the new Transcontinental Railroad ; the names

and occupations of the parties to whom such sums have been paid.'
We would respectfully suggest asking for a statement of all sums expended since 1st March, 1903, instead of October, 1903, as the majority of these American survey parties in the employ of the Grand Trunk Pacific have been in the field since March, 1903, in fact extraordinary as it may seem to you, several months before the meeting of the House of Commons in 1903.
The surveys so far made on the eastern division especially are almost worthless for railroad purposes. A far better Jine through the same territory is already known to Canadian engineers which would ultimately cost to construct per mile about two-thirds of that proposed by the Americans, with a corresponding reduction in grades, curvature, bridging, operating and maintenance expenses, and when the country is settled with an increased tributary population ensuring a proportionate increase of earnings. The engagement of Canadian engineers in lieu of the Americans will not retard but on the contrary materially accelerate operations.
The cost of these surveys between Winnipeg and the Atlantic (eastern division) has averaged fifteen thousand ($15,000) dollars a month, a total of nearly two hundred thousand ($200,000) dollars from the early part of March, 1903, to date, 31st March, 1904.
These surveys we maintain again are almost worthless through inexperience on the class of work, required, mismanagement, ignorance of the country, its topography and our systems of surveys, and we protest against the acceptance of the plans or payment for same by the Dominion government. The accounts to be charged up to the Dominion government for these surveys include the cost of free railway passes over foreign lines granted to these American engineers, and the cost of American surveying instruments, which is about 50 per cent more than would have been paid for Canadian or British instruments of better quality.
The above remarks apply with equal force to. the western division between Winnipeg and the Pacific.
If this railroad is to be built we ask that Canadian and British engineers be employed. Neither the Great Northern, Northern Pacific Railway or other lines in the United States will employ a Canadian or British engineer unless and until he becomes a naturalized citizen of the United States, and not even then unless he has a family and has established his home there, and it is common knowledge that Canadians have been repeatedly deported from the United States to Canada.
The Acts in force in the States bordering on Canada forbid the employment of any person in an official capacity unless he is a citizen of the United States by any municipality, corporation, railroad company, or state authorities. Mr. Burt, an American young man of insufficient experience, has been appointed by Mr. Hays, superintendent of construction on the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, great stress being laid upon the fact that he had superintended the work known as the ' Lucin cut-off crossing,' a railway cut-off over a dried-up corner over Great Salt lake. This work of a very simple engineering nature, has through mismanagement and inexperience been almost a total failure, causing great loss to the shareholders of the company. The following paragraph taken from the American publication, ' Engineering News,' March 17th, 1904, speaks for itself :-
' The Lucin cut-off crossing over Great Salt lake, Utah, is still giving trouble. According to a news despatch a freight train going over the crossing a few days ago was delayed because of settlement of a part of the line. The last sinking spell of the crossing occurred five or six weeks before. No passenger train will be sent over the cut-off for some time, according to this despatch. No statement of the difficulties encountered in this work has yet been given out by the railway officials.'
It is in fact impossible for them to give out any information without divulging to the public the incapacity of the men who had charge of the work. Yet the man who superintended this work is appointed chief superintendent of construction on the Grand Trunk Pa-oific Railway, while we have a number of Canadians available who have forgotten more than Mr. Burt is ever likely to know about railway construction, and his appointment is a gross insult to every Canadian and Canadian engineer.
The Canadian Pacific Railway engineering department, by the skilful weeding out by sharp practice and trickery of Canadian and British engineers and appointment of Americans instead, is fast passing under the control of those Americans whose sole aim is to destroy Canadian commerce and industry.
The American officials of the Grand Trunk Pacific are now making strepuous efforts in preparing false lists presumably to be sent to the Dominion government purporting to show that a number of Canadians are employed by them. These lists are absolutely untrue, there being only five (5) Canadians employed (including Mr. Perry, a capable and experienced engineer)
Samuel Hughes: Perry is off.
Mr. OLA RKlEt Miy lion. iflriend from North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) says that Perry is off now.


Samuel Hughes: I understand that he is off.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That will make four.
-in subordinate positions and these would not have been employed had not the American engineers of the Grand Trunk Pacific been compelled to do so temporarily until by sharp practice, false reports and trickery, they were able to remove them, and a scheme had already been floated to remove them, when our agitation against the employment of these American aliens will probably now cause them to be employed a little while longer.
The Canadian Alien Labour Law is weak at present in the enforcement or penalty clause, the information having to be laid in each individual case by the individual citizen before a magistrate, and furnish evidence against said alien at his private expense and much loss of time. This practically nullifies the law' and makes it a dead letter. Law should be amended so as to provide for appointment of an official whose duty it shall be on complaint of any individual to secure evidence of an infringement of the law and prosecute at the expense of the government. This is the method followed on the American side of the line and

308S
only in this way can the law be made operative and effective.
The following quotation is taken from the speech made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier at the last session on the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway :-
' The company should purchase all materials and supplies required for construction of the western division and equipment for the whole of said line of railway from Canadian producers when the same was produced in Canada and when such materials and supplies can be purchased in desired quantities and equal quality suitable for the purposes required, and for a price and upon terms equal to what they can be obtained elsewhere.'
The above words have already been perverted to mean by the United States alien management of the Grand Trunk Pacific, that they are at liberty to employ solely alien engineers anc purchase United States products and manufactures by importing quietly alien labour and by notifying alien manufacturers long in advance of requirements of what will be needed, so that when the management are ready to prosecute the work American manufacture! s will be able to meet their terms and requirements to the best possible advantage.
Canadian manufacturers in the meantime have been unadvised and kept strictly in ignorance until the management are ready to demand delivery, which American manufacturers, being advised in advance, will be quite ready to fill. Canadian manufacturers in the meantime being unprepared until such demand is made will be taken at a disadvantage and their American competitors will secure the orders.
In the United States, in all contracts or agreements between any state government and a railroad corporation with reference to the construction of any railway branch, the following clause is inserted:-
' Alien labour. The company shall not engage or employ any person in contravention of the Alien Labour Law.'	.
A deputation of western railroad engineers of good reputation, if permission be given, will be only too glad to wait on the government and give fuller details and prove the facts stated
We can provide a far greater number of Canadian engineers than will be necessary for the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway.	.
It will be remembered upon the accession of Mr. Hays to the management of the Grand Trunk system, one of his first acts was an extensive displacement and dismissal of the Canadian operating staff in favour of alien labour from the United States, thereby, in our opinion, lowering the efficiency of the Grand Trunk system, indirectly the cause of the disastrous collisions that took place on the road a few months ago, and the present drop in the value of Grand Trunk Railway shares.
His animus towards Canadians was thus clearly defined at the outset. The most recent and flagrant exhibition,of this was ignoring the professional civil engineering element of Canada, and his establishment of United States aliens upon the entire survey of the Grand Trunk Pacific from coast to coast, and the absolute exclusion of Canadians, thus placing this survey in the hands of men who are entirely unacquainted with the topography, climatic conditions, and general natural features of the country in which they were operating. The majority are men of entirely immature and inexperienced judgment, who were given Mr. CLARKE.
this work to the exclusion of Canadians of mature judgment and experience. These aliens receive much higher remuneration, and the construction of the work being otherwise enormously augmented in cost through their said inexperience, and we would impress upon the government that they should not be stampeded into any acceptance of said plans or surveys until the work has been carefully gone over and thoroughly revised by Canadian engineers under the immediate supervision and control of the government.
We cannot too strongly impress upon the government that, this may mean an enormous saving of expenditure in cost of construction and maintenance, saving of grades, structures and curvature, and the possibility incidentally of a considerable saving in mileage.
It should also be borne in mind that the vast financial interests associated with the Transcontinental Railway lines of the United States are liable to do what they can indirectly to degrade the efficiency of a new Transcontinental line, and the government will do well to guard against the surreptitious influences which, are now at work and will be continually at work to accomplish their object in making a dangerous rival less dangerous by in every possible way decreasing its efficiency.
We would respectfully invite the attention of the government to the items concerning alien labour incorporated by the Ontario government in the specifications and contract of the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway, and also, we believe, made effective by Act of Ontario legislature. We would strongly urge similar legislation and executive action upon the part of the Dominion government in all its dealings in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific and in all its relationships of that work to the interests and well being of the Canadian people.
As an illustration of the gross waste of public money now going on from coast to coast through ignorance of the country and its topography by the aliens now engaged on the Grand Trunk Pacific we will mention the following:-
The great prairies extending westward from Winnipeg to the foot hills of the Rocky mountain bear evidence of having once been an immense inland sea, with its several beaches marking the successive levels of the waters of what geologists have been pleased to term the great post glacier Lake Agassiz. Between Winnipeg and Edmonton there are two lifts of about 550 feet each, which serve to divide the prairie country into three great subdivisions having the same general characteristics. The first prairie steppe includes the low plain of Manitoba and is bounded on the west by the first lift of 550 feet, which is simply a series of benches or terraces forming the so-called Riding, Duck, Porcupine and Pasqual mountains.
In some places these terraces form a precipitous escarpment, and the only route for a line of railway is by one of the valleys cut through the escarpment by the rivers, or the sand dunes in front of the escarpment. It is by means of these sand dunes that the Canadian Pacific Railway is carried from the first to the second prairie steppe. The difficulty is increased by the fact that the Assiniboine river before reaching the plain of Manitoba runs through the second prairie steppe parallel with the escarpment or lift on the western boundary of Manitoba, and in so doing has scoured out a valley about 300 feet deep and from one to two

