1905-04-10

Sir WILLIAM MULOCK moved :: That Mr. Miller and Mr. Lewis be added to the Select Standing Committee on Telephones.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon.  H. R.@: EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 132) to amend the Government Railways Act. He said ; There is legislation before the House with reference to the transfer of the Canada Atlantic Railway system to the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, and by which legislative authority is sought to conclude the transaction. It was deemed advisable by the government in the public interest that notice should be given to the parties before this legislative authority is granted that certain running powers should be reserved over the Canada Atlantic Railway system for the government system of railways. The proposal in this Bill is to reserve running powers for the Intercolonial Railway system and for any extension of the government railway system over the line from Montreal to C6teau and over the main trunk line of the Canada Atlantie Railway and all its branches. This Bill provides that the government shall have the right to run through freight and passenger trains and to do a local passenger business over this line. It is provided also that the compensation which shall be paid by the government to the Grand Trunk Railway for this privilege shall be determined by the Railway Commission, from which there shall be an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Under the Railway Act, 1903, an appeal from the decision of the Railway Commission would lie to the Governor in Council, hut as the government system of railways would be under the control and management of the Governor in Council, it would he anomalous that the appeal of one of the parties should go before that tri-

bunaI. The appeal Is therefore made by reference from the decision of the Railway Commission to the Supreme Court. The tariff rates shall be subject to the Railway Commission in the same way as tariff rates on other railways, that is to say, all freight and passenger rates over the Canada Atlantic system and the Grand Trunk system shall be subject to the decision of the Railway Commission. All freight originating on the Canada Atlantic system or on the Grand Trunk system for points on the Intercolonial (system shall be subject to the same tariff rates as freight originating on all other railways working on that system. It would be very unfair to have * the Intercolonial take freight at any point along the Canada Atlantic Railway upon terms that would be subject to its own decision. Therefore, it has been deemed wise to make the tariff rates along the line of the Canada Atlantic subject to the judgment of the Railway Commission, and also to make all freight originating on that system to be transported over the Intercolonial Railway to Canadian seaports subject to the judgment of the Railway Commission. I have thus in a few words described the purview of this Bill, and its further discussion will no doubt come up at a later stage.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Mr. Speaker, the minister has not favoured us with a very elaborate statement of the policy of the government which has resulted in this Bill. However, as he says, we shall have an opportunity of getting a little closer to that a little later on. I must confess that I do not at present understand what is the full scope of section 4 of the Bill, which I have only had an opportunity to glance at. I would not be surprised if the minister would find that that section at least will require some amendment. As far as the whole scope of the measure is concerned, I would like to point out that it is now five or six years since the late Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Blair) brought a measure into this House for the extension of the Intercolonial Railway from Levis to Montreal. We all know the ground upon which he advocated that extension ; first of all, that it was absolutely necessary, in the interest of the Intercolonial Railway, , that it should be so extended as to enable it to compete with the other great lines of the country for the traffic of the west. We know also the expectations which were then held out to the country by the government through the mouth of Mr. Blair. It was pointed out that the Intercolonial Railway for a number of years had been piling up deficits, and the government practically announced to the country that the era of , deficits was absolutely past, and that the ' extension of the Intercolonial to Montreal at very great expense would certainly resuit in our securing a very large share of the western traffic. We were to secure that by Mr. EMMERSON.
means of a certain traffic arrangement which we made with the Grand Trunk Railway Company at that time. Practically the only advantage which the Intercolonial Railway or the country has ever received from that traffic arrangement is an arbitration which is now going on between this country and the Grand Trunk Railway Company, in which the country is claiming that in respect of nearly every article of that traffic arrangement, the Grand Trunk Railway Company has not fulfilled its part, but has from the first carried to the city of Portland in the United States the traffic which should have gone over the Intercolonial Railway to our maritime ports. That is about the net result, except that the deficits on the Intercolonial Railway have been somewhat larger since that extension to Montreal than they were before. My hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals has not indulged in any prophecies to-day, which I imagine is very wise on his part; but let me point out for one moment what the attitude of the government is with respect to this very matter, compared with what it was only a few years ago. The object at that time, as declared by the Minister of Railways and Canals, was to reach out and obtain a portion of the western traffic. Mr. Blair, when Minister of Railways and Canals, frankly admitted to the House and the country that that extension of the Intercolonial to Montreal had not fulfilled his expectations, and had not resulted in giving to the country any appreciable share in that traffic which he had expected to procure ; and he pointed out, while he was still Minister of Railways and Canals, the desirability of carrying that railway still further west, because at Montreal, we had no western connections, whereas, if the Intercolonial Railway were extended to the great lakes, we would there be in a position to compete on even terms with the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway. I cannot pass over this without once more directing the attention of the Minister of Railways and Canals to the fact that in addition to Mr. Russell, who represented Halifax and afterwards Hants in this House, my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals, then a private member of this House, was perhaps the most earnest advocate of the extension of the Intercolonial Railway to the Georgian bay by the acquisition of the Canada Atlantic Railway itself, and not by the acquisition of running rights over that railway. The government apparently had new light on the question later on. They came to the conclusion, at the time the policy of the government respecting railway matters waa introduced by the Prime Minister in 1903, that the operation of railways in this country was not a good thing in the interest of the country. I could easily quote a dozen very strong statements to that effect by

the Prime Minister, the Postmaster General and others. The attitude of the government in the sessions of 1903 and 1904, when their railway policy was discussed, was this :	it is not wise in the interest of
Canada to operate railways ; it is however wise in the interest of Canada to build our own railways, and to let private companies operate them. The position of the government to-day is just as complete a reversal of their attitude of last year and the year before as that attitude was a complete reversal of what they said in 1898. Their attitude during the sessions of 1903 and 1904 was this : let us build and own railways, but let us operate them. Their attitude to-day, as announced by the Minister of Railways, is, let us not build our own railways. hut let us operate railways owned by private corporations. This is exactly the reverse of the policy laid down in 1903 and 1904. For my part, X do not see how both these positions can be in consonance with what is wise in the interests of the country. If it be a good thing to operate this railway, it seems a little dif-ticult to understand why it would not be equally a wise policy to operate what is known as the eastern division of the Transcontinental. However there will be an opportunity later on to discuss some of these matters. Let me add this further. As far as I understand the policy of railway companies, such a company does not take or accept running rights whenever it can get anything better. Whenever it can acquire the ownership of a connecting road on fair and reasonable terms, it is always considered good policy to do so rather than content itself with running powers only, especially when the corporation which owns the road, over which running powers are required, must after all have a dominant voice in determining how those powers shall be exercised :	The government told us last
session and the session before that it would be impossible to operate the Canada Atlantic successfully, even if the country owned it unless they equipped it with a fleet of steamers on the lake, built elevators at Parry Sound and kept an army of canvassers in the west to solicit trade in competition with the Grand Trunk Railway. Well, if all those things were essential after you had acquired the Canada Atlantic, will they not he much more essential if you propose to operate that railway, and operate it, not with perfect control, but in direct competition with the Grand Trunk Railway, which not only has jjractical control over it but will have connections all through that western country and that large fleet of steamers on the lake which the right bon. gentleman declared to be absolutely necessary. These are the considerations which struck me at first blush on hearing the Minister of Railways. We shall have an opportunity of debating the question later
on, but my own view certainly is, subject to what I may learn in the debate, that if it be a wise policy to extend the Intercolonial Railway to Parry Sound, it would be infinitely better to do this by acquiring this road and thus have our own line from Halifax or St. John to Parry Sound or some other point on the Georgian Bay, and operate it as a part of the Intercolonial Railway. These are the considerations which strike me at the moment.


Mr. HAGGART.: Some time ago I asked the right hon. gentleman the leader of the government whether any negotiations had taken place between the government and the Grand Trunk Railway or the Canadian Pacific Railway with reference to the acquisition of the Grand Trunk Railway by the Canada Atlantic or the obtaining by the government of any concessions or running powers over the Canada Atlantic. I was assured by the right hon. gentleman that no negotiations of any kind had been conducted. That reply seemed strange to me after the statement of the president of the Grand Trunk Railway when addressing the directors-not only his directors but the owners of the road over in England-that he was sorry that he could not take them fully into bis confidence because if he could there would be no objection to the proposition to acquire the Canada Atlantic Railway. That foreshadowed to my mind some negotiations, tentative or otherwise, with the government of this country or with some other corporation with reference to the acquisition of the Canada Atlantic. I have not seen the Bill which the hon. Minister of Railways has introduced and I cannot say positively in what manner he has secured over the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canada Atlantic running powers from Montreal to Coteau and from Coteau on to Georgian bay. As far as I can understand, he says the rates are to be fixed by a tariff, which must first of all be passed upon by the Railway Commission with a right of appeal to the Supreme Court. A tariff may be fixed in a great many ways. Running powers may contemplate the ownership or part ownership of tlie road and a division of charges according to the running rights which each company may exercise and the user of each, as is done in the case of the extension of the Intercolonial Railway into Montreal. In that case we virtually purchased a half ownership in the bridge and the connecting line to the bridge and the terminal facilities in Montreal, and then we pay into the Grand Trunk Railway according to the users of the Intercolonial Railway. If the tariff rates are to be fixed on any such principle as that, and they must be, the government are contemplating the ownership directly or indirectly of that portion of the Grand Trunk Railway between Montreal and Coteau and of the Canada Atlantic from Coteau to Georgian bay. Of course we will see all this when the Bill comes down as

well as the reasons which induced the government to take these running powers. As I have said again and again, I am utterly opposed to the acquisition of any road or any running powers on what may be exorbitant terms by the government from Montreal to Georgian bay. Even if we should get ownership on reasonable terms, I do not think there is any necessity for the .government obtaining possession ' of this road. I know that my own views in that re-sjject differ from those of a good many others. I believe that the time will come when it will not be an advantage for any railway company to haul freight from Georgian bay to Montreal. I believe that the time is coming fast when the hauling of freight by railway will be supplanted by more economical ways and that, therefore, there is no advantage to the people to be derived from the extension of the Intercolonial Railway to Georgian bay.


Mr. EMMERSON.: I understand my hon. friend to say that he is opposed to the acquisition of these powers or to the acquisition of the railway in any way upon exorbitant terms.


John Graham Haggart: I am opposed to- it at any time. I cannot see what advantage it would be. You have the Grand Trunk Railway, the Canada Atlantic and the Canadian Pacific Railway at present connecting with Georgian bay. If you have any freight to send to St. John or Halifax, you have competition to the fullest extent possible to Montreal, so that it will be of no advantage to the people or the Intercolonial Railway to have running powers over any other railway. These running powers can be of no use to the railway which has them unless for one object: that is as a lever in the making of freight arrangements with the road. We could have these running rights without any legislation whatever, for the General Railway Act gives the Railway Commission power to give running rights to one road over any part of another if it deems it necessary.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Not to the Intercolonial. The Railway Commission does not control the Intercolonial.


John Graham Haggart: I am not aware as yet, nor do I believe, that the Intercolonial or a government railway is an exception to that rule. Why should not the Intercolonial be in the same category as the others and have the same rights? However, I will put off further discussion of the subject until I see the Bill. I am rather afraid that the terms upon which we are to acquire the rights given under this Bill will not be of advantage to the people of Canada.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I stated some time ago to my hon. friend (Mr. Haggart) that there had been no negotiations of any kind between the Grand Trunk and the government with respect to the acquisition by Mr. HAGGART.
the government of the Canada Atlantic Railway. That statement I now repeat.


John Graham Haggart: I rather thought my question went further than that.


Wilfrid Laurier: What was the question?


John Graham Haggart: Whether the government had had any negotiations with the Grand Trunk Railway Company or the Canada Atlantic Railway Company as to the acquisition by the Grand Trunk of the Canada Atlantic Railway or contemplated running powers to the government road.


Wilfrid Laurier: My answer is the same as in the other case. There have been no negotiations. With regard to the main feature of the Bill, I have simply to observe, in answer to my hon. friend for Carleton (Mr. II. L. Borden) and my hon. friend from South Lanark (Mr. Haggart), that the Bill simply gives power to the government to acquire running rights over the Canada Atlantic system from Montreal to Cdteau and from Coteau over the Canada Atlantic to Georgian bay. And it provides nothing else. It is not the intention of the government, at the present time, to run the Intercolonial up to Georgian bay and organize the system, but we take the power to acquire running rights, and then, if they are to be exercised, the terms are to be fixed by the Railway Commission. At present the Railway Commission has not jurisdiction over the Intercolonial. We take these powers, to use or not use as may seem wise.


Mr. FIELDING.: The very clear and emphatic statement of the ex-Minister of Railways (Mr. Haggart), whom I may speak of as the railway expert of the Conservative party, has one advantage. It places matters very plainly before us from his point of view, and serves to disabuse the public mind of an idea, which, I think, has prevailed to a large extent. That idea is that it was the policy of the Conservative party, had it been returned to power at the last, general election, to acquire the Canada Atlantic Railway and extend the Intercolonial by that connection to Georgian bay, and that the failure of this government to so acquire the Canada Atlantic Railway was a grave mistake. It is always a fair matter of opinion whether these railway extensions are desirable or not ; but, in this instance, we have now, from the railway expert of hon. gentlemen opposite, a clear and emphatic statement, so far as he has a right to voice the opinion of the opposition-


John Graham Haggart: I am only voicing my own opinion


William Stevens Fielding: Quite so, I realize that.
Mr. HAGGART-as I voiced it before.


William Stevens Fielding: But, occasional references are made to a former Minister of Rail-

ways on this side and to what he said, so, I think I can be doing nothing wrong in treating my hon. friend (Mr. Haggart) as the best authority on railway matters on the other side of the House. Therefore, I wish to call public attention to the fact that the idea, so widely prevalent that it was the policy of the Conservative party, if returned to power, to acquire the Canada Atlantic Railway, and that the failure of this government to acquire it was a grave mistake in the interest of the lower provinces-it is well to understand that this is all a delusion and that it was not the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite to acquire the Canada Atlantic Railway, inasmuch as their railway expert says that neither on exorbitant terms, nor on any other terms, would he agree to the acquisition of the Canada Atlantic Railway. And he objects to acquiring running powers over it. We have no reason to complain on that score. This Bill is a simple one. Many men in Canada -have thought that it .would be in the interest of the Intercolonial to acquire the Canada Atlantic Railway, or acquire running powers over it, or in some way use it as the western extension of the Intercolonial. A Bill having been introduced to transfer the Canada Atlantic to the Grand Trunk Railway-for that is what it means in effect ; though there will be two corporations, the Canada Atlantic Railway will be practically a part of the Grand Trunk Railway-it has been suggested, in deference to the opinion of many people who think we may be able to utilize the Canada Atlantic Railway as the western connection for the Intercolonial, that in passing that legislation we should reserve power to have running rights over that road, which power can be used if deemed expedient and practical. How far we may be able to use that power, how far it may be profitable-these are fair matters for consideration. We are not deciding that we shall use running powers, hut are simply reserving to the government and people of Canada power to have these running rights if, in the interest of the country, it be deemed expedient to use them ; and we provide that the terms and conditions on which we may claim that power shall be determined by the Railway Commission in the same way as a similar question would be determined if application were made by a private company. Now, I do not think there should be any opposition to that policy by those of hon. gentlemen opposite who believe in the policy of using the Canada Atlantic Railway as an extension of the Intercolonial. They should be pleased that we are acquiring, if not the road as they might desire, the running powers. And the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) need not be alarmed because we are simply reserving a power by legislation, leaving it to be considered hereafter whether that power can be profitably used. I agree with that hon. gentleman to a considerable extent that the argument in favour of securing running rights is that it puts the railway in whose favour tlie running rights are granted in a good position to claim a reasonable traffic arrangement. Even from that point of view, the taking of these powers might be of advantage to the Intercolonial. This is an empowering, permissive Bill. It secures to the government and people of Canada the right to use the Canada Atlantic Railway if it be found, at any future time, to be advisable.


Mr. BARKER.: As I understand the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) he would object to acquiring either ownership or running powers. I do not see that to cite that opinion is an answer to the criticism of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), who pointed out that you are taking the worst of the two. Having possibly the power to buy or the power to exercise running rights, the government take the one upon which they must lose. We are opposed, so far as we know the position now, to what is proposed by the Bill. I understand the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) to speak of this Bill as if it merely placed the government as regards a right to running powers in the position of an ordinary railway company under the General Act of 1903. But if that was what the minister intended, he has used rather singular words.
The minister shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, have, for the development of and in connection with the business of any government railway in his charge or direction by virtue of the Government Railway Act, running powers over

You are getting ' running powers over,' and does the Finance Minister mean to say that he is to take powers without paying for them ?


William Stevens Fielding: No, certainly not. I stated that we were not bound to use the powers at all ; but we have the right under this Bill to use running powers over that road. If we do not wish to exercise that right, no harm is done ; but if we claim to exercise that right, we must have the terms fixed by the Railway -Commission.


Samuel Barker: According to the terms and conditions and payment for compensation upon which said running powers may be so exereised.
Then you go on to settle it.


William Stevens Fielding: The commission will settle that.


Samuel Barker: Surely the gentleman who drew that Bill had no idea he was taking an option when the Bill gives absolute running powers.


William Stevens Fielding: It gives them if the government claim them. It is an obligation on the Grand Trunk or on the Canada Atlantic Railway, but it is not an obligation for the government to pay for that which they do not use.


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman says * if.' But there is no 1 if ' in the Bill, it is an absolute power.


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: There is no obligation to exercise it, surely.


Samuel Barker: Does the Minister of Justice mean to say that we are to put in an Act of parliament power to do a thing and not exercise it ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Undoubtedly. I can point the hon. gentleman a dozen clauses of the Railway Act which give actually the same powers, and these powers are not exercised. I think this discussion evidently demonstrates the wisdom of discussing Bills after they are printed, so that we may have some knowledge of their contents.
Mr. R, L. BORDEN. That is not the practice which has been followed lately.


Samuel Barker: It demonstrates that they should be printed before they are introduced.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Then I think we had better introduce a new rule.


Mr. FOSTER.: It demonstrates the unwisdom of the 21st of February.


Samuel Barker: I would like to point out that the government are seeking these running powers to do a through-traffic which will necessitate the very thing the First Minister said would be ruinous if you owned the road. The First Minister told us two years ago, in discussing another matter, that if we were to acquire this railway we would have to build ships and hotels, and all that sort of thing ; and yet you are going to carry a freight and passenger traffic over the railway before you have any ships or hotels. What advantage would it be to you ? The owning company will build the ships and own them, and are they going to give you the traffic after bringing it there in their ships ? Common sense would tell the government that if they want any traffic they had better own the road, and give the rights to the Grand Trunk on any other company that wants them. You may find that when you are there with a privilege to exercise running powers-which is a very difficult power to exercise at any time-you will find obstructions in your way ; the Grand Trunk are not going to go out of their way to facilitate your business when, by a little trouble they will get the business themselves; while if you owned the road, the government of the country could treat the Grand Mr. BARKER.
Trunk, the Canadian Northern, or any other road, with perfect fairness. But you are putting yourselves in the hands of a rival company, a rival carrier, whose interest will be to prevent you getting one dollar's worth of traffic.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I think the country settled that question on the 4th of November last.


Samuel Barker: Evidently this question has not been settled before introducing this Bill. There is a further point. This Bill on the face of it enables the government to carry through-freight only.


William Stevens Fielding: And local passenger traffic.


