1905-02-03

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GERYAIS presented the first report of the select committee appointed to supervise the official report of the Debates of the House during the present session as follows :-*
Your committee recommend that their quorum be reduced from eight to five members.

[Stage Direction]
Chairman.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 24) respecting the Kootenay, Cariboo and Pacific Railway Company.- Mr. Galliher.
Bill (No. 25) respecting the Walkerton and Lucknow Railway Company.-Mr. P. H. McKenzie.
Bill (No. 26) to incorporate the Sovereign Fire Insurance Company of Canada.-Mr. E. F. Clarke-by Mr. Osier.
Bill (No. 27) respecting- certain patents of the Facer Solid Steel Car Wheel Company of Perth, Limited.-Mr. Caldwell-by Mr. Telford.
Bill (No. 28) to incorporate the Northwest Telephone Company.-Mr. Turriff.
Bill (No. 29) respecting the Canada Southern Bridge Company.-Mr. German-by Mr. Macpherson.
Bill (No. 30) respecting the Canada Southern Railway Company.-Mr. German-by Mr. Macphefson.
Bill (No. 31) respecting the Canada and Michigan Bridge and Tunnel Company.- Mr. German-by Mr. Macpherson.
Bill (No. 32) to incorporate the London and St. Clair Railway Company.-Mr. Calvert.
Bill (No. 33) respecting certain patents of Jean Effront-Mr. L. P. Demers-by Mr. Rivet.
Bill (No. 34) respecting the Nicola, Kamloops and Similkameen Coal and Raijway Company.-Mr. Galliher.
Bill (No. 35) to incorporate the Georgian Bay and Seaboard Railway Company.-Mr. Grant-by Mr. Scott.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES FITZPATRICK (Minister of Justice) moved that the House do go into committee to consider a proposed resolution respecting the Board of Railway Commissioners. He said : Before you leave the chair, I may venture to say a word or two in explanation of this resolution. I am sure there are a great many people in this country, and probably there are some in this House, who do not fully appreciate the extent and importance of the duties that have been assigned to the Board of Railway Commissioners by the Railway Act of 1903. In
that view I venture to trespass upon the attention of the House for a few moments while I attempt to explain some of the features of the Act which deal with the most important of these duties. Generally, the Board has control over all railroads in Canada with the exception of government railways, and with respect to those railways they control the incorporation and organization of the company, the location of the line, the construction of the railway, and its management and control after it is in operation.
Hon. GEO. E. FOSTER.: In what way do they control the incorporation ?


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: They control the incorporation to this extent, that if the requirements of the Act are not carried out with respect to the incorporation of a company, the Railway Commissioners have power to intervene and see that the Act is complied with-to that extent only. Now speaking specifically, I may say that the board is called upon, in the first instance, after the company is organized, to see to the location of the line of railway, to control the grades, and curves, and general character of the construction; they have also the supervision over all plans, profiles and books of reference ; they are responsible for the location and construction being in accordance with the lines laid down by special Act. The board is called upon to act in the case of any omission, error or misstatement in any plan, profile or book of reference, and to correct the same; also in cases of deviation which require to be made. In adition to that, they are called upon to deal with questions of expropriation of land, with the construction of branch lines, the control of crossings and junctions, interference with navigable waters, construction and operation of telegraph and telephone lines, drainage, farm crossings, fences, gates, cattle-guards, bridges and tunnels, stations and inspection.


George Eulas Foster: Telegraph and telephone lines in connection with the railways.


Charles Fitzpatrick: In connection with the railways. Perhaps I might read a paragraph I have on that point, with respect to the construction and operation of telegraph and telephone lines, they have power to interfere in so far as the lines run along the railway, and supervision over the rates and charges to be made for the transmission of messages and of agreements for the use of such lines by other companies ; placing wires across railways, construction, operation and maintenance of telegraph and telephone lines, for the distribution of light, heat and power along, upon, under or over highways or other public places, under power granted by parliament, if the company cannot get consent of the municipality in that regard. That is to say, if there is o conflict between a railway company and municipality, the Board of Commissioners

has authority to act between the two. Now with respect to the operation of railways. The board has a duty to be familiar with the first equipment, apparatus and appliances used or to be used upon all trains and upon the railway generally ; the accommodation, i mining and operation of trains, the causes and prevention of accidents ; reports of accidents must be m'ade to the board by the railway ; the causes of fire, removal from the right of way of weeds and inflammable matter. They also make rules and regulations for the operation of trains and to make them uniform among all railways. Then I think the most important duty that is given to them is with respect to the tolls that railway companies are entitled to charge. I would like to draw my bon. friend's attention to section 255 of the Railway Act which practically makes it obligatory upon all railways in this country to submit their lolls for approval before they can collect either freight or passenger rates. In addition to that, the board is entitled and is bound to see to the enforcement of all penalties which are incurred. They also have charge of the supervision and approval of all amalgamation and traffic agreements.


Mr. LENNOX.: Will the hon. gentleman say whether there is any distinction in their jurisdiction over Dominion railways that are incorporated by the Dominion and those incorporated by a province.


Charles Fitzpatrick: 
George Eulas Foster: What is the deciding quorum ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: A majority, I believe.


George Eulas Foster: A majority of those present or a majority of the whole board ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: A majority of those present. The Chief Commissioner with us is the most important person. The findings of the board on all questions of fact are conclusive in all courts in this country, but on questions of law the Chief Commissioner's opinion prevails. The Chief Commissioner, -when a question is determined by the board to be one of law, has absolute control over the determination of that question.
Under these circumstances it is not necessary for me to say that it is exceedingly important that we should make a proper choice for this position. It is Important to have a man of legal training and if possible of wide judicial experience. He should also be familiar with the necessities of the country, and it is most desirable that he should be as far removed as possible from all contact with the great railway corporations. It is important that we should get a man, who has not, recently at all events, been connected as counsel with one of our railway corporations. In the light of these requirements we think vce have found a man who is prepared to accept the position, who is almost an ideal man for the place. The man to whom the position will be offered is Mr. Justice Killam, of the Supreme Court, This gentleman was educated for the bar in the province of Ontario, was called to the bar there and practised his profession in that province. He afterwards moved to the west settling in Winnipeg where he practised his profession several years, until 1S85, when the government of Sir John Macdonald appointed him to the High Court of the province of Manitoba. He then became chief justice of Manitoba and within the last two years he was promote'd to the Supreme Court of Canada of which court he is now a member. The legal profession, at all events, wall agree with me when I say that he is a man qualified in all respects, by temperament, by reason of his intellectual qualities and by reason of his judicial experience, to fulfil the duties of this important office.


Mr. SPROULE.: He has had no experience as a railway man.


Charles Fitzpatrick: He has never operated a railway as far as my knowledge goes,

but I think he has had experience in railway matters in connection with the Supreme Court and also as a member of the bar and as a judge in Manitoba. In any event the result of our selection makes it necessary for me to bring in these resolutions. The resolutions are not intended to add anything to the position in so far as Mr. Justice Killam is concerned, but they are intended to widen the field from which we may be able to make our selection for this important office. I will now proceed to explain In what respect. At the present time the judges of our high courts are entitled to a retiring allowance. If a judge has been on the bench of the superior courts of this country for fifteen years he is entitled to retire at the expiration of that period on two-thirds of his salary. If he has been on the bench for thirty years he is entitled to retire on his full salary. If he has attained the age of seventy years and has been on the bench for 25 years he is entitled to retire on his full salary, and the same thing applies if a judge has reached the age of 75 years and has been 20 years on the bench. Mr. Justice Killam has been on the bench since 1885 and he has now 20 years of judicial service to his credit. He is 55 years of age and in ten years from this he will be entitled to retire, if he remained on the bench, at his full salary. The intention of the resolutions is to allow this time to count; that is to say that the time he would spend on. the Railway Commission, if he is appointed for ten years, will count absolutely in the same way as if he had continued to occupy a seat on the bench. He would not, gain anything by his transfer, but he would not be put in a position where he would lose any of the benefits and advantages he has now acquired.


Mr. SP ROUTE.: He will gain a larger salary.


Charles Fitzpatrick: He does get a larger salary. He gets $3,000 a year more, but at the same time he forfeits the right to his retiring allowance under the law as we now have it. I trust I have made my meaning clear. The intention is to make it possible for Mr. Justice Killam to accept the position which is now offered to him without in any way forfeiting the right to the retiring allowance which he has as a judge of the Supreme Court.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York).: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick), in presenting this resolution has pointed out to the House what he says the main object of the resolution is, namely, to widen the field from which the Chief Commissioner can be drawn. I think I shall be able to show the House that the main intention of this resolution is to circumscribe the powers of the commission, and to bring to the attention of the House just what the situation is to-day, I propose to read an extract from the ' Weekly
'Sun ' published in the issue of last week. It is to the following effect:
Time Judgment was Rendered.
It is now seven months since various farm organizations presented before the Railway Commission, at a meeting held at Toronto, a statement of some of the grievances which farmers have to complain of in the matter of freight rates. The statement included complaints as to the rates on small fruits, apples, beans, cattle, and the rate on grain, as compared with grain nroducts.
A short time after the hearing, the railway
companies voluntarily conceded a good deal of what had been contended for in regard to the rate on small fruits ; a small concession was also made on apples in boxes, and on pears when mixed with apples, and these concessions were subsequently approved by the Railway Commission. But nothing whatever'has yet been done to the question of the rate on apples in barrels, and the vastly greater grievances (because a larger number are affected by them), in the rates on beans, grain, and cattle. The decision in regard to these more important matters should have been rendered long since. The resignation of Mr. Blair, whilst it upset the work of the commission in dealing with some cases, did not directly affect these, because all three commissioners heard the complaints entered at the Toronto meeting, and the two commissioners still on the board are legally competent to pronounce upon the same.
One great advantage that was hoped for from the appointment of the Railway Commission was that the new court, being a movable body, would be easily reached by the common people. That advantage certainly has been secured. The commission is easy of access. The hope was also entertained that the commission would be more prompt in rendering its decisions than the old Railway Committee of the Privy Council.
That hope is being rapidly dispelled, and if there is much longer delay in the cases mentioned it will be altogether dissipated. Justice to the farmers affected and justice to the Railway Commission itself demands a prompt decision og, the farmers' cases heard at the Toronto sitting.
In other words a newspaper which represents the great farming interest of this country has pointed out that the farmers are disappointed with the workings of this commission and most of all that they are disappointed in the slowness with which it has acted and the slowness with which the vacancy created over three months ago has been filled. I think I shall be able to show that it will be in the interests of the country that the government should not go on with this measure, but that they should actually abandon it and forthwith proceed as the" law now stands to appoint a commissioner. The other day the Prime Minister, when speaking to a Bill that was up in the House dealing with railway matters, or rather dealing with this very important question, said that the government were lie-, gotiating with a gentleman on the Supreme Court who was to take the position, and that the main cause of delay was that the judge wished to finish his judgments before he would undertake to work on the commis-

sion. It would have been a good thing if the late chief commissioner, the late chairman of the commission, had been guided in the same way and had finished up his judgments before abandoning his position. I do not think the prime minister told us all the facts when he made that statement; he neglected to tell us that the judge not only wished to finish his judgments, but that he wished to make special terms with the government before taking the position. These special terms are contained in this resolution.
What does this resolution propose ? In substance it proposes to abandon the good old principle that no judge in this country should be promoted. The Minister of. Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) is on record as always advocating that there should be no promotion of judges, ' once a puisne judge, always a puisne judge,' and his colleagues in the government have always supported that in theory and avoided it in practice. The result is that the judges of this country are beginning to think that they can so conduct themselves on the bench as to earn promotion and they are looking for promotion. Promotion of judges seems to be the order of the day. We are getting away from the old practice and holding before the judges the idea that they can in some way merit political preferment. Another way in which the sanctity of the bench is being violated is by the appointment of judges on political commissions. We had a commission of this kind in Ontario and a very fitting comment on it was passed by a newspaper the other day. This comment on the Gamey case is an example of the criticism to which the judges are exposed.
Gamey vs. Stratton
Ontario reverses the judgment of Boyd, chancellor, and Falconbridge, chief justice.
That was a case where judges were taken from the bench and asked to try a political case. They gave their decision and the result is that the people think a great deal less of the bench for their being employed in these cases. Caustic criticisms such as I have just read are passed on the conduct of judges, and in that way the respect that we all ought to have for our bench is reduced. Judges have to try a great many political cases connected with elections in this country and they will see as everybody will see -and judges are not more infallible than any one else-that in trying these political esses they are subject to the temptation, at least people will say they are subject to the temptation, of looking out for themselves and earning preferment or promotion if they can see a way of making their decisions suit the views of the party that may be in power. Once a puisne judge always a puisne judge is a good principle ; a judge ought not to be looking for promotion to be the subject of special agreements and special legislation in his interest when it is pro-Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.
posed to translate him from one position to another. I am in favour of the judges of this country being better paid, and if the government had brought forward a resolution of this kind and at the same time had proposed to reduce the number of county judges in Ontario it would have met with my support, but I can only say this to the judges of this country that in the meantime while their salaries are so low as they are to-day, they will be much better occupied in giving their sole attention to the judicial cases that may be brought before them, trying to live within their incomes, leading the simple life and not at all hoping to get preferment by any conduct of their own on the bench. Unfortunately, after all the promises that have been made, with special legislation of this kind coming down, the feeling is becoming general in this country that every one has not the confidence in the bench that they ought to have by reason of these promotions, and if this is the case something wrong has taken place. Respect for the bench is being broken down by a political party that seems to be trying to advance its interests through the bench. Let them employ everything else they care to, but let the administration of justice be removed from political influences, and above all let there be no hope held out to the judges that better terms await them if they should happen to please that political party. If a judge sees fit to come down from the bench, as this judge who has been named here to-day is doing, among the common herd, let him take the chances of the common herd. Why should special legislation be passed for any man who comes from the bench among ordinary people and takes up an ordinary occupation ? Here we have another case of class legislation on behalf lof a man who comes from the bench. If y ou pass special legislation and make special provision for the chief of the commission, does it not follow that the same terms must be awarded to his colleagues on that commission ? If this commissioner's pension is to be provided for, if he is to be made nonremovable from office, why was it not proper for the second and third commissioners to be treated in a similar way ? Who is a lawyer in this country that he should have special legislation either with regard to his removal from office or any other matter in which he may be concerned ? The lawyers and judges have enough privileges in this country, and when judges come down among the common herd, in the ordinary rut, there should be no special legislation in their interest.
This brings me to the worst aspect of this proposal. Let me read clause 1 out of the proposed resolution :
Resolved, That if a judge of any Superior Court in Canada is appointed chief commissioner of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada he shall not be removed at any time by

the Governor in Council except upon address of the Senate and House of Commons.
Let us see what illustration of that proposal can he found in the record of the debate when we passed this Bill. The then Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Blair) at page 3,855 of ' Hansard ' of 1903, speaking on the Railway Bill and on this very point, says :
The opinion of Council, in going over the Bill, was that it would be desirable to place the members of the commission very much in the same position as lieutenant governors under the British North America Act. It is a very cumbrous proceeding to invite the action of the Senate and House of Commons by an address. Cases might arise in which it would be very important and desirable that prompt action should be taken without waiting for a session of parliament.
Now, the serious thing in this Bill is that the chairman of this commission is to be put outside of the jurisdiction of parliament, where he was put by that Act. The great argument held out to the country from one end to the other in favour of the Act was that we were to have a chairman on that commission who could be removed from office by the Governor in Council, whose conduct could be discussed in tbe House, and who, if tliat conduct were found to be not in the public interest, could be removed from office forthwith by the government of the day. And yet, a year after all these assurances were given to the people, a Bill is introduced, the first clause of which proposes to put the chairman of this commission beyond the possibility of removal by tbe Governor in Council and be-vond the control of parliament. That is tbe main object of this Bill. Its object is to emasculate tbe Act passed two years ago. And just to show you how powerful that measure is, let me read what Mr. Blair said on this point when he was dealing with the measure. He said :
When you come to read some of these clauses it may seem that the powers that are given-if they are pressed to the extremity of their literal meaning ; if an interpretation is going to be given to them by the board right up to the limit which their language would bear-it might seem that you are giving to the Railway Commission power which would enable them to crush the railways, or to do serious injury to the business interests of the country.
These great powers were given to this Railway Commission ; but now an effort is being made to put a man into the position of chairman of that body wbo will or will not exercise these great powers without being amenable to the criticism of parliament, or even the criticism of the Governor in Council. The powers of the commission are immense, I grant. There never was a tribunal so empowered as this one is ; but that being so, its powers ought to be kept under control, and it ought to be where parliament could regulate it and enforce the performance of its duties. But, instead of that, we
have before us a proposal to put these great powers into the hands of a man


Mr. COCHRANE.: A Czar.


William Findlay Maclean: A Czar who will not be amenable to parliament or to the Governor in Council, who can only be removed by an address from the Senate and House of Commons, which the man who created the commission said is a cumbrous method and hard to carry out, which, in fact, cannot be carried out. Here is the object of this Bill unfolded to us-not to widen the limits from which the chairman of the commission may be drawn, but to nullify what was expected to result from the passing of the Bill. When Mr. Blair brought down the Bill he also said this :
The Bill which we submitted last year contained, and the present Bill, when printed, will be found to contain a clause providing that the members of the commission are only removable on an address of both Houses of parliament to the Governor General. This, on full consideration, we concluded to change, and although the BUI when it is distributed will contain such a clause, it is an oversight which will he remedied in the committee. We propose that the members of the commission shall be removable in the same manner as the lieutenant governors of the provinces, namely, by the Governor General in Council for cause.
This vital principle of the Bill it is proposed, one year after it has been tbe law, to wipe out and abandon altogether.
Then the question comes up, in whose interest is this proposal made ? Why this change in policy ? Is there any possible doubt what the reason of it is ? The railways of this country have found out at last what the great powers of this commission are, and they have set about, in a very clever way, to have them ' cribbed, cabined and confined'-to have the powers of the commission reduced ; and they are out now looking for a judge, if they can get this amendment passed, to go on that bench who will be friendly to them. In tbe lobby here to-day, whom do you see ? You see the twin railway lobbyists, Mr. Charlie Drink-wright and Mr. Willie Rainwater, as I heard them called the other day. These are the two men who are to select a man to fill this position. They are the men who are engineering the lobby here to-day, to have a judge put on the commission who will not be amenable to parliament or to the Governor [DOT]in Council, and who can only be removed from [DOT] that position by an address of the Senate and House of Commons, which the late chairman of the commission said is a very cumbrous method. I want to tell the new men who have come into this House, especially the men from the west, that the promise made to the farmers and business men of this country was that this tribunal would be speedy in its methods and simple in its procedure, that the men in charge of its administration would be easily removed from office, and that absolute justice would

be done. Instead of that we are to have a chief commissioner who cannot be removed -who will be selected on the advice of the railway companies, as I believe, because they are the dominating influence in this country. There are no twenty men in this House who have the influence of a Drink-water or a Wainwright in matters of this kind. I regret to say it, but these men have found out, on the advice of their solicitors, that this Railway Act does contain a large measure of protection to the people, and they have set about in this peculiar way to try to offset the merits of that Act. I say to the men representing the farmers, whether of the west or of Ontario, and the men representing the business interests of . this country, that an effort is being made today by these resolutions to stifle that great piece of legislation, which ought to stand to the credit of the Liberal party, but which to-day, one year after its birth, they are proceeding to strangle. Now let me read what Mr. Blair's promises to the farmers were :
In considering this, hearing in mind that it is the strength and pressure ot the public opinion which has been aroused by what the farmers of the country have felt to be their particular grievance ; having regard to the enormous extent of these interests, not only in eastern Canada, but growing with such tremendous rapidity in our great west, I am satisfied that I speak with the approval of all my colleagues when I say, that the selection which we will make to occupy ar place on this board, particularly in respect to the business interests of this country which are connected with transportation, will be such a selection as will commend itself heartily to the approval of the farming community, and will promote and further their interests.
If you want to tell me that the business aud farming interests are to be protected and get speedy justice from the Railway Commission, by putting a man at the head of that commission who can only be removed by an address from parliament, you are asking the farmers to accept something they will not accept. What we want is a court which will render speedy justice, which will not be paralyzed by cumbersome procedure, and which will be composed of men responsible for what they do. Speaking on the question of responsibility, Mr. Blair made this statement, which will be found at page 3S58 of the Official Debates of 1903:-
I think that having declared that no commissioner shall hold these things, we can rely upon the Governor in Council enforcing it. It seems to me that- the control of the government would be more effective than any other.
And be made that an argument in favour of the Bill, but now this control by the government is to be abandoned. What will the farmers think of this proposition when they recollect what they were promised ? Besides just look at the great powers vested iu the chairman of this commission. He lias not only the privileges I have men-Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.
tioned, but In clause 8 still further powers are given him-powers that I have tried to have restricted, but so far have tried in vain. Clause 10 says:-
Not less than two commissioners shall attend at the hearing of every case, and the chief commissioner, when present, shall preside, and his opinion upon any question, which, in the opinion of the commissioners, as a question of law, shall prevail.
Not only is he to be not removable by the act of the government and placed beyond criticism in parliament, but he is to be the sole judge ou questions of law', and thus is to be more than equal to his two colleagues. The government are not even proposing to remove that power but are instead increasing the powers of this irresponsible man, and are placing the people in such a position that they will have no effective control. An lion, member the other day spoke of the procedure before this court and showed that it was very much like that followed in other courts. You will have to file your petition and there will be joinders and rejoinders and all that sort of thing which create indefinite delay. The Minister of Justice told us in reply that the chairman will have power to prevent any unnecessary delay, but who is to compel this irresponsible man to administer the law in such a way that it will be speedy and effective, if be cannot be removed. It may be bis duty to do this, it may be his duty to see that the lives of the people are protected, but how is he to be compelled to do his duty? Hou. members are aware of what happened only yesterday at one of these railway crossings in the United States. Ten women were killed in one sleigh by reason of a bad crossing, and similar accidents are happening here every day, yet we are told that the chairman of this commission is to be made an irresponsible official and that the government, instead of proposing wiser legislation, intend putting the whole administration of the Railway Act in the hands of this irresponsible man, in whom is vested this extraordinary power of overruling his two colleagues on questions of law. What the intention of the government is was very fairly brought out the other day. We had the Minister of Railways and Canals and the Minister of Justice both telling the House that they considered all these matters affecting the safety of the people and their protection from railways should be left to tlie commission to decide, that parliament should wait and not interfere, and that this commission would do everything. And three days later they come down with a proposal to emasculate the Bill and give the head of the Railway Commission special powers over everybody else. I have not a word to say against Judge Killam as a man, a citizen aiyl a judge; but I do object to the Railway Act being emasculated iu this fashion, and I do not believe that such a

proposal will meet with the endorsement of the people.
Before this discussion is through, I intend to go into another feature of it, and that is the peculiar circumstances under which the late chairman gave up his place. If ever there was a shameful act committed in this country, it was the act of that man who himself had that law put through creating this Railway Commission, who subsequently resigned his cabinet position on account of some difference with his colleagues, and whom the government, we are told, with some idea of benevolence or conciliation, made chairman of the commission. They asked us to vote, and we voted readily some $50,000 to $75,000 to pay for the organization of that commission. It will cost at least $100,000 a year. We are paying about $4,000 or $5,000 rent to house that commission. We voted last year $22,000 to buy a special car in which this commission could travel about the country administering justice. Then, all at once, this man abandoned his office and left unsettled a lot of cases which were pending before it-If ever there was a disregard of public interest, it was that. If ever there was a man to whom ought to be meted out some kind of punishment, who deserves particular ignominy, it is that man who abandoned his office and refused to decide the cases that had come before him, and in which consequently to-day all the procedure will have to be gone over again. That was the most shameful act I know of in connection with the history of this country; and not a word of explanation has the government condescended to give us of that incident. I do not know the reasons which actuated Mr. Blair. I have my own suspicions, but is there anything worse in our history than such conduct, and then to have no explanation made of it, to have no reason given us why he left that commission in the manner he did without the slightest regard for the public interest? The government to-day should be engaged rather in making provisions to avoid a similar occurrence in the future. They should be engaged in framing some law which would prevent any man, who may in the future hold that position, from abandoning office and leaving a host of cases unsettled, as was done in this case. Instead of trying to pass this Bill through the House, the government should at once abandon it. They should rather seek, not on the bench, some competent man who will take the chairmanship of that commission, without requiring any special legislation to divest him of all responsibility. Let them man that commission properly and let judgments be given in those cases that are pending without further delay and thus do justice to the people. That is a reasonable proposition. But instead of that, they propose to emasculate the Act by making the man
who is to be head of the commission utterly irresponsible to the government and the country. It may be all very well for hon. gentlemen in this House to be parties to legislation of this kind.
It is very fine to sacrifice public rights to corporation interests, which seems to be the impelling force in this matter; but, if anything has been proven by recent events, it is that the people do rise when they find that corporation interests are being placed ahead of public rights. The greatest assertion of the public determination to defend its own rights was that in the province of Ontario the other day. True, the people voted for cleaner methods in elections and in favour of cleaner public life and better conduct on the part of ministers of the Crown and other representatives. But it was also a rising of the people against a government that had abandoned public rights. Hon. gentlemen opposite may think that, just after an election and at the beginning of a new parliament, they can afford to strangle this law for the adoption of which they have taken so much credit. But the people will hold them responsible. And I want to tell hon. gentlemen who are new members of this House, on whichever side of the House they may be that they will be held responsible by the people if they support a measure of this kind. And I want to tell them also that, after the decision in Ontario there are no safe seats in this country for men who turn their backs upon the rights of the public. An hon. friend behind me asks me, how about North York. Did you ever see such a revolution as there was there ? Was there ever such a condemnation as that of a minister of the Crown who had been the constant foe of public rights ? And Hon. J. M. Gibson, formerly Attorney General, the man w-liose office above all others was consecrated to the maintenance of public rights and municipal rights, was snowed under. Five ministers identified with the attack upon the rights of the people were buried under the landslide. A great, a dominant party, was swept from power because they had forgotten the rights of the people. I call upon the men here who represent the farmers, I care not whether of the maritime provinces, Quebec, Ontario or the west, to stand for public rights, and I tell them that if they have the hardihood to vote for such a Bill as this, a Bill that emasculates the law by placing at the head of the commission an irresponsible appointee, and makes provision for him above all others in the community, they are not acting in the interest of the people who sent them here.


Mr.  W. A.@: GALLIHEIl (Kootenay). My hon. friend from South York (Mr. \V. F. Maclean) in his usual energetic way, has discussed this resolution at some length and with some warmth, and has held up certain bogeys with which he hopes to" frighten

new members of tbe House. He speaks of this measure as being in tbe interest of corporations and against public rights. From his own argument I fail to see any justification for that conclusion. He knows little, personally I presume about Mr. Justice Kil-lam. I have had the opportunity of practising at the bar with that gentleman, and I have had the honour of practising before him when he occupied the prominent position of a judge of the Supreme Court of Manitoba. I know his personal worth, and I know that as a lawyer he was considered among the first in the Dominion. As a judge he has been noted for his fairness and ability. That, I think, will not be dis-phted by any one who knows him. That he will be influenced in his new position in favour of the interests of corporations, I emphatically deny, basing that denial upon my personal knowledge of his character. Why my hon. friend (Mr. W. F. Maclean) has termed this proposed new appointee an irresponsible head of the commission I fail to see. It is true that if this Bill passes, his removal is taken out of the hands of the government. But it is put in the hands of what I consider a higher tribunal, the parliament of Canada. To appoint one under these conditions is hardly to make him the irresponsible head of the commission. If, as we all admit, we need at the head of this commission a man of ability, a man of honesty, a man of fairness, we have in this gentleman, if he is placed in that position, a man who fills the bill in every one of these respects. If he receives this appointment and performs his duties with equity and impartiality, in what way can the public interests be said to be sacrificed by the change proposed in this Bill ? It is well enough to raise the cry that public interests are being sacrificed for the benefit of corporations but, for my part, I would certainly require more than the statement of my hon. friend from South York to convince me that that cry was justified. The hon. gentleman again raises the old cry that the chief commissioner has more power than the other two put together, because he is the judge of the law. Well, the object of appointing to this position of chairman of the commission a man learned in the law is that he may, in that position determine, in all cases in which the law is involved, what tbe law is. A layman however cognizant of facts or capable of marshalling facts, yet, when it comes to deciding what the law of the subject is, can hardly be expected to do the work of one trained in the law and experienced therein. The other two members of the commission have their duties to perform. A majority of the court must agree upon the facts of the case. That is an important point to remember. The majority have agreed upon the facts, it is right, in my opinion, that questions' of law should be decided by the Mr. GALLIHER.
man who is capable of deciding what the law is. My hon. friend (Mr. W. F. Maclean) has referred to the late commissioner abandoning his office on pretty short notice. I agree that it was deplorable that, after all the trouble and expense gone to in making investigation into certain matters by the late chairman and his colleagues, those matters were left in an unfinished condition on his resignation. But I hope that my hon. friend does not blame the government for that gentleman resigning his position. It was quite within his right, if he saw fit, to retire from his position at any time, and the government could not prevent him from doing so. I agree with my hon. friend that it is something that ought not to have been done, and, in some respects I would go as far as he does in commenting on the facts. However there is another point in connection with it. We must remember, as I have suggested, the importance of having at the head of the commission a man in whom not only the government but this parliament and the people have confidence. Such a man is Mr. Justice Killam.
That gentleman occupies at the present time a seat on the Supreme Court bench. I agree with my hon. friend in his objection to the preferment of judges from one place to another, I object to that principle as thoroughly as he does. For instance, I deprecate holding forth an inducement to a judge on the bench that he may at some future time be promoted to a higher position on another bench. I agree with the hon. gentleman in that respect. But it is to be remembered, Mr. Speaker, that we are desirous of obtaining the best possible talent for the position of chief commissioner on that board. We believe, at all events, I do, knowing that gentleman well, that he possesses the highest qualifications, and I am sure the majority of us recognize his abilities, and believe that if Mr. Killam is appointed to that position we will have a man in every respect fitted for it. He will be abandoning what we all recognize as a life long position to take a position on the Board of Commissioners which may not be a lifelong position.
Now as we all know, a judge holds his position practically during life, or good conduct, and at a certain period he can retire and receive an allowance proportionate to the salary he has been getting. It is therefore a serious matter for a judge on the bench to consider whether he shall step down from that position and accept another position which may only last for a short time. I think it is not unreasonable to ask that some provision should be made for him in that regard. It is not a question of whether Mr. Killam or any other judge can be dismissed, for he can be dismissed. He cannot be dismissed perhaps, in as summary a manner ns he could under the Act in its present form, but he can be dismissed by this parliament if his conduct as commis-

sioner is not fair, or if he is found incapable of performing his duties. Therefore, looking at the matter as I do, knowing this gentleman as I do, knowing his ability and his absolute fairness, I have no hesitation in saying that I believe he will fill that position, if appointed, both to the satisfaction of the farmers whose interest my bon. friend so laudably champions, and to the satisfaction of the country generally. For these reasons X shall have no hesitation in supporting the resolution.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It has always seemed to me, since parliament met, that some explanation was due this House regarding the vacation of the position of Chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners by the gentleman who held that post, but up to the present time we have had no explanation in this House. I think parliament was entitled to it, and especially so when this resolution was proposed. That appeared to me to be the proper time and opportunity to make an explanation. But the government has not vouchsafed the House any explanation; in fact, so far as parliament was entitled to it, they have treated parliament with contempt. Now I think that the government is not doing its full duty iu keeping us in the dark in regard to that incident, so long as it persists in withholding an explanation.
I have nothing to say with regard to the qualifications or non-qualifications of Judge Killam, except this : that when it was first contemplated to appoint a railway commissioner, we were told that it was a sine qua non that the commission should be composed of three men, one of whom should be a railway expert. Now Mr. Justice Killam cannot fill the bill in that respect. Another member of the board was to be well versed in law, one whose qualifications and experience would enable him to perform satisfactorily his duties on that board. The third was to be a man of common sense. How far Mr. Justice Killam will come up to that standard, I do not know. But at any rate he is not a railway expert. Now one of the strong reasons why the government justified their selection of Mr. Blair for a commissionership, was that he was a railway expert in the highest sense of the term. We recognized all over the country that he was a man of experience, versed in the law, and one acquainted with parliamentary usages and parliamentary life. Now if these were essential qualifications for the chairman of that commission, certainly Mr. Justice Killam does not possess the whole of them.
But what chiefly strikes me in the government making this appointment is that they are weakening and lowering the dignity of the bench, and destroying the respect of the country in the judiciary, there is no doubt about that. If you have to take men from the bench to fill positions that can only
be filled by a party government, the result will be to lessen the respect of the people for the bench. As my hon. friend from South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) has said, you offer a temptation to those who are on the bench, and who are always looking for promotion to a situation with higher emoluments or something else, and when that promotion can only be made by the party in power, it seems to me you are holding out a temptation for the bench to pander to the political party in power. Now I think that is wrong. We have always been led to believe in the past, and the late Sir John A. Macdonald emphasized that principle in the strongest possible way, that when a man was raised to the bench he was put there, so long as he performed his duty, for the rest of his life. We should always respect the bench and look upon its occupants as the very embodiment of fairness, for that reason, if for no other. Well, then, what becomes of that principle in this case ? It is a total abandonment of that principle, and the consequence I say, must result in lessening the respect we have for the bench.
Then this is legislation for one special class, the judges. Why don't we make a provision that this position may be filled from any other class in the community? But here we make a special provision for only one class in the community, the judges. We take a judge from a bench where he is entitled to a superannuation allowance after he is worn out in the service of the country, and where he is given a salary, perhaps, lower than he would otherwise get because of that superannuation allowance which he is to receive after he is worn out. But we put this gentleman in a position where there is a larger salary and a large superannuation allowance as well. I do not think that he is entitled to either the one or the other. If he abandons the bench to take a lower position he should be satisfied with the emoluments that go with that position, and not expect those that accrue to another position, not only* accrue to it by virtue of the law now on the statute-book, but which would accrue to it-in the event of an amendment to that law giving a larger salary to judges and with a larger superannuation. This gives him the advantage of both, and it is only for the purpose of one class, the judges. Now I think in that respect the principle is wrong, it is making a specialty of that one class, taking them out from the rest of the community, and holding out inducements to them that are not offered to any other class.
Then it deprives parliament of the right to remove these men. It is true they can be removed at the end of ten years, because the term of office expires at the end of that period. But it deprives parliament of the right to remove them except by impeachment, on an address from both Houses of parliament. Now, that cannot be done. In

the experience of Canada I do not know whether it has ever been done or whether any judge of this country has been called' to account. At the present time I have no remebrance of it ever having been done, remembrance of it ever having been done, a position that parliament will not or cannot remove them, no matter whether they do their duty faithfully and properly or" not. There is practically no redress and they remain in power for ten years or until the expiration of their term. The government take away that supervision that parliament only a few years ago regarded as one of the essential powers to be exercised as a controlling influence over the party who occupies that position. I think it is wrong. Then again, I would like to ask why it is found desirable or proper that service in the admiralty court should count in this case.