miles wide, the river 300 feet wide following a tortuous course along the floor of the valley. Therefore a railway line after rising 550 feet from the first to the second prairie steppe, has to again drop down 300 feet into the Assiniboine valley and rise 300 feet on the opposite side.
Literally almost every foot of the escarpment and the Assiniboine valley for 40 miles north and 40 miles south of the proposed location of the Grand Trunk Pacific has been surveyed over and over again since the year 1875 by the engineering parties working under Sir Sandford Fleming, Marcus Smith, Walter Moberly and many other well known Canadian engineers and in later years by the Canadian Pacific Railway, Manitoba and Northwestern Railway Great Northwest Central Railway, Canadian Northern Railway, &c. If a Canadian engineer had been in charge of the Winnipeg division of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, from his personal knowledge of the country he could have laid out at comparatively small cost the only available routes, but the American in charge of this work, through ignorance of the topography of the country or of the work already done by the Dominion government and other railway companies, has had for months one complete American survey party and at times two American survey parties in the field floundering all over the country trying to find a line through the escarpment at a cost of at least $12,000 to the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, with no progress yet made, except that they are the laughing stock of the engineers throughout the west. In fact the reports sent to Montreal by those bright specimens of American engineering have been alrflost en-tireiy copied by a stenographer from the works y Professor Macoun, Dominion government explorer, and others in the Winnipeg library and not from their own personal knowledge or experience.
That is the communication which accompanied the letter sent to the Minister of Labour on 2nd of April, six weeks ago* and I want to draw the attention of the committee to this fact : that while the Minister of Labour sent this communication to the Grand Trunk Railway officials at once and asked them if these statements were correct, the engineers who made the complaint and who volunteered to send a deputation to wait upon the government to substantiate their allegations, had no notice whatever taken of their request, although the Grand Trunk were asked for information as to the accuracy of these statements, the men who made the complaint declare at page 7 of this communication :
A deputation of Western Railroad engineers of good reputation, if permission be given, will be only too glad to wait upon the government! a+n+ -give fuI*er details and prove the facts
If the Minister of Labour had accepted that suggestion, if he had invited the men who made the complaints to come down here, he could have heard their statements himself; and having heard their statements, lie would have been in a position to judge of the value to be placed upon them; or, fail, ing to invite them down here, he might have sent some of the officials of his own depart-9S
meut up to the west who, by interviews and conversations with these men, could put the department ill a position to be much better informed than it apparently is to-day.


William Mulock: Mr. Griffith, the secretary, is in the city at the present time, brought down here at the expense of the government.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am very glad to hear that. Might I ask the Minister of Labour when he came here ?


William Mulock: I do not know what day he arrived here. I telegraphed him if he would come down I would pay his fare, or expenses, or something to that effect.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Was that after the hon. gentleman had written twice to Mr. Hays ?


William Mulock: And I got an answer from him saying that he would be here on Wednesday night, or this morning. He appeared this morning.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am glad to hear that the Minister of Labour, at the end of six weeks, has asked Mr. Griffith to come down here. The letter to which I have referred was written on the 2nd of April. The minister has acknowledged that he received that letter. It asked that a deputation of engineers be allowed to come down here and substantiate these statements. But now, the hon. gentleman, having failed to get any information from Mr. Hays, having been flouted and ignored by the officials of the Grand Trunk Railway, telegraphs to Mr. Griffith to come down, and he says Mr. Griffith is in the city to-day. I congratulate him on bringing Mr. Griffith down after six weeks of delay. But if Mr. Griffith was actuated by the motive which Mr. Hays alleges in making these complaints, would it not have been as well to have had Mr. Griffith and a deputation of these engineers brought down at the same time, so that the government would have been placed in communication with more than one man, especially as that man had been discharged by the company ? I leave the hon. gentleman to make the necessary explanations of what I consider to he gross laxity in connection with this whole business. On the 8th of April Mr. Griffith addressed a letter to myself, in which he said :
We have written three letters to the Minister of Labour, sending in the names of twenty men, as a first instalment, all American aliens, engineers and draughtsmen, employed east and west of Winnipeg.
Actually east of Winnipeg, where the Canadian people have to assume the entire responsibility and expense in connection with the construction of the road-
I am given to understand that in all probability a great effort will be made by the' Grand Trunk Pacific Company to discredit our statements. We therefore beg respectfully to



S091 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
ask that you will force this matter of alien labour,to the attention of the government, for if they deny our charges the Minister of Labour has the evidence right there.
As an instance of the manner ^ in which the engineering positions are filled in every division of the Grand Trunk Pacific, the following statement may be used by you in the House : the division engineer at Winnipeg, G. A. Kyle, has appointed his brother, M. Kyle, his nephew, Raymond Heckman, and a brother-inlaw locating engineers on his division. None of these men are in the opinion of Canadian engineers competent for the positions to which they have been appointed.
I am sorry that I have been compelled to take up so mueli of the time of tjie committee in referring to this matter. If the Department of Labour had been equal to the occasion, if the Minister of Labour had given that prompt personal attention to this matter that its importance deserved, we should not need to be discussing the condition of things that exists at the present time. I think I am in . the sense of the committee when I say that there has been gross neglect of the interests of our Canadian and British engineers and surveyors. They had a right to expect sympathetic treatment from the men who are commencing the work of construction of this great transcontinental road. They had some right to be considered by the Grand Trunk authorities as well as by the Minister of Labour. But after these surveys have been going on for a long time, and notwithstanding tlie fact that the government was notified in January last by the Canadian Society of Civil Engineers, and since then again and again by Canadian engineers in the west, and although emphatic protests have been made against the treatment dealt out by these Grand Trunk officials to Canadian professional men, we find at the end of all this time that the Minister of Labour thinks he has discharged his duty by reading to us copies of two or three letters which he has sent to Mr. Hays, expressing his conviction that this great national work must be carried on in a truly national spirit, and that thei'e must be no dlscriimlnation against Canadians in the work of the surveys. May I appeal to the lion, minister that there is yet time to do something that will benefit the Canadian engineers and surveyors in connection with this work ? If the hon. gentleman desires to listen to the appeals which these men have made, it is not yet too late tor him to despatch an officer to Winnipeg to make inquiries himself into the situation and advise the minister whether these statements are well founded or not. If they are not well founded, it is not fair to Mr. Hays and the Grand Trunk officials that they should be iterated and reiterated, as they have been for months past. If they are well founded, the Labour Department has shown itself in this case not to be equal to the occasion or worthy of the confidence of the wage-earners of Canada, who look to it Mr. CLARKE.
for protection when flagrant violations of th j law are brought to its attention.
Mr. PUTTEE.: Before the minister replies, I would like him to tell us whether iir. Griffith states how many aliens hav [DOT] been brought in ? Mr. Hays, in writing to the premier, stated that 96 per cent of the employees on the surveys are Canauians. What is Mr. Griffith's reply to that ?


William Mulock: Perhaps the statements of Mr. Griffith and Mr. Hays wall not tally. The fact that their statements are contradictions of each other wilt not advance the issue much. Mr. Griffith gave me a list in the various letters of some twenty-two. I collected them and set them forth in a communication to Mr. Hays. I am glad that my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke), at tills late stage in his political career, is developing such a sympathy with the wage-earners of Canada. This is not his first appearance in public life; he has grown, almost, old in the service. He ' has been selected by the public, and particularly by the wage-earners of Canada, for various public positions during a quarter of a century, and during all that time until the last eight years, while his political allies were in power in Ottawa


Edward Frederick Clarke: They were not building the Grand Trunk Pacific.


William Mulock: They were building the Canadian Pacific Railway, and the hon. gentleman was never tired boasting of it ; and yet the first thing done on the completion of that railway was to put an American citizen at the head of it, to be' enriched at tlie hands of hon. gentlemen op posite, to be succeeded in turn by another of the same nationality, and from that day to this the hon. gentleman has never ceased paying homage to those same distinguished men.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Did the hon. gentleman not help to secure him a knighthood, and did he not join in offering him a seat in the Senate ?


Mr. FIELDING.: That was long after he became a Canadian. He was not a Canadian when you employed him.


William Mulock: My hon. friend has not forgotten, perhaps, that prior to this government coming to office, this country was the favourite stamping ground of the aliens, who took the plums that ought to have been kept for Canadians only. When did the hon. gentleman ever rise a voice on behalf of the Canadian people ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: When the hon. gentleman is in a position to do something, he is doing nothing.


William Mulock: Will the hon. gentleman have patience a moment and I will deal with him ?


Samuel Hughes: May I ask a question ? At the time lie refers to, had the Americans an iniquitous labour law as they have to-day ?


William Mulock: The question is, what should be done with Canadian public money ? Does the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Hughes) say that if the Americans were to wipe out their law, we would go back to the same state of affairs as existed formerly ?


Robert Laird Borden: Did not my hon. friend say that our law was a retaliatory law ?


William Mulock: I said that that was the origion of it. I said that retaliation was what led to its establishment, but I went on to add that I considered that our law, if weak, should go further, and if necessary go beyond the American Act, and I say so to-day. The hon. gentleman is manifesting great zeal this evening for the workingmen. But for twenty-five years he never raised his voice in public to assist them. He is a man who has always been ready to make his living out of them.


Mr. BENNETT.: Shame.


William Mulock: I am speaking of his public career. Several times he has been enabled, as commissioner, to earn public money, and is therefore one to whom the workingmen should be entitled to look to specially for consideration. What has he to say now with regard to this particular question ? He .tells us that he has been in correspondence with Mr. Griflith a long time. He has read letters, which he had in his possession long be'fore this question came to my attention. This matter was first drawn to my attention by Mr. Griflith, in his communication dated the 2nd of April, and received by me some time subsequent to that date. Prior to that, correspondence had been carried on with various ministers but not with me.


Edward Frederick Clarke: He ignored you altogether. Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. I do not see why he ignored me. but he chose to write to other ministers. Ultimately, however, I received a communication from him and then took up the matter. My first communication was in the early part of April, and since then I have endeavoured to get at the facts. My hon. friend complains of delay. Did he receive any correspondence from anybody giving him information prior to my receiving any ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: I read the correspondence.


William Mulock: The hon. gentleman read letters which he said he received in March.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The 22nd, I think.


