1909-04-29

[Stage Direction]
Mr. WALLACE-by Mr. Blain-asked:
1.	Is it the intention of the government to constrnct a canal from Lake Wilcox, Whitchurch township, York county, to the town
of Newmarket?
2.	Was the survey made of this route as a feeder of the Newmarket canal? If so, what did it cost?
3.	What was the probable cost of building such a canal from Lake Wilcox to Newmarket?
Hon. G. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	Such a project has not been considered by the government.
2.	No survey was made for a canal; but a line was run for a conduit which might if necessary carry water from a reservoir to the canal.
3.	Such a canal was not contemplated.


CUSTOMS COLLECTOR AT BATHURST.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. CROCKET-by Mr. Geo. Taylor-asked :
Has the Department of Customs granted the collector at Bathurst, New Brunswick, any leave of absence from duty since November 1 last?
Hon. WM. PATERSON (Minister of Customs).: No.


BOWLING ALLEY IN WOODSTOCK, NEW BRUNSWICK, ARMOURY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. CROCKET-by Mr. Geo. Taylor- asked:
1.	Is the Department of Militia and Defence aware that the superintendent of the armoury at Woodstock, New Brunswick, is said to have built and is operating a public bowling alley in said armoury?
2.	If so, is this not a violation of the regulations relating to armouries?
Hon. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence;:
1 and 2. The officer commanding Military District No. 8 reports that he gave permission for the use by the officers, noncommissioned officers and men of the militia at Woodstock, of the west wing of the Woodstock armoury as a temporary bowling alley.
From the report it does not appear to be a public alley, as the rules do not allow of any one bowling except members of the militia or friends introduced by them.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SAM SHARPE-by Mr. George Taylor-asked:
1.	What is the minimum tariff, in Canadian currency, under the Franco-Canadian Treaty on the following products of the farm exported to France, and what is the maximum French tariff on the same articles, viz.: horses, cattle, mutton, pork, wheat, barley, rye, maize and buckwheat?
2.	On what any ten staple products of the form, produced in considerable quantities will Canadians enjoy the benefit of the minimum tariff on goods exported to France, as distinguished from the maximum tariff; and what is the amount of such minimum tariff in Canadian currency ?
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: The information is covered by a paper submitted to this House at the last session, a copy of which I will have sent to the hon. gentleman.


LETTER CARRIER SYSTEMS IN CITIES.
Mr. FOSTER asked:: 1.	What cities in Canada are equipped with letter carrier systems?
2.	Are the letter carriers in all these cities organized on the same basis as to duties, classes and salaries?
3.	In how many of these cities is the appointment of clerks in the post offices made by the government, and in what cities are they made and paid by the postmasters?
4.	What is the amount received by each of these latter postmasters, and what number of clerks does each employ?


Hon. R. LEMIEUX (Postmaster General) :: 1.	Montreal, Toronto, Quebec, Ottawa, Hamilton, St. John, Halifax, London, Winnipeg, Kingston, Victoria, Brantford, Edmonton, Calgary, Stratford, Berlin, St. Hyacinthe, Three Rivers, PeteTboro, Sherbrooke, Guelph, Charlottetown, Brandon, Windsor, St. Catharines, Sarnia, Port William, Port Arthur, Moncton, St. Thomas and Chatham.
2.	Yes.
3.	In all of the offices named above the clerks are appointed by the department with the exception of Stratford, Sarnia, Chatham and Moncton.
4.	Stratford	$6,581	02Sarnia	
6,298	39Chatham	
7,992	32Moncton	
7,659	48
In consideration of the above allowances the postmasters are required to engage whatever assistance may be necessary to properly perform the post office work. No record is kept in the department of the number of clerks employed at such offices. The matter of also placing these offices on

a semi-staff basis, that is, that appointments to clerkships shall be made by the department, is now under consideration.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.-MORNING SITTINGS.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved:: That from this date to the end of the session, the rule of the House concerning the closing of the sitting on Wednesdays at six o'clock, p.m., shall not apply; that from Monday, the 3rd of May next, and until the end of the session, the House shall meet on that day and on every subsequent sitting day at eleven o'clock in the morning; and that in addition to the usual intermission at six o'clock, p.m., there shall be also an intermission every day, including Wednesdays, from one to three o'clock, p.m.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Fielding, for the second reading of Bill (No. 128) to authorize a loan to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company.
Mr. W. B. NANTEL (Terrebonne).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned last night, I had just quoted from a speech where the right hon. gentleman spoke of piles and mountains of information he had in the shape of books, pamphlets and reports from commercial people, surveyors and engineers about the projected railway. Now, with all due regard for books written by travellers, traders or engineers out on hunting or exploration trips, who often make the description of a country as a matter of literary essay, I think it would have been better to have the report of a railway engineer on official duty before engaging the country in such an important undertaking. Had we had such a repoTl before, running the risks of the construction of a new transcontinental railway from Moncton to Port Rupert, through the wild regions of North America, the Rockies and the Laurentian mountains, if we had been patient enough to wait for a report made by serious engineers, I think the mistakes in calculation we know now would have been avoided. We would have been brought nearer to reality, even taking into account the higher grade of the proposed line of railway, the augmented price of materials and labour, together with the constructor's appetite. Again, if there had been competent engineers, the Quebec bridge would not be now lying at the bottom of the St. Lawrence. For my part, I think the construction of the first transcontinental railway was by far more necessary than that of the second one. It was one of the conditions of the entering of British Columbia into


Mr. LEMIEUX.: confederation. The west had to be opened to settlement; there was no time to be lost, and each hour delay involved a double loss, as was shown by the event.
This work had been completed for years. Since 1870, the different governments had often attempted to give the contract. The first contract was even entered into, but it was not carried on. So that the plan was laid out, matured and even antiquated. In 1880, when it was proposed to complete the contract and to hand over the railway to the company which had constructed it, my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), who was the first lientenant of the leader of the opposition, and every oppositionist member at that time stated that the government was in too great a hurry, that information was needed and that moreover there was no lack of communications with the west. Among others, the right hon, the First Minister, said in an ironical and satirical tone :
The government say-it was the government led by Sir John Macdonald-' accept the contract it is the best we could get.' Is that the language of a free government, of the executive power of a free country ? What has seized the government of this country that they have been compelled to accept this contract from the syndicate? Who in the world compelled the government to negotiate with the syndicate? What great calamity has befallen this country that the government should be compelled to surrender unconditionally to the syndicate? If there had been a war and we had been defeated and the government forced to accept from the victor such terms as suited him to enforce, and if the government came here to have the treaty ratified, would their language have been different to that used in order to induce their supporters to accept the contract? When in the year 1871, at the termination of the disastrous war with Prussia, the provisional government of France met the newly elected national assembly and presented to it the treaty concluded with Germany by which France ceded to that country two of its best provinces, some of the members protested against the clauses of that treaty. And what was the language of the French government in reply? It was exactly the same as used to-day by our administration,:	' Accept the terms, they are the best
we could get.'
In 1884, the company having spent large sums, having exhausted their resources, and having shown by a detailed statement, sworn to by reliable auditors of the expenses incurred to date, and of the -money required to complete the work, and being ai.xious to carry on their contract, which was nearing completion, before the delay elapsed, in spite of the unjust war waged against them by rival companies and jealous capitalists, and offering as a guarantee, not only a section of their Toad, but their whole road, all their holdings without any reservation, to secure a loan of $30,000,000, the government to remit the money only on progress estimates, their proposal was bit-

terly attached by the right hon. the first minister, his leader at that time, the hon. Edward Blake, and their friends. The right hon. gentleman said :
But am I again to repeat what is in the knowledge of everybody, that the Northwest Territories are tapped by the railway system of the continent and that there is communication with it by the lakes, and, therefore, not one more settler would go into that country if the road were opened through its whole length.
And, further:
I would say to the company let your motto We festina lente; take your time but build your road, and it will be for your advantage and the advantage of the people as well.
At that time no one praised the western plains as they are now praised; no one had found out that the west was the granary of Europe and of the whole world. However, that granary had been discovered as early as 1870 by the leaders of the Conservative party, Sir John Macdonald, Sir George Etienne Cartier and Sir Charles Tupper. Yesterday, we heard gentlemen on the opposite side of the House extolling that western granary. Great was my surprise when I heard them. It is the reason why I recall those past events which we are prone to forget.
Now, what did happen in 1903? What a change ! What a transformation ! O !
' quantum mutatus ab illo,' would the Latin poet say.
During a session, the plan of a second transcontinental line is laid out and explained to parliament by the First Minister. It must be approved, and that without delay. There is no more thought of those Prussians who imposed terms so severe upon the French in 1871. It was not Hobson's choice; you had to take it. There was no time to be lost, if it were not too late. Trade was seeking another channel. Our country was in the clutches of the Americans. It was necessary to relieve the situation without waiting any longer.
There was a lack of reports from engineers but it did not matter; the writings and pamphlets of tourists and traders would be used instead! Is it, Mr. Speaker, that, we are to be deprived hereafter of the means of communiaction afforded by the great lakes? Then, the Canadian Pacific Railway is built' and fully operated, but all that goes for nothing. There is need of another transcontinental line, and they must have it now. The late Hon. Mr. Blair is shocked and resigns as the Minister of Railways. To him the whole mystery for he believed there was a mystery-was that the Hon. Senator Cox would not wait any longer. That was the most grievous insult on the part of an ex-member of the cabinet 163
to his former leader and colleague. But it was all to no avail. Everything was settled and patched up in less than no time and the deed was executed.
Mr. Blair was right when he said that the railway could cost $139,000,000, but no body would believe him. The leader of the government had stated that it would cost $13,000,000. His Minister of Finance, going him one better, had mentioned the sum of $11,512,325, so as to have the people believe that he had figured it very closely, since he had found these $325 instead of a round sum. The people gave credit to that information and Mr. Blair kept silent. Wan it on account of his outspoken language or on account of his silence that he was roy ally rewarded by his apointment as chairman of the Railway Commission at a salary of $10,000 a year ? Everybody was pleased. In 1904, the people sanctioned an expenditure of $13,000,000; in 1908, they gave the same verdict, but now they are called upon to face an expenditure ranging between $250,000,000 and $280,000,000.
Neither Mr. Blair nor anybody else had the slightest idea that the work would cost $280,000,000, or that in 1909, before haying completed the prairie section, the sister companies would ask the government for $10,000,000, threatening to stop work in case of a refusal.
Some say it is a loan. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, what those gentlemen thought of such loans when they were in opposition ? In 1884 when the Canadian Pacific was asking the government for a loan of $30,000,000, in order to complete the railway, the right hon. the first minister expressed his fears that the loan would be converted into a gift and borrowing the language of the Scriptures he said that he would as soon believe that the waters would flow back from the sea to the lakes as that one cent of that money will ever come back from the Pacific Railway exchequer to the Dominion exchequer. And the Hon. Mr. Blake, the leader of the opposition at that time, spoke of the clause stipulating that - if the company did not refund the money, the government would ' ipso facto ' become proprietor of the railway and he added:
We had other companies which did not lose their roads under similar circumstances. We have had the Grand Trunk, to which we made advances on a first lien, a very first lien, a splendid first lien, and where is that lien now? It is away down among the dead men. I believe it is seen in the Public Accounts and in our balances, but it is visible nowhere else. So it might be here. It is impossible not to recognize the lesson and the story of the past, when looking at the present and trying to forecast the future. Should default be made, you are not going to sacrifice the interests of those shareholders. The past tells what the future will be.
That statesman, that distinguished leadei



of the Liberal party is undoubtedly surprised that the Canadian Pacific Company has so well repaid their indebtedness to the Canadian government and that, on the other hand, his language did not cause the Grand Trunk Railway Company to pay off their mortgages.
That sum (of $10,(MO,000 together with what the Grand Trunk Company of Canada owed us before is a heavy burden upon our people, already overloaded, as the right hon. the first minister used to say. And Mr. Speaker, $7,094,000 of that loan of $10, 000,000 will fall into the exchequer of thf Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, our debtor to the extent of $25,600,000, according to the Minister of Railways and Canals.	-
The hon. Minister was asked whether the G. T. P. Company would again ask parliament for other sums of money and the hon. gentleman answered that he could not tell, although it was quite possible.
'As for myself, I am free to see that this request of the company shall be granted though the sureties that are offered are worth nothing, as we have it from the mouth of the hon. Minister of Finance himself in his speech of the 30th of March last. Our guarantee only affects the prairie section which is under construction and only amounts to a fourth mortgage. A second and perhaps a third similar request will soon follow. They shall all be granted and the mortgages-in the terse style of the' hon. Mr. Blake will be away down among the dead men.
How powerful are the railway companies m this country of ours. They are in full control of everything, ' de facto,' if not ' de jure.' The more I look into the matter, the more I am confirmed in my belief, and the speeches delivered in 1884 by the then members of the opposition are of a nature to satisfy me entirely as to the correctness of my assumption. I am unable to resist the temptation of quoting some of their fine oratory. That debate was also in connection with a loan of thirty millions to the Canadian Pacific Railway. What were the grounds for granting that loan ? No other grounds can be shown, stated the right hon. gentleman to-day leader of the government :
That the government are to-day controlled by a power mightier than they. Thev are like the wizard of old, who, through his incantations, gave life to a monster which made him its slave and in the end destroyed him. the governments are in the hands of a company which it must obey, just as the servant in the Scripture, to whom his master said: Go, and he goeth; come, and he cometh.'
Then Sir Richard Cartwright on the same occasion put the following query to the hon. member for Richmond and Wolfe (Mr. Ives):
' Does the hon. member suppose that the


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Canadian Pacific Railway Company has no paid advocate in this House? Does he suppose that no member is interested in favouring the Canadian Pacific Railway? Does he imagine that the company has no friends in the House and in the cabinet?
Mr. Speaker, when men of the standing of the Right Hon. the Prime Minister and Sir Richard Cartwright, men of exceptional intelligence and wisdom, veterans in parliament, experienced speakers possessing the art of expressing all they wish to convey and of conveying nothing more than what they really wish to say, express themselves in such a manner before the House, it is not surprising that we, the new members of the House, should feel serious misgivings when we see all the Grand Trunk Companies besieging parliament for new favours.
Do not these speeches, Mr. Speaker, in the light of the facts before us concerning the difference of $775,0000 as between the $27,031,453 submitted by the company as chargeable to future construction on the 31st December, 1908, and that of $26,256,455 really approved, in the light of that other item of $162,000, of which so much has been said but no explanation yet given, and which the Grand Trunk Company of Canada holds against the Grand Trunk Pacific Company of Canada-are we not justified, I say, to apply to the Grand Trunk Pacific and to the present government what was said in 1884 of the government of that time.
If at one time the Pacific ruled, to-day the Grand Trunk Pacific commands. The position is the same, only the name has changed. That is the least that can be said. It is a painful, but logical, conclusion which cannot be denied.
When governments make advances to railway companies under such circumstances, they should, it seems to me, insist upon the transfer to the country of an amount equal to such advances in paid up privileged and common stock of the company, and so become to all intents and purposes shareholders of the company until such advances have been refunded in full. That would be a good, practical security, besides giving the government means of controlling the companies. In the present case, the government should require bonds from the company and the latter could not refuse; if the bonds are in the hands of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, that company could not refuse. For my part, I consider such security better than any mortgage, to which I attach little importance.


Mr. O. E. TALBOT (Bellechasse).: (Translation.) Would the hon. member allow me to put a question? What are the bonds of any company worth if they are not paid up in full?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: (Translation.) There would be no risk in accepting such bonds, and for my part I would not hesitate to accept them. They are a much better security than the mortgages of which Mr. Blake spoke, and which are gone the way of last year's snows.
If we had acted in that way towards the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada, is it not probable that we would have recovered the sum of $25,000,000 still due and which, as Hon. Mr. Blake said, is to be found nowhere except in the public accounts? To me the thing appears clear.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: You are easily satisfied.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Perhaps I may not require as much as you do. The Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada never paid these mortgages because the net profits of the company never covered its first bonds. And those bonds were never covered on account of enormous promotion costs and lobbying costs and of other expenses of a more or less legitimate nature which the company was obliged to defray at every step, because excessive salaries and perquisites were paid to managers and administrators, to princes of finance, to lawyers and to those friends whom Sir Richard Cartwright mentioned in 1884, and who seem to have been everywhere even within the precincts of parliament and in the cabinet.
History repeats itself ; that is the reason why the privileged bonds and other stock of such a company are better security than mortgages.
The Hon. the Minister of Railways and Canals told us yesterday the country was in partnership with the company for the construction of this railway. If such be the case, Canada must be the sleeping partner providing the funds without any hope of sharing in the profits. But are we in partnership with the Grand Trunk Pacific, the Grand Trunk Company of Canada or any other company springing from the original Grand Trunk Company? I mentioned yesterday two of those new creations. It appears that I had forgotten a third, the Grand Trunk Construction Company. We may perhaps be in partnership with them as long as it is necessary to disburse money but when the day of reckoning comes we will find only the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, the probable inheritor of all the debts. Town lots, hotels and parks will belong to some other of those companies, branch lines to a third, and still another will crop up at all points with privileged claims for works and construction. The Grand Trunk Pacific will hold all the indebtedness. I would prefer having to deal with one single company, the Grand Trunk 1631
Company of Canada. That company should come forward alone and openly to take charge of the whole construction and incur the full responsibility of the advances now sought for. They should take charge of the whole road, of branch as well as trunk lines, and hold in their own name city lots and all other assets; such a proceeding would be more reassuring for this House and for the government. For my part, Mr. Speaker, if I were in the place of the government of Canada, before granting this loan of ten millions to the Grand Trunk Pacific,
I would require, besides the conditions I have just mentioned, bonds and a settlement of old accounts on the part of the Grand Trunk Company. I would liquidate the old claim. Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is what I would do, and that is, no doubt, what the government will do, unless they have fallen under the influence of that old magician of which the right hon. Premier spoke in 1880 and 1884, whose life, says the story, was constantly threatened by the claws and teeth of the strange progeny he had begot, as it turned out, to his own undoing.
This railway, Mr. Speaker, is a hastily conceived idea of the present administration. One might suppose that it was suggested to the hon. gentlemen now holding power by the magician of the story or by some mischievous imp for the purpose of placing them in contradiction with their past, of giving us a further proof of the weakness of human nature and of showing us how the finest political intellects must of necessity contradict themselves several times in the course of their career, especially when having long remained in the cold shades of the opposition they are at length called upon to bask in the golden rays of power.
The other evening I heard with pleasure the statement made by the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Pardee), that the great Canadian statesman, Sir John Macdonald, had been unwisely opposed at the time to the construction of the first- transcontinental. Yes, Mr. Speaker, that patriot was unwisely and injudiciously opposed in a great national undertaking, and the wonder is that he was able to accomplish his task in spite of the opposition he met with. Everyone will admit that the construction of the first transcontinental was a more difficult and especially a more necessary undertaking than the present and that the prosperity we have since enjoyed, and of which our opponents are wont to boast, is is great part due to that railway. Those words of the member for Lambton West are an act of justice, of tardy justice towards the memory of a great man; I thank the hon. member for them and I congratulate him, the more so that it must have

cost him an effort to say that which implied a censure against his leaders.
In spite of my criticisms and certain expressions, perhaps rather harsh, that I have borrowed from opponents for the purposes of debate, I accept, I repeat it, the accomplished fact and I am ready to second all legitimate and advantageous measures calculated to carry the work to a successful termination. But while accepting the situation, let us act like business men and like freemen, not like the vanquished of 1870, of whom the right hon. premier spoke in 1880.
_ First of all, if all these companies are not in a position to build the road, should we not be immediately advised of the true situation. Then, if the government is- obliged to advance all the money, would it not be preferable to pay to the companies the value of the work they have done and take up the road as state property, with a view of disposing of it as soon as possible in favour of the company which may be in the best position to work it and especially to pay for it.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, if to secure the success of that colossal enterprise to which the country is mow bound, it is necessary for us to grant this loan and to become the bankers of the companies, let us at all events stipulate that they will pay interest at a rate at least as high as that which the government itself is obliged to pay. The interest on the loan to the companies is fixed at 4 per cent, but the government may have to pay more than that; why not stipulate, therefore, that the companies shall pay whatever interest the government may be obliged to pay on loans?
Would it not also be advisable to make an attempt tending towards the settlement of the old claim of $25,000,000 due to the country by the Grand Trunk Company of Canada? If the claim must be lost, let us make the sacrifice at once and hear no more about it. If on the contrary, the claim is of any value, should we not attempt to have it paid? When favours are asked conditions may be imposed. The Grand Trunk Company of Canada owes us $25,000,000 and wishes to borrow $10,000,000 more.
Is it not time that we should say to them:	We will give you this money, but
at the same time we shall settle this old claim which dates away bgck before confederation. In one word, let us compel them to give us as security a certain amount of shares in the capital stock of the company, either common or preferred stock; let us become shareholders of the company. It is, according to mej the best security, a far better security than those mortgages in which Mr, Blake no more than I had any confidence whatever.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: 