William Findlay Maclean: Some gentlemen want to be called ' judge,' or ' your lordship.'


Charles Fitzpatrick: No, I do not think it is at all necessary for the purpose of making the resolution applicable to the judges that this is introduced. When the resolution goes into committee I intend to drop that clause.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think that makes it a little less objectionable. That is subsection 5.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I think when we discuss this resolution in committee and my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) thoroughly understands it he will see it is not objectionable.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: These are my main objections to the resolution. I do not think the principle is a good one, and I do not think that by adopting the resolution we will be making the commission more effective than it has been heretofore.


Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, .1 have heard upon the floor of this House more than once some extraordinary doctrines enunciated by my hon. friend from South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean)-but I think on this occasion he has fairly excelled himself. He has presented a doctrine which I think be has never heard before, which he has attributed to one party, but which he cannot justly attribute to either party in this country. The hon. gentleman has stated that it is a vicious principle that judges should be promoted from their first sphere of action, that it is a vicious principle that judges should ever be removed from positions to /which they are first appointed. On.ce a puisne judge always a puisne judge. If we appoint a man to be a puisne judge then it is shut out from the government to appoint him the chief justice of the court of which he has been a member. If we appoint a man to be a judge in a lower court it is shut Mr SPROULE.
out from the government to appoint him to a higher court. I do not think that such a principle was ever proclaimed by any party in this country. I do not think that it should be admitted by any party, because I think it is a vicious and a wrong principle. If a man is appointed to the bench and if he is found to be a fit and proper person for a higher position, why in the world should he not be placed in the position for which he is fitted ?


William Findlay Maclean: Because he will look for preferment.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Is there any reason why a judge should be prevented from looking for preferment ? Is there any reason why a judge should not look forward to be the chief justice of the court of which he is a member ? Is there any reason why a deserving man should not be rewarded whether he sits on the bench or occupies any other position ? Or, is a judge to be the only__man who is to have no incitement to do good ? Shall virtue be his reward and his only reward ? Has that principle ever been supported? On the contrary, Sir John Macdonald made it a boast that he would select the best men for the positions he had to fill, and we shall see how he did it. Let us take some examples from the courts. The government of Sir John Macdonald promoted Mr. Justice Casault to the chief justiceship of the Superior Court of the province of Quebec. It was also the government of Sir John Macdonald which made Mr. Justice Stuart chief justice. Could any fault be found with the government of Sir John Macdonald on either occasion ? Could better men have been selected V When Mr. Justice Casault was appointed chief justice of the Superior Court of the province of Quebec, could any other man have been found who was preferable to him ? According to the doctrine of my hon. friend which we have just heard and which has been endorsed to a certain extent by my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule), though air. Justice Casault was the best man for the position, though he had proven by intelligence, fairness, education and experience that he was the best.man for the position, yet once a puisne judge always a puisne judge. If that principle had been adopted the province of Quebec would have been deprived of the services which have been rendered on the bench by a most useful man in his sphere. Then, again, take another example which was afforded at the time the Supreme court was established. True, it was not established by Sir John Macdonald, it was established by Mi-. Mackenzie, but the men who were appointed to the bench or most of them were taken from the benches of the provincial courts, Mr. Justice Taschereau was taken from the bench of the province of Quebec, Mr. Justice Strong from the bench of Ontario, Mr. Justice Richards from the bench of Ontario and Mr. Justice Henry

from the bench of Nova Scotia. They were all on the benches of these different provinces. Then, later on Mr. Justice Richards, upon having completed a career of great usefulness on the bench of the supreme court, was replaced. By whom was he replaced ? Did Sir John Macdonald, who had named Mr. Justice Richards as chief justice of the supreme court, go out of the supreme court for a new chief justice? Did he go out amongst the bar ? Sir John Macdonald chose as the successor of Chief Justice Richards, Mr. Justice Ritchie of the supreme court promoting him from the position of a puisne judge to that of chief justice. Late.r on Chief Justice Ritchie himself was removed and then another appointment was to be made. I forget whether it was made by the government of Sir John Macdonald or not ; at all events it was made by a government of the Conservative party who promoted Mr. Justice Strong to the position of chief justice. I am able to say, and everybody will admit that all these gentlemen were eminently fitted for the promotion which they received, and I have heard for the first time that either the government of Mr. Mackenzie or of Sir John Macdonald, ever did anything wrong when they selected men whom they thought best fitted for the positions and promoted them from the positions which they then adorned.
But, I go farther. My hon. friend stated also that judges should not be appointed on commissions ? Is that a principle of British (justice ? Is it the position taken by my hon. friend that no judges may be appointed to be commissioners if there are facts to be investigated ? Let me refresh his memory with some facts which he has forgotten. When the Parnell commission was appointed to investigate a most important affair, who were the members chosen ? There were three judges taken from the bench and they were Mr. Justice Hannen, Mr. Justice Day and Mr. Justice Smith. I do not think in the face of these precedents that the position taken by my hon. friend is maintainable for a single moment. Then again, there was another case. We had thirty years ago a most important question, known as the Pacific scandal, to be investigated, and a commission was appointed by Sir John Macdonald. It was a political affair, the commission was organized to judge and to try a political offence, and who were the commissioners appointed? They were all taken, two of them, at all events were taken from the bench of the superior courts-Mr. Justice Pollette from the province of Quebec, Judge Gowan who was the judge of the county court in the province of Ontario and Mr. Justice Day was a retired judge. Not only that, but I would say to my hon. friend from (East Grey, who also thinks that in these matters the example set by Sir John Macdonald was an example that we should always follow, that Sir John Macdonald went much farther. I remembav, everybody re-17
members and hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House have not forgotten, they have no reason to forget-on the contrary they have good and sufficient cause to remember-that an eminent judge of the province of Nova Scotia on a certain occasion was promoted to be what ?-to be chief justice ?-no, Sir, but brought here as a member of the government of Sir John Macdonald, brought here as Minister of Justice. The late Sir John Thompson was a member of the superior court of Nova Scotia and he was taken from the bench and brought here to be a member of the government of Sir John Macdonald. Under all these circumstances I do not know whether the party then in power made a mistake, but, now, because it suits an hon. gentleman opposite to put a slur upon a most honourable man, the hon. gentleman wants to put forward a doctrine of this kind.


William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of order. The right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) says I have cast a slur on somebody. I have cast a slut-on no one.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: 
William Findlay Maclean: I said that the lobby would see that they got a judge, and would use their interest with the government to get a judge appointed.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: This is what I call putting a slur upon a most honourable man. Mr. Justice Killam has been for twenty years on the bench ; he was not appointed by the party now in office, but by the party of the hon. gentlemen opposite. He was appointed to the Supreme Court of Manitoba, and he was an ornament to the Supreme Court of that province. Nobody ever said a word against him. He was promoted by this government to be a judge of the Supreme Court, and I think it was a good 'promotion and a well deserved promotion. I think it was a wise action on the part of this government to bring him here to be a member of the highest court of the land, and nobody until this moment ever said a word against him. But, Sir, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) has propounded extraordinary doctrines to-day. Because we looked about to secure a good man to fill the place of chairman of the commission- the hon. gentleman will agree, I suppose, that there is no more important position in this country than that of chairman of the Railway Commission, and that we want a man of good character, a man of ability, a man of experience, to fill that position-because we looked all over the land to find such a man, the hon. gentleman criticises us. We thought that we had found such a



man in Mr. Justice Killam ; we think so still, and I do not believe any one in this House or out of it will bring a charge and say that this is not a good appointment. But Mr. Justice Killam had to abandon a most important position, a position in which he had greater opportunities than he has now ; he is a man like everybody else, he has a family to look after, and no one expects that while serving the country he should give up any advantage he now enjoys in order to make a change. Therefore, we introduce this resolution which provides, what ? That he shall lose nothing by the change, that he shall continue to have the advantages he has to-day. Yet the hon. gentleman (Mr. W. F. Maclean), in his extraordinary logic, tells us that the farmers of this community will be less secure than they are at the present time, because, as he says, the chairman of the Railway Commission shall not be removed by the government, but by parliament. This is an extraordinary doctrine for a man who poses as a radical. My hon. friend says that to-day, because the chairman, under the law which we propose to amend, is removable by the will of the government-for we have only to pass an Order in Council to remove him-because we propose to put around him more security, more independence, and to say that he shall be removable solely on an address of both Houses, my hon. friend says we have emasculated the commission. This is extraordinary logic. By the enactment we now propose, the new chairman of the Railway Commission will be more secure, more independent of the government, more independent of everybody and more distinctly liable only to his own conscience than before. We thought last year, when we made the appointments to the commission, that it would be safe to have the members removable, as lieutenant governors are, simply by action of the Governor General in Council. We think yet that perhaps that is sufficient, but we say if we appoint a gentleman from the bench, then, in order to have the public possess the same confidence, and more, in that man, he should continue to have the same privileges that he would have if he remained a member of the bench. If we find a man, as Mr. Justice Killam is, eminently fitted for the position, and go to him and say : We want to appoint you to that position, and he says : But I have a good position, why should I leave it ? I can serve the country in my present safe and secure position, in which X give satisfaction to the public ; why should I go and try a new position that holds out no inducements to me ? We come to parliament and say we have selected the man whom we think best for the position, and ask parliament to see that he shall be as secure in the new duties that he is to discharge as he was in the duties he is now discharging, and I am sure that parliament will agree to that very reasonable proposal.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: Then my hon. friend (Mr. W. F. Maclean) says that this is emasculating the Act, and is lessening the security which the farmers and the public generally have. If there was a scintilla of reason or common sense

if he will pardon the expression-in his argument, I could understand him, but if he will reflect a little he will agree with me that there is not a scintilla of common sense in his argument. If a man is removable by the government to-day and if he will be removable next year, after this law is passed, not by the government, but by the joint action of the three branches of the legislature of Canada, then certainly he has far more security for himself under the new condition, and if we pursue the logic of the thing to the end, we will see that the people themselves have more protection than they have at the present time. We thought last year that with our mode of dealing with the commission the public were amply protected, but nobody can find fault if today we make the protection still more secure.


George Eulas Foster: In what way would both Houses of parliament remove the commissioner ? What would be the method ?


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: The method would be the same as in similar cases ; there have been cases of impeachment before. A petition would be brought to this parliament, and this House, after having the matter investigated, would pass an address and, the matter being taken to the Senate, an address would be passed in the Senate.


George Eulas Foster: And if they disagreed ?


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: Then there is no impeachment.


William Findlay Maclean: Would it be cumbrous ?


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: Am I to believe that gentlemen on the other side of the House have come to this, that they have no more faith in parliamentary institutions? Are we to understand that because, possibly, a complaint is brought against a judge, and the two Houses disagree as to his impeachment, that we are to abandon that safeguard ? Are we come to this, that the safeguard we give to the judges, that they are to be removed only by addresses of both Houses of parliament, is not a good and safe remedy to the public, because, forsooth, there may be disagreement ? If this is the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite, it is not my policy. I believe, on the contrary, that the system which has prevailed in England, and which prevails here to-day, is the best possible policy to guarantee the independence of the judges, and I do not believe that hon. gentlemen will seriously advance any other opinion. These are the reasons why we have introduced this legislation, and I believe it will commend itself to the good sense and good judgment of gentlemen on both sides of this House.


Hon. JOHN HAGGART.: Mr. Speaker, as to the appointment intended to be recommended by the government under this Bill I have no objection to raise. I know the gentleman perfectly well ; he was a judge In Manitoba and afterwards became a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada. He is a gentleman against whose honour, whose integrity and whose ability, no man says a word. But that is not the question before the House at the present moment. The question before us is the consideration of this resolution. The Prime Minister seemed to be astounded by the doctrine laid down by the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) as to the position the judges should occupy in this countryThe position of a judge in the old country is this : Once he receives his appointment, if it is a county court judgeship or a puisne judge ship, to follow the words of the Minister of Justice, quoted by the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean), he always remains so. That was the doctrine advocated by Sir John Macdonald. I have heard him impress it on this House again and again.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Lord Alverstone is an exception.


John Graham Haggart: It is true that the practice was more honoured in the breach than In the observance, but I maintain that it is the principle which is followed in the great country which we admire so much, and whose record we regard with so much attention.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I may say that the same rule applies in England as applies here. The present Chief Justice of England was formerly Master of the Rolls, and the late Chief Justice Russell was a Lord Justice of Appeal when he was promoted.


John Graham Haggart: Sometimes a judge in England receives a promotion to the chief justiceship of the court to which he belongs ; but the hon. Minister of Justice cannot mention an increase in wrhich a county court judge or a judge of an inferior court, has been promoted to a higher court. The rule in England is that once a man is appointed to a judgeship, he must make up his mind to remain there for the rest of his life, unless he receives promotion for seniority, as I think it ought to be, or for some exceptional cause, in his own court. The rule is a good one. A judge, once appointed by His Excellency the Governor General, is not removable except by impeachment of the Senate and House of Commons. He is placed in that position in order to be independent of any influence, especially from the Crown, that could possibly affect his judgment. The people of Great Britain are so careful to protect the rights and liberties of their judges against any encroachment of the Crown that they insist that no communication shall take place 17 J
between the government of the country and a judge of any of the courts. What do we meet with here to-day ? A set of resolutions showing that bargaining has been going on for a couple of months between a judge of the Supreme Court and the government of this country. The judge is offered the position of chief commissioner. He refuses to accept it unless certain conditions are agreed to. These conditions are set forth in these resolutions. I do not blame the judge. He occupies an important position Upon the bench. In that position he is entitled to retiring allowance, and from it he cannot be removed, except by impeachment from this House and the Senate. He tells the government that under the conditions attached to the appointment of a commissioner he will not accept the position, notwithstanding the increase of salary offered. It is a matter of agreement, then, between the government and the judge. Is that pardonable in this country ? Is it pardonable or just or in the interest of freedom, that negotiations should be carried on for a couple of months between the government of this country and a judge who is perhaps trying cases in which the government are interested ? In Great Britain such a thing would not be allowed ; there resolutions of this kind dare not be introduced. As my hon. friend from South York has pointed out, the chairman of the commission has a different position from that of the other two commissioners. They are removable by the Governor in Council for cause, while he is not at all amenable to the government or to this House except under the cumbrous form of a charge being made against him ; and that charge must be either that some corrupt influence has affected his judgment or that he has not sufficient intelligence to conduct the business of the court over which he presides. These are the only two reasons for the impeachment of a judge. Under the British North America Act a judge can be removed only by impeachment of both Houses. That is a part of our constitution which we have not the power to alter. I suppose that we would have the power at some future time to alter these resolutions if we thought proper or to make the conditions under which the chief commissioner is appointed, the same as those which apply to the other commissioners. But here is the odd thing about this matter : one commissioner holds his office on different conditions from the other two. Two are removable for cause by the Governor in Council, while the other one is removable only by impeachment of both Houses. Why should there be this distinction ? As my hon. friend from South York says, if the government want to improve the commission, iet them alter that provision which makes the chief commissioner virtually the dictator in two out of every three cases that come before them. Most of the questions are legal questions, and on these he has the sole

decision. But what I rise particularly to protest against is the fact of arrangements being made between the government and a judge for the purpose of taking him from the highest court in the land in order to make him the chief commissioner. As I said before, nothing can be said against the gentleman who is to be recommended for the appointment. He is capable in every respect of filling the position, because I have heard his brother judges and uttiers speak of him as a man of noted probity, intelligence and knowledge of the law ; and I have no doubt that if he is appointed to the position, he will fill it with dignity and with satisfaction to the country. But that has nothing to do with the question under discussion. I never before heard of resolutions such as those before the House, on which the government intend to introduce a Bill for the purpose of carrying out the bargain which they have made with the judge. That bargain is a bad one on principle. The true principle is that no judge, once he is appointed, should ever hope for promotion from one court to another. Once you depart from that principle you render a judge susceptible to political influence. I heard Sir John Macdonald give that as a reason for the non-promotion of Senator Go wan and Judge Clark, both of whom were perfectly qualified for positions in the Superior Courts. Once you depart from this principle, you will make every judge in the country use his political influence in order that he may be promoted rather than give his undivided attention to the honest fulfilment of the duties of his office.


Charles Fitzpatrick: If that was the rule laid down, why then was Judge Landry promoted from the county court of New Brunswick to the High Court?


John Graham Haggart: By whom?


Charles Fitzpatrick: By Sir John Macdonald.


John Graham Haggart: He never did it.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The appointment was made by a government of which my hon. friend was minister.


John Graham Haggart: Sir John Macdonald was dead.


Charles Fitzpatrick: But you were alive.


John Graham Haggart: It is the first time I have heard of it. I understood the Minister of Justice to say that Sir John Macdonald did it.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That was my impression and I am sending for the book. At any rate he was created a -county court judge, and afterwards was appointed by the government, of which my hon. friend was a minister, to the High Court of New Brunswick.	<


John Graham Haggart: 


John Graham Haggart: We will take the statement of the Minister of Justice for what it is worth.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The hon. member for St. John knows all about it.


John Graham Haggart: It is the first time I have heard of it.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Ask the leader of the opposition. He has not forgotten it These general rules are sometimes very awkward.


John Graham Haggart: There are some principles of good government and righteousness which were observed in every province and throughout the Dominion but sometimes-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh !


John Graham Haggart: Let me say anyway, in all earnestness that the sound principle, when appointing a judge, is to let it be known that he is appointed for life, and never to have any communications with him for the purpose of preferment, especially for the purpose of taking him from his judgeship and making him the head of a Railway Commision, which is to a certain extent quasi judicial. We should never in any case, when appointing a judge, appoint him under special arrangements. I am glad to hear that the Minister of Justice intends dropping the last clause of the resolution in which this condition is extended to judges of the Admiralty and Exchequer Court. I do not know7 who the judges of the Admiralty and Exchequer Court are. I suppose there are three or four. I would like to know if there is a possibility of a vacancy soon occurring in the Railway Commission and if so who is likely to get it. If my memory is right, there are only two judges of the Admiralty and Exchequer Court.


Charles Fitzpatrick: There are five.


John Graham Haggart: There is Mr. Anglin and there are a couple not filled yet. There are two in Ontario, Mr. Anglin and Mr. Hodgins.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Hodgins in Ontario, Routhier in Quebec, Macdonald in Nova Scotia, and Hunter in British Columbia.


John Graham Haggart: Just fancy calling this a commission which is to serve the farmers and give them speedy justice. I knew what the result would be of passing this Act. which, as my hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean) says, vests the chairman of the commission with more powers than are to be found given a judge by any other Act in the civilized world. We were told that this Act was for the purpose of doing justice between the farmers and the railway monopolies. We were told that its object was to give cheap and speedy jus-

tiee to tlae farmers. The result, X think, will be a disappointment. If the contrary should prove to be the case, I shall be very agreeably disappointed. The resolutions are the most extraordinary I have ever seen introduced into this House. They are for the purpose of carrying out a bargain made with a judge of the Supreme Court in order that he may consent to be removed from that court and placed in a better and more profitable position.


Mr. S. BARKER (Hamilton).: My hon. friend the Minister of Justice and my right hon. friend the First Minister have dealt with this matter as if the only question for the House to consider were the fitness of Mr. Justice Killam for the particular position to which he is to be appointed. But that point, it seems to me, is one that has the least possible bearing on the question with which we are dealing. By this resolution, we are not asked to vote the appointment of Mr. Justice Killam. It is simply a general law which we are called upon to enact, and which will place it within the competence of the government of the day to select any judge from any Superior Court in Canada and appoint him to this commission. It is quite possible that in a year, or even less, Mr. Justice Killam, if appointed, may see fit to withdraw from this commission. He may get some other appointment, and then we will have negotiations entered into by the government with another judge of the Supreme Court or some other court mentioned in the resolution we are asked to pass. The result will be that we will have our judges looking forward to the possibility of getting the handsome salary of $10,000 instead of the $7,000 which they receive as judges of the Supreme Court or the lesser sum they receive as judges of some other court. Therein it appears to me is the vice of this resolution. I am not for a moment questioning the fitness of Mr. Justice Killam. Not one word has been said against him in that regard. No one has ventured to cast a slur upon that gentleman in any sense whatever. We all respect him, we all know his capacity, his sterling character. Nobody says a word against him. The remarks that have been made in this connection would have been equally made no matter who should be the judge the government might see fit to select. Therefore we should deal with this resolution exactly as it is, namely, as a proposition on the part of the government to acquire the power by statute of taking any judge from any Superior Court in Canada and appointing him to this office. There is the objection. Judges are human beings and might consequently be influenced by the possibility of getting such a promotion. I do not think that when a gentleman goes upon the bench he alters his nature very materially. He is still subject to all the
human weaknesses that he had the day before his appointment; and if before his appointment he sought by political influence with the ministers-or worse still by political influence with gentlemen who have influence with ministers-to get an appointment upon the bench-and no one can doubt that sometimes such influences are used-that same gentleman would hardly hesitate to use similar influences to obtain a position which would give him a handsome increase in his salary. The very fact, as my hon. friend from Lanark (Mr. Hag-gart) points out, that negotiations have been going on in this case, shows the danger that may occur in other cases
A government having political questions before the Supreme Court for deccision- matters, perhaps, involving the fate of the government-might negotiate with a judge for his acceptance of the very handsome salary involved in this commissionership. Surely, that ought to be avoided. Surely, it will not be pretented that Mr. Justice Killam is the only competent man in this Dominion to occupy the position of chief commissioner. We had nearly a year's discussion on the Railway Bill? I do not think it was hinted or even thought of by any person that Mr. Justice Killam was the man of all men who should get the appointment to the chief commissionership. We never heard a suggestion that a man should be taken from the Supreme Court or any other court. But it happens that, at this moment, it is convenient for the government to appoint Mr. Justice Killam. He is a capable man, undoubtedly, and would probably be a fitting man to hold the position. But it will liai-dly be said that there is only one man in this whole Dominion fit to occupy that position. And, if there is another man anything like equal to Mi-. Justice Killam, surely the government should avoid the danger of appointing a judge from the bench, an appointment involving to him a very substantial increase of salary.
But, Sir, there is more, a good deal more, in the case. The resolution is proposed to enable the government to appoint a judge from any superior court in Canada. I presume that would include the judge of the Exchequer Court, Mr. Justice Burbidge. Now, very important questions are constantly coming before the Exchequer Court, cases between contractors and the government involving enormous sums of money. What would be said of the appointment of Mr. Justice Burbidge to this commissioner-ship ? What would contractors who had litigation with the government involving many thousands of dollars say, if a judge who might be seeking such a promotion from the government were asked to decide the questions between themselves and the government. Surely the very fact that such a man could be given a reward of that kind would detract from his usefulness. It

would create suspicion. Even if tie were not appointed, many people would be inclined to think that he would be influenced by the expectation that such a reward might come to Eim. I have as high a respect for Mr. Justice Burbidge as for Mr. Justice Killam. I do not mean to say that either of these gentlemen would be influenced by such a consideration. But it is essential that the people should respect and have confidence in the courts, and it is of the utmost consequence, I think the minister will admit, that there should not be even a suspicion against the integrity of our judges. Therefore, I think the government makes a great mistake when it brings in a resolution of this liind. which cannot fail, it seems to me, to cast suspicion upon any judge who might possibly be available for such an appointment.
There is another feature of the measure. The government does dot undertake always hereafter to appoint a judge from one of these superior courts. If they appoint a man, who is not a judge, whether a railway expert or a lawyer, or a combination of the two, that appointee may be a man equal in every respect or even superior, as the occupant of such a position, to Mr. Justice Killam. Yet, such a man, being appointed after this resolution is carried and becomes law, will be dealt with differently from a superior court judge. He will be dismissible by the government whereas an appointee from the Superior Court bench would not. Why such a distinction ? Why should a thoroughly capable man appointed from any rank in life, if fit for the position, be put in a worse situation than another simply because that other had been a judge? This, it seems to me, is an invidious and unnecessary distinction. This resolution speaks of a ' Judge of any Superior Court in Canada.' I do not know whether the Minister of Justice can refer us ,to any Act which defines the meaning of ' Superior Court in Canada.' I know that the Revised Statutes of Canada have a definition for these words and that definition would not include the Supreme Court. But, there may be another Act.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That point was considered in connection with the drafting of the resolution.


Samuel Barker: I can only say that it would have been better to use some other words than these, because, under the interpretation clause of the Revised Statutes, the expression ' superior court,' applies to certain courts in the various provinces. This might cast doubt upon the question whether the very gentleman sought to be appointed would not be excluded by the wording of the resolution.


William Findlay Maclean: We hope so.


Samuel Barker: We do not want to pass a resolution which will not do what it is Mr. BARKER.
intended to do. I submit the point for the minister's consideration. My contention is, however, that there is no justification for the resolution unless the government tell us that throughout this whole Dominion they cannot find a man for this position without taking a man from the bench. Euless that is the case, the government should avoid interfering with the independence of the judiciary. It all comes to that, to my mind. I would not have any one suppose that I have any doubt of Mr. Justice Kil-lam's capacity and integrity. But, an injury will be done to the judiciary of this country, if this resolution is passed.