Samuel Barker: I think there is no serious question about passengers on that road for some time to come, but the freight is important. Now the Grand Trunk owning the road will have its own through-freight and the local freight, which latter is the fat freight, on which there is good profit. The Grand Trunk will have both the local freight, which is the profitable freight, and through-freight; while the government will have only skim milk through-freight which, under any circumstances, is likely to give a very thin profit indeed. The government is going to carry it for some .'175 miles in rivalry with a company that has both classes of freight. I think that any business corporation that had a opportunity to have both lines of traffic and preferred to take one, would not be regarded as a very keen business concern. The Grand Trunk can make money over that road when the government must lose, and yet voluntarily you take the losing position. Now the Grand Trunk cannot acquire the Canada Atlantic without the permission of parliament. If the Grand Trunk seek authority to acquire it, there is no obligation on the part of the country to give it that authority, not the slightest obligation to give any corporation power to buy up another corporation. We have only to hold our hands and they cannot do it, by simply remaining quiet, by holding our hands, we can prevent that line being bought up away from the Intercolonial. We are asked by another Bill before the House to facilitate the Grand Trunk in acquiring that property, and then we are to take the subordinate position. It seems to me an absurd thing from a business point of view.
,Mt. INGRAM. I quite agree with the Minister of Justice when he says that the discussion oi a Bill before it is printed is not profitable. But we are placed in that position by reason of other legislation that is likely to come before this House to-day, which may tell us something in connection with the Bill introduced by the Miuister of Railways and Canals. The hon. gentleman has not given a very elaborate discussion in

six minutes to this most important Bill, and he asks the members of this House to form an opinion and to criticise a measure which is to come up at a later period. Now the Minister of Finance also dwells on the statement made by the hon. member for Lanark, the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Haggart), and takes credit to himself because he finds that the ex-minister does not quite agree with some hon. gentlemen on this side of the House as to what ought to be the policy with reference to the extension of the Intercolonial. I would like to read for the benefit of my hon. friend what one of his colleagues in this House said on this question, and I think that people are inclined to hold a minister of the Crown much more responsible for his views than a private member, because they understand that he expresses the views of the government. The late Minister of Railways and Canals, when certain legislation was up for discussion in this House, said :
Now, my own view would be that if we wanted to pass railway legislation, if we wanted to do something of advantage for the transportation of the country, if we wanted to' secure to our Canadian seaports the transportation of western products, we would have extended the Intercolonial to Georgian bay by acquiring the Canada Atlantic.
That is the view of Mr. Blair when holding the portfolio of Minister of Railways in this government. Previous to this expression of opinion by Mr. Blair, we had the present Minister of Railways and Canals, then a private member, using this language, and 1 want to put both these gentlemen on record because I think they will offset the statement made by the Minister of Finance with regard to the remark made by my hon. friend from Lanark. The Minister of Railways and Canals, who was then a private member, used this language :
If the terms of confederation are to be carried out in their entirety, that the Intercolonial Railway shall be extended, it shall crawl further west year after year until possibly it shall extend to the granaries of the west and our seaports shall be the ports whence sail the rich products of the great western country. We hear much from hon. members who represent the western constituencies complaining of the exorbitant freight charges of the railway companies In the west. Complaint after complaint has been made, not merely in this House, but before the committees of this House. If there is to be remedy applied, one that will be apt and effective, that remedy will be found in the extension of the government system of railways into that western country, so that the government may control freight rates in the west in the same way as it now controls freight rates in the eastern section of Canada. I
I wish to put these two items on record to show7 that as a private member of this House the hon. gentleman entertained views entirely different from what the hon. gentleman entertains now7 and yet, knowing that to be the case that hon. gentleman has been made Minister of Railways and Canals. After all the statements that have been made in this House for seven long years in praise of the large sums of money expended on the Intercolonial Railway they have now turned completely around and are going to render the $70,000,000 we spent on the Intercolonial Railway less valuable to the people of this country by reason of their policy on the transportation question. I say, Sir, that the people of this country having expended a large sum on the government railways and having extended that system to Montreal, it is more than should be expected of the people of this country that they should accept this arrangement. If it is necessary that to make it a success it should be extended to the Georgian bay, I believe that would be in the interests of the people of this country, and I believe it would tend to lessen the large deficit we are bound to have from year to year unless something is done towards extending the Intercolonial Railway to the Georgian bay and the wheat fields of the west. I have heard what the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals has said, I mean the hon. gentleman from Lanark (Mr. Haggart), and I for one do not agree with his statement of action in regard to the extension of the government railway to the Georgian bay. As far as running powers over the Canada Atlanth, are concerned, any man w7ho knows anything about railway transportation at all knows perfectly well that the company owning the railway and granting running ights to another railway has a very unfair advantage over the company asking running rights over that railway and for that reason, I for one, am not satisfied with the legislation which is being introduced to-day ; neither am I satisfied with the legislation which was introduced the other day and which is likely to be discussed in a little w7hile from now, because I think the government is doing something they ought not to do in granting this legislation to the Grand Trunk Railway instead of acquiring the Canada Atlantic themselves in order to hold and manipulate the transportation lines in such a way as will benefit the Intercolonial Railway.


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

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of te Day being called,
Mr. A. A. McLEAN (Queen's, P.E.I.).: Mr. Speaker, I have been requested to bring to the notice of the First Minister the fact that in the month of February, 1901, in the Atlantic ocean the captain and crew of the Canadian schooner ' James W.' were rescued by the officers of the steamship ' Dur-

ango' of Sunderland, England, and to ask if any acknowledgment has been made by the Canadian government to the men who at the imminent risk of their lives, during a hurricane, rescued the officers of the schooner ' James W.' The captain of the British steamer is Captain Sam. Wilson, the second officer is Adam Winters ; they and the boatswain and three able-bodied seamen manned a boat and rescued the crew of the Canadian schooner. I understand that no acknowledgment was made by the government of Canada of the heroic conduct of these men, although the matter was represented to the Board of Trade in London, and I have no doubt that that board, according to their custom, represented the matter to the government of Canada.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have to say to my hon. friend that this matter is absolutely new to me. I do not know whether a claim was made or not. If my hon. friend will send me the note which he has in his hand I will be glad to give it immediate attention.



CANADIAN ARRESTED IN UNITED STATES.

George Eulas Foster: Mr. Speaker, I desire to call the attention of the First Minister or of the Minister of Justice to a matter which has, I believe, already been brought to the attention of the Secretary of State. A very worthy and respectable young man from the city of Toronto was lately ordered to the south of the United States for his health. He went by the Atlantic coast to the city of New Orleans and then upon advice went up to a little town called Manderville, a health resort in Louisiana. He had no more than arrived there before he was arrested by the authorities and thrown into prison with a lot of not very desirable companions and he was kept there for some three or four or five days, although he was quite ready and willing to give all the proofs of his identity. There appears, however, to have been no care taken to have these examined at the time. He was mistaken, it was said, for a murderer from Colorado for whom the police were looking. A friend of his, the doctor who ordered him south, heard of his arrest and telegraphed to the British ambassador at Washington and has also, I believe, made representations to the Secretary of State here. The young man was in indifferent health when he went away and of course an occurrence like that has not tended to put him in any better state of health. The young man is Mr. R. M. Walton, of Winchester street, Toronto. I would ask the First Minister or Minister of Justice if they would.see whether any representations have been made. I think that all the facts of the case, statements of the newspapers, &c., are in the Department of the Secretary of State. I shall, however, read this clipping from one of the New Orleans papers :


Angus Alexander McLean: R. M. Walton, lately of this city, was arrested at Mandeville yesterday and taken to Covington on the supposition that he was Milton Franklin Andrews who is wanted in Colorado for the murder of his wife, Mrs. Bessie Bouton, on or about October 5th, 1904.
It appeas, however, that the officials were over-zealous In the matter, and that Walton is by no means the man wanted. He insisted that it was a case of mistaken identity and when arrested -was inclined to give a complete description of his history and his whereabouts. He said that he came from Canada and that he had come from there via New York and steamer line to Mobile, and then to New Orleans, where he had presented letters to parties with whom he became acquainted. Investigation showed that this was true, and that Lukian Payne of Marshall J. Smith & Company, knew him well. Mr. Payne said last night there had evidently been a great mistake made as Walton had excellent letters from the Western and the British American Insurance Comp-mies of Toronto, and he had Introduced Walton at the Pickwick [DOT]Club, where they had lunched.
According to the description given, the man wanted in Colorado did not eat Pickwick Club lunches or any other lunches of that sort, but subsisted on Battle Creek Sanitarium foods and malted milk. He has a scar on his fane. Walton has a sear on his face, and occasionally in Mandeville he drank celery tonic, and these two things sbemed to he considered sufficient evidence by the officials there to warrant his arrest on the charge of murder, for otherwise the descriptions did not tally at all. Walton is very indignant about the whole matter and threatened yesterday to appeal to the British consul. He will undoubtedly be released today.
There is no necessity of reading other newspaper extracts referring to this case. It is a matter that I think should be looked into as it is a case in which the welfare of a very reputable citizen is involved.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not remember that this matter was ever brought to our attention, and I doubt if it was brought to our attention at all. I have not heard of it, but I shall inquire immediately.



NEW MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR- HON. FRANK OLIVER.

Mr. SPEAKER.: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received a notification of a vacancy having occurred in the representation of the electoral district of Edmonton, by the acceptance of an office of emolument under the Crown, to wit: the office of Minister of the Interior, by Frank Oliver, Esq., member for the said electoral district. I have accordingly issued my warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to make out a new writ of election for the said electoral district.


Wilfrid Laurier: On Friday last I told my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) that if he renewed the question he then put to me I would give him an answer. The answer is before him now'.


Robert Laird Borden: I am very much gratified that my persevering efforts have at last been rewarded with success ; I doubt very much if my right hon. friend would have screwed up enough courage if we had not stirred him up from day to day. However, I do not know that we can congratulate him very much on his courage after all, for it has taken six or seven weeks to bring it to the sticking point. It would seem to have been equally possible to have made this appointment some four, or five, or six weeks ago, and to have had the advantage of a Minister of the Interior during the discussion on this Bill. I do not know whether I am called upon to congratulate my hon. friend from West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott). He was pointed out to us by the Liberal press of the country as the gentleman who, above all others, was fitted to fill this position, and we were told in pretty plain and distinct terms that he would be selected. The ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) told us, just about as distinctly as such things are ever told in this House, that the late member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) was to fill the position of Prime Minister of one of the western provinces. The *programme was very pretty-my hon. friend from West Assiniboia (Mr. ' Scott) was to be Minister of the Interior and Mr. Oliver was to be Prime Minister of one of the western provinces. That was the programme laid down by the government press, and it would be interesting to know why that programme has been so abruptly and suddenly changed. However, we are glad that the government have at last taken some action. I do not know whether my hon. friend from West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) has in his pocket a letter of the description which was given some years ago to Mr. Francois Langelier, of Quebec, telling him what would be done at the end of the session. I sincerely trust that my hon. friend (Mr. Scott) has some oral or written assurance of that kind. Be that as it may, on this side of the House we can only wait and see what the developments will be.


Mr. ARMAND LAVERGNE (Montmagny).: Now that the challenge of the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) has been accepted by the member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), I wish to know if the resignation of the hon. member for South York has been tendered to Mr. Speaker. The absence of the hon. gentleman (Mr. W. F. Maclean) might indicate that; but, of course, I would like to know officially.


Mr. J. H. G. BERGERON (Beauharnois).: I thought that I might be out of order had I referred to this subject, but the remarks of the hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. A. Lavergne) have given me an opportunity to speak. I may remind my hon. friend that some years ago Mr. Oliver, the new Minister of the Interior, was in a very ugly mood towards the Galicians who settled in
his county. I am now informed there are now about 7,000 of these settlers, who are very good voters, and I have no doubt Mr. Oliver would not have accepted the portfolio unless he were able to count on the vote of these same Galicians. I commend to hon. gentlemen opposite the pages of ' Hansard,' in which they wall find some very threatening language used by Mr. Oliver against these Galicians, but I have no doubt he will find them good enough now to try and get their votes.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: That is not much of an answer to my question.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.



LANDS IN NEW PROVINCES-INTERVIEW WITH MR. BULYEA.

Mr.   I@: I notice that in an interview given by Mr. Bulyea, one of the members of the government of the Northwest Territories, which is to be found in the columns of the Regina ' Standard,' of date April 5th, 1905, there is this paragraph :
Besides, the Dominion government retaining the land, it naturally devolves upon them to assume the responsibility of opening up and developing the country and railways will have to go to them for assistance. During the conference the members of the federal government agreed to assume this responsibility.
The only part of the interview I desire to call attention to is this paragraph, so that I do not feel it necessary to read the whole. I wish to inquire from the Prime Minister whether or not, in addition to that which appears on the face of the Bill, there is any agreement or understanding such as that which is referred to in the paragraph of the interview which I have quoted ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not know that there is any agreement upon that. I am sure there is not; but in the discussions which took place, we stated that the policy of the government with regard to railway subsidies would be the same as usual, and would not be departed from so far as parliament would come to a conclusion on it. That is all there is on that suDject.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 45) respecting the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. E. M. Macdonald.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Shall I report the Bill ?


Robert Laird Borden: I did not hear the preamble adopted.


Mr. BRODEUR.: It was adopted some days ago.


Mr. INGRAM.: At the last sitting of the committee the preamble was carried, but clause No. 1 was under discussion.


Charles Marcil: I called the first section and declared it carried, and was in the act of signing it when the member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) rose.


Andrew B. Ingram: We did not understand that it was carried.


Mr. STOCKTON.: It seems to me there is a very near connection between this Bill and the government Bill to take running-rights over the Canada Atlantic Railway system, and it does not seem to be fair to call upon us to vote upon this Bill before we have the government Bill in our hands. We, in the maritime provinces, are very much interested in this transportation question, as the Minister of Railways knows, and there is a very strong feeling there that the legislation in this parliament shall not be prejudicial to the interests of the maritime provinces so far as transportation is concerned. If this Bill is passed, it will be passed without the members of this House having had an opportunity of knowing what the policy of the government is in (reference to running powers over the Canada Atlantic system. For myself, if I am called upon to vote on this section now, I shall be voting-in the dark, because I do not know what are the terms of the Bill which has been proposed by the Minister of Railways, and which has received its first reading to-day. I do not think that a delay of twenty-four hours or forty-eight hours will make much difference in the general result, but it will give the members of this House an opportunity of considering the terms of the Bill which has been introduced by my hon. friend the Minister of Railways.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.: I would like to point to the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Stockton) that there can be no advantage to him from any deliberation which he may give to the government Bill, to enable him to vote on the proposal contained in Bill (No. 45). The government Bill does not in the slightest degree affect this Bill ; it has no relation to it whatever. The government Bill could have been brought down if this Bill had never been heard of. The principle asserted in the government Bill could have been asserted no matter whether the Canada Atlantic or the Grand Trunk owned the railway from CSteau to Parry Sound. I am at a loss to see where my hon. friend could get any light in deciding whether or not the Grand Trunk Company should have the right to purchase a certain amount of stock, which is the only proposal contained in section 1 of this Bill. Nothing could arise in the discussion of the government Bill which would affect that simple provision.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentlemar is entirely mistaken. This Bill was held over so that we might consider what power the government was going to exercise in regard <[DOT]0 running powers. The statement was made Mr. INGRAM,
that when the government came for legislation for the purpose of acquiring that road, that would be the proper time to ask for information in regard to running powers over it. We have not the Bill before us, and do not know what it is ; but my impression, from glancing over it is that it not only provides for running powers, but lor acquiring half the road or a certain moiety in it. We cannot consider this Bill fully until we know the provisions of the government jjiII. The Minister of Finance says it is only an empowering Act. It is absolute so far as this parliament is concerned. The government might exercise the right at any time they chose without consulting us. We are empowering them to do as they like in reference to the matter, and, if all stories are true, the arrangement was made long ago by which the government were to secure running powers from the Grand Trunk Company over this road.


Robert Laird Borden: I also think this Bill is very intimately connected with the government's proposal ; and, although I have only had an opportunity of looking very hurriedly over that Bill, I would be inclined to go a little further than my hon. friend from South Lanark (Mr. Haggart), and to say that the Grand Trunk Railway Company could itself go before the Railway Committee and have t-lie terms and conditions settled on its application, because its rights are made subject to running powers jby the distinct words of the Act. I never heard clause 1 of this Bill carried, and I have been here at all the sessions of the committee and have paid particular attention to this Bill. Therefore, as I wish to ask some questions about section 1. I would move that that section be re-considered.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On section 1,
Robert Laird Borden: Might I ask the hon. gentleman in charge of the Bill whether ;there is any bonded indebtedness in existence at present on the Canada Atlantic Railway : if so, what amount of bonds has been issued ?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If my hon. friend will look at section 1 of the next Bill, he will notice that section 3 of chapter 90 of the statutes of 1903 is repealed. That section gave to the Canada Atlantic Railway Company the power to issue $14,000,000 worth of preference securities, and the effect of these two -oills taken together is to repeal that section and to give the company power to issue a further amount mentioned here in pounds sterling, which it is understood is to be used for the betterment of the road.


Mr. TISDALE.: I understood at the Railway Committee that power is given to increase the issue by $2,000,000.


Robert Laird Borden: The bonding powers under the Act of 1903 have been exercised ?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am instructed that they have been.


Samuel Barker: I see that this Bill gives the company power to acquire not only the .Canada Atlantic Railway, but a couple of transport companies, which I suppose means a shipping company, and a railway in the United States. Can the hon. gentleman tell us what the stocks in the United States are -whetner they are paid-up stocks or stocks on which calls may be made ? At the same time, I would ask him the particulars of these bonds which this Bill is giving the Grand Trunk Company the right to acquire, hold, pledge and dispose of. I think we ought to know the extent of the obligations we are authorizing the company to enter into.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I think the hon. gentleman was present at the Railway Committee when Mr. Chrysler, representing the companies, explained these questions fully.


John Graham Haggart: We ought to have them here.
Mr, E. M. MACDONALD. My hon. friend will remember that the explanation was to the effect that these companies were kindred companies with the Canada Atlantic, and related to pieces of road which were not in Canada. My hon. friend will also recollect the statement which was there made with regard to the matter of stock, which statement I have not with me. I venture to submit that it is rather an un-sual proposition to ask that all these matters of detail which were thoroughly threshed out before the Railway Committee, should be gone into again. It seems to me that I have heard the rule laid down quite frequently, and sometimes by hon. gentlemen opposite, that when the railway or any other committee had considered such details, they were not to be taken up again by this House unless there was some grave reason for doing it.


George Eulas Foster: The House delegates to a committee certain duties but the House is larger than the committee. There are many members here who are not on the Railway Committee and consequently did not get the information which was furnished there, but even if they were all on that committee, the whole question comes up for review before this House and we have a perfect right to all these details. Often in unimportant matters that is not insisted upon, but we are certainly perfectly right in a case of this kind in insisting on having them. If the hon. gentleman is not in a position to furnish them this afternoon, it would be better for the committee to rise and report progress.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. E. M. Macdonald) is perfectly right. As a rule these Bills are threshed out in detail before the Railway
Committee and the House accepts them as they come from that committee without insisting that all these details be gone into again, unless there is some very grave reason to the contrary. I have never known a case in which the promoter of a Bill was expected to give here all the details which were given to the committee.


George Eulas Foster: He should be prepared to.