William Mulock: What has he been doing since the 22nd of March ? Why 981
did he not bring this matter to the attention of the House long ago ? Long before I was seized with the matter, he had his information, and yet he remained asleep. He did not even take the trouble, on behalf of the wage-earners to raise his voice when the grievance was brought to his attention but remained tongue tied until the leader of the opposition mentioned the matter and until the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Ralph Smith) gave notice of legislation and a motion as well. It is only to-night, on the 13th of May, nearly two months after he got his first information, he rises to take part in the debate. Had he been so zealous as he pretends, he would have brought the matter up in the House at a much earlier period. What has he been doing during the seven or eight weeks that have elapsed since he got his first information ? Has he no duties to perform in the interests of the wage-earner ? If he is their special chosen advocate, why has he not been doing his duty ? He has very little to do except to attend to such matters, yet this particular case did not interest him sufficiently to induce him to make the slightest reference to it until to-night, when the debate is on and he could not very well shirk it. Yet this is the gentleman \Vho has elected himself the special advocate of the wage-earners of Canada. I do not sympathize with Mr. Hays in this matter. On the contrary, all my sympathies are the other way. I believe in the enforcement of the law in every reasonable manner, so that people resident in Canada will receive the benefit of employment to be paid for by the public money of Canada, if they are fit for the work ; and until it can be shown that there is not sufficient labour in Canada of the right quality, the presumption is that we are quite equal ourselves to perform all the public works for which our people have to pay. The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) says I should have sent a man to the west to make inquiries. What sort of a wild goose chase would that have been ? Where would the man have gone ? Would he have got any more information by going to the offices of the Grand Trunk Pacific at Winnipeg ? Could he not be deceived there and misled just as well as down east ? Or was lie to go into the prairies or the mountains rnd see these men and try and ascertain from them where they were born, their [DOT] nationality and how they came to be employed ? No. I think the proper course was to go to headquarters, to the responsible head of the Grand Trunk Railway, and get from him the information. If he should fail to give us that information, there is a way by which we can reach him. I submit, with all respect, that there has not been that great delay of which my hon. friend complains. I received my first communication some time in the first week of April. That referred me to some correspondence which had been sent to Ottawa. I had to collect

that correspondence from the different departments, and I immediately followed that up by writing, in the first place, to the secretary of the company. The hon. gentleman says I wrote to some irresponsible. I wrote to Mr. Wainwright. Does the hon. gentleman say that he is an irresponsible ? He is an official of the Grand Trunk Kailway of long standing.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Did you get an answer ?


William Mulock: I did not receive the answer I ought to have got.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Did you receive an answer at all ?


William Mulock: I do not think I did, giving the information I desired. I wrote to the right person in the first instance ; and if he delayed or neglected to answer, that is not my fault. I should like to know to whom my hon. friend would have me write. Mr. Wainwright is one of the leading officials, authorized to receive correspondence with the Grand Trunk Railway. At all events, he was written to on the 19th of April, and a further letter was sent Mr. Hays on the 26th of April. After a few days, the answer came Mr. Hays was out of 'Canada, and would be back and send an answer towards the latter part of the week. That letter reached me this morning. That is the first letter I had from Mr. Hays, except the one I spoke of, in which he said he had written to the premier, and I have again put myself on record with him. Now I venture to say that my action has been much more speedy than that of my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke). He tells us that he l-eceived a letter on this subject in March-that he was informed of these doings then. To whom did he write ? Did he write to the Grand Trunk ? Did he write to the government ? Did he exercise his undoubted right to stand up in this House and at once call the attention of the House and of the government to the facts ? Did he in the slightest degree attempt to discharge his duties as a member of this House with respect to this very Important subject-the employment of aliens on a public work ? I fail to see that however zealous he may be in debate be has manifested that sincere interest in the sub. ject that would have resulted, had he been moved by it, in effective action. Now', we are only at the threshold of this great subject, the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific. I suppose that in due time the Grand Trunk Pacific-this I only reason upon ; I have no information on the point -if they are making surveys of this eastern division, which is to be constructed by the government, may ask us to pay for those surveys. It is probable they have that in their mind, though I do not know' it. But if they make such a request it will be a question then whether any disbursement in respect of wages or salaries paid to aliens Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
under the circumstances under discussion should be recognized. Up to this moment, at all events, the government have not disbursed public moneys in these surveys, thej have not recognized these surveys. The government are not parties to the surveys m any way, up to this moment no public money has gone into them, and perhaps uo public money will go into them, or, at all events, that portion of them which may he performed by American labour. That is a question, of course, for future consideration.


James Clancy: Did not the Prime Minister say last year, and also this year, that he would pay for these surveys ?


William Mulock: I do not know what the Prime Minister said on that subject last year or this year.


James Clancy: The Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) is in his place ; and, if I am not mistaken, he made that statement last year.


William Stevens Fielding: No, I did not say .that.
I said that the Grand Trunk had entered upon these surveys of their own motion, and, if the surveys were found to he useful to the government, and were approved by our chief engineer, whoever he might he, I saw no reason why they should not he bought and paid for. But there was no agreement on the subject.
Mr. iSAM. HUGHES. I happen to have it here. It will be found at page 14646 of 1 Hansard ' of last year :


Samuel Hughes: I see by tile Montreal ' Star ' of this evening that Mr. Hays says he has survey parties all over the road. Is the government paying for these?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No arrangement has been made with respect to that. But if the Grand Trunk have made surveys which can he properly utilized, I think we should he glad to have the work advanced to that extent and to utilize the result. And if we utilize the work of the surveys, no doubt some arrangement will be made to hear our fair share of the expense.


William Mulock: It would be n question of what would be our fair share, if we were called upon to pay for work performed by aliens under these circumstances.


Samuel Hughes: I understood that they were to pay their share east of Winnipeg and the others their share west of Winnipeg.


William Mulock: I do not know of any understanding between the Grand Trunk or the Grand Trunk Pacific, aud the government on this subject. The Finance Minister says there is no understanding. Whatever the government do hereafter will he entirely voluntary on their part. But, Mr. Chairman, it is only a preliminary feature of a great work, that is the construction of the Grand Trunk Pa-I cific. And the amount of work involved
309?

in these surveys is not very large as compared with the total work to be performed in this construction of this great enterprise from ocean to ocean. And, even if the debate is acute, and if hon. gentlemen manifest a keen interest in this matter, for my part, I derive a great deal of satisfaction, from that fact. My hon. friends are welcome to any point they suppose they can make against me, whether I have been astute and active as they would have been under the circumstances or not. If t have not come up to the previous expectation of my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) then, judging from the record of that hon. gentleman on this matter, how far would he fall, under similar circumstances, below the standard he now sets up. But, Sir, I say that I do not regret-on the contrary I am gratified by it- the attention that is being given to this subject, because it means that steps must be taken, by legislation or otherwise, to put this question on a more satisfactory basis, one that will make it clear to the Grand Trunk and to all concerned that it is the policy of the Canadian people to have the work, if possible, performed by the Canadian people themselves. The subject, therefore, will be productive of excellent results if it is educational in the way I have mentioned. I do not think, at this stage, with only part of the file read, we could enter with any satisfaction into a controversy as to where the truth lies. If it should turn out that the truth is on the side of Mr. Hays, then we shall have been unjustly commenting upon him. I am not one to undervalue the statement of Mr. Griffith simply because he may have ceased to be an employee of the Grand Trunk. Quite the contrary ; it has nothing to do with his credibility. I had the pleasure of meeting him for the first time this morning. I formed a high opinion of him. As to his professional qualifications, he showed me testimonials that indicate that he is an engineer of eminent standing, reliable


Samuel Hughes: Trying to smooth him over a bit ?


William Mulock: No, I have nothing to smooth over. I simply desire to get at the truth, by the examination of Mr. Griffith, Mr. Hays, or anybody else. I say that at the present moment the question of fact is to be determined and it seems to me only fair to endeavour to get each party to make their statements, and. if they do not harmonize, to appoint some independent tribunal to inquire into the facts, so that we may know where we stand in regard to the controversy.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am sorry the Minister of Labour (Sir William Muloclc) did not attempt to answer the allegations that have been made against him by men for some
of whom he expresses much appreciation, Mr. Griffith being one of them. I am sorry he did not attempt to give some explanation of his gross and unpardonable neglect in looking after the interests of these men. He is the head of the department that was organized especially to give attention to the grievances of the toilers, and to protect those who feel themselves aggrieved by the infringement of the Alien Labour Law. I read to the hon. gentleman the correspondence I had received and read it in the most respectful way. And the answer is a tirade of abuse-I suppose that is the best, in fact the only answer the hon. gentleman could have made- a tirade of abuse in which He charges me with making a living out of the working classes-


William Mulock: No, I did not intend that


Edward Frederick Clarke: That I was making a living out of the working classes-


William Mulock: No, I did not say that. No


Edward Frederick Clarke: If the hon. gentleman is prepared to take it back, of course, T must accept his apology. I have never had the honour to serve the working classes in any official capacity in my life, except as a representative of the people, and then not specially as the representative of the working classes. But I have felt it a great privilege, as well as my bounden duty, in this House or in any other assembly where I had a voice or vote, to give that vote and raise that voice in their behalf. It is because I felt it in line with my duty as a representative of an industrial constituency that I am trying to stir up the hon. gentleman to make his actions square with his professions at the present time. What under Heaven is the use of having a Labour Department if the Labour Department does nothing ? In January last and again in March and again in April the hon. gentleman and his colleagues received statements accusing the Grand Trunk Pacific of employing aliens and refusing to employ Canadians. One would have thought, as there is some Irish blood in his veins, that when he had been turned down and treated in such a contemptuous way. his letters to Mr. Wainwright and Mr. Hays not being answered, he would have been stirred up to do something. When I asked him why he had not sent some one to investigate, he asked me : What would have been the use


William Mulock: Send where ?
Mr. CLARKE-of sending some one on a wild goose chase. He has brought one gentleman down by telegraph. Is that a wild goose chase on which he is bringing Mr. Griffith down ?


William Mulock: Send where ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: To the city of Winnipeg whence emanated the complaints which were brought to the attention of the minister again and again but which he has overlooked and neglected. He said he thought this matter should not have been discussed until the correspondence had been completed.


William Mulock: I did not say so.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am in the judgment of the committee-


William Mulock: I did not say so.
Mr. CLARKE-when I say that the hon. gentleman suggested to the House that the debate, should be postponed-


William Mulock: No.
Mr. CLARKE-until the correspondence had been completed. ' Hansard ' will show what he said.


William Mulock: What I said was that I did not think that this issue could be determined by a partial reference to the correspondence nor could in fact the merits of the issue be dealt with by the correspondence until we found out whether the different parties agreed Or differed. At present we have charges made by Mr. Griffiths, and I cannot say we have distinct denials, and yet we cannot say there are sufficient admissions made by Mr. Hays. At present therefore the record is not in a complete enough state to determine the merits of the point in. issue.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. gentleman might have thought of this before he got up to make a speech of nearly an hour's duration in the effort to put the best possible face he could on his lack of interest in this matter and his failure to do something in this matter. Why did he commence to read the correspondence ?


