1905-03-20

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called,
Rt.   H@: I desire to inform the House that it is the intention of the government to proceed with the Autonomy Bill on Wednesday next as the first order. I may say to the House also that it is contemplated to introduce an amendment to section 16, which amendment will be placed in the hands of the clerk, I hope, before the adjournment of the House ; and before the adjournment I think we will be able to place on the table of the House the papers which were asked for the other day by the hon. the leader of the opposition.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Of course, it would be desirable, as I have pointed out to the right hon. gentleman, that these papers which are to be brought down, or have been brought down, should be printed, or put in some such form that they will be properly available to members of the House who desire to deal with them in the course of the debate.



THE BUDGET SPEECH.

Hon. GEO. E. FOSTER.: Is there any announcement by the First Minister or the Minister of Finance as to the budget, or is that now to be indefinitely postponed ?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: I intimated to my hon. friend the other day that some days might elapse before we could make an announcement ; and in view of the business which is likely to come before the House, and which is of, perhaps, more immediate interest, I think we will have to postpone for a few days the announcement concerning the budget.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 20) to incorporate the Moosejaw and Edmonton Railway Company.-Mr. Scott.
Mr.   I@: The reason that this Bill stood was because I desired the hon. gentleman who has the Bill in charge (Mr. Scott) to explain why it was necessary to have a capitalization, if I remember correctly, of $2,000,000, and in addition to that the power to issue bonds upon the whole length of the road to the extent of $25,000 a mile. I would think that perhaps the bond issue would of itself be amply sufficient to build and equip the road-perhaps more than sufficient-but in addition to that we have authorized a capitalization of $2,000,000.
Mr. S'COTT. I may say, Mr. Chairman, that the application of the promoters called for a capitalization of only $1,000,000 and it was in the judgment of the standing committee on Railways and Canals that the capitalization was increased to $2,000,000. I have not the faintest objection to reducing that to $1,000,000.


Robert Laird Borden: What was the reason for increasing it? Perhaps the hon. gentleman who was present at the committee can give this committee some information as to that.


Mr. HYMAN.: It has been the usual custom of the committee in regard to roads of this character to make the capital stock in the neighbourhood of $10,000 a mile. It is necessary under a clause of the Railway Act to subscribe 15 per cent of the capital to make a start with the road. With a road of this character having a capital of $1,000,000 it would mean $150,000. but with $2,000,000, capital it would mean $300,000.


George Eulas Foster: What is the length of the road ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Aoout 400 miles. These matters have all been discussed from that

standpoint and it has been the custom to allow an issue of stock in the neighbourhood of $10,000 a mile.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



ONTARIO AND MINNESOTA POWER COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 86) respecting the Ontario and Minnesota Power Company, Limited.-Mr. Campbell.
On section 9,
Mr.   POSTER@: Where does this Bill come from ?


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: From the committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills.


George Eulas Foster: It seems to me that we are getting no idea of the Bill at all. A comparatively small committee-not saying anything against the committee at all-takes the Bill up ; we do not know bow much time they give to its consideration, the Bill comes down to the House and we simply just hear the annotations at the sides of the clauses read. I do not think that is good legislation. I would like to ask my right lion, friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) if he thinks it is ?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER, Most of these Bills are purely formal and do not require much discussion. It may be, of course, that there are some Bills that are very important and something might slip through that requires consideration. But, as a rule these Bills are purely formal and require no very great consideration. If there is something that requires consideration in a Bill sometimes I agree with my hon. friend that it might slip through.


Charles Smith Hyman: I think there are some principles of the Bill which should be discussed when the gentleman in charge of it is here. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to and committee rose and reported progress.



GILLIES BROTHERS, LIMITED.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 95) respecting Gillies Brothers, Limited.-Mr. A. A. Wright.
On section 3,
'Mr. BARKER. By this section we are apparently confirming letters patent that are not before the House. It has sometimes happened that letters patent have been issued somewhat irregularly, and the effect of section three would be to affirm the terms of such a patent and grant additional powers.
Mr. LEMIEUX.: I was present at the committee when this Bill was considered, Mr. HYMAN.
and I must say that it was very thoroughly discussed. The manager of the Gillies firm was present and also many of the lumbermen who are members of the House, and the whole matter was thoroughly gone into. I may say that this is one of the largest firms in Ontario. I understand that the letters patent were filed before the Standing Orders Committee, which committee passed judgment upon them. It may seem strange that all these powers are asked, but evidence was given before the committee that the company is really carrying on the different lines of business mentioned in the Bill. We found it a little strange, for example, that they should ask to do business as wharfingers and warehousemen, but we were told by the lumbermen present that they were actually operating boats and tramways for the purposes of their business. The only objection was to clause 9, which empowered the company to expropriate, but that clause was withdrawn. In passing this Bill we are encouraging a firm which is doing a very large business in Canada.


Robert Laird Borden: Were the letters patent granted under Dominion authority?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: I was not making any objection to the firm or to their work. I know the firm and they are a very excellent one and doing a ve"y large business.


Rodolphe Lemieux: They very willingly dropped the expropriation clause when they found it would create a bad precedent.


George Eulas Foster: It is very satisfactory to the House to have the Solicitor General make that statement.
On section 6,	t


Robert Laird Borden: The usual provision is contained in this clause?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes; they have to ask the permission of the several municipalities.


Robert Laird Borden: By clause 5 they can only acquire by purchase.
On section 10,


Robert Laird Borden: I will not repeat the objection made the other evening with regard to certain features of this clause. If it is the policy of the government to permit such legislation to pass, I suppose these people are as much entitled to it as any one else.


Mr. McCOOL.: The same power was granted to the Ottawa and Hull Company.


Robert Laird Borden: I fully appreciate the fact that it was granted to a great many companies, but the point we made was that it should not be granted to any company, and that some policy on this question shouid be determined on by the administration, which policy we should carry out in future. It is not a party question exactly, because

I think it has been done under both administrations in the past, and it is not a matter that is personal to this company at all. It is simply a matter of public policy in which hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House ought to be interested. It would be far better to have all stock paid up in cash, so that you might know that every dollar of the company's stock represented cash actually paid in.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The principle laid down by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) is making headway, because there were several objections in the committee to the clause, but after the representations made by the promoters of the Bill the committee thought we should give them the benefit of the precedents.


Mr. HAGGART.: The Bill leaves it to the directors alone to make any arrangement they like without consulting the shareholders, and so the directors might completely destroy the stock of the original company.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No. The Bill provides that it shall be approved by a majority of the stockholders of the company.


John Graham Haggart: Very well.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
On the order :
House in Committee on Bill (No. 45) an Act respecting the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. Macdonald.
Charles Smith Hyman: Stand.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.: I would like to ask the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that an announcement of public policy is to be made in connection with this Bill, whether it would not be well to deal with it in the afternoon. Otherwise, it will come up probably on Wednesday or Friday after dinner.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Monday next. THE CENTURY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.
House went into Committee on Bill (No. 49) respecting the Century Life Insurance Company.-Mr. Macpherson.
On section 1-time extended for obtaining license,


George Eulas Foster: How is this? The time seems to have been extended from 1901.


William Stevens Fielding: This Bill has been assented to by the Committee on Banking and Commerce, and I suppose the House will agree to it; hut I do not wish to let it pass without offering a word of objection. I think the law we have limiting the time for the organization of insurance companies and banks is a reasonable one, and we
should only depart from it in special cases and when the cause for extension shall be shown to be exceptional. Personally I was not satisfied that the cause had been shown as respects this Bill. However, the committee took a generous view and allowed the Bill to pass. My view is that insurance companies and banks should be organized only when there is a group of men of sufficient financial strength to give an assurance that they will be able to start the concern, and that an extension of time should be granted only for some exceptional reason. I do not suppose that the House will alter the decision which the committee has come to; but I think that it would be well for hon. members interested in Bills of this character to realize that the object of the general law is a desirable one, and that we should all try to uphold it in the future better than we have done in the past.


George Eulas Foster: I agree with my hon. friend the Minister of Finance; and, being in the dark as respects the exceptional reasons for extending the time in this case, I think the mover of the Bill ought to enlighten the House as to what they are.


Mr. MACPHERSON.: I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit agajn.


Charles Smith Hyman: What is the object?


Robert George Macpherson: I do not wish to attempt to force the Bill upon the House if it is against public policy. It was introduced in my name, and I was informed that the company had spent a large sum of money in organizing, that some $200,000 had been subscribed and 10 per cent thereof paid up.


William Stevens Fielding: I wish my hon. friend to understand that I am not opposing the Bill. I am rather asking the House to accept the judgment of the committee, but I am suggesting that we ought to have a clearer understanding of what public policy is, and keep nearer to that in the future. I am not opposing my hon. friend's Bill, although I voted against it in the committee; but I do not wish it to become a precedent.


George Eulas Foster: I have no objection to the Bill; but I agree entirely with the policy which the hon. Finance Minister has laid down. On the other hand, if it can be shown that there are exceptional reasons in this case, they would no doubt have weight with the committee; and the statement that has been made to-day by the Finance Minister will probably render such a Bill as this impossible hereafter, because it will be public notice to promoters that they must get a little more hustle on, and get their Acts into operation more quickly. If $200,000 has been subscribed and a cer-

tain portion of that paid in, in good faith, I would be disposed for my part to withhold opposition. At the same time, I think we ought not to allow even a chance for franchises of this kind to lie around for so many years waiting for somebody to take them up.


Robert George Macpherson: In answer to the hon. gentleman I may say that the men who have organized this company have not attempted to carry a charter around or to act as charter-mongers. The matter was brought up in good faith. I am informed that the principal mover in the organizing of this compary was a gentleman named Gilmour, who has died, and that for that reason the business of the company was held up for awhile. The comjjany is not composed of men of straw by any means. They are all pretty responsible people, and the fact of their having some $250,000 subscribed is an indication of that. My reason for moving that the committee rise and report progress was that if there was anything wrong with the Bill, I might talk the matter over with the Minister of Finance. Still, I desire to have the Bill go through, and therefore I will withdraw the motion.


Charles Smith Hyman: I think we ought to deal with each case of this kind on its merits. It may be that the company was almost ready to go on, but that for some exceptional reasons delay was caused. It would have been different if the company had got the legislation, and had done nothing to forward the objects for which it was formed. This case seems to be an exceptional one on account of the death of the main promoter of the company. The fact that $250,000 is subscribed is an evidence of good faith, and we might let the Bill go through.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



DOMINION ANNUITY COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee on Bill (No. 82) to incorporate the Dominion Annuity Company.-Mr. Bole.
On section 1,
George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend the Finance Minister made a statement some time ago regarding the probability of the government taking some action in the way of annuities. Has any definite policy been decided upon ?


William Stevens Fielding: The matter came up in this way. It was suggested in the committee that the name * Dominion Annuity Company ' might possibly lead to the impression that these annuities were issued by the Dominion government; and consequently if the Dominion government should at any time issue annuities, there would be confusion.


Mr FOSTER.: The Bill however was left as it is with the understanding that the promoter would suggest another name on the third reading. My hon. friend from Winnipeg (Mr. Bole), after consultation with the promoters, has decided to ask that the name be changed to the ' Annuity Company of Canada.' I have said that the Dominion government might at some time see lit to issue annuities, and it is quite likely that this session some legislation on that question will be brought up. What we contemplate is not a general system of annuities, but one limited to old age annuities-not precisely old age pensions, but a limited system of annuity to meet the conditions of people advanced in life.


George Eulas Foster: Involving any assistance ?


William Stevens Fielding: Perhaps in the rate of interest, or in some such way as that the Dominion might be a contributor. It is not intended to be, in the common meaning of the word, old age pensions, but a system of old age annuities. My right hon. colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce has given the matter considerable attention and a Bill is being prepared which we expect to introduce this session. I should have explained that when the objection was taken in the committee to the title, ' Dominion Annuity Company,' the hon. gentleman in charge of the Bill, after consultation with one of the promoters who was at hand, suggested that the name should be changed to ' Manitoba Annuity Company.' Of course, if Manitoba should some day issue annuities, the same objection might be advanced. Therefore, on further consideration, the promoters decided to ask that the name should be 1 Annuity Company of Canada ' and an amendment to that effect will be moved.


Mr. LOGAN.: I do not see that there is very much improvement in this change of name. Why not make it ' The Western Annuity Company.'


William Stevens Fielding: We have already one western Bill before the committee, that of the Western Life Insurance Company-to say nothing of another western question we may have.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not see that there is any objection.


William Stevens Fielding: I think the name now proposed is a reasonable one.


Charles Smith Hyman: I move that section 1 be reconsidered and that the name be changed to ' The Annuity Company of Canada.'


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.	M
Bill reported.
Mr. BOLE moved the third reading of the Bill.
George Eulas Foster: If the House has no objection, I would rather that this Bill should be left over in the meantime. I would like the promoter to think over the question of

the name. The change may have been made without careful consultation. At first, it did not seem to be very objectionable. But, as we consider it, it becomes evident that other annuity companies, to be incorporated hereafter will be debarred from getting the best name. It may be said that this company is the first in the field, and should have the choice of names. While there is something in that, yet, I think it would be giving this company an unfair advantage to allow it to be known as ' The Annuity Company of Canada '-the name of this whole vast realm-so that companies coming later must use some less pretentious and less inclusive, title. I think it might be fairly considered whether this would not be giving them an unfair advantage.


Mr. BOLE.: I appreciate the point made by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster), but I think that as this is the first annuity company, they are entitled to the advantage that comes from being first in the field. I might remark also that the name that has been put in the Bill was the second choice made at a full meeting of the promoters. Also a leading promoter consulted with the officers of the department on Saturday and there appeared to them to be no objection ; in fact, they regarded it as a very happy and proper name to give the company. I think, that, under these circumstances, the Bill should be allowed to go through.


George Eulas Foster: Second thoughts are sometimes best. I think there should be time for consideration.
Bill reported.


Mr. SPEAKER.: When shall the Bill be read the third time ?


George Eulas Foster: At the next sitting.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: At the next sitting of the House.



CATHOLIC MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOCIATION OF CANADA.

[Stage Direction]
House went into Committee on Bill (No. 93) respecting the Grand Council of the Catholic Mutual Benefit Association of CanT ada.-Mr. J. J. Hughes.
On section 2-sick benefit fund
George Eulas Foster: I suppose this follows the rule ?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, It has been carefully examined by the officials.


Mr. L. P. DEMERS.: As I understand this section it provides that there is to be this fund, but if there is a loss, society is not bound to pay. I think the promoter should explain.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES.: The object, as I understand, is to enable the association to rstablish and maintain a special fund to be known as the sick benefit fund. Assessments will be levied for this fund, and the fund thus created will be available as far as it goes. It will be for the officers to provide a sufficiency. This Bill is substantially the same as was passed in 1903 for the Woodmen of the World, a similar assessment society.


Louis Philippe Demers: It does not seem to be very reasonable that this association should establish a fund like that. If there is a benefit, they are going to take it ; if there is no benefit, they will not get the advantage. They have two funds, as I understand ; they have the sick fund and a general fund. If the sick fund is profitable, they are going to take it; if it is not profitable, they are not responsible for any deficit.


Charles Smith Hyman: It depends on the assessment.


James Joseph Hughes: The object of the association is to establish a fund for a special purpose, and to levy on the members, those who are willing to join. Iu assessment associations of this kind, I understand, they have sick benefit funds, but ail the members of the association are not obliged to contribute towards that fund. Those who wish may contribute towards that fund under certain conditions ; and then in case of sickness, when they are eligible, they will be paid according to the provisions that are made. It is a common thing for assessment associations of this kind to have the privilege, the legal ability, to establish a fund for that purpose. That is all that is asked for iu this case-only those members who contribute to that fund will benefit by it in case of sickness.


Charles Smith Hyman: There is no liability on the others ?


Mr. J. .: 1. HUGHES. None at all.


Mr. BERGERON.: I would suggest to m? hon. friend from St. John and Iberville (Mr. L. P. Demers) that the principle is the same as the Bill concerning the Alliance Nation-ale.


James Joseph Hughes: It is like the Foresters, who have a similar fund ; the principle is the same in all.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.	.