George Eulas Foster: I have a few observations to make, but I promise the House I will not occupy much time. In the first place, the very fact of bringing down a resolution of this kind to fill a vacancy which formerly was filled by nomination of the government, I think, called for at least this courtesy to the House, that either the minister who introduced it or the First Minister who spoke upon it should have given some reasons why this position became vacant. This resolution is introduced because of the resignation of the former chief of the Railway Commission. That gentleman was an appointee of the present government. He was an appointee of -the present government under somewhat peculiar conditions, and we must not forget to hold a government responsible for all its appointments, as well as for the grievances and losses which result from those appointments.
There was a peculiarity about the appointment of that gentleman to the head of the commission in its very inception. Here was a member of a government, on an equal plane with the other members of the government, who had charge of a special department, in the line of which department this appointment and this legislation lay. The members of that government had not sufficient confidence in their colleague, their representative, the Minister of the Railway Department, had not sufficient confidence in that minister to give him the place that he should have had in the inception, the negotiations and, I may say, the completion of certain business matters culminating in legislation which had to do entirely with that gentleman's department. Under those circumstances, no self-respecting man could have remained in the position which he occupied, and consequently there was a resignation. Now, this question arises, a pertinent question : If there were a Minister of Railways appointed because of his fitness for that position, because of his special knowledge with reference to railway matters, but who had so far forfeited the confidence of his colleagues that they would not entrust him with the negotiations of what fell particularly to his department, if must have been because they considered him

unfit to undertake these negotiations and carry them through to their fulfilment. If he were unfit for that, by what process of reasoning was he considered fit for taking the chairmanship of a great railway commission such as this ? Is the old evil the same evil to-day, that hon. gentlemen in the ministry look upon office, not as a sacred trust of the people, but as a plaster to bind up, and to heal, so far as they possibly can, the exigencies and the wounds of the party ? Now, I wish I could make that even more emphatic than I have. That parliament and that country are taking a step in a perilous direction when they lose sight of the fact that the offices of the country are a sacred trust for the good of the country, and are not simply means by which the exigencies of a party may be met and overcome. The initial difficulty in this appointment to that Railway Commission lay there, that it was to get the party out of a bad fix that they appointed to that office the man in whom they had declared their lack of confidence, that made him the chief officer of that commission, lauded him to the skies as the man especially fitted to take hold of it; and within a few months we find him equally under that old delusion that an office of trust and emolument in the interest, and to be carried out for the good of the people, was to be looked on as a pawn upon the board for the especial interest only of one man, the office holder.
It was incumbent upon the First Minister or the Minister of Justice to say to-day what circumstances intervened of such overshadowing and overwhelming importance and urgency, that the responsible commissioner, having heard cases which could not be decided unless he remained to give the decision, and having heard them by dozens and scores, perhaps hundreds, involving grievances of the people which, for seven months, had been exposed before the tribunal and all the evidence collected, and that then, without a thought as to the people, without a thought as to the gravity of the questions, without a thought as to the results which would take place if he hurriedly left that office, without having made arrangements with his co-commissioners, but simply looking upon the office as a private appurtenance, left his position and brought all this damage and harm upon the country. It was incumbent upon the First Minister, it is incumbent upon the government, to give to the House the especial, the overwhelming, the urgent reasons that made it necessary for the chairman of the Railway Commission to act in the way he did. Does the country know of any such reason ? Has the world turned upside down suddenly since that gentleman left the chairmanship of the Railway Commission ? We have not heard that he has been called to give advice to the Czar of Russia, or to the Emperor of Germany, or even to the King of Great Britain. We find that there is great public concern in
this matter. Why could he not have remained there for a fortnight, for three weeks, for a month, and done his duty ? That duty not being done, the fault for it not being done, is placed on the head of the mem who made the appointment. And yet, Sir, these gentlemen think that parliament is so much of a dumb show that they do not need to act as sensible men ought to act, sensible men representing the government, and give a reason for the action in this matter. Either they were wrong in their choice, and they, therefore, have to take the responsibility, or there must have been some urgent reason, and it would be easy for these gentlemen to give that reason if such reason existed. So I say I am here, and I think we ought to stand here and say that we need an explanation on this point, and that for all the damage, and loss, and delay, which have occurred, this government must be held responsible, because incurred through the action of their own appointee.
So much on that phase of the subject. There is another point I wish to touch upon. I am here to assert that, so far as I have been able to read the cool judgment of the country, the commission appointed by hon. gentlemen opposite did not come up to the importance of the duties which were to be performed by that commission, did not go so far as the country thought they ought to go. I listened whilst my hon. friend the Minister of Justice read the almost autocratic powers which are placed in the hands of that commission. From the inception of the incorporation of a railway company, the principles upon which it ought to be organized, the conditions which ought to be attached to it, until you get out into that wonderfully complex work of fixing rates and tolls upon the traffic of a country like this, with its diversity of sections, its long hauls and its short hauls, and everything in connection with that, it seems to me that there is no set of duties you can conceive of, which require abler, stronger, more experienced and better versed men than those duties which are imposed upon the three railway commissioners by the law passed in 1903, under which we are now acting. Now, I do not say anything personally of the commissioners ; but I do say that the formation of that board in the first place did not, in its selection, meet the exigencies of the case, and did not meet the reasonable and, I think, well warranted expectations of the business men of this country.
What have you ? You have a gentleman as one of the commission who, though very estimable,- perhaps, does not bulk before the public as being a man versed in large business affairs, in the great traffics of the country, in the currents of its trade and in all those complex problems of transport and distribution which meet the railway commissioners almost in every case. I leave

that to the sense of this House. But, there was another reason and a very good one. A colleague had to be provided for, a vacancy had to be made because there was some one else who wanted a vacancy made and between the government who wanted to make a vacancy and outside influences that wanted a vacancy to fill the unoffending and mild-mannered gentleman who filled the position of Minister of Inland Revenue at that time had to be got rid of and he could not be got rid of unless a place were found for him. There was a convenient place found and into it he went. Does any man sitting in this House believe really in his heart of hearts that you could not have gone through this country and found amongst its business men a better representative for this work than even that gentleman whom I personally respect very highly ? 1 will not pursue the personnel of the commission further. I will say this that it struck the country that men of expert knowledge, men thoroughly well versed in the business and trade currents of the country and in technicalities of railway administration, were not the kind of men who were appointed upon that commission. I am in favour of a railway commission. I acknowledge that this is one of the most complex, one of the most diflicult problems that ever was given into the hands of a set of men to carry out. It is not simply the farmers who have interests at stake but I have just as much solicitude in another way for the carriers of this country whose interests are at stake as well and when you come to adjudge between all the delicate questions, between the freight producers of this country far and wide and the freight and produce carrying portion of the community, when you come to adjust these delicate questions as to interests impigned, when all interests may be heard and equally as well all interests may be made better'and may be helped by this commission what is the principle that should guide you? The very first thing that should have been done was not to find places for political adherents, that two of these places were found for and nothing else. The exigencies of party, the desire to provide a place for a man that they no longer wanted to keep in the cabinet; and the desire to find a place for another gentleman whom they despised in their hearts, from whom they had withdrawn their confidence and whose influence and power they dreaded at the time of the coming election, caused them to make these appointments. So much for that branch of the question.
Now, I want to go to another. . I am not going to lay down any principle as to puisne judges, or county court judges, or promotions in any way. I am not an authority upon that subject. But, if I can give a common sense view I will leave it to the members of this House to say whether this Mr, FOSTER.	*
principle is a good one to be adopted in this country. If from a junior county court judge up to the Supreme Court it is known that there is a possibility of promotion from the lowest to the highest, and that it can be got if you can bring the proper influence to bear upon the appointing party I want to know if that conduces to the stable and equable frame of mind that should characterize justice in this county ? Why. Sir. a lawyer who is appointed as a judge has to leave behind him all party and political considerations. They should never again enter into his judgment. He becomes the protector of the grievances and the innocence and the rights of the people of this country in the sacred name and in the majesty of the law. He should put aside from himself all thoughts of political preferment, should give his whole attention to his justice and his law and his equity, and if he has promotions in view they should be promotions which come only naturally within the sphere of his own proper administration of justice. How different it is ! If you establish one political office can you not establish another ? Is this a political office or is it not ? It is a political office. It is a political office just the same as a post office inspectorship is a political office, It is a political office just the same as the position of an officer of the Marine and Fisheries Department is a political office. Here you have a political office and you have the statement made to all these superior court justices that it is possible for any one of them at some time, if he can only bring the proper influence to bear to become the recipient of that office. Does that militate in favour of or militate against a proper and equitable administration of justice ? If you can create one you can create another and you may have a series of political appointments to which judges may look for a betterment of their salaries and their positions, provided they can make sufficient court in order to get the appointments from whom these appointments come. In the matter of judges and in the matter of the appointment of the judges it has been a credit to our country in the past, and I hope it will always be that politics do not enter as an overwhelming consideration into the appointments of judges. They have been appointed for their fitness. When they went on the bench they were supposed to be dead to all the currents and excitements of political and party work, to have gone into the serene, staid and steady atmosphere where justice is administered and the laws are interpreted to the people of the country. You can quote all the precedents you like for having judges translated from a lower position to a higher in his own court and in his own sphere, but it is outside of that entirely when you create a separate political office and make it possible for judges to look to that office for a betterment of their salaries and positions.

That is why I think it is not the best thing to do and will not have the best influence upon the judiciary and justice of this country- Now, I want to ask my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), a question : Did he and the lion. Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) sit down together and approach the question something like this : We have lost our dear chairman of the Railway Commission.


Charles Fitzpatrick: By whose fault ?
Mr. FOSTER-If anybody knows the government ought to. He was their servant.


William Findlay Maclean: They are responsible.


George Eulas Foster: We have lost our efficient chairman of the Railway Commission, now we must sit down and legislate on this business of a chief commissioner. What are the proper lines that we ought to lay down, what the conditions, what the salary in order to ensure that we shall get the very best talent we can get in this country to act as chief commissioner ? Did they sit down and first make the legislation on general principles and then seek their man according to that legislation ? I will warrant you that neither of them will rise in his place and state that that is the case. They are legislating from a particular point to the general. They' do not legislate on general principles and then choose the particular person to fit into that broader legislation. There is every evidence that they went first to find out the terms on which they could get the judge to act and then after a month or six or eight weeks of pourparlers, more or less intimate and confidential, they found out the lowest terms the judge would accept and then made legislation to suit his demands. Let me put a question to my right hon. friend. He takes credit to himself for providing that this chief commissioner shall be removed even from the rude hand of a ruthless government and placed where he cannot be removed until parliament in both its branches acts. Is that a right principle ? If so, why not apply it to any chief commissioner whether he be a judge or not. Does my right hon. friend mean to say that from this time forth no one but a judge of the Supreme Court shall be a chief commissioner ? He will not take that ground because any good government looks over the whole field to see which is the best man. This government looks over the field and says Mr. Justice Killam ; another government may look over the field and say : Here is the best man in Canada but he is not a judge of the Supreme Court. They will approach him and ask : Will you take the chairmanship-but he is told at the same time : My dear man, you are capable of filling this position, you are the ideal man in every respect, but you are not going to get as good a position as would be given to a
chief commissioner if he happened to be a judge of the Superior Court; we cannot give you the emolument or the conditions that were given to the late chairman, because he was a judge and you are not. Why should he not have the same salary and the same consideration ? I doubt very much if any self-respecting man, not a judge, will hereafter accept a chief com-missionerskip when a judge for any reason, has vacated it. unless you give him as good a position as you gave to the former chief commissioner. You may have a lawyer who knows much more law than any judge, a man who has a wide knowledge of the business of the country, who could fill the position just as well or better than any justice of the Supreme Court, and why, in the name of common justice and fairness, should he not be paid according to the work done, according to his merit and according to the value of the man who does the work. I object to this legislation because it makes a distinction where there should be no distinction, and I ask the Minister of Justice if it would not be better for him to introduce legislation by which, no matter who the chairman of the commission shall be, he shall have the very same emolument, the very same conditions of affluence, safety and permanence as a judge would have if he were taken to fill that position. Surely there can be no getting away from that. It may be that four years out of the House makes some change in a man's way of looking at things, but I do not suppose that even with the perfection to which caucus government has gone in these latter days, my right hon. friend called in all his followers together and went over this resolution page by page and got them all to say : That is the perfect thing and we will stand by you in that. I imagine that most of the hon. gentlemen who sit opposite knew nothing about what these resolutions contained until they were brought down and placed on the order paper, and it did seem to me peculiar-may be it is inevitable-that the very moment they came out, everybody on the other side of the House felt that he had to [DOT] stand by this and not urge a word in criticism of the resolutions. Not one of the vast surplusage of talent on that side of the House had a word of criticism. We saw the same thing the other day on the Seeds Bill, and to-day again on this resolution ; no man seems to think he is there for any other purpose than to say ' ditto ' to what the government says, Let us stand for every line, every dot and every vowel of what the government proposes to do. But are we not here to-day to make this measure as good as it can possibly be made ? I do not wish to do anything but to make this as good as it can be made, but I deplore the discriminations which have been introduced into this legislation. I think you should make the same legislation

for your chief commissioner no matter who he may he, a judge or anybody else, for you certainly must contend that when you appoint a chief commissioner, you are getting a man who will fill the contract and do the work. If you get such a man you ought to make his position equally as good as that of his predecessor or his successor. I am also opposed to the principle that this chief commissioner, simply because he is a judge, shall only be displaced by the action of both Houses of parliament. When you have a chief commissioner who is not a Superior Court judge he will not be in that position ; the Governor in Council may dismiss him for cause; but in the other case simply because he is a judge you make the other provision. I do not believe it will be found to work well, and I think the very same provisions that are in this legislation should be adopted for whatever man holds the office of chief commissioner, whether he be a layman or a judge from the Supreme Court. Now I am not going to carry my criticisms any further ; these are just the thoughts that came to me as I listened to the discussion and as I read the resolution. There is no use trying to import into this discussion a charge that we on this side are saying something against the judges. If the Minister of Justice had not mentioned Mr. Justice Killam's name no one would have known about the matter ; what we were discussing was simply the abstract resolution, no matter whether the appointee be a judge, a duke or simply a man of business. It is cheap party tactics to try to force on us the odium that we are objecting to the character of the judge. I am not going the least step in the direction of suggesting that Justice Killam would be influenced by the corporations, and it is idle to attempt to use that argument against us in any sense. In the first place, we want an explanation from the government as to why their appointee left the office in the way in which he did and with the haste with which he did. We have received as a parliament no explanation of that whatsoever. My second objection is to the distinctions in position which are made by this Bill where no distinctions exist in merit. I would have the chief commissioner placed on exactly the same plane and level as the other commissioners, whether he happened to come from the Supreme Court or was a man who had not been a judge previous to his appointment to the commission.


Mr. H. J. LOGAN.: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that we have all enjoyed the eloquent remarks of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Foster) upon this very important question, especially that part of his remarks in reference to the promotion of judges from inferior courts to superior courts. It requires a great stretch of imagination for us to believb that in the year 1S93 the hon. gentleman who now leads the opposition was one of the cabinet ministers from the Mr. FOSTER.
province of New Brunswick. It is a well-admitted fact that the judges in a province are generally appointed on the recommendation of the cabinet ministers from that province ; and on that occasion Mr. Justice Landry, who was then a judge of the county court of the county of Kent, was promoted to a superior court judgeship on the recommendation of the present hon. leader of the opposition. And yet, Mr. Speaker, we have been to-day for a considerable length of time lectured upon the enormity of the crime of promoting judges from an inferior' court to a superior court,


Mr. A. JOHNSTON.: It was in a moment of weakness.


Hance James Logan: My hon. friend who has said that it was in a moment of weakness, should have quoted another adage even older than that:	' Consistency, thou art a
jewel.' If there is any man in Canada who should not have a single word to say about promotion from an inferior court to a superior court, that man is the present hon. leader of the opposition ; because I believe that that was one of the few cases, if not the only case, in the Dominion of Canada in which a county court judge has been promoted to the position of a superior court judge.


John Graham Haggart: Perhaps the hon. gentleman can tell us whether it was Sir John Macdonald who made the promotion.


Hance James Logan: My hon. friend heard me say a moment ago that it was in the year 1893.


John Graham Haggart: Then, the Minister of Justice was mistaken.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I was mistaken ; but the hon. gentleman gave the explanation when he said that unusual things occur in New Brunswick.


Hance James Logan: I will admit that it was not the government of Sir John Macdonald; but it was a government of which the present hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) was a distinguished member, that established the precedent by promoting Judge Landry, I believe a very eminent judge, to the Superior Court.


John Graham Haggart: Perhaps the hon. gentleman does not know the fact. I do not know that the council were ever consulted in reference to the appointment of a judge.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Hance James Logan: I trust, Mr. Speaker, that there was not a bolt in 1893 as well as in 1896. I presume that the Governor General in Council made this appointment, and if my hon. friend from South Lanark was not present in council, and was not consulted in the matter, he would not presume to say that the hon. member for North Toronto

(Mr. Foster) was not consulted, lie being the minister for the pronvince of New Brunswick at the time. Many instances have been cited here to-day of the promotion of puisne judges to chief justiceships, because of the eminent fitness which they have shown for the higher position. That practice has been fairly well established in this country. Many instances have been mentioned here to-day, not only in Canada but in Great Britain. If I mistake not, the Hon. Mr. Justice King, a gentleman than whom none better or brighter ever adorned a court, was promoted from the Supreme Court of the province of New Brunswick to become a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, on the recommendation, I presume, of the hon. member for North Toronto, who was at that time the minister from the province of New Brunswick. We might go on giving other instances; but, after all, the question whether a judge should be promoted from an inferior position to a superior one, is a question whether he possesses those eminent qualifications to fit him for the higher position.
I regret that the hon. leader of the opposition to-day endeavoured to create a distrust and disrespect in this country for the Railway Commission. He stated that two of the appointments to that commission had been made for political exigencies and for nothing else. Well, Mr. Speaker, that commission is a semi-court of this country, and we should endeavour, it seems to me. to inculcate the idea in the minds of the people that that court is one which knows what it is doing, and will hold the scales of justice even as between all parties. When the commission -was appointed, the Hon. Mr. Blair was made its chairman. Mr. Blair, I believe, was eminently fitted for that position. No man on the other side of the House up to to-day has ever risen to say that, from his knowledge of law and his experience in this House in connection with the Railway Act, he was not fitted to be chairman. The government, I know, were blamed, even by their own supporters, for appointing a man who had differed with them on a very important question ; but the government rose to the occasion, and, though he did not agree with them in regard to the transcontinental railway project, they decided to appoint him. because they believed him to be the best man for the position ; and my hon. friend 1he leader of the opposition did not complain of the appointment. But the time came when Mr. Blair suddenly, in the twinkling of an eye, while many cases were standing for judgment, resigned his position ; and my hon. friend asks the government to-day for an explanation of Mr. Blair's resignation under these circumstances. I think the answer to the question, why did Mr. Blair resign, should be given by these hon. gentlemen. The government cannot explain it-there is no question about that. It is beyond explanation on this side of the House ; but our hon. friends on the other side, who formed a partnership with a gentleman who said that he had persuaded Mr. Blair to resign, should explain to this House and to the country why it was that their political agent, their partner in political crime at that time, made that statement.
But no explanation comes from the other side. Mr. Blair was appointed by this government because they considered him the best man to fill the position. But why was he persuaded to resign, and how comes it that he did resign at so opportune a moment for hon. gentlemen opposite ? What are the facts, as near as we can gather them, and no doubt they will all be public within a few months. The facts are that these hon. gentlemen opposite knew of Mr. Blair's resignation before the government were aware of it. They proclaimed to the world that inside of a certain forty-eight hours be would take the stump. Why was it that the chief Tory organ in the Dominion, the 'Montreal Star,' proclaimed that Mr. Blair would take the stump. How comes it that the 'Star' knew of Mr. Blair's resignation even before the government knew it. These are questions which hon. gentlemen opposite should answer in order that the people may be on their guard against similar political bombshells that may be sent out in any future campaign. But when Mr. Blair did resign he was elevated by these hon. gentlemen to the highest of political fame. They proclaimed him the saviour of Canada. They sang his praises ad nauseam. This country was made blue by their fulsome eulogies from one end of the country to the other. Not only did they sing his praises upon every platform and in every Tory newspaper in the land, with perhaps the possible exception of the ' Toronto World.'


William Findlay Maclean: Hear, hear. A sound newspaper.


Hance James Logan: Not only did they do that but it is a fact, which I think will be proved in time, that these same gentlemen agreed that if the government should be defeated by their efforts assisted by the diabolical machinations of men who should have kissed the hand of the Prime Minister rather than have endeavoured to pierce his side, they would make him Minister of Railways. I repeat it is the duty of these hon. gentlemen to explain to this House and the country why Mr. Blair resigned from the railway commission.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



SECOND READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 22), respecting the Calgary and Edmonton Railway-Mr. Oliver.

Mr. G. W. FOWLER (King's and Albert).: With the major portion of the resolutions before the House I have no fault to find. They are not in accord with my views respecting these matters, but they are in accord with the custom of the country as it has been ever since the Canadian colonies acquired the right of self government. But to the first portion of the resolutions I do object. I fail to understand why a resolution of this kind should be brought down to this House, 'particularly in view of the very explicit statements made to this House and to the country when the Bill to establish the Railway Commission was under discussion. ' I do not see why, because the chief cornmis-sionership is to be given to a judge of the Supreme Court, he should be treated differently from any other person who might bo chosen for that exalted position. And I fail to see why it is necessary to take a judge from a Supreme Court bench to fill this office. Surely it speaks but ill for the talent and ability within the ranks of the Liberal party, if it is necessary for the government to go to the Supreme Court for a chief commissioner. There are hundreds of men within the Conservative party as well qualified for the position as is Mr. Justice Killam, however high his attainments may be. I have not a word to say against Mr. Justice Killam. I have not heard all this debate, but I believe I am right in saying that no member on this side of the House has made any attack upon him in any way. Mr. Justice Killam's character or legal attainments are not in question here. But what is in question is the proposal to make an exception of Mr. Justice Killam's appointment to the chief railway commlsslon-ership, and, as already pointed out it seems to me that great danger lies along this line. It would be rqucb better if he were placed upon the same footing as any other person who might be offered this appointment. My own belief is that any judge appointed as puisne judge should have no opportunity ;even to become a chief justice, to say nothing of receiving political appointments. However, as I have said, it has been the custom to allow these promotions ever since this *was a self governing country, so I do not quarrel with that part of the resolution.
1 would not have spoken on this subject, had it not been for matters being dragged into this discussion which really have no place in it, though, perhaps, incidental to the subject. The hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan), who spoke last, tried to connect the Conservative party with what he alleged to be a plot or conspiracy to defeat the Liberals in the late election. I wish to give a categorical denial to the charges that the hon. gentleman hurled at this side of the House. There is not one atom of truth in any of these statements. Not an ex-member or a member of this House on Mr. LOGAN.
the Conservative side, or anybody having authority to speak for the Conservative party was mixed up in any way with a scheme, plot, conspiracy or whatever these hon. gentlemen choose to call it with Mr. Blair or any person on his behalf. They ask why did Mr. Blair resign his chief commission-ership ? Why Mr. Blair has told us. He says he resigned in order to reiterate his strong opposition to that most iniquitous scheme, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. But I would ask hon. gentlemen a question: Why did not Mr. Blair reiterate his strong objection to that Grand Trunk Pacific scheme ? Let hon. gentlemen on the other side answer that particular question.


Alexander Johnston: Ask Dave Russell.


George William Fowler: If I were to ask anybody I would go to a person higher up than Mr. David Russell.


Alexander Johnston: Ask Hugh Graham.


George William Fowler: I would go to a person higher up than Mr. Hugh Graham, if I wished to find the person who had the authority and the personal knowledge to answer the question truthfully as it should be answered. We who read the newspapers remember an account of a certain interview between Mr. Blair and a certain person prominent in the Council of the Liberal party. And even the sanctity of the Sabbath day was invaded by these counter-plotters. They did not respect the holy calm of the Lord's day itself. And, Sir, if the secret history of that interview is ever written, if what took place is disclosed, nothing will be shown that should make any Conservative ashamed. If this investigation that the hon. gentlemen opposite are talking about is held, perhaps the two high contracting parties to that interview will be called before the investigating committee and will be asked to tell under oath just what passed in that particular interview on that particular Sabbath day. Plots ! They say there was a plot that a certain prominent lawyer in Montreal and certain promoter in Montreal, both Liberals


An hon. MEMBER.: Oh, no.


George William Fowler: Certainly. They are the arch plotters always. They say there was a plot between these gentlemen and Mr. Blair and some other persons, to do, what? To stab in the back the leader of this House; destroy his government and set up another. Well, it is not the first time by any means that we have heard of plots within the ranks of the Liberal party. I take up the Ottawa ' Free Press ' to-night, the leading Liberal organ of the Capital, and I find there an account of a plot in the Liberal cabinet of Quebec, to stab in the back the premier of that province. Why, it is only a case of history repeating itself. If there was a plot to destroy the prime minister of the

Dominion, it is only another Liberal plot such as we have known before.
The honourable member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) is a splendid exponent of political morality. If we are correctly informed, a gentleman answering to his description, and with just as much right to a vote in the late election as he has, presented himself at one of the polling booths in this city at the late Ontario provincial election and attempted to vote, it cannot be possible that a small city like this contains within its necessary narrow limits two gentlemen of such magnificent form and such perfect beauty of face as the hon. gentleman and his double- if he has a double. Therefore, we are forced to the conclusion that it was the hon. gentleman himself, the member for Cumberland who presented himself at that polling booth in the city of Ottawa and attempted to vote in the late election. Well, Sir, the hon. gentleman has told us that we should kiss the hand of the prime minister rather than attempt to pierce his side. I do not know what he meant by that, but I want to say that is not the kind of osculation that hon. gentlemen on this side prefer. It may suit the hon. gentleman to kiss the hand of the premier ; it may suit the hon. gentleman to kiss the foot of the premier ; it may suit him to kiss any other part of the anatomy of the premier he may prefer-but when it comes to a game of that sort, I think I am entitled to speak for my hon. colleagues, and to say that we wish to be counted out.


Hance James Logan: That is about your sort.


George William Fowler: It seems to be about the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Logan's) sort, and he was the gentleman to whom I was referring.


Hance James Logan: Nice language.


George William Fowler: I do not think the argument he put forward, or the argument he attempted to bring into this debate, has tended to the dignity of the debate. The hon. gentleman threw down the gauntlet; he gave the challenge to this side of the House ; and if he has got the worst of it. he has only himself to blame. As far as I am concerned I propose to vote against this resolution.


Mr. A. C. BOYCE (West Algoma).: Mr. Speaker, I am glad as a new member of the House to have had an opportunity of listening earnestly and carefully to the debate on these resolutions which have been offered by the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick). They contain within them the elements of a great many deep principles which are involved and by which the country will judge this House. They contain a collection of principles which it is of the utmost importance that hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House should consider carefully before consolidating in a measure of this importance. I do not know that I can add much light to what has
been enunciated in support of or in opposition to these resolutions, but I am constrained by the attitude which has been taken by hon. gentlemen opposite to add my quota, my mite in opposition to this legislation, because of the principles which are involved in them or rather because of the want of principle. The question at issue is not the irrelevant question which has been dragged into this discussion as to whether hon. gentlemen on this or that side of the House, or hon. gentlemen who have since passed from the scene, revered statesmen of Canada, or hon. gentlemen still in the House and holding prominent positions therein, have committed themselves to principles such as are inculcated in these resolutions. We are beside such questions at the present time. They are wholly extraneous, and foreign to the question under consideration. We should lift the plane of this debate a little higher, we should elevate it to the point of declaring that we are prepared to enunciate in concrete form on the statute-book or in the shape of a resolution the principle which we have always upheld and which certain hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House have always upheld and stood for, namely, that the judiciary of our land is separate and apart from all political influence, is entirely free from all influence and is uninfluenceable. If the belief be involved in this resolution that the judiciary is not to be free, as it has been free in the past, notwithstanding some errors and mistakes, which have been pointed out by certain hon. gentlemen opposite, errors capable of explanation in connection with particular circumstances, if there be involved in these resolutions of the hon. minister a desecration of those principles which are applicable to the judiciary and for which this country has long struggled and to which we have been committed, then I say we are lowering the plane and lowering the standard of the judiciary in Canada. It is not an answer, although it has been admitted and I am sorry to say it has been the only answer we have had so far from the other side of the House, to the very clear and forceable enunciation of the principles involved in the discussion on the part of the opposition that those on this side of the House, or certain other gentlemen who have been on this side of the House, have been guilty of similar acts, or have adhered to principles, or have made mistakes which are now deplored from this side of the House. The cry of tu quoque was ever a dangerous one. We have had it enunciated very recently in the provincial elections in the province of Ontario. We have seen the people rise in their might as against an hon. gentleman who had led the legislative assembly in the province for many years, and who, from the hustings, defended his own party on the cry that the

i"
other side was just as bad. It was not an answer to the question as to whether the judiciary shall be impugned, as to whether efforts shall be made "to lower the standard of the judiciary and to drag it into the political arena to say that such and such an appointment had been made in the past when such and such a party was in power, but I should have been glad personally had I been able to listen to arguments from the other side of the House in support of these resolutions along a higher plane than the mere throwing back of charges that similar mistakes have been made and similar principles enunciated by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House. To what purpose are these resolutions offered ? They are to the effect that from henceforth it can be said, by reference to the records of this House, that hon. judges, when they are, as we suppose, removed from political preferment and from hope of preferment, are as a matter of fact not so removed, that they are still open to further preferment, to be removed from the high positions to which they are promoted, and that they may look for greater preferment along political lines. I always had the idea, Sir, that when a gentleman from the bar was elevated to the bench he was removed from all political influence and from all political associations. I was under the impression, having great regard and respect for the judiciary, and desiring in every possible way to uphold it in its pristine purity, that when a member of the bar was elevated to the bench he was politically dead as far as political preferment or political associations were concerned, but here we have had introduced resolutions involving a reversal of that salient doctrine. We find that even so far as the chief justice of the supreme court is concerned he may. after he is elevated to that high office, look forward hopefully and may strive earnestly, and there is no objection to his doing so, for that preferment which can only take place by 'reason of political favours being granted to him by one government or the other. That, Sir, is an insidious principle to advocate, it is aiming a blow at the prop and pillar of the judicial system of this country, and it is a blow which I verily believe hon. gentlemen on both sides of this House, as well as the great people of Canada, will have reason in the future deeply to deplore and vainly to regret.
There have been chapters in recent history-hon. gentlemen on this side of the House have referred to them-where distinguished members of the judiciary, men who are entitled to the utmost respect, and for whom I as one entertain the most profound regard, have been dragged into the mire of politics merely by reason of the acceptance o'f political commissions such as is now to be put upon a chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. Is that an elevation of the standard of our judi-Mr. BOYCE.
cial system ? Is it a thing to be encouraged. Is it a thing to be lauded to the skies, to be applauded by the hon. gentlemen who introduced this measure and are advocating it ? Is it not rather the commencement of the lowering of the standard of that judicial system for which we all entertain great veneration ? Sir, I desire to enter my feeble protest against such an interference as is now being made upon the judicial independence of this country, as has been well and cogently set forth by hon, gentlemen on this side of the House. I hope that this is not a question of political necessity, I hope that these resolutions do not grow out of expediency.
We had a challenge from the other side recently, from the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) I think, to demand an explanation of the reason why the Hon. Mr. Blair resigned the chairmanship of this commission. Well, Sir. however strange, however ridiculous that challenge may be, I would ask hon. gentlemen opposite whether it would not be more pertinent to ask them to explain, whether it does not rather lie at their doors to answer the question why Mr. Blair was appointed to the chairmanship of the Railway Commission in the first place ? What were the necessities, what were the qualifications and what were the expediencies, if the necessity did not exist, for that appointment ? It was an extraordinary thing to contemplate. We see that hon. gentleman, finding that the government of which he was then a member was not in accord with his own ideas, resigned his portfolio in the government and that he then received probably the highest appointment within the gift of the government. I say it is an extraordinary thing to behold what is now taking place, as is apparent from these resolutions, a transaction, a negotiation between the government and a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada. That, Sir, is a principle which, having due regard to the upholding of our judicial system and the creation of that profound respect which we all have for it, cannot be encouraged and cannot be extended. It is the commencement of a danger that will increase, it is the first step towards creating a great difficulty in the future, it is sowing a seed which may spring up later on and produce a direful harvest. When it is necessary, when it is desirable or expedient for the government of the day to choose for this high position a judge of the Supreme Court to fill a political appointment, then I say there is the commencement of a state of things which it is undesirable to approve of or to continue.
If it can be said that this appointment might be made elsewhere, that there are other gentlemen, as undoubtedly the House knows well is the case, qualified for this exalted position, possessing perhaps more business qualifications than are possessed bv the estimable gentleman whose name

lias been mentioned, then why not make the appointment without regard to the judiciary? Why establish the precedent which will create emulation and rivalry and political aspirations among the members of the judiciary. Where is the necessity for it ? And if the necessity does not exist why drag political expediency into the judicial system of this land ? Sir, 1 would rather have heard from the Minister of Justice some explanation of these resolutions which would have shown them to rest upon a higher plane of public interest; I would like to have heard less of extraneous matter dragged in, and less of that which is not pertinent to the question involved. When one comes to consider the dangers that are involved b'y this appointment, one cannot but regard the resolutions as a menace to that system which we hold in the highest respect. There has been, and there is, a necessity for further strengthening the hands of the judiciary of this land; there is now an opportunity to demonstrate to this country that the judiciary stands supreme in the respect of the country, and cannot be assailed by the government of the day. I trust that hon. gentlemen opposite have not lost sight of that desirable principle. I hope that in the passage of these resolutions, respect will be paid to that principle ; and it is much to be desired that, if the overthrow of the principle involved in this appointment is inevitable, the judicial system should be tampered with as little as possible in the creation of public offices. Sir, there is a time coming when this great Canadian people will need the solidity and the calm independence of the judiciary. As this great country grows, surely we need a stable, and independent judiciary, that cannot be influenced by political considerations. It is of vital necessity that its independence be preserved, no matter what other systems in our land become subject to political influence. I say that to interfere with the judiciary as these resolutions are doing is not a step towards that progress and towards the attainment of that true prosperity which we would like to see prevail in our country. I am opposed to the principle, opposed to it because of the absence of necessity for it, opposed to it because of the utter lack of expediency-if that fateful word has to be dragged into this discussion -and I am opposed to it because it is lowering to the dignity of the country and is aimed against and weakens the greatest safeguard that the people of Canada have to-day.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT (East Simcoe).: After the charge that was made by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) this afternoon, that the present leader of the opposition, who will soon be in his seat to defend himself, had by some plan or scheme induced Mr. Blair to resign his position as chairman of the Railway Commission, I
think that members on both sides of the House expected that the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice would have risen in his place before this debate closed and stated officially that there would be a thorough investigation into the matter, and I kepi my seat in the vain hope of seeing either these gentlemen or some other member ot the House rise


Hance James Logan: Will the hon. gentleman pardon me ? I did not mention Mr. Borden, or refer to him in any way whatever this afternoon.