William Mulock: Because the leader of the opposition-


Edward Frederick Clarke: The leader of the opposition did not suggest that it should be read; but before the correspondence was read he drew attention to the fact that he had made a motion for all this correspondence but that it had not been brought down. In his zeail to cover his tracks and to try to make the working people of Canada believe that something had been done, the Minister of Labour (Sir William Mulock), brings down the correspondence, including a letter received this morning from Mr. Hays and the answer he sent to-day to Mr. Hays, showing how earnest he is in the interest of the Canadian workingmen, surveyors and engineers. He writes letters to Mr. Hays and Mr. Hays answers by writing a confidential letter to the premier, but the etiquette which exists in the circle in which Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
he moves would not permit him to let the Canadian people know what the contents of that letter were. To-night he brings down that partially completed correspondence. What for ? To try if possible to put a good face on the grossest instance of neglect that has ever taken place in connection with the administration of a public department in this country-


William Mulock: Dear me !


Edward Frederick Clarke: Failing to make as good a case as he hoped to make, he thinks it is in keeping with his dignity and with the very high position he occupies to abuse those who are advocating that Canadian labour should not be discriminated against at least in this great Canadian national undertaking, and he asks me what have I been doing since I received these communications ? On March 21, I brought this matter to the attention of the House before I had received any complaints at all, and I have referred to the matter twice since then. If the hon. gentleman had looked up ' Hansard,' he would have found that out, and also that the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) had brought this matter, to the attention of the House twice, so that since March 21 this very question has been before parliament five times, and notwithstanding that fact what did the minister do ? If we were neglecting our duty in only bringing this matter before the House five times since the 21st of March, what has he been doing since the matter was first brought to the attention of the government? Does he think that because he has written two or three letters, intended for publication, to Mr. Hays, declaring that Canadians must not be discriminated against, that that will be an atonement for the neglect which has characterized his department since this matter was brought to his attention? Does he think the working people, the surveyors and the engineers will be satisfied with such a lame excuse, or that the vomiting of abuse on myself and other hon. gentlemen who speak on this matter will be considered as a sufficient answer to the statements we have made face to face and have given him an opportunity of denying since the allegations against the Grand Trunk Pacific were made. He telegraphed for a man to come down here and substantiate them. On the 13th of May he tells us that Mr. Griffith is here, and he regards that as a discharge of ail the obligations on himself in this matter, and as a sufficient atonement for his lack of energy and lack of zeal in investigating the statements. I have brought this matter before him three times. The first reference was on March 21. I did not receive the first communication until March 22nd. The Minister's reply to my question will be found on page 251.	On page 553, I again brought
the matter up, and asked the following questions :



GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY-ALIENS AS SURVEYORS.

Mr. CLARKE asked:: 1.	What answer, if any, has keen made to the protest received by the government on the 16th of March, 1904, from the Dominion Institute of Amalgamated Engineers, respecting the employment of aliens on the surveys being made in connection rvith the National Transcontinental Railway?
2.	Have any instructions been issued by the Department of Labour? And if so, on what date, and of what nature, respecting the enforcement of the Alien Labour Law by the deporting of aliens, alleged to be employed on the surveys being made in connection with the National Transcontinental Railway?
3.	Is it the intention of the government, in its new agreement with the Grand Trunk Railway Company, to provide for the employment of British subjects, as surveyors and engineers, in the work of surveying and construction of the new Transcontinental Railway?


Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	The communication was acknowledged and promised consideration..
2.	This relates to the Department of Labour.
3.	It is the intention of the government, in its new agreement with the Grand Trunk Railway Company, to provide for the employment of British subjects as surveyors and engineers, in the work of surveying and construction of the new Transcontinental Railway?
3. The matter is under consideration.


Hon. JAS. SUTHERLAND (Minister of Public Works).: In the absence of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Sir William Mulock) I would answer question No. 2, as follows: It is not the practice of the government to issue general instructions respecting deportations, but to deal with each case as it arises.
That is the answer to the second question. The hon. gentleman's colleague saddled the hon. the Minister of Labour on March 28, with the responsibility of dealing with this matter, and when in respectful language we ask him whether he has or has not dealt with it, he charges us witli being neglectful of our duty in not bringing it to the attention of the House. On the 28th of March his attention was brought to it, and one of his colleagues said : ' It is in the Department of Labour.' He seems to think he has discharged his duty by writing letters to Mr. Wainwright and Mr. Hays. '
The gentlemen who made the complaints offered to come down and make good their allegations before the Minister of Labour. It never suggested itself to the hon. gentleman that it was the proper thing to do in view of this serious state op affairs, in view of the fact that Canadian surveyors and engineers were being ignored, and he never thought it worth his while since the 28th March or the 2nd of April to get further information in respect to this matter from the men who made these charges. But I brought this matter up again, as will be seen by reference to page 080 of ' Hansard.'



G.T.P. RY-ALIENS AS SURVEYORS.

Mr. CLARKE asked:: 1.	Has the Minister of Labour received any communication from Mr. George L. Griffith, of Winnipeg, provincial Secretary for Manitoba of the Dominion of Canada Institute of Amalgamated Engineers, calling attention to the number of aliens employed on the surveys of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, and giving the names of aliens employed in connection with such work at Winnipeg and Edmonton?
2.	When was such communication received?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to take action upon Mr. Griffith's communication, and to order the deportation of the aliens complained of?


Hon. Sir WILLIAM MULOCK (Postmaster General).: 1.	Yes.
2.	One received on April 6th, and two to-day.
3.	The Alien Labour Act, as amended, contains provisions entitling any private citizen to bring an action for alleged violation of the Act, and on a conviction being secured, the government would be prepared to direct deportation. The law does not authorize the government to bring such action.
Three times since my attention was drawn to this matter I have brought it to the attention of the hon. Minister of Labour, and although I did so I am charged with gross neglect of my duty, while the hon. gentleman plumes himself upon having discharged his duty. He has had this matter before himself and his colleagues since January last, and he has allowed Mr. Wainwright and Mr. Hays to insult him by neglecting the ordinary courtesy of even acknowledging the communications which he sent to them about it. I am willing that the artisans of the constituency I represent should be the arbiters between us as to whether I have not tried to serve them and serve Canadian engineers and surveyors by at least drawing the attention of the government to the charges they have made and by demanding that these charges should bt investigated and justice done to them in preference to the aliens who are being brought into this country. The responsibility does not rest on my shoulders of enforcing the Alien Labour Law. It rests primarily and fully upon the shoulders if the hon. Minister of Labour ; and squirm as he may, and explain as he may, the men who have been aggrieved, and who have felt themselves aggrieved, will place the responsibility upon the right shoulders. I a in perfectly satisfied as to that.


William Mulock: Mr. Chairman, I am quite prepared to accept any responsibility devolving upon me in the matter. I am quite satisfied to place my record alongside that of the hon. gentleman on this subject. The hon. gentleman has said that I have abused him. I think I began ir. deference to the suggestion of the hon. leader of the opposition who, before six , o'clock, made an inquiry in regard to the

subject, and I thought it proper to let him know the substance of the correspondence as far as it indicated the intentions of the government. I did not have any idea that I was in the first instance to be honoured by such a reception as the hon. member for West Toronto gave me. He says 1 abused him. Pray, if I abused him, what did he do to me before that ? I might complain of his having begun it and I would ask him to-morrow to read the choice and cultured language in which he charged me with the grossest neglect and in which he assailed me with the most unqualified abuse. Then, he complains that I should point out any of his own shortcomings. I think that what he is indignant at is that he finds that the government has got upon solid ground and is taking the proper position and he finds most of his political capital somewhat destroyed. If I had the correspondence here, which, I understand has been sent to the ' Hansard ' room, I think I could read a few passages from the letters that have given him so much worry and which have so disturbed his peace of mind this evening. He says that they were written for publication. Pray what is his speech delivered for ? Does he expect that it will never be heard of outside ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: I was trying to stir up the minister.


William Mulock: That is a very desirable thing to do if the minister is in need of it. In my judgment before inviting a large number of persons, a delegation or otherwise, to come to Ottawa or elsewhere to determine the rights and wrongs of this question, the first step is to ascertain what the parties to the issue themselves think and say about it. The representative of the engineers says one thing and we are desirous of ascertaining what the representative of the company says in reply. If Mr. Hays were to admit the whole case it would be unnecessary to bring witnesses from Winnipeg specially to hear their evidence, nor would it be common sense to send men scouring this country to use up the taxpayers' money in a useless effort. My hon. friend wants us to spend money in a useless way to pretend to do something instead of really doing something. We are not here to engage in such work ; we are here to do business. If to-morrow the Grand Trunk Railway Company admit that these statements are correct, we do not need to send witnesses all over Canada to find out whether they are correct or not, we do not need to bring delegations to Ottawa to prove them and to ascertain where we stand.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is it the practice of the Department of Labour, when charges thal aliens have been brought into the country have been made, to write to the parties interested to ascertain whether the inform-Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
ation is correct, as was done in the case of the Grand Trunk Pacific ?


William Mulock: I cannot say whether it is the invariable practice. These matters are conducted departmentally to a large extent, but in a case of this kind, when the matten was brought to my attention, it seemed a very proper thing, that, before attempting to deport these men, we should inquire into the facts. That inquiry is only a means to an end and that must be the deportation of these men if they have violated the law. It would be a high handed procedure for the attorney general of Canada to arrest a large number oi men, take them to the frontier and expel them from the country unless he had the security that the law' affords. Thereto e, he should be reasonably sure of his ground before interfering with people in this country. It is the part of prudence. If, for example, we had seized these men, sent officers all over Canada to find them and when found sent them out of the country, what would have been the consequences? It would be a serious matter to arrest a lot of foreigners and to send them out of the country unless we were justified by the law. It would not only be an outrage upon these individuals but it-might involve us in complications of a very serious character. It is well enough for the hon. gentleman to say that we should rush ia and take a step of that kind. The hon. gentleman said he was not responsible. Now, I quite agree with him, that, from Ids remarks, he is not responsible. He is asking us to do these rush things without observing proper prudence. That would not be the course that any responsible gov-ei nment ought to pursue. We have a duty tc perform, we have responsibility and he would be the first one to criticise us if we had not in the hist instance taken a reasonable procedure such as that which we have adopted. We are now getting into close quarters with the Grand Trunk ; they will not be much longer able to evade the distinct issue or admission, and we will then know what the next step is.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me that if the government had not been in pretty close quarters with the Grand Trunk, these men would have been deported long ago. This is not a new question : it was brought up last session by my hon. friend from North Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes). The attention of the government was directed to the subject or ought to have been directed to the subject through the Department of Labour, by resolutions which were passed ac a meeting of engineers held in the city of Montreal in the latter part of January last. At least five times during the present session the attention of the government has been brought to this matter. What has been the result ? The result has been, that the

Grand Trunk Railway have been humbugging the government for the last six weeks.