IMPERIAL GUARANTEE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 98) to incorporate the Imperial Guarantee and Accident Insurance Company of Canada.
On section 10,-
The company may acquire and hold any real property required for Its use and accommodation, and may dispose thereof, but the annual value of such property held in any province of Canada shall not exceed $3,000.
[Stage Direction]
Amended by the committee by adding the words ' when necessary,' after the word ' thereof.'	.
William Stevens Fielding: Does that mean when the disposal is necessary or when the property is necessary ?


Mr. HENDERSON.: I think 1 when necessary ' applies to the disposal.


George Eulas Foster: This is subject to the Insurance Act ?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes; the last clause implies that. In some cases a clause is put in stating that it shall be subject; but even without that, there is no question that, unless it be exempt from the provisions of the General Insurance Act, the general Act applies. Clause 11 says that the Companies' Clauses Act shall apply to this company in so far as the said Act is not inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Insurance Act or of this Act. That seems to make it clear that the General Insurance Act applies.


Robert Laird Borden: It would be plainer if you added after the words * Insurance Act ' something making the general Act applicable to this company.


William Stevens Fielding: There was a clause of that kind in the Bill we passed a few minutes ago; and perhaps, to remove all possible doubt, it may be as well to insert a clause in the same words.


Mr. GALLIHER.: Then section 11,'standing as it is, would be in conflict. Section 11 says :
Notwithstanding anything contained therein the Companies Clauses Act, except sections 18 and 39 thereof, shall, apply to the company in so far as the said Act is not inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Insurance Act or of this Act.	.


William Findlay Maclean: Is there not a clause *in the General Insurance Act the same as in the Railway Act ?
This Act shall apply to all persons, companies and railways within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada.


William Stevens Fielding: There is no doubt that, even without that clause, the Act would apply * hut we might put in a clause expressly stating that "the Insurance Act shall apply to this company.


William Findlay Maclean: Why should you put in all these special clauses. If there is a General Act it should apply to all companies and this should be set out in the General Act ?


William Stevens Fielding: It does.


William Findlay Maclean: If it is set out
in the General Act, why should it be necessary to say so in every Act that comes along, because if it is done in one case and not Mr. J. J. HUGHES.
in another, some one will set up the argument that all are not being treated alike ?


William Stevens Fielding: That a new clause be added to the Bill as section 12 as follows : The Insurance Act shall apply to the company.
Section as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



ONTARIO FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 105) to incorporate the Ontario Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. Boyce.
On the question, shall the Bill be reported ?
Charles Smith Hyman: The only question that may arise in regard to this Bill is the question of the title. The title is the Ontario Fire Insurance Company. There has been in existence for some years a company called the Ontario Mutual of Berlin. I understand that company has now changed its name to the Mutual Life of Canada. It is just a question as to whether we should allow another company to take the name of ' Ontario ' after a company of that name has been in existence for many years and when many of its policies will still be in existence under the name of the Ontario Mutual.


Mr. BARKER.: Is that fire or life ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Will it make any difference? You would not allow a fire insurance company to take the same name as a life insurance company.


William Stevens Fielding: I should think that if the Ontario Mutual had any opposition we would have heard of it before this time. If they are opposed to the name the matter would be worth consideration. If my hon. friend (Mr. Hyman) desires the Bill to be held in the committee for that purpose we might do so.


Charles Smith Hyman: I think under the circumstances it might be well to hold it.


David Henderson: It seems to me that one being a fire insurance company and the other a life company there is not much danger of confusion.


William Stevens Fielding: And the Ontario Mutual does business under a different name. It is now known as the Mutual Life of Canada, so that my hon. friend's remarks would only have reference to past policies.


Mr. BOYCE.: There could not possibly be any confusion of insurance as that of the Ontario Mutual has been changed. There are a number of insurance companies of different kinds having the name * Ontario,' for instance, the Ontario Accident Company and the Ontario Mutual as the Acting Minister of Public Works (Mr. Hyman) says.


Charles Smith Hyman: That has been changed now.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Yes, that has been changed. I would point out to the committee there will be less danger now of any confusion or that this company will be unfairly confounded with any existing company that the Ontario Mutual has changed its name and is no longer known by the name of ' Ontario.'


Charles Smith Hyman: Of course there are a lot of policies of the Mutual Life of Canada which have been issued under the name of the Ontario Mutual and these policies are still in force.
1.	$2,977.51.
2.	Works which have a total length of 415 feet, consist of a dam of brush and stone in the bottom, with cribwork top, fully ballasted and fender piled at 10 feet centre.
3.	and 4. Previous to storm of 14th November last, works were in good condition ; department not aware yet of extent of damage, if any, caused by storm.
5.	Work under Engineer Hegan.
6.	Recommended by Captain Gordon and Resident Engineer Jas. B. Hegan.
7.	and 8. It is not at present the intention of the department to continue the work, any material left will be utilized in protection work around lighthouse beach.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: But they are life insurance policies.


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes, that is quite true. But it has always been considered inexpedient to grant the name of another company to a new corporation even if it is of a "different character as long as it is an insurance company. I think the matter had better be referred to the Mutual Life of Canada to "ascertain if there is any objection.


William Stevens Fielding: I would suggest that we take the Bill out of the committee stage and let it stand for its third reading so that if there be such opposition we can take the matter up again and amend the Bill. Report the Bill and let it stand for its third reading only.
Bill reported.



SECOND READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. Ill) to incorporate the Saskatchewan Bridge Company.-Mr. Scott.
Bill (No. 114) respecting the Manitoulin and North Shore Railway Company.-Mr. Dymeut.
Bill (No. 119) to incorporate D. R. Fraser and Company, Limited.-Mr. Oliver.


Mr. LEFURGEY asked :: 1.	What amount of money has been expended by the government to date in trying to stop the new channel, Cascumpec Sandhills, near Alber-ton, Prince Edward Island ?
2.	What was the nature of the work attempted ?
3.	What portion of it has been effected ?
4.	Has the brush work placed there remained, or is it all gone to sea ?
5.	Who was in charge of the work ?
6.	Who advised it ?
7.	Is it the intention of the department to continue it ?
8.	If so, what is the estimate, and who is to be the superintendent ? If not, what is to be done with the stone and timber on the ground ?


Charles Smith Hyman: 



ST. JOSEPH, LAKE HURON.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ARMSTRONG-by Mr. Lancaster- asked :
1.	Is the pier at St. Joseph, on Lake Huron, completed ?
2.	If not, when will the said pier be completed, and what is the cause of the delay ?
3.	How much money has been expended on said pier to date ?
4.	What interest is to be served in building said pier at St. Joseph ?
Charles Smith Hyman: 1- Ohly small portion remains to be done.
2.	First of July, next. Inclemency of weather.
3.	$14,991.20.
4.	General interest of surrrounding country.



COLD STORAGE ON STEAMERS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ARMSTRONG-by Mr. Lancaster- asked :
1.	Does the contract entered into between the government and the steamships subsidized to give cold storage or cold air chambers, compel all said steamers to keep certain temperatures while crossing the Atlantic ?
2.	Are thermograph records taken on all subsidized steamships ? If not, on how many are such records taken ?
3.	How many dollars worth of perishable products were exported from Canada in the fiscal year 1904 ?
4.	What amount of perishable products were exported by cold storage, and what amount by cool air compartments or ventilated storage ; and what amount by ordinary storage ?
5.	What was the quantity of each perishable product exported ?
6.	What is the extra charge per barrel or per box for apples sent in cold storage or cool air compartments ?
7.	What were the comparative results of shipments of fruit by cold storage, with cold air chambers or ventliated storage ?
8.	What information has the government with reference to perishable products remaining on the docks in Europe for days before being shipped to their destination ?
9.	What are the freight rates on perishable products from the ports of Montreal, St. John
[Stage Direction]


and Halifax during each month in calendar year 1904 ?
10.	What are the freight rates on perishable products from the ports of Boston, Portland and New York for each month in calendar year 1904?
Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture) :: 
Mr. ARMSTRONG.: allowed to remain for days before delivery is taken. No such delay occurs at Manchester, London or Bristol owing to regulations enforced by the dock companies at these ports. Efforts are being made by my department to induce the dock company at Liverpool to enact regulations similar to those in force at the above named ports, but thus far no definite result has been arrived at.
9. The information asked for in questions 9 and 10 is not in the possession of my department.



AGREEMENT WITH GRAND TRUNK P ACJFIC.

Mr. BARKER asked :: 1.	Have any agreements been entered into between His Majesty and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, or the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, or any other corporation, company or person, pursuant or with relation to any of the provisions of the National Transcontinental Railway Act, or of the Act amending the same, or of the scheduled agreements therein referred to ?
2.	With whom and when were such agreements. if any, made ?
3.	If any agreements so entered into have not* already been laid upon the table of the House, what is the nature of each such agreement not so laid upon the table ?
4.	Has the Governor in Council given any, and if so, what approval pursuant to section 4 of the National Transcontinental Railway Act ?
5.	Has the Governor in Council, or the Minister of Finance and Receiver General, given any, and, if so, what approval pursuant to section 9 of the Act of 1904 amending the National Transcontinental Railway Act ?
6.	Have the forms of any leases, mortgages, bonds, securities or other documents referred to in the said Act or amending Act, or in the scheduled agreements, been settled or approved by or on behalf of the government ?
7.	And what, if any, such forms have been so settled or approved ?


William Stevens Fielding: 1, 2, 3. No such agreements have been entered into.
4,	5, 6, 7. There have been conferences between representatives of the government and the Grand Trunk Pacific Company respecting the forms of mortgage and the terms on which the guarantee bonds are to be issued, but no' conclusion has been reached and no Orders in Council have been passed.



MAILS-ST. JOHN AND ST. MARTINS, N.B.

Mr. DANIEL asked :: 1.	Have tenders been asked for the carriage of mails between St. John and St. Martins, N.B., for the ensuing year ?
2.	Has any contract been let for this service ? If so, to whom, and at what price ?
3.	If tenders have not been asked for this service, when will such tenders be called for ?


Hon.   S@: The contract for this

service was awarded to Mr. Henry Nugent, the lowest tenderer, in March 1901, for a four years' contract expiring on the 31st March, 1905, contract price $779 per annum. A renewal has been granted Mr. Nugent at the same rate for another term of four years.



ST. PAUL LAND AND HYDRAULIC COMPANY.

Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	What is the amount of rental payable to the government by the St. Paul Land and Hydraulic Company for its water privileges at C6te St. Paul, on the Lachine canal ?
2.	What is the duration of the lease ?
3.	What are the other principal conditions of the lease ?


Charles Smith Hyman: In the absence of the Minister of Railways I beg to answer :
1.	There is no lease from the government to the St. Paul Land and Hydraulic Company.
2.	and 3. Answered by number one. VACANCY IN CENTRE TORONTO.


George Eulas Foster: Mr. Speaker. I beg to call your attention formally to the fact that by the lamented death of Mr. E. F. Clarke, who represented Centre Toronto, in this House, the representation of that electoral division is now vacant.



WHARFS, PIERS, ETC., CONSTRUCTED BY GOVERNMENT.

Hon. GEO  E.@: FOSTER moved for :
A return showing the number of wharfs, docks and piers constructed by the government in Canada each year since 1896 ; the situation of each ; the total amount expended thereon, (a) in construction, including cost of land ; (b) in maintenance ; whether owned by the government or by corporations or individuals ; the current expenditure in each year for (a) employees ;	(b) repairs ; the revenue derived
therefrom each year ; the number of vessels, (a) steam ; (b) sailing, which called each year, and the tonnage of each.


Charles Smith Hyman: I have no objection to the motion, but the hon. gentleman will understand that it will require a great deal of time to complete this return.


George Eulas Foster: I quite understand it will take some time, but I would ask the hon. gentleman to expedite it, and to have it if possible before the budget speech comes down.


Charles Smith Hyman: I doubt very much if I can.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
For copies of all correspondence had with the Minister of Railways and Canals, or any 89}
officer in his department, in reference to the dismissal of James Ritchie, inspector of masonry on the Trent Valley Canal, Gamebridge, and the appointment of his successor.-Mr. Foster.
For a return of all the thermograph records used in the transportation of perishable products from Canada, in cold storage or ventilated storage, or cool air compartment. Also a copy of all contracts entered into between the government and any steamship company, whereby the company receives a subsidy for installing cold_storage or cool air ventilation or ventilated storage.-Mr. Armstrong-by Mr. R. L. Borden.

Mr.  A. A.@: LEFURGEY (P.E.I.) moved for :
Copies of all correspondence, telegrams, reports, estimates, and all other documents or information which passed between any minister or official of the government and engineers or others, with reference to the investigating or taking of soundings, or any other work for the purpose of ascertaining the best plan and place for the building of a pier or breakwater, in the vicinity of Carleton Point, or Cape Traverse, P.E.I., to establish and facilitate communication between Prince Edward Island and the mainland, winter and summer.
He said : I congratulate myself on having the opportunity of speaking on a very Important subject, so important to the people of Prince Edward Island and the Dominion at large, with the Prime Minister and so many other members of the cabinet present, as well as the leader of the opposition ; but I regret that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is not present. I regret that year after year this matter of communication between Prince Edward Island and the mainland should have to be so much harped upon in this House ; but I feel it my duty to call the attention of the House to the most deplorable state of affairs that has been experienced by the people of that province during this last winter. For some fifty-five days, from the 24th of January up to the present time, there has been no steam communication between the island and the mainland, and only an indifferent service at the capes, and it may be weeks yet before communication by boat is resumed. Now, I must seriously charge that the government have not used every effective effort to meet the exigency of winter communication. During the last two or three years that I have been in this House I have urged on the government the necessity of having a third and more powerful winter boat to meet the conditions of the service between these r.oints. In the last session of the late parliament the minister did give us a hint (hat such a boat would be constructed and placed upon this route, but up to the present time no move in this direction appears


William Findlay Maclean: Has the government of Prince Edward Island put in that demand?


Mr. LEFURGEY.: I believe it has been forwarded and I have no doubt the Dominion government have it in their possession. If not, I regard this as service upon them in that respect. It has been said by lion, members on the other side of the House, and, possibly, by members on this side, that the successive Dominion administrations have treated Prince Edward Island in a generous manner and have carried out fully the terms of Union. We had a reference in this House the other night to the allowance of $30,000 made to Prince Edward Island some years ago to compensate in some manner for the non-fulfilment of the terms of Union. If the Speaker will permit me to refer to a past debate, I would like to read the words of the hon. the Minister of Finance, because I cannot let them pass unchallenged. He said
Any argument based upon the general view that we should improve transportation facilities in any part of Canada would he deserving of our consideration and attention ; and if, owing to the isolated condition of the Island, we find it necessary to do something more in order to improve her communications by all means let us try and do it, and any reasonable argument to that end may well be brought before the House. But since my hon. friend put it entirely on the ground of a contract,
I wish to say that no such contract exists which has not been fulfilled to the letter. Every contract made with the people of Prince Edward