William Humphrey Bennett: I am within the judgment of the House, and certainly the gentlemen on this side understood the hon. member as referring to Mr. R. L. Borden, and to no one else. The hon member went further, and stated that he was to be Minister of Railways in Mr. Borden's coming administration. That, I think, effectually clenches the statement. Be that as it may, the hon. gentleman made another statement which should have been either denied by the government or else the government should have claimed that they had no con nection with it, and that there would soon be a complete investigation or a disclosure of the whole matter which would show who was at fault. If the government are going to shoulder the responsibility of that investigation, some member of the government should have risen and stated that it would be commenced. I have heard the Prime Minister in this House on more than one occasion threaten hon. gentlemen on this side of the House that if they dared to formulate charges which they had made, these charges would be investigated and [DOT]probed to the bottom, either by a committee of this House or by judges, the highest in the land. The offences charged in these cases were not great in their nature, but were of a trifling character, and yet the Prime Minister in this case has permitted and allowed, since last December, charges to be made against three members of his cabinet, against the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Blair)-charges that have astounded the people of Canada-and yet after this House has been nearly a month in session there has come from him no intimation-


Sir WILFRID LATJRIER.: What members of the government ?


William Humphrey Bennett: I will come to that in a moment. The country was startled early in December by certain charges that were made in connection with the elections just passed. What was the nature of these charges ? I am going to take newspapers favourable to the hon. gentlemen opposite and ministers of the Crown for the statements that were made in that connection. No hon. gentleman on that side of the House can deny that the Montreal ' Herald ' is the leading Liberal newspaper in Montreal?.

There is not a doubt about that. Further, that is the organ in which the Minister of Agriculture is largely interested financially ; it occurs to me that he has said that he is not interested in it, but we all know that the minister said in the House that while he had been a large stockholder in this newspaper he had transferred his stock to his brother when he became a minister. Be that as it may, no man will gainsay the fact that the Montreal ' Herald ' is the leading Liberal English newspaper in Quebec, and that this government is anxious to enjoy all the good effects it can obtain from that newspaper's influence. Coming to the issue of the Montreal ' Herald ' of December 5, what is stated ? After referring to this whole scandal-and it certainly was a scandal-it says :
Nevertheless there is much to indicate that it deserves to take rank in Canadian history with the Pacific scandal of 1873, which also cost the Conservative party dear.
What was the scandal, as stated in the newspapers, as stated in the Montreal ' Herald ' of December 5 ? Mr. Emmerson being interviewed as to some rumours then current-and it is strange to note that the interview given by him is telegraphed far and wide in this country and published, not only in the papers of Ontario and Quebec, but also in those of Manitoba-what was the whole scandal as related by Mr. Emmerson, and enlarged on by the papers ? It was that a gentleman who has been associated with hon. gentlemen in the past, the well-known lawyer, Mr. Greenshields, who was the most important figure in what is known as the Drummond County deal, a well-known friend of the government, who has on more than one occasion been a candidate in Quebec for hon. gentlemen opposite-this gentleman, Mr. Greenshields, associated with David Russell and other gentlemen had gone to certain members of the government, and these members of the government were specifically named. First and foremost was the Minister of Justice, the Minister of the Interior-


Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not desire to allow that statement to go unchallenged for one-half second. I say it is absolutely untrue, and I defy the hon. gentleman to prove it, and it is not in the newspaper that he refers to.


William Humphrey Bennett: If the hon. minister will calm himself


Charles Fitzpatrick: No man can remain calm in the presence of such a statement as that.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will the hon. minister allow the statement to go first ? He challenged me to name the paper in which he was referred to. The hon. gentleman was
referred to, and the Minister of Marine-


William Humphrey Bennett: 


Mr. PREFONTAINE.: I have to make the same statement as has been made by the Minister of Justice.


Charles Fitzpatrick: And he dare not make the charge.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: Make your charge.


William Humphrey Bennett: On December 5 this appeared from Montreal in the Toronto ' World '-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries may smile.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes, I do.


William Humphrey Bennett: Perhaps he will correct the statement when I have read


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I do not care.


William Humphrey Bennett: The despatch reads :
Hon. Raymond Prefontaine said to-nlgbt that the reflections on himself, Mr. Fitzpatrick and Mr. Sifton, as published to-day in the ' Toronto World,' were not founded on fact. The whole article as far as it referred to the ministers was a fabrication of misstatements. As there was no definite charge, however, Mr. Prefon-taine declined to discuss the matter in detail.
The minister did take some cognizance of it, and did rush into print. I do not blame him after the manner in which he was referred to. It was stated in the public print that there was a plan on hand by which these gentlemen were to retire. What was the plan ? The Minister of Justice was to resign from the government, the Minister of the Interior was to resign, each was to be paid $100,000, but, for some reason or other, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Prefontaine) was placeu on the bargain counter at $75,000.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Charles Fitzpatrick: And men of gentlemanly instincts can laugh at such stuff as that.


William Humphrey Bennett: I will take the Montreal ' Herald ' for the statements. It goes on to state-and Mr. Emmerson makes similar statements, which are all in the Montreal ' Herald, and if they are not true the Minister of Justice and these gentlemen should have had an investigation long ago and called upon the Montreal ' Herald ' to do one of two things, either to retract the statements they have made or to make these statements good. Now, what are the statements made in the Montreal ' Herald ' on these different occasions ? The statements are these : That a certain syndicate with a capital of $4,000,000 was formed. That this syndicate was going, as its members expected. to take over the work of constructing the government end of the projected Grand Trunk Pacific Railway : that that proposition was laid before the premier himself,

and that that written proposition lay in the premier's hands for some days.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The statement was never made by the ' Herald.'


Wilfrid Laurier: The hon. gentleman is a member of parliament, and does he undertake to make statements of that kind ? Does he re-echo those statements, or does he not ? What is his object ? Does he re-echo those statements ?


William Humphrey Bennett: I simply say this, that the Montreal ' Herald,' a Liberal newspaper, has made these statements ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: And, moreover, if the hon gentleman has any charges to make, let him make them like a man. Let him not go upon mere gossip. If he has charges to make, let him make them. There is not a word of truth in them.


William Humphrey Bennett: The premier charges me with going upon mere gossip. Let me recall to his recollection a certain occasion when he did not do what I am doing-make a charge when the allegation and the denial could go out together. Tile right hon. gentleman, as leader of the Liberal party, in 1896 made the charge at Pembroke that Senator Drummond, now Sir George Drummond, had been instrumental in corrupting with a large sum of money the electors of this province, and that, as president of the Sugar Refiners' Association, he was in receipt of a large salary. The right hon. gentleman made that charge, not when Senator iAurnnioud could be present to meet him face to face ; and what was the answer of the Premier when afterwards he was challenged as to the truth or falsity of the statement ? Not that it was true or that it should be investigated, but that other people had made the statement, and therefore he felt quite justified in going before the public and repeating it Senator Drummond was not there to give a denial to the allegation ; but the government are here to answer the charges of these newspapers if they please, and I am simply quoting what is in these newspapers, and what has been current in the country during the last few months.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Mr. Speaker, are we not entitled to have the quotation made from the newspaper, with the date when it was made ? Let us have some opportunity of ascertaining the truth or falsity of these statements.
Mr. BENNETT'. I am reading from the Montreal ' Herald ' of the 5th of December:
Now, the statement is made that efforts were made, by threats and by the offer of money, to have three ministers resign. The prospective resignation of one of them, Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick, was even announced by Conservative papers. But it seems the three ministers re-18
fused the offers of $100,000, or whatever sum may have been offered to them, and moreover declined to be frightened.
I am going to read something now* that 1 hope will not shock the House. Everybody who knows the Minister of Justice will recognize this as a libel upon him, because it says that he penned this now almost historic telegram :
Do your damnedest

-which sounds so unlike the Minister of Justice to those who know him well that it seems improbable

*

was the telegram with which Mr. Fitzpatrick is said to have closed the incident when Montreal Conservative financiers undertook to secure his resignation, as they had announced.
Now7, I am not making these statements of my own knowledge. I know nothing whatever of them. I do not know whether the Minister of Justice telegraphed that or not. I will sit dowrn and let him deny It if he will.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I never sent any such telegram. There is not one w*ord of truth in it; and I wdsh to say, moreover, that because I do not stop and kick every cur that barks at my heels, it does not follow that I admit the veracity of it.


William Humphrey Bennett: Where there is a little smoke there is always a little fire, and those who know the Minister of Justice know that he is pretty badly piqued w7hen he acts as he does to-night. It is always the galled jade that winces.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Order. I think, in view of the categorical denial of the tw7o ministers referred to, that the hon. gentleman should not persist in continuing the discussion along the line that he does.
Some lion. MEMBERS. He has a perfect right.


William Humphrey Bennett: Now7, I have been challenged to name a single newspaper that has made any of these charges or allegations. There is the charge as it appears in the Montreal ' Herald ' of December 5.


Charles Fitzpatrick: No. What is the charge?


William Humphrey Bennett: I have just read it. Surely the hon. gentleman has not been listening.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I again call the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that if a charge has been referred to, it has been categorically denied by the hon. gentlemen concerned, and their word should be accepted.


William Humphrey Bennett: Mr. Speaker, if you rule that anything in a public newspaper cannot be read if a member denies the state-rnent, I bow to your ruling.



54S


Robert Franklin Sutherland: That is not the rule I am making at all. I understood the hon. gentleman again to refer to the charge asi having been made, after the hon. members concerned bad denied it. Under these circumstances, I think the hon. gentleman should accept -their denial, and not persist in repeating the charge.


William Humphrey Bennett: Well, Mr. Speaker, I bow to your decision. Now, let me state what is appearing in the public press as to the way in which the Department of Railways and Canals has been conducted under hon. gentlemen opposite and Mr. Blair. Surely that is a matter for inquiry by hon. gentlemen opposite. There is a paper in this city called ' Events,' in which on November 26 there appeared most startling statements which are worthy of inquiry by this House or by a Royal Commission. What are these charges :
In passing we might explain how Mr. Russell stole the St. John ' Telegraph.' After a certain political transaction, carried out under the Department of Railways and Canals, $25,000 was put into the St. John ' Telegraph ' stock. A certain contractor put up another $25,000 and a small amount of stock stood in the name of A. G. Blair, $5,000 we believe. The total capital stock of the company was $75,000 and only $69,000 of this had been issued. Mr. Dave Russell bought $9,000 of it, and as the contributors of the $50,000 did not wish their names to be known in eonnection with the subscriptions their stock was given to Mr. Dave Russell to hold in trust, it being, of course the control of the paper which the owners of the $50,000 worth of stock desired to retain. Mr. Russell then proceeded to treat the paper as his own, and when the directors protested he turned them out. He then offered the paper for sale to the Liberals for $125,000. The reason he was enabled to achieve this daring theft of an important daily newspaper was the desire of the two men who had placed their stock in trust with Mr. Russell not to be publicly connected with the affair.
is this the state of political morality in this Dominion to-day-that associated with the Minister of Railways and Canals is this gentleman, Mr. David Russell, of whom I have nothing good or bad to say, because 1 am not in a position to say it; that he stands as an intermediary, a toll-taker, between contractors and the department, that from a certain contractor $25,000 was filched and was used to purchase stock in a newspaper, that the deal was put through by Mr. Russell, and that by it he cleared no less than $125,000. The ministers cannot ignore these charges which are going through the country, nor turn a deaf ear to them when they hear them in this House. The public will expect, after the charges are stated in this House, that the same shall be fully investigated. This paper goes on to say :
Why was Mr. Russell so anxious to have the nominating of Mr. Blair's successor in the Department of Railways and Canals ? The answer Mr. BENNETT.
to this auestion is Abbey's Salts. Mr. Russell formed a partnership of some sort with Mr. Blair on the salts business. During the past three or four years Mr. Blair made about $80,000 out of it. Mr. Russell no doubt made much more, for Mr. Russell is clever. How ? For some years no dividend has been declared on .the stock. Promises have been given but nothing more. Mr. Russell is an adept at promises. In the meantime every contractor under the Department of Railways and Canals was expected to take a few thousands of stock in Abbey's Salts.


An hon. MEMBER.: What paper is that in ?


William Humphrey Bennett: The ' Events ' of November 26. It cannot be pretended that the government are not aware of that charge made by a Liberal journal in this city. Is it not then high time that they should announce that there will he an investigation into everything done in that department while Mr. Blair was at its head. But if you rule, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot go into these other matters by giving quotations from public newspapers connecting the names of ministers in connection with attempts made to bribe them by contractors, I must of course bow to your ruling. But the question discussed in this newspaper is surely worthy the consideration of the first minister. Surely he is not going to do what Mr. Ross did in the Ontario House when the Sullivan, Stratton, Gamey, investigation was up. What happened then ? For three hours Mr. Stratton was accused of all kinds of crimes, and after these three hours of accusation, Mr, Ross stood up in his place and said that the next day Mr. Stratton' would reply. That was certainly not an evidence of innocence, and I hope that the right hon. the first minis ter will go further than Mr. Stratton din and announce that there will be a full investigation into the conduct of the Department of Railways and Canals as regards this very matter. Let us go a little further. Tt was stated in the papers-and I suppose no one will rise to take Mr. Blair's part, because evidently there is none so poor as to do him reverence-that Mr. Blair was to take the stump. Perhaps the right lion, gentleman will explain why he did not. That is a matter concerning which the "House and the country desire an explanation and which is worthy of investigation. But the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) made this afternoon a very savage attack against Mr. R. L. Borden, and I think, in Mr. Borden's absence, it is only fair that I should place on ' Hansard ' the statement he made on the subject in connection with which the hon. gentleman made the charge he did.


Hance James Logan: I would beg to inform the hon. gentleman again that I never mentioned Mr. Borden's name or referred to him in any way this afternoon, and I shall leave to the unrevised ' Hansard ' the proof of mv statement.


William Humphrey Bennett: Who then did the hon. gentleman give as his authority for the statement that Mr. Blair was to be taken into the cabinet to be formed by Mr. Borden 1


Hance James Logan: I do not propose to give my authority just now. The hon. gentleman will know it soon enough. We are not going to show our hand just now.


William Humphrey Bennett: Then I presume the hon. gentleman is speaking on behalf of the government and there is after all going to be an investigation. If the right hon. the First Minister will say that there will be an inquiry, that will put an end to my remarks. 'But the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Emmerson) had something to say with regard to this matter in an interview which he gave the Montreal ' Herald ; ' and in that interview he certainly placed Mr. Borden in rather an unenviable light. On December 5, he gave the Montreal ' Herald ' this statement with reference to Mr. R. L. Borden :
I have no hesitation in telling you all I know about it,' said Mr. Emmerson. I was in New York on the 18th of September, and a gentleman approached me at the hotel I was staying at and asked me if there was no chance of getting a contract for the construction of the transcontinental railway. The elections, be said, were coming off, and if a contract was obtained there would be lots of money to swell the campaign fund. I told him that the work *would have to be done by Canadian contractors, and refused to have anything to do with him.
Ho told me that they were working through Montreal people and I knew afterwards that Montreal parties acted very suddenly and peculiarly during the campaign. At the hotel was J. N. Greenshields, of Montreal. The Montreal people were said to be friends of David Russell. During the elections David Russell, J. N. Green-shields, two Americans, Dr. Kennedy and a Mr. Green, said to be an Englishman, who resided in the States for some years, visited my province.
They were riding in a magnificent private car and at Fredericton Junction on October 22, met Mr. R. L. Borden, apparently by appointment. Mr. Borden went on board, having been met at the station by Mr. Dowling, private secretary of Mr. David Russell. During the run' to St. John, Mr. Borden, Mr. Greenshields and others were closeted together.
In the province of Quebec ' La Presse ' was captured. But this was only preliminary work. There was, so I am told, to be on nomination day some twenty-five Liberal members who would retire. In this way twenty-five Conservatives would be elected in that province by acclamation. and this would secure the return of the Conservatives, when R. L. Borden would have charge of the construction of the transcontinental line and the giving out of the contracts. In connection with the resignation of Mr. Blair it may be mentioned that four days afterwards there appeared in a New York financial paper that he was to be the head of a syndicate for which the capital had been secured to control the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific. But something went wrong, and the plan of campaign fell through. ' That, said Mr. Emmerson, ' is what I know and what I have heard about it'.
IS}	.
If that is a correct report of Mr. Emmer-son's statement-and I am not aware that he has contradicted it-he cast a reflection on twenty-five gentlemen who presumably have seats in this House from the province of Quebec ; and every hon. member from that province, in justice to himself, should demand from the government a full investigation and have the doubt cleared up whether or not they were parties to the infamous scheme by which they were to destroy this government, if at all possible, and had agreed to do this for a monetary consideration. I shall be very much surprised indeed if some hon. gentlemen from the province of Quebec do not demand a full and thorough investigation. But we have a further statement from another gentleman rather friendly to the government. I refer to the Speaker of the Senate. He said :
I heard ou nomination day that the bombshell of the Tories was to develop as follows : [DOT] The Tories, having secured the ' Presse,' were to keep the fact of having done so carefully from the public knowledge, and on nomination day Mr. Blair was to make extraordinary revelations. On the same day two or three ministers of the Crown were to be arrested for malfeasance in office. The next day the ' Presse ' was to denounce the government and ask all honest men to turn out the Laurier government because of the revelations made by Mr. Blair. A certain number-as many as they could secure -of the Liberal candidates were to resign in disgust and allow as many Conservatives to be returned by acclamation.
Naturally Mr. Speaker Dandurand did not wish to make a wholesale accusation against the Liberal members from Quebec, and consequently did not state the number. Here then we have a statement made by a minister of the Crown and another made by the Speaker of the Senate, both published in a Liberal newspaper, and surely these are worthy of investigation. Then it is asked why did not the scheme succeed, and one newspaper thus answered that question.
The generally accepted theory is that the premier secured information which Mr. Blair was unwilling to have made public, and obtained it from Mr. Lambert Payne, formerly private secretary to Mr. Blair, and now to Mr. Emmerson.
What does that mean ? It is a statement in effect that Mr. Payne whilst secretary to Mr. Blair, became aware of certain actions in the department and had communicated these to Mr. Emmerson, and that the threat on the part of the first minister to expose Mr. Blair's conduct was sufficient to prevent his going on the public platform and making the expected denunciation.
Now, I desire to be perfectly fair and will add that I have seen in the public press an explicit denial by Mr. Payne, who is personnally known to many hon. members, especially to the older members,-and every one who knows him will accept his explanation that he in no way was a party to an exposure of Mr. Blair. There is the

matter as it is to-day before the public, set fortli in tbe newspapers in the most positive and public manner, set forth in newspapers favourable to hon. gentlemen opposite and referred to in statements made by ministers of the Crown who were associated with the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Em-mersou). The stories have been rife for a year or two that the Minister of Railways and Canals was the object of a plot to effect his downfall. And it may be that the Minister of Railways and Canals has set broadcast these statements relative to other ministers with the hope of defeating or at least of injuring them. I do hope that some hon. gentleman on that side, clothed with authority and knowledge-and that would mean that it must be none other thau the Prime Minister himself-will rise in his place and state positively that there shall be and will be a thorough, a complete, a searching investigation of the whole matter. Ret that investigation be by any authority that is competent, whether by a commission, as hon. gentlemen opposite seem to prefer, or by a committee of this House. In that connection, perhaps the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) knows whereof he speaks, because I notice that he is chairman of the Committee on Privileges and Elections. But, in view of the hon. gentleman's action in presenting himself as a would-be voter in the city of Ottawa, where he must have known that he was not entitled to vote-and I have heard no denial from him of this statement which has been repeated here-it is about time for the Prime Minister to ask him to withdraw from the chairmanship of that committee. In reference to the part played by Mr. R. L. Borden in this matter, I think it only fair in his absence to place on ' Hansard ' the statement made by him, under date of Dec. Oth he gave this interview in Montreal :
With reference to certain press statements respecting Mr. Blair's resignation as chairman of the Railway Commission, I wish to say that that resignation came as a great surprise to me. I did not directly or indirectly suggest to him or ask him to resign. I held out no inducement to him to resign. I had no interview with him upon the subject, nor did any one on my behalf approach him upon the subject. In short I had nothing whatever to do with his resignation, and I was thoroughly surprised -when I heard of it.
I had no connection with and I knew nothing of any negotiations respecting the alleged change of ownership of ' La Presse,' and I had nothing to do with such change, if it took place. I never had any interview or communication with any English or American capitalists, or with any other person, with respect to any proposed contracts for the building of the Grand Trunk Pacific. I never even heard of the alleged construction syndicate. No one approached me with any proposal respecting the construction of that railway. Any statement or suggestion to the contrary is utterly without foundation.
I never received any contribution for any purpose from Mr. Russell or Mr. Greenshields or Mr. BENNETT. -
any gentleman connected with them, or from any English or American capitalists, nor did the Conservative party, so far as I am aware. Until the article in the ' Toronto World ' appeared I had never even heard of any attempt by Conservatives to induce the withdrawal of Liberal candidates in the province of Quebec. It would astonish me beyond measure to learn that any such attempt was made or proposed.
Now, this question is before the House, and to-morrow's newspapers will place it before tbe country. And, while the government are strong in this House, while it is clear from the applause that greets every statement of the ministerial benches whether creditable or discreditable, it is evident that this government cannot he defeated in this House. Judging by that applause I cannot conceive that it would be possible to force the greater part of these who sit behind tbe ministers to vote against this government, no matter how odious or nefarious any act of theirs may be.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think tbe hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) should retract that statement.


William Humphrey Bennett: Oh, very well : I withdraw it. As I cannot repeat that statement here I can only repeat it in other places, and t expect to do so on many occasions.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Withdraw.


William Humphrey Bennett: I have gone through the province of Ontario, or parts of it within the last month, and have addressed many public audiences. And, I care not what public opinion in other provinces may be, I can tell the Prime Minister here to-night, that, unless an inquiry is made into the matter we have been discussing, public opinion m tbe great province of Ontario will be stronger against him even than it was on the 3rd of November last. I do not wish to harrow up the feelings of hon. gentlemen who had a trial of-strength in the province of Ontario lately, and they know the result. The whole corps of officials and all the power and influence of this government were joined to those of the provincial government, and what was the result ? I need not harrow up the feeling of hon. gentlemen opposite by referring to the matter at length. They know that, against all the power of this government and of the local government, and against all the power of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, which carried free not only hundreds but thousands of voters who were expected to vote for tbe Liberals, this government received, in the great province of Ontario a rebuke that did not well please the Prime Minister and that to-day saddens him to recall. And another thing that he recalls with pain is that the old Liberal county of Huntingdon, for the first time in its history, went Conservative under the rule of the present Prime Minister of this Dominion.


Alexander Johnston: At the risk of prolonging this discussion which, perhaps, has already been prolonged too much, I desire to offer a few observations. Those observations will not be lengthy so far as they concern the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) who has just taken his seat. He has played again the role with which he lias made us familiar in past sessions in this House when he bandies about the names of ministers and prominent members on this side. I say to him and to those on his side of the House, that if he has any charge to make against any of the ministers whom he has been pleased to name, there is a proper way for him to present that charge. I will challenge him, I will dare him. to stand in his place and make a single charge against any hon. gentleman on this side, and I will give him the floor if he desires to speak. He has mentioned the name c.f the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Prgfontaine). Is he prepared to make a charge against that gentleman ? He has mentioned the Minister of Justice (Mr-Fitzpatrick). Is he prepared to make a charge against the Minister of Justice ? No, he is not. He is doing what we have seen him do in this House many a time before, using the names of men occupying prominent and responsible positions in this country, but not daring to make a charge against them. There is a proper course and an improper course in these matters, and the hon. gentleman has seen fit to take the improper course.


William Humphrey Bennett: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. A. Johnston) wish me to answer ?


Alexander Johnston: I do.


William Humphrey Bennett: I can tell the hon. gentleman that I have been elected to this House for four parliaments. My last majority was 383 and my smallest was 32. And, if the reputation of this government in Ontario goes as it has been going, my majority next time will be six hundred.


Alexander Johnston: There, Mr. Speaker, is the same old story. I have been good enough to give the hon. gentleman an opportunity to justify the statements he has made. I am still prepared to give way to him if he is ready to make a charge against any member of this House. Let me repeat that he has seen fit on this occasion, as on former occasions, to adopt the improper course when he chooses to address the members of this House of Commons. All I have to say on this occasion is that the coward and the slanderer is abroad in this country.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Alexander Johnston: I do not mean "to say that the hon. gentleman is one.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I rise to a point of order. I ask the ruling of the Speaker whether
such language is permissible, because it evidently refers to the hon. gentleman ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The term would have been objectionable if persisted in, but the hon. gentleman at once stated that he did not propose to apply it to the hon. gentle* man (Mr. Bennett). Otherwise the term would have been out of order.


Alexander Johnston: Understand me, well, Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to make that observation apply to any member occupying a seat in this House ; but I do say again that the coward and the slanderer is abroad in this country, and the sooner he is picked out and his picture held up to the people of this country, the better it will be for the country. Sir, I hope, and I am sure hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House will share that hope, that when hon. members venture to make insinuations of a very unsavory character with respect to members occupying seats in this House, if they have any charge to make, the proper thing for them to do is to make it. I will not pursue this subject any further. Now, why did Mr. Blair resign the chairmanship of the Railway Commission ? That is the question.


William Humphrey Bennett: Hear, hear.


Alexander Johnston: The hon. gentleman says, Hear, hear. I have no doubt that if he applied to hon. gentlemen occupying prominent positions in his own party he would be told very quickly the reasons why Mr, Blair resigned from the chairmanship of the Railway Commission. I propose, before I sit down, to call witnesses in this House on that matter, witnesses whom the hon. gentleman will be compelled to admit occupy prominent positions in the councils of the party of which be is a member. I propose to call as witness the ' Mail and Empire,' and I propose to call a greater witness still, the Montreal ' Star,' which conducted the campaign on behalf of the Conservative party which ended on the 3rd of November last. It was the leading organ of the Conservative party. I wonder why my hon. friend, who is anxious to know why Mr. Blair resigned, does not ask Mr. Hugh Graham, proprietor of the Montreal ' Star,' why Mr. Blair resigned. I am quite sure he would be told why. Is it not notorious all over this land that Mr. Graham was the one person perhaps in this country who was possessed of the information before it was announced to the public, that Mr. Blair was about to resign his position as chairman of the Railway Commission ? True it is that Mr. David Russell, who was one of the stalwarts of the Conservative party during the last campaign, has told us over and over again that he induced Mr. Blair to resign. He tells us so himself. Mr. Hugh Graham also tells the people of this country that he knew Mr. Blair was going to resign. Now, I have selected a few extracts at random from Conservative papers of about

the date of the resignation ; as nearly as I can find out, it occurred on the 18th or 19th of October last. I have mentioned the Montreal ' Star ' as the leading organ of the Conservative party in the Dominion of Canada. Some people may take exception to that, but I think any hon. gentleman in this House who followed the history of the Conservative party during the past three or four years can reach no other conclusion than that the Montreal ' Star ' was, during that time, the organ which was more intimately associated with the Conservative party than any other newspaper in this country. Now, we find a despatch from St. John, New Brunswick, in the Montreal ' Star ' of October 19, and what does it say ?
To-day there is no other topic on the street. Conservatives are jubilant, Liberals dumbfounded.
My hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean), at an early stage of this debate, said that he was ashamed of the conduct of the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, Mr. Blair, in resigning his position on the Railway Commission. He was ashamed of it; but the Conservatives in the city of St. John were jubilant because of it, and the Conservatives in every other city in the Dominion of Canada were jubilant. My hon. friend from South York was alone among the Conservatives who was ashamed, as nearly as we can find out, of the action of the ex-Minister of Railways in resigning his seat on that board. The St. John ' Telegraph,' of which we heard so much, and which was quoted at great length in the campaign in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick-the St. John ' Telegraph ' said
The resignation of Mr. Blair at this time, and the announcement which accompanies it will lend new force and depth to the swelling tide of popular feeling which animates this great country to-day, and which the government is ignoring to its peril and to its undoing.
The government was ignorant according to this paper. Then the St. John ' Sun,' which is a leading organ of the Conservative party in the province of New Brunswick, has this to say :
It is useless to suggest that Mr. Blair's resignation has no political significance. Its chief public significance is political. Mr. Blair is too old and experienced a politician not to understand the effect of his resignation at this stage of the campaign. If he were retiring for purely private or professional reasons-
The St. John ' Sun,' the leading organ of the Conservative party in New Brunswick, knew at that time that Mr. Blair was not resigning for purely private or professional reasons. What then was he resigning for 1 The leading organ of the Conservative party in New Brunswick evidently knew why he resigned. Why don't they tell us ? Why don't they take hon. gentlemen opposite into their confidence, if they are so anxious to ascertain why it was that he resigned ?


Alexander Johnston: The evidence is clear and distinct that they were aware of the reasons.
If he were retiring for purely private or professional reasons he would wait longer, as the premier must strongly desire him to do. But if Mr. Blair desires to strike one more blow at the project which he has declared to be full of peril to the nation, he knows that this is his great chance-his last one.
That is what they say. Then the St. John ' Star,' another leading organ of the Conservative party in New Brunswick and the Dominion of Canada, said :
The weight of his fighting ability and his influence thrown with the Conservative campaign against that policy

That is against the policy of the government.

against that policy at this time renders even more certain than it seemed yesterday the triumph of the policy of the people.
That is, the policy of the Conservative party, so-called. My hon. friend from South York is ashamed of the conduct of the exchairman of the Railway Commission ; the leading organs of the party of which he is a member are heartily proud of the conduct of Mr. Blair. Then there is the ' Citizen,' the leading organ of the Conservative party in the city of Ottawa. It says :
The people believe that these personal sacrifices have been prompted by patriotic motives, and that belief has stimulated the expectation that a man of Mr. Blair's acknowledged political power and weight in national life will not remain satisfied with a mere personal protest'; that his sense of obligation to the people will force him to come forward and make the consummation of this ruinous deal an impossibility.
That Is the opinion of the Ottawa 1 Citizen,' and yet my hon. friend from South York is ashamed of the conduct of Mr. Blair. Then there is the ' Mail and Empire.' Surely it will not be denied that this paper occupies a prominent position in the councils Of the Conservative party ? What does it say ?
The incident is highly dramatic.
Highly dramatic, of course.
Here is a public man commanding the highest position in the gift of the government-. In this office he might have remained for the remainder of his natural life. But a great issue is before us-an issue in respect of which he is well informed-and he lays aside his appointment and his emoluments in order that Canada may again be warned of the danger that lurks in the proposition we are now asked to endorse.
Hon. gentlemen opposite are anxious to ascertain why it was that Mr. Blair resigned. Why do they not read the 'Mail and Empire' in order to- be perfectly informed as to his reasons for resigning. Now there are several other statements that might be called in evidence to give this country an idea as to the reasons for Mr. Blair's resignation. We might appeal to the evidence of those hon.

gentlemen of the Conservative party wlio pressed Mr. Blair with invitations to speak for them all over the country. Who are the gentlemen, who, according to the Montreal 1 Star,' pressed him to speak in the city of Toronto ? Did any hon. gentlemen from the city of Toronto do so ? They pressed him to speak at Kingston, London, Brock-ville, Peterboro, Hamilton, Windsor, Chatham, St. Thomas, Niagara, St. Catharines, Quebec, Montreal, Three Rivers, St. John, Halifax, Moncton, Sussex, Fredericton, Amherst, Truro, Pictou and my own city of Sydney.