Wilfrid Laurier: These details are not absolutely material to the determination of the issue whether or not these powers should be granted. I beg altogether to dissent from the view that this Bill should be deferred until the Bill of the government is ready for discussion. It was deferred in order that we should have a declaration of the policy of the government. That declaration has been given. It is not our intention to acquire the Canada Atlantic or do anything more than acquire the running rights. It is not even our intention at this time to exercise those running rights, but I believe, with my hon. friend from Lanark, that those powers should be reserved, to be used or not as the circumstances may require. The policy of the government having been declared, there should be no further objection to going on with this Bill. It is simply a matter of private legislation. The question is whether to agree to it would be in the general interests of the country ; and if that be determined in the affirmative, it is of great importance to the Grand Trunk Railway that it should know our decision at once so that it may go on with the necessary operations.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is it not a fact that the government intended in the first instance to amend these Bills so as to cover the very point covered by the public Bill introduced to-day by the Minister of Railways ? When these Bills were before the Railway Committee, true this information was furnished, but there was also the understanding that when the government brought in their Bill more information would be furnished. It is true also that when Bills are reported to the House it is not usual to send them back, but in this case we are asking for certain information which is not forthcoming. Is it to be supposed that because the promoter has not that information at hand, we are to be refused it. This House has no record of the information' furnished the Railway Committee, but there is a record kept here of information furnished the House as a justification for the legislation it passes.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It was stated before the Railway Committee that these two other companies the Canada Atlantic, the Canada Atlantic Transit and the Vermont and Province line, were companies in which the stock was largely controlled, if not wholly, by Mr. Booth. The proposal is to permit the Grand Trunk Railway to

purchase the common or preference shares in these companies. The vital part of this section is the latter portion which authorises the Grand Trunk Railway to guarantee payment of the principal and interest of the bonds, debentures or 'other securities of the Canada Atlantic. If my hon. friends desire information regarding the amount of stock, they can obtain it from the railway report. That report we had in the Railway Committee, and it showed that Mr. Booth was largely, if not altogether, in control of the stock. So far as regards the question who might he the holder of the stock in the Transit Company or the Vermont and Province line, that is of little importance, because the empowering part of the section only permits the company to purchase the common stock in these companies and does not authorise it to deal in their mortgages or bonds.


Robert Laird Borden: There might be a little more in this than the hon. gentleman thinks. This section is of a very comprehensive nature. The Grand Trunk Railway may acquire, hold, pledge and dispose of preference and common shares of the capital stock of the Canada Atlantic Railway Company, the Canada Atlantic Transit Company and the Vermont and Province Line Railway Company. It is necessary for the Canada Atlantic and the Grand Trunk Railway to come to this parliament in order that the stock of the former-practically the whole of which is held by Mr. Booth- may be transferred to the Grand Trunk Railway. As the Minister of Finance pointed out a minute ago, the real object of this Bill is to vest the Canada Atlantic Railway in *the Grand Trunk Company, although for the purposes of convenience the corporate existence of the Canada Atlantic Company is kept up. This Bill gives the Grand Trunk Company power to dispose of all this stock to any one to whom it may see fit to deliver it. It seems to me that it jvould not be wise to give it this absolute, unqualified power, and it does not seem necessary to the real object of this transaction, as explained by the Minister of Finance, that we should do this. The Grand Trunk will become, to all intents and purposes, the owner of the Canada Atlantic and be able practically to dispose of that road to any corporation or company either in this country or the United .States. Well, I would respectfully submit that that particular piece !of legislation ought to receive the attention of the government. Assuming that a Railway Company [DOT]in the United States had nower to take a [DOT]transfer of stock in any other railway corporation, would it not be quite possible under this charter for the Grand Trunk Railway Company to transfer to that corporation every dollar of the shares it will acquire under this Bill ? Are we not going a little too far when we vest in the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada a power so extensive as this ?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 


William Stevens Fielding: Could not the Canada Atlantic Railway sell it to-day ? Is there any distinction, any new power created by this Bill ?


Robert Laird Borden: The point of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) may be' a good one. But this transfer comes under the jurisdiction of parliament, for a particular purpose, namely, the vesting of the Canada Atlantic Railway in the Grand Trunk Company, and we need to see that it is done in such a way as shall limit the powers granted by the Bill to the purposes for which ostensibly the promoters come before parliament with this measure.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Is there anything exceptional in this legislation ? I have not looked at it until this time.


Robert Laird Borden: There is, in this respect : Ordinarily you do not find a transfer of a railway taking place by means of tLis kind. Suppose, for example, this Bill were for the purpose of enabling the Grand ' Trunk Railway to acquire the Canada Atlantic Railway and to practically do away with the corporate existence of the Canada Atlantic in the future-because it would have no longer any property in regard to which its existence would be necessary-in that case you would have a Bill by which a deed of conveyance of that property from the Canada Atlantic Railway to the Grand Trunk Railway would be validated by parliament. Frobably it would be done in some such way. I am suggesting that if you did it in that way, you would not at the same time give the Grand Trunk Railway power to dispose of the railway whenever it might see fit. You would require the Grand Trunk to come back to parliament and to get power to transfer, just as the Canada Atlantic Company acquires power to transfer to the Grand Trunk Company. The Grand Trunk Company adopts this somewhat ingenious method of effecting the transfer, namely, by still keeping the Canada Atlantic Railway as a corporation retaining this property while bringing it under the complete control of the Grand Trunk through one or two of its officers. If we grant this and also grant full power to absolutely dispose of that absolute control of the Canada Atlantic Railway without coming back to parliament we seem to be going a little further than we would go under ordinary circumstances, and further than we have ever gone before, so far as I remember-I speak subject to correction.


William Stevens Fielding: Are we not doing here precisely the same thing as has been done in a number of other cases ? I have one particularly in mind-the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Kingston and Pembroke. The Canadian Pacific Railway,
I think, did not come here for special powers having in its General Act power to acquire

the stock of other railway companies. My recollection is that the Canadian Pacific Railway has acquired the stock of the Kingston and Pembroke, and that that road is operated under the old corporate name, but is well recognized to be a part or branch of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and officers of the Canadian Pacific Railway are directors of the Kingston and Pembroke. It seems to me it is precisely the same sort of case as this.


Robert Laird Borden: It may be so. The force of the argument I have made depends a great deal on the importance of the road that happens to be in question. I do not know how important a road the one is that referred to by the hon. minister (Mr. Fielding. [DOT] But here we have a very important road one connecting Georgian bay with the city of Montreal ; and it is proposed to make it part of one of the great national highways of the country. Under ordinary circumstances, as I understand it, the Grand Trunk Railway Company could not, without coming to this parliament or going to the Railway Commission, dispose of an important portion of a national highway. I have not in my memory exactly the provisions of the Railway Act with regard to the transfer of railways, but I feel sure it cannot be done without coming to some tribunal. What I am suggesting is that the effect of. this statute is to place the Grand Trunk Railway in a position to accomplish such a sale without supervision. I have no doubt that my hon. friend the Minister of Justice who is much more familiar with the terms of the Railway Act than I am, could tell us in a moment whether it is impossible for parliament or the Railway Commission to effect a transfer of this kind.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The shares of a railway company can be acquired, but if the question is whether a railway charter can be disposed of without the sanction of parliament, I do not hesitate to say that it cannot.


William Stevens Fielding: I understand that the Bill provides that the company may sell stock. But they may sell without coming here. And those who buy stock I understand, will hold it under similar conditions. Therefore, I fail to see that any new condition is created by this Bill. The property remains subject to the law of Canada, including the law which we propose to pass- whatever its merits-with regard to running powers. But the sale of stock can be carried on at any time. The shares of Canadian railways are being bought every day by foreigners. The sale of a railway is different and it is not contemplated by this legislation.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not wish to be wearisome about this matter. But the Min134
ister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) I think, took exactly the right view when he spoke a moment ago on another matter. He said that the object is to vest the Canada Atlantic Railway in the Grand Trunk Company as part of a great Canadian railway system -it might almost be called an international system because the Grand Trunk Railway has both its terminals in the United States. But they do not go about it in the ordinary way. They transfer stock. It is convenient to do that, because all the stock happens to be held by one person. In ordinary cases it would not be convenient. The Minister of Finance asks if the same cannot be done in respect of any railway ? So it can. Some parties might buy all the stock of the Canadian Pacific Railway, thought it would be pretty difficult to accomplish that in the case of a railway very largely capitalized. But, when the object to be served is served in an indirect way in this statute, and when that indirect method has embodied in it the power to tile Grand Trunk Railway to absolutely dispose of that stock without coming back to parliament, it seems to me we go further than we ought to go. We may be perfectly willing that Mr. Booth, or whoever is the owner of this stock, may hand that railway over to another company so that it may become part of a great Canadian system of railways, but we might not be willing that the Grand Trunk Company should hand over a controlling interest in the stock of that railway, and therefore the control of the railway itself, to somebody who might not be approved by parliament. In other words, I regard the situation exactly the same as if the Grand Trunk Company were to come here with a conveyance from the Canada Atlantic and ask parliament to make that conveyance valid, and also to give it power without coming back for our approval, to dispose of that railway to whoever it saw fit. That seems to me to be practically the result of this legislation.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The application of the Grand Trunk Company to parliament is to obtain permission to acquire stock ; once they have acquired that stock from the Canada Atlantic, the general law then goes into operation, because there is no law which prevents the Grand Trunk or any other company from selling its stock ; why then single out this corporation for special treatment ?


Robert Laird Borden: What I mean is this : There is a certain purpose which the Minister of Finance has explained to us as the purpose of this Bill-and I agree with his understanding-that is, practically, to vest the Canada Atlantic railway in the Grand Trunk Company but it is not done in the usual way. If the Grand Trunk Company, in the Act validating the conveyance, should ask us to give it absolute and unlimited power to dispose of that rail-



way to any person, whether approved of by parliament or not, I say we should not hesitate to do so.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Why ?


Robert Laird Borden: Because we do not give that power to railway corporations.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes we do. Why, the greater part of the stock of the Canadian Pacific Railway is held by people abroad.


Robert Laird Borden: I was talking about the conveyance of a railway. The conveyance of the railway and the conveyance of the stock are two entirely different things. I am not aware that railway companies in this country have power to sell their railway without coming to parliament.


Charles Fitzpatrick: They have power to sell their stock.


Robert Laird Borden: I have admitted that all along.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is what they arc doing here.


Robert Laird Borden: Let me go back once more. The Minister of Finance says that the purpose of this Bill undoubtedly is to vest this railway in the Grand Trunk Railway Company, although for purposes of conveyance the corporate existence of the Canada Atlantic Company is kept up. I agree that that is undoubtedly the intent and effect of this Bill. I have said that if it was done in the ordinary way by a deed of conveyance the Grand Trunk could not ask parliamnt for power absolutely to dispose of that railway without coming back to parliament. When they carry out the projects not by the ordinary method to which I referred, but by an indirect method, it does not seem right to give to- the Grand Trunk Railway by these comprehensive words, power to transfer this railway as they may see fit to any other person or corporation. That is the effect of my objection, and I think there is room in it for reflection.


William Stevens Fielding: If the Grand Trunk Company had proceeded in what may be regarded as the ordinary way, that is, if they had applied to parliament to allow the transfer, not of the stock but of the property itself to the Grand Trunk, then by acquiring so much additional property they would have to issue so much additional stock to represent that property, and that stock could be purchased by anybody in the world. Where is the difference. If this property were sold to anybody it could only be sold to some person who had power to receive it, and that person would have to be a corporation chartered by the laws of this country; nobody else could receive and operate a railway un-Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
der the laws of Canada. Therefore, a sale to some person abroad would be an impossibility. No person abroad could take a transfer of that property and operate it as a railway. If it is to be a transfer of the property as distinct from the stock, then that transfer will have to be to a corporation authorized by the laws of Canada.


Samuel Barker: 
William Stevens Fielding: The stock ?


Samuel Barker: 
William Stevens Fielding: Is not that the company's own affair ? Under the Act they may take and hold this. I think the theory of the Act is that they may take and hold it, but if they see fit to sell it for the operation of the Grand Trunk Company, is that not a matter between the directors and the company ?


Samuel Barker: Not entirely so.


William Stevens Fielding: As much so, I would think, as in the case of any other company.


Samuel Barker: 
John Graham Haggart: Tlie amount authorized to be issued by this Bill is in the neighbourhood of $10,000,000. We ought to know what they intend to do with this money, especially in view of a statement made by me in this House a couple of years ago in reference to certain parties having an option for the sale of this particular road for $12,000,000, that was Mr. Webb. It is true that the president of the Grand Trunk Company over in London stated the other day that he intended to utilize $12,000,000 of this in the purchase of the road, $2,000,000 to be kept for betterments of that road. Still, that leaves a deficiency of $2,000,000. : It seems an extraordinary amount that you are paying for it, a couple of millions over and above what was thought to be a fair value for that road three or four years ago. Why are we so particularly interested in what might be purely a commercial arrangement between the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canada Atlantic Railway ? Let me point out to you how this country is interested. We are taking power under the Bill to take running powers over that road. These running powers are not the running powers ordinarily contemplated as between two railroads. It is not an option, as the Minister of Finance stated here a few moments ago, because on looking at the Bill I find that it says that the minister ' shall ' do this.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend must be mistaken. The Bill surely does not state that the minister ' shall ' do anything.


John Graham Haggart: These are the very words. I paid particular attention to it; it is not an option at all.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is mistaken. It does not say that he shall do anything but that he shall possess certain powers.


John Graham Haggart: Shall possess certain powers for the purpose of doing it. How is the Railway Commission to fix the price for running powers at all over the road ? It contemplates an absolute purchase of an interest in the road. It may be as the Minister of Finance says, that this will never be exercised at all, but the parliament of Canada hands over all the rights or powers which it may exercise in reference to the option and gives it over to the company. It is an absolute necessity to the people of this country to know what amount the Grand Trunk Railway are paying for that road. They ought to know, and the particulars should be given by the promoter of this Bill as to the amount of money he asks for the purpose. I have not heard a single word in justification of it, from the promoter of the Bill or any one here giving a reason why he wants $16,000,000. Options were held on that road by parties for $12,000,000, and it is well known in railway 1344
circles that it could be obtained for that price instead of the $16,000,000 that is being paid at this moment.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend's point seems to be that property is increasing in value in Canada. We cannot deny that; these are growing times under the influence of good government and if this property was offered two years ago at a given sum and if in that two years it has increased in value we cannot alter that fact. We do not desire to turn back the tide of progress, we are rejoiced at this increase in value. The main question seems to be whether it is a fair value, and I think we may safely trust to the purchaser to ascertain that fact. I am not very familiar with the details of this matter, but I believe this was all investigated before the Railway Committee. I understand that the committee inquired into the circumstances under which this road was to be purchased and also as to the price. If the Grand Trunk Company are satisfied that the property has increased in value and are willing to pay that sum for it, in good faith,-and about their good faith I presume there is no question-why should we place any difficulty in their way ? If it is a fair price and the proposed purchase of bonds is only a reasonable one and the capitalization generally is only fair and reasonable, what more can we ask ?


John Graham Haggart: The purchase may be all right for the Grand Trunk Railway if we only knew the whole details of it, but unfortunately we are kept in the dark in reference to it. It may be a profitable purchase to the Grand Trunk Railway and they may get it at what they think is a fair value. This is more than the amount for which Mr. Webb had an option and possibly they may have it arranged so that In the end they will get it for less.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think they will.


George Eulas Foster: If the promoter of the Bill has any information such as was presented to the Railway Committee as fo the bonding powers that are taken, as to the price paid for it and as to whether it is fair and reasonable, surely we ought to have the same information about it ? I submit that this committee has received not an iota of information as to the value of the road and as to whether this price would be a fair one. According to the Finance Minister's argument the price might just as well have been $20,000,000 or $30,000,000 or $50,000,000.


William Stevens Fielding: If they are buying in good faith, yes.


George Eulas Foster: I think it makes a great difference to the country, and the promoter should give us some information.


George Eulas Foster: The country is paying for
it.


William Stevens Fielding: We are not paying anything.


George Eulas Foster: The hon. gentleman knows that very well, that whatever amount of bonds, stocks or security is issued by a lailway, the country has to pay for it in the end as the profits on the capitalization must be paid out of the freights so that the country is interested in it. I think the country ought to have some more information.


William Stevens Fielding: Does my hon. friend imagine that a company would be willing to pay an exorbitant price for the railway simply on the chance of coming before the Railway Commission and being permitted to charge high rates ? We are bound to believe that in a commercial transaction this company is paying a fair commercial value. If there is any reason to suppose that the contrary is the case that would be a matter for investigation, but if the company value that road as so many millions and are willing to pay that price for it, I do not know why we should object.


George Eulas Foster: I think we should demand the reason why this price is paid. You can talk as much as you like with reference to the matter, but here is the fundamental idea with reference to the purchase of this road. There was a difference of opinion between two parties. One was of opinion that the road should be built and operated by the government in order to get as cheap rates as possible for the country. The other took a different view.


William Stevens Fielding: Which party took that view ?


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend is intelligent enough to know that.


William Stevens Fielding: I know that my hon. friend to his left repudiated that.


George Eulas Foster: That is a small kind of argument. I supposed the hon. member would give credit rather than otherwise for a certain amount of independence in this House, but the Finance Minister seems to think that everything on each side of the Speaker should be reduced to a dead level, the dead level to which he has been successful in reducing everything on his own side. But on this side we will have differences of opinion and independence of judgment and so these matters come up. The government took the opposite plan and said : No, we will put this in the hands of a great corporation, and this is the following out of that plan. The whole argument for this was that the country was going to get a great international route of traffic.


George Eulas Foster: We propose to make the trade go to Canadian ports and be carried through Canada. The way to do tnat would be to reduce the rates as far as possible. If an exorbitant price is to be paid for this road it would militate against that argument. Whatever the stocks or bonds as I said before, the traffic in the end will have to pay for them, the traffic of the country has to meet the expenditure and pay the price paid. If there is any information of that kind which has been threshed out in the Railway Committee the promoter of the Bill should be able to give it to us.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Many members in this House will remember that the progress of this Bill was practically arrested by the Minister of Railways when he announced^ that when the Bill came up in the House he would make a statement with regard to some matter which he did not then make plain to the committee. I am not sure that the discussion of the Bill in the committee was not restricted somewhat owing to the announcement made by the Minister of Railways. There seems to be considerable that has not yet come out in regard to this matter. I would suggest to the promoter of the Bill that nothing would be lost by allowing it to stand over because the Senate is to adjourn until the 2nd of May. It is very important to consider this whole question as to whether this bonded indebtedness shall be 114,000,000 or $16,000,000, because the value of the running rights will depend materially on what the railroad will cost the Grand Trunk Railway. We should not stultify ourselves toy passing this Bill now and putting it in the mouth of the Grand Trunk Railway to say that because the railroad cost them $2,000,000 more than it otherwise should the government will have to pay a higher price for the running rights. I do not understand that there is any desire to obstruct the Bill in any way, but we might just as well have it postponed until Wednesday or Friday next when we can obtain the necessary information rather than to have it pressed through the House to-day.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am extremely desirous to give any information which my hon. friend may require, but the solicitude of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Henderson) that this Bill should pass is rather suspicious. judging by the various'reasons that have been given from time to time as to why it should not pass. I understood that when the government brought down their Bill and gave certain explanations everything would be lovely, and as this is probably the last day we can have for discussing private Bills I am afraid that the mere hour which in future will be alloted would not be sufficient to enable these hon. gentlemen to get all the information they seem to desire. There are no fundamental objections to the Bill apparently, and I am anxious that it should be advanced a stage. The

hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart) was answered by the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Tisdale) who seems to be aware of the facts and who stated that the price to be paid by the Grand Trunk Kailway is $14,-CH30,000, and that the other $2,000,000 is to be utilized in betterments and improvements on the railroad. As to whether this is a good price, or whether it is a larger price than was offered a couple of years ago, the statement of the Finance Minister ought to be sufficient to indicate that if the price of railways is advancing the same as the price of everything else, my hon. friends opposite ought not to complain. I again submit that as there is no fundamental objection to the Bill it should be advanced a stage.