Island has been fulfilled. If there be any doubt upon the point, you have only to look to the statute of several years ago, when in consequence of the difference of opinion said to exist, an allowance was made, the amount of which, it was distinctly declared in that statute, was to be in full and final settlement of the terms of union.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I wish to put in an emphatic and absolute denial that that was the intention In placing to the credit of Prince Edward Island on that occasion $30,000 a year in perpetuity. The idea of bartering the terms of confederation, one of the most sacred terms under which we entered confederation-that communication should be guaranteed to the island winter and summer-the idea of bartering that for a mess of pottage, of bartering it for $30,000 a year ; why it is all out of reason to comprehend. I venture to assert that the loss resulting privately to interests in Prince Edward Island this last winter will amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars besides the almost incalculable loss that will result from loss of business in future. Now, on that point I want to read the Order in Council passed at that time :
From and after the 1st day of July, 1901, there should be paid to the province of Prince Edward Island, In addition to all sums now authorized by law, an annual allowance of $30,000, which allowance should become payable and be ' paid to the said province half-yearly on the 1st days of July and January In each and every year, beginning with the said 1st day of July, 1901. Such allowance to be paid and accepted in full settlement of all claims of the said province against the Dominion of Canada on account of alleged nonfulfilment of the terms of union between the Dominion and the said province as respects the maintenance of efficient steam communication between the island and mainland.	.
Well, that is certainly ' all claims ' for non-fulfilment of the terms. But we were not settling the non-fulfilment of the terms in perpetuity, we were settling the nonfulfilment of the terms up to 1901. At that time I said to the minister :
I would ask the minister if this $30,000 is given to compensate the island for non-fulfilment of the terms of union, and up to what date ?
Sir Louis Davies, who was then Minister of Marine and Fisheries, answered :
Up to the present date, all claims of 'whatever nature up to the present time, based on the nonfulfilment of the terms of union.
Now, Sir Louis Davies was the represen-* tative of our own province, and in reply to this question to the Minister of Finance he acknowledged that it was a settlement for claims of all kinds up to that time. The Prime Minister upon that occasion said, in answer to a question of Mr. Haggart:
That is not the ground we take. The only ground we take is, that the government of Canada entered into a solemn compact with Prince Edward Island in 1873, and for many
years did not fulfil that compact. That is the only question, and I will appeal to any man in this House, when he reads the contract, to say whether the government of Canada was not entirely in fault.
Now, the government of Canada was in fault up to that time, and although I admit that the government of Canada has endeavoured in some measure to better the terms, we certainly have not yet succeeded in getting the terms of confederation fulfilled at the present time ; and until we do succeed .in getting the continuous communication which is possible for this government to give to the people of Prince Edward Island, we shall continue to inflict ourselves upon this House upon all suitable occasions. The Prime Minister quoted the wording of the contract:
The Dominion government shall assume and defray all the charges for the following services, namely :
Efficient steam service for the conveyance of mails and passengers, to be established and maintained between the island and the mainland of the Dominion, winter and summer, thus placing the island in continuous communication with the Intercolonial Railway and the railway system of the Dominion.
And then he said :
That is not the interpretation which my hon. friend from South Lanark gave a moment ago to this contract. It is a direct, binding and solemn undertaking that the government of Canada will maintain continuous communication between Prince Edward Island and the Intercolonial Railway. There is no provision there that the Dominion of Canada would try to do it ; there is no suggestion that there might be' too much ice in certain seasons.
That is a solemn compact which the leader of this House acknowledged that the Dominion government was bound to fulfil. In the debate on that occasion I also put myself on record by saying :
I have no objection to the vote of $30,000 a year being given to Prince Edward Island, but I do object, Mr. Speaker, to the agreement that this is adequate to remunerate the island for the losses to which it has been subjected, especially during the first fifteen years after we came into confederation. The hon. members of this House must take into consideration that we are an agricultural country, and that our products must be marketed within six weeks after the crop is harvested. After that the freights are always high, nearly double the summer or spring rates ; and not only that, but our products are put upon the market at a time when, being rushed forward, our markets are glutted, and the farmers and merchants do not realize within twenty-five or thirty per cent of the prices they would obtain if communication were kept up for a month or two later. Now, taking these things into consideration, in estimating the loss during the twenty-five years, up to the time the ' Minto ' was put on, it wrill be seen that $1,000,000 will not in any degree compensate Prince Edward Island for all the disadvantage she laboured under for all these years ; in fact, it seems to me a very small sum indeed compared with

the losses that the island has suffered. I wish to place myself on record as dissenting from the view of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and the agreement of the local government of Prince Edward Island in accepting $30,000 per annum as full recompense for all the losses which the island has suffered through the failure of the Dominion to carry out the terms of the confederation.
Now, I think, Mr. Speaker, I have placed before this House clear proof that the Minister of Finance was stating the case a little too broadly in interpreting that settlement, when he said this was a full-and final settlement of all the claims which we had under the terms of union. Well, I question whether this House could cancel in such a manner that solemn obligation that was entered into without going to the imperial parliament. Why, Sir, in the case of the island's representation in this House, while every possible evidence outside of the exact phraseology of the clause every plausible construction, showed that Prince Edward Island was given six members in perpetuity to represent her in the federal House, this House would not go outside the terms of the bond, and on that occasion I believe that the representation which we were justly entitled to was filched from us. I trust we will not be called upon to fight for another sacred obligation agreed to when Prince Edward Island entered this confederation. Coming now to a consideration when the Postmaster General was speaking a few nights ago on the estimates, he said :
Can the hon. gentleman say offhand what the cost of the tunnel would be ? I believe there have been estimates.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The hon. gentleman cannot refer to a previous debate.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: With your permission, I would read a line or two. He said :
He said that the island had with business enterprise contributed towards the cost of the Hillsboro' bridge. Perhaps the island would be prepared to join with the Dominion in a like spirit and in contributing in the same proportion towards the construction of a tunnel. If so, we would be approaching the subject in a practical way.
He also stated that the tunnel would be a question of cost. Now, I must point out to this House that the hon. Postmaster General in making a suggestion of that kind made a suggestion which was certainly a far-reaching one, and one that was not made in any spirit of fairness towards the people of Prince Edward Island. From 1865 to 1873 one of the strongest grounds against the union was the fact that Prince Edward Island occupied a unique position on account of her isolated situation. She would be called on to contribute her share towards public works, Intercolonial Railway, canals and Canadian Pacific Railway without deriving the same amount of benefit therefrom as the other provinces. This was the contention of the representatives from Prince Edward Is-Mr. LEFURGEY.
land at the time of the final conference, held prior to the admittance of the island into the union. This contention was recognized as correct by Sir J. A. Macdonald and his government, and a clause was inserted in the terms of union with regard to Prince' Edward Island which met and entirely covered the case. In consideration of the works contemplated at that time an allowance was made :
That in consideration of the large expenditure authorized by the parliament of Canada for the construction of railroads and canals, and in view of the possibility of a re-adjustment of the financial agreements between Canada and the several provinces now embraced in the Dominion, as well as the isolated and exceptional condition of Prince Edward Island, that colony shall, on entering the union, be entitled to incur a debt equal to $50 per head of the population as shown by the census returns of 1871, that is to say $4,701,050.
On the Intercolonial Railway twenty millions were to be expended, of which $15,500.000 had been expended at the time of con-,federation, leaving $4,500,000 to be expended.
The debt of Canada on June 30,
1873, was	$129,743,432
0.	P.R. authorized (unexpended). 30,000,000
1.	C.R. authorized (unexpended). 4,552.148 Canals, authorized (unexpended) 8,933,333

Under the basis of population the debt per head was $49.40. Prince Edward Island's assumed debt was $4,701,050, equal to $50 per head of the population of 1871, viz.: 94,021. This was the assumed debt. The actual debt of the island on June 30, '73, was $754,559, not including railway expenditure. The railroad expenditure was $3,-
153,672 for which we paid.
Actual debt of Prince Edward Island, June 30, 1873, not including railroad expenditure.. $	754,559
Railway expenditure	 3,153,672
Amount withdrawn by provincial
government in 1888	 200,000
Balance remaining		582,818

So that out of that debt of $50 per head to put her in the same position as the other provinces she was charged every dollar expended in the construction of her own railway. Now, as stated, there were only three large public works provided for at that time and taken into consideration, viz.: the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Intercolonial Railway and the improving of the canals. Since the union enormous amounts have been expended on these works and every year large appropriations are being expended on them.
The Statistical Year-book for 1903 on Public Works gives the expenditure on railways and canals and other public works



19Q5

[Stage Direction]
since 3873 as $253,356,496. Of this amount up to two or three years ago we got the Cape Traverse branch and we have since got the Murray Harbour branch and the Hillsboro' bridge in Prince Edward Island. There is a large amount of this that we were fairly entitled to, as up to a few years ago being one-fortieth part of the population of the Dominion of Canada we were entitled to one-fortieth of the expenditure of this public money. We believe that other parts of the Dominion should be built up, and I am only giving you these figures to show that the idea of some of our friends from Ontario and from other provinces that Prince Edward Island is all the time grumbling when she is getting more than her share is not borne out by the facts of the case. You will remember that when British Columbia came into confederation, one of the pledges given was that the Canadian Pacific Railway would be built. Hon. members of this House will remember that when this great work was being put forward by the Conservative party they were told that the expenditure which was authorized would not pay for the axle grease. Yet it was one of the terms under which British Columbia came into the confederation, Sir John Macdonald, assisted to some extent by the members on the other side, went forward and carried out that contract. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) wants us to appeal on justice and not upon the principle of exacting the letter of the bond. We will be perfectly willing to appeal on any ground which will get the ear of the Minister of Finance and the members of the government, and so we will appeal to them on the ground of justice. We want the terms of confederation carried out in regard to Prince Edward Island, as the terms of confederation were carried out in regard to the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway. As regards the works done in other provinces outside Prince Edward Island we could carry the comparison forward logically and charge up the losses that we had on the Intercolonial Railway in the matter of interest and deficits, we could do the same thing in regard to canals and we could do the same thing in regard to moneys and aids to the Canadian Pacific Railway. If we did this we would find that the losses would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $300,000,000. For that we have to bear our proportion of upwards of $6,000,000. I am not giving these figures in any complaining way at all; I simply want to put the position of Prince Edward Island fairly before the House so that the House may mete out justice to us.
I want to present another situation in regard to Prince Edward Island. I want to point out what we receive yearly and what we are contributing yearly to the coffers of the Dominion. We are receiving under the terms under which we came into confederation the following amounts:
Interest on debt of island assumed by
Dominion at confederation viz. : on.$ 17,880
Subsidy to province	$181,982
Added on account of non-fulfilment of terms in 1902	 30,000
[Stage Direction]
 211,982
Interest on amount paid by Dominion government for proprietary estates
viz. on $747,971 at 3 per cent	 23,439
Cost of Prince Edward Island Railway to
June, 1904	$6,128,116
Amount in estimates to complete
M.H.B. & H. bridge	 357,000 * '
[Stage Direction]
Proportion, H. bridge.. ..	400,000
Interest on balance at 3 per
cent	$6,085,116	182,553
Paid to Indians	 1,850
Postal expenditure	$21,612
" ' subsidy to P.E.I.R	18,710
[Stage Direction]
 40,322
Judge's salary	$19,400
Lieut. Governor's salary	 7,000
[Stage Direction]
 26,400
Maintenance of ' Stanley ' and ' Minto '
half of $95,000	 47,500
Lighthouse and coast service	 25,603
Fisheries	 7,320
Half cost of telegraph to mainland.. ..	3,500
Excise	 2,241
Weights and Measures	 1,784
Food inspection	 157
Gas inspection	 409
Electric light inspection	 34
Quarantine	 1,565
Collecting revenue customs	 18,532
Ice boat service	 8,912
Public buildings	 18,924
Harbours and rivers	 60,803
[Stage Direction]
This gives a total expenditure of $691,870 that may be fairly said to be the sum expended by the government in Prince Edward Island last year. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick should properly bear a certain portion of the service of the ' Stanley ' and ' Minto,' because they get a proportionate benefit from that service, and so I have credited one half their service to Prince Edward Island. In like manner I credit the island with the $400,000 paid by the province on account of the Hillsboro' bridge. Tbe total revenue of the Dominion last year was $70,669,817, and taking our population as one fiftieth the total of the population of tbe Dominion we would be entitled to an expenditure in Prince Edward Island of $1,413,396. Take from that amount the actual expenditure by the Dominion in Prince Edward Island of $691,870, and there is a balance in our favour of $721,526. Iu other words, we contribute to tbe revenues of this Dominion $721,526 more than they pay out to us ; and yet we have bon. gentlemen getting up in this House and telling us that Prince Edward Island was an improvident bargain, that we are getting more than our share, and notwithstanding that the representatives from that province are constantly complaining. It may be possible that I have omitted from
[Stage Direction]
the expenditure in Prince Edward Island a few trifling items, but however that may be, we do not get more than $750,000 all told from the Dominion treasury, so that we are contributing as much again as we receive. As a matter of fact, Prince Edward Island, because of her peculiar conditions, contributes more to the revenue of the Dominion in proportion than do the other provinces, in the fact that not being a manufacturing community we have to import all the manufactures we consume, and so we naturally pay a larger proportion of the revenue than do the other provinces.
I wish now to bring to the attention of the government and the House some little history of the construction of a tunnel be-ween Prince Edward Island and the mainland. This is not a new question. It was first brought to the attention of this parliament by Senator Howlan in 1885 and afterwards a deputation from the provincial government was sent to interview the imperial authorities with reference to the matter. Although the imperial authorities said at the time that they could not intervene, yet under date of March 30th, 1886, Lord Granville, writing to Lord Lansdowne, then Governor General, made this statement in his communication :
The establishment of constant and speedy communication by rail would be a great advantage both to the province and to the Dominion, and I should suppose that the development of the traffic on the island railroads and of the capabilities of the province generally, would produce a large direct and indirect return on the expenditure.
It would reflect great credit on the Dominion government, if, after connecting British Columbia with the eastern provinces by the Canadian Pacific Railway it should now be able to complete its system of railway communication by an extension to Prince Edward Island.
Not only have we this recommendation of the tunnel scheme from the imperial authorities, but we have also the opinion of the Prime Minister of Canada himself, who, writing to Mr. Higgs, of Charlottetown, made this statement:	,
Dear Sir,-I have your favour of February 2nd. I hardly would have thought an expression of opinion as to the construction of a tunnel to connect the island with the mainland, necessary from me. Every man who has given any attention to the condition of things and to the necessities involved by the entering of the island into confederation, must admit that such a tunnel must be constructed if the thing is reasonably practicable. The first requisite is to have an accurate survey and reliable estimates. I am only sorry that these were not obtained long ago.