Mr. STOCKTON.: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. A. Johnston) means to say that the Conservative party in the city or county of St. John asked Mr. Blair to speak during the election he is entirely mistaken.


Alexander Johnston: I am simply, Mr. Speaker, giving the House the benefit of tne information given the country and the public and which has been generally supplied to them by the leading organ of the Conservative party, the Montreal * Star.'


Alfred Augustus Stockton: I am giving a denial of that statement, Mr. Speaker, and according to the ruling you made in respect to the hon. gentleman in front of me, that denial should be accepted. The statement is absolutely untrue.


Alexander Johnston: I accept without any reservation whatever the denial made by my hon. friend (Mr. Stockton), but I want to point out to him that it is not a denial of any statement made by me. It is a denial of a statement made by the leading organ of the party of which he is a member.


Samuel Barker: Mr. Speaker, I desire, as one of the representatives of the city of Hamilton, to give an equally explicit denial of the statement in regard to that city. There was no request whatever to Mr. Blair to deliver any speech at Hamilton.


Alexander Johnston: I accept with equal cordiality the statement made by the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) and it is another evidence of the unreliability of the statements that were handed out to the people of this country by this great organ of public opinion.


Mr. DANIEL.: Mr. Speaker, I desire on behalf of my own constituency of St. John to make a denial similar to the one already made by my hon. colleague from the county (Mr. Stockton). The Conservative party in St. John made no attempt whatever to obtain the services of Mr. Blair or to induce him to deliver an address in the city of St. John.


Alexander Johnston: I accept again, as I have accepted in the case of the hon. gentlemen who have preceded him, the denial of my hon. friend (Mr. Daniel). I followed the addresses delivered in the city of St.
John somewhat closely during the campaign, I followed the addresses made by my hon. friend in his own campaign, and I did not notice during the progress of that campaign that he or his colleagues took any exception to the very many remarkable things that were said by members of the Conservative party, of Mr. Blair. I think he fully concurred in everything which was said about him owing to the benefits that were going to accrue to the Conservative party as a result of his conduct, and I think he was prepared to accept the full benefit that he expected would accrue to the Conservative party. A great many people in the hon. gentleman's own party will not hesitate to say that were it not for the position assumed by Mr. Blair in this country neither himself nor his colleague would have been elected.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Mr. Speaker, I desire you to read the resolution before the House. I fail to see the connection between the hon. gentleman's remarks and the resolution.


Alexander Johnston: Mr. Speaker


David Henderson: I think I am quite wdthin my right in asking you, Mr. Speaker, to read the resolution.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The hon. gentleman is quite within his right in asking to have the resolution read at any stage of the debate.


Mr. ERODE  UR@: Not during a speech.


David Henderson: At any time. I understand it is my right.


Mr. BRODEUR.: You cannot interrupt an hon. member.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: My recollection of the rule is that a request may be made at any time to read the resolution before the House. If the hon. gentleman desires to have the resolution read. I will read it.


David Henderson: I have no desire to impose upon you, Mr. Speaker, the reading of this resolution, but I do not want to sit here and be imposed upon by a gentleman discussing a question which is not before the House.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: If it was not the desire of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Henderson) to have the resolution read, I do not think he should have asked to have it read.


David Henderson: I would ask you to read It unless the hon. gentleman is called to order.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think there has been a good deal of latitude allowed in this debate on both sides. The hon. gentleman's remarks are perhaps somewhat irrelevant to the question, but there has been a good deal of latitude and I do not propose to call him any more strictly to account just at present.


Alexander Johnston: I will be delighted to conform myself, Mr. Speaker, to any ruing you may make. My only apology for participating- In this discussion is that I am simply following the lead of lion, gentlemen on the other side of the House. I think that the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) is perhaps more than anybody else responsible for the tux-n which this debate has taken.
ilr. W. F. MACLEAN. In what way ? You had better shelter yourself under some one else on the other side. I do not care to take the responsibility.


Alexander Johnston: It is interesting, however, to have from hon. gentlemen opposite, even at this late date, a contradiction of the reports which were sent out bv this great organ of the public, the Montreal '*Star.' I think, however, Mr. Speaker, it would have been a little better if these lion, gentlemen had risen in their places previously to November 3, last, and repudiated the utterances of this journal. They are willing to do it to-day, but they were not so ready to do it previously to November 3 last. However, I am quite prepared to accept their statements. My hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan), when addressing the House befox-e six o'clock, made reference to the-rumour set abroad in this country that Mr. Blair, in the event of the Conservative party coming into power was going to be a member of the next Conservative cabinet, j Whether or not there was anything in the rumour, I do not know. I am not going to say I attached vei-y much importance to that rumour, but I am here to assert with my hon. friend from Cumberland that there wras such a rumour abroad and I am going to give the House a little bit of evidence just to point out that there was some reason for the faith that was in some people in this country. The Montreal ' Star ' of October 25, had the following :
It' is now stated that after the election a splendid banquet will be given Hon. Mr. Blair in Windsor hotel in recognition of his great public services and his efforts to save the country from the disastrous effects of the government's Grand Trunk Pacific policy. The banquet which will be held on or about November 26th will be, it is stated, the most magnificent function of the kind ever held in Canada.
At the time that this announcement was made on the authority of the Montreal 'Star,' a great many Conservatives in this country said that the Conservative party were going to win on November 3, that Mr. Borden will be foi-ming his cabinet about November 20, he will be taking into his cabinet Mi-. Blair, as Minister of Railways and Canals and this magnificent banquet announced by the Montreal * Star ' will take place at that time to celebrate the entrance into the Conservative party and government of Mr. Blair. Of coui-se, the Montreal ' Star ' may be wi-ong again. Now it is


Robert Franklin Sutherland: highly probable, in view of the repudiation of hon. gentlemen opposite to-night, that the Montreal 'Star' was wrong again, and therefore it is that I am quite satisfied to allow the matter to drop. My hon. friend from South York (Mr. W. F. Macleau) is ashamed or the conduct of the ex-chairman of the Railway Commision. What does his leader, the leader of the Conservative party say witii regard to this matter ? Speaking at *Sherbi-ooke in the province of Quebec, the night following the announcement of Jit". Blair's retirement, Mr. Borden said :
I at one time like many of you here thought Mr. Blair mercenary, but now I admire him because he has been able to rise to the occasion to say ' although I have the salary, it is my country first.' He had exposed the Laurier government. He has shown the inner workings of their policy.
That does not compare with the opinion which the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. E. Maclean) has of Mr. Blair.
Why did Mr. Blair resign ? That is a question which has been asked us frequently from tlie other side of the House this afternoon. The Montreal ' Star ' of October 21 reports a speech delivered by Mr. Borden, at Woodstock, in the province of New Brunswick. The hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) has assux-ed this House that Mr. Borden knew nothing whatever about the movements of Mr. Biair. I accept the statemexit of the hoxx. member for Simcoe that Mr. Borden did xxot know, but if you read the x-eport of his speech at Woodstock, as it appears in the ' Star ', you will find this paragraph :
Some one in the audience interrupted at this stage by saying : ' Emmerson will talk about Mr. Blair tomorrow night.'
Like a flash Mr. Borden replied : ' I think the amusing part will be when Mr. Blair comes to talk about Mr. Emmerson.'
Evidently Mr. Borden expected that Mr. Blair was going to take a part in the campaign. Of course we are assured by hon. gentlemen on the opposite side of the House that he knew nothixxg about It, and I for my part am prepared to accept that explanation-it is another repudiation by hon. gentlemen opposite of the Montreal ' Star.' I have to apologize to the House for having perhaps transgressed the rules, but I have given my reasons for this transgression. It is somewhat comforting to us on this side that hon. gentlemen have nothing whatever to offer in oppositioxx to the resolution now befox-e the House. The gov-vernment have proposed to the people of this country the appointment of a certain gentleman as chairman of tlxe Railway Commission. Hon. gentlemen opposite have risen one after axxother vying with each other as to which would say the kindest things of the gentleman the government propose to appoint. It is naturally comforting to those of us who sit on the back

benches supporting the government, to know that the appointment they propose making to an important position is one that commends itself to the best judgment of gentlemen who sit not alone on this side of the House but on the opposite side as well.


Mr. H. H. MILLER (South Grey).: Mr. Speaker, it was said by one of the Conservative members the other day that criticism is the life of parliament. I should think it is equally true that too much criticism causes sessions of parliament to live unnecessarily long and I should think that a great deal of the criticism of to-night has been wide of the mark. I sympathize with some of the remarks made to-night by the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) especially when he stated that he did not think it likely that the reform government would he defeated by the votes of members of this House. I think he is perhaps in that regard deserving of some sympathy. I have wondered if this is where the shoe pinches and if this is at the bottom of the whole trouble. I also learned that the hon. member for East Simcoe marvelled that 25 Reform candidates refused to be bribed, refused to be bought and to play the traitor for the thousands of dollars that had been raised in the effort to bribe them to defeat the Laurier government. That is what I would have expected of 25 Reform candidates in the Dominion of Canada. I would expect they would refuse as they did, to be bought and bribed, preferring to preserve their good consciences and honour. I trust that had the same offer of a bribe been made to Conservative candidates, they would have resisted and refused in the same manner.
There is a vacancy in the chairmanship of the Railway Commission, and I believe the desire of the government is to fill that vacancy with a man well qualified to discharge the duties. I believe that is the desire of the people of this country. I hope that is the desire of the Conservative members of this House. I am glad to hear every one on Either side who has spoken, express the highest opinion of the hon. Mr. Justice Killam. Every one seems to admit that he is a man of integrity and ability and the proper man to fill the position. The hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) has said that there has been bargaining and he regrets that there has been bargaining. Sir, it is oftentimes necessary to bargain to obtain the services of a good man. It is never necessary to bargain to obtain the services of an indifferent, poor or incapable man. The acting leader of the opposition (Mr. Foster) has said that the services of Mr. Killam have been obtained upon the lowest terms. If that be true, that a man who is thoroughly capable, a man of the greatest integrity, has been arranged with, and that a bargain
has been made whereby his services have been procured for the people, for the payment of the lowest price, then I should think the interest of the people of this country have been well and truly looked after and I believe the people will be thoroughly satisfied with the arrangement that has been made.


Mr. E. B. OSLER (West Toronto).: These resolutions are to affect one particular case, they have covered one case which is probably an exception. No objection has been made, I do not think any objection could be made to the gentleman who has been named and who is being provided for in this resolution. Where I think the mistake has been made and where I think the government will be wise in changing this resolution is that they are providing not for this case alone but are making a general Act covering possibilities. Now if the gentleman who is named is appointed, we all hope that he will hold that position for very many years. Ten years or a longer time we hope will elapse before the necessity again arises of appointing a chairman of the Railway Commission. When that period arrives, it is in my judgment very unlikely that a judge of one of the superior courts will be again called upon to fill the position. But if that should- happen ten years hence, it would be a very easy thing to provide for it by a special Act, as is being done in this case, and I think that would do away with all the objection there is to these resolutions. You are putting on the statute-book a law which will naturally be looked to by the judges of the court as containing one of the prizes that will possibly fall to them. I do not think that is necessary or wise ; it is not the proper position in which to place the judges. Let us deal with the one case before us that requires to be dealt with, and confine the resolutions to this particular case, and I believe every one will agree to them.


Hance James Logan: Before you put the question, Mr. Speaker, will you allow me to make a personal explanation ? On two or three occasions this evening reference has been made to my having offered to vote at the recent provincial election in the city of Ottawa, and, if you will allow me, 1 will state the facts. I happened to be a householder in this city, and as such my name was placed upon the assessment roll, and tor that reason, I believe, was also placed upon the voter's list. I knew nothing about it, however, until a day or two before the provincial election, when I received a notice to the effect that my name was on the provincial voters' list, and asking me to vote at a certain poll. In the province of Nova Scotia, from which I come, if a man's name is on the list, having got. there from the assessment roll, it matters not in a provincial election whether he lives in Nova Scotia or British Columbia, he has a vote. I am

now informed that the same is the case in Manitoba and Quebec. I did not give the matter any consideration ; but knowing that that was the law in Nova Scotia, it never occurred to me that I had not a right to vote in the province of Ontario. Therefore I went to the poll to exercise my franchise, as X thought I had the right to do ; and I am informed to-day by an eminent Ontario lawyer in this House that I had a right to vote. Whether I had or not, X thought I had, as I would have had under the law of Nova Scotia. But having been asked at the poll if I had been a resident of the province of Ontario for a certain length of time, I said I had not; and when it was pointed out to me that there was a residence qualification in this province, I withdrew. I make this explanation to show that there was no wrong intention on my part in this matter.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee.
On resolution 1,
1. Resolved, That if a judge of auy Superior Court in Canada is appointed chief commissioner of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada he shall not he removed at any time hy the Governor in Council except upon address of the Senate and House of Commons.
Alfred Augustus Stockton: X have not taken any part in this debate, and I do not intend to occupy the attention of the committee at any length now. This is somewhat special legislation. I am not objecting to tin provision of the statute that the appointee shall be removable only upon an address of the two houses of parliament; but I do object to a distinction being made between an appointee who is not a judge and one who is a judge. I think for fair legislation that it is worthy of the consideration of the Minister of Justice to make the law applicable equally to all appointees.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The suggestion which my hon. friend has just made is one that would naturally commend itself at first sight to any intelligent observer of what is going on. But let me point out to my hon. friend the conditions under which this legislation is introduced. It is found necessary to choose the man who above all men we deem to be the best qualified for this particular position. I think my hon. friend, with the knowledge he has of the profession, will come to the conclusion that the gentleman we have in our mind for this position is eminently well qualified to fill it.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: I think that.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That opinion, I think, is concurred in by all those who have spoken in this debate. It has been suggested hy the present leader of the opposition that something in the nature of a bargain was made between the government and this judge, and in the way he put it such a Mr. LOGAN.
bargain would be in the last degree objectionable. I for my part heartily concur in all that has been said here to-day with respect to the necessity of keeping our judges free from all political entanglements.
1 am a firm believer in the doctrine of once a puisne always a puisne, although, as my hon. friend from South Lanark (Mr. Hag-gart) observed to-day, that doctrine has been more honoured - in breach than the observance. My hon. friend knows that it has been set at defiance not only in this country, but quite recently in England, in the appointment of the present Lord Chief Justice, Lqrd Alverstone, who was previously Master of the Rolls. It was also set at defiance in the appointment of Lord Russell as Lord Chief Justice of England, he having been Justice of Appeal when appointed. And my hon. friend will remember the discussion which took place in the House of Commons in England in 1872, with respect to the appointment of Sir Robert Collier to the Judicial Committee.


Samuel Barker: But I think that was universally condemned.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend will remember that marvellous letter of Lord Coleridge to the Lord Chancellor, in which he castigated the Lord Chancellor to such an extent that he had shortly afterwards to resign. What was the principle he contended for ? It was the principle, practically consecrated by vote of the Commons of England when, on a motion of censure, Mr. Gladstone was almost defeated as a result of the appointment. What was the principle ? It was that a judge should not be appointed to the highest court of appeal until he had some experience in a lower court. The principle then of once a puisne judge always a puisne judge was formally condemned. I have expressed my opinion-* and it may be considered presumptious in me to have an opinion after what I have quoted-but I would, if I could, have inscribed over the entry to the judicial bench these words : ' Those who enter here leave all hopes of preferment behind.' That is my own view, but that is" not the view which has been adopted. But, after all, one swallow does not make a summer, and it is not because I hold that view against the opinion of the people at large that my opinion should prevail. But let me answer something that fell from my hon. friend the leader of the opposition some few minutes ago. When he noticed how thin was the ice on which the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart) was skating, he found it necessary to depart from the principle that his hon. friend was contending for, and he said, with that capacity for refining and making nice distinctions which is so characteristic of his analytical mind : I admit that in principle, preferment in order of promotion on the bench is all right, but when you come to take a man from the bench and

appoint him to a position elsewhere, that is What X object to.


George Eulas Foster: Hear, hear.


Charles Fitzpatrick: But here again we have a number of precedents. Let me remind my hon. friend of the case quoted by the First Minister, the case of Sir John Thompson, who was taken from the bench and made Minister of Justice in the government of Sir John Macdonald. Let me remind him also of the case of Mr. Angers, who was taken from the judicial bench in my own province and made Lieutenant Governor, and also a case in my own family, which occurred in 1873, when a gentleman was taken from the bench in the province of Quebec and made Lieutenant Governor. These are all eases in which was followed the rule adopted in the present instance. But let me get down to the case in hand. Let me point out to the committee the conditions under which this appointment was made. The government was casting about for a man to replace Mr. Blair.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: I am not objecting to tjhe appointment. '


Charles Fitzpatrick: I am not speaking to my hon. friend, but at the committee. When we were casting about for a proper person for this position, the man upon whom we fixed our mind was Mr. 'Justice Killam. He was approached and asked if he would accept. His answer was : Here I am now on the bench. I have served on the bench for twenty years. Ten years hence I shall have the right to retire with my full salary. I am now fifty-five years of age, and in addition to that I occupy a position from which I cannot be removed except upon an address from both Houses of parliament. Why should I give up that fixity of tenure in the office I hold and the advantages which will come to me as the result of my occupation of that office with respect to my retiring allowance, to take this position that you offer me ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: For the $30,000 extra he will get.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Allow me. That was his argument. He said: I have an acquired right to my position and the emoluments which will come to me at the time of my retirement. And we thought that was perfectly reasonable, and that we should not in any way interfere with the fixity of his tenure of office or his right to his retiring-allowance at the expiration of his period of office. And this legislation is intended for nothing else than to enable us to give him that position under these conditions. There [DOT]was no other bargain ; and if that can be considered an ill-advised bargain, of course we are responsible for it, and perhaps I am responsible in a larger manner than any one else. But that is the extent of the bargain,
and it does seem to me there is nothing extraordinary in it.


William Findlay Maclean: The hon. gentleman is evading the whole question. This resolution says :
That if a judge of any Superior Court in Canada is appointed chief commissioner of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada he shall not be removed at any time by the Governor in Council except upon address of the Senate and House of Commons.
The people were given a solemn pledge that the chairman of the Railway Commission would be removable by the Governor in Council and that his conduct could be discussed and criticised in this House. Now, however, the whole scheme is changed, and an effort is made to put an irresponsible man in that position-irresponsible as compared with the chairman under the present law. The whole argument of Mr. Blair, who introduced the Bill, and who was then a colleague of the hon. Minister of Justice, and who was sustained during the whole of the debate by his colleague, was that the chairman and every other member of the commission should be subject to removal by the Governor in Council. In that way he was to be responsible to the government and this House, and could be removed if he failed to do his duty. Now that position is reversed, and nobody is given any authority to compel him to perform his duties. What are his powers? The hon. gentleman read this afternoon what the powers of that commission are. They are very extensive, and a great obligation is put, not only upon the chair-main, but on the other two commissioners. The point I make has not been answered in this debate, and I intend that it shall be before this measure goes through. What I contend is that the government have changed their policy. This afternoon the Prime Minister claimed credit for what he is doing to-day. But what he is doing to-day is reversing the policy for which he claimed credit and which he presented to the people not long ago for their endorsation. We were to have a tribunal competent to deal with all these disputes between railway companies and the people, and that tribunal was to be responsible to government and to parliament. Now, however, that the elections are over, and when the public expect the government to carry out its pledges, we are told that the chairman of this commission is to be irresponsible. Until the point I make is answered, this legislation shall not go through. It may be six months before this session is over, or before the consent of the Governor General can be had to this legislation, and as far as I can gather the gentleman named may not be prepared to take the position until this measure becomes law. Is this commission to remain for months unmanned, and those questions left unsettled with which it was appointed to deal ?

Now, my charge is not that made by the hon. member for St. John city and county (Mr. Stockton) that this thing is wrong because it does not apply to all cases. 'My charge is that this is a reversal of policy. I protest against that reversal and against making the chairman of the commission an *officer not responsible to the Governor in Council, so that we may criticise the government for his acts, as we criticise any other acts of the ministers. Instead of having a commission simple in its methods, quick in its action, and one that can sit in any part of the country, we are to have a court whose presiding officer is not responsible to the administration. That is the charge that I want answered. I do not raise the smaller issues raised by the hon. gentleman (Mr. 'Stockton) [DOT]-if he will pardon me for so speaking. It is the complete reversal of policy, the setting at naught of the promises that were made two years ago, when this commission was established, when Hon. Mr. Blair, as shown by the record, declared that it would not do to have the chairman of the commission removable only by the cumbersome method of a joint address of both Houses of parliament. It is impossible, practically, to enforce such a means of responsibility. Suppose that a general election were being held which turned upon the administration of the law by this Railway Commission. It would be pleaded that the government was not responsible. And, if attempt were made to act through parliament, this doctrine of vested rights would be pleaded against any change in the policy of the commission. This is not the policy that was adopted when this commission was provided for by statute. The policy of that time is completely reversed. I do not care so much, for my part, for an explanation of these petty matters as to one man being treated differently from another, because he has been a judge ; it is the reversal of policy that I want explained. Still, as was pointed out by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Foster) there is an invidious distinction-a rule is made to apply to the chairman of the commission that does not apply to his colleagues. If the chairman is to be removed only upon joint address of the House of Commons and the Senate, why should not the same rule apply to the other members of the commission ? The argument used is that this is a special case. But what I object is that the government are using this special case to make a bad general rule. Under the law as it is, if the chairman of the Railway Commission is not doing his duty, that can be pointed out in this House, and an explanation demanded of the government.	The law provides that the
chairman may do this and shall do that ; but there is no clause of the law compelling the fulfilment of his duty, and it is left for this House, by holding the administration responsible to cause them to compel him to do his duty. And that is the great trouble with the laws we make.


William Findlay Maclean: We see it cropping up every day. No penalties are imposed and obligations are not fulfilled. The only course is this cumbrous and ineffective course of removal upon address of both Houses of parliament. I ask Ike government to explain the reason for its reversal of policy and the destruction of the usefulness of this great commission.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: I was not here when the policy was laid down. I hope it is not going to take three months to go through with what we are doing in the matter. I certainly shall not be one to prolong the discussion. The case of Sir Robert Collier has been brought before the House by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick). That case does not apply. The law there was that a man could not be appointed to the judicial committee of the Privy Council unless he held high judical office. To comply with the letter of the law, they made him a judge, and two days afterwards appointed him to the judical committee. It was practically a device to permit an evasion of the law.


Charles Fitzpatrick: What about the chief justice V


Alfred Augustus Stockton: Lord Alverstone was master of the rolls. I am not talking about that case, and probably would not go as far as the Minister of Justice has stated with regard to it. Now, the chairman of the Railway Commission is essentially a judge, and we must recognize that fact. It may be a small matter, as my hon. friend (Mr. IV. F. Maclean) suggests, but I can see no objection'to making him as independent of the government of the day as is the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. But, suppose the first minister were to recommend the Minister of Justice as chairman of the Railway Commission. Under section 8, thte Minister of Justice, after being so appointed, could be dismissed from his office by order of the Governor in Council, because he holds no high judicial office. Why put a judge in a better position than the Minister of Justice would be if he were appointed ? It is an invidious distinction, and therefore, I say, it is special legislation. I hope the Minister of Justice will make it general, if it is the policy of the government, and make it apply to the chairman of the commission no matter what his office before appointment.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend (Mr. Stockton), of course, sees at once the difference between my appointment-which, of course, is impossible-


Alfred Augustus Stockton: It was only an illustration.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Of course, but even taking it as a matter of illustration-I have no acquired right to a retired allowance or to the position I occupy. But if you go to a judge and ask him to accept this position lie is well entitled to say : Why should you make my position more precarious under

the new appointment than it is at the present time ?


Alfred Augustus Stockton: You can provide in the law that, it he is removed, he is to have a retiring allowance. You can make it a general law. I state to the Minister of Justice and to the members of this House that, as far as possible, all laws should be of general application.


Charles Fitzpatrick: This is of general application with respect to a class of persons.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: It is a general law made to suit a particular case.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend (Mr. Stockton), I am sure will be willing to take a reasonable view of my difficulties, and will appreciate them, when he considers what fell from the lips of my hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean) and what fell from the lips of my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr Foster). In the one case I was asked to make a special law for this particular individual ; on the other hand I am told not to do any thing of the sort in any direction or in any case.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: Well, I think it would be better legislation to make a special law for this particular case, which will just fit Ju'dge Killam, if he is to be the man ; and then after that, have the law general.


William Findlay Maclean: I object absolutely to that. I want what was promised to the people of this country, and I will insist on it, I want the chairman of that commission to be a responsible officer, under the doctrine of responsible government.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Will my hon. friend define what he means by responsibility ?


William Findlay Maclean: 
Hon. N. A. BELCOURT.: How does my hon. friend wish the commissioner to be responsible ? What does he mean by saying the commissioner is not going to be responsible ? Does he mean that he is not responsible to parliament or to the government ?


William Findlay Maclean: He is not responsible-using the words of hon. gentlemen opposite to the Governor in Council.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Do I understand him to wish that the resolution shall make the commissioner responsible to the Governor in Council ?


William Findlay Maclean: I wish the law to remain as it is. [DOT]


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: But what is the law ?


William Findlay Maclean: The hon. gentleman must read it for himself, he is a lawyer.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I am putting the question in all fairness, I am asking what is it he wishes.


William Findlay Maclean: I wish the law to remain as it is.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: That the commissioner shall be responsible to the Governor General ?


William Findlay Maclean: As the Lieutenant Governor is, to use the words of those who introduced this Bill.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I want to know what the hon. gentleman means ?
Mr. \V. F. MACLEAN. I have told you very plainly. Again I say that the amendment changes the law. Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Belcourt) not remember that we on this side of the House have all been warned off : Don't touch this legislation ? They now propose to reverse the policy, and why ? Something has gone wrong, they have had a bad experience with their first appointee, and that chairman has done something that he should not have done. He left the whole court in a mess-if I may use the term. The legislation that should have been introduced here to-day was legislation which would prevent the recurrence of such a thing, and there ought to be some kind of provision in the law that the man who accepts the high position as chairman of that commission cannot leave it as this chairman has done. The chances are that we are to have no railway commission for three months, until this legislation can get through, and possibly it will be three months before the government's consent can be had. In the meantime the country will be tied up, and in the meantime the great expenses of this commission, $50,000 to $100,000 will continue, and the car which the commission procured because they could not wait to have one built in Canada, is lying sidetracked now, I suppose. There is no administration of that law, and there is a complete change in the policy. Again X ask the right hon. gentleman why this reversion of policy.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: Section 8 of the Act says it is a court of record.


William Findlay Maclean: It also says it is a railway commission.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: It is amusing to hear the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean), who is in his own estimation the champion of the people, taking the position he does to-night. As I understand it, the resolution will have the effect of making the chairman of the Railway Commission responsible to the two Houses of parliament. What my hon. friend wants now is to make him responsible to the Governor in Council only. Now, if that is consistent with the course which the hon. gentleman ever advocates in this House, and in his paper, he, the great champion of the people, I cannot understand his position. It is not consistent with his past, it is not consistent with the ideas which he constantly advocates.


William Findlay Maclean: The inconsistency is over there.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: 


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: What does the hon. gentleman mean by saying that the chairman of the commission is not going to be responsible ? It means that according to him he won't be responsible to the Governor General. But by this resolution yon are going to make the chairman responsible to the whole country.


Mr.  W. F.@: 'MACLEAN. I want him responsible to the people directly.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: You are going to make the chairman responsible to the advisers of His Majesty, they all being responsible directly to the people of Canada, of whom the hon. gentleman constitutes himself the champion. You are going to the highest court in the land, the parliament of Canada. Surely the hon. gentleman will see how absurd and how inconsistent his position is.


William Findlay Maclean: If the hon. gentleman will lecture those on his own side he will be consistent.


George Eulas Foster: I hope the Minister of Justice will take the suggestion that has been made by my hon. friend from the county of St. John (Mr. Stockton). Perhaps the Minister of Justice will give me his view as to consistency in this respect. Did the minister make this first clause with this purpose in view, that as the chairman of the Railway Commission was a judicial officer, occupying the place of a judge quoad his jurisdiction in the matters that came before him, he thought he ought to be placed as a judge in the matter of dismissal ? Now if there is any principle underlying this Bill at all so far as the first section is concerned, that is the principle, there can be no other.


Charles Fitzpatrick: No, that is not the principle.


George Eulas Foster: Then there is no principle in the Bill. :It is simply a piece of special legislation made to fit the case of the present selection for appointment. So far as this Bill goes, it asserts that the chairman of the commission being a judge, occupying | the position of judge, it is best that he * should have the protection of a judge, that ; is, he should not be liable to be dismissed ! by Governor in Council, but he should have . the same security as a judge in that respect.
,	and	could	only be displaced	by parlia-
. ment acting* together. That is declared a . good thing to have for the sake of the com-i mission itself, as applied to the chairman.
, To be consistent you are bound to apply '	the	same	to every person	who, from
l	time to time, may be the chairman
.	acting as	a judge on that	commission.
Now then if that be the principle of your legislation, and if that is not the prin

 ciple there does not seem to be any principle at all, wli.v do you confine it simply to the

gentleman who is to be appointed in this case ? Why do you not hare the same general safety and security of tenure of office for every chairman of the commission who must be from the duties imposed upon him, acting as a judge ? If you do not take that ground, what ground will you take ? You may take the position, as I stated at first, that you are not making- legislation on principle, that you have a special case on hand, that you want a special man and that you cannot get him unless you put this legislation on the statute-book. If you come to that, then make it special entirely, and have it for this gentleman alone, but, leaving aside the difference of opinion that there may be as to whether the Governor in Council should have the power of dismissal or whether it should be parliament-we will not discuss that-if the government is of opinion that parliament should have this authority for the reasons which the hon. gentleman has given, then make it general so that it will apply to every chairman of the Railway Commission.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The position which my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) has taken, as I understand it is this :	The chairman of
the commission, is by reason of the duties assigned to him under the Railway Act, a judge to all intents and purposes. Therefore, if he be a judge why not give to that gentleman who performs the duties of a judge the same fixity of tenure in office that a judge ought to have. There is a great deal to be said in favour of that, but that is not the view that is entertained by the government and that is not the object we have in view in proposing this resolution. If we had that object in view our resolution would fall absolutely short of our object. Our view is that we should open the door and extend the field of selection, that instead of being limited practically to a choice from laymen, as distinguishing them from judges, we should have the right to go to the judicial bench if we think it necessary in order to get a man for this office and we say that in order to get a man from the judicial bench we must take into account the conditions under which he fills his present office, and that if we wish to remove him from his present sphere to that other position we want to be in a position to tell him that as a result of the transfer from one place to another his present fixity of tenure shall not be interfered with.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: What is there to prevent you from doing that with a chairman who is not a judge ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: We*do not think it necessary because the chairman who is not a judge accepts the conditions as they exist. He accepts or he refuses. If he accepts he is not in any way interfered with in any right which he possesses at the time, because he has no office, but the other man has
been placed in a more difficult position. He would be asked to accept conditions which entail forfeiture of a right which he already possesses and it is to prevent that that we want this legislation. It may be that we are not at one on this. We undoubtedly do not agree. My hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Stockton) takes the position that this ought to be made general legislation. We take the position that it should be made legislation not applicable to the individual, but applicable to a class of individuals.