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: What are those shares bringing to-day?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: I must confess they are bringing very little just now, but before long they will be worth double their present value.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Mortgages will have to be paid first.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: No doubt mortgages will have to be paid first, but the stock will always have a market value, and the government can always dispose of them to some advantage, while a mortgage like that which is held by the government against the Grand Trunk Railway is valueless, inasmuch as the government lacks the manliness to compel them to pay.
To conclude, I say that I am bound to accept the fait accompli, and that we must make the best possible arrangements with the company in order to ensure the proper carrying out of this huge project wherein is pledged the good name of the nation.
Mr. ALEXANDER McCALL (Norfolk) Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a few remarks on the question before the House, I need scarcely ask that the courtesy always extended to new members will be extended to me. I am glad to observe a spirit of fairness prevailing on both sides. In discussing this question, I cannot hope to touch upon more than a few phases of it, for it is too great a question for me to discuss in its entirety. But representing, as I do, one of the first organized counties in this Dominion, a county whose people have for more than a hundred years contributed to its taxes and to the cost of every public work, I wish to give voice to their sentiments on this question. Being a thrifty people, who have suffered hardships for the good of this nation, who in their early days gave of their strength to the nation's defence and to making the country habitable and fit to enjoy life in, they may justly feel some alarm at a proposition that means doubling their liabilities, and I would be unfaithful to them, if I failed to say something on the question before the House this afternoon.
The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals spoke of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway as a partnership. That idea is a good one. In reality, there are three parties to the partnership, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, the administration of the day, and the people of this country. In a business partnership it is a fundamental principle that all parties must be absolutely lair with each other. One must not take advantage of or be untrue to another, or else the partnership fails. Applying this thought to the proposed resolution, I think I can safely say that the people of Canada, the third party in the partnership, have not

been treated fairly by the second party, the government of the day. Is there a gentleman in this House who will say seriously that if the people of this country had believed that they were facing a $300,000,000 proposition, or a $250,000,000 proposition, or even a $200,000,000 proposition, they would have ratified it four years ago? I will not take up the time of this House in discussing the promises made by the ministers as to the cost of the work to the country, whether it was $13,000,000 or $14,000,000, or which it was; but I say that a proposition which simply doubles the liabilities of this country, which increases the net debt of the country from $250,000,000 to $500,000,000, which places our liabilities at half a billion dollars, is not one that will receive the approval of the people of this country when placed before them in that bald, plain way. Therefore, I say that the third party in this partnership, the people of Canada, have been grossly deceived by the second party, the government, in the interest of the first party, the railway company, who did nothing but drive a very hard bargain with the government and now not only hold them to that bargain, but come and ask for this loan of $10,000,000, and the Minister of Railways and Canals would not say that this was the last call that he expected them to make. Instead of that, he rather intimated that there would be another call, and perhaps others after that. Clearly that is a breach of faith towards the third party in this transaction. To me and to others on this side of the House the Minister of Railways and Canals seems to have treated this important question in a spirit of levity. He spoke in a jocular way of the increased cost of the undertaking as a matter of course, referring to the Panama canal, the Erie canal and other canals whose cost outran the estimates of the engineers. But it is to be noted that the Panama canal will one day carry the ships of every nation, whose flags float the seas, and if it is to cost $400,000,000, the cost is to be borne by eighty million people, twelve times our population; and yet the sum to be expended on that one work is not much larger than the sum we are called upon to expend on this scheme. I am not discussing that proposition by way of comparison with this; but the point I wish to make is that if the cost of the work turns out to be anywhere from 50 per cent to 200 per cent more than the estimate of the engineers, then in estimating the cost of a work of this kind, after the engineers have done their worst, so to speak, the government should say to the people of Canada: ' While our engineers have estimated this work to cost $100,000,000, we will be frank with you and will say that it will cost $200,000,000 ; ' you are going to pledge our future earnings and those of our children to this stupendous scheme, and we should know the liability we are to share. Need I ask this House if that information was given to the; people of this country, so that they could vote no to the proposition if they chose? No, the reverse was the case.
Much was said by the Minister of Railways and Canals about the quality of the railway. Well, we ought to get the best railway in the country or on the continent, but I do not believe that the plans and estimates provide for this. Every one who knows anything about railway construction knows that the first consideration is a good tie. If you have a good tie, you can do with an indifferent rail and roadbed. An American standard tie is a tie 8 feet 6 inches long, 7 inches thick, 8 inches wide. The Pennsylvania, one of the great trunk lines in the United States uses a tie of those denominations, made of southern pitch pine or white oak. Bear in mind that that is the standard tie used by all the eastern trunk lines in the United States. But just consider the ties which are being laid on the National Transcontinental Railway-8 feet long, 6 inches thick, and 7 inches wide, and made of the cheapest timber known, namely, jack pine and tamarack. The roadbed and the rail may be sufficient, but that tie is not one which can stand any heavy traffic. The hon. Minister of Railways (Mt. Graham) speaks about the high standard of the road. Well, time will tell whether we get a freight standard road or not. In fact, it is a railway still on paper, and it will require actual observation when completed to see whether the minister's promises are made good or not.
I am not going to discuss the price. The great question is whether we are getting value for it. In dealing with the cost of this Toad, from the standpoint of our national resources, I propose to offer a few words; and I would ask hon. gentlemen to bear with me if I should appear careless and drop a million or two when dealing with the millions of this country. In handling hundreds of millions, one might easily drop an odd million or so, but our liabilities will not fail to turn up in good order. They will all be in their place when the time for payment comes and will have to be met by the tax payers. Before this country began to pay out money on account of the Transcontinental, our public debt was about $258,000,000. This sum represents all the debt of all the provinces at their entry into the confederation and all of the debts of the Dominion to the time of the announcement of the Grand Trunk Pacific. Taking the most moderate estimate-and I have not heard the Minister of Railways attempt this session to say just what sum of money is necessary to complete the work-this entire road, the eastern section, the prairie and the mountain sections and the government guarantee, will require $250,000,000.

That is a moderate estimate of our liabilities which must be paid within the next four or five years, making $500,000,000 in all. Admitting that to be the case, ought we not alh to feel anxious that the country should keep its expenditures within its capacity to bear the burden? But that expenditure is not all we are committed to. There are other schemes which are bound to become national liabilities. For instance, the Hudson Bay Railway and the Georgian Bay canal. In connection with the latter scheme, the right hon. the Prime Minister last year said it was one which was near to his heart; and when the right hon. gentleman says that a scheme is near his heart and puts his hand there, that is good for a million. I hope we shall not have too many such schemes.
It is true that some people from a county right near the city of Toronto, came oveT here and asked for a sum of about a million, and it is said that there were a number of Tories in that delegation and that through their influence a sum was granted for the proposed expenditure. Let me say to the Prime Minister that if he knew the Tories of North York as some of us do, he would not give them a quarter of a million. He must not be too credulous on such occasions because when Tories come in company with Liberals, it is a sure sign that they are after the public treasury.
As I have said, other expenditures will be necessary, and we ought not to tie ourselves up to one large outlay, but must leave something to meet other requirements. Great questions are coming up and great obligations which will need money, and in this one matter of the National Transcontinental scheme, we have been altogether too generous. This scheme ought not to have been brought up at the time it was. We should have waited until the public demand was more insistent, and then, in estimating the cost of the road, we should have figures to submit to the country, based on the full knowledge of the extent of the burden we were assuming.
The question comes right here :	What
are you going to do about it ? That is the question we are facing to-day. Not only have we to meet the original obligation, but we are asked to pay another $10,000,000. Is there any guarantee that we may not be asked for still another $10,000,000 and still another until the entire cost of this transcontinental railway will be on the debt side of the ledger. You will find that the whole cost of the road will be our investment, and that in return we will assume 100 per cent of the risk and have none of the profits, whereas the Grand Trunk Railway will get all the profits, if there be any, and not have invested a cent in the undertaking. Would it not be pos-Mr. McCALL.
sible at this stage to reconsider this scheme? Would it not be possible to ask for an extension of the time of the New Brunswick section? It is patent to every one that the New Brunswick section must compete with our own Intercolonial Railway and thereby render that railway of less value. Why should not the construction of the eastern portion of the road from Winnipeg to Moncton be delayed? The western section and the outlet to Lake Superior could be pushed rapidly so as to give that country an outlet to the lake. The traffic of that country is largely during the season of navigation. This might not only enable them to finance this scheme but it would look better to the country, and the feeling of the people that they have been deceived would gradually disappear. There is no question, this proposed loan will be made ; whether it meet with the approval of members on this side or not, it will be voted. I am glad to hear the expressions from hon. members on this side that they assume responsibility for this work and declare that it must eventually be pushed through to completion. I admit that I share in the belief expressed by hon. gentlemen opposite that that western country is a country of great promise, one that will need further outlets than those already provided.
I urge again upon the government due consideration for those who have really made the wealth of this country. We are the sons of the pioneers who came here in the latter-part of the seventeenth century and in the early part of the eighteenth century, and, not only bore the burden of the defence of this country, but built it up, establishing and maintaining law and order, living thrifty lives and laying the foundations of our national wealth. The savings of our people in the government savings banks and in the chartered banks of our country help to finance these great schemes that we discuss in this parliament. There were periods in the lives of these pioneers when the failure of a harvest or the coming of illness into the home made their lives a tragedy. They faced destitution and want at times. Some regard should be paid to the sentiments of people of that class. If we succeed, it will be upon their thrift and energy. In a question of this kind, involving such a large sum of money, a scheme that means the doubling of our national obligations ought not to be entered upon. The people ought to be treated at all times by the ministers who have charge of the public expenditure in a serious spirit, and in an earnest way, so that their expressions may command respect among the people. I hope that parliament will consider this question, perhaps I should say more ser-

iously than it has, but in the light of our ability to bear the enormous burden of this Grand Trunk Pacific scheme. Whatever may be the result, even should our worst fears be realized, we can depend upon the Canadian people to meet the responsibility with the high courage characteristic of the nation to which we belong.


Mr. MARTIN BURRELL (Yale-Cariboo).: 1 do not wish to unnecessarily delay the House in going into committee on the proposed Bill, but I do desire to make a few general observations before the matter is specifically dealt with by way of amendment in committee. And I may add that my justification for so doing must be the fact that I have gone through two long and wearisome campaigns with the Grand Trunk Pacific matter, affording a great deal of ammunition in those campaigns. I followed very carefully the different speeches made in this Grand Trunk Pacific debate since the Finance Minister introduced the resolution. While concurring, as members of both sides of the House do, that it is desirable that this work should finish speedily and efficiently, I wish to utter my protest against the methods adopted and the statements made by the government, and also against the extraordinarily favourable position in which this company has been placed in contradistinction to the position occupied by the people of Canada. I notice that the general line of argument adopted by the government has been designed to show that we, as members of the Conservative party, are opposed to the construction of this road. Probably the wish is father to the thought when these arguments are adduced. Secondly, they attempt to say that they are doing what we did as a Conservative party in connection with the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway. And, thirdly, we have been treated to a great many elaborate and very misleading statements indeed as to the supposed wholesale and sweeping endoTsation of the government's policy by the people. Let me refer for half a moment to the first line of argument that the supporters of the government have been taking during this whole debate. Coupled with and reinforcing the argument that we are opposed to the construction of the road have been some magniloquent speeches as to the greatness of this country, given to the House 1 ore rotundo ' and implying how small is the faith of members on this side in the country in which our lot is cast. It is a rather singular attitude for the Liberal party to take. I have no desire to dwell upon this point, because these pyrotechnic utterances are not intended to deceive anybody. I suppose we all have our party balloons to inflate, and duly inflate them. But I would point out that it is comparatively easy to
display faith when somebody else has blazed the way and, by noble foresight and high endeavour, has laid the foundations on which we of the later generation can happily and safely build. Hon. members on the other side need not distress themselves as to the faith in our country of a party whose leader, in the teeth of most appalling difficulties, consummated the policy of opening up the vast hinterland which was literally terra incognita in those days, and made it possible for the people of my own province of British Columbia to unite their fortunes with those of the people of Eastern Canada. The The name of Sir John Macdonald will ever stand out as that of a man having faith and faith accompanied with great works. The party which took so large a part in laying deep and broad the foundation of this nation which has coupled the east and the west, which established a trade policy which has now lasted for thirty years, will not be found lacking at this particular time in the most whole-hearted efforts in advancing the interests of the country and heightening its prosperity. But in doing so it by no means follows that we have to endorse every phase and every detail of the great scheme now under consideration, and which in so many of its details and phases is so regardless and careless of the rights and true interests of the oeople of Canada.
The second line of argument addressed to the House by hon. gentlemen opposite was a comparison with the Canadian Pacific Railwav. I do not wish to deal at length with that. I would say, however, that the comparison is a most unfortunate one for those who make it. It has been pointed out in this House that the Liberal party themselves, between 1873 and 1878, made as large or larger offers of land grants and money to the Canadian Pacific than the Conservative party made. The attitude of our friends opposite is somewhat changed in recent years. I notice that last session the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) so far from taking the attitude which our friends the enemy delighted to take in years gone by, stated that we had liberally assisted and aided the Canadian Pacific Railway, and that it was not for him to sav, and he would not say, that we had aided and assisted them too liberally. Then I need only point out also that in regard to this loan the difference is so vital and so marked that it is remarkable that the argument is used at all, and the comparison made. In that admirable speech that was delivered by my hon. friend from North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) on this subject some time ago, he showed the fundamental difference that existed between this loan to the Grand Trunk Pacific and the loan to the Canadian Pacific Railway some years ago, of $30,000,000. He pointed

out that the Canadian Pacific Kailway people pledged their land, their railway, their equipment, their branch lines, the whole institution, lock, stock and barrel, and repaid the whole thing within two years. For that reason, I say, it is astonishing that a comparison of this kind is made by our friends opposite, and one cannot but think that if it is made, it cannot be made in good faith.
Now this loan only accentuates the free and easy way in which the government has been dealing with this House on behalf of a company which was in a sense a partner of the government. I listened attentively yesterday to the speech of the Minister of Railways and Canals. We on our side of the House, I think many of us, always listen with a good deal of pleasure to that bon. gentleman. He is so good natured that he compels a certain amount of acceptance, although we have to dissent from a good many of his arguments. I must say that his speech yesterday certainly stamps him as the Harold Skimpole of the government side. He has the same dazzling way of dealing with figures, he also has that magnificent disregard of responsibility that characterized the gentleman I have referred to. Like Harold Skimpole, I think the Minister exhibits also the same easy disdain of such gross and material things as days of reckoning, and discharge of liability. The Minister of Railways yesterday laboured the idea of partnership. I think his words were that he did not believe that we should get stock for the accommodation we were giving the company, that it was rather a sordid idea, and that we must finance this railway because we have to carry it through at all costs, because we were in partnership. That is true, but after all the Canadian people, one party in partnership will be called upon in future time to pay very high rates on the enormous cost of construction to a company which had apparently never assumed any serious obligations, and who will reap all the profits. Last session the attitude of the Minister of Railways was slightly different. He figured it out on that occasion that the total liabilitv, that is the actual cash we should have to pay would be $38,263,976 for the benefits we receive from this through line from Moncton to the Pacific coast. He added that if:
Instead of taking this out of revenue we borrowed it at 3 per cent,-I find that for the great benefit we will receive this country will have to pay annually the sum of $1,1*4,-[DOT]'19.28.
Before finishing his speech he also added:
I believe the Grand Trunk Pacific Company will never call on the Dominion of Canada to pay one cent of the guarantee of the bonds, nor one cent of the 3 per cent interest on the cost of the railway.


Martin Burrell: The fact that instead of borrowing at 3 per cent, we have had, as my hon. friend from St. Antoine pointed out the other day, to pay something like 4i per cent, for the last big loan, and something like $450,000 in commission, besides brokerage charges, and the fact that the Grand Trunk Pacific are now coming to us for another loan of $10,000,000, I presume, won't disturb the Minister of Railways at all as he apparently regards this whole thing in an extremely light and jovial spirit. He introduced a new line of argument yesterday, he had to face facts to some extent, and he attempted to draw a parallel with other great lines of railways and with undertakings in other countries. For instance ha tried to draw a parallel between it and the Erie canal, an unfortunate illustration, as that undertaking was permeated through and through with the most gigantic graft. Then he dealt with the Panama canal. He seems rather prone to draw his illustrations from canals. The other day he defended the Newmarket canal, and now he is treating us to arguments which remind us, not only of Harold Skimpole's methods, but of Mark Twain's humour, so that it is hard for us to take him seriously. The Minister of Railways also stated as a justification for this loan, that the matter had been discussed on the hustings in 1904 and 1908, this question had been discussed in all its bearings, the voice of the people had been asked, and they had given it ample endor-sation.
Now, I would like to consider that argument for a moment. In 1903 we had a speech from the Throne, which, as speeches from the Throne are usually supposed to do, should have outlined broadly the policy of the government for that session. There was no allusion made to this project at all. There was, as I remember, only a reference to the fact that the needs of transportation were considerable, and a commission was to be appointed to go into that question. But nothing was done, or little was done. But to the astonishment, not only of the House but of the country, the right hon. gentleman who leads the fortunes of the Liberal party, about five months after the House met, divulged a plan which embraced, to all intents and purposes, the present Grand Trunk Pacific Railway scheme from ocean to ocean. Now in spite of the right hon. gentleman having shelved that commission, in spite of any defence he might have offered for that scheme, yet he was entitled to credit for originating a great idea and disclosing the scheme, although it was only a scheme in embryo. But if he had later on submitted it in skeleton to the House and country to see with what sympathy it would be received, noword of criticism could have been offered*

if it had been endorsed by the people of the country no one would have said anything deprecating the project. But what actually happened? Nothing of the sort. Without any mandate from the people at all for a scheme of so gigantic a character, we find the right hon. gentleman was closeted with one of the most astute railway magnates on this continent, for a long time, and that, desirous of the kudos which should perhaps rightly attach to the formation of any large scheme, he allowed himself to be outwitted in every part of the game, and we had the scheme forced through parliament, the government refusing to wait either for advice or for the people's opinion. One of the ministers, Mr. Blair, said that he urged him to wait, and that if he didn't wait it must be because there was an absence of any really good and substantial argument to sustain the case. We know that Mr. Blair, the only gentleman who was thoroughly conversant with railway affairs in the government at that time, was villified on that side of the House. Later on he was promoted or rewarded by ai very high post, because the government usually find that it is the better way of silencing opponents. Now when that agreement was finally signed, sealed and delivered, and supposed to be lived up to, hon. gentlemen will remember what happened. Sir Charles Rivers Wilson, president of the railway company, in speaking to his shareholders after the close of that session, told them that he had succeeded in driving the government into adopting a position more favourable to the company, that is, in amending the contract. I do not think there is any doubt that from that day to this the Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk Pacific have insistently and persistently driven the government of this country. The government called another session of parliament for the purpose of considering the ratification of the altered or amended contract. We all know the great differences between the original and the amended contract. I am not going into that matter in detail except to point out one or two of these differences. We contended that the original contract was unfair to the people of Canada, but we were assured by the government that it was a fair contract and that at all events it was finally settled. Yet, we find, amongst a great many other serious alterations, alterations of a vital character that, whereas, before the people had undertaken to guarantee three-quarters of the bonds of the mountain section of this road up to a limit of $30,000 a mile, afterwards that was amended by striking out the words '$30,000 a mile', and we undertake now to guarantee three-quarters of the cost of the mountain section to an unlimited amount. At
the commencement of the session in which this change was made the mover of the address stated that while this was an important amendment the road might cost $30,000 a mile or it might cost less. When the prairie section is costing about $35,000 a mile it is a bold man who would estimate the cost of the mountain section, although I understand that the government, or the railway company, have put it somewhere about $80,000 per mile. Then, in paragraphs 31, 32 and 33 of the old contract there was at least some provision made for securing the people if the company fell down. There was some right of foreclosure. If the government felt called upon to pay the interest on the bonds after a specified time there was some little security offered. We find in the amended contract that it is amended in such a way that practically all the security is done away with. In paragraph 6 we find these words:
Notwithstanding anything in the said contract contained, the government shall not exercise any rights in respect of possession, foreclosure or sale, by reason of non-payment of interest by the company under the thirty-first, thirty-second or thirty-third paragraphs of the said contract, or under all or any of them, unless and until there shall be such default to the extent in the whole of a sum equal to five years of such interest, as the company is not relieved from payment of or permitted to defer or capitalize by the provisions of the said paragraphs.
We find that the limited right that we had in the shape of a foreclosure, the little security we had in the first contract, was so interfered with by the amended contract that every safeguard is done away with and is reduced to so shadowy a point that it is impossible to see anything except that if the undertaking should prove unprofitable the government are at liberty to take it over and then they may hand it back when the affairs of the company have become more prosperous. There are other important differences which I shall not touch upon. It was not enough that this amended contract was bad but, by the aid of the government supporters, it was put through parliament immediately before an appeal to the country was made. That may have been a good party move, I do not say it was not, but to say that the result was the voice of the country in even a partial way is to say something which is absolutely untrue. When our friends say that they have been sustained and that they have the confidence of the people, I would like to ask them what sort of an endorsation it was. They had the people tied hand and foot to a contract of this sort before the appeal was made. What was the character of the whole campaign?