[Stage Direction]
That was written by the Hou. Wilfrid Laurier, now Prime Minister of Canada. We have no reason to believe that the right hon. gentleman is in any different frame of mind to-day with regard to the carrying Mr. LEFURGEY.
out of the terms of the union or as to the building of a tunnel than he was at that time. I am in hopes that this afternoon the Prime Minister will get up in his place and express himself in no uncertain language in favour of the tunnel scheme. I may say that the Dominion government of that day were, to some extent, committed to the building of this tunnel, and I believe that if it had been continuously pressed on their attention we would now have had the tunnel in process of completion. However, it is never too late to mend, and we will now make a fresh start. In 1886 surveys for the tunnel were made and different plans were brought forward, one with reference to a subway, which was afterwards abandoned, because the tunnel was found to be most feasible. Surveys for a tunnel across the straits were made as late as 1890, and borings were taken. The then government obtained the report of Sir Douglas Fox as to the estimate of the cost and the feasibility of building a tunnel, and this report will be found in the Sessional Papers of the House of Commons for 1894. For the benefit of those hon. members who are not familiar with the subject, I shall read a few passages from the report of Sir Douglas Fox :
Mr. Palmer reports that having reference to the opinion of Mr. Bain as to the strata under the bed of the sea on the line -of the tunnel, the proposed location under the narrowest portions of the straits between Money Point in New Brunswick and Carleton Point in Prince Edward Island is well selected from both a constructive and a traffic point of view.
Take into consideration, Mr. Speaker, that this report was made in 1891, and that we have had from engineers of the greatest repute in Canada, the United States and England expressions of opinion that this tunnel was absolutely feasible, that the conditions for tunnelling under the Straits of Northumberland were more favourable than anywhere else where tunnels had been constructed in the world, and that this report of Sir Douglas Fox was made after a thorough investigation of the reasonableness and feasibility of the tunnel. So that the stipulations in the right hon. minister's letter of some years ago have been amply met. The report goes on to say
The greatest depth of water is shown as being 96 feet at high water, with a rise of tides of six feet at springs and three feet at neaps, and the speed of the current is not exceeding three knots, with two hours of slack water at each tide.
The distance from shore to shore is given as about 13,200 lineal yards, or say from shaft to shaft, 13,500 lineal yards, exclusive of the land approaches on either side, of which about 2,000 lineal yards would be in the tunnel.
I may say that the length of the tunnel in nautical miles would be about 7-47 miles. But this has been eclipsed by three or four other tunnels, some a long time in oper-
[Stage Direction]
ation, and others of more recent construction. The St. Gothard tunnel is 9i miles; Mt. Cenis, 7 1-8 miles; the Severn, 5 miles, built below a rapidly-flowing tidal estuary, and one of the greatest and most difficult engineering feats in the world ; the Mersey, 41 miles ; and the Simplon, between Trance and Switzerland, which was completed on the 24th of February last, 121 miles long. This tunnel was built in two twin passages each 161 feet wide, and separated by a distance of 55-7 feet between their axes. The cost of the twin tunnels was 815,700,000, and the engineering difficulties met with were, I believe, unparalleled in the history of tunnel construction. The reports of Sir William Dawson, Sir Douglas Fox, Mr. Bain and Mr. Palmer go to show that the strata through which the tunnel from Prince Edward Island to the mainland would pass would be one of the easiest for tunnel construction that could possibly be found. In another part of the report Sir Douglas Fox says
It is my duty to state that though convinced of the accuracy of what I now present, a more minute and detailed geological investigation should be made before active engineering operations are begun.
I have also before me a copy of a letter addressed on January 9th, 1891, to the Hon. G. W. Howlan, by Sir William Dawson, of McGill University. Montreal, which runs as follows :
I beg to say that I have read and examined the report and section prepared by Mr. Bain, with reference to the proposed tunnel from Carleton Head to Cane Jourmain, which you were kind enough to show me, and that front my knowledge of the geological structure of the locality, I have no hesitation in stating that I believe the report and section fairly represent the character of the beds to be penetrated *by the proposed tunnel, and that these will not present any serious difficulty, the ground being in fact as favourable as could be desired for such a work.
He recommended that before the work should be proceeded with, certain surveys and borings should be made. In this part of the report he says -
Borings .similar to those taken at Sarnia tunnel, viz., from a vessel or platform through 6-inch wrought iron pipes, so as to ensure cores of sufficient size and undamaged being brought to the surface, should be laid at intervals of, say not more than 500 yards, right across the straits and down to the carboniferous bed rock, but this line of borings should be at some distance, say 300 yards from the centre line of the tunnel. This work should be carried out in the presence of q,n experienced engineer who should carefully note the sample taken.
Now, Sir. Speaker, the purpose for which I bring this matter before the House at this time is that we may have the recommendation of Sir Douglas Fox carried out: that a complete survey with borings be made under a competent engineer and an estimated cost obtained. And for that proposal I ask that a sum sufficient for this work be
placed in this year's estimates. I think these reports demonstrate the absolute fea-sibilty of a tunnel. This report was made ten years ago. Since that time immense improvements have been made, greatly cheapening the cost of tunnelling, so that while Sir Douglas Fox's estimate of the cost of a 101-foot funnel was $9,800,000 and of an 18-foot tunnel rim. $11,000,000, I have no hesitation in expressing the belief that to-day an 18-foot tunnel, capable of taking the largest cars, could be constructed for $10,000,000. It may be said that this would be an unwarranted sum of money, and that Prince Edward Island is to small a province to have such an expenditure as that. But I want to point out that the Dominion of Canada is under an obligation to give us continuous steam communication winter and summer, and that the annual cost of keeping up the method at present provided for this purpose, and such as it will be absolutely necessary to further provide, is more than would pay the interest on any possible cost of the tunnel. I have made a statement of the comparative cost of keeping up the present service and the cost of the service which this government would have to put in operation if they intend to carry out the terms of Union.
Subsidies to summer steamers	$ 12,500
Loss on Prince Edward Island Railway 101,305 Maintenance of SS. ' Stanley ' and ' Min-to ' as per minister's statement.. ..	95,000
Cost of steamer 'Stanley' ..$145,000 Cost of steamer 'Minto'.. .. 190,000
Insurance on cost at 10	per cent 335,000	33,500
Depreciation and interest in value at
10 per cent	  33,500
New boat	$500,000
Insurance at 10 per cent	 50,000
Maintenance	 50,000
Depreciation and interest at 10 per cent 50,000
Ice boat service, 1903	 8,912
Telegraph service	 7,000
If you add pier at Carleton
Point	$1,250,000
Additions at Tormentine	 1,000
Interest thereon at 3 per cent 1,350,000	40,500
482,217
All these figures may not be strictly accurate, but they are substantially correct and may be used as a basis to show that cost of tunnel even of ten or fifteen millions might well be a good investment. Then there would be au increase in the business of Prince Edward Island and an increase in the value of land of $13,000,900 to $15,000,000, and an increased business on the Intercolonial which could be safely estimated at $100,000, as almost everything would go by the tunnel if we had reasonable rates. The tunnel could be built for ten million dollars, possibly twelve million dollars. Ten million dollars at three per cent would mean an annual interest outlay of $300,000, whereas the cost of keeping up the service by the winter
[Stage Direction]
boats-and a service we could not always depend upon, even with such expensive boats as we ask the government to build-would be $482,217. I would suggest that the government is confronted with this situation- either the keeping up of a service with such boats as 4 pointed out or the construction of a tunnel. I would ask the right hon. the First Minister and his colleagues to take this into their serious consideration. We certainly may in all fairness ask that an immediate investigation be instituted into the feasibility and desirabilty of constructing a tunnel between Prince Edward Island and the mainland.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr.  J. J.@: HUGHES (King's, P.E.I.) The question now before you, Mr. Speaker, was discussed in this House a few days ago, and it has been taken up again to-day by the hon. member for Prince (Mr. Lefurgey). The question of communication between Prince Edward Island and the mainland is the most important question that can engage the attention of the representatives from the island province, and is, I think, worthy, perhaps, of a little more consideration than has yet been given it by the government, the parliament, and the people of Canada. As I said a few evenings ago, when this matter received some consideration in Committee of the Whole, the question is not new. In pre-confederation days, when the subject of union with the other provinces of the Dominion was being discussed in Prince Edward Island, there was no argument addressed to the people of that province to induce them to enter the confederation which appealed to them so strongly as this-that if they entered confederation their isolation would be at an end, the difficulties and disadvantages of their insular position would be a thing of the past, and it would be practicable, to all intents and purposes, to unite Prince Edward Island physically as well as constitutionally to the other provinces of the Dominion. So strongly did our people feel upon that point that the delegates to the conference which arranged the terms of union were specially instructed upon it. And, in accordance with these instructions from the people of Prince Edward Island and in accordance with the wants and requirements of the province, this clause was inserted in the terms of union
That the Dominion government shall assume and defray all charges, or for the following services :-
And one of these services was :-
Efficient steam service for the conveyance of mails and passengers to be established and Mr. LEFURGEY.
maintained between the island and the mainland of the Dominion, winter and summer, thus placing the island in continuous communication with the Intercolonial Railway and the railway system of the Dominion.
Now, we think that ' efficient communication should mean communication adequate for the purposes for which it was employed, and that ' continuous communication ' would surely mean communication at least once a day, unless prevented by some extraordinary or unforeseen act of Providence which might interrupt the communication for a few days and which might be called, I supposed, vis major. We would not object to an interruption of that kind. But, when the interruption lasts for weeks and months at a time, as has frequently been the case since these terms were agreed upon and ratified, we certainly feel that this is not carrying out the terms of union. Now, we may be told-and I think the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) takes that position-that this is not' the best ground upon which to put our case. That may be. I think that hon. gentleman holds the view that we should rest our case upon these facts :-That there is considerable improvement and development going on all over the world, and particularly in Canada, in every branch of activity including systems of communication, and, as Prince Edward Island is an integral part of this Dominion, it should share in that development at least to a reasonable extent, and so the means of communication should be as perfect as our knowledge and the application of science has made practicable. That, of course, we believe to be a good ground upon which to base our case. But we also think that i't might be uuwise to overlook entirely the constitutional aspect of the question. And for this view of the case, I think I have fairly good authority-that of the Prime Minister himself. I find that in speaking upon this question in 1901, when the question of communication was under consideration by this parliament, in reply to some objections raised by tba hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) and by Mr. Clancy, the member for Both-well, the Prime Minister made use of this language :-
With due reference to my hon. friend, I do not see where the difference lie? between giving $1,000,000 and giving the interest on $1,000,000. But, I come to the point made by my hon. friend from South Lanark. He says the contract is not at all as represented by my hon. friend beside me (Sir Louis Davies)-that the contract made with Prince Edward Island in 1873 was other than to keep up efficient steam communication, that it was not a direct bargain, but that it was qualified with the condition that we were to do the best we could, and if we found the forces of nature too strong for us. we were not to be responsible. That is not the wording of the contract. This is it, in so ' many words :

* The Dominion government shall assume and . defray all the charges for the following services, namely : efficient steam service for the conveyance of mails and passengers, to be established and maintained between the island and the mainland of the Dominion, winter and summer, thus placing the island in continuous communication with the Intercolonial Railway and railways of the Dominion.'
That is not the interpretation which my hon. friend from South Lanark gave a moment ago to this contract. It is a direct, binding and solemn understanding that the government of Canada will maintain continuous communication between Prince Edward Island and the Intercolonial Railway. There is no provision there that the Dominion of Canada would try to do it ; there is no suggestion that there might be too much ice in certain seasons. It is true that it might be a case of force majeure. No one would complain if the service were interrupted for a day or two by an act of Providence, because that is a case of force majeure.
Now, not only is this the view expressed by the leader of the government a few years ago, but it is the view that the people of Prince Edward Island take of this matter. What is the condition of things this year? The interruption of our communication has lasted now practically for two months-some fifty days-continuously. For that length of time we have had no communication with the mainland other than by the small ice-boats which provided means of communication some fifty or seventy years ago. There is practically no improvement whatever as compared with that time. I am sure that no hon. gentleman in this House and no fair-minded man in this country, looking at the facts as they are to-day and the stipulation that was made when we entered confederation, will say that the terms of union have been carried out. You may tell me that this is an exceptional winter. And that is quite true- it is exceptional so far as the snow-fall in the maritime provinces is concerned. But, in my judgment and in the judgment of others, and as a matter of fact this winter is not greatly exceptional so far as frost and ice conditions are concerned. Now, if the ice breaking steamers that we have are not able to make their way across the Straits of Northumberland because there is a heavy fall of snow on the land, have we any reason to suppose that similar interruptions will not take place in the years that are to come, if some better means of communication are not provided? I hold that we have no reason to suppose that the conditions which we have this year, that the interruption of communication that we have this year, will not be repeated in some future years.
The steamers ought to be able to cross at least in fine and clear days, and they have not been able to do so this year. What means of communication have we this year ? Simply the old method that was employed long
before confederation, that is crossing with small boats. Let me describe that method so that hon. members of this House who have never seen it may have some knowledge of it, for no man who has not seen it and who has not crossed theiA can fully realize the difficulties and dangers connected with that navigation. These boats are about 15 to 18 feet in length. They have to be built light and small so that the passengers and crew can haul them up on the surface of the ice, and they have to be built large enough so that when they reach stretches of open water, which are very frequently met with in the ordinary course of crossing, they can carry a fair number of passengers and crew. Now the passengers and crew are strapped to these boats by leather thongs by which they can drag them along in the first place, and which in the second place would prevent them from being drowned if they accidentally fell into the water through some unseen opening in the ice, which is not unfrequent. If the passengers or crew' should happen to make a mis-step or a miscalculation in getting into the boat preparatory to crossing one of these stretches of open water, or to make a mis-step in getting out wrhen they come to an ice barrier, by meaus of these leather thongs they are prevented from falling into the w'ater ; and they use them also to haul the boats up on to the ice. They have to work their way across the straits through the broken ice, and sometimes through slush and snow from six to twelve inches deep, dragging these boats along with them. Any one can understand the danger and the exhaustive labour involved in the work of crossing. There is no possibility whatever of carrying any freight across in that way, and frequently parcels and heavy mail matter have to be left over. But that is not the only danger connected with this method of crossing. There is an ever present danger to life and limb. Only a few years ago a party of four or five boats left Cape Traverse and when they got half way across the straits a snowstorm came on completely shutting out their view' of the land. All day they toiled in their endeavour to reach land, and when night came on they had to do the best they could to provide themselves w'ith some shelter. They hauled the boats up on to the ice, and turning them over, huddled beneath them to shelter themselves from the pitiless storm during the night. The w'ind changed during the night and the weather turned very cold, and they had to break up one of the boats to make a small fire to prevent the weaker passengers from freezing to death. They had drifted a long distance out of their course, and the next day they had to work all day and only reached land after nightfall, thoroughly exhausted and worn out, so exhausted indeed that some of the passengers threw themselves down in the snow and were not able to w'alk to the farm houses a little distance off. Some of the stronger

tunnelled under the Northumberland straits. The Isle of Wight is less than one-tenth the area of Prince Edward Island, its population is much less, and there is the further important fact that Great Britain is under no constitutional obligation to build a tunnel there. We have the further fact that there is no difficulty whatever in maintaining continuous communication winter and summer, daily and hourly, between the Isle of Wight and the mainland. And, Sir, considering all the obligations that are pressing on the people of Great Britain to-day, I presume that the motherland is not any better able to undertake the construction of a tunnel under the Solent than the Dominion of Canada would be to undertake the construction of the tunnel which we advocate under the straits of Northumberland. In view of what Great Britain is doing in respect to the Isle of Wight, it is not unreasonable that we should ask that this Dominion should connect its island province with the mainland by means of a tunnel. I shall not go into the question of the cost of this project further than to say that already very considerable investigation has been made in order to ascertain its cost and its feasibility.


Mr. LANCASTER.: What is the length of the Isle of Wight tunnel as compared with the length of the Prince Edward Island tunnel ?


James Joseph Hughes: The tunnel to the Isle of Wight would be about four miles and the tunnel to Prince Edward Island about eight miles in length. In 1893 the government of Canada made provision to have this matter investigated, and Mr. Alfred W. Palmer, C.E., an associate of Sir Douglas Fox, bored ten boles to ascertain the geological strata and to obtain other data necessary to make an estimate of the cost. I shall read a few short extracts from that report. He says :
I beg to state that ten borings varying in depth from 60 to 184 feet by 8J inches were sunk by means of a steam diamond drill, and the cores of the same were preserved in wooden boxes which are now in the hands of the government at the Geological Museum. The total length is 14,908 yards or nearly eight and a half statute miles.
The shores upon either coast are exceedingly well adapted for tunnel approaches and have a mean altitude of about 30 feet. They both fall back towards the interior to high water level,-and the soil is of a red clayey nature.
If we consider the formation as proved by the boring to consist of equal parts of red sandstone and stiff red clay shale, the cover of 40 feet referred to would give a roof of impervious material of at least 20 feet.
The geological formation through which the proposed tunnel is located is what is known as the upper or permo-carboniferous, consisting of red sandstone and stiff red clay shales in approximately equal proportions, the latter being impervious to water.
The conditions under the straits are similar to those found in New Brunswick, and I have since 1890 been enabled to declare that this Mr. J. J. HUGHES.
same formation which extends under the Nor^ thumberland straits is eminently suitable for the construction of a submarin.e tunnel. The formation across the straits appears to be, thoroughly impervious to water, and cores of sandstone have shown a perfectly dry fracture.
In accordance with the information obtained from these borings, Sir Douglas Pox made an estimate for an 18-foot tunnel, and that estimate was between $10,000,000 and $11,000,000. The interest on that sum would, of course be a very considerable amount some $300,000 or $400,000 a year, but the people of the Dominion of Canada would not in reality be chargeable with all that, because from it we would have to deduct the cost of the present service, which is certainly inadequate, and which will certainly have to be improved. That service is now costing us, in round figures, $100,000 a year. There is the further consideration that if a tunnel were built to the island and there was close and continuous communication with the mainland all the year round, the greater part of our exports would go out in that way, and the traffic on the Prince Edward Island Railway and the Intercolonial Railway would be greatly increased. What the net profits on that traffic would be it is difficult to say, but they might be stated in a general way. That this traffic would greatly increase goes without saying, because under present conditions ail' our exports have to go out by water, and in consequence they are carried on the Prince Edward Island Railway but very short distances. The railway traverses the island from Tignisli in the west to Souris and Georgetown in the east. The railway is in no place more than twenty miles from the nearest shipping point, and consequently the average haul on the railway for our export produce cannot be more than eight or ten miles. The farmer living near the shipping point will, of course, cart his produce there without putting it on the railway, while the farmer living nearer the railway will ship by railway, but the average haul at present is not, in my opinion, more than eight or ten miles. On the other hand, if our export produce were sent via the tunnel-and I think three-fourths of it would go in that way-the average haul on the Prince Edward Island Railway would be very greatly increased, and when it got to the mainland it would pass over to the Intercolonial Railway when destined to points on that railway. That portion of our produce which was destined for New York and Boston could go as far as St. John over the Intercolonial, and consequently the traffic on the Intercolonial Railway would be largely increased. I believe it would he a conservative estimate to say that the earnings	of the Prince Edward Island
and the Intercolonial Railway would be increased by $50,000 a year from this traffic if the tunnel were built. That would be $150,000 which might rea*
-