William Findlay Maclean: I have not yet had an answer to the question which I asked.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I did not try to give an answer to my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean). I was speaking in answer to the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Foster).


William Findlay Maclean: This legislation, it is clear to me, is an attempt to destroy the usefulness of this commission. We were promised a responsible chairman of the commission, we are now to get an irresponsible chairman and once started the series will bo continued. There will never hereafter be a chairman of the commission who is responsible to the Governor in Council and whose conduct can with effect be discussed on the floor of this House. I am going to sit here and urge that the policy originally adopted should not be abandoned but that the chairman should be responsible to parliament directly through the Governor in Council, and that his conduct should be discussed in this House.
*. On resolution 2 :
Resolved, That if any chief commissioner of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, having been at the time of his appointment as such chief commissioner a judge of any Superior Court in Canada, or having resigned his office as such judge for the purpose of accepting appointment as such chief commissioner, has continued in office as judge of one or more Superior Courts in Canada and in the said office of chief commissioner for periods amounting together to fifteen years or upwards, or has become afflicted with a permanent infirmity disabling him from the due execution of his office, and if such chief commissioner resigns his office, or if his term of office, or any renewed term of office, has expired, His Majesty may, hy letters patent under the Great Seal, reciting such periods of office or such permanent infirmity, grant to such chief commissioner an annuity equal to two-thirds of the salary of the judicial office which he held at the time of his appointment as such chief commissioner, or which he resigned for the purpose of accepting such appointment, to commence immediately after his so ceasing to hold office as such chief commissioner, to continue thenceforth during his natural life, and to he payable by monthly instalments and pro rata for any period less than a year during such continuance.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That resolution merely makes applicable to the chairman of the Railwaj' Commission that which is now

lapplicable to a judge ; that is to say that at the expiration of fifteen years he shall retire if he chooses on two-thirds of his allowance.


George Eulas Foster: I have not examined that resolution with any care nor do I suppose I am capable of examining it without a good deal of trouble, but I would ask the hon. Minister of Justice if this section simply secures to the judges the retiring allowance which he should have if he remained a judge.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is it :
On resolution 3,
Resolved, That if any such chief commissioner of the Board of Railway Commissioners resigns his office or completes his term of service, original or renewed, therein, having, in either such case,
(a.) attained the age of seventy-five years, and continued in office as such judge and in the said office of chief commissioner for periods amounting together to twenty years or upwards, or	,
(b.) attained the age of seventy years, and continued in office as such judge and in the said office of chief commissioner for periods amounting together to twenty-five years or upwards, or
(c.) continued in office as such judge and in the said office of chief commissioner for periods amounting together to thirty years or upwards,
His Majesty may, by letters patent under the Great Seal-, reciting such period of service, and, in cases (a) and (b), such chief commissioner's age, grant to him an annuity, payable as aforesaid, equal to the salary of the judicial office which he held at the time of his appointment as such chief commissioner, or which he resigned for the purpose of accepting such appointment, to commence immediately after his resignation as chief commissioner and to continue thenceforth during his natural life.


George Eulas Foster: What does this do ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: This resolution is intended to cover the ease that was provided i'or by the statute of two years ago ; that is to say that a judge who has been thirty years on the bench, whatever may be his age, has the right to retire with full salary. If he is 75 years of age and has served 20 years he has also the right to retire with full salary, and if he is 70 years of age and has served 25 years on the bench he has also the right to retire with full salary.


Haughton Lennox: All these are conditions that apply to judges as enacted a couple of years ago ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes, except resolution No. 4.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: If there is an increase in the salary he gets the benefit of it.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Exactly, that is No.
4.	We have not read that yet.
On resolution No. 4,
Resolved, That if between the date of the appointment of any such chief commissioner or of his resignation of his office as such judge and Mr. FITZPATRICK.
the date of his resignation of, or retirement from, the office of chief commissioner, the salary attached to the judicial office -which he held at the time of his appointment, or which he resigned for the purpose of accepting appointment as such chief commissioner, has been increased, the annuity to be granted to him hereunder may be increased in the same proportion.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is to provide that in the event of an increase in salarybeing given to the judges between the appointment to the chairmanship of the Railway Commission and the time of retirement therefrom, the judge who happens to be the chairman of the Railway Commission gets the benefit of the increase yvith respect to retiring allowance.


Mr. LT. WILSON.: Do you not think it is good enough now ?


Haughton Lennox: I am always disposed to be good enough to the judges, but having-regard to the fact that the judge or chief justice who takes the position steps from a salary of $7,000 to $10,000, or some such figures, I think that this clause is unnecessary.
Mr. FOSTER, You are drawing it pretty fine there. I think the government capitulated.


Uriah Wilson: I think we are now doing more than we should for the judges bygiving them their full allowance when superannuated, and I think it is going too far to do this. A man getting $7,000 a year and stepping into a position at $10,000 a year, if he holds that position for ten years has an increase of $30,000, and I think he might be well satisfied with that. I am against superannuation when it comes out of the pockets of the working people-the taxpayers of this country. There does not seem to be any inclination on the part of the government to take into account the people who pay the taxes. They seem to be anxious to heap more honours and pay on the officials. I am willing to have the officials well paid, but after you pay them for the services they render the country, I do not think you should provide for them in their old age. All people in the ordinary walks of life have to provide for their own old age, and I do not see why they should iu addition have to make provision for the old age of other people. I would ask to have clause 4 struck out.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The intention of the legislation is that the judge, after he leaves his present position and goes on the Railway Commission, should continue to enjoy all the advantages which will attach to his present office if he continued in it, and this would be one of the benefits.


Uriah Wilson: You must remember that you are giving him $3,000 a year more for the actual time spent in the service of his country. If he gets a superannuation

allowance of $7,000, is not that enough without adding any increase that may take place in the judges' salaries ? I might say that personally I think the judges are sufficiently paid now. I believe that the same kind of men would get the judgeships if you were to pay $10,000 as now get them, because it appears that no matter which party is in power the men who have the pull get the positions, and if a man is a kicker he is more apt to get a position whether he is fitted for it or not. As I stated last year, we had a vacancy in my own county, and any lawyer would have taken it at the present salary, but there is a continual desire on the part of the lawyers in this House to advocate an increased salary for the judges. A session or two ago we authorized the superannuation of judges on full pay. To my mind the whole thing was wrong, and it seems to me that if the people understood it fully, those members who voted for it would not again be elected. I may say that I think it helped me in my election. I had a majority three or four times what I had before, because I tried to explain the wrong-doings of this government.


Haughton Lennox: I am sorry to hear my hon. friend (Mr. Wilson) speak as he has done about lawyers. I have noticed on many occasions that lawyers are made the butts of remarks that are not deserved.
Mr. FOSTER, They get revenge when it comes to fees.


Haughton Lennox: I must say that, although there may be some justice in what the hon. gentleman says in some instances, it was not the prevailing rule when this was discussed before, that lawyers advocated large salaries for judges. They took occasion to point out that certain improvements were required in the judiciary, in the actions of some of the judges, &c., and perhaps these remarks were well founded. I also noticed that some gentlemen remarked this afternoon that the lawyers get the best of everything. I do not think they do in this world, although I think they will hereafter.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is not the popular belief, unfortunately.


Haughton Lennox: Probably not. However, I do not think I succeeded in making myself understood a few moments ago. By the resolutions down to No. 4 we provide for what I think we might, in a general way, speak of as vested rights. We have made specific provision for the judges, and I think it is perfectly fair that a judge taking this position should not be deprived of any of the conditions existing at the present time for which we make provision, and in applying that rule to the circumstances with which we are dealing, I think that if a judge accepts the position of chairman of this commission he will be bettering himself by the addition of $3,000 a year to his salary dur-19
ing such time as he occupies the position, let us say, in round numbers, ten years. He is accepting a certainty, and is getting more than that ; he is getting also the contingencies in connection with the appointment to the new position, that is, if it should be found-and I do not think that this is beyond the range of possibility-that the position of chairman of the Railway Commission is a particularly onerous one, involving hard work-and I believe it will involve hard work-it may happen that we will raise the salary to even a higher point than it is to-day. He has that possibility in connection with the new position that he takes, and I submit that it is not fair to the people of this country, whom we represent, to give him the double possibility of an increase in his present salary and also of an increased retiring allowance due to the fact that the judges' salaries are raised because they are working hard in the services of their country. I do not see any justice in this. He is taking a hew position with a definite increase of $3,000 a year, and he has the possibility of an increase in salary, and I do not see any fair-play in saying that he should also have the possibility of benefiting from an increase in the judges' salaries.


Charles Fitzpatrick: If he retains his present office and an increase takes place in the judges' salaries-


George Eulas Foster: How much ? Let us suppose a case.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Say $2,000 to $9,000. If he retains his present position there are advantages connected with it which he would not enjoy as chairman of the Railway Commission. A judge of the Supreme Court would occupy an entirely different position with respect to judicial functions than the chairman of the Railway Commission ; he would not be obliged to go all over the country, as the chairman of the Railway Commission will in the exercise of his duty.


Haughton Lennox: In a palace car.


George Eulas Foster: With everything furnished, coloured porter, and all.


Charles Fitzpatrick: We are getting down to details now. If he remained on the bench, he would be entitled to the increase if any increase comes. If no increase comes, nobody suffers ; but if an increase comes, why should he not get the benefit of it ?


Uriah Wilson: Because he gets a better office.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Not a better office, the position of a judge of the Supreme Court is a very fine office.


Uriah Wilson: It is a very fine office, but why should he get the benefit of an increase of salary that may be given to the judges of the Supreme Court after he has left the



bench and has got another position in which he gets 83,000 a year more salary. While on my feet I may say that X am opposed altogether to the way the commission is constituted. I would like to see it composed, as was originally intended of one railway expert, one lawyer, and X should hope the whole three men of common sense. Then, I think questions of law should not he left to the chairman alone, but should be argued before the whole three as before a jury, and let the three men decide. It seems to me that the three men are more likely to do justice. What we want above all is to have men of common sense and business men on the commission. I am opposed to this gentleman getting the benefit of any increase to the salaries of the judges after he has left the bench.


George Eulas Foster: Suppose the salary were raised from $7,000 to $9,000, he would then get the superannuation on the additional $2,000 ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: He would get a superannuation on the basis of $9,000.


George Eulas Foster: It is apparent, of course, to all of us that from the time he takes this office he gets $3,000 per year more than lie is getting now ; he gets far and away more than he could lose by any stoppage of an increased superannuation allowance which would result from a problematical or actual rise of $2,000 in salary. The government capitulated on all other points ; I do not think there was any need of their I capitulating on this point; and when you come down to the hard facts of the case, and face the men who have to pay the monev, however much these officials are paid, ' it is pretty hard to justify before them that you should give this man $30,000 extra during the subsistence of his office, and that he then should insist, and the government should go so far as to comply, that he should have the extra advantage, whatever it amounts to, of whatever rise of judges' salary there might be afterwards. All the contingencies that might be against him are provided for ; and if the country comes to believe, in the course of five years that $10,000 is not sufficient salary, he is not debarred from getting the larger salary which the country may think he shall get as chairman of the commission. $30,000 may be a slight matter for the minister but for myself, and to the taxpayers it is a very large amount, and I am opposed to that resolution 4, and I shall vote dead against it.
Resolution 4 agreed to.
Resolution 5 dropped.


George Eulas Foster: I want to ask the Minister of Justice a question which I think is important. As I understand from an answer of the Prime Minister to a question the other day, it so happens that when the
chairman of the commission is not able to sit with his brother commissioners and decide cases which have been heard previously by them, for any reason, such as death or sudden vacation of office, all these cases fall to the ground, and have to be gone over again. Is that so ? If it is, it is a great hardship.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I think my hon. friend has stated the case in too general terms.


George Eulas Foster: If certain contingencies would make all the evidence which has been taken practically useless, the trouble is not so much the cost of taking the evidence over again as the fact that there is delay in remedying grievances, and life and property in the meantime are at stake. Does the government intend to make any provision for that ? You have a man leaving an office of trust, as was said to-day, in the twinkling of an eye, saying, as it were, ' I do not care how many lives may be risked at dangerous crossings or how much property may be endangered, my own interest is involved now, and I will let the people's interest go.' If a man can leave the commission so quickly and on so slight grounds, or if death intervenes and he is taken away suddenly, there should be a saving clause somewhere to provide that the result of the previous evidence shall be saved and that the grievance shall be quickly remedied.


Charles Fitzpatrick: As my hon. friend is aware, any two commissioners constitute a quorum. The difficulty arises from the fact that in some cases the evidence was taken before two commissioners one of whom disappeared. The other, who had not heard the evidence, could not act with the commissioner who had for the purpose of deciding the case. That difficulty occurs in courts of law every day.


Samuel Barker: Could not that be remedied by having the evidence taken down by a shorthand writer, so that the incoming commissioner could read it ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I am willing to consider that.


Haughton Lennox: You could not have that without legislation. .


Charles Fitzpatrick: It would require that. The difficulty was that two commissioners went away and took evidence in the cases that came before them, and after they came back one of them resigned. The question was put before the Department of Justice whether the commissioner who had not sat and heard the evidence could under the statute take up the cases and deicde them. Of course, there was nothing for us under the statute except to say that the commissioner who had not heard the evidence was not competent to decide the


Mr.   U.@: 



WILSON,

[Stage Direction]
case. The question is whether it is not possible to put something in the statute to meet that difficulty. That is a question that may fairly be considered. There are some cases that will require to be re-heard, all of which happened in the Northwest Territories. The evidence is all typewritten, but the difficulty is that one of the commissioners has not seen the witnesses or visited the localities.
Haughton Lennox: That could be overcome by statute. There is another question I would like to ask the minister. That statute provides that as regards questions of fact all the commissioners are judges, but that there is only one judge on questions of law, and that judge was the commissioner who resigned. In other words the legal gentleman is to be sole judge on questions of law. But as regards cases which turn upon a point of law-


Charles Fitzpatrick: I have not thought of that difficulty.


Haughton Lennox: There is no way probably of getting over that difficulty because the sole judge of that particular point of the case has gone.


George Eulas Foster: Before the resolutions are reported, will not the Minister of Justice give the committee the reasons assigned by the chairman for his hasty flight from that office.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I now say, in the presence of the Prime Minister and with his authority, that not one member of the government had any knowledge of the intention of the commissioner to resign, and that the only information we had is that contained in his telegram to the First Minister, in which he said that he had resigned the office. It was naturally expected that in the interval, because some days elapsed before his resignation was accepted, he would do something towards disposing of the arrears. The telegram was sent the 18th October, 1904, and his resignation was accepted the 31st October, 1904.


George Eulas Foster: Have you the telegram ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: No, I have not got it here.


George Eulas Foster: There was no explanation by him why he resigned ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Absolutely none. So far as the members of the government are concerned, his resignation came like a bolt from the blue, absolutely' without any notice.


George Eulas Foster: That is an answer certainly and the House was entitled to that.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I ought to have given it at the beginning and I had it in my notes to give it. My right hon. friend, the 19*
Prime Minister, is prepared to bring down the telegram and lay it on the table.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and agreed to.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I beg leave to introduce Bill (No. 36) to ameud the Railway Act, 1903, based on these resolutions. I would ask leave to strike out clause 5 which has reference to the Local Judges in Admiralty, and I propose, when the Bill reaches the committee, to introduce an amendment to reach the difficulty which has been suggested this evening.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the House adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 6, 1905.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER took the Chair at Three o'clock.

Mr. McISAAC moved :: That the Public Accounts of, Canada for the fiscal year ending 30th June, 1904, and the report of the Auditor General, partial reports Nos. 1 and 2 for the same year, be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon.  L. P.@: BRODEUR (Minister of Inland Revenue)-for the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries-moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 37) to amend the Act relating to the Quebec Harbour Commissioners, 1899. He said : The object of the Bill is to extend the jurisdiction of the harbour commissioners of Quebec from St. Baruabe to Father Point in regard to pilots. To-day steamers have to stop at Father Point to take on tho mails but the pilots go to St. Barnabe and Isle au Bic to go on the steamer. Under these circumstances the steamer has to stop twice. By extending the port of Quebec to Father Point we get rid of the double stoppage.


George Eulas Foster: What is the distance ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Fifteen or twenty miles.


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

Hon.  L. P.@: BRODEUR (Minister of Inland Revenue)-for the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries-moved for leave to intro-

duce Bill (No. 38) to amend tlie Seamen's Act. He said : The object of the Bill is to declare that section 18 of the Act shall not apply to British Columbia. I understand that it is very hard to find seamen there, and that sometimes they have to go to the United States to get them. 1 understand also that one of the reasons why they experience so much difficulty is the low fees paid to the shipping master. The fees are very low and it is expected that by providing that in British Columbia he may charge higher rates than are elsewhere permitted they may have a chance to get seamen without going to the United States.


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

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I have the honour to inform the House that the clerk of the House has received from the clerk of the Crown in Chancery a certificate of the election of R. L. Borden. Esq., for the electoral district of the county of Carleton in the province of Ontario.



SECOND READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 24) respecting the Kootenay, Cariboo and Pacific Railway Company.- Mr. Galliher.
Bill (No. 25) respecting the Walkerton and Lucknow Railway Company.-Mr. P. H. McKenzie.
Bill (No. 26) to incorporate the Sovereign Fire Assurance Company of Canada.-Mr. E. F. Clarke.
Bill (No. 27) respecting certain patents of the Facer Solid Steel Car Wheel Company, of Perth, Limited.-Mr. Caldwell.
Bill (No. 28) to incorporate the Northwest Telephone Company.-Mr. Turriff.
Bill (No. 29) respecting the Canada Southern Bridge Company.-Mr. German.
Bill (No. 30) respecting the Canada Southern Railway Company.-Mr. German.
Bill (No. 311 respecting the Canada and Michigan Bridge and Tunnel Company.- Mr. German.
Bill (No. 321 to incorporate the London and Saint Clair Railway Company.-Mr. Calvert.
Bill (No. 33) respecting certain patents of Jean Effront.-Mr. L. P. Demers.
Bill (No. 34) respecting the Nicola. Kamloops and Similkameen Coal and Railway Company.-Mr. Galliher.
Bill (No. 35) to incorporate the Georgian Bay and Seaboard Railway Company.-Mr. Grant.


Mr. GANONG asked :: 1.	What is the present legal limit of length for lobsters that may he caught in the waters Mr. BRODEUR.
of the Bay of Fundy, between Point Lepreaux and the United States boundary ?
2.	What was the legal limit of length for lobsters on October 1st, 1904, in these waters ?
3.	If any change in the limit has. been made, on what' date was the change made, and on what date were the local fishery officers in that district notified of said change ?
4.	On whose recommendation was the change made ?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Inland Revenue) :: 1.	9 inches.
2.	101 inches.
3.	October 14, 1904.
4.	On that of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.


LOBSTER CANNERIES.
Mr. GANONG asked :: 1.	How many licenses to can lobsters in district No. 1, New Brunswick, were issued in the year 1904 ; and to whom were they issued ?
2.	How many applications have been received for licenses to can lobsters in district No. 1, New Brunswick, for the year 1905 ; and what are the names of the applicants ?
3.	How many of said applicants have been granted licenses, and what are the names of persons to whom licenses have been granted for 1905 ?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Inland Revenue):: 1.	None were issued in 1904.
2.	Nine. J. Ingersoll, E. A. Holmes, Con-, uors Brothers, Burnham & Morrell, J. W. Wooster, Frank McDonald, P. P. Russell, L. C. Guptill, D. S. Gaskill.
3.	J. Ingersoll, E. A. Holmes, Connors Brothers, Burnham & Morrell.


NEW BRUNSWICK SOUTHERN RAILWAY.
Mr. GANONG asked :: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to acquire the New Brunswick Southern Railway, and make it a part of the government system ?
2.	Has the present Minister of Railways, or any other person or persons in the interest of the government, had any negotiations, verbally or in writing, with any representative of the New Brunswick Southern Railway, with a view to acquiring that railway, and making it a part of the government railway system 1
3.	If so, who were the parties so negotiating in the interest' of the government, and with whom did they negotiate, representing the New Brunswick Southern Railway ; and what was the date of the last negotiations ?


Hou. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	Petitions have been received asking that tbe road be purchased, but there is no present intention to acquire the railway.
2.	No, beyond tbe fact that petitions were received from many people in Charlotte county, asking the government to purchase tbe said road.
3.	Answered by number one.



CIVIL SERVICE APPOINTMENTS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SPROULE-by Mr. Henderson-asked:
1.	How many permanent appointments, male and female, respectively, have been made to the Civil Service (inside division) in Ottawa since July 1st, 1896 ?
2.	What is the present strength of the Civil Service in Ottawa (inside division), permanent staff, specifying whether male or female ?
3.	How many temporary employees (specifying whether male or female) are on the paylist for the inside division of the Civil Service at Ottawa for January, 1905 ?
4.	How many of these have been appointed since July 1st, 1896 ?
5.	In addition to the permanent and temporary clerks at present employed in the public service in Ottawa, how many artisans, labourers or other workmen employed at Ottawa were on the January pay-roll, specifying under which department these men were employed ?
Right Hon. 'Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister). I have to inform my lion, friend that a motion will have to be made in order to get this information.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEFURGEY-by Mr. A. Martin-asked :
1.	Has any action been- taken by the government looking to the immigration of fishermen from Ireland and Scotland to Prince Edward Island to prosecute the cod fisheries off Cas-cumpec and other points, asked for last year by the Board of Trade of Alberton and West Prince, and promised by the minister ?
2.	If so, what action has been taken ; and if none, why not ?
Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Inland Revenue) :: 1.	No.
2.	I promised to take the matter into consideration ; but have not yet succeeded in devising a practical scheme with a view to encouraging long-line fishermen to emigrate. In any arrangement reached, joint action with the Department of the Interior would be necessary.



YONGE STREET BRIDGE, TORONTO.


Mr. SLOAN asked :: 1.	Has the government any information as to whether American companies engaged in the halibut industry are encroaching in the waters under the jurisdiction of this government on the Pacific coast ?
2.	Has the government taken any steps to secure control of Hecate Straits ?
3.	If so, when, and with what results ?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Inland Revenue):: 1.	Reports to such effect have reached the department, and every effort has been made to protect Canadian inshore fisheries on the Pacific, especially since the commissioning of the fisheries protection cruiser ' Kestrel.'
2.	The question of a claim to territorial jurisdiction in Hecate strait is one which has formed the subject of some diplomatic correspondence and at present is in an unsettled state.
3.	Answered by No. 2.



FENCING WIRE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEFURGEY-by Mr. Henderson-asked :
. l.'ln view of the fact that much hardship and loss arises yearly to the farmers of Canada from the purchase of fraudulent and inferior wire for fencing, is it the intention of the government to institute such inspection of fence wire, whether made at home or abroad, as will safeguard the farmers from losses so arising ?
Right Hon.   S@: I shall ask this question to stand because if my bon. friend (Mr. Lefurgey) were here I would have to observe to him that it is out of order as it contains a statement of fact. I shall allow' it to stand in tlie meantime ; I simply call attention to it.
Mr. KEMP-by Mr. Alcorn-asked :
1.	Did the Railway Committee of the Privy Council issue an order respecting the construction of a high-level bridge over the Esplanade at Yonge street in the city of Toronto 1
2.	If so, what was the date of such order ?
3.	What is the cause of the delay in proceeding with the work of constructing the bridge ?
4.	Did the government, on or about October 8th, 1904, authorize a telegram to be sent to his worship the mayor of the city of Toronto, respecting said bridge, containing the words ' All right.' ?
5.	If so, what was the nature of the communication to which this telegram was a reply ?
6.	What action, if any, is the government taking to expedite the work?
7.	When is it expected the work will commence ?
Right Hon. toil- WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister):
1,	2 and 3. The Railway Committee of the Privy Council passed an order in the month of DecernDer, 1903, to authorize the construction of a high level bridge over the Esplanade at Yonge street in the city of Toronto.
The powers of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council came to an end before that order had been ratified by the committee of the Privy Council, and therefore the committee had no power after this to pass an order confirming the order of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council. A Bill was introduced during last session to give authority to the Privy Council to pass an order to ratify the order of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council. When the session was 'over I was approached by Mr. Urquhart, Mayor of Toronto, to have this order taken into consideration, and I promised the mayor of Toronto that as soon as convenient the matter would he taken into consideration by the Privy Council, and that if the order was ratified I would in-

form him by telegram that it -was all right. The order was passed on October 7.
4 and 5. The order was passed October 7, and the following day I telegraphed the Mayor of Toronto. '
6.	I have only to say that the government has absolutely nothing to do with that.
7.	This is a matter between the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Grand Trunk Railway and the corporation of the city of Toronto.



STANLEY BRIDGE.

Mr. A. MARTIN asked :: 1.	What was the total expense of the survey of the Stanley Bridge Branch Line of Railway in Prince Edward Island ?
2.	Have bills been presented to the government for damages sustained by persons on account of the cutting of timber and trampling of farmers' crops, which the government did not pay ? If so, what was the amount claimed by each person, and what is the name of each person ?
3.	Have bills for damages of this nature been paid ? If so, what are the names of persons to whom paid, and what was the amount paid to each ?
4.	Are there any hills of this nature which the government intends yet to pay ?


Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	Total expenditure up to November 80, 1904, was $844.47.
2.	Two claims for damages have been
presented, which the government has not yet paid, viz.:	John Mayne for $20, and
the other, Austin J. McNeil for $120.
3.	No.
4.	Not aware of any that they intend to pay.



CHATHAM ARMOURY.

Mr. CLEMENTS asked :: 1.	Has the contract for the Chatham armoury been let ?
2.	If so, to whom, and at what price ?
3.	When does the government intend starting the erection of the same ?
4.	What date does the contract call for the completion of the same ?


Hon. CHARLES HYMAN (Acting Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	To John Pigott & Sons, $50,905.
3.	Immediately.
4.	August 30, 190G.



PRINTING OF VOTERS' LISTS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Pringle-by Mr. Haggart-asked :
In what printing establishments were the ballots used in the last Dominion elections in Prescott. Russell, Carleton, Ottawa City, Glengarry and Stormont, printed ?
Right Hon.   S@: Prescott-Yankleek Hill ' Review.'
Russell-Russell ' Leader.'
Carleton-Itolla L. Crain Co., Ottawa.
Ottawa city-Ottawa ' Free Press.	'


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: Glengarry-Alexandria ' News.'
Stormont-Cornwall ' Freeholder.'



THE CENSUS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. TAYLOR-by Mr. Sam. Hughes- asked :
1.	Has the work in connection with the taking of the Census for 1901 been completed ?
2.	If so, have the services of the staff engaged thereat been dispensed with ?
3.	If not, how many are still retained, and in the service of the government ?
4.	What has been the total expenditure in connection with the taking of the Census of 1901 up to 1st January, 1905 ?
Hou. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture):: 1.	The work in connection with the taking o'f the census for 1901 has been completed.
2.	Yes, in so far as the taking of the census and the compilation are concerned ; but there are a certain number of the staff still in the service of the government working on tabular statements drawn from the compilation of the census. These are paid out of the General Statistics vote.
3.	There are in all six persons so engaged.
4.	$1,192,29G.19.



INSPECTORS OF FRUIT.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. TAYLOR-by Mr. Sam. Hughesasked :
1.	How many inspectors or other persons
have been appointed or employed to attend to the enforcement of the Fruit Marks Act of 1901 ?	.
2.	What amount has been paid for the services of said inspectors or other persons up to the 1st January, 1905 ?
3.	What amount has been paid for travelling expenses for said inspectors or other persons up to 1st of January, 1905 ?
Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture).: I shall have to ask the hon. gentleman to move for a return, as the information is too voluminous to be given in an answer to a question.



CORNWALL BASIN DREDGING CONTRACT.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. PRINGLE-by Mr. Bergeron-asked :
1.	To whom was the contract for the dredging in the Cornwall basin given ?
2.	Were tenders called for ?
3.	How many tendered for the work ?
4.	What was the amount per yard ?	.
Hon.   H.@: It. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals):
1.	To W. J. Poupore.
2.	Yes, by poster.
3.	Two.
4 Earth excavation, 50 cents per cubic yard; boulders, l cubic yard and over, $2 per cubic yard.



THE WELLAND CANAL.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. PRINGLE- by Mr. Bergeron-asked:
1.	How much money has been spent in the past four years on the deepening of the Welland Canal ?

2.	Who did the work ?
3.	Were tenders called for ?
4.	Was the work given to the lowest tenderer ?
5.	Are tenders to be called for the work to be done this year ?
6.	What price per yard has been paid to the contractors ?
lion. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals):
1.	$486,510 up to January 31. 1905.
2.	Messrs. McGann & Finn, Hogan & Mc-Donell, and Weddell, Battle & Manley.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes.
5.	No, the present contract covers it.
6.	McGann & Finn, 3SJ cents per cubic yard. Hogan & McDonell. rock, $2.75 per cubic yard. Weddell, Battle & Manley, $2.90 cubic yard.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. PRINGLE-by Mr. Sam. Hughes-asked:
1.	To whom was the Port Burwell work let ?
2.	Were tenders called for ?
3.	If not, why not ?
4.	What were the prices paid ?
Hon. CHAS. HYMAN (Acting Minister of Public Works):: 1.	The work was done by day labour.
2.	No.
3.	As the initial work to be done consisted entirely of the renewal of existing structures, it was not found possible to produce a definite specification so complete as to prevent the possibility of claims for extras.
4.	For this a return should be moved. SAULT STE. MARIE CANAL DREDGING. Mr. PRINGLE-by Mr. Sam. Hughesasked:
1.	In what month in 1903 was the contract for dredging Sault Ste. Marie Canal given ?
2.	If given in the fall, why was it given at a season when Canadian contractors were unable to take the work ?
3.	Did United States contractors get the work?
4.	What was the price ?
5.	Was there such a rush to have the work done that Canadian contractors were excluded from doing the work ?


Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	In November.
2.	It was given in the autumn because parliamentary appropriations were not available until then, parliament having prorogued on October 24, 1903.
3.	Yes.
4.	Eighty cents per cubic yard.
5.	It was necessary to let the work as early after the House prorogued to avail of the appropriation.
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND RAILWAY. Mr. LEFURGEY-by Mr. A. Martin-asked:
1.	Has any survey been made for the proposed branch line of railway from some point
on the main line of the Prince Edward Island Railway to some point on the coast at or near West Cape, and for which purpose an amount of $1,500 wTas placed in the estimates last year ?
2.	If no survey has been made, why not ?
3.	Is it the intention to make said survey ?
If so, when ?	.


Hon.   H.@: It. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals):
1.	No.
2.	Because the engineering staff was otherwise fully engaged.
3.	The matter has not been recently considered.



THE AUDITOR GENERAL.

Mr. LENNOX asked :: 1.	Have any definite arrangements been made or steps taken to retain Mr. McDougall in the service of the country as Auditor General ?
2.	What is the position of the matter, as regards the resignation of the Auditor General, or otherwise ?
3.	Does the government propose at the present session to introduce legislation with a view to secure the harmonious and more efficient and satisfactory working of the Audit Office and the Treasury Board ?
lit. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAUIilER (Prime Minister):
1.	No arangeruent, definite or indefinite, had to be made or steps taken to retain Mr. McDougall in the service of the country as Auditor General. Mr. McDougall occupies the same position now that he has done since his appointment.
2.	The Auditor General has withdrawn his resignation.
3.	The government do not propose to consider this question until the Minister of Finance has returned from Europe.