We were told throughout the length and breadth of this country the one horrible thing that was presented to the people by Conservatives was the repudiation of a contract solemnly entered into by the government. That word 'repudiation' would have such an ugly sound that no true Canadian would dream of supporting a man who would put forth a policy of that kind. The people were told that every Conservative candidate was opposed to the construction of the road, and that if the Conservative party were put in control the scheme would be destroyed. This repudiation phrase was worked to a finish throughout my own province and not only that but gentlemen supporting the Liberal government in British Columbia laid enormous stress upon the question of speedy construction. My hon. friend the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Templeman) who, I am sorry to see, is not in his place, particularly made great efforts in that direction. He assured the people of the Pacific coast, that, although there was nothing in the contract to that effect, he had Mr. Hay's assurance that the road would be commenced at once. They so persuaded the people of British Columbia that construction was going on at once that, in their desire for the early construction of the road, and in their natural deprecation of anything that savoured of repudiation, it is perhaps small wonder that the whole of that province went Liberal at that time. If, however, they had known what the facts were, if they had known that not a sod was to be turned in British Columbia for four years it is natural to assume that we would have seen a different state of things. There is an old saying that once bitten twice shy. The same appeal was made last fall, the same arguments were advanced, but, although British Columbia wanted to see that road built and although the people there still have faith not only in the road but in the country, the result was that while there was a Liberal majority in 1904 of 2,872, there was a Conservative majority of 4,091 in 1908. In the first contract which was put before the people of the country we were assured, as the right hon. gentleman who formulated the scheme also assured us, that there was a tremendous haste for the thing to go through. There was a clause which dealt with the time and which placed the completion of the road in the year 1908. In paragraph 10 of the contract we have this:
The work of locating and constructing the said western division shall be commenced forthwith after the ratification of this agreement by the parliament of Canada, and shall proceed with the utmost dispatch and shall be completed within five years from the first Mr. BURRELL.
day of December, 1903, unless prevented by the act of God, the King's enemies, internal disturbances, epidemics, floods or other causes beyond the control of the company.
This, as we know, was altered in this amended contract to 1911 and the word 'strikes' was also put in after these other contingencies which were mentioned.	I
might point out that the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) made a good deal of the unforeseen and tremendous difficulties that they had met with and what had resulted in bringing about the present position of affairs. I do not know that the King's enemies, or any act of God, or floods or strikes, have greatly interfered with the operations of the company. 1 might illustrate that point by a very short allusion. Some time ago a case was brought up by a certain farmer against a man to whom he had leased his land. One of the stipulations of the lease was that the land was to be left in as good a state as when the tenant had taken it, as to the seeding down to wheat and so on, unless the act of God interfered. It seems that the tenant did not leave it in as good a state, and when the case came up for trial one of the points to be decided was whether the act of God had anything to do with it or whether it was due to the man's own fault, and the jury brought in a verdict that there had been damage and that the fault was partly that of the defendant and partly God's. I take it that the present government, who are so ready to ignore the existence of a kind providence when things are going smoothly, will always contend, when things are not going smoothly, that it, is the act of God. The haste which was so necessary in 1903 and which led the government to allow the company only until 1908 to finish their construction was forgotten, and the time extended to January, 1911. I do not think that any sane man believes that 1911 will see anything like the completion of the road. The government brag that they have been endorsed by the people, but that endorsation is of no value under the circumstances. In the olden times, when the country was supposed to be afflicted with witches, a test, known to every one acquainted with history, was employed to determine whethex a woman was a witch or not. The woman suspected had her right thumb tied to her left big toe and her left thumD tied to her right big toe, and, thus bound, she was thrown into a pond. If she sank she was not a witch and was unfortunately drowned. If she did not sink she was a witch and was unfortunately burned. That is like the test that was applied to public opinion in this case. The government tell us the country has endorsed them, that the people have voluntarily approved of their

course. First, they tied the country hand and foot and then they issued a repudiation argument, and when the people endorsed them in reference to these things the government said: This is a full en-dorsation of the whole scheme. The same methods were employed to some extent in 1908. Last fall we again had the frantic appeal that we should again put my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) in to finish his work. I do not say that in a sense it was not perhaps good party politics of my hon. friend to lie low and say nothing about this loan, but I question the honesty of that procedure. When we know that Mr. Hays' letter asking for this loan was dated only November 16, I think we are absolutely justified in believing that this was a compact, if not signed, sealed and delivered, at least thoroughly understood between the right hon. gentleman and the Grand Trunk Pacific; and although it is true that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) was too astute to acknowledge that there was such a compact, he was also too honest to deny that there was a compact.
The right hon. gentleman cannot be allowed to congratulate either himself or his party on a scheme of this kind. I do not believe he has shown the great and prudent statesmanship he might have shown in connection with this whole matter, but rather that he has woefully failed to rise to a real sense of his duty to the people of Canada. In this I do not say that I am voicing the opinions of hon. gentlemen opposite or even all of my friends on this side, but I say from my own point of view that at that time Canada was at the parting of the ways, and while some people do not share my views, I say that, having evolved a great scheme for a transcontinental railway from ocean to ocean which included the principle of government ownership in the eastern section, the 'right hon. gentleman displayed a grievous lack of foresight in not applying that principle to the whole road, adopting it from ocean to ocean. In 1904 I campaigned for five long months on this ground, and on the programme of the hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) of government ownership from ocean to ocean being infinitely preferable to the bargain the government have made, and from the extreme north to the extreme south of the immense riding which I have the honour to represent I obtained an enthusiastic response. More than that, had my election come on on the same day as other elections 1 would have won out hands down on that very appeal for government ownership. Hon. gentlemen here know that what I might call almost a scurvy trick, at all events a shady trick was played in deferring the election, yet in spite of that and in spite of the fact that the government had been sustained all through the
country, I was defeated by so small a majority that a change of one vote in each polling place would have elected me. Therefore when my right hon. friend and the Minister of Railways, the Minister of Finance and other gentlemen on the other side of the House talk of optimism and of faith in our country, I would like to see them extend their optimism and faith a little further. There is at this moment no subject which is so agitating the public mind and which is of such importance in the development of democratic government in this country as the great question of public franchises, and I say that it is a true patriotism which not only looks out for to-day but studies the needs of the country for years to come. Those who embrace Socialism in many cases are driven to it from the multiplication of millionaires whose wealth comes from the unearned increment and the sweat and toil of others to which they have not contributed. We have great abuses in our industrial system to-day and I do not say that these abuses would be solved by the appropriation of the wealth of individuals by the State. I do not believe that any State has the right to kill private initiative. There must be room for private enterprise and a man is entitled to what he justly earns, but I would point out that we are having daily forced home the necessity of the people of the country owning its great public franchises. Public ownership of this great Transcontinental Railway system need not necessarily mean government operation. It did not involve government operation as my right hon. friend knows m respect of the eastern section, although here again I say I have perhaps felt greater faith than some of my friends in government operation. I admit that it is practically impossible to have successful government operation of large industrial enterprises as long as our government operations are riddled by party politics, but it is a want of faith to say that successful government operation is impossible. We could eliminate partyism and employ in government work only men who are thoroughly trained and thoroughly capable of discharging the duties devolving upon them, not simply hack politicians, reaping their reward for party services. I say that the principle is fundamentally and eternally right, and to assert that the people of Canada are not capable of carrying out this principle in their national life is not to display courage and patriotism but something quite the reverse.
Speaking of the loan which is now before the House, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) have said that the Grand Trunk Pacific can sell their own bonds at about 90 cents on the dollar, and yesterday they said that therefore the margin of 10 per cent is practically all the money on which we are running any risk

or on which we could sustain any loss. Why should we saddle ourselves with more debts? Why should we pay out great sums in commissions and brokerage to save the pockets of the people who already owe the country $15,000,000 of capital to say nothing of interest? If either claim is true it would be almost better to pay the Grand Trunk Pacific people that ten per cent margin and have done with it. Why was not that proposition made, in order that we should at least know the limits of our obligations? We all know, it has been pointed out in unmistakable terms, that this loan practically means that we shall repay the Grand Trunk people $7,000,000 expended for the Grand Trunk Pacific. This company already owes us an immense amount and its chief men are in various ways making immense fortunes out of this work without advancing any money and without taking any risks. The Grand Trunk Railway, by guaranteeing one-quarter of the bonds, receive $25,000,000 worth of stock for which apparently they do not give one dollar's worth of cash or its equivalent. The contract of 1903 contained a clause practically compelling them, if they took that $25,000,000 worth of stock, to give cash or the equivalent of cash. On page 11203 of 'Hansard' of 1903 we have these questions:


Mr. BARKER.: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to ask the minister a question? Will he tell us how the Grand Trunk Pacific is going to build branch lines and buy rolling stock by giving away their stock to the Grand Trunk Railway Company?


The MINISTER OE JUSTICE.: They cannot give it away. They must get cash in exchange for it. The very face of the contract shows the untenable position which my hon. friends take.


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman overlooks the fact that the contract says that the Grand Trunk Railway Company must get at once the whole $25,000,000. If they get the whole $25,000,000 at once, how is the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway going to use that to build the railway?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend supplies the obvious answer. The answer is because the Grand Trunk Railway will pay for it and give the money. My hon. friend supplies the answer to his whole argument.
At that time, then, these people, "3who were taking some little part in this project, were required for that $25,000,000 of the common stock to give its full equivalent, either in cash or in some other valuable form ; and yet in the cloudy and ambiguous amendments made since, they have been relieved of that obligation, and they get the $25,000,000 of common stock for no value except the guarantee of the bonds.
The reason I have so little sympathy for the Grand Trunk Pacific people is that they are making money out of this project in a Mr. BURRELL.
variety of ways. Besides the assistance we are giving them, they are making money through their townsite company, in the marvellous way in which railway companies always make money out of the unearned increment. This has been well shown by the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Mid-dlebTo), who said, at page 4188 of 'Hansard' :
We find that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company hands over all its town sites to a separate company called the Grand Trunk Pacific Town Site and Development Company. I find that the directors of this company are C. M. Hays and friends. There are thirty thousand shares of stock in this Grand Trunk Pacific Town Site and Development Company. The directors, according to the return brought down by the Minister of Railways, are C. M, Hays, E. J. Chambter-lin, William Wamwright, W. H. Biggar and E. H. Fitzhugh, all of them directors of the Grand Trunk Pacific also, each of whom owns two shares and has paid $200. That is to say, these five directors who have the management and control of the Grand Trunk Pacifio Town Site and Development Company have onlv invested $1,000, in the institution, which controls and owns eighty-one town sites between Winnipeg and Edmonton. The acreage is 78,640 acres. There we have that acreage, composed chiefly of town sites made valuable by the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific, which we are financing, and these gentlemen who have only invested $1,000 are controlling the whole company. In addition to that, they own a three-quarters interest in the whole town site of Prince Rupert.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the reason why we are relieved of any feeling of sympathy for these men, who in various ways are making an enormous amount of money out of the people of this country.


Mr. SPROULE.: What did they pay for the townsites?


Martin Burrell: I have not the figures, but I know that they did not pay very much for those in British Columbia. For Prince Rupert, I think they paid something like $2.50 an acre; but we made a much better bargain than the Federal government, because we retained one-fourth for the people of British Columbia.
This company have been astute enough to see that the government and the people of Canada are kept off their most valuable asset, namely, the branch lines and the terminals. In the contract of 1903, we have this paragraph:
35a. A mortgage which shall be a first charge upon the railway, undertaking, equipment and property, tolls, rights and franchises of the company, including all equipment and property to be thereafter acquired by the company (but not including branch lines exceeding six miles in length or the revenue therefrom or the franchises in connection

therewith, or such additional rolling stock as may, with the assent of the government, be designated and marked by the company as constituting the equipment thereof, and not including ships or any municipal or provincial grants of land, by way of bonus or subsidy, to the said company for other than railway purposes) to secure the payment of the said issue of first mortgage bonds guaranteed by the government.
That is to say, they give us a security, but when they give it they take care to keep out of it all the good and tangible assets. Contrast that with the bargain made by the Conservative government with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, which our friends opposite talk so much about. In that case the company threw in every branch line and every terminal they had, as security.
In the face of these facts my own feeling is-and I am voicing the feeling of a large number of the people of western Canada, that if this loan must go through, if the government have neglected, as I believe they have, the true interest of the country, these people should give some adequate security for the loan. It is not a" case of an eye for an eye, of stock for stock, or anything of that sort. We Conservatives believe in giving help when it is necessary and there is just reason for giving it; but if we are to be the bankers of this institution, let us behave as bankers should. If we pledge our credit for them, let us hold that common stock as security until they have paid their debt. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier has rightly said that the needs of the great west are obvious to the government. We believe that it is the duty of the government to think twice before handing out in this lavish way the moneys of the people of this country without seeing that the just needs of the people are met. I will conclude by emphasizing the fact that we in the west believe in this road, we want to see it assisted where that assistance is necessary and justifiable, we want to see it extended in every reasonable and just way, but we hold that when that is done the rights and interests of the taxpayers of this country should be safeguarded. This is the position which I placed before the electors of my constituency, and which was endorsed by them in the strongest possible way, and I do not hesitate to place it before this House.


Mr. E. A. LANCASTER (Lincoln and Niagara).: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to repeat the arguments that have been made on this side of the House as to the improvident nature of this proposed loan-improvident from the point of view of the people of Canada-which I am afraid the government have overlooked; but I wish to
emphasize one or two aspects of the question which have struck me. The bargain which was made by the government representing the people in 1903, and modified in the interest of the company in 1904, it has been said was approved of by the country in the general election following. But I wish to emphasize here a matter that he touched upon but did not go into quite as fully as he might have, probably because he was not in the House at the time. It was only two years after that second bargain, that the most profitable part of the undertaking was deliberately put in the name of another institution so that it would not be liable for the obligations which either the Grand Trunk Railway or the Grand Trunk Pacific had assumed in those two contracts that the people were supposed to have passed on in the elections of 1904. The Act to incorporate the Grand Trunk Pacific branch lines company came up in this House in 1906. I opposed it, and so did other hon. gentlemen, in the Railway Committee and in this House, but it was voted through by the government and its supporters, notwithstanding the faqt that they practically made no reply to the objection that those branch lines, which were to be the main source of revenue and profit and I may say of solvency, in the case of these companies with which we had contracted, were being put in the name of another institution, thereby avoiding entirely the obligations which the people of Canada had against the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Grand Trunk Railway. After the two bargains had been made in 1904 and 1903, which my constituents and myself considered bad bargains for the country, the next serious thing done was the establishing of that company for the construction of branch lines, and thus relieving those branch lines, which are to be the great source of profit to the main line, from any liability for the obligations of the Grand Trunk Railway or the Grand Trunk Pacific. Following that concession, I was surprised to learn this session that the government proposed to advance the Grand Trunk Pacific $10,000,000 more. What was always the contention of the government ? They said : ' If you will give these companies all they ask, they will certainly be able to give you profitable railway transportation for the people.' And they put through this most unbusinesslike and purely philanthropic legislation in order to remove all possible danger and doubt of these companies not being able to carry out their obligations. The intention then was that by this legislation regarding the construction of the branch lines, we would make it certain that, these lines would be speedily built and the much desired transportation facilities afforded. But we find to-day that none of those lines have been built, and that nothing has been done ex-

cept that we have paid out a lot of money. We find that the Grand Trunk Railway has been getting all the benefit without giving any actual value in return, but simnly acting as the endorsers of the Grand Trunk Pacific. We find that the Grand Trunk Railway has been allowed to get stock in the Grand Trunk Pacific in return for their mere endorsation, just as a broker would charge for lending his name to enable some one to raise a loan, without giving any actual value. The government have acted on the assumption that the whole benefit to this country, which this country need expect, consists in hurrying up the completion of all the transportation facilities required and supposed to be served by the construction of this railway. Having in view the great concessions which we ?ava in 1903 and 1904, no one expected that any attempt would be made to incorporate the branch lines under any other name than that of the Grand Trunk Pacific. Let me point out that everv opnortunity was given the government to protect the people by adding a condition in the Act incorporating the branch lines company?, which would make these branch lines subject to the same obligations as the parent company. I urged that in the railway committee: and when the Bill came back from that committee, I had the temerity to move an amendment providing that that charter should not in any way impair the security or lien of this government, but that the Grand Trunk Pacific Branch lines should be held liable with regard to the branch lines in exactly the same way as it was in the original contract. The amendment was objected to by the government, and the Bill passed without that protective clause. On the third reading of the Bill, I felt it my duty to move the six month hoist, but that also was voted down, and the government passed the Bill regarding the branch lines without any protection to the people.
On this side we have always contended that if we are to provide practically nine-tenths of the cost of the railway, we might as well own the railway. If the people had believed in 1904 that that railway was going to cost what we then contended it would, and what time has proved it will cost, there is not the slightest doubt that the government would have been swept out of power. But the people said :	' We
have the word of the Prime Minister that it will only cost $13,000,000.' Campaign literature of the government had on its front page in large letters the inscription: 'A new Transcontinental Railway for $13,000,000', and it also contained the statement of the Prime Minister, who had made the bargain and claimed to know all about it and whose Minister of Railways (Mr. Mr. LANCASTER.
Blair) had left this cabinet because he differed from them on that question, that the road would be built for $13,000,000. The people believed that we were entirely wrong, that we were unduly afraid, that we were the victims of our imaginations, and relied on the pledge of the Prime Minister, circulated in all his campaign literature, that they would get this Transcontinental Railway for $13,000,000. They had not then the slightest idea that these branch lines would be taken away from our security, that the security of the people would be impaired by the building of these branch lines by another company. Now, what do we find ? Either the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Grand Trunk Railway are riot able to carry out their contract with the people or else they are able and are asking for $10,000,000 as a gift. One thing or other must be the case. If they cannot carry out their contract, if they cannot build the road with all the assistance given them, with all the legislation passed entirely in their interests and upon a basis which would not be dreamed of in any other business transaction-if they cannot, with all these advantages, build the railway, what ought we to do? We ought to let them default and then take over the railway ourselves and own it and operate it or lease it to somebody else.
It is contended that this railway policy of the government will be of great advantage to the country because the earnings of the railway will be great and the traffic enormous. Let me submit this point. We are here to make a bargain for the people, and I concede that we must not be mean in doing it or pessimistic or afraid of the future of our country. Now, the Grand Trunk Pacific either can carry out the contract without this $10,000,000 or they cannot. If they cannot, they are no railway builders, and we can find somebody else who will build that road on better terms. The Grand Trunk Pacific contended that in 1903 and 1904 that with the assistance then given them they could carry out the work. Were they deceiving us then? Were they not honest in making us believe that, with the assistance then given them and the additional assistance which they got in being allowed to build branch lines free from the obligations they had originally incurred, they could complete the road. If they were not, we ought not to lend them this $10,00,000. If they were then honest, they are not entitled to this loan, because they do not understand their business. Take the other alternative, if they can build this road without this $10,000,000, why not let them do it, or borrow the money somewhere else. Why should Canada give them this money and lead them to believe that all they have to do is to come to the government and say :

' We need the money and because you have already incurred such large, obligations, you must give us all we want more.'
Now, not to detain the House at too great length, in view of the fact that these matters are not answered seriously by any one upon the government side, in view of the condition in which this debate is at this moment-that, notwithstanding what was said in regard to the resolution by hon. members of the opposition, from our respected leader down, there is no answer to these propositions or suggestions as to the improvident nature of this loan, I am not prepared to vote (speaking for myself and my constituents) for the second reading of the Bill. For, as the Bill stands, there is no protection in it, and I am afraid that if I were to declare myself as voting for the second reading, it might be said by some that I had been willing to adopt the principle of the measure, and the principle is all wrong if it is to be judged by the arguments that have been used up to this time. If we have to throw more money into this deal, then it simply means that we have to pay for this whole road from Moncton to the Pacific. Under these circumstances, we ought not to grant the loan. As the effect of this is that we must pay for the road, it will be much better for the government to own it and either operate it or hand it over to the Grand Trunk Pacific or some other institution to operate it on rental. This would be much better than going on with this legislation that we now have before us.
. Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,


Mr.  R. L.@: BORDEN What is the estimate of the Minister of Finance as to the actual cost to the country by way of interest on the loan which will be necessary for the purpose of raising this money?