George Eulas Foster: You have three concerns included, namely, the Canada Atlantic Railway, the Transit Company and the Vermont and Province line. What stocks, bonds or preference stocks are to be paid for each of these by this whole issue?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Mr. J. R. Booth is the owner of the total stock of these three other companies which are mentioned in the Bill other than the Canada Atlantic Coiu-pany, and the $14,000,000 is the price to cover all these rights in these companies as. well as in the Canada Atlantic Railway. As to what stocks are covered by this transfer I do not think my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) ought to expect me-who am merely the member in charge of the Bill-to give the full details which were given by the solicitor of the company before the Railway Committee. My hon. friend will find in chapter 81 of the Acts of 1899 a full statement of the shareholders in the railways at that time, and it will cover the shares which are effected by this transfer.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the hon. gentleman read it?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The total amount of shares in the Ottawa, Arnprior and Parry Sound Railway was 4,200 valued at $4 200,000. I want to point out further that in 1903, chapter 90, this House permitted the company to issue bonds, debentures and other securities to the extent of $14,000,000 to be secured on this line of railway and branches now constructed.
And such bonds, debentures or other securities may be issued as provided in the deed of amalgamation set out in schedule ' B ' to the said Act of 1899, and shall subject to the provision of section 94 of the Railway Act and to the present charge in favour of outstanding first mortgage bonds of the Canada Atlantic Railway Company, and of the Ottawa, Arnprior and Parry Sound Railway Company, respectively, until the same are redeemed, exchanged or paid off, he a first charge and lien upon the whole of the said railway and branches as now constructed.
In 1903 the ex-Minister of Railways (Mr. Haggart) agreed that the Canada Atlantic
Railway should be authorized to issue bonds to the extent of $14,000,000. This Bill proposes to repeal that section and merely to substitute in lieu of $14,000,000 the amount in pounds sterling mentioned in the Bill.


John Graham Haggart: What were they acquiring when they got the power to issue a further amount; is it paid-up stock?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In 1903 they were empowered .to issue bonds to the extent of $14,000,000. That section is to be repealed and the bonds to be issued now amount to $16,000,000.


John Graham Haggart: There is no stock?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There must be stock in the company.


John Graham Haggart: Why?
- Mr. E. M. MACDONALD. I do not understand you could have a company without having stockholders.


John Graham Haggart: Yes you can; bondholders have the power of voting and doing anything stockholders do.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The Act of
1889 gives a full list of the stockholders in this company.


John Graham Haggart: What is the amount of stock and bonds ?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The stock is forty-two thousand shares of the par value of $4,200,004), of which $3,856,000 is paid up.


John Graham Haggart: And the bonds are $14,000,000 besides that ?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: That is all Canada Atlantic Railway, is It not ?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: What is the stock and bonds of these two other systems ?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There are no bonds issued, I think.


George Eulas Foster: What amount of stock is
issued ?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have not the exact amount. I understand that it is not very large, and is controlled entirely by Mr. Booth, who is the sole proprietor.


Mr. BLAIN.: There seems to be an impression this afternoon that a very large amount of information was forthcoming before the Railway Committee when this matter was up for discussion. That is an entire mistake. It is true some information was tendered to the committee, but it was a very limited amount ; and when information was asked for, the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals stated that the information ' would be forthcoming in the House when he made his statement.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend will pardon me. I did not undertake to furnish

any Information about these. Bills. What I did. state "was that I would have an announcement to make respecting the policy of the government in relation to this railway. I have made that announcement, but I did not undertake to furnish any information respecting the details of these private companies. Very fuil and very ample information was given by the parties who represented both companies on that occasion. X do not think any information was asked for that was not forthcoming.


Richard Blain: If there was such full and ample information tendered to the Railway Committee, it is rather surprising that neither the promoter of the Bill nor the Minister of Railways is now willing to give the information to this committee.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What information does my hon. friend want ?	*


Richard Blain: My hon. friend the promoter of the Bill has been asked several times this afternoon to give some information. He has already before him a question from the hon. member for North Toronto.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If my hon. friend will ask me for something, I will endeavour to satisfy him.


Andrew B. Ingram: The principal matter before the Railway Committee was that the parties interested in the two branches which had been leased to the Canada Atlantic Railway wanted some legislation to guarantee their rental to them for several years to come. That seemed to be more important to the committee than the actual legislation.
I think the Railway Committee was relying on all this information being brought before the House. My hon. friend from Pictou appears to be very much alarmed that this Bill may not go through the House. He says we have all day for this Bill, whereas, if we allow it to stand till Wednesday or Friday, we shall only have an hour. Does my hon. friend think the capacity of the opposition is not sufficient to talk this thing out to-day, as well as on Wednesday and Friday, if necessary ? There is nothing to be gained by insisting on this Bill going through to-day. As my hon. friend has already been informed, the Senate is going to adjourn for some time, and this Bill could not get before the Senate before the 25th of next month or thereabouts. Therefore, the hon. gentleman is not making any real progress with the Bill by insisting on it going through the House to-day. I am surprised at the First Minister allowing this Bill to go through in the absence of full information upon it If we were trying to obstruct the Bill, I could understand it; but the members of the opposition want a little time to verify the information. I cannot understand why the Canada Atlantic Railway Company wants to increase its bond issue from $14,000,000 to $16,000,000. We know that that would


Henry Robert Emmerson: increase the cost of the running rig'hts over the road. For my part, I cannot see what has given this additional value. There has been no information on that point. The First Minister can surely see that the members of the opposition have a right to have a little time to look into this matter.


Mr. A. A. WRIGHT.: As this road runs through my constituency, I would like to say a few words with reference to the progress being made on it. A remarkable statement was made by the hon. member for East Sim-coe (Mr. Bennett) the other day, to the effect that there are really no villages or towns on that line of railway. I never before heard such an assertion from a well-versed gentleman. You do not leave the city of Ottawa very long before you come to South March, then to Carp, then to Kinburn, then to Galetta, then to Amprior, a place of nearly 5,000 population, with large saw-mills employing 400 or 500 hands. Further on you come to the town of Renfrew, with nearly 4,000 population, and further on to the village of Eganville. These are all incorporated towns, which are growing constantly in magnitude. The traffic on this road is increasing all the time. For instance, Mr. Whitney, of the town of Whit-hey, has enlarged the capacity of his mill, and has built a branch line to it, because his output is increasing every year. Mr. Alexander Barnett has extended his works at Long Lake, and ships large quantities of stuff over this road. The corundum mines are now furnishing a large traffic for this railway, shipping it from Barry's Bay. The owner of those mines told me that they were now getting out $20,000 worth every month and shipping it over this road. A great deal of machinery and other merchandise is brought in over this road, and this traffic is increasing by leaps and bounds. The package freight that originates in the United States is also increasing every year. The quantity of grain carried over the road is also increasing. Mr. Booth told me that he could have shipped last season over 3,000,000 bushels more grain over the road if he had had the facilities for transhipping at Montreal. Many gullies along the road, which hitherto have only had wooden bridges, have been filled up to make a solid roadbed. So that the work on this road has been increasing all the time. Both the freight and passenger traffic are increasing, and no wonder, therefore, that its value should increase.


Mr. DANIEL.: The argument of my hon. friend would be in favour of the government owning this road instead of handing it over to the Grand Trunk Railway. It was stated by the Hon. Mr. Blair, when Minister of Railways, that in order to make the Intercolonial Railway pay it was necessary to extend it as far west as possible, and he instanced the fact that the Canada Atlantic was a paying concern.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend is directing his remarks to the question involved in the preamble, which we have just adopted, and not to this section.


Charles Marcil: 
Andrew B. Ingram: Does the hon. gentleman who is promoting the Bill pretend to say that the filling up of trestles, making solid the roadbed, and matters of that kind, which increase the value of the railway, are not subjects pertinent to this Bill.


Charles Fitzpatrick: What we are objecting to is discussing on section one the question of government ownership.


Andrew B. Ingram: I understood that my hon. friend from Renfrew (Mr. A. A. Wright) was discussing the filling up of the trestles, which would naturally increase the value of the railway. We are asked to give the Grand Trunk Railway power to increase the bonding privileges, and that application is based on the increased value of the railway. If that be the ease, I would like to know how many of these trestle bridges have been filled up and how many iron bridges have been built ? No information of that kind has been given.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I did not understand you, Mr. Chairman, to say that I was entirely out of order. We are now discussing the disposal of the Canada Atlantic.


William Mulock: No, we are discussing section one.


John Waterhouse Daniel: That is the section to which I am referring and it deals with the transfer of the Canada Atlantic to the Grand Trunk Railway. What I was arguing was that it would be much more advisable for the government to own the road itself.


Wilfrid Laurier: Order.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Since this discussion started, I have obtained the information asked for. In 1899 there was an amalgamation of the Ottawa and Arnprior and Canada Atlantic. At that time a schedule was furnished giving the capital stock of the two companies and that schedule is attached to the Act of amalgamation.


Robert Laird Borden: Does that represent the capital stock at present ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes. That would appear to be for the Ottawa and Arnprior and Parry Sound 42,000 shares, par value $4,200,000.


George Eulas Foster: Of which $3,800,000 were in issue.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I shall give information as to that. The Canada Atlantic Railway has a share capital of 20,000 shares on which there has been paid $3,000,-
000.	The amalgamation was of two companies. The Ottawa, Arnprior and Parry Sound had a capitalization in which $3,856,800 had been paid up and the Canada Atlantic $3,000,000 so that the total amount now of the capital stock paid up would be $6,856,800. Of that capital stock, Mr. Booth owns 98 per cent. The share list of both companies will be found in the schedule to the Act 62-3 Victoria, chapter 81. You will find there the names of the shareholders and the amount held by each. In addition there has been issued $14,000,000 of bonds.


George Eulas Foster: On what portion ?


Charles Marcil: I do not think the hon. gentleman is at liberty to discuss the question of government ownership under this clause.


Robert Laird Borden: I would think it a perfectly good reason why this clause should not be adopted that the government should own the road, and the remarks of my hon. friend from St. John are exactly in order.


Charles Marcil: The question of policy was decided yvhen we adopted the preamble and any discussion now must be pertinent to section one.


John Waterhouse Daniel: It would be more advisable for the government to be in a positioii to give running rights to some other railway than be subject to the supreme authority of another company.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like the hon. gentleman to give the information we


Charles Fitzpatrick: On the amalgamation. On the Vermont and Province line, which is an American line, there is $100,000 of stock. It is four and a half miles long. In addition to that, there are two shipping companies, the Canada Atlantic Transit Company of the United States, an American corporation, and the Canada Atlantic Transit Company of Canada. The American Company owns four boats and the Canadian Company owns one boat. The approximate value of these five boats would be from $1,500,000 to $2,000,000. There is a mortgage on the boat ' Canadian ' of the Canada Atlantic Transit Company of Canada, the amount of which I have not now, but will soon ascertain.


Samuel Barker: It is not included in this Bill ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes. it is included. As to liabilities you have $14,000,000 of

bonds, and $6,856,800 of stock, making a total capital stock and bond issue of over $20,000,000. The next question is the value of the property. I have here figures which have been given to me as having been taken from the blue-book. I have not verified these figures. They show the total cost of the road to have been $20,565,000 to which is to be added- $5,552,981.48, making a total cost, interest included of $26,117,981.48. The details of cost are as follows :
Elevators and docks	$ 837,000
Houses, hotels, schools and land at
terminals	 656,000
Coteau bridge	 1,225,000
Equipment account	 3,059,000
TotaI	 5,557,000
To this is to be added the cost of the construction of the railway, $14,708,000, making the grand total of $20,565,000 to which L have referred.


George Eulas Foster: Did the hon. gentleman (Mr. 1 itzpatrick) get that of his own good will 5


Charles Fitzpatrick: I went out into the lobby to satisfy a legitimate curiosity and telephoned the solicitor of the company and got this information in ten minutes.


George Eulas Foster: One practical man.


Robert Laird Borden: Can the minister give us the exact mileage ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I am afraid the information in this memorandum will hardly help us. It shows the expenditure distributed on the mileage, and would give a mileage of 14,000 miles, which, of course is absurd.


Andrew B. Ingram: If I understand the case, the promoter of the Bill, (Mr. Macdonald) does not know the mileage of the road.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is four hundred odd miles.


Andrew B. Ingram: That is a very general way to put it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: With the branches, it is four hundred and sixty miles.


Andrew B. Ingram: For the sake of getting it on ' Hansard,' I might as well give the information as it appears in the official report. I refer to sessional papers No. 20, the report of the Department of Railways and Canals for the year ending June 30th, 1904. At page 9 of the railway statistics I find that the Canada Atlantic Railway, including Ottawa, Arnprior and Parry Sound Railway quoted as follows : City of Ottawa to junction with Grand Trunk Railway at Lacolle and United States boundary. Crosses the St. Lawrence at Coteau by bridge. Connects with Grand Trunk Railway at C6teau and Laeolie, and Ottawa to Depot Harbour, Lake Huron, near Parry Sound : mileage 400-30.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Then at page 30 I find the following facts :
Miles.
Canada Atlantic Railway, including Ottawa, Arnprior and Parry Sound.. .. 400-30 Leased lines-
Central Counties	 37-40
Pembroke Southern	 20'90
Total mileage	 458-80
Length of sidings	 97 -50
Steel rails, 56 to 75 pounds per yard.
Nature of rail fastenings, angle bars, fish plates.
Number of grain elevators, 2.
Highway crossings at rail level, guarded 11, not guarded 197.
Number of over-head bridges, 4.
Height of overhead bridges over rail level, 22 feet.
Number of highway crossings under railway,
6.
Number of level crossings of others railways, 13.
Number of junctions with other railways 10.
Number of junctions with branch lines, 3.
Radius of sharpest curve, 955 feet.
Number of feet per mile of heaviest gradient, 66.
Gauge of railway, 4 feet 8J inches.
Then again, at page 40 we find concerning this line that its train mileage was as follows :
Mileage.
Passenger trains	 454,967
Freight trains	 717,717
Mixed trains	 140,953
Total train mileage	1,313,637
Engine mileage	 1,741,073
Total number of passengers carried, 411,385.
Tons of freight of 2,000 pounds handled, 1,324,913.
Average rate of speed of passenger trains, 30 miles per hour.
Average rate of speed of freight trains, 15 miles per hour.
Average weight of passenger trains in motion 275 tons.
Average weight of freight trains in motion, 1,180 tons.
Then again, at page 48 there is the following :
Now the amount of flour handled was 576,168 barrels, tons 57,617 ; grain, 14,556,432 bushels, tons 363,911 ; live stock, 75.939 head, tons IS,985 ; lumber of all kinds, feet board measure, 296,140.900. tons 407,193 : coal and other fuel, tons 151,491 ; manufactured goods, tons 130,549 ; all other articles, tons 195,167 ; making a total of freight carried 1,324,913 tons. In Sessional Papers, page 56, the same mileage is given as I have quoted, but for passenger traffic the returns are $339,458.83 ; freight traffic. $1,318,130.15 ; mails and express freight, $33,568.41 ; other sources, $70,142.68 ; total gross earnings, $1,761,300.07 ; total net earnings, $423,611.47. Proportion of earnings to working expenses, 133 per cent ; earnings per train mile, $1.34.

These are some of the figures I find in the blue-book in connection with this statement. But while I give the figures here, the promoters of the Bill do not give us the information as to what the receipts were when the road was offered for $12,000,000. The hon. gentleman does not give us a comparison of the receipts in those days and the present time; therefore we are not in a position to judge whether the company are justified in asking for the difference between $14,000,000 and $16,000,000. If they are simply asking for this for the purpose of making money out of the people by charging higher rates for running powers 'over their road, then we ought to know it.


John Graham Haggart: The minister has a report in his department, I suppose, from the chairman of the Commission on Transportation to whom this question was referred, and I believe they dealt specifically with this question of the acquisition of the Canada Atlantic road. They took evidence with regard to it, because I was myself examined before the commission. But there is no reference whatever to this subject.
Mr. EJI3IBRSON. They have only made two preliminary reports, one with respect to the harbour facilities at St. John, and another with respect to the Port Colborne situation. They were interim reports, but they have not reported beyond that.


Mr.   IE@: I,. BOIiDEX. What was the object of their investigation into the particular one to Which my hon. friend from South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) has just referred ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I presunife it was within the scope of their inquiry. I am not the keeper of their consciences at all.


Mr. IE  L.@: BOIiDEX. I mean that if my hon. friend from South Lanark is correct in stating that there was an investigation into the desirability of acquiring this road


John Graham Haggart: I do not know whether it specially referred to that, but I was questioned before the commission in reference to government ownership of the road from Montreal to Georgian bay.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I never heard of that.


John Graham Haggart: It strikes me also that 1 have seen in the newspapers a summary of an interim report mion the subject.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If they have reported to the newspapers they have certainly not reported to the government.


Andrew B. Ingram: I overlooked to give some figures more important still than those 1 have already quoted. I find in a summary statement of capital for the year ending [June 30, 1904, these .figures :	Ordinary
share capital, authorized. $9,200,000 ; subscribed. $6,200,000. I think the hon. gentleman told us that it was something like $7,000,000, with paid up capital, $6,199,100. That is something short of what the hon. gentleman told us, he said it was $7,000,000.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: $1,000,000 of
that is preference stock, and only $6,200,000 common stock.


Andrew B. Ingram: I find that of preference share capital, $1,000,000 is authorized, $1,000,000 is subscribed and $1,000,000 is paid up. Of bonded debt, $14,000,000 is authorized, $14,000,000 is issued and $14,00o,000 is sold. Now let us see how much this road has received in bonuses. From the Dominion government it has received $282,355.20, $779,712, and $152,800. There was paid up, $1,214,864.20. As regards the provinces, Ontario paid $847,326.06 and Quebec, $200,000 ; Ontario and Quebec together paid therefore, $1,047,326.60. Of municipal aid it received a bonus of $152,900 ; subscriptions to shares or bonds $32,000 ; paid up, $184,900. Total capital subscribed, $23,647,093.26 ; total cost of rail way and rolling stock, $20,505,616.66. Now there are some figures in connection with remarks here * Canada .Atlantic system, see pages 73 to 85 for particulars of bonuses.'


Robert Laird Borden: Might I ask the Minister of Railways when he would expect to get any report from the Transportation Commission on this subject ? If it has been investigated by the commission they might well have made a report or my hon. friend might have asked them to do so. I think that before the House can deal, either by this Bill or the Bill which the minister has introduced, with the future of the Canada Atlantic Railway Company, we should have such a report. That com-i mission is being carried on at great expense to the country and we have not had from it very much practical assistance to parliament up to tlie present time. It has been carrying on its operations now for nearly two years, since its appointment in the summer of 1903. Are we going to determine everything before we get this report ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: On what point ?


Robert Laird Borden: With regard to all the transportation questions of the country? | It was designed, as I remember, to give us aid in connection with matters exactly like this ; I would gather that was the scope of the commission. If the commission has investigated this question would it not have been a very desirable thing that parliament should have the benefit of their investigation.


Wilfrid Laurier: This is a side issue with regard to section 1, because we have settled our policy on this ; we do not desire to have the railway. We desire to have running powers. The commission I must say has not been very lucky in many

ways. The chairman has had to give up the chairmanship.


Robert Laird Borden: Who is the chairman?


Sir WILFRID LA  DRIER@: Mr. Refold. He asked us to be relieved and we asked him to continue in office.


John Graham Haggart: The reason I mentioned it was that I have a hazy recollection that the commission had reported favourably on the proposition.


Wilfrid Laurier: So far as I understand they have not.


John Graham Haggart: I think I saw some report in the paper that they had favourably entertained the proposition.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am quite sure that the board did not.


Robert Laird Borden: I am quite sure that the right hon. gentleman will agree that if their final report is to be indefinitely postponed we should have in parliament their conclusions in respect of any matter upon which they have taken all the evidence they propose to take, and I would think that it would be well within the right of the administration to make that suggestion to these gentlemen because it will be absolutely nonsensical to have a number of recommendations from them at some future date in respect to matters with which parliament and the government have already dealt.


Wilfrid Laurier: The object of the commission was chiefly in regard to water transportation and to terminals. I am in that respect of the same opinion as the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart) that water transportation will have more to do with this through-traffic than railway transportation.