sonably be deducted from the interest that would have to be paid on the cost of the tunnel, which would leave about $200,000 which the people of Canada would have to pay over and above what they are now paying; and what would that amount to ? About three cents per head of the population, not a very large sum. And if that $200,000 would be a large sum to the people of Canada to bear, the people of Prince Edward Island, because we have not continuous and efficient communication with the mainland, have to bear a much larger loss every year. 1 will endeavour to make that clear in a very few words. The province of Prince Edward Island is admirably adapted for the growth of potatoes. Perhaps there is no other part of North America that can produce potatoes in such abundance and sell them so cheaply. It is estimated, and I think the estimate is a conservative one, that we have for export every year, 1,500,000 bushels of potatoes. I know myself farmers who grow from 2,000 to 3,000 bushels of potatoes for export, and they would grow more if we had a profitable market for them. Now, our potatoes are not ripe and ready for shipment before the 15th of October. At that season of the year the farmers are very busy housing their potatoes and trying to do their fall ploughing, and there are only about six weeks to the 1st of December in which they can do their marketing. About the 1st of December navigation closes, so that during those six weeks their potatoes have to be rushed to the provincial markets and the markets of the New England States, and that large quantity of potatoes going-forward in so short a time naturally depresses the price. I know something about this, because I am engaged in business. On some days, after the winds have been in a westerly direction for a week or so, and the vessels cannot proceed farther than the Strait of Canso, I have known as many as 50,000 bushels of potatoes from Prince Edward Island to enter the Halifax market. As that market is limited, the price naturally goes down. The farmers of Prince Edward Island get on the average about 20 cents a bushel less for their potatoes than the farmers of any other part of Canada. But say that the loss is even half that, namely, 10 cents a bushel : there is $150,000 of loss on our potato crop alone. In addition, there is this disadvantage, that during the month of December quite frequently the price in the United States advances, and we cannot take advantage of that advance to any great extent, because it is almost impossible to get vessels to enter the Gulf of St. Lawrence at that season of the year. Freights go up largely. Whereas we can charter vessels during the months of October and November to carry potatoes to the United States for from 12 cents to 15 cents a bushel, in the month 90
of December, if we can get them at all, we have to pay from 18 cents to 20 cents a bushel, because at that season the vessels cannot get insurance in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the difficulties of navigation are very great. The result is that at that season we are shut out of the market. Again, in March and April, which are the best months for the sale of potatoes, we are shut out entirely ; whereas, with the tunnel, we could send our potatoes in these months to the markets of the world. It is a conservative estimate that our loss on that article alone each year averages $150,000, and that on the other products of the farm our losses would amount to $50,000 more. Then there is a loss and a great disadvantage on our imports. Every merchant will understand well what I ~ mean. The merchants of Prince Edward Island have to provide a large stock of goods during October and November to carry them over the winter months. They have to pay interest and insurance on them, and they cannot enjoy an advantage from the reduction of prices that may obtain during the winter months. A man doing business at Truro, Pictou, Halifax, St. John or any other place in the maritime provinces can order a car of flour in Ontario at any time during the winter, and in ten days he can have it in his warehouse.


Charles Smith Hyman: Not this year.


James Joseph Hughes: This is an exceptional winter. But we cannot do that in Prince Edward Island. There is a direct loss and a very considerable loss. I am safe in saying that the loss to the people of Prince Edward Island 'from not having continuous and efficient communication with the mainland winter and summer, such as a tunnel would provide, if it were found feasible and practicable, is at least $200,000 a year; and if it would be hard for the people of Canada as a whole to provide that money, how can you expect 100,000 people living on Prince Edward Island to bear that loss year after year? I know that assistance to the people of Prince Edward Island in that way would not be of any direct benefit to the people of Canada as a whole; but this surely will be admitted, that if you benefit one province of the Dominion, no matter where it is, its prosperity and development are shared to some extent by every other province.
While I am on this point, Mr. Speaker, if y*u will pardon me a slight digression, I have a small grievance to ventilate. I find that in some parts of the country at least, when reference is made to Prince Edward Island, language is used which to say the least is not agreeable to the people of that province or their representatives. The island and its people are referred to perhaps in a somewhat sneering maner.
REVISED edition


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, no.


James Joseph Hughes: Not, I hope by any member of this House. I can stand a little pleasant banter ; I am not complaining of that; but a few weeks ago the Hamilton [DOT] Spectator ' referred to Prince Edward Island as ' that blotch on the map.' Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not think there was any great amount of wit or sense in that remark. The province of Prince Edward Island is just as large now as it was when we entered the Dominion of Canada, 'and, territorially speaking, it is twice as large as the state of Rhode Island. I do not know that any reputable paper in the United States has ever thought it necessary to refer in a disparaging manner to the state of Rhode Island, but we in Canada are inclined to be too local in our ideas. We are inclined to believe that anything outside the province in which we happen to live has no real merit ; and we find people who will speak in offensive terms of their brethren in the other provinces. That sort of thing, Mr. Speaker, has been carried too far. In discussing this question, there is another newspaper which has a larger circulation than the Hamilton ' Spectator ' and very considerable influence in this country- and deservedly so because it is a very well conducted paper-the Montreal * Gazette,' and that paper referred a few days ago to this tunnel question in a manner not at all justified by the facts of the case. It said :
The Prince Edward Island people have again' got it into their heads that it is the duty of the Dominion government to build a tunnel to connect Prince Edward Island with the mainland.1 As a vote getter the project is all right, but as a commercial proposition it is as sensible as would he a proposal to build a railway to the moon. It will be built just as soon, too.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that from the statements I have made to-night and the manner in which this question has been taken up by the leading men of both political parties, as well as from the information which I in my humble way have been able to give the House the ' Gazette ' was not justified in saying that the project was just as feasible as a proposal to build a railway to the moon. It is a proposition at all events worth considering. There is not perhaps at present sufficient information before parliament, and I do not suppose that the government or parliament is prepared now to take up this 'question, but something must be done to grapple with the proposition to provide better communication between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. That fact I think, I have mads abundantly clear. There is a considerable amount of information available in the parliamentary library in connection with the investigations which have already taken place on this tunnel matter-information I have not been able to bring before this House; and I have this proposition to make. I do not suppose that parliament would be justified in making any large ap-Mr. J. J. HUGHES.
propriation immediately, but I would submit this proposition. I would submit that a parliamentary committee be appointed to take this whole matter into consideration to obtain evidence about it, to collect the information and report to parliament. I know that the government has a thousand and one subjects before it at present and that parliament has many important matters on its hands. Therefore I do not suppose that either of these bodies is in a position to give that attention to this subject which its importance demands and in a debate on this matter we of course cannot bring forward all the information that could be obtained by a committee of inquiry such as I have suggested. That committee could obtain very valuable information which would be of great assistance to parliament. But the first thing to be done is to provide another steamer and a more powerful ice-boat than has yet been supplied, and this steamer could be used profitably for commercial purposes in the Hudson bay. I wish to say only one word in regard to myself. In my humble way I have supported every great measure that has been brought forward in my time for the development of this country. I supported the men who were in favour of building the Canadian Pacific Railway ; I voted for the building of the Yukon Railway and of that other great Transcontinental Railway, the Grand Trunk Pacific, and I did so in the belief that these great projects were for the development of this country and would add to the prosperity of the Canadian people generally. But in Prince Edward Island we cannot possibly derive much advantage from these undertakings while we remain cut off from the rest of the Dominion as we are now. But if we were closely united by some efficient means of communication with the mainland, we would then derive our natural share of the benefit. As an individual I can appeal to the members of this House and the people of this country for at least a fair and reasonable hearing for the case of Prince Edward Island. I believe if this question is fairly and reasonably considered, and considered in some such way as I have suggested, that an improvement will be made which will satisfy the people of Prince Edward Island jand at the same time will not be a burden on the people of the other provinces.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN.: 
George Eulas Foster: I had not the good fortune to hear the whole of this debate. But the question now before the House is not at all a new one, and I imagine that, unless something adequate is done, generations yet to come after us will also- hear the members from Prince Edward Island voicing their grievances in respect of the communication between that island and the mainland. Ever since I entered public life, the subject has been under discussion. The communication with the island has never been satisfactory, although of course great improvements have been made. .Some seasons are much more severe than others and the circumstances much more exceptional; and, with the present means of combating the difficulties, I imagine that seasons will every now and then recur when it will be impossible to keep up stated and constant communication. From my own knowledge of it, so far as that goes. I should be very much in doubt whether it is possible to build any ice-breaker which will succeed in combating successfully the ice which forms in the Straits of Northumberland at certain times of the year. It is more difficult than almost any other route on which ice-breaking machinery is used. And that circumstance alone, I think, will make it impossible to construct any steamer which will be perfectly successful in keeping up communication. So far as I am concerned, I would like to see all information on the subject of a tunnel brought together. There is no doubt in my mind that that is the only perfectly satisfactory solution of the problem. The question of its possibility from a mechanical point of view, does not trouble the mind of many persons who have thought about it, I imagine.
Anything can be done these days provided you put enough money into the enterprise to carry it to a successful completion - anything, I mean, in the way of tunnelling. The mechanism of the age has come to a high pitch. I have no doubt that a tunnel between the provinces of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island is within the compass of mechanical ingenuity. How much money it would take I do not know, but I think it is worth while spending a good deal of money in completing a method of communication which would be constant, uniform and satisfactory. A suggestion has been made this afternoon that a parliamentary committee might take it up. If it would not be travelling outside of our record here, I would suggest that in another House than this there is more leisure than there is in this House, and I could not think of anything which would be of greater public service for that other House to perform than to make a thorough examination, through a parliamentary inquiry, as to the improved methods of tunnelling, as to the cost of tunnelling, as to the difficulties which are to Mr. A. A. McLEAN.
be met with in this particular place, and come as near as they possibly can to a reasonable estimate of what this cost. A great deal of valuable information has been gajned, borings have been made, and the results of these are in the departments and are ready as helps in this direction. The government might take that up as a not very costly, and I think a very good means of gathering information upon this important subject. If a tunnel could be built between the mainland and the island at a cost of not more than $10,000,000 or thereabouts, it is a project I think which might well be taken up. Prince Edward Island is with us now and will always be with us, no matter though some ill-advised individual may speak of it as a blotch on the map, or the staid 'Gazette' of Montreal may think that the project is not quite feasible and not much better than an attempt to connect the moon with New Brunswick. Yet the members from the smaller provinces, from Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, must not be too sensitive in these respects, and I imagine the 'Spectator' was guided by an authority which is not unknown to us in this House, for if my memory does not fail me, a very distinguished man who is now leader of the government in this House, uttered an expression something like that with reference to the whole Dominion, to wit, that at one time he went to bed when Canada was but a blotch on the map of the universe, aud he woke up the next morning and found that it had expanded suddenly into a nation. Now, if such a term is used with reference to the vast Dominion of Canada and by a noted authority, why we must have Christian charity at least for newspapers of the day who are sometimes hard up for paragraphs and who print expressions something like that.
But I say that Prince Edward Island is with us and will be with us. It is a fertile island, almost every foot of.its soil is cultivable. There is no doubt that to-day it is under great disadvantages in business; its agriculture has to be carried on with interruptions. it has to labour with difficulties, and all kinds of trade and communication commercially are hampered and severely hampered by the loss that occurs, the delays that occur, the difficulties that occur in transportation*. I have no doubt that the population of that little island might be largely increased if there were steady and uniform means of communication. As the Dominion grows and its population and wealth increase, it may well be that $8,000,000 or $10,000,000 could not be better expended than in uniting Prince Edward Island by steady and uniform communication with the mainland, and giving it a chance to develop to the utmost the capabilities with which it has been richly endowed by Providence.
But until that time comes, that information is gained, and that project is under-



MAKCH 20. 1905

[Stage Direction]
taken, there is something I think which might be done now. It has always struck me that it was rather an unbusinesslike method to have the communication distributed between so many authorities. You have the post office authority doing a part of it, you have another department doing another part of it, the business is now divided amongst three departments. It seems to me it would be better managed if one department took the whole matter into its hands, so that it could give undivided attention to the means of transit and communication between the island and the mainland. That is a suggestion that might be taken into account. Then there is the suggestion that a parliamentary committee might be appointed to look into this matter thoroughly and quickly, so that parliament could be seized of just about what the cost would be and the feasibility of the undertaking. In some way or other I always feel that we have not done all we might do in order to make communication with Prince Edward Island what it ought to be. I think that after all we must not go by the consideration of its being or not being a commercial undertaking. Many things are done in this country for other than commercial reasons, and to tie down the means of communication between the provinces to the mere matter of commercial returns, is not taking in the importance of the subject as a whole. Commerce would be benefited, but other and greater interests would be promoted, and if the means of communication could be thoroughly attained by means of a tunnel the cost of which would not be too unreasonable, I certainly think the Dominion of Canada might very well undertake it.
Charles Smith Hyman: I join with my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) in expressing tlie pleasure I feel when the annual Prince Edward Island day comes up in this House, and possibly for that reason alone I should be somewhat loth to provide a tunnel if it were to deprive us of the pleasure of hearing at least one day in the session the pleasant speeches which the members from that island deliver in the House of Commons. As regards the suggestions which have fallen from the member from North Toronto, I do not think it would be necessary or politic to leave a matter of this kind to a parliamentary committee. I do not think the government have any desire to shirk their duty in this matter, and I think that department which is more particularly charged with this work, the Department of Marine and Fisheries, as well as to some extent the Department of Railways and Canals, and in a lesser degree the Department of Public Works wili always be glad to give every possible attention to remedying the grievance which our friends from Prince Edward Island have pointed out to
us. It is quite true that the work is divided amongst more than one department of the government. But it must be remembered that the Department of Marine and Fisheries is the one more immediately responsible for the communication between the mainland and Prince Edward Island. I do not think the Railway Department has anything to do with the crossings, though they may have something to do with the terminals.
The only way that the Department of Public Works is interested is in finding if it be possible to create a more accessible landing place which will render possible a more efficient service during the winter time. Now, it cannot be denied at the same time, Mr. Speaker, that there have been considerable improvements made in the service, not only by the previous government, but also by this government, and I do not think that, taking everything into consideration, it will ever be possible to have a thoroughly efficient service by way of boats. The particular motion which is being moved today has reference only to a landing place on the island. As far as that is concerned, the Department of Public Works have on one or two occasions had full reports from their engineers as to the building of a landing on the island. These reports wTere brought down to this House, I think, in 1902, and I think also in 1903. There are great difficulties- difficulties of an engineering character-to be overcome. The tide, as we all understand, runs very fast through that narrow strip of water, some eight miles in width, which divides Prince Edward Island from the mainland. Two or three of the engineers of the Department of Public Works have thoroughly gone into the question of the possibility of building and maintaining a wharf on the island side from which the boats could operate. From the reports of the engineers, which I have before me, the only place where it would be possible to. put a landing which would afford the necessary accommodation would possibly be Car-leton point. The estimate of the cost of the work is something in the neighbourhood of $1,300,000. But the great difficulty is that I do not think the masters of the steamers themselves feel that it is possible to maintain an efficient and regular service even if that expenditure were made. I understand from the masters of boats, not in all seasons of the year, but in almost every season of the year, that the bord ice is of such a character that it would be impossible, not only for the boats which the Department of Marine and Fisheries have established there, but practically for any boats, to maintain an efficient service. I am also informed by the officers of the department that in different seasons the ice comes in at different places. At the present season the *winds, I understand, have been principally from an easterly direction and that a lot of ice has gathered on the

Cape Breton shore, and has formed to such an extent there and far out into the bay that it has retarded the passage over a certain part of the bay. Even if the Department of Public Works were to make the large expenditure which this motion practically calls for, it might be found that the ice, instead of gathering where it has gathered this year, would gather at the particular part at which it would be necessary to cross to reach the landing which it would be found necessary to reach. That, I understand, is the great difficulty. Of course, during the present year the difficulties of navigation or communication are not confined to Prince Edward Island. I think the difficulties of communication in Nova Scotia are such as have never been found there during any year within the memory of any hon. member of this House, and therefore I think that our Prince Edward Island friends should bear with some degree of composure the unfortunate state of affairs which has continued there for some four or five weeks.
In so far as the question of the tunnel is concerned, I quite agree with my hon. friend from North Toronto '(Mr. Foster), that in these days all things are possible, and that practically it is simply a matter of dollars and cents. Whether the expenditure is $10,000,000, or $12,000,000, or $15,000,000, I do not think it has been definitely ascertained as yet. There have been some attempts made to ascertain the cost of the proposed work, but I do not think they have been yet of such a character as to afford such information as would justify this House in definitely undertaking a work of that kind. I think it would be well, under all the circumstances, before the government deal with this question, which is purely and simply an engineering matter, that some of the engineers of the department should be asked to make some estimate in regard to the cost of the tunnel, and then the House will have all the facts before it. Having an estimate of the cost, and having possibly the results of some further researches by the engineers as to the possibility of maintaining the service by water, the House may be better able to decide the course which it vrould be well to pursue. On behalf of the government, I will say that I will take great pleasure in bringing the subject to the attention of my colleagues, and that I will endeavour, as far as the Department of Public Works is concerned, to take the necessary steps by which such material may be gathered together as will put the House in possession of the information necessary to the proper consideration of a question involving such a large expenditure as it may be called upon to make should it decide to undertake the construction of a tunnel.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles Smith Hyman: 



GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY-PLANS OUT TERMINALS.