William Stevens Fielding: It is difficult to determine that to a fraction. Our last loan, as stated here, cost us a shade over four per cent. By the way, I notice that to-day an hon. gentleman not only quoted that at a shade over four per cent, but added various charges. Of course, four and a fraction covered the charges referred to. If this loan were placed on the market at this moment, we might have to pay four per cent, but I think the probability is that we can get it a shade less. I think the tendency of the money market is rather downard, and our next loan should be on somewhat better terms than the last.


Mr. AMES.: When quoting four per cent, does the hon. minister mean the nominal percentage or the interest including expenses?


William Stevens Fielding: In quoting four and a fraction, that meant the unit rate. 1 think we ought to realize a shade better. That will depend on the condition of the market.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: If it is a banking transaction, why should there be any doubt about it?
ME FIELDING. There is no doubt about the rate we are to charge.


Robert Laird Borden: I am aware of that. But there is certainly doubt as to whether that rate will indemnify the country. This is a banking transaction, and bankers usually get in deposits at a certain rate and lend them out at a higher rate. I am not disposed to press that argument unduly in this respect, but surely it is a fair proposition that the country ought to receive as much interest as it pays. If there is any doubt, as there seems to be-and the doubt entertained by others may be greater than that entertained by the Minister oi Finance-I should think that some provision might be embodied in the Bill which would make that absolutely certain and which would thoroughly safeguard the country against any loss in respect of the interest on this loan.


William Stevens Fielding: That is hardly necessary. It is desirable there should be a fixed and definite rate on the loan, and that should be made, as nearly as may be, the rate that will guard against loss. I think it is just as likely that this rate will show a profit as that it will show a loss. We take that risk. I think that in the present tendency of the money market we are not likely to pay more than four, and the probability is as strongly in favour of our getting it' at less.


Herbert Brown Ames: As I understand it, the government will actually have to borrow the money before it will lend-the transaction oi borrowing will have to be completed before lending commences?


William Stevens Fielding: As soon as the preliminaries are settled, we should begin to use money out of existing funds if any are available. But that we would later make good, so, practically the answer to the hon. gentleman's question would be * Yes.' The government moneys all go into a general fund. If anything is taken from that general fund for this purpose, steps must be taken to replace it.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is it not probable that the minister will not be acquainted with the effective rate of interest per unit prior to the time he will be called upon to pay out the first instalment?


William Stevens Fielding: Possibly not. If our finances generally were in condition to allow it, we would pay them the money the

moment they comply with the provisions of the Act. But, immediately, we should have to borrow it, and so the two transactions go together.
Mr. AMES'. Has the minister taken any steps to float a new loan having this in view?


William Stevens Fielding: No formal steps have been taken, but we are watching the money market and intend to take the steps when the proper moment arrives.


Herbert Brown Ames: The minister will watch his chance, and, when he sees the proper moment has arrived, will float a new loan?


William Stevens Fielding: We will watch the money market and will seize the most favourable moment for making the loan, as in the past.


Mr. MONK.: If, before the loan is finally disposed of, there is some financing to be done, as there was in the case of the Quebec bridge, and we pay a higher rate than four per cent, is this going to be charged to the Grand Trunk Pacific? It is probable that the moment the statute is passed the money will be sought for by the construction company. It is not probable that we could get money at four per cent, but shall be obliged to pay more than that. Speaking, generally, would it not be better for this section to be so framed that the country would recoup itself, as bankers do, from the loan to the railway company the whole amount of interest that we are obliged to pay?


William Stevens Fielding: Then, we should have to associate with that the provision that, in the event of our borrowing the money on more favourable terms, we would give them back the difference.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Why ?


William Stevens Fielding: We have the suggestion of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) that we should charge exactly what it costs us.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I could understand that, for the purpose of negotiating a loan, the rate must be fixed by statute-at least, I conceive that that is possible. In connection with the question put by my hon. friend from St. Antoine, Montreal, (Mr. Ames), would it not be possible to ascertain what are the whole charges to which we are going to be subjected? What are the accidents of the loan, so to speak, so as to fix the rate we shall absolutely require?


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think it would be possible to ascertain definitely. If this legislation were completed immediately, and the Grand Trunk Pacific were to comply with the requirements of this statute respecting the mortgage and Mr. FIELDING.
so forth, and if we had the money in hand, there is no reason why we should not give them that money instantly. But of course, we should have to include it in our borrowing powers, borrowing at the market rate. I think the situation is such as enables us to say that we are just as likely to borrow at a shade below four per cent, as we are to pay four per cent, or about.


Herbert Brown Ames: There is no necessity for settling the rate of interest the moment the first advance is made to the company. The company want the money as soon as- they can get it, and they have to pay the interest on it semi-annually. Consequently, the first interest payment will not be due until six months after the first instalment is advanced, and in the course of those six months the government can tell exactly what that money has cost to raise; consequently they could without difficulty bill the company at that rate, the rate it actually costs to get that money.


William Stevens Fielding: I think it would be more satisfactory to have a fixed rate, leaving no doubt whatever, and in fixing that rate we have estimated that we will be able to borrow money at four per cent. I have a decided opinion that we are quite as likely to borrow at a shade below four per cent as above; and therefore the company is taking as much risk as we are.


Herbert Brown Ames: Judging from past experience, the company is likely to get the best of that gamble. I think we should protect ourselves.


Mr. LENNOX.: From the minister's experience of loans, about how much will it cost to float this loan of $10,000,000?


William Stevens Fielding: We don't stop to consider what the expenses are, only to get the net result. When I say four per cent, I think that will cover all expenses. In fixing the cost of a loan we include all expenses. I am assuming it will cost four per cent, it may be a fraction above four per cent, but it is just as likely to be below, in which case the company takes the risk.


Haughton Lennox: I think there was a return brought down some time ago which showed that it cost for floating loans somewhere between two and three per cent.


William Stevens Fielding: They are expressed in net rates in each case.


Haughton Lennox: I think an answer was made in the House that it cost us two or three per cent to float certain loans.


William Stevens Fielding: Our loans cost us, as respecting the chief items exactly what they have been costing us for many years. But there is now a new item which adds ma

terially to the charge, that is, the item of underwriting, which is about 11 per cent. We think that while that has to appear as a part of the cost of the loan, we get a benefit in the better prices we obtain through that operation. Yet it has to appear as a part of the cost of the loan, just as in some past instances discounts would have to appear as a part of the cost of the loan. 1 have no doubt that if a comparison were made between these loans it would be shown that the cost of our loans, broadly expressed, is not greater than it has been in former years, except for this new condition which has arisen, that is, the item of underwriting, which must include brokerage in connection with the underwriting. The broker meets you at every door when you endeavour to place a loan, and the charge for the underwriting, and the brokerage in connection with the underwriting, amounts to 11 per cent. That is, in that sense, a new charge which did not exist in former years, because the conditions of the money market did not require it. But while we have to account for that as a charge, in reality it is not a burden to us, because we are satisfied we get a benefit for it in the better price which is fixed by the underwriters. For illustration, in our last loan we had to come to an agreement with the underwriters as to the price. Naturally we wanted the best price we could get, and naturally the underwriters would like the price to be as low as we would be willing to make it. So after careful discussion we agreed upon a price, and it turned out that that price was higher than the public in the money market was willing to pay, and when the loan was offered to the public, only 41 per cent of it was taken up at that price, because the ordinary public investor thought we had fixed our price too low. But the underwriters had to guarantee it to us. And so we got the benefit. Although this is a new charge, it is not a new burden to us, because we are satisfied we get the benefit of that in the higher price we are able to obtain.


Haughton Lennox: The minister does not meet my point. I am not concerned to know whether we are better or worse off in borrowing than under a former government. The minister says that the underwriting and brokerage are a new item, and that it costs 11 per cent. Now, will the minister tell us what the former cost was before this new item was added?


William Stevens Fielding: I would have to turn to the contract we have with our financial agents. But I will at a later stage give the hon. gentleman the information. It is already on the table of the House, in a return.


Haughton Lennox: The minister tells us that as a matter of fact his underwriting cost 11 per cent. Now would the other branch of the expense be equal to 11 per cent, less or more, speaking generally.


William Stevens Fielding: I think it is not as much as that, but I would not like to answer definitely. I would rather give an exact statement.


Mr. FOSTER.: It would be decidedly less than 11 per cent.


Haughton Lennox: Would it be as much as one per cent.


William Stevens Fielding: It would be materially less than 11 per cent.


Haughton Lennox: Supposing we take it as 1 per cent, fox the purpose of my argument, that would represent in all 2 per cent that it would cost to float a loan. _ But the return brought down showed, I think, that there was a considerable expense in connection with the floating of these loans. But we have suffered a good many disappointments already in connection with this railway, and I do not feel any great confidence in the statement made this afternoon that this will be a net expense of 4 per cent, including the expense by way of floating the loan. If the minister has brushed that item aside as immaterial, even if it cost 2 per cent to float that loan, of course it would represent $200,000 upon this transaction, and if not included in that 4 per cent, it will mean a net loss to Canada of $175,000 or $200,000. I think the least the minister should do is to make perfectly sure that we at least should not be losing money by this transaction in the way of interest.
It is a very easy thing to arrange that whatever rate of interest we pay we shall at least be recouped for that amount. It is right enough to provide for the payment of four per cent, but there should be a supplementary provision that if it costs more the country will not be put to a loss. Every step in this transaction that we have taken since the day when the Prime Minister first made the announcement of this legislation has been a disappointment to the country. Every amendment made has been an amendment by which the Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk Pacific have benefited and by which the country has suffered and has been put to loss. Therefore, it is very little to ask that it shall be made absolutely clear that if it costs us more than four per cent- and the position that Canada is now in as regards the money market does not make it unlikely that it will cost more than four per cent-we shall be recouped by the Grand Trunk Pacific.


William Stevens Fielding: I see the matter in a different light from my hon. friend both as regards the contract generally and as respects this transaction. When I state the probable rate of interest I am including the expenses of every kind. The rate will include what we will have to pay for brokerage, printing and the various incidental charges. What precise rate they may ask us we do not know, but we know as respects the past and there is no reason to suppose that it should be more in the future. If, a few months ago, when we went to the money markets, when the conditions were more severe than they are at the present moment, we were able to borrow money at a shade over four per cent, which is probably the net rate of our last loan, is it not reasonable to suppose that another loan, with an improving market, may probably be obtained at a cost of four per cent? But while I state that as a reasonable proposition, I also state frankly that we have thought it best that we should take a measure of risk on both sides, that we should fix a definite rate of interest in the expectation that we would be able to borrow the money at that rate and at perhaps a shade less. If it costs us a shade more we take that risk to the extent of what we pay in addition.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Wliat risk will the company take?


William Stevens Fielding: If we borrow the money at three and a-half per cent and charge them four we may make a profit out of it.


Mr. J. D. REID.: Why not make it a matter of certainty?


William Stevens Fielding: We think it desirable to make it a matter of certainty as to the rate which they shall pay, but not as to the rate at which we shall borrow the money at some time in the future. That is why we take the risk.


Haughton Lennox: When the Minister of Finance says that it is reasonable to suppose that the condition of the money market will be less stringent he does not refer to the fact that the position of Canada as regards the borrowing of money is not likely to improve for a exeat many years to come. The fact that Canada is going so heavily into the borrowing business and so frequently, that the minister will have, in all probability to take a trip to England immediately this session is over, and that we will be constantly on the borrow for the next 'few years will probably far more than counteract any improvement in the money market. So, I think I might say, by way of prediction, against the experience of the minister in the borrowing of money, and he has had a great deal of experience in that respect, that it will not be found that we can effect better terms in


Haughton Lennox: the near future than we have done in the near past.


William Stevens Fielding: I will not predict. I think there is a fair chance of it, but we will get the best terms that we can get in the money market. That is all I promise to the committee.


George Eulas Foster: I do not see why we should be discussing the question of a gamble and risk being taken either by one or the other. This company comes to us for a loan. We should fix the rate of interest. We are under no obligation to the company. We are stepping in where they should have remained. We are getting in under the burden that they should have shouldered and which, according to the first contract, they inevitably would have had to shoulder, which it was intended they should shoulder, and which the right hon. Prime Minister and three of his ministers declared they would shoulder. Now, we let the Grand Trunk out from having provided for a certain sum of money for the construction of the prairie section. We are repaying them that money. We are under no obligation to them. Why should it be a matter of risk between either party? The country should not risk anything. We should have a rate of interest which would make the country absolutely secure and we should charge them what we think would carry that amount. We should charge them such per cent as we pay for the loan, including all costs of charges. I would ask the minister whether he proposes to make a special ten year loan to cover this $10,000,000 which is to be repaid in ten years.


William Stevens Fielding: I would think not. I would like to have a free hand to do what is best, but I do not at present anticipate such a course.


George Eulas Foster: Is this $10,000,000 that we are lending to the Grand Trunk Pacific to be expended yet upon the road or is it the purpose of the $10,000,000 loan to pay back to the Grand Trunk what they have already expended on the road?


William Stevens Fielding: We will pay it to the Grand Trunk Pacific upon the certificate of an engineer in the usual way. As a matter of fact, I understand that the Grand Trunk have advanced moneys which have gone into the Toad and in that way they will be recouped. We will only pay upon the evidence of an engineer in the usual form that this money represents work which has been done on the road.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend knows, I suppose, as a matter of fact, that a very large proportion of the $10,000,000 has already been expended and payment made?


William Stevens Fielding: It has been advanced by the Grand Trunk.


George Eulas Foster: And payment made.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes. But we have no certificate of it. We can only pay this money on the engineer's certificate that the work has been performed.


George Eulas Foster: This money will not he paid for rolling stock or anything of that kind? It will be paid for the actual construction of the road bed?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Herbert Brown Ames: Will the loan for which this money will be paid out be made as to time according to this, loan? Will you flcat a ten year loan in order to pay this?


William Stevens Fielding: I said to my hon. friend from North Toronto that while I desire to have a free hand to do whatever is best in view of the condition of the money market I do not at the present time contemplate a ten year loan. I would anticipate that the loan would be foT a longer period.


Herbert Brown Ames: If the minister makes a thirty or fifty year loan and agrees to pay the present high rate for fifty years in order that he may accommodate this company for ten years he may have to pay this increased rate of interest for many years after the loan to the company ceases.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend puts in words to which I object. He says at this rate. We do not necessarily propose to pay this rate. The fact that we raise the money, if it be deemed expedient to raise it, as part of a loan extending over fifty years, would probably help us to get it at a better Tate. If the market condition is such that a fifty year loan is expedient and if that would help us to get a lower rate then, we should be free to take advantage of that condition.


Herbert Brown Ames: If we negotiated a thirty or a fifty year loan at three and four-fifths per cent in order that we might be able to accommodate these people for ten years we would be bound to pay three and four-fifths per cent for thirty or fifty years when probably before that time we will be able to get cheaper money.


William Stevens Fielding: That does not follow. I have no doubt that at the expiry of that 10 years, when the money is repaid, the government of Canada will find abundant uses for it and we will suffer no loss.


Herbert Brown Ames: Would not the simplest manner be for the government to float a special ear-maTked issue of $10,000,000 of bonds at the best rate they can get and to say to the company: ' Whatever the money costs us for the ten years you want it, you must pay us? ' The government should simply act as their bankers in this particular case.
164}


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think it would be wise to float a ten year loan unless the market conditions for the moment seemed to make that the proper course to take. I think it better to look at the market conditions and issue the loan in the manner and for the term and on the conditions that will give the best results. If it proves a satisfactory rate, we will be the gainers.
I am ^strongly of the opinion that there is a greater probability of our getting the money a shade below four per cent than above it; but I will not prophesy, we will get the best rate we can.


Haughton Lennox: I think the minister has nearly exhausted his power of prophesy on this railway.


William Stevens Fielding: Oh, no.


Haughton Lennox: And I do not think he can complain if some one on this side should offer one casual remark on that line.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not complain.


Haughton Lennox: This is an accommodation, it cannot be put on any better ground by the government, we are accommodation endorsers for this Tailway. The very easiest terms on which a neighbour accommodates his friend is that he shall not lose one cent, unless the person for whom he endorses becomes bankrupt. He may exact as a condition of endorsement a percentage for the accommodation, but at least he will insist on not losing on his advance. That is the position which we should be in in this matter. The government ought to make definite arrangements for four per cent with a supplementary condition that in no event shall this loan entail loss upon Canada. This loan should be kept distinct so that we could know in the end exactly where we come out on the transaction.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend will know next session what it will cost us, as we will have to replace it by another loan.


Haughton Lennox: We ought to know now what we are going to pay and it should be kept distinct. That, however, is not a sine qua non, the main point is that we should not lose by this loan. As was stated by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), we understand that the Grand Trunk Railway Company allege that they have loaned $7,000,000 of this money and it is alleged that that $7,000,000 has been put into the road. The minister says that he will ascertain definitely that that money has been put into the road. I take it that the minister will do that but supposing that that $7,000,000 has been put into the road, then there will be left only $3,000,000 available for new work. Does the minister know how much it will take t# complete the prairie section? In other

words, will $3,000,000 of new money put into it complete the road?


William Stevens Fielding: At an earlier stage, in introducing the resolution, I gave in very full detail the figures which were designed to show that this $10,000,000 to he applied in the way described will finish the prairie section. We have, of course, only the reports of the engineers in that respect and I am beginning to give engineer's estimates with a word of qualification.


Haughton Lennox: If that is the case it would appear that the prairie section is within $3,000,000 of being completed. Does the minister believe that?


William Stevens Fielding: That is the information I get from the engineers and I am bound to accept it in good faith.


Mr. JOHN HAGGART.: I wish to be clear as to the application of the $10,000,000. From the statement brought down by the minister it seems that the $10,000,000 is to be used for the completion of the road and for the payment to the Grand Trunk Railway of seven million odd dollars which they allege they have advanced for the construction of the road. The' minister sent officers of his department who have inquired into this expenditure and this advance by the Grand Trunk Railway, so he must now be in a position to state whether that $7,000,000 was actually advanced by the Grand Trunk and used in the construction of the road.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not see that we are very much concerned now with that $7,000,|000, because we will not pay out one dollar of this $10,000,000 except upon the certificate of the engineer that that money is represented by work in the road. If, in the meantime, they have arranged with their bankers or the Grand Trunk Railway or any one else for that advance, I do not think we are much concerned. As to the $3,000,000 finishing the road, it is $3,000,000 in addition to other funds which are still available from the government guarantee. This amount, plus the other amount available from the government guarantee, we are advised will finish the prairie section.