Andrew B. Ingram: Before this is declared carried, I wish to complete the figures which I referred to before. I find at page 77 of the report, that the amount of aid granted to the Canada Atlantic Railway by governments up to the year ending June 30, 1904, was $282,355.20, and then at page 81, ' statement of aid granted to railways by government ' the Parry Sound Colonization, leased to Canada Atlantic, $143,250; and Canada Atlantic, $270,000. These are the figures which I wished to add. Again I say, Mr. Speaker, we want to know how these figures compare with the figures of two or three years ago when this road was offered for sale for $12,000,000. We have had no opportunity of looking these figures up and the hon. gentlemen would not give them to us. It is only fair that we should have these figures, and what the road is suppose to be earning and Its working expenses, so that in years to come if the government should want to get running rights over this road, we would be able Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
I to look up the record and ascertain what the value of the road is at this time.
Bill reported.
On the question, when shall the Bill be read a third time?


Wilfrid Laurier: Now.


Robert Laird Borden: I must say that we
must have a different mode of doing business in the committee. I did not hear any question put on the Bill nor was any hon. gentleman given an opportunity of opposing its passage when the chairman left the chair.


Wilfrid Laurier: The chairman declared the Bill carried ; my hon. friend from Elgin wanted to add some figures but the Bill was declared carried.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not hear the question put, I heard the right hon. gentleman say ' carried,' but I did not hear the chairman.


Wilfrid Laurier: The chairman certainly put the question and declared it carried, when he was rising when the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) asked to read certain figures.


Andrew B. Ingram: I assume that the courtesy of the promoter would lead him to produce these figures and that the chairman would not leave the chair.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Of course I can only deal with the report. The report from the chairman of the committee was that they had considered the Bill and ordered him to report it without amendment. When shall the Bill be read a third time?


Wilfrid Laurier: Now.


Andrew B. Ingram: Mr. Speaker, I am perfectly sincere in this matter ; I think that the promoters ought to furnish the information I have asked.
At six o'clock. House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The question is : When shall the Bill be read a third time? [DOT]


Andrew B. Ingram: AVhen the committee rose at six o'clock, I understood the chairman was to resume at eight o'clock in order to allow of certain information to be given-1 notice the Prime Minister shakes his head.


Wilfrid Laurier: I stated at six o'clock that the chairman declared the motion carried, but before he reported to the Speaker he allowed my hon. friend to read some figures.


Samuel Barker: It is quite true that what the right hon. gentleman said took place before six o'clock, but immediately before

tba-t the -hon. member (Mr. Ingram) had been on his feet had asked a question and was waiting a reply. This occurred a little after six o'clock. The hon. member iMr. Ingram) in courtesy to the hon. member for Pictou sat down to wait for a reply, and at that moment the Prime Minister said ' carried ' and the chairman of the committee following in the words of the right hon. gentleman said ' carried,' but it was after six o'clock and while the hon. member uvir. Ingram) was waiting for a reply. If that is the way the proceedings in the Committee of the Whole are carried on we shall hare to have a different method. There was not a member of the whole House on either side who understood that the question had been put by the chairman.


Mr. HYMAN.: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon ; I did most distinctly.


Samuel Barker: The hon. member for London may have understood it.
(Mr. E. M. MACDONALD. So did everybody else.


Samuel Barker: Perhaps I went too far in saying that not a member of the House so understood, but I say that nearly every member of the House understood that the hon. member for East Elgin was waiting for a reply and I know it was after six o'clock, because I looked at the clock. Now, this is not an ordinary question of a private Bill; this is a question affecting the interests of Canada and we must not have a question of that importance disposed of in that way. I object. It is not in the power of the right lion, gentleman, any more than it is in my power, to call out ' carried ' and have a motion carried. The question must come from tlie chairman of the committee. I do not believe anybody in this House, with the exception of the member for London and perhaps one or two others, understood the question to be carried.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I was sitting here very close to the chairman and I add my testimony to that of the hon. member for London (Mr. Hyman).


Samuel Barker: I do not object to adding that the -hon. gentleman promoting the Bill heard the word.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend (Mr. Darker) must have been suddenly afflicted with deafness if he could not have heard the very definite statement made by *the chairman, which was explicit, that the Bill had been carried.


Samuel Barker: I was listening very intently to every word that passed and I declare that my version of what occurred is correct. If that is the way the Committee of the Whole is to be called upon to decide important questions we ought to know it.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Perhaps I had better put the motion so as to have something before the House. Mr. Macdonald moves that the Bill be now read a third time.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Carried.


Andrew B. Ingram: It is not carried. I sat down in order that the hon. gentleman from Pictou might reply to my question. Perhaps I should not have resumed my seat, but I did not expect there would be any sharp practice


Charles Smith Hyman: Order.


Andrew B. Ingram: Who says order ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I do.


Andrew B. Ingram: 
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am sure we will be extremely obliged to the hon. gentleman for giving the information, but I wish to say before be does so, that if I was in any way lax in giving information it was largely due to the statement made by my hon. friend (Mr. Ingram) on Friday night, that if the government announced its policy with regard to this road, he then would have no objection to the Bill before the House, if my hon. friend wants any definite information of a practical character, I shall be very glad to give it to him ; but my hon. friend need not put on the records of the House information which any member can obtain by simply sending to the distribution office.


Andrew B. Ingram: If the hon. gentleman is so eager to furnish information, he could have avoided all this trouble by furnishing it before. He has been asked often enough.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Let me suggest that if my hon. friend in good faith desires information, that which was given by the Minister of Justice and myself this afternoon ought to be satisfactory to him. He intimated the other night that if the government brought this Bill down and explain-

ed it, lie would not be disposed captiously < to oppose it.


Andrew B. Ingram: The bon. gentleman evidently does not know tbe difference be- < tween opposing a Bill and seeking informa-tiou on it. The bon. gentleman has not * struck any obstruction yet.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is what 1 my hon. friend is doing, I presume.


Andrew B. Ingram: I wish to place on record the reports relating to the Canada Atlantic Railway for the year ending June 30, 1903. At page 9 of Railway Statistics, in the report of the Department of Railways and Canals, under the heading of ' Table showing location of the steam railways of the Dominion of Canada, June 30, 1903,' I find the following :-
Name of railway : Canada Atlantic, including Ottawa, Arnprior and Parry Sound Railway.
Description : City of Ottawa to junction with Grand Trunk at Lacolle and United States boundary. Crosses the St. Lawrence at COteau by bridge. Connects with Grand Trunk Railway at COteau and Lacolle, and Ottawa to Depot Harbour, Lake Huron, near Parry Sound. Distance, 400-30 miles.
On page 28, under' the heading of ' Summary statement of characteristics of roads, Ac., for the year ended June 30, 1903,' I find :
Name of railway : Canada Atlantic, including Ottawa, Arnprior and Parry Sound, 400-30 miles. Leased lines-Central Counties, 37-40 miles ; Pembroke Southern, 20-90 miles.
Length of line : completed, 458-60 miles ; steel rails, 458-60 miles. Length of siding, 97-30. Weight per yard : steel rails, 56, 72, 73, 75. Number of ties per mile, 2.816. Number of grain elevators, 2. Number of level crossings, guarded 11, not guarded 197. Number of overhead bridges, 4. Height of overhead bridges above rail level, 22 feet. Number of public roads under crossings, 6. Number of level crossings 'of other railways. 13. Number of junctions with other railways, 10. Number of junctions with branch lines, 3. Radius of sharpest curve, 955 feet. Number of feet per mile of heaviest gradient, 66. Gauge of railway, 4-8| feet.
On page 38, under the heading of ' Summary statement of the operations of the vear and mileage, for the year ended June SO. 1903,' I find :
Name of railway : Canada Atlantic, including Ottawa, Arnprior and Parry Sound, 400-30 miles. Leased-Central Counties, 37-40 miles ; Pembroke Southern, 20-90 miles.
Mileage, 458-60 miles.
Train mileage, passenger trains, 433,946 ; freight trains, 752,536 ; mixed trains, 146,915; total train mileage, 1,333,397. Engine mileage, 1,782,235. Total number of passengers carried, 377,779. Tons of freight of 2,000 pounds handled, 1,494,809. Average rate of speed of passenger trains, miles per hour, 30. Average rate of speed of freight trains, miles per hour, 15.
On page 48, under the heading of ' Summary statement of description of freight Mr. MACDONALD,
carried, for the year ended June 30, 1903,'
I find :
Name of railway : Canada Atlantic, including Ottawa, Arnprior and Parry Sound, 400-30 miles. Leased lines-Central Counties, 37-40 miles ; Pembroke Southern, 20-90 miles ; total mileage, 458:60.
Flour, barrels, 603,510 tons, 60,351. Grain, bushels, 16,495,480 ; tons, 412,387. Live stock, 55,068 ; tons, i3,765. Lumber of all kinds except firewood, feet, 310,988,363 ; tons, 427,609. Firewood, cords, 77,046 ; tons, 127,126. Manufactured goods, tons, 108,855. All other articles, tons, 344,716. Total weight carried, tons, 1,494,809.
On page 54, under the heading of ' Summary statement of earnings for the year ended June 30, 1903,' I find ;
Name of railway : Canada Atlantic, including Ottawa, Arnprior and Parry Sound, 400:30 miles. Leased lines-Central Counties, 37:40 miles ; Pembroke Southern, 20*90 miles ; total mileage, 458-60.
Passenger traffic, $307,854.84 ; freight traffic, $1,514,579.96 ; mails and express freight, $30,525.41 ; other sources, $55,065.32 ; total gross earnings, $1,906,025.53 ; total net earnings, $691,090.27 ; proportion of earnings to working expenses, 15 per cent ; earnings per train mile, $1.43.
Oil page 60, under the heading of ' Summary statement of operating expenses for the year ended June 30, 1903,' I find, for the same lines as I have enumerated, the following :-
Maintenance of line, buildings, &c., $239,919.96; working and repairs of engines, $510,630.21 ; working and repairs of cars, $95,934.34 ; general operating expenses, $370,450.75 ; a total of $1,216,935.26 ; cost of operating per train mile, 91 per cent.
On page 76, under the heading of ' Statement of aids granted to railways by governments,' I find : Parry Sound Colonization (in Canada Atlantic), a bonus of $152,800. On page 78 I find : Canada Atlantic, a bonus of $270,000 from the Ontario government, and $192,000 from the Quebec government ; also, the Parry Sound Colonization, a bonus of $143,250.
I find in Summary statement No. 1 of Capital for the year ending 30th June, 1903. the following :
Canada Atlantic Railway, including Ottawa, Arnprior and Parry Sound and Parry Sound Colonization.
Length of line completed, 400 miles; ordinary share capital, authorized, $6,200,000; subscribed, $6,200,000; paid up, $6,199,100.
Preference share capital, authorized, $1,000,000; paid up, $1,000,000.
Bonded debt authorized, nil; issued, $4,450,-0C0; sold, $4,450,000.
Dominion government aid, bonus, $1,214,867.20; paid up. $1,214,867.20.
Provincial government aid. Bonus, Ont., $847,326.06; Que., $192,000; paid up, $1,039,326.06.
Municipal aid. Bonus, Ont., $152,000; subscriptions to shares or bonds, $32,000; paid up, $184,900.

Total capital subscribed, $14,089,093.26 ; paid up, $14,088,193.26.
. Total cost of railway and rolling stock, $20,481,328.51.
I am placing these figures on record so that they may be available to hon. gentlemen opposite, in the future, when they will find the government arranging for running rates over the Canada Atlantic and the promoters of the Bill are not ready to supply the House with information on the question.


John Graham Haggart: Just a few words before this Bill gets its third reading. In d'scussing the matter before recess, the Minister of Finance said that we were only getting running powers similar to what any other railway might have subject to the apportioning of the rates by the Railway Commission. But as far as I can understand the Bill, it is an entirely different proposition. By the Railway Act any railway can get running powers over any other railway, and the rates will be fixed on the basis of an apportionment of the traffic and the rates received. But this Bill contemplates something entirely different. That is another reason why we should have the government Bill printed and be in possession of it. There is a difference of opinion between this side of the House and the other side as to the powers asked for. If my idea of the Bill is correct, the Minister of Railways shall acquire for the Intercolonial Railway running rights over this road, and it is not the apportionment of the traffic as between the user of two different roads that the committee will have to decide, but the actual value of the right of the user which will have to be paid by the government. My idea of the Bill-and I have talked about it to some lawyers who agree with me-is that the rights asked for by the government are entirely different from what the Railway Act gives power to the Comjnissioners to decide. We are putting the cart before the horse. We should have the government Bill providing for running rights to the Intercolonial over the Canada Atlantic before we deal with the measure now submitted. We are asked to look upon this as purely a domestic platter between the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canada Atlantic Railway, but we are really fixing the terms of the acquisition of the Canada Atlantic Railway by the Grand Trunk Railway. We are in fact fixing the value to a certain extent of the privilege of running over the Canada Atlantic Railway which the government intend to exercise, and I would like to have a statement from the Minister of Justice as to the effect of the government Bill as to whether my view of the matter is correct or not. It is not an apportionment for the distribution of traffic along a line of road that we are to compensate the Grand Trunk Railway, but if I understand it, it means the system of
compensation for the right to run over that road. What is generally the system of compensation for the right to run over a section of road ? lit is that each railway shall have joint interest in the road paid for as we pay to run over the Grand Trunk bridge, and the joint section between Ste. Rosalie and St. Lambert, and the terminal facilities in Montreal. We have an equal ownership with the Grand Trunk in those terminals. Look what we shall have to pay if we have to pay them for one-half interest in the road from Montreal to Cfiteau and one-half interest in the road from Coteau to the Georgian bay. According to the user of the Intercolonial Railway, if we only use one-third of the road and the bridge we have to pay only one-third of the expenditure ; but we must have an ownership in the road if we want to acquire running rights, and 1 think the Bill proposed by the Minister of Justice is broad enough to mean that. Is it intended to cover an annual payment of a large sum of money for the user of that road, and an amount annually according to the user we make of it the same as we have in the case of the Grand Trunk Railway and the Victoria bridge and the terminal facilities at Montreal ? We ought to have a statement as to our possible liability in that respect. We have none whatever. We are putting the cart before the horse and are passing this Bill without any knowledge of what the	arrangement is with the Grand
Trunk Railway or the Grand Trunk Pacific. We have simply a harmless looking Bill for the purchase of the stock of the Canada Atlantic Railway. I do not share the opinions of some hon. gentlemen on this side. I believe that should government ownership ever come the road will have to be taken over as a going concern and paid for at its actual value. This Bill proposes to authorize a guarantee by this company of the bonds of the Canada Atlantic Railway to the extent of $16,000,000. Is the road of that value? According to the statement that has been read here, the net receipts of the Canada Atlantic Railway last year were something over $400,000. In 1902 the net receipts were $300,000. What do these figures mean? They mean that allowing for depreciation and for the possibilities of the road the cash value of the road at the present day is not more than $10,000,000. It means that in 1902 when Dr. Webb had an option on the road for $10,000,000 the value of the road was $8,000,000 at the most, because four per cent on $8,000,000 would mean $320,000. Here we are going blindly at this arrangement concerning which we have no statement showing the possibilities of the road or the expected increase in traffic. We ought to have a statement as to this and also from the government showing whether they intend to exercise the ODt'.on of securing running rights such as every other road in the country can

have. Do the government intend to pay for the user or do they intend to pay only a certain wheelage rate for the right to run cars over the road? We have no statement, simply an option, they say.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is all.


John Graham Haggart: It is not an option, if my view of the case is correct. But if it is an option, we want a statement brought down showing whether the government intend to exercise that option and in what form they intend to exercise it-whether they will pay a certain sum for the running powers, or whether payment is to be made according to the use of the road, the sum to be fixed by the Railway Commission, subject to appeal to the Supreme Court. In the latter case I doubt very much what chance the government will have in an arrangement of that kind made between the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canada Atlantic Railway. As the promoter of the Bill says, and as the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) says, it is of no particular interest to the people what domestic arrangements are made between the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canada Atlantic Railway. I have stated my opinion again and again that, even if they pay double the value of the road that does not necessarily involve the people in the payment of higher toll. But what strikes me as strange is that the Grand Trunk Railway, a live concern and well informed as to the possibilities of the road, should bind their stockholders to the payment of a sum that must be over $600,000 a year for a road which, according to its own statement-and it has every reason to make a statement as favourable as possible-does not earn that amount. The exact earning for the last year of this system, including the branches, was $423,611.47.


Mr. TAYLOR.: Before the Bill carries I wish to draw the attention of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Emmerson) to one point. I do not know whether this Bill will be affected or not. I was informed to-day by a large shipper who has just returned from Montreal that the Allan line of steamers and the Canadian Pacific Railway line of steamers had contracted all their available freight space to Armour, of Chicago, and that Canadian shippers who desired to send by either of these lines would have to negotiate with the Armours. I understand that the Canadian government are giving a subsidy to these steamers for carrying mails. Surely they have made provision for Canadian freight. I would like to know if this matter has been brought to the attention of the government ?


Wilfrid Laurier: The point mentioned toy my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) has no relevancy to the question now in hand, but I will take a note of what the hon. gen-Mr. HAGGART.
tleman says and will give him an answer to-morrow.


John Graham Haggart: Before the Bill is read the third time, I suppose, Mr. Speaker, your ruling is that the committee and the third reading are one stage?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: it has been decided time and again that when a Bill has been passed in committee without amendment it may be read a third time at the same sitting if the House so decides.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.



THE CANADA ATLANTIC RAILWA.Y

Mr.  E. M.@: MACDONALD moved that the House go into Committee on Bill (No. 46) an Act respecting the Canada Atlantic Railway Company.


John Graham Haggart: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I would urge the government not to press the consideration of this Bill until we have the other Bill printed and the information concerning it.


Wilfrid Laurier: I need not remind my hon. friend that to-day he was informed that the object of the government was simply to take power to claim running rights over the Canada Atlantic Railway. Whether we shall decide to use those rights or not is a question for future consideration. I agree with my hon. friend that I do not think these rights will be used unless it is to secure better freight rates.


Andrew B. Ingram: The right hon. gentleman must remember that the Bills cannot be promoted, on account of the adjournment of the other House. The Bills are not being in any way prejudiced by delay, and when the other Bill is printed, that is the government Bill, the members of this House will have an opportunity of studying the Bill in their hands.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is to be remembered that these Bills have been standing for a long time. We ought to proceed with the business of the House, whether the Senate adjourns or not. It is not certain yet that the Senate will adjourn ; Id any case, let us attend to our own business, and let the Senate do as they please.


John Graham Haggart: The right hon. gentleman must remember that these Bills stood, not at the instance of the opposition, but at the instance of the government. The government were to make a statement on these Bills, and the promise was made in the Railway Committee and in the House that we were to have a statement in reference to these Bills, and the statement has been made only to-day.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Friday.


John Graham Haggart: The statement has been made virtually only to-day. \ye have only heard what the intention of the government is. There is a great deal of difference between the opposition and the government with reference to the interpretation of the Bill. I am sorry to say that my opinion differs entirely from the statement of the Finance Minister that it is only an option, that it is only a right to be exercised the same as on any other railway.


Wilfrid Laurier: If there is any difference of opinion it is not intended, and if the Bill is to be amended in the direction the hon. gentleman suggests it can be so amended when the time comes.