Edward Frederick Clarke: For the last six months.


Robert Laird Borden: 1 will only go as far back as six weeks. The Minister of Labour talks about being cautious. Why, I have the names here-the Minister of Labour has read them-of some 20 or 22 men whose residences in the United States were given to the government six weeks ago, and all that has been done by the government since, is to write letters to the Grand Trunk Railway Company, to which they received either no answers or very evasive and indefinite answers. The Minister of Labour thinks this the most extraordinary diligence on the part of the government in a matter of so great importance to our people. I understand that it has been represented to the government that 90 per cent of the engineers, transitmen, topographers, draftsmen, chaiumen, and picket men, are American citizens. I don't know whether that statement is true or not, but it has been so represented to the government as far back as the 18th of April, nearly a month ago, and not one thing has been done except to write some letters to the Grand Trunk Company, to which no answers, or merely evasive answers have been given. I understand that the Minister of Labour promises an investigation by commission. I imagine we may expect to receive a report from that commission about the time these surveys shall have been completed, and then, of course, it will be exceedingly comforting for these men to know, after the work has been finished, that the representations made to the government when the work commenced have turned out to be absolutely correct. The situation is aggravated by the fact that surveys are being made by the Grand Trunk Pacific, not only on that portion of the line which they are to build, but on that portion of the line which the government is to build. The government is not only permitting the law to be transgressed on the western division, but it is permitting the Grand Trunk Railway to evade the law with regard to surveys on the eastern division, and these surveys, according to a statement made by the government this session, may be adopted by the government and paid for by them if they proved satisfactory. The public money of * this country, spent in building a railway owned by the government. is to be given to American citizens in defiance of our own alien labour law. That is the actual situation. One would think that when the government commits the making of these surveys to the company it would stipulate-without the question being raised in parliament at all-that these surveys should be made by Canadians. One would think that the Department of Labour
would not require to be galvanized into activity under conditions of that kind.


Samuel Hughes: They promised to give us a national road built by Canadian engineers.


Mr.   R.@: 
William Mulock: I think he will be disappointed.


Robert Laird Borden: He will not be disappointed unless the government manifests a greater diligence and activity in the future than it has exercised during the past two months. The names and addresses of these aliens are here; they have been in the hands of the government since the 10th of April. When these names were submitted to the Grand Trunk Railway, is there any reason why that company could not answer in twenty-four hours, whether or not these men are in their employ and whether they are aliens ? Here are the names :
G. A. Kyle, divisional engineer, residence, 1320 North Yorkima Ave., Tacoma, Wash.
G. M. Kyle, engineer, residence, 1320 North Yorkima Ave., Tacoma. Wash.
-	Allan, office engineer, residence, St. Paul, Minnesota.
-	Kellar, engineer, residence, Cleveland, Ohio.
J. Heaman, engineer, residence, Oklahoma.
Raymond Heckman, engineer, residence, Tacoma, Washington.
William Meyers, engineer, residence, Portland, Oregon.
-	Nutting, locating engineer, residence, Oregon, United States.
W. Mason, draughtsman, residence, Tacoma, United States.
M. H. Goodman, draughtsman, (now transferred to Grand Trunk Pacific Office, Montreal).
-	Van Arsdaile, divisional engineer,, residence. Portland. Oregon.
-	McNeil, district engineer, residence, Indiana.
W. Jones, engineer, residence, St. Paul, Minnesota.
-	Hare, engineer, residence, Wisconsin.
Wm. Mann, sr., engineer, residence, 1215
Stopple St., Cincinnati, Ohio.

W. Mann, jr., engineer, residence 1215 Stopple St., Cincinnati, Ohio.
-	Hicks, transitman, residence, Tacoma, Washington.
-	Anderson, topographer, residence, Seattle, Washington.
The Minister of Labour lias these names as I understand.


William Mulock: I have sent them off.


Robert Laird Borden: He lias sent them off to Mr. Hays. I want to know why Mr. Hays, or other proper officer of the Grand Trunk Company could not tell this government within twenty-four hours whether or not these men are in their employ. Are not these men on the pay lists in Montreal or cannot the information be procured by telegram?


Samuel Hughes: You can get every one of them in the audit office.


Robert Laird Borden: The information could have been procured and would have been procured if the Grand Trunk Railway Company had not seen fit to trifle with the government and to humbug the government, and if the government had not permitted itself, for what reason I do not know, to be trifled with and humbugged. What was the reason that the Minister of Labour did not issue a pre-emptory message to the Grand Trunk Railway Company demanding an answer to liis letter at once, when he saw. as be must have seen that he was being trifled with.


Samuel Hughes: The Grand Trunk would dismiss the government if he did.


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of Labour may take that suggestion into consideration. It is not my suggestion, but the suggestion of my bon. friend (Mr. Sam. Hughes), and it is much in the line of what has been told us by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Customs, that they were obliged to concede the amendments in this Bill to the Grand Trunk Company because otherwise the Grand Trunk Company would not go on with the undertaking. I suppose that it may with equal reason be said by the government; we must permit the Grand Trunk to humbug us with regard to this matter, because if we press them too closely they may not go on with this undertaking. I join with my hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) in trusting that even at this date the government will do something-


Edward Frederick Clarke: Hear, hear. Get busy.


Robert Laird Borden: After having conducted a sufficient amount of polite correspondence, which eventually might be inserted in some guide to polite letter writing, it would be just as well if the government would really do something. There is a statute of the land that can be enforced.


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of Labour says to-night that the next step would be deportation. He was not of that opinion on the 11th of April, when he gave his answer :
The Alien Labour Act, as amended, contains provisions entitling any private citizen to brine an action for alleged violation of the Act, and on conviction being secured, the government would be prepared to direct deportation. The law does not authorize the government to bring such action.
We do not know exactly which view of the law to take. But if the law does not contain a provision permitting the government to take action, it is because an amendment to that effect which was introduced by my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) was voted down by the government, if my memory correctly serves me ; and if the government is helpless because it cannot take action, it is helpless because it did not see fit to insert in the statute the provisions necessary to enable it to act. In any case the government should have some control over the Grand Trunk Pacific Company in respect to a matter like this ; and when names and residences and particulars sufficient to enable the government to act and to put pressure on the Grand Trunk Company have been in its hands for a month or six weeks, it does seem extraordinary that the Minister of Labour should see fit to present to the House such an absolutely bald and insufficient explanation as he has presented to-night.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon.' leader of the opposition attempted to strengthen his position by reading an extract from an address by a professor in an American university, it is hardly to be expected that these gentlemen across the line can pay sufficient attention to our affairs to know the changes that have taken place here. That professor evidently thinks the conditions are the same to-day as they were when the Canadian Pacific Railway was built, and he naturally assumes that as a large number of Americans were brought in at that time to enjoy the money which the people of Canada contributed, therefore the same condition of things exists to-day. We shall have to take pains to let bur American friends know that a great change has come over the affairs of Canada, and that the interests of the working classes are protected now as they were not in former times. The hon. leader of the opposition, in his opening remarks, made what was evidently a slip when he said that the government had committed to the Grand Trunk Company the surveys east of Winnipeg. He must be aware that the government never committed these surveys to the Grand Trunk Company or made any arrangement about them. The Grand Trunk Company entered upon these surveys and sent its survey parties into the field before it had made the contract with us. These survey parties have continued

to work, and It would be a fair subject for consideration whether these surveys, if found suitable for the government railway, should not be taken over and paid for at a fair price. If not approved of by the engineer chosen by the government to superintend the construction of the railroad, then I take for granted that they will not be paid for. I do not think there has been any such delay in this important matter as some lion, gentlemen opposite suggest. It is true, there was general talk months ago about some Americans being employed on these surveys. During the recess I had a conversation with Mr. Hays on the subject, and he denied the allegation, declaring that all or nearly all who were employed on the work were Canadians or British subjects. Up to that date we had nothing before us but general reports. It was only recently that we had reports giving the names of Americans who were alleged to be employed. Until these names were received, I do not see how the matter could have been investigated. The hon. leader of the opposition read a list of names under date of the 16th of April. Well, this is the 13th of May. It is not a dreadfully long time ; and in the meantime what other course could the government have pursued except to write a series of letters to the Grand Trunk officials ? Hon. gentlemen opposite talk of that as if it was an unreasonable and improper course. I say it was the proper and reasonable course. Whatever steps are taken may not be taken entirely under the Alien Labour law. The Grand Trunk Company might be acting entirely within the limits of the Alien Labour Law and yet be pursuing a course to which this government would object. They might engage Americans in Canada, and thereby escape the provision of the Alien Labour Law, and we would not agree to that. It might be proper occasionally to bring in a man for some special duty or who had some special skill ; but that would only occur'in rare cases, and I would not quarrel with the Grand Trunk Company about it. When we had the statement of Mr. Hays that fully 96 per cent of the engineering staff engaged on these surveys were Canadians or British subjects, and up to that time we had no specific allegations of names, there was not much to investigate. There has been in the last few weeks in the hands of the government a list of names of alleged Americans employed on these surveys; and I do not see how the government could have proceeded in any better way than to call the attention of the Grand Trunk Company to these specific allegations and ask for a prompt reply. Owing to the absence of Mr. Hays-that is the excuse given-his reply has been delayed. I agree that there should have been a more prompt reply. The hon. leader of the opposition says that there should have been a reply within twenty-four hours, stating whether these men were employed on the road or not. Yes, that reply
could have been got within twenty-four hours ; but the question was not whether they were employed, but whether they were Americans. The mere fact that they were employed, and that they resided in such and such a place, would not be conclusive proof that they were Americans. It would constitute a prima facie case that would demand an inquiry ; and it would not be unreasonable that Mr. Hays should have a moderate amount of time to communicate with his officials in the west, and ascertain whether the allegation was correct on not.