John Graham Haggart: The minister must concern himself as to whether the money is earned or not. His officers have examined the accounts and certified that this money has been expended upon the road. Surely we are entitled to the details of the expenditure of that $7,000,000? Grand Trunk Pacific say they want $9,500,000 to complete the prairie section. This is referred to the officer of the department and he says $10,500,000 is required. You split the difference at $10,000,000. What available assets have they? They have available assets of the bonds not yet sold and


Haughton Lennox: of construction material which is available to the amount of $1,500,000, and they want to return this alleged advance of $7,100,000. The officers of the department certify that this has gone into the construction of the road. In what form wa3 this advance made?


William Stevens Fielding: We have nothing which earmarks that particular $7,000,000, and it does not strike me as of importance to us to so ear-mark it. What we want to have certified to us is that there is work to represent the money which they will claim from us. The Grand Trunk Pacific will file statements that they have done the work; we do not care where they get the money; it is not our concern. They claim they have done work representing a certain outlay. We will submit that to our engineers, who must certify to it; and if the work is there to represent it, I do not think we are concerned whether they got the money from the Grand Trunk Railway Company or from a bank. That is a matter of their own arrangement. The vital point with us is to see that the work is there, and then the money is paid out only on the certificate of our own engineer that the work has been done.


Herbert Brown Ames: The government has already agreed to advance $13,000 per mile on the 916 miles of the prairie section, amounting to $11,908,000; and we now propose to advance $10,000,000 more, making a total of $23,900 per mile, or altogether $21,908,000. Do I understand that the government will see that vouchers for that total amount are checked and passed as being for perfectly legitimate expenditures, and that when they reach that point their responsibility as to checking these accounts ceases, and any additional expenditure will not be subjected to the same examination?


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend treats two funds as in a sense the same. One of these funds consists of the proceeds of the government guarantee, as to which the procedure is that the guaranteed bonds are issued and sold, and the proceeds deposited in a special ac'count in the bank to the credit of the Minister of Finance, separate and apart from our ordinary government revenue. This may be deemed trust money for the purposes of the railway. Not a dollar of that money can be drawn out until the government engineer has certified the accounts sent in as being correct, and only when he certifies that the claim is a proper and legitimate one against that money is any of it drawn. So much with regard to the government guarantee. With respect to the other transaction, which represents a portion of the money guaranteed by the Grand Trunk Railway Company, inasmuch as they have

asked us for this loan, we have put it in the same position as our guarantee fund, and we say that this money must be drawn out only when the government engineer certifies that there is work to represent it.


Herbert Brown Ames: The minister has not seen the point of my question. The govern-men are supplying $22,000,000 for the prairie section, which we will say will cost $32,000,000. The Grand Trunk Pacific Company are then obtaining $10,000,000 apart from the government. Is the government going to see that there is a careful audit of the whole $32,000,000, or only of the accounts they present up to $22^000,000?


William Stevens Fielding: The audit covers the whole expenditure. Then it becomes a question of what proportion is chargeable on the guaranteed bonds and what proportion is provided by the Grand Trunk Company. But the audit of the Railway Department covers the total expenditure without any reservation.


Herbert Brown Ames: Then do I underhand that the government will satisfy themselves, in respect to all the indebtedness that stands against "the road with respect to the first, second and third mortgages which are prior to our fourth mortgage, that every item which makes up those amounts has been carefully passed on by the government auditor, so that we may know that the government has taken the precaution to examine carefully every item of expenditure on the road, whether the government is to supply the money or not?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, the audit of the Railway Department applies to the total outlay on construction.


Herbert Brown Ames: With the minister's assurance, then, if next year we inquire how this $10,000,000 has been expended, we shall be permitted to travel in the same steps in which the auditor of the government has travelled, and examine the list of vouchers that make up the statements which the auditor has passed; so that what is now being done to satisfy the government that these expenditures are legitimate may be ratified by a committee of this House at the next session if it is so desired?


William Stevens Fielding: We are not changing the system in the slightest degree by this Bill. I am advised that the auditor of the Department of Railways does take into view all the expenditure on the road which are charged to construction account, and certifies that they are fair and proper and reasonable, and then a certain portion is charged to one fund, and a certain portion to the other. But all are subject to the audit of the department.


Herbert Brown Ames: Then do I understand that a committee of this House will be permitted next session to travel in the same steps as the auditor and accountant of the Department of Railways in order to be assured that the whole of the $32,000,000 has been legitimately expended?


William Stevens Fielding: We are making no change whatever in the system or in the terms of the contract, whatever they are; but my impression is that the audit of the Department of Railways is as broad as my hon. friend suggests. If I find that I am mistaken, I will qualify my statement at a later stage of the discussion.


Herbert Brown Ames: The hon. gentleman knows that we were permitted to examine as trust funds how the first portion of the $13,000 per mile was expended. Do I understand that this $10,000,000 being in the same position, we shall be entitled to check over the amounts which are paid out as part of this advance?


William Stevens Fielding: The contract is not varied in the slightest degree by this Bill. The moneys can only be drawn after government audit, and in the manner I have described. But I will read in ' Hansard ' what my hon. friend.has said and will discuss the matter with the auditor of the Railway Department, and if my answers have been too comprehensive, I will modify them.


Herbert Brown Ames: This Bill is practically an amendment of the contract.


William Stevens Fielding: No.


Herbert Brown Ames: It is to all intents and purposes, for it is putting the company in a better position.


William Stevens Fielding: No. We agree voluntarily to help them by way of a loan, but it is not an amendment to the contract. An amendment to the contract would have to be mutual.


Herbert Brown Ames: At this time if we desire we can lay stipulations on the company, and if this matter is not clear, we can easily make it clear in this Bill.
Progress reported.
At Six o'clock House took recess.
After Recess.



AGRICULTURAL FERTILIZERS.

[Stage Direction]
House went again into committee on Bill (No. 110) respecting agricultural fertilizers.
Hon. WM. TEMPLEMAN (Minister of Inland Revenue).: I move the reconsideration of section 6. My object is to move an amendment by adding sub-section:

(e) The materials from which the fertilizers were made.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: What is the object of this?


William Templeman: To give further information to the department. They already have to give the guaranteed analysis, and this is added.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section 10 reconsidered:
William Templeman: This section provides that the purchaser of a registered fertilizer may send it to the department and have an analysis made on paying a fee of $5. It is suggested that this is too high a charge in case of farmers and others desiring an analysis, and I propose to reduce it to $1.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section 15 reconsidered:
William Templeman: This provides for penalties. It says:
Every person who sells or offers or exposes for sale any fertilizer in respect of which the provisions of this Act have not been complied with

And so on. I propose to strike out the word 'person' and insert the words 'manufacturer or agent/


Mr. SAMUEL SHARPE.: Would that include the storekeeper?


William Templeman: No, I am bringing in another amendment to include the vendor. This applies to the party who gets the license to manufacture and guarantee the analysis.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section 17 reconsidered:
William Templeman: I propose an amendment that will cover the point raised by the hon. member (Mr. Sharpe). It has been pointed out in the discussion that after a fertilizer is placed on the market with guaranteed analysis, some vendor might tamper with it by mixing with it inferior substances, thereby reducng its fertilizing value. I propose, after the word 'fertilizer' in the third line, to add the words:
-and every person who lowers the fertilizing value of a registered fertilizer by mixing any other substance therewith after said fertilizer has been placed upon the market by the manufacturer or agent.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Templeman: I propose to add to this Bill the section, No. 21, as follows:
This Act shall come into force on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and ten.


William Templeman: This will give the manufacturers time to conform to the Act. The season for fertilizers for this year is over.


John Allister Currie: A great deal of fertilizer is used in the fall of the year. Better make it 1st October.


William Templeman: So far as the convenience of the department is concerned, 1st October would do as well as January 1, 1910. It might suit the trade better to begin with the year. It does not make much difference to the department.


John Allister Currie: But it makes a difference to the public, because a good deal of fertilizer is used in the fall in the Niagara district and elsewhere. It will be no more difficult for the manufacturers, but it will give the department control of the material sold for the fall season.


William Templeman: I move that it be made October 1, 1909.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



COMMERCIAL FEEDING STUFFS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 127) respecting commercial feeding stuffs-Mr. Templeman-read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
William Templeman: This Bill is practically the same in all its details as the Bill which we have just passed, with the single exception that this is for commercial feeding stuffs, and the other was for fertilizers. The language is exactly the same except in those two words.
On section 2,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 
William Templeman: If it is a medicine it would not come under the Act. If it possesses nutritive as well as medicinal qualities it would. But if the contention of the correspondent is correct, and it is purely medicinal and not food, it would not come under the Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He does not claim it to be a medicine, but a tonic. I assume it is called a food because it contains preparations made from wheat which contain the protein and other elements of food. It is something in its effect like pepper, salt ginger, mustard. These are condiments,
they stimulate the stomach and make it secrete more gastric juice, and digest the food better.


William Templeman: Then it would not come under this section at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What would you put that under?


William Templeman: It would not come under any Act. It has to possess nutritive properties to be a feed as well as a medicine before it can come under this Act. If the statement of the correspondent is correct that this is purely a medicine and not a food it would not come under the Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I did not say that he claimed it to be a medicine. I said that it could more properly be classed as a medicine. He called it a condiment.


William Templeman: And the manufacturer says that it is a food?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No, he says it is a condiment.


William Templeman: It would have to remain for investigation to find out whether it was a food under the Act or not. If it is a condiment or a medicine purely and simply it would not come under the Act, but if it is medicinal as well as nutritive it would come under the Act and very properly so because that is the object of the Act.
On section 4,
Name of foreign manufacturer's agent or representative in Canada to be filed with minister.


William Templeman: That the section be amended by inserting after the word ' person,' in the 30th line, the word ' resident,' and after the word ' Canada,' in the 31st line, the words ' and acceptable to the minister.'
He said the point was raised in discussing the other Act that probably the agent might be an irresponsible person. I want to put that in as a safeguard.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 7,
Registration numbeT, how fixed; statement required.


William Templeman: That the word ' importer ' in the 19th line he expunged.
He said:	The word 'importer' appears
and as the importer is not dealt with in the Act but simply the manufacturer or agent, I desire to expunge it.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 9,
Annual license to sell; fee; period of validity.


William Templeman: That the section he amended by inserting after the word ' obtained,' in the 2nd line, the words ' by the manufacturer or agent.'


Mr. DANIEL.: Does this section mean that no one can sell any of these foods except he has a license, or has the license only to be taken out by the manufacturer?


William Templeman: The object of the Act is that the manufacturer shall take out one license himself, and that no commercial food stuff can be sold unless the manufacturer or the agent of the foreign manufacturer shall ta}ve out a license for that food stuff.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The section is not very clear.


William Templeman: I think so. There is only one license to be taken out for each brand.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is an annual license?


William Templeman: Yes.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 10,
Purchaser of registered feeding stuff may obtain analysis.


William Templeman: There is a blank in the last line and I therefore move:
That the blank in the last line of clause 10 be filled in with the word ' one.'
Making it read one dollar.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How will it be with those parties all over the country who have a lot of feed on hand? The manufacturer will take out a license on the 31st December. There is a stock of these goods all over the country. Will the license taken out on the 31st December cover what is in the hands of the trade at that time, or will it only cover what the manufacturer or his agent sold after that?


William Templeman: It might be necessary to introduce a clause to exempt stocks in the hands of vendors.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Otherwise you might do injustice to merchants and others.
On section 13,
Analysis in case of samples imported for personal use.


William Templeman: I propose making the fee in that case $5. The same amendment will apply in the case of analysis of food stuffs manufactured to the order of a purchaser.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The Act does not provide for the case of a foreign manufacturer who, without registering a resident agent imports a lot of feed materials, placing Mr. TEMPLEMAN.
them in the hands of merchants and having them sold without being registered. Who would then be liable under the Act?


John Allister Currie: That is material imported by the foreign manufacturer and sold under consignment?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Yes.


William Templeman: We might amend
section 17.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The merchant is not an agent under the wording of the Act and the only suggestion I can offer is to make the merchant or person who sells an unregistered article liable under the Act.


William Templeman: We could amend section 17 in that way.
On section 17,
Forgery of certificates, &c.


William Templeman: I would move to add the words ' and every person who sells an unregistered food stuff.'


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: That would cover the point. Would it not be well for the minister to amend the Fertilizer Act in the same direction?


William Templeman: We would have to have the amendment made in the Senate, and I will see if that can be done.


John Allister Currie: 1 would also suggest that such fertilizer as Chilian nitrate, wood ashes and phosphates, sold in the commercial state, should be exempted in the same way as this Act exempts grains. For instance, it might be considered illegal for a person to buy Chilian nitrate by the bag and to sell it as such. I would like the minister to consider that.
On section 20,
Commencement of the Act.


Mr. GEO. TAYLOR.: I think that Act should come into force before the 1st of January next.


William Templeman: There is no objection to it coming into force on the 1st of October if the House thinks that the better time.


George Taylor: As against the manufacturer the Act should come into force at once, except as to the stocks now on hand, because the manufacturers all over the country are manufacturing and selling to the farmers fraudulent foodstuffs.


Mr. SEXSMITH.: I think it would be wise to have the Act brought into force as quickly as possible. During the months of June and July an immense amount of food is purchased and consumed.


John Allister Currie: I would move that the date he changed to the 1st of July, 1909.
I might say that this foodstuff is a staple article which is sold daily. It is not something that a man need put in a stock of for a year, and there will be ample time for the dealers to get rid of all their stock before the 1st of next July. This is a matter that is pressing very hardly upon purchasers. The frauds in this class of food, as shown before the Agricultural Committee, are so great that drastic measures are necessary. The hon. member for East Peterborough (Mr. Sexsmith) and I have introduced Bills on this matter which this Bill now covers. It was ascertained before the Agricultural Committee that in a great majority of eases this commodity was made out of absolutely worthless stuff, such as sawdust and ground chaff and ordinary turf and moss, which were ground up and sold to the farming community as cattle feed. It is about time that this was stopped, because there is not 25 cents of food value in a ton of it. I would also suggest to the minister that something ought to be done to relieve the farmer of the duty of prosecuting the parties who wilfully break this law. The matter is now left in such an indefinite shape that there is no officer specially charged with the enforcement of the law. I pointed that out the other evening in the case of fertilizers and the objection is even greater in this case. The merchants are selling the farmers this foodstuff for cattle, which has no food value. We may run across cases where the purchaser gets an analysis made and finds a fraud has been committed on him, but he might not like to institute proceedings himself. Under the Adulteration Act, he would have to deposit $25 before any prosecution could be made. I do not see how the minister proposes to have the law enforced. Let him make it more easy to prosecute in such cases. Every few days we get circulars from the department showing "the results of analysis, but there is no prosecution. The circulars show that the articles are fraudulent but no effort is made to punish the guilty. Analysis of these foods have been made for years and the results sent out to the public in bulletins issued by the department, yet still these frauds are growing larger every day. I think the minister would do well to consider the advisability of inserting some provision which would enable an officer of the department, when he found there was a fraud, to lay the information before the magistrate. The minister said the other evening that it was the business of the department of Justice to prosecute. Possibly this department should in one sense be the prosecutor, but it would be much more effective to give an inspector the power to lav the information before a magistrate and file his certificate showing that an article put on the market was not up to the analysis printed on the package, and then have the manufacturer summoned to show why he should not be fined.


William Templeman: It would not be possible for the manufacturers of these commercial food stuffs to conform to the provisions of this Bill before the 1st of July, 1909. We require that they shall register, and take out a registered number, and put upon the packet a printed guaranteed analysis and other statements of fact. It would be scarcely fair to compel them to do this in that short time. I would be quite willing to have the Act come into force the 1st of October, 1909. Within that time they should be able to comply with it. With reference to the suggestion of the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Currie) regarding prosecutions for violations of the Act, it is not the department who creates the standards but the manufacturers. The officers of the Department of Inland Revenue would procure a sample of every food-stuff on the market and analyse it, and if the analysis printed on the packet does not come up to that made by the department, the manufacturer can be punished under clause 15.


George Taylor: The department
undertakes to prosecute?


William Templeman: Yes. I move that the Act comes into effect the first of October, 1909.


John Albert Sexsmith: I agree that the 1st of October would perhaps be early enough to have the law come into force. There is a considerable manufacture of food-stuff of medicinal qualities such as herbageum. I have in my desk analysis of that stuff and it is not worth as much as a food as ordinary linseed meal. It is composed of pure wheat meal, charcoal, sugar, &c. I do not wonder that the manufacturers of these protest and say they should not be compelled to put a label on the outside. If we have this Act come into force the first of October and then have it carried out, that will be time enough. The people have been defrauded a good many years and it is time to put an end to it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There are thousands of samples which must be analysed and the department has not a sufficient number of analysts to doi the work between now and then. The work is very much behind now. Then you require to have the brands registered and licenses taken out and to make your own regulations, and all that will have to be done by the department within that time. Who is going to collect those samples for your analysts?


William Templeman: The department
does not make the analysis. It is the manufacturer himself who" will analyse and place a guaranteed anaylsis on the packet.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If he wants to give his food any standard, will he not require to have the government analyse it?


William Templeman: The department does not guarantee the analysis at all. We would not allow any of our analysts to make the analysis. The manufacturer must have that done himself. Then the label on the package shows what nutritive value the food has. After it is put on the market, we have it analysed, and if the food is not up to the analysis labelled on the package, we take proceedings.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Suppose you want to prosecute, what is your evidence? There must be an analysis made, and there are not sufficient analysts in Canada to analyse the samples of food on the market at present.


John Dowsley Reid: I agree with what the minister says. This government must not be responsible for the analysis, but the manufacturer can get it analysed by any chemist he wishes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the hon. member mean to say that any chemist in the city is fit to analyse itf


John Dowsley Reid: They certainly can get it done. As to the question raised by the hon. member (Mr. Sproule) that it would not be possible with the staff the minister now has to make these analyses in the time, would it not be much better for to to pay a few more officers for three or four months in order to bring the Act into effect all the sooner? Surely that would be better than to allow the farmers to be defrauded out of thousands and thousands of dollars. I think the first October is ample time for the manufacturers, and the saving to the people who buy these goods will be much greater than any possible cost in preparing for coming into force of the Act.


John Allister Currie: I do not believe there are a dozen manufacturers of these goods in the country that have not had their stuff analysed already by the government on one or two occasions. They all know the value of the analysis, though I think they will be slow to put the analysis given them by the government on their brand. As to giving them time, there is no need to be too lenient in this matter. Of course, hypothetical cases can be quoted. In the case of change in the custom law, which we make here in five minutes, there may be shown thousands of cases of people who have been injured by it, but we do not delay the law for that reason. I Mr. SPROULE.
do not see why we should be so awfully kind to these other people and give them so much time to load up the country with a few thousand more tons of this stuff. I do not wish to press the motion I have made, in opposition to the minister's wishes, because I would like to see this Bill go through without any contention. I think we should take the business view of this. If a business man had this in hand, he would bring this law into force at ten o'clock to-morrow morning. It is not going to hurt the small dealer, he may have some packages on hand, but, if he can show that he bought them before the change in the law-and his invoices will establish the facts of the case-there is not a magistrate in the country who will fine him.
_ Mr. SPROULE. I do not think the hon. member (Mr. J. A. Currie) knows much about the trade. You cannot find many respectable drug stores that do not manufacture this for themselves. They use linseed meal, ginger, antimony, sometimes shorts, bran or other material. Is everyone of these druggists to take out a license and get the feed analysed? They probably have a large stock on hand. It is not useless by any means. It is a food, a condiment, and a medicine, and it is good for cattle. There is a great difference between this and ground-up corn stalks or chopped straw. I can understand that all this trade can be brought under control. But, if you are going to do it in a short time, you will have quite a contract on hand. With three-quarters of the respectable drug stores all over the country to register and their products to be analysed, there are not enough analysts in Canada to analyse all these samples between now and 1st October.


John Allister Currie: The hon. member (Mr. Sproule) seems to think that the 'guaranteed analysis' must be the exact analysis of the contents. But, without an analysis, the man who makes the mixture can put on it a description as a 'guaranteed analysis' that will be safely within its value, and that will fulfil the requirements with relation to the guaranteed analysis.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the analysis for? It is to show the contents of the mixture. The analysis would have to be made by some one competent to go into the witness box and prove the case if called upon. Will any court accept the analysis of a druggist? Not unless he is also a qualified analyst, and not one druggist in fifty is a competent analyst. To get all these analyses made by the duly qualified people will take. time. I say, and I say advisedly, that there are not enough analysts in the Dominion of Canada to analyse all these samples of food between now and 1st October.