Mr. BAKER.: I think that the request made by my hon. friend from Lanark is a most reasonable one in the interests of the country. It is all very well to say that j we should press on the Bills in this House regardless of what takes place in another House. But the Bills now before us are not ordinary Bills, not private Bills, but are Bills peculiarly and specially connected with the vital interests of this Dominion. They are connected with the great question of transportation, of which we' have heard from the right hon. gentleman so frequently in the last two or three years. Now hon. gentlemen opposite may think that we are ! opposing these Bills for the sake of opposition. So far as I am concerned at all events, I say that I am not opposing these Bills for the sake of opposition. We were to have to-night from the Minister of Railways and Canals an explanation in detail of the government's policy, an explanation which would enable us to consider intelligently the Bill that we have just read a third time and the Bill that is now before us. I would appeal to any gentleman on the other side of this House who has heard the Minister of Railways to-night, whether the information he has given us has added one iota to the knowledge of any gentleman with regard to the subject matter. I have listened, and I always listen, with the object of respect to the Minister of Railways, I have tried to listen to him with the object of understanding him. I appeal to every member of this House whether the information he has given us has enabled us to understand what this country ought to do with regard to these two Bills. Now, Mr. Speaker, the question may be asked, What has the government Bill to do with this domestic Bill? And it is a very fair question perhaps to ask. . But here is the government of this Dominion, a railway proprietor and owner of some 1,500 miles of railway, intimately concerned in and connected with the two railways that are now seeking to coalesce. We are asked to enable these two companies to join hands and be one company when the very fact of that coalition may be of great disadvantage to the government railways and the provinces down by the sea. Surely, Sir, I need not appeal to any minister or any representative of the maritime provinces, to hon. gentlemen opposite who represent the maritime provinces, and who know that the question we are dealing with is of the utmost importance as regards the interests of those provinces and of the Intercolonial. Can anybody dispute it ? Why, Sir, supposing the Intercolonial was not owned by the government but by the Intercolonial Railway Company, and the company found two railways terminating at Montreal, the Canada Atlantic and the Grand Trunk, and that one of these companies continued eastward from Montreal in rivalry with the Intercolonial Railway, does anybody suppose that the officers of the Intercolonial Railway would lie by, sit easy and go to sleep while this connecting line, the Canada Atlantic, and this connecting and rival line, the Grand Trunk, were quietly joining hands. That is what we are asked to allow here today. We have -three Bills before the House, Mr. Speaker, one is a Bill of what for the moment I choose to call the Intercolonial Railway Company, asking certain running powers over the Canada Atlantic. This Intercolonial Railway Company knows that the Canada Atlantic and the Grand Trunk are negotiating an agreement by which the two shall be combined in a common interest. And, according to the government's ideas, the Intercolonial Railway should rest content and actually assist the other two companies to settle matters to their own satisfaction.
And we as sensible men in this House, men supposed to be possessed of brains, are asked to sit down and say that we have nothing to do with this as representing the Intercolonial Railway. Why in the name of common sense, as the right lion, gentleman appealed to us in another debate the other day, should the owners of the Intercolonial Railway, having the right to refuse legislation, sit quietly and take third place. Is it not reasonable that the hon. member for Lanark then should say to the First Minister :	' Postpone Bill (No.
2) at all e%Tents ; you have gone through with No. 1 but postpone No. 2 until we know what the government is going to do. I have tried to find out by carefully -listening -this afternoon what the government is going to do and I must confess that I do not know. Their Bill has been presented here, not a printed Bill distributed to the member's of this House, but a Bill in typewritten form. As a matter of grace and favour a copy of it is sent over to -the leader of the opposition during the debate. Most of us have come to the conclusion that the Bill was prepared by the Minister of Railways with haste, in printed form, and probably he has had no more time to consider it than we have had, yet in this question involving the interests

of a railway which has cost us some $80,000,000 we are to let Bills go through without time for consideration. Why, Mr. Speaker, the minister thinks he has got an option. The minister is both a railway man and a lawyer. The leader of the opposition (Mr. K. L. Borden) is a good lawyer, X should say, and has had about as much time to consider this Bill as the Minister of Kail-ways has given to it. The leader of the opposition has come to the conclusion that this is not an option. If I should dare to present my own individual opinion against that of the combined railway minister and lawyer, I would say it is not an option. I would say that under that Bill as he has presented it to this House it is not an option. The Bill provides that we shall have running powers. We shall have the running powers and we must pay for that right. It is quite true that we need not exercise the right but we must pay for it. The company, the Canada Atlantic or the Grand Trunk Railway can apply to the Railway Commission to settle the terms. That is the opinion of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House after live minutes' consideration of the Bill which has been handed over here in typewritten form, and we are gravely asked, sitting here representing the Dominion of Canada, to pass upon such measures on a few minutes notice. Is that what ought to be submitted to by members of this House ? I think not. Supposing the hon. gentlemen are right. Let us assume they are absolutely right m then contention, is it reasonable that gent emeu on this side of the House, who honestly believe that the Bill is not as hon. gentlemen opposite say it is, should be forced to deal with the Canada Atlantic without knowing the bearing of the government's BUI. I am quite prepared to admit that possibly the Minister of Railways may be correc bu we on this side of the House do not always believe that a thing is so when a mmistei says it is so.


Henry Robert Emmerson: You should take it on faith.


Samuel Barker: There is a certain absence of faith among us in that respect.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Oh, ye of little faith ;


Samuel Barker: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee on the Bill.
On the preamble,
John Graham Haggart: I wish a statement from the Minister of Justice as to whether the government Bill means merely the apportionment of the traffic between the two roads, or whether it means a money payment as consideration for the use of this piece of railroad ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend (Mr. Emmerson) stated the facts very fully. Briefly, the intention of the government is to take running rights over the Canada Atlantic Railway for the Intercolonial Railway, so that, if it is thought desirable, we should have the power to. ran the Intercolonial Railway trains over the Canada Atlantic Railway.


John Graham Haggart: On what terms would the commissioners be authorized to pay for that ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Upon the terms and conditions to be settled by the commissioners, absolutely as they would settle them if they were acting between two private companies under section 137 of the Railway Act.


Samuel Barker: Does the minister propose that the commissioners shall settle the compensation for the right to run ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: They shall settle the compensation to which the company shall be entitled for the exercise of the right.


Mr BARKER.: 1 won't say ' little,' but we have not absolute faith in the Minister of Railways. We do think that the Minister of Railways does not represent the whole Dominion ; we think there are other constituencies than Westmoreland.


Henry Robert Emmerson: But not quite so good.


Samuel Barker: If the Minister of Railways and the Prime Minister can concoct two or three Bins and shove them through the House, what is the good of the expense of convening a parliament ? The Czar would desire nothing better than that.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


Samuel Barker: The Bill is to provide that the Grand Trank Railway are not to be allowed anything unless you do run over the road ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Of course. If there is any doubt on that point, it ought to be made" absolutely clear ; and, so far as I am concerned, I would contribute to make it absolutely clear.


Samuel Barker: Is it the intention of the government that any payment shall be made for the right to exercise running rights, or is no payment to be made unless the government actually exercise the right of operation ?
Mr. BARK3R.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is absolutely Intended, and if the Bill falls short of that intention, I make the declaration now that I would meet any suggestion of my hon. friend in the direction of improving the Bill so as to make that absolutely clear.


Andrew B. Ingram: When the Bill was before the committee, the hon. member for Ottawa moved to insert a clause guaranteeing certain rights which the city of Ottawa had. Has the promoter of the Bill satisfied the member for Ottawa on that point ?


Mr.   E.@: *M. MACDONALD. I believe the hon. members for Ottawa are (perfectly satisfied with the assurance given to the committee by the representatives of the Grand Trunk Railway, which I repeat that it was the intention of the company, within a short period of time-as soon as they possess themselves of the proper rights, "as an inevitable result of the development of business conditions, to proceed with the erection in Ottawa of a modern station of a size and capacity such as will be eminently satisfactory to the citizens of Ottawa.


Andrew B. Ingram: What has the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Stewart) to say ?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Allow me to say


Andrew B. Ingram: Let the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Stewart) answer for himself.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes ; but I trust I may be permitted to say that the senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt), who is not present just now, desired me to say, in the event of any question being raised, that the statement which I made, being similar to that which was made by the representative of the company before the committee, was satisfactory to him. It was the senior member (Mr. Belcourt) who moved the amendment before the committee, and it was supported by the junior member (Mr. Stewart).


Andrew B. Ingram: The members of that committee who supported the member for Ottawa in that motion are entitled to know from the member for Ottawa what has been done to satisfy him. Perhaps the hon. member for Ottawa will tell us ?


Mr. STEWART.: I did not catch all that the hon. member for East Elgin said ; but, as the hon, member for Pictou has said, the senior member for Ottawa took charge of the matter in the committee, although I supported him, and I believe he is satisfied with the assurances given by the hon. member for Pictou, who has charge of the Bill, and, speaking for myself as ir member for Ottawa, his assurances are satisfactory to me, and I think they ought to be satisfactory to the city. I believe that the promises he has made will be carried out.


Andrew B. Ingram: Will the hon. gentleman be good enough to say what the arrangements are ?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend heard the statement of the solicitor before the committee. If he was there, and I understand that he has the delightful quality of always being there, I have no doubt he heard it.
M. INGRAM. I was there, and it only goes to show how easily satisfied the hon. member for Pictou is.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am always reasonable.


Andrew B. Ingram: If my hon. friend always accepts the promises of railway promoters in the Railway Committee room, and takes for granted that they are going to be carried out, the session will hardly finish before he will change his mind. Will my hon. friend from Ottawa please state to the House-and it is due to us who stood by him in the committee that he should state-what the arrangements are with respect to the union station ?


Robert Stewart: As I have said, my colleague took charge of the matter in the committee, although I supported him. An assurance of promise was given by the assistant solicitor of the Grand Trunk Railway Company that as soon as the arrangements could be made for securing a title to the property, the station would be started within a reasonable time and pushed to an early completion. That is also in substance the assurance given by the hon. member for Pictou who has charge of this Eill. That assurance, I think, ought to be satisfactory both to my colleague and to myself, and to the citizens of Ottawa.


Andrew B. Ingram: If that be true, and the lien, gentleman is satisfied with that, will he please explain how it was that after that statement was made in the committee he voted for an amendment against the proposition made by the solicitor of the Grand Trunk, and called on us to sustain the Ottawa members in taking that position ? Yet he comes to this House, where he can be put on record, and changes his methods ; showing that he fooled and humbugged the members of the committee who supported him, and the senior member for Ottawa has not a word of explanation to offer. An lion, member suggests that probably my hon. friend has handed over his proxy to the senior member for Ottawa or to the promoter of this Bill to act for him in this instance. If my hon. friend desires support in the Railway Committee after this, he will have to be charitable enough to give to those who are helping him the information that will be necessary to enable them to do so effectively. If the citizens



P.F.VISI'D EDITION COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
of Ottawa, 2,000 of whom have put their names to a petition, are satisfied with that information, they are easily satisfied too. But I do not believe that the citizens of Ottawa at large are satisfied with that statement, and I am amazed at the hon. member for Ottawa taking the view he does now.
Robert Stewart: If the hon. member for Elgin thinks the petition he refers to had reference to the erection of the central station, he misunderstands the situation entirely. I may say that we were thankful to the hon. member for Elgin for the assistance he gave us in the committee ; but the matter did not cease with the discussion in the committtee. My colleague and myself have had conferences with the hon. member for Pictou, who has charge of the Bill, and the officials of the Grand Trunk Railway, and we feel satisfied that they will carry out the promises which they have made.


Andrew B. Ingram: What are they ?


Robert Stewart: I have already stated that the promises are, as stated by the hon. member for Pictou this evening, that as soon as a title can be secured to the property, within a reasonable time thereafter they will proceed with the erection of the station.


Andrew B. Ingram: That was stated in the committee, and if that is satisfactory to the hon. gentleman, he should not have called upon us to support that amendment. That promise was objected to in the committee by both the members for Ottawa. There must be more than that, or else they are easily satisfied.


John Graham Haggart: Did I understand the Minister of Justice to state that under the Bill to be introduced by the government it is his intention to see that no sum shall be paid for the right of user of this line, either by an annual payment or by a sum paid down, but that it is only a proposition that the government shall have the right of user on payment of its proportion of the expenses?


Charles Fitzpatrick: The hon. gentleman has stated the position with absolute accuracy, so far as the government is concerned.


Mr. MONK.: This is a form of legislation with reference to the purchase of only one railway by another, which is different from what we generally adopt. I would like to ask my hon. friend the promoter of the Bill if he has the agreement between the Grand Trunk Railway Company and the Canada Atlantic for Mr. Booth, or whoever the parties were, to that agreement, of which this legislation is the outcome? If that agreement exists, I think it is only fair that it should be laid on the fable of the committee in order that we may be able to take cog-Mr. INGRAM.
nizance of it. Indeed, I do not quite understand what is the extreme haste in pushing these Bills through. I have no desire, and I do not think anybody has any desire, to unnecessarily retard this legislation; but the first Bill was evidently engineered a little rapidly. My hon. friend will remember that when the Bill which we have just passed was under consideration the hour for private Bills expired while the Bill was being discussed, and the chairman of the committee, as he told us to-day, thought that the only clause of the Bill was carried. That was a mistake, because 'Hansard' shows that the Bill was in full discussion when nine o'clock arrived. This evening there is another serious difference of opinion, most of us understanding that the Bill was not ordered to be reported, and yet it was reported. I myself have attended several meetings of the Railway Committee when the consideration of these two Bills were postponed at nobody's request but the promoter himself or somebody representing the Grand Trunk Railway Company, and we are still lacking a great deal of the information to which I think we are entitled. We are called upon here to sanction this agreement, to carry it into effect, but not in the ordinary way, because, as a general rule, when operations of this kind takes place we have the deed of lease or sale before us. It forms part of the Act which parliament is called on to sanction, and parliament should have a full knowledge of the agreement. There are other questions which may properly be asked of my hon. friend. Why is the bonding power increased by $2,000,000 ? I heard my hon. friend say that it was in order to make betterments. What are those betterments? We are entitled to some details. We had a Bill introduced this afternoon which ought to be the beginning instead of the end of the legislation concerning the Canada Atlantic. We are going to acquire running rights over this railway, but what they are we do not know. We have some gentlemen on this side pretending that we are acquiring a part ownership in the Canada Atlantic Railway with the Grand Trunk Railway. From what has just been said we are merely acquiring the right to use that railway in case we should desire to do so, but in any event we shall have something to pay, and into the consideration of what we will have to pay will come the bonded indebtedness of the road. That bonded indebtedness we are authorizing to be increased by $2,000,000, and we should know in some detail why that increase is required. There is another question which perhaps my hon. friend will be able to answer. What will be the bonded indebtedness per mile including this $16,0*10,000 of bonds ? It is evident that since parliament is called on to sanction this agreement in an indirect way, the committee are entitled to have this agreement. I do not think that it was produced in the Private Bills Committee, though it

should have been laid before it. Why should we not have it ?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In reply to my hon. friend, I may say that while the proposals contained in this Bill have been discussed by a great many gentlemen on the basis of being a transfer of one railway company to another, they do not, owing to the peculiar conditions that exist with regard to these railways, come within that class of agreement at all. My hon. friend is aware no doubt that the Canada Atlantic Railway is a stock company in which the stock is owned almost altogether by Mr. Booth, and that the stock in the other company mentioned in these Bills is also owned by the same gentleman. What is here proposed is to empower Mr. Booth to dispose of all the stock he has in these companies to the Grand Trunk Railway and to permit the Grand Trunk Railway to hold and dispose of this stock. And whereas the bonded indebtedness of the Canada Atlantic Railway authorized by this parliament two years ago amounts to $14,000,000 under this Bill, we propose to authorize a new bond issue of $16,000,000 which will be used to retire the existing bond issue and pay off all the obligations of the railroad, and the balance is to be used for the purpose of betterment. My hon. friend can hardly expect me, as the promoter of the Bill, into whose hands it has been placed merely for the purpose of seeing that it! secured due attention from parliament, to give him the exact places where terminal facilities are to be increased, stations to be erected and matters of that kind. As regards the total bonded indebtedness of the railroad, I am in a position to say that the $16,000,000 authorized by this Bill will represent the total bonded indebtedness of the Canada Atlantic Railway, if the transfer is completed as empowered under these Bills.


John Graham Haggart: What is the amount of the first mortgage bonds of the Canada Atlantic Railway ?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The total amount outstanding against the amount issued under the provisions of the Act of 1903 is $14,000,000.


John Graham Haggart: I mean the first mortgage bonds.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend will find that the first mortgage bonds are referred to in clause 3, the rights of which are preserved.


John Graham Haggart: 
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am instructed that the existing bonded indebtedness will be retired or paid off by the bonds empowered to be issued under this Bill. My instructions further are that the total bonded debt of these railroads is $14,000,000.


Samuel Barker: Are those instructions in the Bill ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not think my hon. friend has answered any of my inquiries. AVhen I spoke of the use to which the $2,000,000 of bonds are to be applied, I did not mean that I wanted details, but the committee is entitled to a little more than what has been given it. My hon. friend ought to be in a position to tell the committee why the bonded indebtedness is increased. I think my hon. friend ought to be in a position to tell the committee why the bonded indebtedness is increased and go a little more into detail ?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Perhaps the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) would indicate in what direction he desires details ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Well, without asking the hon. gentleman to give too many particulars, I would like to know in what betterments this $2,000,000 of bonds are to be used. That is a matter on which I am rather curious. I understood my hon. friend (Mr. E. M. Macdonald) to say that we should not see the agreement which serves as the basis of this Bill, because parliament is not asked to validate the agreement. I think he has given the very best reason why we should see it. As a rule, when parliament is called upon to give effect to agreements of this kind, we have the agreement before us. Before declaring it legal, we take full knowledge of It. In this instance -I do not say it is purposely to avoid producing the agreement-we are called upon to give effect to the same transaction, but in an indirect way. What objection can the hon. gentleman have to laying this agreement on the table ? In England, when parliament is called upon to give effect to an agreement of this magnitude under a private Bill, the promoter is required to lay all the papers before the House, and particularly the agreement which is the basis of the legislation. Now, I think also that my hon. friend has not answered the objections I raised as to precipitancy. Why should we hurry through this legislation, when a Bill has been brought down this afternoon which will oblige us to enter into negotiations,

424S
to have an arbitration, with the Grand Trunk Railway as to our right to use this very line ? The Bill which was brought down a few hours ago, which none of us has had the time to read, and which few on this side besides the leader of the opposition have even seen ? We ask for delay before we are called upon to sanction this agreement and to increase the bonded indebtedness of the road. The demand is a most natural one it seems to me. There is no haste ; parliament is going to sit for a month yet, and this Bill is sure to go through it. I do not see why we cannot have an opportunity to read the government Bill before we are asked to deal with this one.


Samuel Barker: 
Charles Fitzpatrick: 
Samuel Barker: There is not a word to that effect in the Bill.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is what I gather from the Bill. Perhaps we are looking at it from different standpoints.


Samuel Barker: 
Samuel Barker: 
Charles Fitzpatrick: I would not like to put that construction upon this Bill. The section reads:
1. Subject to the reservation of the rights, powers and remedies of holders of outstanding bonds in section 3 of this Act contained, section 3 of chapter 90 of the Statutes of 1903 is repealed, and in lieu thereof it is enacted that the Canada Atlantic Railway Company, hereinafter called ' the company,' may issue bonds, debentures or other securities dated 1st January, 1905, to the extent of three mill'on two hundred and ninety-two thousand two hundred pounds sterling.
And so on.


Samuel Barker: There are no words ' in lieu thereof.'


Charles Fitzpatrick: I have read from the amended Bill as I have it here. I have not put in the words 'in lieu thereof.' I think if the hon. gentleman reads the whole section he will see that the authority is to issue bonds for a specified purpose.


Samuel Barker: No.


Charles Fitzpatrick: 
Samuel Barker: 
Charles Fitzpatrick: I am sure that the intention of my hon. friend is not to prevent this Bill going through, but to help us to pass it along. Will he look at section 3 of the Bill. It provides for the rights of the holders of the existing bonds-bear that in mind.


Samuel Barker: I have said that already.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Now bear that in mind, read section 1 in this way:
Subject to the reservation of the rights, powers and remedies of the holders of outstanding bonds in section 3 of this Act contained.
Subject to the rights of existing bondholders. Then you go on:
Section 3 of chapter 90 of the Statutes of 1903 is repealed, and in lieu thereof it is enacted that the Canada Atlantic Railway Company, hereinafter called ' the company,' may issue bonds, debentures and other securities.
In the first place we provide for existing bonds.


Samuel Barker: Where are the words 'in lieu thereof'?


Charles Fitzpatrick: In the second line of section 1.


Samuel Barker: That is in lieu of the other section.