Arthur Cyril Boyce: For a return containing a copy of the plan or plans deposited by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company with the Department of Railways and Canals, showing the proposed terminal point or points on the Pacific coast. Also for a copy of the plan or plans deposited by the said company for terminal points at Port Arthur, Fort William and Winnipeg.
He said : Mr. Speaker, the motion on the order paper which stands in my name is one which has been mentioned in different ways on two or three different occasions in this House. The motion is for' a return containing a copy of the plan or plans deposited by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company with the Department of Railways and Canals showing the proposed terminal point or points on the Pacific coast, and' also for a copy of the plan or plans deposited by the company for their terminal points at Port Arthur, Fort William and Winnipeg. The question of the production of these plans has been raised by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Emmerson). I understand that that hon. gentleman contends that these plans are not produceable under the order of the House for the reason that they are privileged from being subject to the order of the House, because they have not, under the Railway Act of Canada, been approved by the hon. minister. That is the position which the hon. gentleman took when the matter came up on the motion which was made in this House on the 13th February, and again when certain questions were asked that hon. gentleman on the 16th February. On these occasions that was the ground upon which the production of these plans was withheld. By reference to the answers that the hon. gentleman made on the 16th February we find that certain plans of the terminal points at Port Arthur. Fort William and on the Pacific coast were deposited-the term ' deposited ' is used by the hon. gentleman-in the department ; as to Fort William, on the 2nd August, 1904 ; as to Port Arthur, on the 16th August, 1904 ; and as to the Pacific coast, on the 16th August, 1904 ; that none of these plans had up to that date been approved ; that none of them had been rejected. and that the grounds assigned as a reason for them not being yet approved were that it was premature to approve them. Without desiring in any way to enter upon any legal argument, and without desiring to impress upon the hon. minister what I have before stated upon the floor of this House on my l'esponsibility as a member, that there lias been brought to my notice information in respect to the obtaining of sketches or copies of these plans, I would merely endeavour to draw the hon. gentleman's attention to some matters which I think wTill

convince him that the ground upon which he is endeavouring to withhold the production of these plans is not a tenable ground.
In the first place, the plans have not been approved pursuant to section 122 of the Railway Act. That section does not make it obligatory that the plans shall be approved by the Minister of Railways before they are produced, nor, if it were applicable to this case, does it prohibit the production of any plans, or the inspection of any plans, or the exhibition of any plans, or the furnishing of the copies of any plans while they are in a transitory state between their deposit and their approval by the minister. The reason they are deposited is, as I take it, that these persons whose lands are affected-the public as well as the government-may have an opportunity of knowing exactly what the intentions of the railway company are with reference to the exercise of the right of eminent domain. That is an important factor, and it is a factor which I desire now to impress upon the minister. Then, of what moment and to what purpose is it, to withhold information and the production of plains which it is impossible to maintain as secret by reason of the fact that the engineers, or the railway companies themselves keeping draft copies of them, can hand them out to whomsoever they wish? To what purpose is it that the government is in possession of plans showing the intentions of the railway company-and X am speaking only of an ordinary railway company to which the provisions of the Railway Act apply-to what purpose can it avail the government to withhold the production of these plans ? What object would be served by this sealing up of plans the moment they are deposited in the Department of Railways ? As I understand it these plans are not deposited in the Department of Railways to be sealed up ; according to the statute they are deposited to .be subject to the daily inspection of the minister in order that he may see the gradients, the nature of the route, the nature of the curves proposed, and all other circumstances connected with the location of the line. As I have before stated, upon the reliable information that has been given to me, if it be the case that copies of the plans have been exhibited, or inspection of the plans has been allowed by any person in the Department of Railways, then surely that is a reason why the production of the plans -before the House should not now be refused. I would particularly impress upon the minister the fact, that if as he suggested when the question was last before the House, copies of the plans had been obtained outside the department and possibly from the engineers, then that statement answered tlie argument of the minister as to the secrecy of the plans, and it is a strong factor in support of the contention that there is now no reason at all for withholding the information that the plans give. Granted that it might be competent for the minister
to argue that under section 122 of the Rail-,way Act, these plans not having been deposited it might be a question of policy with the department as to their production; then I contend that it is very clear that in regard to the eastern section of the National Transcontinental Railway the provisions of the Railway Act do not, and cannot have any application. (If it were only upon the principle that the Crown is not bound by its own statutes, then the Railway Act would not apply, but it is made expressly the subject of enactment that the provisions of the Act in the specific instance to which I have referred, do not apply. I would refer the minister to the provisions of the Act upon that point. It is to be noted that under section 3 of the Railway Act it is to apply,
To all persons, companies and railways other, than government railways.
Under the Act (1903) respecting the Transcontinental Railway, section 5 says :
The eastern division from Moncton to Winnipeg shall be constructed at the expense of the government upon such location and according to such plans and specifications as it shall determine, having due regard to directness, easy gradients and favourable curves.
'Section 8 says :
The construction of the eastern division shall be commenced as soon as the government has made the surveys and plans and determines the proper location thereof.
Then by section 3S of the agreement ratified by that Act :
The Railway Act of Canada and any amend-, jnent enacted heretofore or which shall hereafter be enacted shall apply to the operation of the eastern division by the company and to the rights, liabilities and obligations of the company as lessee thereof, and to the location, construction and operation of the western division thereof, except as otherwise provided by this agreement by the Act confirming the same, or by any any special Act of the company.
The minister will see clearly that by the last words of that section the operation of the Railway Act as to location is expressly excluded so far as the eastern division is concerned, by making it directly and solely applicable to the construction of the western division. There is another view which I would impress upon the minister and which 1 think is quite pertinent to the subject under consideration. That is :	that this is
not an ordinary transaction. It is not, as I think the minister will concede I have established, it is not the case of an ordinary railway or the case of a private company whose rights might have to be respected, but it is a case where a public work is being constructed under and subject to certain plans and specifications, and those plans and specifications are filed and deposited in the Department of Railways, and as I have suggested have been inspected by others. Surely the rights of the public and the interests of

the public are such that no harm can be done fto anybody by the return of these plans, and surely it would be quite competent for the House to direct that these plans be returned and laid upon the table of the House.
The bon. Minister of Railways and Canals gave the reason why they should be withheld that it would encourage speculation if the plans were to be allowed to be exhibited or if they were placed on the table of the House by reason of this order. Sir, I fail to see in that contention any real and cogent reason for withholding this information. When it is remembered that these plans have been prepared first by the company itself, and that they are under no statutory bond of secrecy; that they are under no statutory seal such as the hon. gentleman mentioned when the matter was last under discussion to prevent them giving out any information; then, if the information is to be withheld at all, there must be an absolute safeguard or none at all. It has been shown to the hon. gentleman that there is not an absolute safeguard, that the seal of secrecy with which he stamped those plans, as he stated, and by which he forbade any person to have access to them to copy them or to see them, has not been effective, if the information I gave to the House is now to be credited; and I have nothing whatever to retract with regard to it. Then the hon. gentleman must see that the government is in this position and I feel satisfied that the hon. minister will not do anything unreasonable in the matter of withholding information contained in those plans. The information that has already gone out cannot now be withheld. This being a government constructed railway or section of a railway there are reasons why the House should be taken into the confidence of the minister with regard to the proposals of this railway in such important matters as the terminal points of construction at or near the points mentioned in the motion. The hon. gentleman, on the last occasion when this matter was referred to, that is, on the 3rd of March last, stated to the House that the moment he learned that the plans were deposited, he was asked if any one would be allowed to see them, and he said: ' certainly not, that they should be placed under seal, and that no one should be allowed access to them either in the department or out of it.' Then the hon. gentleman reiterates his statement that he is positive that nobody made copies of them and is satisfied that no one has been permitted to see them. Well, I can only state to the hon. gentleman what I stated before to the House, that persons have been permitted in the Department of Railways and Canals -and I am not now speaking allegorically, nor, I trust, immodestly-openly to inspect, and see, and take notes' of, and sketch those plans. Then, the hon. gentleman, when he spoke on the 3rd of March



M. BOYCE.

[Stage Direction]
with reference to this matter was, as I am quite satisfied, speaking only from what he believed to be the case; but I can tell the hon. gentleman that the information contained in those plans or sketches which were supposed to have remained under seal from the 2nd of August down to this day, a period of seven or eight months, as to the intentions of the company with regard to the terminals at Port Arthur, has leaked out and has possibly been made the subject of that speculation which the hon. gentleman said was the danger of producing the plans to the House. Having said so much with regard to the information that has leaked out, having shown to the hon. gentleman, as I think I have shown, that there is no object to be served by further maintaining the supposed seal of secrecy upon these plans, I would respectfully urge the hon. gentleman to reconsider a decision possibly hastily made and possibly made with but little information as to the facts-to so far reconsider it, having regard to the peculiar position of matters and ' to the fact that these are not plans to which the Railway Act can have any application, that he will consent to the return now being made, and thus close an incident in this House which, so far as my connection with it is concerned, has been most regretable. I exceedingly regret that having been so short a time in the House, I should have fallen under the condemnatory tongue of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals in this connection, while speaking with regard to what I believe to be my rights, and should have been on two occasions styled an immodest young gentleman and also one not wanting in information. I can only say to the hon. gentleman that I think I possess with regard to those plans information which lie, at any rate, so far as ' Hansard ' has disclosed, did not himself possess. I can only put it in that way. I can tell the hon. gentleman that details of all the intentions of the company as shown by those plans are known, have been made the subject of speculation, have been made the subject of taking up lands : and how otherwise could they have been obtained than through the department, if what the hon. gentleman says was done, that is, in the absence of definite information ? In saying that I do not desire the hon. gentleman to take any comfort, or to think I am detracting from my other statement, namely, that that information was obtained through the Department of Railways and Canals with reference to those plans, and since they were filed, whether before or after this seal of secrecy was placed upon them.
Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals).: Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry indeed that any remark of mine should have led my hon. friend to take offence at anything I said. Certainly there was nothing

of a personal character intended by reason of any such remarks. I see no cause for receding from the position which I took ou a previous occasion in this House with respect to this motion. The motion refers in the first place to a return containing a copy of the plan or plans deposited by the Grand Trunk Pacific with the Department of Railways and Canals showing the proposed terminal point or points on the Pacific coast. Under the particular Act governing the Transcontinental line of railway, those plans must go to the Department of Railways and are subject to the approval, not merely of the Minister of Railways, hut of his Excellency, the Governor in Council. Until that approval is given, in my judgment the information should not be disclosed. The other part of the motion relates to the terminals at Port Arthur and Port William. These are allied to the Grand Trunk Pacific, but do not come under the same law. They come under the General Railway Act of 1903, and the Minister of Railways is charged with the responsibility of either approving these plans or withholding his approval. According to my view, these plans should not be disclosed to the public until such action is taken. The matter involved-not merely the Grand Trunk Pacific terminal on the Pacific coast, but the terminals at Lake Superior-are of such vital importance that they should not be hastily decided upon, and until the government has taken action, it seems to me it would not be in the public interest to bring down the information asked for. True, my hon. friend has- said something about information leaking out of the Department of Railways and Canals. Well, I am bound to place reliance on the officials of my department, and I have no right to assume that when they are instructed to do a certain thing, they will not follow that instruction. My hon. friend has made assertions to the contrary, and I have challenged him to give the source of his information or name the official implicated or show the medium of that communication. He says the information came out by the back door.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Has the hon. minister, since my assertion on the 3rd March last, investigated the charge made and with what result?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have not called up all the officials, in the department, but I have asked my deputy minister and he told me most positively that copies of those plans could not by any possibility have gone out. I have to rely on that statement, and I submit to the judgment of this House that it was in the public interest that the information should be withheld until action was taken by the Minister of Railways in connection with the terminals at Fort William and Port Arthur, and by His Excellency the Governor in Council with respect to the terminals on the Pacific
coast. I may have erred in my judgment, but that was my opinion.


Samuel Barker: Does the hon. gentleman claim, as minister, to have any right with regard to the Lake Superior branch more than he has with regard to any other railway authorized by the Dominion parliament? It is not part of the transcontinental.
'Mr. EMMERSON. No.


Samuel Barker: Then what right has he that he has not with regard to any other railway ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The minister is charged with certain responsibility under section 122 of the Railway Act. The map must be submitted to him and before approving of such map and location he may, subject to the Special Act, make such changes and alterations therein as he may deem expedient.


George Eulas Foster: Is the Special Act the Grand Trunk Pacific Act?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, this refers to railways generally and means the Special Act of Incorporation.


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman said something about the approval of the Governor in Council, where does he get that approval with regard to that branch?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The route of the Grand Trunk Pacific main trunk line is subject to the approval of the Governor in Council.


Samuel Barker: But this is the Lake Superior branch.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am trying to discriminate and am drawing attention to the difference. Under section 122 of the Railway Act I am called upon to take action with respect to the line which runs from Winnipeg to Lake Superior. That lies with the Minister of Railways.


Samuel Barker: Not with the Governor in Council?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Not with the Governor in Council, and I have already pointed out that this motion refers not merely to the terminals at Port Arthur and Fort William, but to the terminal on the Pacific coast.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: They are separated?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Precisely, but the one is closely allied to the other. Although the terminals at Port Arthur and Fort William, are subject to the-General Railway Act, yet because of their association with the transcontinental line of railway, I have felt it was not in the public interest to disassociate them, and that it would be against sound public policy to lay that information before the House at this stage. This is not a personal matter. It is simply a question of principle. It happens to be applied in this particular instance.


George Eulas Foster: Will the minister allow me to ask a question for information ? [DOT] As l understand him, the motion is refused on the ground of principle and public interest. What I am trying to find out is what is at stake ? If it is wrong to bring this down on the ground of principle or public interest, will the minister state what principle is violated or what public interest would be harmed by bringing it down ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: In one instance because the Minister of Railways has not exercised his judgment on the matter, and in the other instance, because his Excellency the Governor General in Council has not taken action. And I submit that there can be no question with respect to the case in which action is to be taken by the Governor in Council. In that instance, certainly, the information should not be brought down, and because of the association of the two railways there are particular reasons why the information should not be brought down with respect to Port Arthur and Fort William ?


George Eulas Foster: What would happen if it were brought down ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is very difficult to point out what would happen in a hypothetical case. But it is against principle that it should be brought down.


George Eulas Foster: How ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: For the simple reason that until action is taken it is not approved by the department, and it may never be acted upon from that standpoint.


Mr. LENNOX.: Will the minister answer this question ? Suppose the information were given and the document brought down, would that hamper action on the part of the government in any way, or prejudice anybody in case it turned, out that the plans were never approved ? What possible evil could result ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It would be misleading.	.