John Albert Sexsmith: The hon. member (Mr. Sproule) may know of druggists who are mixing up these feeds, but the druggists in our vicinity do very little of it. We have the National Stock Food Company selling hundreds of thousands of dollars worth to these people. This concern advertises that it spends $200,000 a year in advertising its stuff. Who pays for all that?
I understand that it has been said that a great portion of this feed was made of ground corn cobs, and they are selling it by the train load. These are the people we want to get after. Very few druggists make their own, they handle other well known brands. In the stores you will see it piled up by the wagon load, and sold at these exorbitant prices. As I understand it, the manufacturer must register with the department and get his mixture analysed. Then, if he puts on the market a class of feed that does not come up to the standard given on the tag, prosecution will take place.


William Templeman: I think the 1st of October is a medium course between the proposals of my two hon.-friends opposite. One wants the Bill brought in immediately, while the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) says it should not come into force until the beginning of the year. The chief analyst advises me that if the Bill is brought into force on October 1, there will be no trouble in doing our end of the work.
On schedule A:	[DOT]


John Allister Currie: It is stated that the method of taking samples can be obtained on application to the department. It would save the department a great deal of trouble if instructions to obtain a sample were published along with the other things.


William Templeman: Samples, in nine cases out of ten, will be taken by the officers of the department.
On schedule B:


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Was clause 15 amended to provide for imorisonment in default of payment of a fine? The Fertilizer Act was so amended.


William Templeman: I have that memorandum on my Bill. I move to add that after the words '100', where they occur, the following words be inserted:
And in default of payment of such penalty, to a term of imprisonment for 30 days.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and Bill reported.
On motion for third reading,
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think it is an outrage upon the feed dealers that no provision
is made for the stock they have on hand. There are certainly thousands of tons of it
all over the country that are being sold today. Now every manufacturer who sells or exposes for sale any commercial feeding stuff after this Act is passed, is subject to a penalty. There is no provision made in the Act to let them sell what they have.


William Templeman: We give them four months in which to sell their stock on hand. The Bill will not come into force until the 1st of October. We have got to make a start some time. I do not know how we could make an exception for the stock at present on hand.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You did it in the Patent Medicine Act.


William Templeman: We provided that all stocks of drugs on hand, on the coming into force of the Act, should have a small label attached to them as provided by the department. But it seems to me that is not so necessary in this case. Holders of these feeding stuffs should be able to dispose of them during the next four ^months. I would also point out that it is the manufacturer or agent who is liable, not the vendor, for a contravention of that portion of the Act. The vendor is only responsible under the Act if he adulterates a food stuff already in the market. So I do not think the retail dealer will be hurt at all in selling any of his old stock, even after the Act comes into force.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is he exempt? He is a manufacturer in every sense of the word under this Act. He has not taken out a license but he has a large quantity of this material on hand. He has only sold as much as is called for and he has to lose what he has on hand or sell it illegally. It is not the part of wisdom or fair play if you do not make some provision whereby these people may carry on their business in a legal way.


William Templeman: My hon. friend must be referring to condiments or medicinal preparations rather than to feeding stuffs. There are very few druggists who would put up feeding stuffs in such quantities that they cannot dispose of them in four months. The Act does not apply to them unless they are foodstuffs proper. If any druggist has such a large quantity on hand that he cannot dispose of it before 31st December next he should come under the Act and be liable to its provisions.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Your Act provides that these compounds may be feeding stuffs, condiments and medicines. Take the prescription that I have spoken of again. Take linseed meal, bran, shorts and ground oil cake which are food stuffs. Put them with certain drugs and you have a preparation of foodstuffs and medicines combined. You sell them by the patent pail and they are ' valuable foodstuffs and medicines as well.

They will come under this Act. I have been so associated with the trade that I know very well how this is done. Take Orangeville, Shelbourne, Dundas, Flesher-ton, Markdale, Chatsworth and Owen Sound; you cannot go into any one of these places but you will find drug stores selling these goods and in most cases druggists manufacturing them. They will be selling them in violation of the Act under the provisions as contained here. They may decide to quit the manufacture of them in future but there is a lot of stuff that is not sold, they do not want to lose it and yet they do not want to sell in violation of the law.


John Allister Currie: In reply to my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) I think that these druggists are amply protected by this Act. There is no druggist of ordinary intelligence who cannot turn up the Pharmacopaea and in five minutes decide the food value of any of the ordinary articles that would be employed in a compound of this kind. He can turn up seed, meal, bran, &c., and ascertain their food values. Any man who is a druggist will very soon find out the food value of materials which are used to make up one of these articles and then all he has to do is to put a cerificate of the food and if he is going to give a false value to it let him put on a certificate for less than the actual value of the article. The analyst takes a sample of it, and sends it to the department and if it is found that the value of the article is five or ten per cent over, the guaranteed value I do not think the department would be inclined to prosecut the manufacturer. A man who undertakes to compound an article of this kind can very easily calculate the value of it from the means at his hand. I object to the length of time which is given for bringing this Act into force because there is no trade which has been treated with so much leniency as this. They have still five months to make up their minds what they will do and if they want to be safe they can tag their product with a statement of the food value really below the actual value. There is no misrepresentation if the value is greater. The hon. member for East Grey knows very well that there is no druggist in this country but who could very soon find out what food value there is in any article that he compounds or sells.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: My hon. friend may be a travelling encyclopedia but he only exposes his limited knowledge when he says that it is only necessary to turn up the Pharmacopaea to find out the value of foodstuffs. Suppose that you went .to court on that what would happen? You cannot find an analysis of food in the Pharmacopaea. That would be absolutely valueless and the Mr. SPROULE.
druggist would be liable under the law if any person questioned the matter.


John Dowsley Reid: I think this is a good Bill, but there is one point in regard to which I do not think it goes far enough. If a manufacturer mixes a certain proportion of bran with middlings and grinds them together, thus reducing the food value of middlings, this Act would not touch him at all. The farmers have been complaining very much about the manufacturers mixing one of the lower grades made from the same grain, and thus decreasing the value of the article they are supposed to get. However, we may try this for a while and if it does not work satisfactorily we can amend it.


Mr. GOODEVE.: I think there is a great deal in the contention of the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule). This Bill, I understand, is a Bill to protect one class as against another class and in making legislation of this kind we should be very careful that no class is injured. I cannot agree with the position taken by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) in that he says that every druggist should be an analyst.


John Allister Currie: I did not say that he should be an analyst.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: It is absolutely necessary to carry out the hon. gentleman's argument that he should be an analyst. But, it should be remembered that all druggists are not analysts. There are only a few in the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Inland Revenue. As the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has said, a man although he may be a very skillful chemist, may not be able to conduct properly an analysis of a food product. The hon. member's point is well taken that there may be thousands of pounds that the retail vendor has bought in good faith, and if he is not able to dispose of them before the time stated in the Act then the manufacturer of these goods becomes liable, although both he and the vendor have acted innocently and in good faith. For that reason I think that some provision should be made, just as in the case of the Act in regard to proprietary and patent medicines, whereby stocks on hand should be exempted from the operation of the Act or at least some further notice given. It is difficult for even a lawyer to keep track of all the changes made in the law from time to time. The druggists are a responsible class of the community, men f '>ood standing, men who are already subject to rigorous provisions of the law and I believe that some consideration and protection should be given them in introducing this law.


Mr. JOHN BARR (Dufferin).: I quite approve of this very important legislation.

I believe it is in the interests of the farming community, as there is no doubt that farmers have been gulled by food stuffs which contained very little substance. For instance the manufacturers of pea meal for human food preserve the hulls of the neas, grind them up and sell them for cattle feed as pea meal, although they contain very little substance. Therefore it is of the greatest importance that these feed stuffs should be analysed and that the farmers should know the value and the strength of what they are purchasing. At the same time there is force in the argument of the hon. member for East Grev that the druggists may have large stocks of these goods on hand. There is little sale for them except in the spring and fall and large quantities are necessarily carried over. Injustice may be done to these druggists by cutting off the sale of their present stock in the fall. T think that the suggestion of my hon. friend is worthy of consideration.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.	.



IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On the order
Resuming the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Oliver for the second reading of Bill (No. 17) respecting Immigration.
Frederick Debartzch Monk: When this Bill was up for consideration some days ago, J asked the Minister of the Interior to wait until we had concluded the examination of the Superintendent of Immigration in the Committee on Immigration. We have concluded that examination, but as a matter of fact the result has not been reported to the House. I believe the committee meets to-morrow in order to report. Personally I would have no objection to the Bill taking one stage to-night, but this is an instance amongst many of the difficulty we experience from the manner in which the proceedings of this House are carried on. Manv members who are deeply interested in this Bill are absent to-night and I think excusably so. because this afternoon everything led members to believe that the important motion then under discussion would occupy the whole of this evening and probably a part of tomorrow. I do not wish to retard the Progress of the Bill, but I would suggest that only one stage should be taken to-night, and that the consideration of the Bill in the committee should be postponed. I and a number of my friends, who have taken an interest in this subject for many years, have suggestions to make in committee. Does the minister accept the proposal to allow the Bill to take its second reading
to-night and postpone the committee stage until those interested in the Bill may be present and may express the views they entertain?


Mr. OLIVER.: I have no desire to push this Bill forward without due consideration, but it has been before the House since shortly after the session opened. It was brought forward for second reading nearly two months ago, and its consideration has been already postponed for some two weeks at the request of my hon. friend. The session is nearing its close; the Bill is important; if we desire to make its provisions efficient, and if my hon. friend desires to take the responsibility of delaying the passage of this important measure, I have no objection to accede to his request, but the responsibility must certainly rest upon him and not upon me.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend is very much mistaken, and I find his statement unfair. The Bill has been called only once for its second reading, and I objected to it being then read the second time as we were proceeding with the examination of the chief officer of immigration, and my hon. friend consented to its postponement. The chief officer of immigration has been examined, but his evidence is not before the House, and I can validly object to the second reading being taken to-night under the circumstances. The Bill could only take one stage this evening, and I have no objection to that. I believe in the principle of the Bill; but when members of this House have taken the trouble to study the question as they have, and desire to avail themselves of the evidence of our chief immigration officer, my hon. friend goes far when he desires me to assume a responsibility which I do not think exists at all.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 131) to amend the Canada Shipping Act-Mr. Brodeur-read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
Mr. BRODEUR.: This Bill is for the purpose of inserting in the French version a paragraph which has been accidentally omitted from the Revised Statutes of 1906. The words which have been omitted are of course included in the English version.


George Eulas Foster: This is the exact equivalent?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



FRENCH STEAMSHIP SUBSIDY.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 146) to amend the Act relating to Ocean Steamship Subsidies-Mr. Brodeur -read the second time, and House went into committee thereon. _
On section 1,
Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This section was adopted last year with the exception of the following changes. We provided that a contract should be made for the purpose of establishing a steamship line between Canada and France, and that we should pay a subsidy not exceeding $200,000, based upon the sum of $5,555 per trip. Last year the contract was made for one year only, because it was not known whether or not the French treaty would be adopted by the French authorities, and we thought that we could this year renew the contract for one year or for a longer period. But as the power which was given to the Governor in Council to make a contract had been exercised, the Department of Trade and Commerce were advised that they had no right to enter into another contract, and that it was necessary to obtain authority from parliament to do so. This Bill gives authority to the Governor in Council to enter into a contract or contracts with any person or company. It also provides that the subsidy shall be based on $6,666 per trip instead of $5,555. It is contem-lated to improve the service by putting on ships of 12 knots instead of 10 knots, as provided by the present contract.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: In order that this change should come into effect, I think that the treaty with France should be ratified first, as the whole question of these subsidies depends upon the completion of our new arrangement with the French Republic. I quite approve of these new arrangements which we are making with the Allan Line, but subject of course to the confirmation of the treaty. That treaty at the present moment is an incomplete one, and under these circumstances I suggest that we cannot proceed with this Bill.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not think it would be fair not to enter into a contract for a large number of years at this time. It is true, the treaty has not yet been ratified by the French Chamber of Deputies, though it has been approved by the French Senate, before which it has been standing for more than a year. I have no doubt the Chamber of Deputies will also approve of the changes made in the treaty, because it has approved of the treaty of 1907, and because these changes are in accordance with public opinion in France. My hon. friend suggests that we should not enter into any contracts for the Mr. BRODEUR.
service even for this year so long as the treaty is not ratified. I cannot agree with him. The Allan Line has had that service established for several years.


George Eulas Foster: Between what ports?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Between Havre, France, and Montreal and Quebec in the summer and St. John and Halifax in the winter. Many people were requested to avail themselves of the subsidy but would not do it, but in 1894 or 1895 the Allan Company agreed to take it up. They started the service and last year the subsidy was going to expire but we passed legislation providing for its renewal. Even if the treaty should not be ratified, I think we ought to provide for the contract this year because otherwise this service, which was established with a great deal of difficulty, would cease. It is expected, however, that the treaty will be ratified in May as soon as the Chambre des Deputes meets again.


George Eulas Foster: Last year you paid $5,555 per trip. Did you have 15 trips?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I think so.


George Eulas Foster: A service of how many
knots?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I think ten knots.


George Eulas Foster: Were the vessels capable of running ten knots?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The contract provides for a ten knots service, and they must prove that they have furnished such service or they do not get the subsidy.


George Eulas Foster: What were the results in the way of trade? We ought to know what we are getting for our money.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Last year the trade amounted to $10,000,000 or a little more.


George Eulas Foster: How was that divided between exports and imports?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There were $8,000,000 odd imports and nearly $2,000,000 exports.


George Eulas Foster: This is not the only line by which we get French goods into Canada.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is mostly.


George Eulas Foster: What has been the growth of imports from France in the last few years?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: In 1905 the exports were $335,000, and in 1904 they had increased to $1,992,928. The imports were:
1895		$2,585,600
1896		 2,810,000
1897		 2,651,000
1898		 3,975,000
1899		 3,889,000
I960	 4,368,006

I have not got the figures since. We expect to have larger exports because our exports have now to pay the maximum duty when the most of our competitors, such as Germany, Australia, Italy, Spain and Switzerland, export their goods to France under the minimum tariff, and there is a great difference between the maximum and the minimum. When the treaty is ratified, our trade with France ought to increase immensely, as our exports will get the benefit of the minimum tariff.


George Eulas Foster: The French chambers and government have been at work some time revising their tariff. What is the general course of that revision? Is it towards raising the duties both in the minimum and maximum list against foreign imports?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The tariff in France is not submitted by the government itself but by a committee. I have seen somewhere that the French Senate are preparing a tariff, and that body is largely protectionist. It may be that the Senate committee would report strongly in favour of an increased tariff. But I do not know whether that same feeling exists in the lower House. I am under the impression that in the lower House the general feeling is in favour of more extensive commercial relations with other countries.


George Eulas Foster: I would like to bring a few considerations to the attention of the minister. I suppose the government does not intend to put this subsidy into active operation for a period of years unless the French treaty is finally ratified.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Our intention is to make a contract for only one year, and after the treaty is ratified, we will make it for a longer term.


George Eulas Foster: I have no objection to having the contract go on, so as not to break the connection. But I want to call the attention of the minister to two or three things that may happen in the future. In the first place, it is true that whatever may be the minimum tariff in France we will get the same rates under that minimum tariff that other favoured nations get. It is also true that if you put the minimum tariff up to a certain point, if it is a very high tariff, it precludes freedom of trade. It is not sufficient to say that it does not make any difference whether the minimum tariff is 25 per cent or 95 per cent, if we get the same advantage as others. In that respect that statement is true, but if it is a 95 per cent minimum tariff instead of a 25 per cent, it practically
precludes trade from outside countries. Now the other consideration is this:	The
French Chambers are revising their tariff, and from what I have seen in the newspapers it is probable that the tariff will be raised rather than lowered, and it may be that the minimum tariff will be brought up on a parallel, with the maximum, and that both of them will be raised. I think it would be the part of prudence not to make a contract for more than one year at the present time, until we see what the French tariff is going to be under its new form, because it might take such a basis in heightened minimum duties that it would not be worth while for us to spend $2,000,000 in order to cultivate the trade. I think before the French treaty is brought up for ratification the government ought to be able to give this House information with reference to this proposed revision, what is being done about it in the French Chambers. The other point is one I brought to the attention of the House in the budget debate. The United States tariff is not yet fixed. We do not exactly know what it will be, but there is not much doubt but that there will be some provisions in that tariff which will probably make us sit up and think with reference to our relations with other countries. That would be another consideration why it would not be well to make the contract for ten years. Whilst I am anxious to do what we reasonably can to promote the trade, we must yet have regard to our own interests. These two considerations would lead me to think that it would be wise for us to make but the simple yearly arrangement this year, and another year we will be able to see where we are.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The contract for the present will be only for one year. It expires on the 1st of May, and we have to make a new contract rip-ht away, because the season of navigation is about to open. I think the intention of my colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, is simply to make a contract for one year, until we have more definite information from France as to the application of the treaty.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The Allan contractors are entitled to the highest consideration, because not only were they the pioneers of the service between England and our own country, but in the beginning they laboured against great odds. Even during the period of this service with France they, have had a great many obstacles to contend with. Does my hon. friend mean that this contract is for one year only?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The contract made last year is only for one year, and it is the intention to renew it for one year only.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Am I mistaken in thinking that after the treaty has been accepted by

the French Chambers, it is still incomplete until it has been ratified by our own parliament?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes. The treaty which was made this year by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance will have to be submitted to parliament for its acceptance.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: So it will be next session, before it is a finality?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, I think my colleague the Minister of Finance is now in communication with the French government to find out when the treaty will be approved in France. We may prorogue very soon, and it is the intention of the government to bring down the treaty and ask parliament to approve of it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The Minister of Finance stated, I think, the other day that we will not take it upon ourselves to ratify the treaty again until it has been finally approved by France.


Wilfrid Laurier: The Minister of Finance discussed this question with me a few days ago. It is not anticipated that there will be any difficulty on the part of France in accepting the treaty. The treaty was ratified last year, it has been modified since, but the modifications are not of such a nature as to make the treaty more difficult than it was from the French point of view. We have made it easier for France to ratify the treaty, therefore we do not apprehend that there will be any difficulty on the part of France. The French Chamber of Deputies has adjourned, but is going to resume early in May. The Minister of Finance I think is now in communication with the authorities in France, and I think it is his intention to submit the treaty to parliament this session for ratification.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: When the treaty comes before us again we will have something to say about the marvellous achievements of my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, for which he claimed great glory when he came home from France. I do not suppose there will be any expense this summer in connection with the ratification of that treaty, such as there was when my hon. friend returned from France on that occasion, and boasted that we were going to feed the whole of France with our fat cattle.


Mr. HUGHES.: Is there a bonus given to the Hamburg-American line which runs between Canada and Hamburg, calling at an English port?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Not that I know of. There is a subsidy for a line to Antwerp.


Herbert Brown Ames: I hope the minister, in making this contract, will arrange, if trade warrants it, to reach some port in the south of France as well as the port Mr. MONK
of Havre. Perhaps the minister will remember that when we were discussing the French treaty last year, I stated the view of some importers of French goods in Montreal that we lost the benefit of a considerable trade that might come to us', under the treaty, from the southern ports of France because of the fact that there is not a line of steamers between Canada and any of these southern ports. It was pointed out that, in the case of quite a number of exports from southern France, if they had to be sent by rail across France to Havre to take advantage of the direct steamship line the railways would be practically prohibitive of the exportation. May I ask the minister to endeavour, if he can, to make it possible later on, when the trade warrants it, for the government to secure a steamer service from the southern as well as from the northern ports.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: As my hon. friend (Mr. Ames) is aware, most of the business done to-day is done with Le Havre. I admit that there are some exportations from the southern part of France.


Herbert Brown Ames: From the port of Marseilles.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, but the business to-day would not warrant us in making a contract for a direct line from Marseilles or any other southern port. If a line were established to southern France, of course it would be to the port of Marseilles, that being the most important. It may be, as my hon. friend suggests, that, at some time in the future, trade may warrant the establishment of a line between Canada and Marseilles, or having the present steamers call at Marseilles. At present, it is only contemplated to establish a line between Le Havre and Canada. Under this law, the suggestion of my hon. friend can be considered.