Charles Fitzpatrick: In lieu of section 3. The provision here is not that the second bonds are to be issued in lieu of the first bonds, but in lieu of the authority contained in section 3. where the new authority is given.


Samuel Barker: 
Charles Fitzpatrick: I am afraid I cannot agree with my hon. friend. I would like to strain a point in order to meet his wishes, but if he will only read again section 2 he will find that the bonds to be issued constitute the first mortgage bonds, and that they are to be applied in the way provided for in the mortgage, that is to say, that the mortgage provides for the second issue being applied for the redemption of the first.


Samuel Barker: I am afraid the hon. gentleman is a little hasty. Let us see what the second is :
The said bonds, debentures and securities, when issued, shall be secured by a mortgage to a trustee and shall be dealt with as in the said mortgage provided.
That is the one that is to be made.
-[DOT]-and applied-
Applied as the new mortgage will direct.


Charles Fitzpatrick: But they are a first claim.


John Graham Haggart: There is another point the Minister of Justice might look at. These bonds are no security upon the transit company, or on the railway in the United States. The total amount of bonds that are to be issued is to be security on these two lines of railway. Then it allows the parties who are owners of the transit company and their railway in the United States to make the transfer to the Grand Trunk Railway without any liabilities at all upon either of these roads as security to the bondholders. Is my statement correct ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I think it is correct. The capital of the transit company is represented by boats on the great lakes. Of course these are affected by mortgages already existing on these boats, these bonds and debentures will not affect that at all. That little bit of line in the United States four and a half miles long, has a capital of $100,000 and no bond issue at all.


Samuel Barker: I have not had a definite answer from the Minister of Justice. Do I understand him to say that under the terms of this Act as we are asked to pass it now, the bonds to be issued must be applied, and can only be applied, and will have no effect whatever until they are applied, in payment of the old bonds ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: That would be my construction of the Bill, which would authorize the second issue of bonds.


Samuel Barker: Is that the hon. gentleman's construction of this Bill ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes.


Samuel Barker: If the hon. gentleman takes the responsibility of saying this


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is not fair, I am not getting a fee for this.


Andrew B. Ingram: It seems to me the explanation given about increasing the bonding privilege is very unsatisfactory. Other Bills have come before this House not so important as this Bill, and we got some details as to the reason for increasing their bond issue and an explanation of the betterments that were to be made by the increased issue of bonds. But to-night no statement of that kind is made at all. I wish to read the statement made by Mr. Blair in 1903 in this House when he said :
I regret that the Intercolonial Railway, which is the people's road, has not a friend in the ministerial ranks.
From the explanations we have received here to-day in connection with the Bill introduced by the Minister of Railways, we can come to no other conclusion but that the members of the ministerial party in this House have not the true welfare of the Intercolonial at heart, or they would not proceed in compelling members on this side of the House to consent to the passage of two Bills such as these without having the other Bill printed and in the hands of the members of the House before asking for legislation of this kind. It makes hon. gentlemen on this side rather suspicious of this arrangement between the Grand Trunk Railway and the government. This conduct is enough to cause suspicion on our part, because if this is a perfectly straight transaction-and I am not going to say it is not-* why this haste in compelling us to pass two Bills in this House of such importance as these before the government Bill is disposed of ? This forcing of legislation through without consulting some members of the opposition is in keeping with the recent actions of the government; we have them forcing legislation through without consulting some members of the government. So far as I am concerned I can say that if this method is to be persisted in by the government in bringing legislation of this kind before this House it will, tend to lengthen the session-it will not tend to shorten it. However, we feel that we have done our duty as members of the opposition by our efforts to get the government to have the Bills stand over until the government measure has been dealt with. Then there will be no harm in allowing these to pass if no disadvantage would accrue to the country by reason of their passage. I am rather surprised to see the First Minister taking this course. We have had typewritten Bills presented to the House, but when the printed come out they were not by any means the same as the typewritten copies. We do not know if that is the intention in the present case ; it is a very poor method of doing business.


Charles Fitzpatrick: 
Samuel Barker: There is an exception there of which I think we should have an explanation. The first part of the section deals with the power to give a mortgage on all the property of the company apparently, but in line 21 we have this exception :
Other than such assets, property, rents or revenues of the company, or such section or portion of the said railway, if any, as shall be expressly excepted in and by the said mortgage deed.
What is that which is excepted from the general mortgage and why is any exception made ?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I presume that might apply to some roads that were leased. The hon. member will notice that this is simply a saving clause. It does not expressly provide


Samuel Barker: They can mortgage their interest in their lease. That would be their asset. These words imply that they are going to mortgage certain properties and to except other properties and not include them in the security.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend will see that this is a saving clause that might appear in any statute in order to leave it open to deal with some matter that might come up when the mortgage deed was being prepared.


Samuel Barker: 
John Graham Haggart: It may be elevators or hotels or anything of that kind.


Samuel Barker: I have asked the gentleman in charge of the Bill, why it is provided in this clause that certain assets, property rents, revenues, or portions of the railway may be exempted from the mortgage. I think I am entitled to an answer to that question before the question is put to the committee.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have already answered and I submit to my hon. friend who has already indicated this afternoon and this evening that he is in an over-suspicious frame of mind, that this clause is simply a saving clause that may be put in an Act at any time in order to avoid the possibility of any illegality in drawing the mortgage deed.
I am sure if my hon. friend would only get into his mind ithat he should view this thing frankly, sincerely and not in an over-guspicious manner that is the conclusion he would arrive at.


Samuel Barker: I have had a good deal to do with railway legislation and mortgages and I do not think it is very common to have a mortagage on a railway with power to except a portion of the railway from the mortgage. I would like to know-and I think we are entitled to know before we pass this Bill-what portion of the railway they propose to except. I repeat that at no stage of this Bill can we consider the matter irrespective of the Interests of the country as owners of the Intercolonial Railway.


Andrew B. Ingram: Section 1 of this Bill proposes to repeal section 3 of Chapter 90, statutes of 1903, and that reads as follows :
Section 8 of chapter 81 of the statutes of 1899 is repealed, and in lieu thereof it is enacted that the company may issue bonds, debentures or other securities to the extent of $14,000,000, to be secured upon its line of railways and branches as now constructed, and such bonds, debentures or other securities may be issued as provided in the deed of amalgamation set out in schedule ' B ' to the said Act of 1899, and shall, subject to the provisions of section 94 of the Railway Act and to the present charge in favour of outstanding first mortgage bonds of the Canada Atlantic Railway Company, and of the Ottawa, Arnprior and Parry Sound Railway Company, respectively, until the same are redeemed, exchanged or paid off, be a first charge and lien upon the whole of the said railway and branches as now constructed.
We are now asked to increase the bonded debt by $2,000,000, and I want to know from the promoter of the Bill what is to be done with this $2,000,000?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: As I am instructed the difference between the amount necessary to pay off the old bonded indebtedness, and the amount of bonds permitted
to be issued under this Act is to be used in improving the road-bed, increasing the rolling stock, providing additional terminals and increasing generally the facilities for the operation of the railroad. I cannot be expected to give details as to how every dollar will be expended. I am advised that the Canada Atlantic Railway has power under the charter to build different branches in different parts of the country, and under the Railway Act, 1903, it is permitted to the company, in giving a mortgage of this kind, to except assets of that character from the mortgage deed which is given to secure bonds which are issued in connection with tue railroad already constructed.


Samuel Barker: If that be the object then the draftsman of this Bill chose the very words which were least intended to express that meaning.


Andrew B. Ingram: The information given by the hon. member (Mr. E. M. Macdonald) is not satisfactory, nor is it sufficient to justify me in the eye of my constituents in voting for this Bill. Suppose I told my constituents that this extra $2,000,000 was to be used in betterments, that I knew no more about it, but that before the Bill became law and on the very day it passed the House of Commons, the government introduced a typewritten Bill which they allowed the leader of the opposition to read, and refused the request of the leader of the opposition to withhold these two private Bills until the government Bill was printed; what would my constituents say? Suppose they knew that by reason of the legislation in these two private Bills two or three year's hence the people of this country were made to pay increased rates for running Intercolonial Railway trains over the Canada Atlantic Railway, what would my constituents think of me for allowing these Bills to pass without knowing what their effect would be ? In view of the statement made by Mr. Blair, in view of the statement made by the present Minister of Railways, the government undoubtedly intend to exercise these running rights, and then by reason of this lax system of passing Bills the country will have to pay dearly for the privilege. Is the matter of which the people of the country are vitally interested, because we have the word of Mr. Blair (and I venture to say the present Chairman of the Railway Commission will take the same view), that when the Railway Commission comes to consider the compensation to be paid for running rights, the amount of money invested in the Canada Atlantic Railway will be taken into consideration. The hon. member' for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) has stated that in purchasing a railway, you take it at its value. I believe that is correct. But prominent members of the government have suggested that it would be a proper thing for the government to acquire the Canada

Atlantic Railway. We liave liad the statement of the Finance Minister to-day, that the Canada Atlantic was offered at'a low figure. The sum was $12,000,000, though he did not mention it, and he said that today it was worth more money, and that it would increase in value in a few -years by reason of the prosperity of the country. If that is the case, why should not the government acquire this railway in order to improve the government railways, in which $70,000,000 of the money of this country is invested? If it is profitable to the Grand Trunk Railway, it ought to be equally profitable to the government, in order that we may have a government railway extended to the Georgian bay to receive the enormous freight that is to be shipped to the Canadian terminals. I say that the explanations which we have- had to-day are entirely unsatisfactory. If the promoter of this Bill had been alive to the necessity of saving the time of this House, he would have gone to the solicitor for the railway company and obtained from him the information which he had before the Railway Commission, and placed it before this House. I am surprised at the right hon. gentleman allowing this matter to go on as it has gone to-day. In my judgment, it is not a proper course to take. We ought not to be denied the reasonable information which we are asking for.


Samuel Barker: I do not wish to occupy the time of the House, but there was one matter brought out by the hon. member for East Elgin which I think deserves the attention of the House. The hon. gentleman stated that the last annual report of the Minister of Railways showed that the net earnings of this road, including its branches, were $423,611. It will at once be seen that that sum at 4 per cent, which is certainly not a very high rate of interest, represents a capital of less than $11,000,000. We need not speak like the Finance Minister of growing times. That is the earning of this company according to last year's report now before the House, and we are speaking of the present time. We are passing Bills here which deal with the property as worth $14,000,000 and are adding $2,000,000 to be used hereafter for betterments. But there is not in this Bill one word to require that a dollar of that $2,000,000 shall be expended in betterments. A few years ago. when the Canadian Pacific Railway Company obtained power to issue additional securities, this House was careful to provide in the Bill how the money should be expended. The whole expenditure was placed within the supervision of parliament.- But in these Bills there is not one word about the expenditure of the $2,000,000, and the whole $1G,000,000 is within the control of the board of directors of the company, and that in connection with a property the net proceeds of which
in the last year have been less than 4 per cent on $11,000,000.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is there any section protecting the branch lines as regards their rent for a period of years ?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That whole question was threshed out very thoroughly in the Railway Committee, and 4he judgment of the committee was that there was no necessity for any such clause, and that the bondholders on the leased lines were sufficiently protected, inasmuch as the Canada Atlantic Railway Company maintains its status.


Andrew B. Ingram: When this Bill was before the Railway Committee the gentlemen interested in the branch lines did not believe that this legislation properly protected them, and many members of the Railway Committee had the same opinion.


Samuel Barker: Is the Minister of Justice quite clear that a mortgage upon this property would not include the interest in a leased line ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I have seen these mortgage bonds. I certainly should not think that a mortgage issued upon a line of railway would cover the interest on its /leased line.


John Graham Haggart: What are the leased lines ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: One to Hawkes-bury and the other to Rockland.


John Graham Haggart: Who retains the proprietorship of those lines ?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I understand they are leased to the Canada Atlantic Railway.


John Graham Haggart: They have an agreement with the Canada Atlantic Railway. Does the Grand Trunk Railway take over these, too ?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I would fancy so.


John Graham Haggart: You take the corporate powers and assume all the liabilities of the corporation ?


Samuel Barker: I would point out to the hon. member for Pictou that it might be a very serious question if the leased lines were not included-if the lessee interest were not included in the mortgage. Sometimes leased lines are more valuable than the parent lines ; and if the mortgage made upon the property of the company did not include the leased lines, it might be a very serious detriment to the value of the bonds. If the mortgage does include the leased lines, it may be a question for the Minister of Justice to consider whether there should not be an express provision as to the rent for the protection of holders of securities upon the rents.


Andrew B. Ingram: 


Andrew B. Ingram: That is what those interested in the branch lines want. It appeared to them that they were not properly protected, and. they asked that their interests should be protected.


Charles Fitzpatrick: There is a distinction betwen branch lines and leased lines.


Andrew B. Ingram: These are the branches that the Canada Atlantic Railway has leased for a term of years. These are turned over to the Grand Trunk under the arrangement. Now, these leased branches want to know from the Grund Trunk Railway :	Will you guarantee us our rent according to the arrangement with the Canada Atlantic Railway ? And the promoters of the Bill say to these people :	You are properly protected under
the arrangement with the Canada Atlantic Railway and there is no reason why you should want more protection. There is a difference of opinion between the two parties. Now, if the Grand Trunk intend to pay the rent of the leased branches, what objection can they have to put it in the Bill ? It would do the Grand Trunk Railway no harm. The fact is that it is very questionable whether the leased branches can hold the Grand Trunk Railway responsible for the rent should the Grand Trunk Railway refuse to pay it.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The Canada Atlantic still continues to exist.


Andrew B. Ingram: True, but the Grand Trunk Railway is going to own the road.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The Canada Atlantic Itaihvay is going to operate it.


Andrew B. Ingram: We will see.


Samuel Barker: Will the hon. minister allow me to point out the injustice to people interested. There is a line leased to the Canada Atlantic Railway, probably on terms by which the Canada Atlantic Railway is to pay to the bondholders of the leased lines a certain percentage of the earnings. The value of these bonds may depend entirely upon the division of the earnings between the leased line and the main line. They may have been all right with regard to the Canada Atlantic Railway ; the interests of that company may have been such as to give the leased line a fair share. But when you get the Grand Trunk Railway and its particular interest, that interest may be in the direction of a different division of the earnings. Traffic that to-day is paying fifty cents to one line and fifty cents to the other may be divided so as to give thirty cents to the leased line and seventy cents to the Grand Trunk. It is all very well to say to these bondholders :	You are only turned over
to the Grand Trunk Railway. A little attention should be paid to the rights of investors. I was surprised to hear that in the committee so little attention was paid
to the bondholders on these leased lines. These investors handed over their lines to the Canada Atlantic Railway in the full faith of an agreement, and now they are being handed over to another line whether they like it or not.


Charles Fitzpatrick: But, though there is a change in the stockholders of the company, the obligation of the company is not affected. The mere fact that the Grand Trunk Railway becomes the stockholders instead of Mr. .1. R. Booth does not do away with the liability under the agreement.


Samuel Barker: But the hon. minister knows what I am referring to. The Grand Trunk Railway may have an interest in dividing the earnings on a certain percentage, while the Canada Atlantic Railway may have had an interest in dividing it more fairly. Under an agreement between A and B there may be an absolutely fair division, for it may be to their mutual interest to divide fairly. But introduce C instead of B, and the whole thing may be changed. Because C may be interested in diverting the traffic, and so A may not get a dollar where he expected to get five.
On Section 3-Rights of holders of existing bonds preserved ; when existing bonds may be cancelled.


John Graham Haggart: Is there any provision under the Bill by which a certain percentage of these bondholders may effect the transaction independent of the minority ?
In order to cancel your mortgage bonds, you must pay off every dollar. If one single man holding a ten-dollar bond objects, there is an end to the transaction.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: As a matter*, of course, the company will have to take the risk of that inconvenience if it arises.
Bill reported.


John Graham Haggart: I would like the third reading of this Bill to be put off, if possible, until the next sitting of the House. The leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) is not present.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: All right-


Robert Franklin Sutherland: When shall the Bill be read the third time ?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: At the next sitting of the House.



GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY OF CANADA.

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee on Bill (No. 71) respecting the Great Northern Railway of Canada-Mr. J. T. Schell.
On section 7,
John Graham Haggart: It is only for the issue of bonds within the city of Quebec ?


William Stevens Fielding: As the promoter of the Bill is not present, if hon. gentlemen desire

information, I think the committee will have to rise and ask leave to sit again.


John Graham Haggart: We have no desire. This is a special issue confined to the city of Quebec for a special purpose.


Samuel Barker: If the Minister of Justice sees no objection, I do not see any objection to be raised on this side.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not think there is any.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



TORONTO, HAMILTON AND BUFFALO RAILWAY COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 79) respecting the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company.
On section 1,
Charles Marcil: This section is amended, to read as follows :-
The Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company may by by-law increase the number of its directors to thirteen.


Samuel Barker: As the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Zimmerman) is here- the suggestion in committee was that the Icompany should have power to increase the number of its directors to not exceed thirteen; so they might have the number eleven, twelve or thirteen, whereas here it says ' to thirteen.' I suppose that would mean thirteen and nothing else ?


Mr. ZIMMERMAN.: Not exceeding thirteen.


Charles Smith Hyman: I move that these words be inserted : 'to a number not exceeding thirteen.'


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 62) respecting the Edmonton, Yukon and Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Lament.
Bill (No. 127) for the relief of James Arthur Pryor.-Mr. Calvert.
Bill (No. 123) respecting the Board of the Presbyterian College of Halifax.-Mr. Sinclair.
Bill (No. 39) respecting the Niagara, St. Catharines and Toronto Railway Company. -Mr. Calvert.
Bill (No. 110) respecting the Toronto and Hamilton Railway Company.-Mr. Calvert.
Bill (No. 58) respecting the Canadian Northern Railway Company.-Mr. Lamont.
Bill (No. Ill) to incorporate the Saskatchewan Bridge Company.-Mr. Scott.
William Stevens Fielding: 



CRIMINAL CODE, 1892-AMENDMENT.