Samuel Hughes: The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Labour have referred to the Grand Trunk Railway engineers as being Americans. Let me tell them that the Canadian Pacific Railway engineer was a Scotchman, Mr. James Ross.


William Stevens Fielding: Does the hon. gentleman not know that the chief engineer who resigned last week, Mr. McHenry, was an American ?


Samuel Hughes: He was not the chief engineer of the Canadian Pacific Railway under construction.


William Stevens Fielding: He has been the chief engineer of the Canadian Pacific Railway for several years past.


Samuel Hughes: Not under construction.' I would like the hon. gentleman to name an American engineer brought in at that time. There was no alien labour law in the United States at that time, and no need of any retaliatory spirit on the part of Canadians. This matter was up last session. I brought it to the attention of the Minister of Finance, when he introduced the $500,000 vote for the National Transcontinental Railway. He said it was intended to send out survey parties. Mr. Monk asked when would the work of survey begin, and the Minister of Finance replied that the work would be arranged by section and begun as soon as surveyors could be appointed. He added :
There is every disposition to push the work. I should think that immediately after the session parties will he put in the field and the work proceeded with as long as the season will permit.
I then drew attention to what appeared in the Montreal ' Star,' and quoted the paragraph as follows :


Mr.  C. M.@: Hays, general manager and second vice-president of the Grand Trunk Railway, has made the following statement regarding the company's plan for completing the Grand Trunk Pacific:-
The reconnaissance survey is proceeding vigorously, and in fact has been ever since early last spring. We have between fifteen and twenty parties in the field, some of whom have about completed the work of their division. Others will keep on all through the winter.
On some portions of the route, where the country is comparatively unknqwn, for instance.

in the Lake Nepigon district, owing to the lack of transportation facilities, supplies are difficult to obtain and progress is not as great as otherwise might be the case.
I merely mentioned that to show they were at work east as well as west of Winnipeg. Then I concluded :
So it would seem that the Grand Trunk Pacific are surveying the land to the north. This is a nice little piece of campaign literature, and I thought I would read It for the benefit of the Minister.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: On which side?


Samuel Hughes: Weil, turn it either way. What I want to know is whether the government will, instruct the chief engineer, when they appoint him, to take over these survey parties. I understand that they are almost entirely American.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We have no arrangement with the Grand Trunk in that respect. I understand their surveys are between North Bay and Winnipeg. Of course, only that part of their line which coincides with the contemplated line of the government can be used. But if bona fide surveys have been made, which are found useful for the government's purposes, I think we should take them over and make a fair allowance for them.
Then I interposed the question :	' And
take over the engineers, too ? ' To whicn the Minister of Finance replied : ' Not necessarily, but take over the surveys.' Last year I distinctly made the point that these were American engineers. The Minister of Finance must know that all Mr. Hays has to do is to ask his auditor, and in five minutes he can get the name of every man cn the survey party.


William Stevens Fielding: What about their nationality ? That is the question.


Samuel Hughes: He can quickly find that out. Where there is a will there is a way, but the fact of the matter is the government has to do just exactly as the Grand Trunk Railway dictates. That stands out clearly. The government are powerless, and the House and the country are quite aware of it.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman has afforded us another illustration of the idea on his side that the old time still continues. That is a mistake. After the close of last session, in consequence of various statements, including that which the hon. gentleman himself made, about the employment of American engineers, I wrote to Mr. Hays and received from him the positive statement that there was no foundation for these charges. My hon. friend from Victoria says he pointed out that the engineers were Americans, but he did not mention any names. We had on the one side newspaper reports that these were Americans, and on the other we had the positive denial of Mr Hays, who stated that, with the exception of a very small percentage, they were Canadians and British subjects.


Samuel Hughes: -


Edward Frederick Clarke: You would not expect the hon. member for Victoria to send you photo graphs. He gave you the names.


William Stevens Fielding: He did not give any names.


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


William Stevens Fielding: Not at all. All he did
was to make the general statement that they were Americans. He said that everybody knew they were. Well, everybody did not, and we do not know it even yet. I have the statement of Mr. Hays-and whether we all agree with him or not, we must admit that his word is entitled to some respect-I have his word, and he assures me that these reports were erroneous, and that with few exceptions the engineering staff was composed of British subjects. Recently, however, when specific charges were made and the names given, the matter assumed a uew aspect, and there has been no unreasonable delay since.


Samuel Hughes: When Mr. Hays states that the staff is 96 per cent Canadian, he is simply humbugging the government. The staff would include the polemen, the bottle-washers, axemen, Indians and wagon drivers, and these the company will pick up; along the line wherever they could get them. But it is no secret to any one, except the ministers, that the head men are Americans, and that is recognized from one end of the country to the other.


Mr. RALPH SMITH.: I had a motion on the order paper which I intended discussing after the papers were brought down, but for some reason or other some of these papers have been presented this evening. It seems to me that the question which should concern us now is what remedy we should apply to get rid of an evil that all parties seem to agree is. existing. I consider that some of our friends in the opposition have gone to very extreme lengths in attacking the Minister of Labour. It seems to me that he has made a very straightforward statement, and that the correspondence shows he is thoroughly sincere in the matter. I would like to remind some of tho hon. gentlemen in the opposition, particularly the hon. member for Pictou, who has been endorsing the attacks on the minister, that there is no corporation of this country which has imported so many aliens into Canada as the Canadian Pacific Railway, and that there is no provision made against the importation of aliens. At the same time I approve entirely of the position taken by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke). I agree with him that it is a most serious grievance that in a great enterprise such as this, men should be brought from abroad and put into the best positions. It is the duty of the government, not to enter into correspondence, but to enact legislation

which will remove this grievance. If the correspondence with the Grand Trunk Railway proves anything, it proves that the company have not much regard for the opinion of this House.


Samuel Hughes: Of the ministers.


Ralph Smith: No, of members. What is necessary is for this parliament to pass legislation which will make that impossible. There should be some provision in the agreement compelling the company to employ Canadians, or some general legislation enacted which will make it impossible for public bodies, who receive Dominion assistance, to employ people outside of Canada. I have been thinking of this myself for some time. If the hon. members of the opposition were sincere, they would support tion enacted which will make it impossible for any public enterprise, supported by public money, to employ other than Canadian labour. Of course, there may be conditions which render it necessary to bring in exceptional men from the outside.
I have no desire to throw any obstacle in the way of an, enterprise. I conceive that sometimes it may be necessary to bring in people from outside into Canada. In fact, I know of instances in the coal mining operations of Vancouver Island when it was imperative to have men brought from the other side to operate certain machinery which was made in the United States and not made in Canada, and which had not been operated in coal mines previously. So, I can easily conceive that circumstances may arise repeatedly when a small number of men require to be brought from the other side or from the old country. But I contend that a public enterprise which is supported by the money of this country should be carried on under the condition that the working men of this country should get the work of that enterprise. Let any man in this House put himself in the position of an engineer in the city of Winnipeg with a wife and family, depending upon his profession for a livelihood and paying the taxes which contribute to the remuneration of this company, and finding himself set aside and denied employment in order that a place may be given to an American. That is the position, and we ought to recognize this as important. I would support the principle, and I hope the House will support the principle, of making the general provision that, wherever assistance of Canadian money is given either to individuals or to companies in this country, Canadian workmen shall have the preference on those works. The Grand Trunk Pacific authorities, I believe, are anxious to employ Americans. I think there is every indication that that is then-disposition. I think there is every indication that the Canadian Pacific Railway has always wanted to employ Americans. We can .turn to the press of only a short time
ago and see that the Canadian Pacific Railway were making contracts on the other side to bring in labour from that country into Canada. There is the evil, and we all recognize it. Let us get down to the remedy ; and the remedy is to pass legislation in this parliament to provide that, when Canadian money is spent for either individuals or companies, Canadian workmen shall have the preference.


Samuel Hughes: I would like to say just a word to contrast the action of the United States in matters of this kind With our own. In the expenditure of the harbours and rivers appropriations, and on all works receiving government assistance, they are not even entrusted to the ordinary American engineers, but engineers of the United States navy or the United States army have superintendence of these works. But we in Canada do not even require that our own engineers shall be employed, but we allow the big companies to import scores of aliens to the detriment of our own men.


James Clancy: I think that the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Smith) in suggesting that we should have wider powers to prevent this evil should have suggested also that we had better provide a minister to enforce them. The difficulty is not so much in the direction the hon. gentleman has endeavoured to prove, but it is with the government. We find the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) having a friendly chat with the Grand Trunk officials


William Stevens Fielding: I wrote a letter.


James Clancy: Yes, a delightful letter such ast the minister might be expected to write. But I venture to say the officer did not answer the letter except in conversation-


William Stevens Fielding: I think Ihe correspondence will show that he answered it politely.


James Clancy: That was last October, seven months ago, and the Minister of Labour (Sir William Mulock) slept all the time -knew nothing about the matter. The duty of the Labour Department, the moment a question of that kind comes before its notice even through the newspapers, is to institute an inquiry. But we have the unhappy admission from the Minister of Finance that he had some communication with Mr. Hays and Mr. Hays made a denial. Now, Mr. Hays occupies a prominent and responsible position, and his word should be worth something. But his word is not worth so much that he alone is to be heard. The hon. gentleman takes the denial of Mr. Hays, a most respectable man, without inquiry into the other side of the question.


William Stevens Fielding: There was no other side at that time-no names mentioned.