FISH HATCHERIES IN NEW BRUNSWICK.

Mr. WILMOT asked :: 1.	What number of parent fish were placed in the salmon pond at Carleton, St. John, N.B., and at what cost for each year since 1902 to date, inclusive ?
2.	About what number of ova were produced, and what was the location of the hatcheries in which they were placed ?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (for the Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: 1.
year	Number. Cost.
1903	 1,289 $3,825
1904	 1.022	3,334
2.	Sixteen and a half millions of eggs. Gaspe, Quebec; Margaree, Nova Scotia; Bedford, Nova Scotia; Grand Falls, New Brunswick; Restigouche, New Brunswick.



RIVER THAMES IMPROVEMENT.

Mr. CLEMENTS asked :: 1.	Have the surveys for the River Thames from Lake St. Clair to the city of Chatham been completed for a fifteen-foot channel, as proposed by the government ?

2.	II so, what has been the cost up to date for the completion of said plans, specifications and all other work in connection with the same ?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to complete the work as per plans and specifications submitted, and when will the work commence ?'


Hon. CHAS. HYMAN (Acting Minister of Public Works):: 1.	Yes.
2.	The survey was made by the regular staff of the department, and there has been no other expenditure.
3.	This question is under consideration.



STEAMSHIP SUBSIDIES.

Mr. ALEX. MARTIN asked :: 1.	Is any subsidy at present paid by the government to any line of steamers between any port in Prince Edward Island and the West Indies ?
2.	What amount is paid in subsidies by the government for steamers running between other ports in the maritime provinces and the West Indies ?
3.	Have any representations been made to the government or any member thereof in reference to the establishment of direct communication between the West Indies and Prince Edward Island ?
4.	If so, what were they, and what does the government intend to do in the premises in order to stimulate trade and place the province on an equal basis in this respect with its neighbouring provinces ?


Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (for the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1.	No.
2.	$65,700 per annum on the St. John, Halifax, West Indies and Demerara service. $1,150 per round trip on the St. John, Halifax and Jamaica service.
3.	Indirectly.	*
4.	Matter under consideration.



CAPTAIN ST. LOUIS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. AMES-by Mr. Daniel-asked:
Has the Minister of Marine and Fisheries reinstated Captain Louis St. Louis, who was deprived of his certificate by the judgment of Wreck Commisioner Salmon in the * Canada-Cape Breton ' affair ? And if so, what were the reasons for the reinstatement of this officer ?
Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There was no necessity to reinstate Captain St. Louis because he was never legally deprived of his certificate.



PROTECTION OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. AMES-by Mr. Daniel-asked:
Did the Montreal Society for the Protection of Women and Children present a petition to the Minister of Justice in May of 1903, asking for certain amendments to the Criminal Code, in effect that persistent wife beaters may be sentenced to be whipped, and thit constables may enter without a warrant into a house where a woman is being assaulted ? If so, has the government taken this request into con-
Mr. CLEMENTS.: sideration, and do they intend taking action in accordance with the expressed views of the petitioners ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: In answer to my bon. friend, 1 beg to say that an amendment to the Criminal Code was suggested last year by Mr. Bickerdike. I did not think I ought to accept it, because it went very much too far; but when the amendments to the Criminal Code are being introduced this session, if the suggestion is moved in committee, I will take occasion to consider it then.



ST. IGNACE CHANNEL DAM.

Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	Did the government, at the written request of Messrs. Francois Arthur Marcotte, Edmond Angers and Gilles Godin, promise to have certain works done on the dam in the St. Ignace channel, in the Parish of Ste. Anne de la Perade ?
2.	Has a plan of the said works been prepared by J. L. Michaud, government engineer ?
3.	If not, by whom was that plan prepared ?
4.	Did Captain Edmond Angers, by letter dated the 7th March, 1904, and addressed to the department at Ottawa, demand the carrying on of the works in question ?
5.	Was the money necessary for the execution of the said works voted by parliament ?
6.	Were the said works executed ?
7.	Why have the said works not been completed ?
8.	When will the said works be done ?


Hon. CHAS. HYMAN (Acting Minister of Public Works):: 1.	Representations were made by the parties named to have certain works performed in the St. Ignace channel, in the parish of Ste. Anne de la Perade, and upon a favourable report by the chief engineer.
2 and 3. A plan was prepared by Mr. J. L. Michaud, an engineer of the Department of Public Works.
4.	The letter in question is not on record,
5.	Yes.
6.	7 and 8. Yes. Before the execution of the works the plan prepared by Mr. J. L. Michaud was submitted to all riparian owners who signed an agreement to the effect that they would make no claim for any damages arising out of the performance of those works.



THE ENGLISH IMMIGRATION OFFICE.

Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	What Is the total cost per year, for the past three fiscal years, of the office In England of Immigration Commissioner Preston ?
2.	How many assistants are employed by the said Preston under pay by the Dominion government ?
3.	What are the names and remuneration of each such assistant, respectively ?
4.	What is the date of Mr. Preston's last report, and when will it be ready for distribution ?


Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (for the Minister of the Interior):: 1.	For 1901-1902, $10,582.13 ; for 1902-1903, $31,688.98; for 1903-1904, $31,021.48.
2.	There are fourteen assistants under
pay by the Dominion government.
3.
C. F. Just, clerk,	per	month	$154	16C. A. Allen, clerk,	per	month ....	83	32W. G. Fincham, clerk, per month..	52 72


Miss F.   E.@: Gardner, clerk and accountant	 52	72


Miss F.   E.@: Godden, stenographer, per
month	   37	92


Miss   B.@: Lock, stenographer, per
month	 34	26


Miss   B.@: Ferrar, typist,	per	week.	.	7	30


Miss K.: Hales, typist,	per	week..	7	30


Mr.  F. D.@: Fleetwood, typist, per week 7 30 Miss C. Priske, typist, per week..	4 87
E. G. Everett, clerk, per week.. ..	10 67
E. Peddle, messenger	 3	65
A. G. Hannell, clerk, per week....	9 92
W. Webb, caretaker	 6	08
4.	.Tune 30, 1904, and published in the report of the Department of the Interior.



RAILWAY COMMISSION.

Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	What have been the expenses incurred by
the government in connection with providing official cars for the new Railway Commission, from the 1st February, 1904, to the 1st February, 1905 ?	,
2.	What amount has the government expended for legal services to the said new Railway Commission during the above mentioned period, and to whom has the said amount been paid ?
3.	What is the total amount expended in connection with the said new Railway Commission during the year ending 1st February, 1905 ?
4.	How many final decisions has the Commission rendered during the same year ?


Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	$21,701.99.
2.	$1,030 to A. George Blair, jr., $212.50 to Macdonald, Shepley, Middleton & Donald.
3.	$79,600.50.
4.	In contested matters 72 decisions have been rendered, and in non-contested matters 289 orders have been issued, making a total of 361 orders issued by the board for the year.



SURVEYS IN COUNTY OF JACQUES CARTIER.

Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	Did any engineers or ofiBcers of the government make any surveys in the county of Jacques Cartier, and especially in the parishes of Point Claire and St. Ann, during the months of October and November last ?
2.	What was the cost of said surveys ?
3.	With what object were such surveys made?
4.	What report, if any, was made by the parties who made such surveys ?
5.	How many were employed to make such surveys ?


Hon. CHAS. HYMAN (Acting Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	Party No. 9 of the Georgian Bay Ship Canal Survey, worked at St. Anne and along the north shore of Lake St. Louis towards Point Claire, during October and Novembe*. This section No. 9 extends from St. Anne to Montreal, and most of the work to be done is located in Jacques Cartier county.
2.	Survey still in progress. Cost in October and November of party No. 9, including 4 days in September : $3,828.59.
3.	The survey work done is in connection with the proposed Georgian Bay Ship Canal Navigation project from Lake Huron to Montreal, by way of the French river, Lake Nipissing, the Mattawa and the Ottawa rivers.
4.	Survey not yet completed. Only the usual reports of the progress of the work received.
5.	Party No. 9 was composed of 22 men in October and 21 men in November.



VOTERS' LISTS.

Mr. BOYCE asked :: 1.	Were all the voters' lists for the unorganized portions of East and West Algoma, East and West Nipissing, and Thunder Bay and Rainy River, used at the last parliamentary election, prepared and revised under the same statute law as the Ontario Voters' Lists Act, part 3, and by the same officers ?
2.	If not, what lists were otherwise prepared and revised ?
3.	Under what authority were such lists prepared ?
4.	At what date ?
5.	By whom were such lists prepared and revised ?


Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister) :: 1.	All the voters' lists for the unorganized portions of East Algoma, West Algoma, the electoral district of Nipissing and the electoral district of Thunder Bay and Rainy river at the last parliamentary election were prepared and revised on the basis of the Ontario Voters' Lists Act, but not in ail cases by the same officers therein defined.
2.	Answered.
3.	By an Order in Council under the authority of section 9 of the Franchise Act as amended in the session of 1901.
4.	Date of the Order in Council, August 25, 1904.
5.	In East Algoma the lists were prepared by Sheriff Jackson for Manitoulin Island, Collins Inlet, Killarney and White River Mouth, and by William Thompson of Blind river for the remaining parts of the unorganized districts which are on the mainland.
For West Algoma Jacob Stevenson was appointed to prepare the lists-the sheriff declining to act.
For Nipissing Sheriff Varin and his deputy Peter Groulx. For Thunder Bay and Rainy river Sheriff Thompson of the Thunder Bay district, and Sheriff Humble of the

Rainy River district; ail with authority to appoint enumerators under them. The'following were appointed to hear appeals : Judge McCallum for East Algoma ; Judge O'Connor and Police Magistrate Quihell for West Algoma. Judge Valin and Leask, the senior and junior judge of Nipissing, and John Loughrin, stipendiary magistrate were appointed to hear appeals in the district of Nipissing. Judge Fitzgerald, Port Arthur, was appointed to hear appeals for Thunder Bay, and Judge Chappler of Rat Portage was appointed to hear appeals for the Rainy River district.



MUNICIPAL TELEPHONE SERVICE.

Arthur Cyril Boyce: 
Hon. II. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals).: I must ask my hon. friend to make a motion.



SHELBURNE POSTMASTER.

Mr. JOHN BARR (Dufferin) moved :: For copies of all correspondence between the government or any minister, and any party or parties, concerning the dismissal of the postmaster at Shelburne, Ontario, on or about the 7th of March, 1903.
He said : My object is to ascertain why the postmaster was dismissed. In order that the House may understand the position, I need only refer to the history of the case. In 1867 Mr. Berwick was appointed postmaster at the village of Shelburne, Out., and during 37 years, up to the year 1903, he filled that position with credit to himself and to the entire satisfaction of the community. He continued to occupy that position, not only during the time of the Conservative government, but also under the Mackenzie government, and there never was any complaint made against him. It is true that Mr. Berwick is a partner in a mercantile firm at Shelburne-one of these partners-and probably did employ some of his time in looking after the interests of his business. But during the distribution of Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
mail matter he was almost always at his post and at all times he had an efficient assistant, quite competent to attend to the business should Mr. Berwick ever happen to be away. The best proof of the manner in which he conducted the post office is to be found in the fact that during all those years no complaint was made against him, until the year 1903 when, I understand, the charge was made that he had other business outside to attend to, and that there were good reformers who had not any business to look after, and who consequently should be looked after by the government. That I believe was the real cause of Mr. Berwick's dismissal. It may no doubt be charged that he was not always in the post office, but we must remember that Shelburne is but a village, and there are few village postmasters who are in their office the whole time. If they have an efficient assistant, that" is considered quite sufficient, and I venture to say that the postmaster who is now at Shelburne is not more often in his place than was the late postmaster and probably has not as efficient an assistant.
But, early in 1903, an agitation was got up by a few-probably not more than a baker's dozen-every one of whom was an applicant for the office-to have a change made. And when the change was made and the new appointment settled, I venture to say the dozen agitators who had failed were just as much dissatisfied with the change as were any others in that village. So I do not think the government will gain any friends by the change. The agitation was carried on beneath the surface. No petition, so far as we knew, was circulated. The majority of the people using the office neither made nor heard of any complaint. But those who were anxious to obtain the office, gained the assistance of a senator, and probably of a member of the House, although both are outside of the riding and have no interest in the matter whatever except in promoting the welfare of their friends in the reform party ; now could they have had any object in removing the postmaster who had grown gray in that service ? And they succeeded in bringing about the change without the member then representing the county, without 99 out of a hundred of the people really interested knowing anything about it. Mr. Berwick had held the office for thirty-seven years was replaced without any reason given, so far as I know. No just cause was assigned- there was none to assign. These agitators succeeded in putting one of their party friends in the place that Mr. Berwick had occupied so long. Now, Mr. Speaker, if we are to have the American system adopted in Canada, the course taken by hon. gentlemen opposite in this matter is the one that is most likely to bring it about. It is well known that in all the various departments, this government are weeding out the Con' servatives, so that in the very near future

not a Conservative will be left in the public service of the Dominion. But I wish to remind hon. gentlemen opposite of the signs of the times. They cannot shut their eyes to the fact that one province after another is going Conservative by overwhelming majorities-the latest by a perfect landslide. If the incoming government in Ontario were to follow the example of the hon. gentlemen opposite there would be a weeding out of officers that have not attended to their duties; and if they were to follow it completely, even men who had attended to their duties, as Mr. Edward Berwick did, would be dismissed on some excuse to make way for friends of the party in power. We have only to follow the example set by this government to have the spoils system established in this province. In my opinion, it was an evil day for this Dominion when that system was inaugurated ; but the government cannot blame Conservatives if the Liberals in Ontario are given a dose of their own medicine in the near future. We have no desire to follow that course ; we should regret to be driven to it ; but we cannot be blamed for following it, if it aifords the only means by which we can protect our own friends. I know that the cry may be raised that Mr. Berwick had an interest in a store in Shelburne. But it cannot he shown that he in any way neglected the duties of the post office. As I have stated he was in his place day by day when the mail was delivered, and there was nothing in what he did to afford just ground for complaint. When the papers come down, I hope we shall learn who was the power behind the throne in causing the removal of Mr. Berwick without the member for the county or the great body of the people interested having any knowledge of what was going on.
Hon. Sir WILLIAM MULOCK-(Postmaster General)-There can be no objection to the order going. I think that when it is obeyed and the papers are brought down, it will appear that the change of postmaster to which my hon. friend (Mr. Barr) refers was not brought about by any political considerations. I think the hon. gentleman himself has given the explanation. I should infer, from his own admission that the reason for the change was that the postmastership at Shelburne had attained such importance as to entitle it to the undivided services of the person holding it. I speak now without any recollection of the facts. Perhaps I ought to apologize for not having informed myself ; but I failed to notice the motion on the paper in time. I have sent for the papers in the case, and had hoped that they would arrive before I needed to make my remarks. .However, the lion gentleman from Dufferin (Mr. Barr) himself has stated that the village of Shelburne has grown a place of considerable importance. I presume that there are many merchants there competitors in business of the gentleman wno held the postmastership. If such are the facts, I think it will be made clear by the papers in this case, when they are produced, that the change has been made in pursuance of the policy of the department that the postmastership of a place shall not be held by a person engaged in other business if the office itself furnishes sufficient emoluments to give the officer a living about on a par with the average earnings of the people there. You can well understand, Mr. Speaker, how a village postmaster who is carrying on the business of a general store has, by reason of his office, special advantages over his rivals. As long as the revenue is not sufficient to furnish a good living for the postmaster, that condition of affairs is not disturbed. But when the place grows in importance, and exception is taken to it by competitors, some attention must be paid to those objections. I think my hon. friend will find such to be the conditions in this case. I do not dwell upon his other statement, nor would I regard it as a sufficient reason for a change that this gentleman had held the office for thirty-seven years. A man who has held an office for thirty-seven years has been fairly successful. If it was only in 1903 that he was disturbed by this government,
I think there was no undue haste to disturb him. After he had been for thirty-seven years in the enjoyment of that office, I have no doubt any action that was taken was for the reason that I have assigned, not on account of any political considerations.


John Barr: If I may be allowed to reply -I regret the Postmaster General did not see fit to ask me to allow the motion to stand so that he might get information that would throw more light upon it. The very fact, as the hon. gentleman says, that a man had been thirty-seven years in the position, was sufficient to remove him


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: I did not make that statement.


John Barr: man able to tell ns that any petition came in against this postmaster. [DOT] There may have been, but if so, the petitions were sent in without the knowledge of the free and independent electors there, and had they known it a contrary petition would have been sent in signed by a great many Reformers as well as Conservatives. I think I have given the true solution, namely, that he was engaged in business and had a partner in the store. Well, Mr. Speaker, you know that in small places like that postmasters often have other business, the post office business is so small that it does not occupy much of their time, and it frequently happens that they employ competent men to assist them.' I say again, I regret that the hon. gentleman, finding himself unable to give the information, did not allow the motion to stand, because I would have been able to enlighten him on many points. His friends probably misled him. I think possibly he would not have made the change had he been cognizant of all the facts.


William Mulock: I think my hon. friend would have done well to reserve his judgment. When he receives the papers I think he will have occasion to change his views. A large number of his own friends asked for it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr.  F. D.@: MONK (Jaques Cartier) moved for :
Copies of all correspondence between the government of Canada, or any member thereof, and the government of the Northwest Territories, or any of its members, in reference to the granting of provincial autonomy to the said Territories, since the date of the last prorogation of parliament.
He said : The object of this motion is to obtain the correspondence in regard to the autonomy of the Northwest Territories that took place since the last prorogation of parliament. We had two returns during the last parliament, bringing down only a part of the correspondence. The object of the motion is to complete it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. WM  J.@: ROCHE (Marquette) moved for :
A return showing, in detail the business done during each of the past ten years, and also in the aggregate during the same period, in connection with the transmission of mail matter ; and with the issue and payment of money orders and postal notes at each post office in the provisional district of Alberta.


Right Hon.   S@: Perhaps my hon. friend would


John Barr: explain what he means by the statement ' Showing in detail the business done during each of the past ten years, and also in the aggregate during the same period, in connection with the transmission of mail matter.'


Mr. W. J. ROCHE.: I want to get at the amount of business done in that provincial district in each post office for each year.


William Mulock: Does the hon. gentleman mean the number of letters and the number of the various kinds of mail matter ?


William James Roche: Yes.


William Mulock: I would point out to him that to give in detail what he asks for would be impossible, because there is no account kept of each piece of mail matter that passes through the post office. Every six months an enumeration is made of the business of an office for a period of about two weeks, and from these enumerations an estimate is formed of the amount of the mail matter of different kinds mailed at a particular office. Therefore this could only be an estimate.


William James Roche: It is the general business done that I desire to get at.


William Mulock: The secretary of the department tells me that they would have to correspond with every postmaster in Alberta to get this information, and to get it as fast as the hon. gentleman wants it. Therefore there would be considerable delay involved in gathering the information.


William James Roche: I am anxious to get an idea of the business done so that it may be discussed when the question of autonomy comes up.


William Mulock: Very well, I will give all information we can now. But if we have to correspond to get anything, it .might be better to have a partial return made now, and give the rest later. I would suggest that we strike out the words 1 in detail ' and substitute the words ' an estimate of.'
Motion, as amended, agreed to.



INLAND AND CUSTOMS REVENUES, N.W.T.

William James Roche: For a return showing the amount of revenue collected, (1) by the Department of Inland Revenue ; (2) by the Department of Customs, during each of the past ten years ; and also in the aggregate during the same period, at the following points in the Northwest Territories, viz.: Edmonton, Strathcona, Red Deer, Calgary, Medicine Hat, Maple Creek, Lethbridge, Coutts, Cardston and Macleod.


Hon. WILLIAM PATERSON (Minister of Customs).: When the hon. gentleman says ' in the aggregate ' does he mean to have the

Inland Revenue returns and Customs returns put together ?


William James Roche: No, separately, the aggregate for ten years.


William Paterson: That is year by year, and then total them up.


William James Roche: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Return showing the acreage in each township in the provisional district ot Alberta, and in those parts of the provisional districts of Saskatchewan and Assiniboia lying -west of range 13, west' of the third meridian, in the Dominion Lands system of survey, that has been disposed of in each of the following ways : (a) acreage patented, either as homesteads or on sales ;	(b) acreage not patented, but held
under homestead entry or by purchase; and (c) acreage patented or reserved for railway land grants. Also the number of homestead entries made to date in the following land agencies : Edmonton, Red Deer, Calgary, Lethbridge, and so much of Battleford and Regina as lies west of range 13, west of the third meridian.-Mr. Wm. J. Roche,
Return of all lists of voters, as prepared by the enumerators, for [DOT] the several polling subdivisions of the respective electoral districts in the Northwest Territories, and used In the recent general election for the House of Commons.-Mr. M. S. McCarthy.
Return showing the total number of acres of public lands undisposed of in the several and respective provisional districts of the Northwest Territories of Canada. Mr. M. S. McCarthy.
Statement showing tile - amounts expended from the 30th o.f June, 1902, up to the 1st of February, 1905, upon the two wharfs and approaches at Ste. Genevieve and Isle Bizard, in the county of Jacques Cartier ; also letters adddressed to the Minister of Public Works during the year 1904 in reference to the said expenditure, with estimates and statements connected therewith.-Mr. Monk.
Copy of the letter of resignation of the Honourable A. G. Blair, as chairman of the Board of Railway Commission and of all correspondence in reference to the said resignation.-Mr, Monk.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 10), respecting Labour Union Labels.-Mr. Ralph Smith.
Bill (No. 21), to amend the Act respecting the Safety of Ships.-Mr. Sinclair.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
['That is British silver, not Canadian silver.\nSome resolutions reported.\nOn motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, House adjourned at 5.55 p.m.', 'Tuesday, February 7, 1905.']
Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: We will take up Public Works.


George Eulas Foster: Is the minister's report down yet ?


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: Yes, and the report of the Auditor General also.


Mr. MONK.: When was the report of the Minister of Public Works brought down ?


Hon. CHARLES HYMAN (Acting Minister of Public Works).: I expect to be able to lay the report on the table on Friday.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: I was not correctly informed. I thought the report had been brought down.


George Eulas Foster: I do not think we can go on with this until that report is down. Hon. members ought to have a chance to scan the report.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: I think there is a good deal in the Auditor General's Report.


George Eulas Foster: That is true, but the report of the minister needs to be studied somewhat by the members. We have acceded to the request of hon. gentlemen to proceed in some cases because we did not want to delay business entirely, but I do not think we can go on with the estimates of the Department of Public Works without that report.


Charles Smith Hyman: Possibly I may be able to go on with the capital expenditures.


George Eulas Foster: Those are just about as important as the others and I think a little more so. The Department of Public Works is a very important one, and hon. members have had no opportunity of seeing the report. '


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: We might start and if hon. gentlemen opposite want to reserve any item we can reserve it for discussion later on.


George Eulas Foster: We approach it without any knowledge ; we might be wasting time.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: Well, there is nothing left birt to adjourn the House then.


George Eulas Foster: Is the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Frederick Borden) ready with his 1


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: The report is not down either.


George Eulas Foster: What have we besides ? When will we have the railway report ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have not received the report from the Printing Bureau. It was promised for to-morrow.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: To-morrow we will take up the Census Bill and the resolution in regard to apples. We will have enough for the day with those.


George Eulas Foster: You are not ready with these to-day ?


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: No, we did not expect to take them up. Many members of the House would like to be present during the discussion of these questions and we set them for to-morrow.


George Eulas Foster: To piece out the afternoon we might go on with these estimates, dis-

cuss Oie items and then allow a few to stand as we did with those of the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence, so that we can come hack to any one of them.
Public Works-chargeable to capital-public buildings, Ottawa-Dominion Archives building, $45,000.


Mr. BERGERON.: Explain.


Charles Smith Hyman: This building is to provide a safe keeping place for the archives and public documents. It is to be erected just back of the Printing Bureau, on the extension of Mackenzie Avenue, on laud owned by the government. The contract has been let to William McGillivray, of Ottawa, for $49,847.


George Eulas Foster: How much has been spent on that work so far ?


Charles Smith Hyman: There has been practically na expenditure ; the contract was let on September 29.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: When will it be finished ?


Charles Smith Hyman: September 30.
Mr. BERGERON, Is there to be another building erected where the National Gallery will be housed ?
Mi-. HYMAN. Yes, another item in the estimates deals with that.


George Eulas Foster: How much does the minister expect will be spent on this building by July 1 ?


Charles Smith Hyman: 
George Eulas Foster: What is to be the total sum for building and equipment ?


Charles Smith Hyman: 
George Eulas Foster: $80,000 complete ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes, it is to be a fireproof .building,


George Eulas Foster: What is the size of the building and how many stories will it have?


Charles Smith Hyman: It will have three stories and a basement. The length will be 100 feet and the breadth 50 feet.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is there much land belonging to the government in that part of Ottawa ?


Charles Smith Hyman: There are a number of feet'of land in that district. I think all of that land is practically vested in the Militia Department.


George Eulas Foster: 


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: My object was to ascertain whether this building could be utilized for some of the departmental offices that are now scattered all over Ottawa. I understand we are paying a large sum of money for rent, and if these offices could all be in the same building it would be a saving, and at the same time it would be more convenient because now when you want to visit different departments you have to travel all-over Ottawa.


Charles Smith Hyman: I do not think it will be possible in connection with this building. I may say that I have been asked by the librarian for permission to use one, and possibly two floors for the storage of a certain number of papers that are burdensome to the library, and it is proposed to use part of the building in this way, but I do not think the building could be used for any other purposes. It is to be a fireproof building and is to be used simply for storage.


George Eulas Foster: The question arises as to the capacity of the library. We have not a very large library. It is a very complete one so far as it goes, but its storage capacity is. I believe, more than exhausted. In the erection of a building of this kind when you have your foundation it should be easy to run it up a couple of stories more and it might at least be a point to be considered whether there could not be provided in this building additional sjiace for at least a portion of the books and papers now hi the library that are seldom used, but that must be preserved. I do not think it would be well to have general offices in the museum because these are too different from the purposes of a musuem, but something must be done sooner or later to provide additional accommodation for the library. Has the minister considered that question ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I have given it whatever consideration is possible, and I have no doubt that one and possibly two stories, one certainly, will be available for that purpose. I may: say in this connection that I have also been asked by the librarian to take into consideration the raising of the roof of the portion of this building which is at present being used as a reading room.
I have asked the chief architect to figure on this and draw a plan, in order that we may see if we could not in this way without injuring the architecture of the main building provide certain accommodation for library purposes. While I have not a full report from the chief architect I may say that he is of the opinion that it could be accomplished.


George Eulas Foster: That would be rather for the extension of the book room.


Charles Smith Hyman: For the extension of the book room for those books that might possibly be wanted. Then I am sure that we
<305

*will be able to arrange in tlie building that we are now discussing for the storage of those books which are not often called for. Thus, with the raising of the roof of the present reading room, and the accommodation provided in this new building I hope to overcome the crowded condition of the library which certainly makes everything very inconvenient.


George Eulas Foster: What material is to be used in this building.


Charles Smith Hyman: The walls of the basement are to be of stone and the remaining portions brick, with stone facings.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Have you the plans ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I have not the plans here.


George Eulas Foster: For the purpose suggested we want a building which will be permanent, and I should think it ought to be erected in the very best style so as to be architecturally an ornament to the city and a credit to the government. What kind of stone is the minister going to use ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The foundation and trimmings will be of limestone and the roof of iron ; it is supposed to be an entirely fireproof building.
* Mr. WHITE. Is it intended to use cement in the floors of this building ?
Mi-. HYMAN. Yes, it is intended to use concrete.


David Henderson: I would like the minister to inform us where all these public documents for which provision is now being made, have been stored during the last 20 or 30 years ? Will these public documents that are now stored be removed to the new building so as to have them all under the one roof ?


Charles Smith Hyman: A portion of the Laugevin block is used at the present time for the storage of a large number of papers ; but it is intended to remove from the different departments to this building, as far as possible, all the documents which ought to be safely kept.


David Henderson: I understand that in the basement of this building there are vaults in which a large number of old records are stored. Am I correctly informed as to that ? If so, there ought to be considerable available space left for other purposes if these documents are removed.


Charles Smith Hyman: I am not informed as to that. I have no doubt that when this building is completed and a search is made for documents, we shall find them stored in a good many unexpected places.


George Eulas Foster: Where are the Dominion archives kept now ?


Charles Smith Hyman: In the Langevin block.


George Eulas Foster: In what way does the minister provide against their destruction by fire ? Has he simply a fireproof building, or has he vaults as well ?-because some of these documents are very precious and important?	.


Charles Smith Hyman: There is to be a very large vault in the building for particularly valuable documents. But the building itself is practically one vault, divided into sections by fireproof partitions.


George Eulas Foster: How much more would a stone building cost than brick ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I am informed by the chief architect that that would depend very largely upon the style of architecture. A plain stone building would cost about 25 per cent more.


George Eulas Foster: I am not an architect, but it struck me that for the Dominion archives we ought to have a really fine building, and one of stone instead of brick, which has a rather common look for a building of that kind, in which the richest treasures of learning and knowledge and history with reference to the country are placed.


Charles Smith Hyman: I may say that the question of the archives building and the question of the museum building came before the department. The latter, being a building that would be visited by a great many more people than the former, we considered should be a stone building, and a first-class building in every way. The archives building is intended to be more of a store house, and in regard to it the question of safety was chiefly considered.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: Are the walls to be hollow ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No.
Ottawa-Royal Mint, $200,000.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How far has that building gone ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The contract was signed on the 5th of January, 1905. The date for the completion of the contract is the 5th of January, 1907. It has been let to Messrs. Sullivan & Langdon, of Kingston. The amount of the contract is $263,194. It was let after public tenders were advertised for, they being the lowest tenderers.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I suppose there is no use now of talking about the use of that building ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The matter has been before the House for a considerable time.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: As we are going to coin money in Canada, I may say that an immense amount of American money is circulating through this country, and some people are trying to devise a means of getting rid of it. I was told the other day

that over $9,000,000 of American coin was circulating through Canada. I know how difficult it is to prevent this, but it seems to me that we might arrange with the banks when it reaches them not to put it back into circulation. There are also a great many American bills in the country. Every one who has travelled through the States knows that our dollar bills, which are worth their face value in gold, are not accepted there. If we are going to spend such a large sum of money in building a mint, it seems to urn that it would be logical to find a means of preventing American money circulating in Canada and taking the place of our own Canadian coin.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: My bon. friend will agree with me that that is a vast question which had better be postponed until the Minister of Finance is in his seat. I have reason to believe that before very long he will be with us. I understand that there are two sides to this question of the circulation of American money in Canada; but the question is one that deserves consideration, and if my hou. friend will bring it up at a later period, when the Minister of Finance is here, I have no doubt that it will receive some consideration.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I may tell the right hon. First Minister that I have been thinking of proposing an amendment to the Banking Act on that subject.


Samuel Barker: What is expected to be the total expenditure on this building ? The amount of the contract is in excess of the sum here voted, therefore it is quite clear that further expenditure is contemplated.