Mr. E. GUS. PORTER.: I wish to move the second reading of Bill (No. 66) on the order paper.	[DOT]


William Stevens Fielding: It is quite an unusual thing to do, but if there be no objection to passing over the other orders the House may do it.
Mr. PORTER moved second reading of Bill (No. 66) to amend the Criminal Code, 1892, with respect to appeals from certain summary convictions.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and House went into committee there-otn.
On section 1,
Edward Guss Porter: This section deals with witnesses who may oe called to testify on a summary trial before a police magistrate or a justice of the peace. The law as it now stands to my mind and in my experience works injustice, in this way. It provides that a witness may be summoned either on behalf of the Crown or on behalf of the defence; and, unless he appears at the trial in answer to the summons, he may, on proof of service of the summons, be arrested on a warrant and kept in jail until he is called on to testify and he is then liberated. The hardship in cases that have come under my notice is this, that certain witnesses who have been served with summonses in that way have been unable for want of means to travel by public conveyance and have been obliged to walk, sometimes a considerable distance, to attend the court in order to testify. After having testified they do not get their witness fees, sometimes for days or weeks and sometimes they do not get them at all. It rests with the Crown attorney or the prosecuting counsel whether the witness shall get his fees at all or not, and it sometimes turns out, where a witness does not testify in such a manner that his evidence is worth anything, that the crown attorney will refuse to certify for his witness fees. In that way a great hardship is imposed on witnesses. In one instance which came under my notice and which moved me to seek this amendment of the criminal code, a man was served with a summons to attend court who resided seventy-four miles from the court. He had no means and could not come by public conveyance, and he walked, taking two days getting to the court. At the court he testified, upon his testimony a conviction was made and he left the court. Having no means, and having had nothing to eat for a day and a half, he applied to a man on the streets of Belleville to provide for his dinner. He was overheard doing so by an officer, who arrested him for vagrancy and he was taken before the police magistrate before whom he had appeared as a witness and was convicted of vagrancy and con-

fined in the jail, simply because he had not the means to pay his way. on representation to the court, he was subsequently released and a subscription for him was taken up and he was sent home. A case of that kind might happen at any time, and it might just as well be provided that the certificates for his fees should be obtained by the Crown attorney before he attends court, so that he will be provided with the means of attending court. In that way no hardship could be caused to the witness. Under the provisions of this section the witness may attend on a summons if he sees fit to do so, but before he can be arrested for not doing so it must be shown on affidavit or oath to the magistrate that he has been paid his witness fees as fixed by the statute.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-section 879 amended.
Edward Guss Porter: This section deals with the right of appeal from certain summary convictions. For convenience these may be divided into two classes-those where imprisonment only is imposed and those where a fine is imposed and imprisonment may be inflicted in default of the payment of the fine. The proposed amendment deals with the latter class and it provides for an appeal to the nearest division court of the county in which the cause of complaint arose. Under the provisions of the law at present a conviction by a justice of the peace in Ontario can only be appealed to the court of general sessions of the peace. That court is held twice a year and the costs of an appeal from a conviction in which a fine of say $2 has been inflicted, may amount anywhere from $100 to $150. The object of this amendment is to provide a cheap and quick means of trying such an appeal by providing that it shall be taken to the nearest division court to the place where the cause of complaint arose. In the province of Ontario, according to the way in which division courts are distributed, from 10 to 12 division courts are required to be held in each county so that no person would be obliged to travel more than a few miles to attend such a court, and the witness would not be in attendance more than one day; whereas at present an appellant may be obliged to travel, as in my county, one hundred or one hundred and fifty miles to attend the court of general sessions in the county town. He has to bring his witnesses and keep them there while the county court cases are being tried, perhaps a whole week at very great expense for travel and keep. By this amendment it is proposed to avoid that expense, to do away with the technical features of the appeal that have been established and to make the appeal as cheap, simple and speedy a matter as possible ; so that a person feeling himself aggrieved may file a notice with the clerk of the division court and have his appeal heard at the next sittings of division court in his district. He goes before the same
judge who sits in the court of general sessions, and thus has the advantage of his legal training in either court, and the cost would not be one-twentieth of what it is under the present conditions.
On section 3,
Subsection 2 of the said section S79 is amended by adding after the word ' Renfrew,' in the third line thereof, the words 1 when the conviction adjudges imprisonment only, and in all other cases to the division court of the county of Renfrew held nearest to the place where the cause of the information or complaint arose.'


Edward Guss Porter: It has been suggested by a number of county court judges that I should add these words :
Such appeal to be held before a judge of the division court sitting as a judge of the county court.
This is suggested in order that the appeal may be tried in a court of the same magnitude as if the case were brought to the general sessions of the peace.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I would not want to amend the section as I have not considered the amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 4 and 5 agreed to.
On section 6,
The said section S80 is further amended by inserting the following paragraph immediately after paragraph (c):-
'(cc.) Either party to such appeal may have it tried by jury by giving a notice therefor and by service of such notice upon opposite party or his solicitor and filing the same with the clerk of the court appealed to not less than ten days before the hearing of such appeal, and upon paying such fees and subject to such rules as are prescribed by the court appealed to respecting trials by jury.'
Edward Guss Porter: I find that there is a general chorus of disapproval from the county court judges regarding that clause permitting these appeals to be tried by jury. I have given the matter further consideration and I am inclined to think it would be better to expunge that clause.
Section struck out.


Mr. SINCLAIR.: Does the promoter of the Bill understand that clause 1, which requires a tender of the witness fees, refers to preliminary investigations as well as trials 1


Edward Guss Porter: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: In that case I fear it will create some confusion in the courts in Nova Scotia. In Nova Scotia, we have no person whose duty it is to commence proceedings before the criminal court. The system there is for some person who knows of a crime being committed, to lay the information. This clause would place on

him the burden of furnishing witness fees because there is no fund from which he can draw those fees. After the preliminary investigation is over, the magistrate sends in the account for witness fees to the clerk of the county ; and on the order of the magistrate, the treasurer of the county pays the fees to the witnesses.
Mr. POIiTER. That same practice prevails in Ontario, and the only difference this Bill will make is that instead of the magistrate certifying after the trial, he certifies before the proceedings are begun. If he is satisfied that there is good ground for an investigation, he will have the power to give his certificate to pay the witnesses just the same as he could do it if the Crown Attorney asked him.


John Howard Sinclair: Will that not involve an amendment to the Acts of the various provinces because the treasurer of a municipality has no power to pay witness fees in advance ?


Edward Guss Porter: As soon as the treasurer of the county receives a certificate from the court he can pay the money, and all this Bill provides is that the certificate can be furnished before the witness testifies instead of after.


Mr. CARVELL.: It seems to me that this Bill would work an injustice in New Brunswick where the law is much the same as in Nova Scotia. In our courts we have no funds from which to pay witnesses. Any person who considers that an offence has been committed has the right to go before the magistrate and lay the information and the burden is cast upon him of providing his own lawyer and witnesses. Then at the uext session of the county council, the bill is put in, and the county council usually pay these fees. Sometimes they require the certificate of a magistrate or some other official. But there is absolutely no fund on which to draw. Take the case of a person who is too poor to furnish twenty or thirty dollars needed for witness fees. He goes before a magistrate and says : I want to lay information against John Smith. And he wants a dozen witnesses perhaps. The magistrate may issue orders but there is no fund on which to draw for the money, and unless the man is able to furnish the money-and willing too-he would be absolutely out of court, for he cannot compel the attendance of witnesses. He could not have a preliminary examination. A crime of the most hideous character may be committed in New Brunswick and the'person guilty of it, go free because the person laying the information has no way to get the witnesses. Unless some other provision is made this would be a great hindrance to the administration of justice in New Brunswick, and I believe the same is true of Nova Scotia. I do not know what may be the case in Ontario and Mr. SINCLAIR.
; Quebec. I can understand that if this information were laid in a city where the magistrate is in close proximity to the authorities who have the funds, it might be worked out, because there would be time for the magistrate to go to the proper authorities and say :	I believe this is a
case which requires investigation and I ought to have money at my disposal. But, suppose yon have information laid before a magistrate forty miles from the shire town it will be impossible to have the work done in this way. It seems to me that if this Bill is passed an exception ought to be made so far as New Brunswick is concerned because, under our system it would work great injustice.


Edward Guss Porter: Do I understand the hon. gentleman (Mr. Carvell) to say that in no case is a witness in a preliminary investigation paid his fees or travelling expenses in his province ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He is paid from three to six months after ; he is not paid till the meeting of the municipal council. A bill is sent in, and, if it is ordered paid, the secretary-treasurer pays it.


Edward Guss Porter: That is on the certificate of the magistrate ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No ; it depends on whether the municipal council feel that it ought to be paid.


Edward Guss Porter: But it is ordered paid on the certificate of the magistrate being presented.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No ; that is only an incident. A man makes out a bill and sends it before the council. I should say it is more generally supported by the certificate of the deputy sheriff or the sheriff. The certificate of the 'magistrate does not necessarily mean that the bill will be paid.


Edward Guss Porter: I would point out to the hon. member (Mr. Carvell) that this Bill would not alter that condition of affairs in his province. This does not provide for the payment of witnesses' fees ; that is not the object, but the object is to prevent the arrest of the witness. The witness may go and testify just the same, he may go upon the ordinary summons, just as has been the custom. But this provides that before you can arrest and imprison a witness he must be paid his fees.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It seems to me, notwithstanding the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Porter's) explanation, it amounts to the same thing in the end. We all know how reluctant many people are to attend or to give evidence. This Bill would only be a cloak under which these people could hide in refusing to attend. People learn of these things very quickly. A man would say : I am not in contempt if I do not obey the summons, and a warrant cannot issue for my arrest ; therefore. I will not obey the sum-

mons. The practical result would be that in every case you must tender the conductmoney before the summons would be any good. And there is no way to get the money to tender to the witness so far as New Brunswick is concerned. The result would be that you could not get the witnesses before the magistrate unless the informant, whoever he might be, would put up the money and take the chance of getting it back.


Edward Guss Porter: It would not be a very great hardship upon the informant even in the case the hon. gentleman puts, as the present condition may be on the witness, and there is only one informant while there may be many witnesses.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have had a good deal to do with criminal prosecutions for a good many years in New Brunswick, and I have never found a case where this amendment would be necessary. I am happy to say that the condition referred to by the hon. gentleman does not exist in many places in Canada. It does not exist in New Brunswick ; and I do not think it does in Nova Scotia. I do not think the Bill is so necessary on the ground of urgency as to call upon us to pass it now.


John Howard Sinclair: The Bill would be all right if we had a system like that of the United States, where there is an officer called the prosecuting attorney, who has an area of country that he looks after, and whose duty it is to lay information whenever he hears that a crime has been committed, and to provide the means of carrying the prosecution through the court. But we have rather a volunteer system. It is thrown upon the ordinary citizen to prosecute these crimes, and witnesses should take some share in carrying on the criminal business of the country as well as the complainant. It may be as easy for the witness to go and give his evidence as for the prosecutor, who mas'- be a poor man, to pay the witnesses and the prosecuting attorney. It is quite a burden upon the prosecutor to look after the prosecuting attorney. The system pro vided here is a first-rate one if you have a prosecuting attorney in each county. But, under the system we have, this would cause great confusion and would hamper the administration of justice in many parts of the maritime provinces.


Edward Guss Porter: I have no desire to impose this legislation upon New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and am quite satisfied that it should be limited to the province of Ontario.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: So far as I am concerned, 1 have no objection. If the people of Ontario want a law like this, that is all right ; but I want the province of New Brunswick exempted from its operations.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The criminal law is a general law, and should be made as generally applicable as possible. The provisions should not be confined to one or two provinces. If there is objection to the clause being carried out, as there seems to be in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and, I am inclined to think, in our province also, it would be better to drop the clause.


Charles Fitzpatrick: If there is a province where this provision could be made applicable, it would be the province of Quebec, for there the prosecutions i re carried on by the provincial government and not by the municipalities. Of course, it is evident there are objections so far as New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are concerned. But there are exceptional provisions all through the Criminal Code with respect to particular provinces.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: In order to test the feeling of the House on the question, I move to reconsider section 1.


William Mulock: I would ask the hon. gentleman if he has consulted the Attorney General for Ontario on this point ?


Edward Guss Porter: I have not personally consulted the Attorney General, but I understand from one of the judges that he had a discussion on the matter with him, and he approved generally of the principle of the Bill.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The other clauses, with the exception of the first, are necessary to give effect to the law we have in force in Ontario, and are applicable exclusively to Ontario. I think the principle is a good one myself, that of saying that tne money should be tendered to a witness in a civil case as well as in a criminal case. Every one who has practised law knows that in a civil case you cannot compel the presence of a witness unless you have tendered him money. In respect to a criminal case I do unt undertand why men who travel a great distance to attend court without having received any consideration whatever in the way of* fees, should be subject to arrest if they do not come. I understand what is said about New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, they appear to have some system that I cannot understand by which a man is not paid for five or six months after he has attended court. If that is the law in New Brunswick it might operate to the injury of the administration of justice.


William Mulock: I would ask the hon. member for West Hastings (Mr. i orter) if he would have any objection to submitting the matter to the Attorney General of Ontario to get his opinion on this point ?-he thinks he has his opinion in a roundabout way through some judge who spoke to the Attorney General.


Edward Guss Porter: The matter having been submitted to the Minister of Justice and

having met with his approval, I am willing to abide by his judgment. I do not see any good in delaying the passage of the measure. It is not a matter within the jurisdiction of the Attorney General.


Samuel Barker: I should think the better way would be to pass the Bill here, as the Minister of Justice approves of it, and then he will submit it to the Attorney General of Ontario if he thinks well to do so. We ought to act on the advice of the Minister of Jus-tic.e


William Mulock: I do not quite agree with that. I think the member for West Hastings would be consulting his own wishes and perhaps further the object he has in view, if he were to act on my suggestion. The Attorney General for the pro' vince is really the person responsible for the administration of justice, he is the one who speaks for the province. I do not know that it is the duty of the Minister of Justice to communicate with every Attorney General in the Dominion. It may be and it may not be. It is not proposed to have it apply to New Brunswick or Nova Scotia, and exception has been taken to its application in Quebec. For my part I have not the experience that would enable me to express an opinion. Much may be said in support of my hon. friend's contention, but those who have to do with the administration of criminal justice are the ones to advise us. I would again suggest to my hon. friend that he should communicate with the Attorney General of Ontario and get his opinion before proceeding with this clause. I would not wish to vote affirmatively on the measure without knowing the views of the Attorney General.


Edward Guss Porter: It appears rather extraordinary that in a matter that is within the jurisdiction of this parliament we should consult the Attorney General as to what his wish may be. We have full jurisdiction here, and if the members of this House believe that the law in its present shape works an injustice to the people of the province of Ontario, I think they should have no hesitation in passing this measure into law. I cannot see why the Postmaster General should insist upon delay. I doubt very much if this parliament consulted the Attorney General when they passed the original clause relating to Ontario, providing that a witness might be arrested if he did not obey the summons served on him in the first instance. I do not know that the Attorney General of Ontario was consulted when we passed that law, and this is merely an amendment of that law, showing that we have full jurisdiction. I would not fear the result in applying to the Attorney General, but I do not see the need of it, and it would delay an act of justice due to the people of Ontario.


Edward Guss Porter: 


William Mulock: I am sorry my hon. friend does not fall in with my suggestion. I should think the hon. member would have come here armed with the opinion of the Attorney General. He says the members of this committee are satisfied to pass this Bill. Perhaps they are, they may be informed as to its merits, but I am an exception. I have no hostility against the measure, I have no opinion on either side at present ; but I think the proper course is to have the advice of the law officer who is responsible for the administration of justice in that province and who has charge of the administration of the criminal law. If the hon. .gentleman himself does not care to communicate with the Attorney General, I am sure the Minister of Justice would be pleased to do so. Until he has done so and the Attorney General's opinion is obtained, 1 must be excused for not supporting the Bill.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I think the better course with respect to section 1 would be to allow it to remain in abeyance until we get the opinion of those who are responsible for the administration of criminal justice in each province. I state unhesitatingly, so far as I am personally concerned, after having had twenty years experience in criminal matters, and during a great part of the time as Crown prosecutor for the district and province of Quebec, that it is a hardship that ought to be remedied. For that opinion I cm personally responsible.


Edward Guss Porter: If the Minister of Justice thinks it would be wise to get the opinion of the Attorney General I am not going to insist, and am willing to let that clause of the Bill stand.


Robert Laird Borden: May I ask what the question is before the chair ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I may say for the benefit of the leader of the opposition who was not present, that this section relates to the payment of conduct money to a witness attending at a preliminary investigation and trial before a magistrate. The hon. gentleman is aware that in a civil case the tendering of conduct money is a condition precedent to the witness being compelled to attend and give evidence. Under the Criminal Code, even if conduct money is tendered, no matter how poor a man may be or how far he has to go, if he does not attend court he is liable to be imprisoned. This Bill is for the purpose of putting a man who is obliged to attend in a criminal case on the same footing as a man who is obliged to attend in a civil case. The difficulty arises out of the fact that in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia witnesses' fees are paid by the county, as I understand it; it appears that the county is responsible for witnesses' fees, these fees are certified by the magistrate, and they may not be paid for several months after the man has attended court.


John Graham Haggart: If, in a preliminary investigation it was found that the evidence did not justify the charge, and the money is paid out to the witness-what then ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: The rule is that the magistrate has control of that. A man lays a complaint before a magistrate. If the magistrate is satisfied that the complaint is of a sufficiently serious character to justify the public assuming the burden of the expenditure that is assumed by the public, but if he decides that it is not of a sufficiently serious character to justify the expenditure being assumed by the public, then the individual has to do it, in which case of course the individual is responsible for file fee.


Henry Robert Emmerson: In New Brunswick, as far as I am familiar with it and I have had quite a number of years' experience, the practice was that at a preliminary investigation witnesses were brought and perhaps the party accused being held for trial in a higher court the witnesses were bound over under bail under a recognizance to appear at the next sitting. They would appear at the higher court and their witness fees would be paid, but the fees incident to the attendance at the preliminary investigation depended entirely on the will and caprice of the county council, and I have seen so many cases of hardship that It appears to me that even if there should be no conduct moneys some steps should be taken whereby men should have some guarantee that their expenses at least would be forthcoming. Now it may be eight or ten months or not five months before the county council meets, and when they do meet if the councillors happen to be in a very happy mood possibly they may pay the bill. It does not depend on the certificate of the magistrate, as the member for Carleton,
N.B. (Mr. Carvell), says. That does not move the council in any way. It is simply a matter of grace on their part. I have a good deal of sympathy with the provision ii' the first clause of this Bill. Perhaps it would be a little drastic to say that the money should be first tendered, but there should be some means of securing the payment on a proper certificate very shortly after the examination. Many cases of hardship have come under my own observation.


Edward Guss Porter: This amendment I am ''satisfied will remove the hardship in Ontario. Of course I cannot speak for the other provinces, but I will concur in the suggestion of the Minister of Justice that this Bill be held over until I obtain the opinion of the Attorney General in regard to the matter. I have no objection to that being done with the understanding that I will have the opportunity of bringing up the Bill again. I think the Bill is of such importance that it should be passed at this session if it is to be passed at all.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I notice on referring back to section 580 that the summons refers to the securing of witnesses both on behalf of the prosecution and on the part of the accused. I think this is a branch of the case which requires some consideration. The accused in probably a majority of cases is a poor man and is unable to furnish very many witnesses. It seems to me that if this amendment is passed we will be absolutely placing the accused where he could not get witnesses because if he has not money to tender the conduct money even before the examination, although he might feel that he wished to make a defence at the preliminary investigation, especially if he were innocent-he would say : Why should I go to the higher court and incur twice or three times or four times the expense. I can defend myself before a magistrate. if this Bill became law the defendant would be absolutely debarred from going into his defence unless he happened to have the money necessary to tender the conduct money to the witnesses to bring them before the magistrate. I think that of itself should be sufficient to kill this section of the Bill.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Is there not a proceeding in forma pauperis?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I will inform the Minister of Justice that out in the country before the country magistrate that proceeding is not very well understood.


Edward Guss Porter: In Ontario there is provision by the local law that the judge of a court may certify that a summons issue on the part of the prosecutor or on behalf of a defendant but there is no provision in the statute for the payment of fees. The judge may issue his certificate that a summons be issued by the Crown Attorney or authority summoning that witness to court on behalf of the defence but there is no provision for the payment of the witness. A defendanti if too poor to procure witnesses can get a certificate to subpoena and bring his witnesses to court so there is no hardship in that case at all.


John Howard Sinclair: He does not have to advance the fees in this case. But under this amendment he will have to do so.


Edward Guss Porter: I want to prevent your putting a witness in jail when he has no means to come to court and has committed no offence.
Amendment (Mr. Carvell) agreed to.


Edward Guss Porter: I understand that this Bill will be brought up again.


Charles Fitzpatrick: There are three clauses in this Bill which are necessary and which I will have to introduce myself in order to give effect to the Criminal Code

unless they are proceeded with by my hon. friend.


Mr. K. L. BORDEN.: Perhaps it might be worth while, if the Minister of Justice can accomplish it, to have a memorandum prepared as to the law in the different provinces. I think in Nova Scotia it is as the Minister of Justice has mentioned, not only at a preliminary investigation but at the formal trial later on. I do not know by whom the fees are paid in Ontario and Quebec. Are they paid by the local government ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: They are paid by the local government in Quebec.


Mr. PROULX.: They are paid by the county treasurers in Ontario.


Robert Laird Borden: They are not paid out of the fees of the local government.


Edmond Proulx: The local government pays part of the expense.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The magistrate determines as to the proper charge.


Robert Laird Borden: Tuesday, April 11, 1905.