Samuel Hughes: In connection with the trade of the Mediterranean, I recently received a letter from Syria, the scene of the massacres. It was written before the massacres began, and I do not know whether the gentleman who wrote to me has gone down or not. He pointed out that there was a great trade to be done between Canada and Syria. He went on to explain the difficulty they experience in obtaining the class of goods that Canada exports, and gave the prices at which these goods are sold there. He asks me to bring the letter to the attention of some commercial houses in Canada. If it will be to the advantage of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries or the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I shall be glad to hand it to either. I am sorrv I have not it here that I might read it to the committee. He writes from Beirut

and says that there is this large trade to be done with Canada if we had a steamship line with trips once a month or as often as the trade might warrant.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Can my hon. friend (Mr. Brodeur) tell me how he and his colleague came to forget, while negotiating in France, the existence of that Swiss treaty which was an obstacle to the final settlement?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Perhaps the fault does not lie entirely with us. I remember having read a question and answer given in the House in the year 1895, when the first French treaty was brought before the House. The government of that time was asked what were the nations enjoying most favoured nation treatment, and in the answer Switzerland was omitted. My hon. friend the Minister of Customs, later, published a book containing the names of the countries enjoying favoured nation treatment, and he followed the answer which had been given and omitted Switzerland. There has always been great doubt as to whether Switzerland occupied this position or not. Some legal gentlemen, with whom I had occasion, not very long ago, to discuss this question, were of opinion, after having read the provisions of the treaty of 1885 that this treaty did not apply to Canada so far as the favoured nation stipulation was considered. At one time there was doubt expressed also by the imperial government in the matter.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think it is to be regretted that, when the hon. gentleman entered into negotiations, he and his colleague did not consider this. As a matter of fact, we have recognized since that, the Swiss treaty Bill.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.
Bill reported.	,



NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION ACT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 152) to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act-Mr. Brodeur-read the second time and House went into committee thereon. |
Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Under the present law, when a wreck is a menace to navigation, we give notice to the vessel owner to remove the wreck. If he does not do it, we advertise in the papers asking for tenders for the removal. It happens very often that, in the meantime, the owners remove from the vessel everything that is worth .while, and when we come to remove the hull or to give a contract for its removal, we find that there is hardly anything of value. This means expenditure by the government. The object of this legislation is to declare that not only the vessel shall be a guar-165
antee of the cost of removal of the wreck, but also what is in the vessel, equipment, tackle and machinery.


George Eulas Foster: Does that mean that if a vessel comes to grief with a valuable cargo on it, the owner of the vessel has to let the cargo go and await the long period which will elapse before the department gets its machinery in operation to remove the wreck?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, we provide in subsequent sections that the wreck will have to be removed immediately, and if they do not remove it we will do it ourselves.


George Eulas Foster: Immediate is a relative word. The cargo might be of a kind which, if it were necessary under the law to allow it to remain with the vessel, might be rendered of no use. Surely, if a man owns a vessel, if he has a cargo in it, if the vessel meets with a mishap and it goes down, he should have the opportunity of taking out such part of his cargo as is valuable as soon as possible and of saving it in the best condition. Is he absolutely prohibited from removing any part of the cargo?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, in that case he
would have the right to give us a guarantee that the removal of the cargo would not be detrimental to the interests of the department.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Are there any cases that have given rise to this legislation?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes. In almost all of the cases that come before the department thev remove what is the most important and valuable part of the vessel leaving the hull which is generally not worth anything.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Will my hon. friend give an instance?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We had a case'in the west lately where a vessel sank. They removed the cargo and there was nothing of value left to us. We had to take the necessary proceedings to remove the wreck and it was done at a great cost to the department without anv revenue being derived from it. The country had to bear the expense. If the cargo had remained, or if it had been removed under a bond guaranteeing that this cargo would serve first for the payment of the cost of the removal of the wreck, there would have been something saved to the department.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What did it cost in that instance?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have not the information now as to how much it cost. Tn some cases it costs us large sums of money. Last year we asked for public tenders for the removal of a wreck at the mouth of the Saguenay and it cost us $12,000 although we" did not get anything for it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What ship was that?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The 'Protector.'


Mr. PORTER.: Suppose a vessel goes down in navigable waters, is the equipment of the vessel-her anchors, chains, &c.-to remain there until a bond is given? How long has it to remain or where has it to remain? The anchors, chains, &c., would have to be removed before the hull could be removed.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We expect in that case they will proceed right away to remove the wreck, but they will not be permitted to remove the equipment without giving a guarantee that this equipment will be considered as a part of the vessel. We will therefore have adieu not only upon the hull of the vessel but also on the equipment for the purpose of reimbursing the department for the expenditure we make in removing the wreck.


Edward Guss Porter: Suppose the owner is incompetent to give a bond?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Then we will proceed right away to remove the wreck, either doing it ourselves or calling for tenders.


Edward Guss Porter: As my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) has pointed out, most of the equipment would be destroyed or rendered practically valueless in the time that it might remain in the water before the government might remove it.
Mr; BRODEUR. No, if we proceed immediately there is no danger that this equipment will be destroyed. The anchors, chains, &c., will still be of the same value.


Edward Guss Porter: These wrecks usually occur in places that are dangerous from the presence of rocks or rapids. A vessel might go down in a place where, if she were left for a few days, the whole thing would be cleaned out. What would become of the cargo and equipment then? Would it not be better to provide that the cargo and equipment could be removed under government supervision to some place of safety and stored there until the wreck was removed? Then, if it became necessary for the government to remove the wreck, they would have the goods and equipment of the vessel in store upon which they would have a lien to recoup them as far as they would go for the expense they might have incurred in removing the hull. The owner could always remove the goods and this would be preferable to requiring him to give a bond. He might not be in such circumstances that he would be able to give a bond.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: In considering this provision we must keep in mind the definition of a vessel under chapter 115 of the statute. I will read the clause and my bon. friend Mr. BRODEtTR.
will understand the advisability of adopting the section that we have now submitted to the consideration of the committee. Section 13 reads :
In this Act unless the context otherwise requires, ' vessels ' includes every description of ship, boat or craft of ever kind whether impelled by steam or otherwise or whether used as sea-going vessels or on inland waters only.
That is all there is as to the definition of a vessel and the result is that later on when we proceed to the removal of a wreck we have no lien upon the most important part of the wreck, the equipment, the ballast, cargo and the machinery. The owners or insurance companies remove all that, we cannot prevent them doing so, and we have nothing left but the bare hull which may be of no value. That is why we have extended the interpretation of the word 'vessels.'


Haughton Lennox: It is noted that this corresponds with the English Merchants' Shipping Act of 1894?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


Edward Guss Porter: I quite agree that it is important to have this lien on the equipment of the boat, but my inquiry was directed more to the care of the material taaen from the boat until you wish to enforce your lien. Of course you do not wish to have the material remain in the vessel for months or weeks, where it must be destroyed or stolen.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I admit that we have not formally provided for that in the Bill, and if the committee think it advisable we might put in such a provision or it might be made the subject of regulation.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Would it not do to say that the government shall have a lien on the material wherever it may be. That would not prevent the owner from immediately getting to work to save the material.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Under the law the owners or the insurance company will put themselves in communication with the department at once. We want to have our lien on the material wherever it may be.


Edward Guss Porter: It might be done by having the material stored in the public warehouse.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It seems to me that there should be some time within which the government should act. Ought there not to be a notice to the interested parties that the wreck interferes with navigation, that the government has decided it must be removed and that under certain conditions the interested party may take possession, provided he gives security for the cost of removal

of the wreck. Sometimes the government are very slow in acting whereas the owner of the cargo or vessel will be interested in proceeding at once with salvage operations. There may be doubt as to whether the government would remove the wreck.
On section 2,
Section 14 of the said Act is amended by adding thereto the following subsection:-
2. The owner of such vessel or thing shall forthwith begin the removal thereof, and shall prosecute such removal diligently to completion; but nothing herein shall be deemed to limit the powers of the minister under sections 16 and 17 of this Act.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What are clauses 16 and 17?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: They provide that the government or the minister has the right to remove obstructions. There is no provision in section 14 requiring the owner of the vessel to remove the wreck immediately, and we had to give notice to that effect. We want to force him to take the necessary steps immediately to remove the wreck. In some cases, where such notice is required, the delay might be dangerous. A case occurred last year or two years ago in the harbour of Montreal, where a vessel sank just at the mouth of the canal, and it might have seriously impeded navigation if we had to give notice.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: How do you enforce that?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: If the owner does not remove the wreck forthwith, we might proceed under section 16 to call for tenders for its removal.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Would not this be a good place to provide that in case the owner proceeds to remove the cargo and equipment and does not remove the wreck, the former shall be stored and shall be held as security by the government until he does?


Edward Guss Porter: Suppose you add after the word 'completion' the words 'and shall place all portions of such vessel other than the hull so removed in a public warehouse after removal until the hull of the vessel has been removed'.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: He is bound to remove it to completion, which means not only the cargo, but the vessel itself. If he undertakes to remove only one part, that is, the cargo, we shall have a lien on 'that until he removes the whole wreck. I do not see any great objection to my hon. friend's suggestion, and I will consider it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: You could not assume that the man was not going to remove the hull as well as the contents,
165i
for it would be consistent with his intention to do so that he would remove the contents first. But you might be disappointed by finding that he did not remove the hull. Therefore, you might insert the provision that such parts as he| does remove should be subject to a lien until he removes the hull.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I will see if we should not provide that in that case he should, for instance, report to the receiver of wrecks. My hon. friend suggests that he might put the contents in a warehouse. There might not be a warehouse at the place.
I will see if we cannot incorporate some provision in this Bill or make some regulation which will meet the point.
On section 3,


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The present section reads that ' the minister under the authority of the Governor in Council ' may do certain things. The reason I am asking to strike out the words 'under the authority of the Governor in Council' is that it sometimes causes a delay of weeks to get that authority. If these were struck out the minister could proceed immediately.
On section 5,


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is to provide that after two years, if nothing has been done towards removing a wreck it will be forfeited. We consider that if the owner of a vessel has left it for two years without doing anything, it is only fair that it should be considered forfeited to the Crown, or we might remove it or give some one the contract to remove it for his own benefit.


Edward Guss Porter: Should not that right be exercised only after notice to the owner?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Sometimes we do not know who the owner is, and sometimes there are obstructions to navigation other than vessels.


Edward Guss Porter: Then give notice by publication.


Haughton Lennox: This section seems to apply to vessels alone and the other applies to things other than vessels.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is a mistake, it should apply to vessel or other things.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Have we not changed the interpretation clause so that ' vessels ' covers these things any way?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The interpretation clause simply provides for the vessel itself. The removal of the wreck may include not only the vessel but anything else which is an obstruction to navigation such as floating timber and saw logs which are not sunk entirely.- The vessels cannot see them as they are partially under water and we do

not know who are the owners of the logs. We should add the words or ' other things.'


Mr. LALOR.: Would it not be wise to provide that notice should be given to the owner when known or by public advertisement when not known?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have no objection.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: It was moved that the clause be amended by adding after the word 'vessel' in the first line the words 'or other things' and in the second line after the word 'thereof' the words or 'other things.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Francis Ramsey Lalor: At the expiration of the two years we should provide that a month's notice be given to the owner if known or a month's public notice if not known.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We should also add the words 'or other things' in the second line after the word ' vessel.'


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: If a man has left his things there without doing anything for two years, it is to be supposed he does not care much about them.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: They might consist of a quantity of very valuable timber.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have no objection.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: How would you give public notice?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: In the ' Canada Gazette.'


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: It is moved in amendment that after the word 'casualty' in line six, section five, the following words be inserted 'upon giving to the owner when known one month's notice and where unknown public notice of one month in a paper published nearest t-o the place of the wrecked vessel or other things.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Then the obstruction would remain there a month longer.'


Francis Ramsey Lalor: After it has been laying there two years another month would not matter.


Haughton Lennox: You should add the words 'the minister may after giving notice.'


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: It is moved in amendment that after the word 'may' in the seventh line, the words be inserted 'after giving notice.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, clause five as amended agreed to.
On section 6,
6. The said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following, as Part III thereof:-
Mr. BRODEUR  .@: 



PART III.


[Stage Direction]
31. In this part, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a) ' ferry cable ' includes any ferry cable, rod, chain or other device put across, over, in or under any navigable water for working a ferry.
(b) ' swing or draw bridge ' means and includes any swing or draw bridge other than a railway bridge.
Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We take this power because a year or two ago a petition was sent to the Manitoba government asking for legislation to regulate those ferry cables. In Manitoba the custom is to put those cables, not in the water, but over the river, so that boats are unable to pass. The Attorney General, Mr. Campbell, sent the petition here stating he had no power as it was a question affecting navigation, and asked us to have the necessary legislation passed.


Edward Guss Porter: Why railway bridges? Why should they be exempt?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Because they are provided for in the Railway Act.


Edward Guss Porter: In my riding there is a swing bridge, known as the bay of Quinte bridge, and it is over a navigable water. The company and the bridge are under special Act of this parliament. Would the fact of their not being exempted from the operation of this Bill give the minister power over their bridge?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Is it a railway bridge?


Edward Guss Porter: No, it is for passengers and vehicles. But it is a swing bridge across a navigable water. Should not it be exempted also?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No. The reason we are taking this power is to force these bridges to show lights, for the protection of navigation.


Edward Guss Porter: The special Act relating to the bridge I speak of provides for that.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Then, this legislation will only amplify the application of that provision. The intention of the department, if this legislation is passed, is to ask the owners of these bridges to expose lights on the bridges.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Do bridges controlled under the Railway Act and crossing navigable waters have these lights as a matter of course?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I understand so.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: There is a bridge on the Welland division of the Grand Trunk Railway that crosses the Welland canal.
I would not be too positive, but I do not think it is lighted-not as a bridge; the canal is lighted


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Perhaps it is not necessary to have the bridge lighted when the canal is lighted. Besides, my department
is not concerned with bridges over canals, that comes under the Railways and Canals Department. What we are speaking of is bridges crossing navigable waters not canals.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not see any need for excepting a railway bridge-I do not see why the country would not be better off without that exception. It need not be enforced if the railway is doing all you want it to do. I do not say that the Department of Marine and Fisheries has control in this matter over the Welland canal, but, using this as an illustration, I see no reason why railway bridges should be excepted under this Bill. The government is not going to apply the law unless there is reason for it, either in the case of a railway bridge or any other.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I understand that the Railway Act provides that these bridges must maintain lights and that the penalty is provided under that Act. Under this legislation, we propose to impose a penalty. We thought it was unnecessary and unjust to provide for two penalties.


Haughton Lennox: In this Bill the minister is dealing only with matters that come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It does not say that. Mr. LENNOX. We have not the whole law before us.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Regulations will be
passed.


Haughton Lennox: But the hon. minister does not seek to deal with matters except those in his own department?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No. If there were no provision in the Railway Act, I would ask to have power given here. But provision is made, and the penalty fixed.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It is the navigable waters you are protecting here. I do not say that the Railway Department would not try to protect navigable waters also. But that is not their business, while it is the business of the Minister of Marine. I think it is not wise legislation that under which the Minister says, in effect :	' I am
not going to look after navigable waters so far as railway bridges are concerned.'


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am not absolutely, sure I am right, but if we find that railway bridges "are not provided with lights, of course the matter will be reported to our department, as the department most interested, and if the bridge is not soon lighted according to the provisions of the Railway Act, I suppose we shall take proceedings. At least, we could petition the Department of Railway and Canals.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is what I object to-the circumlocution.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: In the case referred toby the hon. member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter"), if their Act of incorporation imposes upon the company the duty of maintaining certain lights during certain portions of the year. I apprehend that any difficulty could be obviated by making the words of the excepting words read ' other than a railway bridge or bridge governed by special legislation.' Will the hon. member give me the name of the bridge?


Edward Guss Porter: The title of the company is The Belleville and Prince Edward Bridge Company.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Is it under Act of this parliament?


Edward Guss Porter: Yes. The Act was passed fifteen or sixteen years ago, I will give the minister the date.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We might make a special exemption, because the argument which I was making concerned railway bridges.


George Taylor: It will be the same provision as for a railway bridge. I know there is a railway bridge across the mouth of the Gananoque river, but it is not used and yet the company keep lights on it all through the season of navigation.
Bill reported.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I will not ask the House to give the Bill its third reading to-night, in order that I may examine the Act my hon. friend has just mentioned, and see whether it is necessary to have special exemption made for that bridge.



HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS OF MONTREAL.

Hon.  L. P.@: BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 154) respecting the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to ask my hon. friend the meaning of this change of jurisdiction. What power.is now exercised by the commissioners of the port which is henceforth to be under the jurisdiction and control of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The port of Montreal is that part of the St. Lawrence river which extends from Portneuf to Montreal. My hon. friend remembers that some years ago that part of the St. Lawrence was under the control of the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal. Until 1888 all the work done between Quebec and Montreal was done by the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal. In 1889 a change was made, and the government assumed the debt the Harbour Commissioners had incurred for



*'&quot;'5235 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
dredging that part of the St. Lawrence. The Harbour Commissioners, however, remained the pilotage authority for that part ' of the river until 1903, when an Act was passed providing that in future the pilotage authority should be vested in the Department of Marine and Fisheries, but there was no change made in the Harbour Commissioners Act itself. The statute I have just mentioned was a special one, declaring that the Department of Marine and Fisheries would henceforth be the pilotage authority, and control the pilots between Montreal and Quebec. Since that time the Harbour Commissioners have ceased to exercise any jurisdiction over the port of Montreal as a pilotage authority, but they have continued to exercise the right of making the rules of the road in that part of the St. Lawrence river. In the port of Quebec the rules of the road are prepared by this department, and in all the other navigable waters of the country as well. The only authority by which the Tules of the road, which had not been changed for many years, could be prepared or changed, was the Montreal Harbour Commissioners. Well, we thought that as they had ceased to be the pilotage authority, had ceased to have anything to do with the dredging in that part of the St. Lawrence, and ceased to have any jurisdiction there, it was thought adyisable to have the law amended.
George Taylor: Might I suggest to the Minister of Marine *>ud Fisheries that as this is a very long Bill, and it is now half past eleven, he had better let this stand over, and let us take up some short Bills that are standing in the name of the Minister of Justice and of the Postmaster General.


Wilfrid Laurier: Very well.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 153) respecting the National Transcontinental Bailway (Mr. Graham), read the second time, and House went into committee thereon..
Mr. GEAHAM.: This is merely to give the National Transcontinental Eailway Commission power to enter into an arrangement with the city of Winnipeg and the town of St. Boniface to build a bridge together it they can come to terms, and the terms have to be submitted to the Governor in Council.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



YUKON ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 156) to amend the Yukon Act- Mr. Aylesworth-read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
Louis-Philippe Brodeur: On section 1,
Qualification of judges.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: How would that section read with this amendment in?