Haughton Lennox: How, would it be misleading ? If they were brought down, every one would know as much as the minister knows about them. The people would know perfectly well that nothing had been finally determined upon. Would it be improper that the public should, in the meantime be seized of the facts so far as they have been presented, and should have the opportunity, piobably of preventing hasty action on the part of the government ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: In regard to information of that character the general public do not discriminate, but are apt to assume that certain action will be taken ; and they might be misled. I do not think it is in the public interest they should be misled, and I think that until it is determined beyond Mr. EMMERSON.
question that the location shall be at a certain point, it is not in the public interest that the information should be brought down. I would therefore ask that the motion be not adopted.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I see that the minister has satisfied himself that the motion should not carry ; but for the life of me I cannot see how he has satisfied any one in this House or satisfied the people. He has said that he thinks it contrary to principle, contrary to public policy that the people should be given this information until he approves of the plans. He is very anxious to defend the people against themselves, to protect them against some knowledge that they might obtain. But lie does not seem anxious to protect them against the railway which might tell them a hundred and one different stories of plans they have filed with the department and where they were going to locate their line, and people would have no way of finding out whether the stories they spread abroad as to where they proposed to locate their lines and their propositions made to the minister, for his approval, were true or untrue. After the approval was given, if it was given, the people would for the first time, know the truth about it; and, if refused, then no one would know whether the railway had intended to locate where it said it would or not. The minister has not, in my opinion, answered the argument, so well and tersely put by my hon. friend from Algoma West (Mr. Boyce). I listened carefully to what both these gentlemen said, and 1 am very-much disappointed that the minister feels that he has satisfied this House with the reason he has given for rejecting this motion. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Boyce) it seems to me was entitled to succeed, if on no other ground, then on the one-which the minister has not attempted to answer-that this is part of the transcontinental scheme. The Grand Trunk is to file plans, to tell the people what they are going to do, if the minister allows them to. But the people pay the greater part of the expenses of the enterprise, yet are to have no information about what the Grand Trunk is proposing to do. And the Minister of Railways, who ought to represent the people, say's he will not let the people know what these plans are, although he does not attempt to deny7 that the railway company can let the people know whatever they like about it. But railway companies are not bound to tell the people the truth or to allow them to learn the truth. The railway company is looking out for itself ; but the Minister of Railways is supposed to protect the people. He is very anxious that the railways shall be protected, and, forsooth, he thinks the people are going to hurt themselves if they are given too great a helping of information at one time. They are not getting from this government much infor-

ination about railways or other public matters for information about which they are seeking. But, there has been no answer made to the specific statements of the gentleman who moved the resolution-I am not speaking of the matter that the minister did deny in the sense of saying that he inquired of the deputy minister and was told that the matter had not leaked out. I speak of the statement that the plans were deposited for the purpose of inspection by the minister for the purpose of his approving them backed by the quotations from section 122. Although that section defines specifically what the Minister of Railways is to do with these plans, it is not set forth in any sense that these are not to be public property. I do not think that the minister has the right to read into this section a mortgage, as it were, on the peoples' rights in regard to these plans. What is the Department of Railways and Canals? Is it a depository of public documents, or is it a depository for railway documents, with the Minister of Railways as a sort of policeman to protect those railway documents ? In all the paragraphs of section 122, which describe with considerable detail the Minister's duties, there is no word to indicate that the minister is to keep these documents as the property of the railway company. And, if he is not to keep them as the property of the company, he has no right to say that they are to be secret and undisclosed to the people. If it were stated, or if it could be reasonably inferred from the Act that these documents remain the property of the railway company until the minister approved of them and if disapproved they were to be returned intact to the railrvay company, there would be some excuse for the minister, representing the people, saying that these documents should be disclosed to nobody until they had been approved. But there is not a word in the statute which the minister has invoked to indicate that these documents are anything else but public property when they got into the hands of the minister under the sections of that Act. I think the minister is going beyond his rights if he says that he does not think it is in the public interest that this information should be gven to the people's representatives. I shall not further trouble the House upon a matter which seems to be plainly in favour of the right of granting the motion of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Boyce), and if it comes to a vote, I shall be compelled to vote for his motion.


Samuel Barker: The answer of the minister is two-fold, as we have it now. He says with regard to the Pacific end that the government as a whole, the Governor General in Council, must be consulted because it is a part of the Transcontinental Railway. The western end, the Port Arthur branch, he admits has nothing to do with the Transcontinental Railway, that it is like any other railway, a
branch line of 220 miles, and the minister simply deals with that as with the plans deposited with regard to any ordinary railway promoted by a railway company. He chose for his own convenience to hang up the plans deposited by that company for eight months and left the owmers of the lands at the terminus subject to all the changes that might occur if he should choose to change the route. Now -with regard to the western end the minister takes this position, that parliament has nothing to say about it, that it is a matter solely for the minister in the first instance, and secondly for the government sitting ir Council. But it is a question where the terminus on the Pacific of a great Transcontinental Railway should be, and surely if that question is held up for eight months, parliament has a right to know what the proposition is, parliament has a right to a voice in the question. The hon. gentleman in his wisdom, and his colleagues in their wisdom, may seek to put the terminus on the Pacific at a point that, in the judgment of parliament, would be a positive injury to this country; and is that to be held up for eight months, and are we not to know even what is proposed. When we ask for the plans and when we ask the minister to tell us what the Grand Trunk Pacific proposition as to the terminus on the Pacific, he says, 'No, I have got the plans and I have locked them up for eight months, and you shall not see them.' Now it seems to me a most extraordinary proposition on the part of the government, that as regards the western terminus of the Transcontinental Railway, which affects the whole of the Dominion, the terminus of a railway which will cost this country perhaps $120,000,000, this information is to be kept absolutely secret for eight months, and we are not even to be allowed to know what is proposed so that we may offer a word of advice to the hon. gentleman. Is that government by the people? Why, Sir, the Czar of Russia would hardly lay down such a proposition as that. "We are the people who are largely paying for that railway, it is of vital importance to us that the terminus shall be at a proper point on the Pacific, but this hon. minister says, 1 have locked it up and I will not tell you what is proposed ; I in my good judgment will decide the question before you know anything about it. That is the position the government are putting us in. As to the eastern end, or Lake, Superior branch, the position is equally unreasonable, equally untenable. Would the hon. gentleman with regard to any railway company incorporated by this parliament, say to that company when it had deposited its plans, that he would seal up those plans, he would let neither the company nor the people know his decision, he would hold* it back, he would give an order to his deputy to

lock the plans up so that no man should know? He knows that the man who drew the plans can hand out copies of them to speculators to use at their sweet will. I do not charge the deputy minister with having given out plans, I do not understand the hon. gentleman who brought up this motion to make such a charge as that. But I think there are few who know what the hon. gentleman has said but will suspect that in some way these plans are in the hands of the public and are being used for private purposes.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what sort of business administration is that in which in regard to an important branch railway 220 miles in length, terminating on Lake Superior, plans are left in the minister's hands and he holds back his decision for eight months? He does not give us a word of reason why he has not decided that question. What possible reason can there be for it ? The very fact that the hon. gentleman holds back that information is a badge of suspicion. I do not charge the hon. gentleman with anything wrong, but the very fact that it is held back in that way is enough to make people suspicious, to make them believe that there is something wrong about it. Now we might come to the conclusion that the hon. gentleman locked the plans up and forgot all about them. That is one solution, probably. I wonder whether that be so. Surely the hon. gentleman could, within the last eight months, have looked over the plans of an important railway, 220 miles long, and have given his deliberate and considered judgment upon the point as to the exact location of the terminus. There seems to be, Mr. Speaker, some reason that the hon. gentleman has not chosen to disclose to us. What is it? Are we to be left to surmise? If so, is it unreasonable for us to think that there is something hidden in the fence somewhere about this matter, rather than that we should suspect the minister of gross negligence and carelessness ? It is one or the other, unless the hon. gentleman chooses to explain. And I say again, as to the Pacific end, it is an outrage upon the people that the plans should be held up for eight months, and when we ask to know what is proposed as to the Pacific terminus, we are to be told that the minister will not give us the information.


William Alfred Galliher: In 1D03. this parliament passed an Act known as the Railway Act. By section 122, certain powers were placed in the hands of the Minister of Railways, and in his hands alone. Under the first part of that section a railway company is to prepare a map showing the general location of the proposed line, and so forth. Under subsection : 2, that map shall be submitted to the minister, prepared upon a certain scale to be approved of by the minister. The minister' Mr. BARKER.
is the responsible party in this ; he is responsible to the people and the reference is to the minister as specified and laid down by this Act. It is a reference to the minister as representing the people and not to parliament itself. That map has to be accompanied by an application in duplicate requesting the minister's approval of the general location as shown on the map. Subsection 3 provides that
Before approving such map and location the minister may, subject to the Special Act, make such changes and alterations therein as he may deem expedient.
From the whole tenor of the legislation as contained in this Act a personal duty is imposed upon the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals. We have passed that Act as an Act of parliament. We have not stipulated that before making any changes the minister must submit these plans or be advised by parliament in regard to them, but we have placed that direct and specific act. as it is laid down here, entirely in the hands of the minister. It may or may not be that it is good policy for the minister to give these plans to the public after he receives them and before any alterations are made, if alterations are to be made. That is a matter upon which there may be a difference of opinion, and a very honest difference of opinion. The minister is justified in interpreting the law strictly and in giving the reasons why, in his opinion, he should not submit these maps to the public, or make them public, before he has finally determined as to whether he shall or shall not approve of the location. I can conceive of a very extraordinary condition arising in reference particularly to the western terminus. We know in the west, and I fancy every one in the east knows, that we have certain points at which this railway may be expected to establish its terminal on' the Pacific coast. It may be at one place or it may be at another. The plan as prepared may propose a specific point which may not be the proper point in the estimation of the Minister of Railways and Canals, and which may, therefore, be changed. What would be the position supposing these plans, before being approved, were given out to the public ? What would take place ? We know there are capitalists and townsite promoters who are most anxious to find out where the Pacific coast terminal shall be. Supposing the plans were made public, they would take the chance of plotting certain areas of land and put them on the market, and the public would invest their money in them. Suppose that the minister should then say : I cannot approve of this location, as I do not consider it a proper location for the terminus of this road. What becomes of the money of the public ? I say that it is in the interest of the public that these plans should not be disclosed, at least, in my opinion, arguing it from my own point of view. I may be wrong and other hon. gen-
:S29
iTAECH 20, 1905
tlemen -who differ from me may be right, but I say that I believe it is not in the public interest, more especially in regard to the western terminus, until these plans have been approved by the Minister of Railways and Canals, in whose hands the approval lies, and I believe it is in the public interest that the minister should take the course which he is taking at the present time.
In regard to the line from Winnipeg to Port Arthur or Fort William, I presume that will be a branch of the main line of the Grand Trunk Pacific ; and if I am right in what I have said, subsection 4 covers the case there, to my mind, just as fully as it does that of the main line, because subsection 4 says that :
The foregoing provisions of this section shall only apply to the main line and to the branch lines over six miles in length.
Therefore, I do not think there can be any difference in applying it as to the terminus on the Pacific coast and applying it as to the branch lines over six miles in length.


George Eulas Foster: This is an interesting question, and when the discussion was commenced 1 had not made up my mind in reference to it. I have been following the discussion with a great deal of interest. Now, I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, the way it looks to me. In the first place, is there anything by law made secret in reference to these plans ? Here is a certain company which is obliged by the law to make out a plan and hand it to the minister. There is nothing within the covers of the law that prevents that company making out any other plan. It may make out a hundred plans ; it is not prevented from doing it by the law. It can give one plan to one man. another plan to another, and distribute them as it pleases. There is no prohibition ; there is no penalty. This law does not contemplate legal secrecy by the company. What is the object of the law ? It is simply to prevent a company from building any line that it may lay out unless that line has the approval of the proper authorities. That is all. If the law bound the company to secrecy, so that it should only make one plan and hand that plan to the minister, and proceed no further and do nothing else until that plan were approved, I could see that there was something in the argument of my hon. friend (Mr. Galliher), who has just taken his seat.
Mr.' GALLIHER. In doing that the company takes the risk of this plan it hands to the minister, and of the other plans it may hand out in any other way, being rejected by the minister.


George Eulas Foster: Certainly, that is right.


William Alfred Galliher: If the company should do as the hon. gentleman suggests, and if the minister should not approve of the plan,
it would be embarrassing to those who invested their money on the strength of the plan which they had received.,


George Eulas Foster: I cannot quite see the strength of the hon. gentleman's argument. However, that is his argument. He says that from his point of view. I think I have made one thing clear to the House, and it is that there is no secrecy contemplated or ordered by the Act, and consequently the motive of tjjii s Act is not to prevent the public from getting hold of the profiles and plans. The motive of the Act is entirely a different one. It is to prevent a railway company from building along a line and to terminii which do not have the approval of the government or the approval of the proper authorities. That is the sole reason why the plans and profiles are deposited with the minister and for the minister's approval.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I understand the hon. gentleman to say that the company could file a plan to-day and then to-morrow file other plans. The statute says that they are only to file a plan and map of their proposed route. Now, having done that, because thev must act within the statute, do they not exhaust their statutory powers ?


George Eulas Foster: The hon. minister has misunderstood me entirely. I said that the law contemplates that they shall file the plan. The law contemplates that they shall file only one plan, but the law does not forbid them giving copies of that plan to all creation if they 'wish. That is all I said.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I misunderstood my hon. friend.


George Eulas Foster: I quite agree with the minister when they file the plans once they exhaust their right to file again, but we differ as to the reason why they file them. He seems to think that they file the plans in order that the public should not know ; I believe they file them that they may get the approval of the minister. That is not for the protection of the public in aDy way nor for the protection of the company.


Henry Robert Emmerson: And until that approval is had there is no authentic plan.


George Eulas Foster: So far as the plans and profiles are concerned, these can be given to the world ; they can be printed in the newspapers, and as a matter of fact they are all over Canada to-day. My hon. friend (Mr. Boyce) has given certain information about it ; I know of my own knowledge that these plans for months have been before important bodies in this country and have been discussed in every detail. The public can get them from the Grand Trunk authorities if the Grand Trunk authorities see fit to give them.


William Alfred Galliher: They will not see fit.


George Eulas Foster: There is no prohibition against them giving them, and the fact is they are public property to a greater or lesser extent.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That does not relieve the department.


George Eulas Foster: If the law puts the duty on the minister to approve of these plans as it does, why has he locked them up and kept them for eight months without taking action? A strong argument in favour of the Grand Trunk Pacific was that time would not wait, that there was urgent haste, and after the money is voted and the elections are over, the minister quietly puts the plans under seal, forgets all about them, or cannot find time to approve or disapprove of them. He says he does that on the ground of principle and of public interest. What does he mean by public interest ? Does he mean the interest of the speculator ? If Tom Jones buys land on what he thinks will be the approved location, and if Tom Jones misses it, that is not the public interest. Jones makes the speculation knowing that the plans have not the minister's signature, and people are taking that risk to-day. If the minister brings down the plans and says they are not approved they are just as much a speculation as they were before, but what public interest is hurt ? If speculators take the chances of the minister approving that is a matter for the speculator, but it is not any detriment to the public interest.


Henry Robert Emmerson: What public interest would be benefited by bringing down copies of plans which are of no value until they are approved? There is no connection made between the company and the department until the sign manual of the minister or of the Governor in Council is had ; until that, it is in the air.


George Eulas Foster: When parliament asks the minister for papers that are in his possession, as the servant of parliament he has to give a good reason why he shall not bring them down. The minister simply says :	I
cannot bring them down because it is against principle and against public interest. He has not shown what public interest would be hurt or what principle would be violated ; he simply repeats that it is against principle and the public interest. If parliament, as his master, asks him to lay a certain document on the table of the House, the onus is on the minister to Show how it is against the public interest, and it is no justification for him simply to reiterate the statement without proving it. There is a difference between the general public and the public as represented by the House of Commons. If a man walks in from the outside and asks the minister for permission to look at these plans, the minister would be perfectly justified in saying: I have not approved of them Mr. GALLIHER.
and they would simply lead you astray; but parliament bears the expense and is master of the situation and the minister must give a strong reason as to how it is against public interest before he refuses to submit these documents to parliament. The minister has asked why parliament should know. Well, suppose the shareholders of the company meet the directors knowing the directors have certain information, the shareholders have the right to ask for that information and the directors are bound to give it. In a way the ministers are the directors and the representative of the people in parliament are the shareholders. They are heavily interested shareholders, not merely in a matter of public policy, but as supplying the money, and they are absolute partners, building a large portion of a railroad, a mile of which they would not build unless the whole when completed was so located that it would serve the best interests of the. Dominion. It is tlie partners to-night that ask for the information and they say to their servant : You have had that information for eight months, you have never done anything with it, perhaps we could give you some valuable suggestions, but any way as partners and shareholders we have a right to know what it is.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Parliament did not make us partners in sharing the responsibility as to the approval of the plans ; the law makes that personal to the minister.