Charles Smith Hyman: There is, in the first place, the contract that has been let, amounting to $263,194 ; the estimate for heating is $15,000 ; for electric wiring and fittings, $6,000; for fittings and furnishings, $10,000; for vault doors and fitting, $15,000. The suggestion would naturally arise that a building of that character, in which would be stored large quantities of coin and gold dust, would require to be well fenced ; and no doubt a very expensive fence will have to be erected for the purpose of protecting that building. It is estimated that such a fence will cost about $25,000.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Why not take the fence around Major Hill's Park, which is of no use there ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I shall take that into consideration. Adding contingencies, &c., $13,000, the total probable cost estimated by the department is $350,000. In addition to that there is the laud which costs $21,250. It is a square piece of land on the corner of Sussex and Cathcart Streets and was purchased from the Canadian Pacific Railway. In addition the department are negotiating for the purchase of the property immediately adjoining-a small property-on which there is a house. We have not been able to come Mr. BERGERON.
to terms yet and do not want to take proceedings to dispossess the owner of the house until we find it absolutely necessary. The house no doubt will cost between $5,006 and $6,000.


Samuel Hughes: Is the hon. minister taking any steps to prevent any other building being in close proximity to the mint. In the United States no building of any description is allowed within a certain distance of any government public building.


Charles Smith Hyman: The lot on which this building is being erected is practically a square. It is bounded on one side by the river and on two other sides by wide streets.


George Eulas Foster: Where is it ?


Charles Smith Hyman: On the corner of Sussex *and Cathcart Streets. It is on the river bank, almost directly opposite Nepean hill and the large convent on Sussex Street. It is in order to complete the square that the department want to buy this other piece ol' property, which will cost between $5,000 and $6,000. That piece of property will not be needed for building operations, but it is thought better not to allow any building too close to the mint.


George Eulas Foster: How much land are yon getting for that $21,000?


Charles Smith Hyman: A little over 300 feet square.


George Eulas Foster: Is there any building on it V


Charles Smith Hyman: No.


Mr. BLAIN.: When were the plans first prepared ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I do not know when the plans were commenced, but it must be at least two years since they were begun, and a considerable amount of work has been done on them.


Richard Blain: When the question of erecting a mint was brought up by the right lion, the first minister some few years ago, he said that the total cost would be $200,000. My hou. friend now estimates in the neighbourhood of $375,000. Is that due to any changes in the plan ?


Charles Smith Hyman: A great deal of care has been taken in the preparation of these plans pint I do not think the matter is one in which the public would desire anything being done before every preparation was taken to have all the latest improvements. The architect of the department visited the United States and English mints and consulted with the best authorities in both countries. Every possible precaution is being taken to ensure the building being made sufficient for its purposes.


Samuel Hughes: I understand that in the archives building the walls are solid.
I do not care Jjow thick a solid wall may be,

it will not prevent * dampness. A wall [DOT]should always be hollow.


Charles Smith Hyman: Altogether the wall itself is not hollow, there is a casing inside of it [DOT]pf steel or iron and there is a space between that and the brick work.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Do I understand that the land purchased is 300 feet square and costs $21,2co ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes, this land belonged to the Canadian Pacific Railway, who were not inclined to sell at all. The department then had the land valued by two or three valuators and the value placed upon it was m the neighbourhood ol' $19,000. The department asked the Canadian Pacific Railway to name a price. The company wanted $43,000. That seemed beyond the ideas of the department and we made them an offer of $19,000. On their refusal we took proceed-mgs in expropriation. Shortly afterwards they approached the department and said they would accept $21,250.


Samuel Hughes: When was the purchase completed ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Negotiations went on during four or five months and the deal was only closed last month. The department felt it was better, considering the cost of expropriation, to give the extra amount.


Samuel Hughes: When this matter was up a year or so ago, there was a proposition that this mint should be located at Vancouver. The hon. member for Vancouver used to demand that it should be there. That was one of the battle cries in his campaign. I do not see him in his seat, but possibly he is conveniently out of the House.


Mr. MACPHERSON.: No, he is right here.


Samuel Hughes: If I remember right 'that was one of the war cries in his campaign.


Robert George Macpherson: You need not shed any tears over his campaign.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Who were the arbitrators ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Messrs. Taggart, Douglas and Wallace of Ottawa.


Samuel Hughes: Why was it not located in Vancouver ?


Charles Smith Hyman: This is the first time I have heard of any suggestion of that kind.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: How many tenders were submitted ?


Charles Smith Hyman: There were four. $263,194 was the lowest;	$275,700 was the next,
and $277,500 was the third lowest. The two last were by W. H. Davis and Holbrooke, Son & Wallace.


Richard Blain: We understand that this is the contract for the building alone that
has been awarded. Have tenders been re* ceived for the lighting and heating? I notice that there is a large amount for iron doors for the building. Is it the intention to ask for tenders for these items?


Charles Smith Hyman: These questions have not been considered by the department as yet. It will be at least a year before that work will be done. In all cases when the sum involved is sufficiently large, or when, for any reason, it is in the public interest, tenders are called for. The usual course will, be followed in this case.


Richard Blain: What information can the hon. minister give us at this time about the course to be followed in regard to the vault doors and fittings, which the minister says, will cost about $15,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: There can be no question as to that, in such a case, tenders will be called for.


Richard Blain: Some years ago the Minister of Public Works stated to the House that he intended to have a general review of the construction of public buildings in Ottawa. I think he went so far as to secure an option or prices on some land adjoining the site of existing buildings, and indicated that a general report would be prepared as to the construction of new buildings that are necessary for the keeping of public documents ' and the efficient carrying on of the public service. May I ask if the minister has such a report ready or has it under consideration ? No year passes but we have an item in the estimates for the construction of some new building or the addition of a story to some building now in existence. It seems to me that this is rattier an expensive plan. I think the House would be better informed and the country better served if a general policy were proposed for the construction of buildings in the capital. Of course, I understand that the building that we are now discussing is a building designed for a special purpose.


Charles Smith Hyman: I am not sure that I understand exactly what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain) means. It would be almost impossible to make plans according to which buildings for the future should be constructed. The special needs and the site have to be considered in every case. So far as the construction of post offices and custom houses in various parts of the country is concerned, we are trying to follow the best plan and to have them all as uniform as possible.


Richard Blain: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Hyman) has misapprehended my question. I refer to the statement made by the Minister of Public Works that he had learned the price of a property on Wellington street in front of these buildings and proposed at an early day to bring down a report showing



[Stage Direction]
what properties were available and at what prices, and setting forth .the policy of the government as to the purchase of property and the construction of buildings to meet the requirements of the public service.
Charles Smith Hyman: I may say that I expected the discussion of that subject to come up on the item of rents of public buildings. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain) has no objection I would be glad to have the matter discussed, and fully discussed, on that item. The sum paid as rent for buildings in Ottawa used for government purposes has grown to such proportions that it would be decidedly in the public interest to take action to provide a public building suitable for the requirements of the government service. I have had the matter under consideration to a certain extent. It is a very large question and involves a good deal of work. The officers of the department are now engaged in figuring out the floor space necessary for the departments iu Ottawa at the present moment. Of course, we must also, as well as we can, provide for the future. I hope that it will be possible, before the supplementary estimates are brought down, to consider this matter more fully and to have a good deal of information to lay before the House. I hope also to receive suggestions from members of the House, so that we may reach a couclusion that will be satisfactory to the representatives of the people.


Mr.   POSTER@: What is the material to Me used in building the mint?


Charles Smith Hyman: It will be a stone building, a rectangular parallelogram measuring 220 feet from north to south by 164 feet from east to west.


Richard Blain: What kind of stone will be used?


Charles Smith Hyman: Nepean stone, which comes from the neighbourhood. It is practically the same stone that was used in the construction of the parliament buildings.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I understand that this building, when completed will cost about $375,000. I suppose it is too late now to talk about whether the money should be voted or not. because the policy has already been decided upon and accepted by parliament. But I would he very glad if any of those who favoured the establishment of a mint at this time would explain the reasons by which that policy was supported. This is a very large amount Of money to spend for a work that seems to me clearly unnecessary.


Charles Smith Hyman: I was not a member of the government when the decision to construct a mint was arrived at. I have always understood that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and the government gave very careful consideration to the whole question. The matter has been discussed Mr. BLAIN.
iii the House more than once, and I think that hon members oil both sides have taken very strong grounds in favour of the erection of this building. I understand that there was no question about the necessity for it. From a departmental standpoint, the Department of Public Works is only asked to bring in plans and specifications.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Would some one who has had to do with this decision, tell us why they have taken that decision ? I was not here to hear their reasons. This institution is to cost in the neighbourhood of $375,000. Although the decision to construct has been taken, might I be allowed to ask the reason, since we are now voting the money ? This is a very large amount of money, and I have not heard at any time reasons given why we should have a mint in Canada. Without saying that the money is* spent altogether uselessly, I may suggest that it is spent sooner than necessary.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: I may say that parliament did not agree with the view just presented by my hon. friend (Mr. Bergeron) when the matter was up some years ago. In fact, I believe it was first brought up when my hon. friend occupied the seat lie now occupies, and it has been discussed during the interval that he has been away from the House. I think lie will remember that this matter was brought before parliament in 1899 or 1900, and more than once. At all events, whether my hon. friend was absent or present, this matter has been discussed in parliament more than once, and the idea taken by the government was that a mint had become necessary in view of the discovery of gold in the Yukon ; we thought the time had come when parliament should have power to coin our own money. From 1898 or 1899 the Yukon has produced gold ore to the extent of at least $10,000,000 a year. During all this time, that gold has gone to be coined in the United States, and we thought it good policy to have an institution where we could coin our own gold and put it into circulation in this country. My hon. friend is right perhaps in saying that the currency would be too limited to justify us in coining gold for Canada alone. But we have obtained from the Imperial authorities permission to coin for them also, and to issue coin for the United Kingdom. Therefore we aTe to coin not only for ourselves but we are to coin for the United Kingdom. This question has been discussed more than once in parliament, on these lines, and I never heard any objection taken to it. I have given to my hon. friend the chief reason that induced us to take the action we did, and that was the discovery of gold in the Yukon, which we thought ought to be minted in this country.


George Eulas Foster: In what way would the minting of our gold here add to the production of gold in the Yukon ?


FEBKUAKY C, 1905
Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: I do not know that it would add a single cent. But I suppose that my hon. friend is a National Policy man, that he wants to have Canada for the Canadians, and Canadian gold for a Canadian mint instead of Canadian gold for an American mint, as is the case at the present time. I should suppose that such a reason would appeal to my hon. friend.


Robert George Macpherson: I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without answering the suggestion of the hon. member for Beau-harnois (Mr. Bergeron), that Canada does not require a mint. He says he does not see any particular reason why we require a mint. Let me give him a few facts that I am sure will apeal to him as a good Canadian. Let me tell him and this committee that the cities of Seattle, Tacoma and Spokane Falls have been built up as a result of the shipment of Canadian gold mined in Canada, which has gone to swell the coffers of merchants in the United States. I can tell him further that we are producing nearly $20,000,000 worth of gold every year, and with the exception of $1,500,000 that is produced west of the foot hills of the Rocky Mountains, that gold has gone into the United States to be minted. When a miner wants to sell his gold he goes where the people will buy it and mint it. There is no city in Canada outside of Vancouver where he can dispose of his gold, and if he did. he would probably be obliged to sell it for $1 an ounce less than he could get on the American side.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Will he bring it to Ottawa ?


Robert George Macpherson: I take it for granted that whatever government is in power will see to it that the gold produced in Canada will find its way to our own mint. Moreover, I suppose, they will arrange some scheme with the banks for the collection of the gold. People who live in the east can hardly conceive of the immense harm that has been done to Canada and Canadian institutions by the prevalence of just such a view as the hon. gentleman has expressed, that we have no real use for a mint. Of course I believe he expresses this view in good faith, not being conversant with the 'Tacts. If we had had a mint in Canada, or any place where gold could have been bought at its value, the city of Vancouver, instead of being a city of
40,000	inhabitants, would have been much more populous, because it would have received the benefit of the shipments of gold from the Yukon, and would have been a greater city than Seattle to-day. Seattle was built up, I can tell my hon. friend, from a city of 20,000 people, as it was when I first saw it, to a city of 120,000. Most of the prosperity which Seattle has enjoyed the last eight years has resulted from Canadian mined gold. Now, Sir, I think that 201
every man in this country should be alive to the fact that we are a gold producing country. We have other things in this country besides wheat, and fowl, and barnyard hogs. Last year we produced in British Columbia alone $6,000,000 worth of gold, and the whole output in Canada was nearly $21,000,000. Let me tell my hon. friend that that $21,000,000 went over to the American side and is credited to the United States production of gold, making that country the second largest in the world, whereas if Canada was to receive her right proportion and mint her own gold, she would stand fourth as a gold producing country. I have given some of the reasons, there are others of a patriotic nature. I think it is high time that this country of 6,000,000 people should mint their own gold and silver. We can produce every known mineral I think on the earth, we produce gold in a great amount, and silver in almost unlimited quantities, and I believe the time has come when this gold should be coined iin our own country, and bear a Canadian imprint. We have plenty of silver, and we shall see silver 50 cent pieces and $1 pieces of our own coining. When my hon. friend sees a gold piece with a beaver on one side and the name Canada on the other, I know his Canadian heart will swell with pride.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I desire first to thank my right hon. friend for the explanation he gave me. While the right hon. gentleman was speaking, I recalled to mind that this subject did come up in 1899 or 1900, and if I am not mistaken, politics did enter into the discussion of that question. Some of our friends from British Columbia were talking strongly on the lines the hon. gentleman (Mr. Macplierson, of Vancouver) has just suggested. The right hon. gentleman shows there was no politics in his scheme when he says that it was important to keep our own gold in Canada, to be minted here instead of letting it go over to the United States. Why is it that the government have waited four or five years to come to this decision and to build this institution, while our gold has been allowed to go over to the other side ?
My hon. friend from Vancouver says that instead of building up cities in the United States, Canadian cities will be built up by the construction of this mint. Surely . my hon. friend is not. serious. He knows very well that most Americans who come into our country in search of gold, on finding it take it home with them, and I do not think my hon. friend will find any means of preventing them from doing so. The Canadian mint here will be idle. There will be two or three superintendents and five or six clerks employed, we will spend a great deal of money and I intend to ask before I get through how much it will cost for oper-

ating. We will require to have a number of specialists. Having visited the mint in Philadelphia, I know the number of people who are employed there. I do not believe that we will coin very much money The establishment of this mint will not prevent money being coined on the American side. The hon. Postmaster General came to the rescue and spoke about the banks being called upon to help in the distribution of the gold. We know what has happened. The Bank of Commerce has a monopoly in the Yukon but that fact does not prevent Canadian gold from going to the United States. When the demand for a mint was first made in the House of Commons there was a population in Dawson City of 40,000. What is the population of Dawson City to-day ? There are not 10,000 people in that city. Where is your immense production of gold? I cannot see the usefulness of such a building. It will involve the expenditure of a large amount of money uselessly. It will cost a great deal of money to keep up that institution every year and there is no reason for it. The political reason has disappeared. If the building were to be erected in Vancouver or even in Dawson City there might be some reason for it, but being located here in Ottawa it will serve no useful purpose because it will be a great deal shorter for a man coming out from Dawson City to go to the United States than to come here. My hon. friend talks about patriotism being stimulated by the establishment of this institution. If there were more patriotism there would not be nine million dollars of American coin in circulation in Canada today.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: I hope we will be able to get rid of the American coin in Canada, of which my hon. friend speaks.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: That will not do it. The banks are filled with American coin.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: I do not find fault with that. If my hon. friend looks at the statutes he will know that the banks have been allowed to use American coin for their reserves of gold. That was necessary when we were a small nation, but we are growing. Does my hon. friend believe that we must for ever remain without our own mint and our own coin ? There is in the highest sense a political reason for the establishment of a mint. Canada, today, with a population of six millions of souls, a larger population than that of Belgium, Sweden and Norway and many other nations and with a large production of gold, should have a mint of her own. As a commercial transaction I do not think there is any money in it. We will do well if we come out even, but whatever it may be as a commercial transaction, put it upon the ground stated by my hon. friend a moment ago-the political ground and I hope that he and his hon. friends will agree with the government that the mint will serve a Mr. BERGERON.
useful purpose. It will assert that Canada is coming to the front. It will be an advertisement for Canada not only on this continent but everywhere. You will see our gold coins in Washington and New York and wherever you go in the United States or in Europe you will find Canada advertised as it is not advertised to-day. Our bank bills may be refused in the money markets of Europe and the United States, but when you have gold coin in your pocket it will be accepted everywhere and it will advertise Canada. In the Yukon we produce about $10,000,000 every year. That is the standard production of the Yukon now. In British Columbia, as I understand from the statement made a moment ago by my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Macpher-son), we produce $6,000,000-that makes $16,000,000-and in other parts of Canada we produce $4,000,000 making a total production of $20 000,000 of gold. I do put it to my hon. friend on the ground of his own political faith, on the ground that he has been preaching more than once recently : Does he not believe it is good policy that we should coin that gold ourselves in Canada ? Where does it go to-day ? It does not go to Europe. I do not think that any part of our gold goes to Europe, but I believe it all goes to the United States. Every ounce of that $20,000,000 of Canadian gold which is taken from the bowels of the earth goes to the United States. Let us have a mint here in Ottawa, that Washington of the North, and then we shall have something which is worthy of a nation. In the United States they have not one mint but several, one in Washington, one in Philadelphia, which is the oldest, one at San Francisco and one, I think, also at Denver. We will commence with one and as time goes on, we, like our neighbours, shall have more than one also.	,


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I understand that some years ago the estimated cost of this mint was $200,000 ; to-day it is $375,000. Why is there such a vast difference ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Of course, I presume, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Armstrong) refers to the question that another hon. gentleman spoke of a moment ago when something was said about the hon. Finance Minister having made a statement that it would cost $200,000. I have never seen such a statement. I presume the hon. gentleman has seen a statement of that character. I presume he spoke from memory. If such a statement was made by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance it must have been made without any calculation, because the plans of the department were not prepared in any careful way at that time. He was under a misapprehension if he made that statement. Great care has been exercised in preparing a plan which will provide a building that can be operated in the most I economical way.

61S


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How much would it cost to heat the mint ? How many men will he employed ? How much will it cost tor operating ?


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: We have not come to that yet. That is a fair question for the hon. Minister of Finance, but not for the Minister of Public Works.


George Eulas Foster: The hon. Minister of Finance ought to be here when we are discussing this item.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How can we go back to the question when the hon. Minister of Finance is here ? This item will be passed.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: I think we will find some way of satisfying the curiosity of my hon. friend, and I think he will find some way himself.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I will take the advice of my right hon. friend and wait until the hon. Minister of Finance is here.
Mr. BLAIN- On the question as to whether we were speaking from memory or not, I draw the attention of the hon. acting Minister of Public Works to page 5673 of the ' Hansard ' of 1901. The hon. Finance Minister said that ' the building would cost $200,000.' Now, my hon. friend the acting Minister of Public Works comes forward and says it will cost $370,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: No, I am sure my hon. friend does not want to misrepresent what I said. The contract for the building is 6263,000.


Richard Blain: That is in addition to the doors which will cost $15,000 ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes, those are fittings.


Richard Blain: The doors are fittings ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes, the vault doors are fittings.


Richard Blain: Are the windows fittings as well ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No, they are under contract.


Richard Blain: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would state what the total cost of the building will be. I do not mean the fittings I mean the cost of the building without the fittings. I understand the contract price is $260,000. That is $60,000 more than the hon. Finance Minister said it would cost. Then there is a considerable amount in addition as mentioned this afternoon by the hon. acting minister.


Charles Smith Hyman: I have no doubt in the world that this very building which now costs by contract, $203,000, could have been built for about the sum that the Minister of Finance mentioned. Everyone knows that there has been a large increase in the price of building in the last three or four years, probably 25 to 30 per cent ; that I
am sure will be accepted by the House as an explanation. Considering that the Minister of Finance made his statement without having all the details, and the plans before him. I thin he was wonderfully close in the estimate he gave, taking into consideration the difference in the cost of building. The hon. gentleman laughs. I am perfectly serious, and I am speaking of my own knowledge. In the last two years I have let contracts for buildings that cost 20 per cent more than they would have cost the year before. I do think that any member in the House with experience in building knows that the cost of building is not less than 20 per cent higher than in 1902.


John Barr: I might ask if the banking interests in this Dominion have been consulted ? Probably they could- give some light on this subject. It is certainly a large undertaking involving large expenditures and it seems doubtful whether due consideration has been given to tjie undertaking. The banking interests are probably best able to inform the House on questions of this kind and I would like to know if they have been consulted.


Charles Smith Hyman: Does the hon. gentleman mean in regard to the principle of building the mint ?


John Barr: Yes, the principle.


Charles Smith Hyman: I understand the bankers have expressed themselves from time to time.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: In favour of it ?


William Mulock: There is a Bankers' Association, and on several occasions at their annual meeting according to newspaper reports which I have read, they discussed this question. I recollect now one prominent banker who was president of the Bankers' Association who expressed himself very strongly. I refer to Sir. D. R. Wilkie, manager of the Imperial bank. I think he was very strong in favour of it. Of course in all questions of this kind, as in all large questions, you will find differences of opinion, but the project is not without its advocates in tlie banking world.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: It seems to me that I read a report which indicated that the vicepresident of the Bank of Montreal, Mr Geo. Drummond, was certainly against the principle of establishing a mint in Canada.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: My hon. friend (Mr. Bergeron) is perfectly right. The bankers were not unanimous, some favoured it and some did Aot.


Samuel Barker: This question was up before and it was then said that this was not to be a purely Canadian mint, but a branch of the Royal mint. Now, as it is costing so much money, perhaps it would be interest-

ing if the first minister could tell us just what the distinction is. The gentleman from British Columbia (Mr. Macpherson) seems to think it is to be a Canadian affair, something that is to be of immense good to Vancouver, and to buy all the gold that will be produced in this country. When we find it is costing us nearly $400,000 we might know what the difference is between a branch of the Royal Mint and a purely Canadian mint.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: The explanation is this : The mint is to be a Canadian mint of course, to coin Canadian gold, Canadian live dollar pieces, which as my hon. freinds know are not now coined. At the present time as my hon. friends know Canadian silver, 25 cent pieces, 50 cent pieces, &c., are all coined in England.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: But this is only silver.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: If we have gold coined, we get it coined in England Now we are going to do the reverse. Up to the present time the Royal Mint has coined British coins and Canadian coins ; the Royal Mint in Canada will coin Canadian coins and also English coins, the English sovereign, &c. In order to do this, the mint has to be a branch of the Royal mint; that is the way it has to be done. This it: what the Minister of Finance says. The advantage is this : We may not require for ourselves all the gold that we produce in Canada and that gold will be coined in Canada into British sovereigns and sent over for circulation to Great Britain, and in order to have this done the Canadian mint will be made by Royal proclamation a branch of the Royal Mint.


John Barr: And it is to coin silver as well as gold ?	:


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: Yes.


Samuel Barker: I did not think that part of the object of this building was to coin British coins for use in Great Britain.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: Yes.


Samuel Barker: Are we paying the money for that purpose ; is that our object ?


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: I understand that is expected-ujmn this point I speak under correction, as I am not perfectly sure, -that on the coin we make for the British public we make some profit. As to that, as I said, I speak under correction.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Of course I believe fully what my right hon. friend says, but I would ask if there is an arrangement with the British government to tlilit effect ?


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: There is.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: 
Samuel Barker: 


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Our money is different from the English money; we have no pound or sovereign here? Will the mint here make the $5 gold pieces as in the United States ?


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: Yes.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: And when they coin English coin it will be English pounds ?


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: Yes. We shall coin here Canadian dollars, $5 pieces, $10 pieces and $20 pieces in gold and we shall coin also the British sovereign.


John Graham Haggart: But no English shillings ?


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: I do not expect that we will coin English silver, although we have the power to do so.


Samuel Hughes: Is there not a branch of the Royal Mint in Australia ?


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: I cannot speak positively as to that.


George Eulas Foster: Yes there is. If this mint coins English sovereigns, which the English government of course guarantee to be of a certain fineness and value, will they take that coinage simply from our own management here or will they insist on having supervision as well ?


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: I understand they will Insist on having supervision as well.


George Eulas Foster: We have not yet got very clearly even after the speech from the hon. gentleman from British Columbia (Mr. Macpherson), and I wish we could get a little more clearly, information as to just what effect this mint is going to exert upon the production of gold into this country. The hon. member for British Columbia (Mr. Macpherson) seemed to have the idea that we are going to buy all the gold that comes from the earth. If we do that how are we going to dispose of it ? After ail, gold in a sense is an article of merchandise, just the same ns the barnyard hog of which my hon. friend thought so little. Will we have some coining arrangement to attach to the ear of the barnyard hog to give him currency ? A great deal of generalities are talked regarding this subject, but we cannot get any very explicit explanation. In the first place it is going to Involve us in very large expense. When this first became a matter of real agitation in this country, if I understand rightly, the present Minister of Finance declared himself as opposed to it. Then the-idea was advanced that it would be a good thing to have a Canadian coinage for patriotic reasons, and I think a good deal of weight should be attached to that sentiment.
The idea then was that it was to be an. inexpensive operation. Well, we have the old difficulty again, that an idea is made operative by a statement of cost which is

reasonable, and afterwards It comes out that the cost runs away up above the original estimate. Here is an institution which, when built and manned, will cost at least $450,000. That is 'a good deal of money to pay; but that is not all, for there will be current expenditure as well. My right hon. friend knows that we make a round lot of money on our coinage by having it coined in the British mint. It is quite possible to have Canadian $10 or $5 pieces coined, with the Canadian maple leaf and beaver on them, instead of the head of the English King or the American eagle, if we desire it; and to have that circulated in Canada, and to require the banks to keep it. It would have been jiossible to have got all that and to have made an absolute profit on the transaction. But surely no one can argue that because you have a mint here, you are going to dispossess Seattle or any other United States coast town of the advantage which it has got largely from being the pioneer of that great movement towards the Yukon. The miner of the Yukon sells his gold as an article of merchandise; he can sell it in the United States or in Canada, and he will sell it in both countries, some in one and some in the other. But with an accumulation of gold production of $20,000,000. then $40,000,000, later $60,000,000. this mint cannot be a great receiving and buying centre which will absorb all that. Then what will you do with it? All the coinage we can use in the country is what the banks need. If we make it a condition that they shall take our own coinage, you can have some circulation of gold. But our people are very strongly predisposed to the circulation of bank bills, and they would put their gold very quickly into the banks and take out the bills for circulation. Then, my hon. friend knows that gold circulation is the most expensive circulation. It wears, and wears easily. In Great Britain, where gold goes into general circulation, the annual loss is enormous. Then, what*are you going to do? The argument comes down to this, that we are going to pay pretty roundly for the sake of having a mint and coinage of our own. There may be something in that, and I am not going to controvert the views of my hon. friend on that point. The thing may have to come, and this may be the time for it. But we are greatly in want of many practical things in this country, and when we had to take half a million dollars from these pressing wants and put it into what is after all an ornament, with perhaps some slight advantage to Canada, I think it was a fair question whether we should have gone into this immense expenditure at the present time, or whether we could not have used our money to better advantage, at the same time having our gold coinage, which we could have got from London, just as London is going to take their gold coinage from us. Our coinage will go only so far as its
reputation is established, and it will take time to make a Canadian stamped gold coin current in countries far distant from us. I imagine that supervision must come from Great Britain joined with our own, in order to impress widely the value of our coinage. But we might as well get rid of a great many of these floating notions that our mint is going to make our cities spring up like magic or provide a buying place for all the gold we produce.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: I have no fault to find with the way in which my hon. friend has discussed this question. I think I would agree with him on almost everything he has said. But there is another aspect of the question. Nobody expects that the establishment of the mint will take all our output of gold. But the fact that we have a mint in Canada is bound to help the trade of Canada and to bring to Canada a trade which to-day goes to the United States. The miner in the Yukon or in British Columbia produces from the bowels of the earth many ounces of gold, and he has to find a market for it. He cannot find a market in Canada. At the present time every ounce of the $20.000,000 which is produced by Canadian miners from the soil has to go to Seattle. It cannot find a market anywhere else.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I understand that the Canadian Bank of Commerce is the authorized bank of the government there, and why should not this bank take the gold dust from the miners and as a matter of patriotism send it to England to have it coined into Canadian gold pieces and English gold pieces?


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: For this reason, that the Canadian Bank of Commerce, which has an establishment in Dawson city, takes the gold for commerce, and will sell it at the greatest profit; and the Bank of Commerce and all the other banks on the Pacific coast find it to their advantage to send the gold to their nearest market, which is Seattle or San Francisco, where it is bought and turned into coin. The gold must find its way to some mint.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Will they send it here ?


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: Certainly they will. But at present they send it to Seattle. The consequence is that most of the purchases for the Yukon are made at: Seattle. That is the place of exchange ; the gold has to be exchanged for everything a miner requires. We get a large share of the trade, for certain reasons ; but there is at Seattle, Tacoma and at other Pacific coast cities of the United States a large trade with the Yukon which we would get if the gold were to come here. With a mint at Vancouver, a great deal of the trade would go there. So that the establishment

[DOT]of a mint will give a great impetus to our j trade, and will give us a trade which we have not to-day. I think this reason should commend itself to the critical judgment of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition.


John Graham Haggart: My idea of a mint is entirely different from that of the right hon. gentleman. If I am not mistaken, a mint in the United States or Great Britain coins gold free to the individual sending it. In the United States the gold is taken to the mint, not for the purpose of being sold, but for the purpose of being coined into money. The miner receives the full value of his gold in money. Then it goes, in the ordinary course of trade, to the country in whose favour is the balance of trade, for the purpose of paying that balance. And the making of mints will not cause a flow of gold in any particular direction. As soon as the mint coins the gold and hands it over to the individual, the gold will go in the end to where it is due and be used for the purpose of paying the balance of trade.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: How are these balances paid in any part of the world ? In the Yukon some years ago when there was no bank there, the miner brought his bag of gold to the counter where he exchanged it for something else. The gold was weighed and its value in goods given to him. But he would not follow the same process in the city of London. He would there bring his gold to the mint and would use the coins which he got in exchange for the purchase of what he required. The gold which is produced in Canada has to go somewhere to be coined. To-day we have a bank in the Yukon, and the miner goes to the bank and receives bank notes in exchange for his gold dust. But the bank has to send that gold dust somewhere, and I venture to say that every ounce of it goes to the United States because there it can be coined. Of course, the surplus will find its way to Europe or anywhere else where It may be required. But when we have a mint in Ottawa, the gold produced in Canada will be sent there to be coined. I dare say there will not be any profit to the government in the transaction, but we will gain by the fact of keeping in Canada a large portion of the trade which now goes to the United States.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What guarantee have we that the miner will bring his gold to the Canadian mint to be coined instead of sending it to Seattle ? If the mint were established at Vancouver, as Mr. Maxwell, the late member for Victoria, urged, no doubt the Canadian nuggets and gold dust would be brought there to be coined. But there is no way of forcing the miner or the bank in Dawson City to send the gold down to the mint at Ottawa.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: It is now nearly 6 o'clock and if you will pass the item, I will move that the committee rise.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: 


George Eulas Foster: With the understanding that we may go back to the discussion.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: Certainly.


Richard Blain: I understood the First Minister to say that we would mint silver coin as well. In that respect he seems to differ with the Minister of Finance.
In the session of 1901 this question was put to the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) :
Will the Branch mint in Canada make British silver coins as well as gold coins ?
MINISTER OF FINANCE. No, there are reasons why we shall not undertake to make British silver coins. We make no profit in the production ol gold coins, because gold is worth no more in the form of coin than in the form of bullion.
Then the Finance Minister went ou to say:
If we could mint silver into British coins in unlimited quantity, we could make a great deal of money ; but it would be entirely unreasonable to expect the British authorities to allow us to engage in that enterprise.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: That is British silver, not Canadian silver.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, House adjourned at 5.55 p.m.

Tuesday, February 7, 1905.