James Clancy: Does that strengthen the hon. minister's position V Was it necessary to give names? The hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) called attention to it. The hon. minister was not concerned whether they were American engineers or not, but only gave consideration to the question whether the surveys would be taken over and paid for. The other ques-tiou he ignored and did not even discuss it. The hon. Minister of Labour (Sir William Mulock) wrote letters, but those to whom they were addressed did not think it worth while even to acknowledge the receipt of them. I ask the Postmaster General if he thinks now that he was treated with courtesy or with the dignity that should characterize the head of an important department, to have Mr. Hays, or any person else write to the Prime Minister with regard to a question that belonged entirely to his own department, instead of writing to him (Sir William Mulock). Was not that a form of evasion on the part of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company of the very question presented to them ? The question of a slight put upon the hon. gentleman is a question between himself and Mr. Hays, but the question of the employment of aliens is a question between the workingmen- of this country and the Minister of Labour. It seems to me that the course pursued by the officials of the Grand Trunk Pacific amounted to a concealment of the real facts. As the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) has pointed out, the Minister of Labour might have learned within two hours sufficient at least to have known how much there was in the accusation made by these gentlemen who had made representations to the government on the subject and showed that a certain number of Americans, whose names were given, had replaced Canadians. Their residence could have been learnd within a few hours. And what was Mr. Hays' answer when he did answer Y He did not say he would make inquiries whether they were aliens or otherwise. He simply said that they were spread over the country through the bush and it would be impossible for him to know. He told the minister in so many words that he did not intend to make inquiries, that they had employed and dismissed men at will, that if they did not choose to employ good Canadians, they would employ good Americans. What does that mean ? The hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Smith) has stated that the disposition of the Grand Trunk Pacific authorities was to employ American labour. How easy it is to find a pretext against another, as the wolf did against the lamb in the fable. It would be easy, in the case of every Canadian engineer, to find some pretext, good or bad, for dismissing Mr. CLANCY.
him. The minister, I think, has shown that he was, perhaps not intentionally, but criminally careless. He cannot escape now by remarks applied to my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) that, in the past, he has professed much zeal and to ask what he was doing in the matter. Imagine a minister of the Crown asking an hon. member on this side of the House what he was doing ! It seems that the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) was doing good work in the matter, that practically all what has been done has been done through the hon. member for West Toronto.
I ask the Minister of Labour if that is a fair answer or if that excuses his position ? The Minister of Finance preferred to take the denial of the Grand Trunk Pacific authorities without even instituting an inquiry or suggesting to the Minister of Labour that some inquiry should be held. The minister seemed to be wholly unconscious notwithstanding that the newspapers were full of it, that aliens were employed in work that should be done by Canadians. The hon. gentleman cannot well retrieve himself now even by instituting a proper inquiry, taking the matter out of the Grand Trunk people entirely into his own hands, and in the event of his finding that the allegations made there by responsible men have foundations ordering every one of these men out of the Grand Trunk Railway Company's employ, if the contract is to be carried out by this parliament.


Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER.: Tile member for Vancouver (Mr. Smith) dragged me into this discussion by a reference and I would like to say a word or two on the subject now [DOT] before the committee. What struck me as very extraordinary is that during the very interesting discussion on some 'legal questions arising out of the construction of this contract last night, members of the government were most careful to say that although it was made clear to the committee that the company had one idea as to the construction of a clause and the Minister of Justice had the other, there had been no communication whatever between the company and the government on this vexed question ; that the government held to its idea and would stick to it, and that no amendment on that subject would be considered for a moment by the government. To-night in connection with a question that is not covered by any clause of the contract but which concerns very directly the labour interests of this country, the government has been [DOT] most careful apparently to consult with Mr. Hays and has been satisfied by the reply of Mr. Hays that everything was lovely and that nothing serious was intended in regard to the labour interests of this country. Well, that is all right for pastmasters like the Postmaster General, but I was surprised to find the member for Vancouver (Mr. Smith) coming

iu under the umbrella out of the rain and attempting to support the government on a question that concerns directly the interest that he is supposed particularly to represent as distinguished from the interests of the Liberal party.


Ralph Smith: What did I say that indicated that ?


Charles Hibbert Tupper: 1 shall come to that. The hon. gentleman hedged ou the question. He made it almost too apparent if the opposition as he said-[DOT] and this I think is fairly representing his argument-were sincere in regard to the interests of labour in connection with the matter now under consideration, they should support some general legislation. The whole trouble was with the Canadian Pacific Railway ; the whole trouble was at large, at any rate, and I do not think the hon. gentleman will dispute what I am now saying, that he is going to support this contract straight through from beginning to end, he is going to vote down every amendment whether it is in the interest of labour or not.


Ralph Smith: Why does the hon. gentleman anticipate what I am going to do. What right has he' to say that ? How does he know ?


Charles Hibbert Tupper: I prophesy, from the remarks he has made, from the general course he has taken, he will sink or swim with the government of the day. He is no longer a labour representative, he knows as well as I do that he could not return to this House as a representative of the labour interests ; he knows as well as I do that a large part of that interest will not support him again, and that he has to appeal to the Liberal vote in his riding.


Mr. MACPHERSON.: It is a good vote too.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: It is a good vote too, and he is going to go for the good vote. All his argument is in the direction of supporting the government who are under the hatches, so to speak. They are not free men. It is apparent in the discussion that has so far taken place that they have to do as the Grand Trunk tell them, that is clear, and they are doing their duty like njen to the Grand Trunk but so soon as any suggestion is made, such as that made to-night in the interests of labour, we have then the old worn out argument of : What did you do in regard to the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Ralph Smith: What did you do ?


Charles Hibbert Tupper: That was a long time ago, and conditions were very different. The hon. gentleman knows that as well as I do. But supposing that we did all wrong, then if he is a fair and
sincere representative of the interests that elected him to this parliament what on earth have the shortcomings of the Conservative party to do with him, or how do they fortify him in opposing the interests of labour in a question of this kind? Why should he fall back on that old heresy of :	Ton should
leave this to general legislation. Now is the time to secure the interests of labour ; and the interests of Canadians in connection with the huge expenditure which is involved in the ratification of this supplementary contract, now or never. The hon. gentleman knows that as well as I do, I can understand the Liberal position, even though I think it is weak, even though I think the interests of the public are not safeguarded, but I do quarrel with the position of the hon. gentleman from Vancouver Island (Mr. Smith) whu got into this parliament as a representative of the labour interests, sheltering himself under these general arguments of expediency on the part of the Liberal party. That is my quarrel that is where we differ and it is only necessary to say a word in order to expose him, so that he must perforce take shelter under the Liberal party, and stand or fall as they do by the position they take in regard to this question. Consequently I say in connection with this that it is no use to hark back to the conditions of an entirely different contract and a different set of conditions in regard to the labour market and in regard to confederation generally. The government appreciate the ground taken. It is idle to deny after the speech of the Postmaster General, that the interests of Canadian engineers and Canadian labour should be safeguarded in a vast expenditure like this in the construction of public works in our own land.
They appreciate that and though their interests are not safeguarded in this contract they dare not for a moment amend the contract, knowing that the ultimatum has been pronounced by the Grand Trunk Railway Company. They have to take that contract as it stands ipsissima verba without any alteration whatever. But, they appreciate the force of public opinion and they tell us that the matter was mentioned to the Grand Trunk Railway Company and that they have reason to believe and expect that when all these very serious statements have been categorically made, names and addresses given, the Grand Trunk Railway Company will perhaps explain. They have not explained yet. They hope that that condition of affairs does not exist. What is the remedy ? That is the proposition that is before us. The government have been helpless, existing by the grace of the people who are over them. This corporation hold them in the hollow of their hand. That it as clear as the sun at noon-day. That is the answer of the government to an ambitions people. This is the government of a young race of engineers, of workman, and of all classes growing up with a great

and proper idea of the resources and future of this country. The government hope that Mr. Hays will make this all right. They dare not and they cannot tell the committee that, if Mr. Hays is not in a position to give a satisfactory answer to the questions which have been put from this side of the House i;\ the interest of Canadian labour, in the interest of Canadian engineers and in the interest of the graduates of universities in this country, the government will see that justice is done under these [DOT] circumstances. That is absolutely clear. It is pitiable, it is absolutely contemptible and yet the so-called representative of labour weakly attempts to back them up in that business.


Ralph Smith: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman has found great fault with what I have said. He has said that 1 favoured general legislation. If general legislation were embodied in an Act that covered all these companies, surely that would be legislation in the interest of the labouring men of this country. The hon. gentleman is anxious to secure the adoption of special legislation for the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, but afraid of general legislation that would operate against his friends. That is the position that the hon. gentleman takes. I stated that general legislation ought to be enacted so as to make it impossible for others than Canadians to be employed by all companies in this country which are receiving public money. But, tile hon. gentleman, in his anxiety, is only able to say something about the Grand Trunk Pacific. He does not wTant the Canadian Pacific Railway to be interfered with. He only wants to interfere with the Grand Trunk Pacific Company to which he is opposed. ! do not think that the hon. gentleman was quite fair to me in his remarks in view of the fact that I stated plainly that I considered that it was the duty of the government to provide a remedy for these grievances. I did not shelter myself under the nmberella of the government. I stated emphatically that it was the duty of the government to remedy these grievances. I never heard the hon. gentleman make a statement as plainly as that against his own party. I do not think it is possible for the hon. gentleman to take as independent a position as that in regard to his own party, and I think the hon. gentleman's slight presence in this House ought to make him more careful in undertaking to criticise those who are defending the rights of labour by their presence in this House. I want to say that I was elected as an independent supporter of all measures affecting the labour unions of this country and I appeal to this House if, on every labour question that has been before the house, I have not taken an independent stand. On the national policy, I am Liberal in contradistinction to those who support that policy, and nobody knows it better than
Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER-
the hon. gentleman. Nobody knows better than he that the Liberals of the constituency which I have the honour to represent supported me and elected me and that the labour men had confidence that I wyould support them upon any question affecting their interests which came up in this House and they are going to do it again. Nobody knows better than the hon. gentleman, living in Vancouver, that I have always been, as a matter of principle, in favour of the Liberal policy as against the Conservative National Policy. If the hon. gentleman had been in this House oftener than he has been, I think he would have admitted himself, to-night, that on all questions affecting the interests of the labour unions of this country, I have represented their viewTs in this House, and I think the hon. gentleman was unfair to me because that is what I endeavoured to do this evening. I did not shelter myself behind the government, but I said that it was the duty of the government to provide a remedy for these giev-r.nces.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: The hon. gentleman has been so short a time ir this House that he has ventured to refer to the slight presence of myself in this chamber. I have been for 21 years in this House and I venture the prophecy, that, although I am going out of it, the hon. gentleman will go out of it with me and he has not been 21 years in this House yet.