George Eulas Foster: 
William Alfred Galliher: Why does parliament give the right to the single man?


George Eulas Foster: Parliament gives to the single man the duty of approving, always, as in every other case of ministerial responsibility, under the idea that parliament is over and above the minister. If the minister will not do his duty, and for eight months refuses to do it, that of itself is quite reason enough why parliament should say, let the plans be brought down that we may have a look at them and may be give good advice! to the minister. But on the ground of constitutional practice and right, how can the minister or his government refuse to give to parliament the documents that are there?
I do not think there is any question about it at all. and the minister has certainly not given any grounds of public interest which would be strong enough to substantially prevent their being brought down; at least I have not heard them so far.


Haughton Lennox: Mr. Speaker, we have been a little over-balanced as regards the number of! lawyers on the other side of the House. Probably, having reference to the argument which the hon. member from Kootenay (Mr. Galliher) addressed to the House in reference to the statute, it may not be improper to refer for a moment or two to the subject under discussion. Now, the point seems to be just this:	There is
nothing in the statute that says there is to be any secrecy about these proceedings; there is no law which makes it so, and it is therefore a question whether it is better that the public business should be transacted in secret, or that, so far as it is convenient and easy, it should be transacted in the open. What the motion is asking is that parliament, being now assembled, and being interested in this matter, the representatives of the people shall have a right to look over what is now before the Minister of Railways, and if these representatives can give any suggestions or advice which may be usefully followed, the minister shall have the opportunity of hearing them. I am glad the hon. member for Kootenay has referred to the statute. There is nothing very new in that statute. Section 122 does not enact a new law. We had that section substantially In 1888; we had it before that, for how long I do not know, but it is well enough to look at this section and see just where we are:
The company shall prepare a map showing the general location of the proposed line of railway, the termini, and the principal towns and places through which the railway is to pass, giving the names thereof, the railways, navigable streams and tide water, if any, to be crossed by the railway, and such as may be within a radius of thirty miles of the proposed railway.
When we pay attention to the wording of this s'ection, does it require any elaborate
argument to convice the minister that it is important in the interest of the public, is it not abundantly clear that it is incumbent on the minister to make the railway application known as soon as possible ? Why, Sir, could anything be more monstrous than the proposition that this railway may be proposing to cross another railway or a navigable river in a way most detrimental to the public interest, and that until the matter is finally decided by the minister, he is to keep it a secret to himself, and the public is to have no knowledge of it ? If what the minister says in regard to the members of this House is true, it must be true, also with regard to another railway which this railway proposes to cross, and yet. if the minister is correct, he has to lock up the plan in his department, and seal it so that nobody can see it. The other railways that are interested can know nothing about it, and only when he has finally decided it is to become public. I submit that instead of it being a matter of good policy to keep this matter a secret, it is absolutely incumbent, in the great majority of instances, such as those I have referred to, to make it known. In the case of the railway crossing a navigable river, it would be most important that the public, who are interested in the locality, and who knows it as the minister cannot, should be able to come and say: Where it is proposed to cross this river is the most unsuitable place that could be selected; we can point out another and much better place. There may be great public interests to be served by the line going in a different direction from what you propose. Then, it is provided that there shall be an application for the approval of the map. That is to be public and not private, I presume, and the parties interested may be heard on that application. An application does not mean, I submit, something done in a hole or corner in the dark, behind the public, but something that is open and above board. When that application is made, all parties who are interested come and make their representations before the minister, and whether he is bound to follow these representations or not, he is bound to hear them. That is the second step. The third step is to approve of the map or its alteration, if he thinks it should be altered, as provided for in the statute. When that is approved, the fourth step is then taken and the completed plan-not map-and profiles book of reference are filed with the department and become binding. It is unfortunate that this administration has taken to itself the idea that they must act in secret, that they must form their opinions in secret, and then push through their decisions by strength of numbers.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Does the hon. gentleman contend that the approval cannot be ex parte but piust be upon notice ?


Haughton Lennox: I do not say that the ap: proval cannot be ex parte, but I say that

the statute contemplates that it shall not be in secret. In the case of crossing a navigable river or another railway or through a thickly populated district, it is not to be secret, and it would not be in the public interest that it should be. In the eases I have mentioned, it would be necessary to hear the parties interested before coming to a final determination.
Mr. GALLIHER, Does the statute contemplate that before a minister decides to approve or disapprove a plan, he must give a hearing to parties' interested throughout the country ?
Mr. I,EX XOX. There must be some discretion left to the minister. If you are going through an open prairie, where there is little or no settlement, it would not be reasonable to expect the minister to consult every farmer- across whose land the line might run. But in the case of crossing a navigable stream or another railway or through a thickly settled district, town or city, the public interest demands that the public should have some means of making itself heard before a decision is to come. How long is the minister to keep these plans secret? Does he mean to say that when he has these plans before him for months, he has the right to refuse to give parliament any knowledge of them? It seems to me that the public interest would be much better served by having these papers brought down now and letting the public know what is going on than by keeping them secret and allowing the railway company to give information about them to speculators so as to enable these speculators to get in on the ground floor.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES (Victoria).: At the time this Act was being passed to which my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) has referred, the chief argument advanced in its favour was that these plans should be made public so that the people along the various lines might know where the terminals were to be and take action to have their location changed, if they were not located where they ought to be in the public interest. The hon. member for Kootenay (Mr. Galliher) himself cited an instance in which a railway company gave some little town along its line the go-by and built their station away outside of it in order to play into the hands of the speculators or gratify some grudge against the people of that town.


William Alfred Galliher: In that case it was a town established by the government and which the government should protect.


Samuel Hughes: That makes no difference; it only proves my point. The chief argument advanced in favour of the clause referred to, is that it was in the public interest that the public should know Mr. LENNOX.
where these stations and crossings should be, so that they might agitate to have them changed, if desirable, before the plans were confirmed.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The map and plan generally filed for the approval of the minister is simply the general route. The question of locating the stations and of special location comes under the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission.


Samuel Hughes: The Railway Commission was not in existence when this law was passed.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Oh, yes it was.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I wish to point out, Mr. Speaker


Some hon. MEMBERS: Question.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I could point out one hon. member on the other side now calling out : question,' -who seems to occupy his place, I am sorry to say, largely as what is commonly known as a ' rooter.' He has heard no portion of this debate ; he has been in the House but a few moments ; yet he interrupts the discussion of this subject by gentlemen who have given it careful attention by crying ' question.' I was proceeding to say that the Minister of Railways takes his ground-and it seems a somewhat extraordinary one-that, whereas the depositing of a map or plan in his department by a railway company, which may traverse Dominion lands, navigable streams or tidal waters, whereas that plan may be deposited in his department, and is only subject to his approval, no hon. member of this House has any right to raise his voice and call for the production of that plan in order that the course of that line may be determined and may be the subject of discussion on the floor of this House until, forsooth, that plan has been approved and made binding and filed in the department as the actual location of that railway. And, if that be his position-and I cannot take any other meaning from the proposition he lays down -then it is an absolutely untenable and-I say with great respect for the minister and only with regard to the subject under discussion-absurd proposition, having regard to the law as it stands. It must be clear to every hon. member of this House that, from the very inception of the plan of a projected railway until it is filed in the registry office, it must be a public act. Otherwise it could not be the subject of a statutory enactment or be made the subject of approval and criticism that is provided for in this Act. Is the minister alone, without advice from parliament or his colleagues, to judge of the course of that line ? Is he to be alone the judge of the navigable rivers and streams, the Dominion public lands and the provincial public lands which it shall traverse in its course ? Surely the minister cannot read in section 122 any such meaning as that,
2S37

when the very words used in the Act themselves negative any such meaning.
But, Sir, the matter has been much debated, and I do not desire to take up the time of the House by further pressing my views. The question is, the minister having sealed these plans, when does he propose to unseal them? On the 2nd of August and on the 12th of December he tells us applications were made-not that the filing of the plans took place on these dates, but that applications were then made-to approve the plans. And, answering a question, he says they have not been approved of because it is premature to approve of them. Yet, by the terms of this enactment, this national transcontinental line we see by section S of the agreement, the construction cannot be commenced, and the time does cot commence to run until the hon. gentleman sees fit to approve of these plans so carefully sealed up in the department, as he thinks. What does that mean ? Is it possible that it is premature for the hon. gentleman to consider the plans because he does not want the time to run for construction ? If there is a reasonable suspicion, from the circumstances, that that is the case, is it competent or not competent for parliament to inquire into the matter and to call for the plans which the minister admits are the subject of application for approval and which, after eight months have rolled by, are still under seal and have not even been considered by him ? Is it competent or not competent for parliament to call upon him to say why he has not unsealed, these plans, and what is the difficulty in the way of approving them ?
I am not content to remain in the somewhat invidious position in which the minister leaves me with regard to the statement I made that information concerning the course of this railway had filtered out through his department. I desire to make myself plain to the minister, and hope that he will not misunderstand me. I do not say for a moment that the information of which I have spoken was obtained from any other source than from the Department of Railways and Canals. That information leaked out through his department. I leave it for the House to say whether the hon. gentleman has dealt with that assertion as made this evening, and as made on previous occasions, with the seriousness that he attributed to it, and that the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). and that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) attributed to it the other afternoon, when the insinuation was first made across the floor of the House. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Emmerson) called upon me, as he did when the matter was last under consideration, to specify, to give the names of persons and to give the facts which are within my own knowledge. I state now to the hon. gentleman, as I think I stated then, that, although I am a young 91
member of this House, I have learned enough of the ways of the House, and of the necessities of the occasion, and of the way in which information of that kind is made use of, to know that the assertion upon my responsibility as a member is, at any rate, enough for the present, until hon. gentlemen opposite see fit to attach to my assertion the importance which it deserves, and which they admit it deserves. They have called upon me to retract that assertion. I say I do not retract it. I say that it is a correct assertion, and that the state of affairs is as I have given it. Whereas the information contained in these plans is withheld from this House, and whereas the hon. gentleman who now occupies the position of Minister of Railways and Canals states, in accordance with the principle and policy laid down by him, and contrary, I believe, at least to the spirit of the Act, that these plans shall not be produced and information contained in them shall not be made public, the information contained in those plans, either through negligence or by direct and wilful act on the part of some one in the department-to which I have never alleged the hon. gentleman (Mr. Emmerson) was privy-has leaked out, that it has gone forth to the world and has been made use of, and made use of by persons and corporations for the very purpose which the hon. gentleman said, when the matter was first mentioned, was the reason the plans were withheld. Now, there is a time for making these explanations ; there is a time and a season for satisfying the hon. gentleman that I am right and that he is mistaken. He knows how to proceed ; he knows the course to follow. He can instruct me in that course. But I must say, with the utmost deference to the hon. gentleman, that I do not agree with him that it would be a proper parliamentary course for me to adopt-and I say this with much diffidence -to lay before him or to state across this floor, all the particulars that have come to my knowledge and which afford the most abundant evidence, incontrovertible evidence, that there has existed a leak in the Department of Railways and Canals with regard to these sealed-up plans.
There is the statement of the hou. gentleman, and it is a significant one, that he was< first told that these plans had been deposi-ed. and he was consulted in reference to them and was asked by his deputy whether information could be given out with respect to them. Why. Sir. is it possible that these were the only plans of a railway that had ever teen deposited in the department, and that the deputy minister had never seen before a plan deposited in that department and did not know the regulations ? If it was a principle of the department that nobody was to be allowed to see these plans, -would it be necessary for the gentleman who has occupied the position of deputy minister for so many years, to go to his chief and ask whe-



flier any one could see those plans ; and if it were necessary to ask that question, what -made It necessary, except that some one was looking for information contained in the plans and had gone to the deputy minister to ask for the information, and out of that l'act had arisen the necessity for the inquiry. At what stage would it be premature for Uhe hon. gentleman to approve of these plans) or to investigate them ? Can it be said to be contemplated by section 122 of the Railway Act. that the minister, the moment he gets the plans that are to be prepared under, that section, can seal them up so that neither he, nor his colleagues, nor parliament, nor the railway company themselves can seq them or inspect them ? If that be so for a period of seven months, why may it not be so for ten years ? I hope the hon gentleman will accede to the reasonable request from this side of the House, and will show cogent reasons why, at any rate, he should not loosen, with regard to these particular plans, that principle which he says has been inaugurated in his department, and that he. will see his way to allow this motion to pass.


George Eulas Foster: Just one word more, if the House will allow me. If the First Minister were here I would make an appeal to him with reference to the principle involved in this matter ; as he is not here, and the Minister of Finance I imagine, is leading the House, I will say to him that I think it would be a pity if affirmation were to be made that the House assembled here has not a right to have a document such as this brought down if it wishes it. If this motion is negatived, of course it will affirm that principle. I call the attention of the Minister of Finance to the fact that I do not think any real reason has been given why the public interest would be harmed if they were brought down at once. Then if we have not a reason given, is it not rather perilous to affirm a principle which in effect would be this, that the House is not master of the documents which one of its servants, in the form of a member of the government, has in his possession, and has kept sealed in his possession for months ?


William Stevens Fielding: I am afraid that I cannot agree with my hon. friend that the House is about to affirm any dangerous principle. Certainly that is not our intention ; nor is it the intention of this House to affirm the principle that parliament has not a right to every public document in relation to all public affairs. But it is a question of discretion. It is a constant practice for a minister, here and elsewhere, when a motion is made for papers, to say that in his judgment it Is not wise to submit those papers to the House.


George Eulas Foster: Is that sufficient without a reason ?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: 


William Stevens Fielding: The minister has given a reason. My hon. friend may not accept the reason. For myself I would say that any unfinished transaction might not necessarily be a proper matter to submit to the House. Any matter which is pending and left unfinished might properly be withheld from the knowledge of the public until the discussion is completed. In that aspect of the question, the minister does not say that the House has no right to these papers, he simply says that in his judgment, and for the reasons he has given, he thinks it would not be wise to bring these papers down at the present time. There is no danger in affirming a principle of that character. We are only affirming what is done in all parliaments under the British system for reasons which, in the mind of the minister, he deems to be sufficient. Sometimes hon. gentlemen might regard them as Insufficient, but that is always a matter of opinion and judgment.
Motion negatived on division.
PROVINCIAL AUTONOMY IN 'I'HIj NORTHWEST TERRITORIES-PRESENTATION OF DOCUMENTS.


William Stevens Fielding: The House will hardly desire to proceed further with the Orders. Before moving the adjournment, if any hon. gentleman has nothing else to bring up, I desire to submit some papers to the House. I lay on the table a copy of the School Ordinances of the Northwest Territories, chaps. 29, 30 and 31, passed in 1901. I also lay on the table a memorandum giving a summary of legislation relating to subsidies to the provinces. These are documents which have been asked for by hon. gentlemen opposite. They are both printed, and will be in the distribution office to-night or to-morrow morning. I have sufficient copies to-night to hand a few around. I also submit a statement showing the areas of the provisional districts of the Northwest Territories, and other information with respect to lands in the Northwest Territories, numbex-s of settlers and so forth, these being papers which were asked for. They are not in printed form, and I think it would be better to suspend the rule at once and ask the House to agree to have them printed. I would tlxere-fore move that the rule be suspended for the purpose of having these printed.


George Eulas Foster: Is that all ? Is there nothing else to come before the House in connection with the Northwest Territories ?- Because the First Minister promised that before the sitting closed we would have something with regard to amendments to the Bill.


William Stevens Fielding: Immediately on the adjournment I will send to my hon. fx-iend a copy of the amendment, which will be placed on the notice paper. I do not think I
2S41

need to read it, but I will furnish my hon. friend at once with a. copy.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 11.25 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 21, 1905.