Hon. A. B. AYLESWOETH (Minister of Justice).: I have not the original section here, but the section which it is proposed to amend provides who shall be eligible for the position of judge of the territorial court in the Yukon territory. It provides that the judges of that court are to be selected from barristers of a certain number of years standing in different courts of the Northwest and, I think, of the provinces of British Columbia, Saskatchewan or Alberta, but it does not mention the bar of the Yukon Territory, and the whole effect of the amendment is to add to the clause as it stands the words * or of the Yukon territory'. If this amendment is passed judges of the court may be selected from either the bars of the present provinces mentioned in the existing statute or from the bar of the Yukon territory itself.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Are there any barristers in the Yukon who are educated in that territory as distinguished from other provinces, or is there any law society there?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I think I can answer my hon. friend that there are barristers of standing in the Yukon territory who are not members of the bar of any other province or territory in the Dominion.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



EXTBADITION ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 149) to amend the Extradition Act-Mr. Aylesworth-read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
*
Depositions for use in a foreign state may be taken in absence of accused.
Edward Arthur Lancaster: I think we ought to have some explanation about this. It is interfering with the rights of the man accused.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: 
Edward Arthur Lancaster: I admit that there seems to be a need of some remedy for the state of affairs mentioned by the minister, but I doubt very much whether we are giving the power to the right tribunal. We are giving to laymen, who have very little ability to protect the absent man, however good their intentions, power to deal with evidence to be used against that man in a foreign state, in extradition proceedings. While I would be in favour of some remedy for the condition described by the minister I would strongly urge that the taking of these depositions should not be entrusted to any one of a lower legal standing than a county court or district judge who would be able to rule out leading or improper questions, and to see that the interests of the absent man were protected.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I think on further consideration the hon. gentleman will agree that there is no danger in the Bill as drawn. These depositions as taken are not to be acted upon by the magistrate but are to be sent to the foreign country where the accused person is and will be passed on by the tribunal there. Before that tribunal objections may be urged on behalf of the accused to the regularity of the depositions, the authority under which they are taken, and the admissibility of evidence given. There may be applications for habeas corpus in the foreign state, after the accused person is committed for extradition, in that state by the proper official, who in the first instance would inquire into the sufficiency of these depositions, so the duty
which is imposed on the magistrate is simply the duty which all magistrates will discharge not only in the case of fugitives from foreign countries, but also in the case of Canadians who may be arrested on any criminal charge and brought before a magistrate for preliminary hearing. We have entrusted magistrates in such cases with the duty not only of taking the depositions, but also of passing upon them, committing a prisoner for trial. If we can safely entrust that duty to our magistrates in the ordinary case of a Canadian citizen accused in Canada of some criminal offence, why -may we not with equal safety entrust the like duty to a magistrate in the case of a fugitive from Canadian justice, especially when the magistrate does not pass upon the evidence he takes?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The answer to that is that in one case the man is present, it is all done before his face and the British principle that no man shall be proceeded against in his absence is not departed from, but here you are proceeding against a man in a foreign country in his absence. Then of course these depositions taken before the magistrate are not in the form of question and answer, they are converted by the magistrate into narrative form and every lawyer knows how frequently both counsel and accused, when a deposition is being read over before being signed, see that the magistrate's narrative report does not convey just what the man intended to say. Unless these depositions are taken before men of legal training and experience, such as the judges I have mentioned, you will certainly have many statements taken down and signed by witnesses that would not be signed in that form if the accused was present and understood how to protect himself or if he was represented by counsel who would see that the statements were correctly taken down and the cross-examination conducted.
I want to impress this upon the minister, and I think that he will find in the course of a year or two if not in the course of a day or two, that what I am saying is right.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I quite agree with the hon. gentleman that every piece of magisterial work could probably be better done by the county judge than by the average magistrate in the country. The county judge is, in virtue of his office, a magistrate for his county; but the difficulty is not only in increasing measurably the work of the county judge, but also in the circumstance that the countv judge is not within easy access of every man in his county. Not all the jurisdictions of county judges are as small as many Ontario counties with which we are familiar. Think of the tremendous distances in the least thickly settled portions of Canada, where men may be needed as witnesses upon a preliminary

inquiry of this sort who reside hundreds of miles from the county seat, where the county judge is to be found. I think these considerations will convince any one that it is better that work of this sort should be as far as possible decentralized. Then consideration should be given to the purpose for which these depositions are required, and for which alone they are to be used. They are not for the trial of the charge in any sense. I am not certain at the moment whether, in the absence of the witness, they could be used on a trial. The trial is to take place after the fugitive is brought into Canada, and the depositions only answer the purpose of securing his presence in Canada, from which perhaps in most cases he should never have departed. The depositions would no doubt be better taken in shorthand, in the form of question and answer; but that is not practicable. I am sure that my hon. friend can remember, as I can, when we had no shorthand reporters even in our high courts in Ontario at the trials of actions. We had to get along in the best way we could with evidence noted by a judge, which was often the only material on which an appeal in an important civil case could be taken. We have now the better system of taking the evidence in shorthand and extending it in full in question and answer, but that is not practicable in every minor proceeding, and this evidence being, only to secure the presence in Canada of the fugitive person, it seems to me that it is sufficient to leave it to a magistrate, even though taken down in ordinary longhand.


Haughton Lennox: I am sorry that the hon. minister does not fall in with the view of the hon. member for Lincoln. I had not given much thought to the matter, but having listened to what he has said, I am very much impressed with the importance of having this evidence taken by a judge. We are taking a proceeding which is contrary to the ordinary common law practice in criminal matters when we provide that the evidence may be taken in the absence of the accused. But every person must see the necessity of it in this case, and I do not think that any one is disposed to question the wisdom of the Minister of Justice in making provision along these lines. I entirely commend the legislation that far. But the minister must not argue it on the basis of an every-day transaction. He has spoken as if it might occur several times a week and in several counties, but we must bear in mind that this extraordinary procedure is resorted to only in a case which involves and justifies a good deal of work. It is only in a case of a serious crime, and it is a serious matter for a man to be removed from a place which he has chosen as his domicile, unless there is a clear strong prima facie case made out against Mr. AYLESWORTH.
him, and that should be made out on legitimate evidence reasonably obtained. We do not think that we are surrounding a case with any more than reasonable safeguards when we say that this evidence should be taken before some one capable of judging the bearing of evidence and the proper manner of adducing it. It is not enough to say that this evidence, when it comes before the foreign tribunal, may be objected to by counsel on behalf of the accused. It may not be objected to, because the accused may have no counsel to raise an objection on his behalf. But even if he has a counsel, and if his counsel is ever so astute, the evidence presents a certain aspect, when it is produced before that foreign tribunal, which is governed, not by the importance of the facts, but by the manner in which the evidence has been taken. The result is that to the foreign tribunal it presents a picture altogether contrary to the true facts of the case. Perhaps no one has been there to guard the interests of the accused; perhaps the evidence has been elicited by a detective, who is interested to an enormous extent in running down the accused and bringing him back to Canada. All lawyers know the length to which men of that class will go and the methods by which they work. Get a magistrate who is without experience in the law taking down evidence at the dictation of a constable or a detective in the absence of the accused, and you are doing something that is very dangerous. I think that the very least safeguard we should insist upon in these cases is that the evidence should be taken before a judge of a county court or of a district court or before a judge of the high court. The minister has said that one reason against it is the throwing of too heavy a burden upon the county judges. That is not a well-taken argument. If there is anything we want in this country, it is in many instances that the county judges may have more work to keep them occupied; because, as an hon. friend says, they are rusting out rather than wearing out. In some counties it is necessary to have two judges, because one is sometimes absent holding division courts, though there is perhaps not enough work for one. In other cases there is only work for a judge and a half, and you must have the two. We are not throwing too great a burden on the county judges when we ask them to do this work and we are giving them work which many of them will be quite ready to do because it is in the interests of honest and effective administration of justice. In how many cases in any county in a whole year would you throw this duty on a county judge? In not one in a county in a year. In not one, as a rule, in a score of years, so that the argument that this would throw too heavy a burden on the county court

judges is not entitled to any weight. Surely the hon. minister was not taking a photograph of the real situation when he talked of the accused having to travel probably a hundred miles in order to give his testimony before a judge. I venture to say it would be very rare indeed when he would have to travel even 25 miles, and the probability would be very remote of his ever having to travel one hundred miles. But even if he had, that would be ten thousand times better than that we should set aside any of the necessary safeguards in the interests of the person accused. The suggestion of my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) is a very judicious one.


Mr. CARVELL.: My hon. friend is talking entirely from the standpoint of the province of Ontario, where they have a county court judge and in some cases two for each county. But it may surprise him to learn that down in the maritime provinces we have often but one county court judge for four or five counties. In my portion of the province of New Brunswick, the district administered by the county court judge is over 200 miles in length, and on the north shore of New Brunswick there are four counties with but one county court judge. The amendment is hardly fair to the intelligence of the average magistrate in Canada. As far as my experience goes, a magistrate can take down evidence and draw conclusions fairly well. If a magistrate is given authority to take the depositions of the accused in so important a matter as a murder, I do not see why he cannot take depositions which may be acted on in a foreign country for the purpose of obtaining witnesses. My hon. friends are drawing on their imaginations for difficulties which do not exist. If this Bill passes, no harm could be done, and in many parts of Canada great difficulties will be caused if we oblige a county court judge to travel 100 or 200 miles to take depositions.


Haughton Lennox: I was not speaking of the average intelligence of the magistrate of Ontario or any other province, but of the fact that in some isolated cases the magistrates are not very intelligent men. These may be only isolated cases, and I would not be surprised if some were _ in my hon. friend's province as well as mine; and the average intelligence in Ontario will compare fairly with that in any other province. What applies to the general public would apply to the( magistrate as well. Our magistrates have been selected from good motives in many cases, and as a rule are an excellent class of men, but there are instances where they do not possess any great degree of education and have no judicial training. Therefore I
think that the Minister of Justice would be wise in not having legislation enacted in this form.


Edward Guss Porter: I want to add my approval to what has been said by hon. members on this side. Is the Minister of Justice aware that there are provisions in the statute now, under which depositions taken by a magistrate may be read against the accused on his trial under certain circumstances and as this law stands, such depositions are taken in his absence. If this Bill should pass, I take it that the general provisions of the Code will apply, and we will have evidence taken against the accused in his absence read against him in his trial when he comes back to this country, and upon such evidence he might possibly be convicted. If the minister thinks it necessary, as I believe it is, to have some such provision made as is made in this Bill, then the interests of the accused should be safeguarded to the extent of providing that such evidence taken in his absence should not be used against him on his trial, if there is any doubt whatever about the right to have it read.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I am not prepared to express any opinion whether, on the death of a witness, a deposition taken for the purpose of extradition could be read at the trial. I should doubt it. It may be so according to the language of the provision of the Act which permits depositions to be read in such cases as I have described, but I would not accept that view without much more careful consideration and examination of the statute than I have been able to give it. But the whole question is surely whether or not the existing state of things is preferable to that which would arise should this Bill become law. Under the existing conditions, these depositions are in practice taken before a magistrate in the absence of the accused. They are taken, it may be, without sufficient legal warrant. I do not know that that question has ever been raised in a foreign state, but it is liable to be Taised, and it is to meet such an objection, if it should be raised, that this Bill is designed. At the present time, there is nothing to prevent the magistrate, when the information is laid before him upon which it is desired to get proceedings instituted for extradition, withholding his action until he shall have taken, as a part of the material on which he shall issue his warrant, all the depositions that any witness who may choose to appear before him may make. That is done in practice in, I suppose, all or nearly all, of the cases of accusations for extradition. I am not prepared to say that that is an irregular practice, but it is one for which there is no express statutory war-

rant. The whole effect of this Bill will be that the magistrate before whom the information is laid, the magistrate who receives the charge may, after having so received it summon witnesses and take their depositions.


Edward Guss Porter: Does the minister think that that is evidence that should be read against a man on his trial?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: My hon. friend (Mr. Porter) wants an answer categorically whether I think that ought to be read. I am free to say that I see no more danger in doing it in the case of a person charged for extradition than in doing it in the case of a person who is in this country and who may have been present and may have been objecting as much as he pleases. He is subject to the same magistrate's rulings which, upon the hypothesis of hon. gentlemen who have spoken, are going to be without authority and without judicial character. He is subject to the same illiterate magistrate-if there be one-in taking down the evidence incorrectly. That if it is the present condition of things, arises from the circumstance of men being selected as magistrates who are not properly fitted for that position.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: When the minister cannot see any difference in the protection afforded to a prisoner between having evidence given when he is present and having it given when he is absent, it is hopeless to argue with him. Under the circumstances, i have two things to say about the matter, the first ia that the Bill should not be gone on with, and the second is that it is useless to argue with the minister on the merits of the question.


Edward Guss Porter: In view of what the minister said, why not provide in this Bill that such evidence when taken should not be read against the prisoner at his trial? Make it certain.


Mr. BUREAU.: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Porter) say that in this Bill there ought to be a clause stating that such deposition should not be read at the trial of the accused?


Edward Guss Porter: Yes, make it certain.


Jacques Bureau: Suppose the witness is dead?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: All the more reason why the evidence should not be read, for you would be using evidence concerning which you cannot punish the person if perjury has been committed. Is there no idea in the head of the Solicitor General (Mr. Bureau) or of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) that a man accused has some rights in this country? Have they no idea that harm may be done by taking evidence behind his back before a magistrate who, instead of having the evidence reported in Mr. AYLESWORTH.
the form of question and answer, transposes it into narrative form? As has been well said by the hon. member for West Hastings, the detective or person interested in getting a conviction goes before the magistrate, and it is all one-sided, the accused not being present or represented. And what the detective or magistrate may be tricky or ignorant enough to do, the Minister of Justice, apparently, is approving by his legislation. There is nobody there on behalf of the prisoner-nobody can be there, for they do not know what is being done. They have no knowledge that the poll is to be held, so to sneak, at that time, and they have no idea that they are being dealt with on that occasion. And the evidence, instead of being taken down in auestion and answer form, the only way in which one can readily judge of what the witness said, is transposed by these people into narrative form behind the back of the accused. And this evidence so taken is to be used against him. The Solicitor General says: 'Suppose the witness is dead.' The witness is the onlv person, it may be, beside the magistrate, who knows anything about it, the prisoner not being there and not being represented. The very fact that the witness is dead is all the greater reason why the evidence should not be read, because the witness cannot be proceeded against for perjury or asked to explain it.


Jacques Bureau: How about the other witnesses, if perjury can be proved?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Who is going to bring these other witnesses? And how are you going to convict when you do not know what is going on? You are taking away a man's liberty or taking a step towards it, and that may mean the same thing in the end. The Solicitor General said:	'How
about the other witnesses?' Who knows about the other witnesses? How does the accused know of the evidence that is being given affecting his liberty and that may lead to his being taken from a foreign country where he has his domicile? He may be completely innocent. Suppose he is charged with forgery, a witness testifies against him, though he knows nothing of the proceedings. The witness simply says: 'That is not my signature on that bill; or, That is not my father's signature.' The magistrate transposes that in such a way that, on the face of it, the witness has sworn that the accused forged that bill. There is no opportunity for cross examination, no opportunity for the accused to show that, for instance, he had the authority of the man to sign the bill in his name. My hon. friend speaks of a case of murder tried in the presence of the accused. If the accused is present, he is to be blamed if he does not see to it that things are done cor-

rectly, or employ a counsel who will protect his interests. His friends may inter- ' pose if he is too weak-minded to attend to his own defence. Or some charitably disposed man may interfere to see that the prisoner gets justice. Or, as is well said by ' a friend near me, the court may say as it often says in such cases: 'This is a serious accusation and this prisoner should be defended,' and may pick upon some counsel and ask him, in the interest of justice to see to it that the accused gets a fair trial. So much is this a recognized practice that it is considered, if not exactly contempt of court, an impolite thing for counsel not to accept the appointment and see that the man gets a fair trial. But here is the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth), with the Solicitor-General (Mr. Bureau) apparently agreeing with him, saying that it is no harm to take all these proceedings behind a man's back, with no one there to represent him to see that the evidence is taken down by a judicially-minded officer, no opportunity for him to engage counsel to see to it that the evidence is taken down in the shape that would be directed by a judge who knows what evidence is.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think my hon. friend (Mr. Lancaster) wants to be fair about this.
I am satisfied that he is not trying unduly to prevent the passage of this Bill. But I think he has failed to appreciate the real meaning and intention of the Bill. My hon. friend is discussing what may happen at the trial in case of the death or absence of a witness. I have not examined the Code, but I am satisfied that the only evidence which can be read at the trial is the evidence given at the preliminary examination by a witness who is either dead or absent from the country.


Haughton Lennox: The Minister of Justice
won't take that responsibility.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: This does not refer to the preliminary examination at all, but to the evidence being given by a witness to be used in the foreign country for the arrest of the supposed criminal for the purpose of bringing him to this country to take his trial, and when he is brought here on this evidence, then he must have his preliminary examination.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No, he goes right to the extradition commission.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, he must have his preliminary examination.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Before whom does he have his present examination?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He goes to the person who issues the order for his arrest.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: He goes to the county court judge directly.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, I am satisfied I am correct. Therefore I contend my hon. friend is making a mountain out of a mole hill, he is conjuring up something in his mind that does not exist. He raised the question first whether this evidence should be taken before a justice of the peace or a county court judge. I cannot see why a justice of the peace cannot take down evidence just as intelligently as a county court judge. If the evidence is admitted, due respect would be given to that fact before the foreign tribunal.


Edward Guss Porter: If the Minister of Justice will confirm what has just been said by my hon. friend from Carleton, that that evidence cannot be read against him at his trial, I will withdraw my objection.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I cannot answer for the Minister of Justice, but my hon. friend can see by the Bill itself that the only object of getting the evidence is to send it to the foreign country. I submit that the only deposition which can be read at the trial of an accused person is the deposition taken at the preliminary examination. But this is not a preliminary examination, this is only an examination for the purpose of getting evidence to be sent to the foreign country.


Haughton Lennox: The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) may be satisfied, but we have the statement of the Minister of Justice that he is not sure, he will take chances with it and let it go whichever way it may. But the Solicitor General says that if the witness is dead, why, so much the better, it is all right. I am prepared to say that we are encountering a great danger. My hon. friend from Lincoln and Niagara took the case of forgery. A man who gives evidence in the absence of the accused may be the man whose monetary interest is at stake, he may be the man who is shielding himself by accusing another, who is saving his pocket by accusing another. But the Minister of Justice is prepared to take chances of that form of evidence upon which this man may be ultimately tried and convicted.


Mr. CONGDON.: There is no doubt that the deposition cannot be used. This section merely provides that the evidence may be taken as if such accused person was present and charged with such extradition crime. Section 999 provides:	[DOT]
If upon the trial of an accused person such facts are proved upon oath or affirmation that it can be reasonably inferred therefrom that any person whose evidence was given at any former trial upon the same charge or whose deposition has been therefore taken in the investigation of the charge against such accused person, is dead, or is so ill as not to be able to travel, or is absent from Canada, and if it is proved that such evidence was

given or that such deposition was taken in the presence of the person accused


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does the hon. gentleman say that those words do not cover this evidence?


Frederick Tennyson Congdon: No doubt they do not cover it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think that ought to satisfy the hon. member for Simcoe.


Frederick Tennyson Congdon: It provides that the evidence shall be taken as if the person accused were present, it does not provide that it shall be subsequently used as if the person were present. Unless there is such a provision as that the condition required to be complied with by section 999 would prevent the introduction of such evidence. The requirement is that the evidence shall be taken in the presence of the person accused, and that he or his counsel shall have full opportunity of examining the witness. This Bill says it shall be taken as though he were present, it is to be taken as if he were present for the purpose of being sent to the United States or other foreign country to support the extradition warrant there. The same principle prevails here as in the United States, and merely validates the existing practice in this country. With regard to taking evidence before a county court or superior court judge, the greatest objection is that this evidence as a rule requires to be taken with dispatch in order that it may reach the place in which it is to be used and secure the extradition of the criminal. It is necessary that it should be promptly taken, and you cannot get it promptly taken in many places in Canada if you require it to be taken before a county court or a superior court judge. Such requirement may necessitate the judge or the witness travelling a great distance. This evidence is worthless in 99 cases out of 100 unless it is taken with a promptitude that is not usually possible if it must be taken before a county court or a superior court judge. In my experience I think the majority of magistrates take evidence of this kind quite as well as the judges. I do not know where evidence is more carefully taken than it is generally taken by magistrates.
Bill reported.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved the adjournment of the House.


George Taylor: What business will be taken up to-morrow?


Wilfrid Laurier: Bills, commencing with the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would call my right hon. friend's attention to the fact that we are Mr. CONGDON.
nearing the end of the session, and it i3 essential that we should know, in order to exDedite and facilitate the business, exactly what is going to be taken up on the following day. To-morrow many of us will be absent. Are we going to take up Bills, as my hon. friend has said, indiscriminately? Shall we take the Rill on immigration? We are all anxious to advance the business of the House and it would aid us in doing that if we could know almost exactly what is going to be the business of the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: I said to my hon. friend that our intention was to take up Bills, commencing with the Grand Trunk Bill. We intend to follow the order on the paper and to take the Immigration Bill to suit the convenience of my hon. friends. If they are not prepared to go on with the Immigration Bill we will not take it up.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My right hon. friend knows that if we take up the Grand Trunk Bill it will probably obviate the necessity of taking up the Immigration Bill.


Wilfrid Laurier: I hope not. I hope we can take the Grand Trunk and other Bills as well.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is there a probability that the Grand Trunk Bill will be taken up?


Wilfrid Laurier: I say it will be taken up first.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.37 a.m. Friday.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, April 30, 1909.