Mr. KENDALL.: I may say that this case now before the committee is one almost parallel to the condition that prevailed down in Cape Breton in connection with the iron and steel company. Very soon after the American management took hold of it it uvas ouite recognized that Canadian labourers were no longer wanted. We saw in fact from 50 to 75 Americans placed in positions there to the exclusion of Canadian professional men, Canadian mechanics and Canadiau labourers. I wish to point out to the committee that my colleague and myself made representations about 18 months ago to the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laur-ier), to the hon. Minister of Labour (Sir William Mulock) and to the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), and we were present when a meeting was held by the members of the government and the members of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company. We placed our case before them there with the result that the right hon. Prime Minister of this country gave bis ultimatum to the Dominion Iron and Steel Company and intimated that the concern had to be Cana-dianized, with the result that within two or ihree weeks an exodus of Americans from Sydney began and I am in a position to say to-night, that not a single one of these men who was brought over by the Americau management is now in his position in Sydney. I only took on that, as I am going to take on this, a fair independent position, and

that Is that in connection with the expenditure of public money, either in the shape ot bonuses, or, I am going to go further and say that in cases where high protection is awarded to industries in this country I am going, as far as I can as a public iran, to insist that the government shall look, not only after the interests of the plutocrats who invest their money, but shall also look after the interests of the men who sweat blood to sustain their interests. 1 simply take my seat with the expression of my belief, knowing as I do several ministers in this government, that effective measures will be taken immediately to meet the condition that we are now discussing.


Mr. OLIVER.: Admitting that there is a grievance in this connection ; we have heard what the lion. Minister of Labour proposes to do about it. May we know what is the proposition of our hon. friends on the other side ? I think the hon. member for West Toronto was very explicit in his assertions. Will he be kind enough to inform the committee what he proposes to do 1


Edward Frederick Clarke: If the hon. gentleman will turn to ' Hansard ' of 1901, when the present Alien Labour Act was being amended at the instigation of the right hon. the Prime Minister, he can make himself acquainted with what my views were as to a proper Alien Labour Law. I have sent away the books, but it is hardly [DOT] worth while ascertaining whether the hon. gentleman voted in favour of my amendments or not. But I submit that an effective mode would have been provided if the amendments that I suggested in 1901, when the present Alien Labour Law was being put on the statute-book, had been adopted. If the hon. gentleman wishes to know what my view of the present situation is I will tell him that if I were Minister of Labour I would take immediate steps to verify the allegations which have been made by the engineers in Winnipeg, and if I found the allegations were sustained I would insist upon having the aliens employed by the Grand Trunk dismissed at once, and their places given to competent Canadians.


Frank Oliver: The hon. gentleman has answered my question so well


Edward Frederick Clarke: Do you find fault with me for answering so well ?


Frank Oliver: No ; you answered it too well to be logical. It is possible to overdo even a good thing, and when the hon. gentleman said that his position in the first place was that the Alien Labour Law should have been made so and so to be effective, I could understand that. When he said again, that under the Alien Labour Law, as it is, he would have found a remedy, I can 99;
understand that, but I cannot understand the one position set over against the other


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am not responsible for that.
v Mr. OLIVER. The hon. gentleman is responsible for that when he submits a contradiction of terms to the House. If the Alien Labour Law is as it ought to be, then the hon. gentleman's amendments were not necessary, and if the Alien Labour Law is not as it ought to be, then the Minister of Labour is not to blame.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I will have to wait until the hon. gentleman reads my remarks in ' Hansard ' and has an opportunity of thinking them over.


Frank Oliver: Either the law is adequate or inadequate. If it is adequate, then the hon. gentleman did not need to move this amendment which he blamed me for not voting for ; and if it is not adequate, then the Minister of Labour cannot be blamed, because the law did not permit him to take action.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I must confess that that argument is a brain twister to me. At this early hour in the morning I will not inflict another speech on the House, but I would suggest that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver} read the ' Hansard ' of 1901 for enlightenment as to the reason why the Alien Labour Law is in its present condition.


Frank Oliver: If the hon. gentleman cannot understand it must be attributed to the brain tangling effect of his long and able speech. I am not here as a representative of labour, but if I were I would look askance at the arguments that are put forward to-night as alleged in the interests of labour. I have not heard that professional engineers are of the labouring class. I think there is a very vast difference between professional men and labouring men

Sir CHARLES H1BBERT TUPPER. One labours and the other does not.


Frank Oliver: That is the difference exactly.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I hope the Minister of Labour will not leave the chamber until he hears this argument.


Frank Oliver: The difference between the professional man and the labouring man is such as not to warrant the argument that the employment of foreign engineers is an interference with the rights of labour. Nobody more than the engineers themselves would resent being put in the same class as labourers. If we are talking of protecting the interests of labour let us do so, and if we are talking of protecting the professional men, let-us be honest about it and say so; but don't let us talk about protecting labour when we are protecting the professions.

1 notice that these same gentlemen who are so much excited about protecting the engineers who might get employment on the Grand Trunk Pacific, take no notice of the announcement made a few days ago that every foot of new railway to be constructed during the present year by the Canadian Pacific Railway in the Northwest is under contract to an American company. That meant that at least the men of responsible position with those contractors will be brought from the States. But the Canadian Pacific Railway is employing them and so it makes no difference. But in this case, if the Grand Trunk Pacific employs professional men from the United States, then the rights of labour are infringed upon, and the government must be denounced. I do not represent a labour constituency, but I am in favour of protection for labour such as it never received under the so-called national policy of the Conservative government. However, when it comes down to protecting professional men, we may afford to talk in a practical sense. Generally professional men are able to protect themselves. In this case we have a small class of professional men, engineers, in a large country. I want to see these professional men get a fair opportunity to join in this work, and in every other railway work in Canada, as we hope will be assured to them by the introduction of a general law, as has been suggested by the hon. gentleman from Vancouver Island (Mr. Ralph Smith). But I am not one of those who would maintain strongly that this country should not be allowed to go outside the very limited ranks of a particular profession fot the carrying on of a great public enterprise. If the contention is made that none but Canadian engineers shall be employed upon Canadian railroads, we are in the line of strengthening one of the closest corporations of professional men that ever cursed any country-and I am here to say that the corporations of professional men are a curse to this and all other countries where they exist. I make so bold as to say in this House, where there are so many professional men-and I do not think one of them will contradict me-that in both law and medicine the public are at the mercy of close corporations of professional men in every province of Canada. And if we are to be put under the same tyranny of professional engineers, when the country is face to face with a great enterprise, then it is something that I for one cannot join in endorsing. I am willing to give our engineers every kind of fair treatment; I am willing to support general legislation that will ensure fair play to them, but to consider them as a close corporation that we must deal with or not deal at all, I am not going to put myself in thafi position, let the cost be what it may. Let me say that this transcontinental railway enter-Mr. OLIVER.
prise means a great deal to the people of this country; it means a great deal to them whether it is well engineered or badly engineered. If we are supporting this arrangement under a proper impression, we believe the national treasury will not bear the burden. If we so believe, surely it is fair and right that those whose money will pay for this railroad shall have tihe opportunity to secure	the	best
talent to lay out the work.	Will that
not be more greatly in the general interest of the people of this country than any proposition to hand over the engineering of that great enterprise to a practically limited professional class organized into a close corporation, without any possible remedy ? We have all the close corporations of professional men we want ; and while we are prepared to give every reasonable advantage to our own Canadian engineers, I for one believe that they must stand on their merits and must expect that when an enterprise of such magnitude is being undertaken, the country wants the best, and that nothing but the best is good enough.


Samuel Hughes: Does the hon. gentleman wish us to infer that the Canadian engineer is not equal to the American ?


Frank Oliver: I will not suggest that there are not Canadian engineers who are possibly superior to United States engineers ; but I will suggest that the United States, having 70,000,000 people and having thousands of miles of railroads to our hundreds, must necessarily have a great many more railroad engineers than we have, and that there is a fair possibility that out of the ten times greater number of engineers in the United States than there are in Canada, there may be a straggling few who may be better engineers than some of those in Canada; but that in any case if we want to get a large number of qualified, capable engineers to carry a great transcontinental enterprise through to completion in the shortest possible time, we may expect to go slightly beyond our own border, and there will be nothing very wonderful or deplorable about it.	.


Mr. MORIN.: The hon. member for Alberta knows that when they need a good engineer in the United States, for a coal mine, a gold mine or a railroad, they bring him from England or Germany. I know that from experience. Our engineers in Canada are just as good as those on the other side of the line. If we have not enough in Canada, we can go across the water and get more. There is no need of going to the States at an. We have just as good here as they have there, only we may not have so many ; but we do not need so many.


Arthur W. Puttee: I might point out to the hon. member for Alberta that the Grand Trunk Pacific so far has only needed to hire surveyors and engineers ; and if this parliament and this government proves that it is

incapable of impressing the company with the necessity of making at least some pretense of employing Canadians in the first surreys, the prospects of Canadian labour getting anything like fair treatment when the actual employment of labour comes on will be very slim indeed. Of course, the hon. member sees that, otherwise I would imagine that he does not pay any particular attention to the gravity of the charges that have been made, to say nothing of their correctness. When this discussion started - this evening, the hon. Minister of Labour read a good deal of correspondence between himself and the manager of the Grand Trunk Railway Company; and one thing that occurred to me was that he was told practically that the Grand Trunk was too busy and could not be bothered. That is the usual kind of reply given to complaints of this kind. But the .point is this, that that kind of treatment is given to a minister of this country at the time this Bill of concessions is going through the House. That seems to me to be a very serious matter. It means at least that they are not afraid of us. It would seem to me that the only direction in which there is any celerity or willingness shown is in taking our money and our guarantees and asking for more. I am perfectly willing myself to aid in any general legislation covering this matter. I tried to do so at the time the Alien Labour Bill was before the House. But I think this matter should be settled with the Grand Trunk Pacific Company before we are asked to pass the third reading of the Bill. If it is done then, it will be done. It should be put in the contract as a matter of fact. I see by reference to last year's 'Hansard' that onSeptember 14 I proposed that it should be made a part of this contract that Canadian labour should be employed where it could be obtained and when it could be obtained. This matter of the employment of American surveyors and engineers was brought up at the same time, and if it had been taken up more seriously then, I believe a different state of affairs would exist to-day. However, the House is going to pass on this Bill next week, and it seems to me that it should be held up until the manager of the Grand Trunk Pacific gets time to communicate with the Minister of Labour.

Monday, May 16, 1904.